L

messengers to him to make terms (18:13–17). Sennacherib’s Lachish campaign is commemorated by a sculpture from Nineveh, now in the British Museum. Lachish and Azekah were the last cities to stand against the king of Babylon (Jer 34:7). Lachish was one of the towns settled by the children of Judah after the Exile (Neh 11:30). Micah’s denunciation of Lachish as ‘the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion’ (1:13) doubtless refers to incidents of which we are quite ignorant.

Lachish was identified by Conder with Tell el-Hesy, an important mound in the Gaza district, which was partially excavated with success by Flinders Petrie and Bliss for the Palestine Exploration Fund (1890–1893). Another site in the neighbourhood, of Roman date, called Umm Lakis, probably represents a later dwelling of the representatives of the ancient Lachishites, and preserves the name of the city.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

LADAN.—1. A name occurring in the genealogy of Joshua (1 Ch 7:26). 2. A Gershonite family name (1 Ch 23:7, 8, 9, 26:21 ter. In 6:17 it appears as Libni (wh. see).

LADANUM.—See MYRRH.

LADDER.—In ancient times ladders were used chiefly for scaling the walls of a besieged city, as frequently shown on the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. i. 243; Layard, Nineveh, ii. 372). Although this use of them is probably implied in Pr 21:22 , scaling-ladders are first expressly mentioned in the time of the Maccabees (1 Mac 5:30). See

FORTIFICATION, §§ 3, 6.

Jacob’s ‘ladder’ (Gn 28:12) seems to have been rather a ‘flight of stone steps, rising up to heaven’ (Driver, Com. in loc.).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

LAEL.—A Gershonite Levite (Nu 3:24).

LAHAD.—A Judahite family name (1 Ch 4:2).

LAHAI-ROI.—See BEER-LAHAI-ROI.

LAHMAM (RVm Lahmas).—A town of Judah (Jos 15:40), possibly mod. el-Lahm, near

Beit Jibrīn.

LAHMI.—The brother of Goliath the Gittite, slain by Elhanan the son of Jair (1 Ch 20:5). There is a discrepancy between this passage and the parallel passage in 2 S 21:19, where we read that ‘Elhanan [wh. see] the Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite.’ If the text of Chronicles is the more correct, the designation Bethlehemite of Samuel is simply a corruption of the name Lahmi, but the converse might also be the case.

T. A. MOXON.

LAISH.—1. The original name of the town of Dan (Jg 18:7, 14, 27, 29). The variation Leshem occurs in Jos 19:47bis 2. The father of Palti or Paltiel, to whom Michael, David’s wife, was given by Saul (1 S 25:44, 2 S 3:15).

LAISHAH (Is 10:30).—The name of a place connected with Gallim, and mentioned here along with other localities in Benjamin and Judah. If Gallim be Beit Jāla near Bethlehem, Laishah would also be in that neighbourhood.

LAKKUM.—An unknown town of Naphtali (Jos 19:38).

LAMA.—See ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.

LAMB.—See SHEEP, and next article.

LAMB OF GOD.—The Iamb was the most common victim in the Jewish sacrifices, and the most familiar type to a Jew of an offering to God. The title ‘the lamb of God’ (i.e. the lamb given or provided by God; cf. Gn 22:8) is applied by John the Baptist to Jesus in Jn 1:29, 38. The symbolism which the Baptist intended can be inferred from the symbolic allusions to the lamb in the OT. Thus in Jer 11:19 the prophet compares himself to a lamb, as the type of guilelessness and innocence. Again, in Is 53:7 (a passage which exercised great influence on the Messianic hope of the Jews, and is definitely referred to Christ in Ac 8:32) the lamb is used as the type of vicarious suffering. It seems beyond doubt that these two ideas must have been in the Baptist’s mind. It is also quite possible to see in the phrase a reference to the lamb which formed part of the daily sacrifice in the Temple; and also, perhaps, an allusion to the Paschal lamb which would soon be offered at the approaching Passover (Jn 2:18), and which was the symbol of God’s deliverance. Certainly this is the idea underlying the expressions in Jn 19:36 and 1 P 1:19. Thus all these strata of thought may be traced in the Baptist’s title, viz. innocence, vicarious suffering, sacrifice, redemption.

The lamb is used 27 times in the Apocalypse as the symbol of Christ, and on the first introduction of the term in Rev 5:6 the writer speaks specifically of ‘a Iamb as though it had been slain.’ The term used in the Greek original is not the same as that found in the Baptist’s phrase, but the connexion is probably similar. It seems most likely that the sacrificial and redemptive significance of the lamb is that especially intended by the Apocalyptic author.

The specific title ‘the Iamb of God’ may be an invention of the Baptist’s own, which he used to point an aspect of the Messianic mission for his hearers’ benefit, or it may have been a wellknown phrase currently employed to designate the Messiah; we have no trace of such an earlier use, but it may have existed (see Westcott on Jn 1:29).

A. W. F. BLUNT.

LAME, LAMENESS.—See MEDICINE, p. 599^b.

LAMECH.—The name apparently of two people in the antediluvian period, the one belonging to the Cainite and the other to the Sethite genealogy. 1. The fifth descendant from Cain (Gn 4:18–24). He seems to have been a man of importance in the early legend, as the names of his two wives (Adah and Zillah), his three sons (Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain), and his daughter (Naamah) are all mentioned. Special interest is attached to him on account of his song—

‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;

Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me:

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,

Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.’

The meaning of this song has been the subject of much conjecture. The song is clearly one of exultation, and it has not unnaturally been associated with the fact that Tubal-cain his son is specially mentioned as the ‘forger of every cutting instrument.’ Jerome relates the Jewish legend that Lamech accidentally slew Cain, but for this, of course, there is no foundation. It has been suggested (Lightfoot, Decas Chorogr. Marc, praem. § iv.) that the reference is to the fact that Lamech, as the first polygamist, introduced greater destruction into the world than Cain. R. H. Kennett sees in the song a deprecation of blood-guiltiness Incurred by the fact that Lamech, as a tribal chieftain, has avenged an insult of a boy by slaying him.

A possible variant rendering might be mentioned: ‘I would have slain (or ‘I will slay’) any man who wounds me.’ if this is accepted, it materially alters the sense.

2. The father of Noah (Gn 5:29). It is now commonly believed, owing to the identity of some names and the similarity of others in the two genealogies, that they are merely different versions of one original list.

T. A. MOXON.

LAMENTATIONS, BOOK OF

1. Occasion.—In B.C. 586 Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, slew the princes, burned the Temple and palaces, razed the walls, and deported the inhabitants (save some of the poorest sort) to forced labour in Babylon (2 K 25). These events and their religious meaning are the theme of the five complete hymns in the Book of Lamentations. The poet looked on these calamities as the death of the Jewish people; and he prepares an elegy for the national funeral.

2. Date.—It need not be supposed that Jeremiah went about composing acrostics while

Jerusalem was burning; on the other hand, the language of the poems is not that of some Rabbinical versifier after Nehemiah’s time. Between the desolation of B.C. 586 and the restoration of B.C. 536 is the time limit for the production of this book.

3. Form.—The form of these elegies has been recognized to be the type of Hebrew poetry which is peculiar to threnody. Its metrical character depends on the structure of the single line. The line has not the exact measure of a Latin hexameter or pentameter, but consists of five to seven words, making on an average eleven syllables. The line is divided by sense and grammar into two unequal parts, as 6: 5 or 4: 3; the first part being more emphatic in sense, and the second forming an antiphonal supplement to the first. Thus 1:1—

‘Ah now! she sits alone—the populous city,

Husbandless doomed to be—the foremost of peoples.

Once the princess over states—a serf in a gang.’

Such is the qīnāh-metre, found also in parts of Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.

4. Arrangement.—These Hebrew elegiacs may stand singly, as in La 3, or in two-lined stanzas, as in ch. 4, or in three-lined stanzas, as in chs. 1 and 2. But there is also in Lam. a more artificial embellishment. The 22 stanzas of chs. 1, 2, and 4 are introduced by the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet in regular order, except that 2 and 4 place the letter Pe before the letter Ayin. This inexplicable variation in the order of the letters has been held to imply a difference in authorship. Again ch. 3 has 66 verses, the lines beginning aaa; bbb, etc. Ch. 5 has 22 verses, but no acrostic; and its lines are of a slightly different structure. As this chapter is a prayer, these external marks may have been felt to be inappropriate. The poetic form of Lam. is thus the result of elaborate effort; but this need not imply the absence of genuine feeling. The calamity in remembrance seemed to call for an adequate form of expression, and to invite the resources of technical skill.

5. Contents.—The contents of the five hymns are not pervaded by clear lines of thought; but the nature of the subject forbids us to look for the consistency of a geometrical theorem. The cruel scenes, the pity and horror they occasioned, the religious perplexity at the course of events, are depicted sometimes by the poet himself, again by Jerusalem, or by the personified community. Ch. 1 describes the ruin of Jerusalem and the humiliation of the exiles—vv. 1–11 in the words of the poet, while the city itself speaks in vv. 12–22. The second hymn finds the sting of their sufferings in the fact that they are inflicted by Jehovah, their ancient defender. Ch. 3, ‘the triumph song of ethical optimism,’ recounts the national misery (vv. 1–18), perceives the purpose of Jehovah in their calamities (vv. 19–47), and calls the people to penitence (vv. 48–66). Ch. 4 contrasts the past history of Zion with its present condition, and ch. 5 is a prayer for mercy and renewal of ancient blessings. The hope for Judah was the compassion of the Lord; ‘therefore let us search and try our ways and turn again to the Lord’ (3:40). It forms a curious contrast to the consolation offered to Athens in her decline and fall through the comedies of Aristophanes.

6. Authorship.—No author is named in Lam. itself. In 2 Ch 35:25 we read that ‘Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah unto this day; and they made them an ordinance in Israel: and behold they are written in the lamentations.’ This statement is 300 years later than the fall of Jerusalem; and Lam. has nothing to do with Josiah. But it ascribes standard elegies to Jeremiah. The LXX, followed by the Vulgate and other versions, names Jeremiah the prophet as the author of Lam.; and this view prevailed universally till recent times. Internal evidence has been considered unfavourable to Jeremiah’s authorship. The alphabetic form, a few peculiar words, an affinity in chs. 2 and 4 with Ezekiel, in chs. 1 and 5 with the younger Isaiah, and in ch. 3 with late Psalms, the accumulation of pictorial metaphors, the denial of vision to prophets, the reliance on Egypt (4:17), are given (Löhr, Com.) as conclusive objections to Jeremiah’s being the writer. But the acrostic form would then have the charm of novelty, and would be useful as a mnemonic for professional mourners; and it is not prophecy to which it is here attached. The affinities with later books are not very marked, and may he due to derivation from the elegies. And there is avowedly much resemblance in vocabulary and thought between Jeremiah and Lamentations. Both trace disaster to the sin of the nation, both deprecate trust in alliances, and both inculcate penitence and hope. Probably the internal evidence originated the traditional view that Jeremiah was the author; and the newer scrutiny of the evidence seems hardly sufficient to disprove the verdict of the ancients.

Again it is asked, Would one author make five independent poems on one and the same subject? If several authors treated the theme independently, it is not likely that their work would hear juxtaposition so well as the collection in Lamentations. Jeremiah’s life ended some 6 or 7 years after the Captivity began; and 5:20 implies a longer interval since the devastation. If we assign, with Thenius, chs. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah, and suppose that some disciples of the prophet imitated his model in 1, 3, and 5, then perhaps the differences and similarities in the several hymns may be accounted for. When Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70, there was no new qīnāh; the elegies seem to presuppose a personality of Jeremiah’s type as their originator.

7. Names.—The Hebrew name of Lam. is ’Ekhāh (‘Howl’), the first word in the book. It is also called Qīnōth or ‘Elegies.’ The LXX has Threnoi (Ieremiou); Vulg., Threni, id est lamentationes Jeremiœ prophetœ, and this is the source of the English title.

8. Position in the Canon.—In Hebrew Bibles Lam. is placed in the third division of the OT Canon. Its place is generally in the middle of the five Megilloth, between Ruth and Ecclesiastes.

The Jews recite the book on the Black Fast (9th of Ab)—the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem. In the Greek OT and the other versions Lam. is attached to the prophecies of Jeremiah, in accordance with the current belief in his authorship.

D. M. KAY.

LAMP.—1. The earliest illuminant everywhere was supplied by pieces of resinous wood. Such probably were the torches of Gideon’s adventure (Jg 7:16, 20 RV for AV ‘lamps’) and other passages. There is no evidence of anything of the nature of our candles, which is a frequent AV rendering of the ordinary Heb. word (nēr) for ‘lamp,’ now introduced throughout by RV except in Zeph 1:12 (but Amer. RV here also ‘lamp’). The unearthing of thousands of lamps in the course of recent Palestine exploration, sometimes as many as two or three hundred from a single grave, has made it possible to trace the development of the lamp from early pre-Israelite to Byzantine times. Only the barest outline can be attempted here.

2. Two main stages in this development have to be recognized, the first that of the open, the second that of the closed, lamp. (a) The earliest form found in pre-Israelite strata is that of the plain open clay lamp in the shape of a shell, or shallow bowl, with rounded bottom. It is distinguished from the later form of open lamp by having the rim only slightly pinched along about one-third of its circumference, to keep the wick in position. (b) In the later forms just referred to, which are those of the late Canaanite and early Hebrew periods, the lips are drawn much more closely together, so as to form an elongated spout, as may be seen in the illust. in Hastings’ DB iii. 24, fig. 1; Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine (in the sequel cited as

BM Exc.), plate 66; Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, 87. For types of (a) and (b) side by side, see PEFSt, 1904, 327. (c) The next step apparently was to substitute a flat base for the rounded forms of (a) and (b). This type of open lamp has continued in use to the present day in certain parts of Syria.

3. The introduction of the closed lamp cannot as yet be dated with certainty, but is probably due to Western influence. According to Bliss (BMExc. 130), ‘by Seleucidan times the open lamp appears largely to have given way to the closed lamp.’ (a) The earlier specimens of this type consist of a circular bowl closed at the top, with the exception of a round opening for pouring in the oil, with a flat or concave base. They are further characterized by their long tapering, and sometimes straight, spout, which ‘forms a distinct angle with the bowl.’ These lamps are entirely without ornament, and, like all the others, without handles. (b) The later closed lamps, on the other hand, have their upper surface ornamented with an endless variety of design, ranging from simple lines through chevrons, spirals, etc., to animal forms. Numerous specimens of (a) and (b) are illustrated in BMExc. pl. 62, 63. For a typical lamp of the Maccabæan period, see PEFSt, 1904, 348, pl. iii. No. 5. This may be assumed to have been the prevailing type of lamp in NT times.

4. Many of the specimens hitherto given as illustrations of the lamps of OT are really of early Christian or even Byzantine date. A typical Byzantine form is given in BM Exc. pl. 66, No. 6. This type is distinguished from the previous closed type by the fact that ‘the curve of the body is continuous with the top of the spout, giving a generally oval shape.’ See the collections illustrated PEFSt, 1892, 125; 1904, plate iii; 1905, 150.

5. In addition to the normal lamp with a single wick, the excavations in northern and southern Palestine have brought to light numerous specimens of ‘multiple lamps,’ a favourite form of which consisted of a bowl, having its rim pinched into three, four, or seven spouts (see BM Exc. pl. 66). As in other lands, the Palestinian potter sometimes gave his lamp the shape of an animal, such as the remarkable clay duck from Gezer described and illustrated in PEFSt, 1903, 40.

The favourite material in all ages was clay. A good specimen of a bronze lamp with a handle, from the Greek period, is shown in BMExc. 60. Silver lamps are mentioned in Jth 10:22. Those of the Tabernacle and Temple were of gold. The usual illuminant was the oil of the olive; other oils, including naphtha, are named in the Mishna (Shabbath, ii. 1ff.), where may be found, also, a list of the substances for wicks in addition to the ordinary wick of twisted flax (Is 42:3 RVm), and other details regarding the household lamp.

6. In the poorer houses the lamp was placed, as it still is, in a niche in the wall. It is in the case of a ‘great woman’ that we first hear of a lampstand in a private house. Lampstands of stone, about 30 inches in height, have been found in the recent excavations in Crete; one of limestone is figured in Bliss, Mound, etc. 104, from Lachish. The candlestick of AV, which, strangely enough, is retained in RV (except in Mt 5:15, where ‘stand’ is substituted), is of course a lampstand. For the elaborate lampstands or ‘candlesticks’ of the Tabernacle and the Temple see those articles. An interesting specimen of a lamp with seven spouts and stand in one piece was found by Sellin at Taanach (illust. in his Eine Nachlese, etc. 22; Benzinger, Heb. Arch.²[1907] 99).

In ancient times, as at the present day, it was customary to keep the household lamp continually alight, hence the figure in 1 K 11:36, 2 K 8:19; conversely, the putting out of the lamp of the wicked (Job 18:8 [AV ‘candle’], Pr 13:9) denotes their utter extinction.

For a recently discovered, and still obscure, early rite in which lamps and bowls played an essential part, see House, § 3; and for a later rite, see DEDICATION [FEAST OF].

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

LAMPSACUS (1 Mac 15:23 RVm).—See SAMPSAMES.

LANCE, LANCET.—The former only Jer 50, 52, RV spear,’ but Heb. is kīdōn, hence rather ‘javelin’; the latter only 1 K 18:28, RV ‘lance,’ Heb. rōmach. For both these weapons, see ARMOUR AND ARMS, § 1.

LAND CROCODILE (Lv 11:30 RV).—See CHAMELEON and LIZARD.

LANDMARK.—The word (gebūl) so rendered must not be identified off-hand, as is usually done, with the kudurru or boundary-stone of the Babylonians, for the fundamental passage, Dt 19:14, ‘Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set,’ should rather be rendered: ‘Thou shalt not remove (or ‘set back’) thy neighbour’s boundary, which they … have drawn.’ Under the old Hebrew system of the cultivation in common of the village land, the boundaries of the plots may have been indicated as at the present day by ‘a furrow double in width to the ordinary one,’ at each end of which a stone is set up, called the ‘boundary-stone’ (PEFSt, 1894, p. 195 f.). The form of land-grabbing by setting back a neighbour’s boundary-line must have been common in OT times, to judge by the frequent references to, and condemnations of, the practice (Dt 19:14, 27:17, Hos 5:10, Pr 22:28, 23:10 , Job 24:2).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

LANGUAGE OF OT AND APOCRYPHA.—See TEXT VERSIONS AND LANGUAGES OF OT.

LANGUAGE OF THE NT.—The object of this article is to give a general non-technical account of the Greek in which the NT is written. It should be stated at the outset that the standpoint of scholarship in regard to this subject has materially altered since Prof. Thayer wrote his excellent article in vol. iii. of the DB. We shall therefore briefly state the nature of our change in view, and then describe the NT Greek as we now regard it, without further reference to older theories.

1. The old view.—In every age of NT study, scholars have been struck by the fact that its Greek to a large extent stands alone. It differs immensely from the language of the great classics of the period which was closed some four centuries earlier, and not much less from that of postclassical writers of its own time, even when those writers were Palestinian Jews, as was Josephus. During the 17th cent. the ‘Purist’ school sought to minimize these differences, holding that deviation from the ‘purity’ of classic standards was a flaw in the perfection of the inspired Book, which must at all costs be cleared away. But, except for such eccentricities of learning, the efforts of scholars in general were steadily directed towards the establishment of some rationale for this isolation of what Rothe called the ‘language of the Holy Ghost.’ Two excellent reasons were found for the peculiarities of NT Greek. (1) NT writers were steeped in the language of the Greek OT, a translation which largely followed the Hebrew original with slavish literalness. A special religious phraseology was thus created, which not only contributed a large number of forms for direct quotation, but also supplied models for the general style of religious writing, much as the style of modern sermons or devotional books is modelled upon the English of the Bible. (2) The writers were mostly Jews who used Aramaic (a language closely related to Hebrew) in their daily life. When, therefore, they thought and wrote in Greek, they were prone to translate literally from their native tongue; and ‘Aramaisms’ thus infected the Greek, side by side with the ‘Hebraisms’ which came from the LXX. The degree to which either of these classes of Semitism was admitted to affect particular words or grammatical constructions in the Greek NT naturally differed in the judgment of different writers; but even Thayer, who wrote after the new lights had already begun to appear, shows no readiness to abandon the general thesis that the NT Greek lies outside the stream of progress in the development of the Greek language, and must be judged by principles of its own.

2. Newer views.—The credit of initiating a most far-reaching change of view, the full consequences of which are only beginning to be realized, belongs to a brilliant German theologian, Adolf Deissmann. His attention having been accidentally called to a volume of transcripts from the Egyptian papyri recently added to the Berlin Museum, he was immediately struck by their frequent points of contact with the vocabulary of NT Greek. He read through several collections of papyri, and of contemporary Greek inscriptions, and in 1895 and 1897 published the two volumes of his Bible Studies (Eng. tr. in one volume, 1901). Mainly on the ground of vocabulary, but not without reference to grammar and style, he showed that the isolation of NT Greek could no longer be maintained. Further study of the papyri he used, and of the immense masses of similar documents which have been published since, especially by the explorers of Oxford and Berlin, confirms his thesis and extends it to the whole field of grammar. To put the new views into two statements—(1) The NT is written in the spoken Greek of daily life, which can be proved from inscriptions to have differed but little, as found in nearly every corner of the Roman Empire in the first century. (2) What is peculiar in ‘Biblical Greek’ lies in the presence of boldly literal translations from Hebrew OT or Aramaic ‘sources’: even this, however, seldom goes beyond clumsy and unidiomatic, but perfectly possible, Greek, and is generally restricted to the inordinate use of correct locutions which were rare in the ordinary spoken dialect. The Egyptian non-literary papyri of the three centuries before and after Christ, with the inscriptions of Asia Minor, the Ægæan islands and Greece during the same period,— though these must be used with caution because of the literary element which often invades them,—supply us therefore with the long desiderated parallel for the language of the NT, by which we must continually test an exegesis too much dominated hitherto by the thought of classical Greek or Semitic idiom.

3. History and diffusion of the Greek language.—At this point, then, we should give a history of the world-Greek of NT times. A sister-language of Sanskrit, Latin, Slavonic, German, and English, and most other dialects of modern Europe, Greek comes before us earliest in the Homeric poems, the oldest parts of which may go hack to the 10th cent. B.C. Small though the country was, the language of Greece was divided into more dialects, and dialects perhaps more widely differing, than English in the reign of Alfred. Few of these dialects gave birth to any literature; and the intellectual primacy of Athens by the end of the classical period (4th cent. B.C.) was so far above dispute that its dialect, the Attic, became for all future time the only permitted model for literary prose. When Attic as a spoken language was dead, it was enforced by rigid grammarians as the only ‘correct’ speech for educated people. Post-classical prose accordingly, while varying in the extent to which colloquial elements invade the purity of its artificial idiom, is always more or less dominated by the effort to avoid the Greek of daily life; while in the NT, on the contrary, it is only two or three writers who admit even to a small extent a style differing from that used in common speech. Meanwhile the history of Greece, with its endless political independence and variation of dialect between neighbouring towns, had entered a new phase. The strong hand of Philip of Macedon brought Hellas under one rule; his son, the great Alexander, carried victorious Hellenism far out into the world beyond. Unification of speech was a natural result, when Greeks from different cities became fellow-soldiers in Alexander’s army, or fellow-colonists in his new towns. Within about one generation we suddenly find that a compromise dialect, which was based mainly on Attic, but contained elements from all the old dialects, came to be established as the language of the new Greek world. This ‘Common’ Greek, or Hellenistic, once brought into being, remained for centuries a remarkably homogeneous and slowly changing speech over the larger part of the Roman Empire. In Rome itself it was so widely spoken and read that St. Paul’s letter needed no translating, and a

Latin Bible was first demanded far away from Latium. In Palestine and in Lycaonia the Book of Acts gives us clear evidence of bilingual conditions. The Jerusalem mob (Ac 21:40, 22:2) expected St. Paul to address them in Greek; that at Lystra (14:11) similarly reverted with pleasure to their local patois, but had been following without difficulty addresses delivered in Greek. It was the one period in the history of the Empire when the gospel could he preached throughout the Roman world by the same missionary without interpreter or the need of learning foreign tongues. The conditions of Palestine demand a few more words. It seems fairly clear that Greek was understood and used there much as English is in Wales to-day. Jesus and the Apostles would use Aramaic among themselves, and in addressing the people in Judæa or Galilee, but Greek would often he needed in conversation with strangers. The Procurator would certainly use

Greek (rarely Latin) in his official dealings with the Jews. There is no reason to believe that any NT writer who ever lived in Palestine learned Greek only as a foreign language when he went abroad. The degree of culture in grammar and idiom would vary, but the language itself was always entirely at command.

4. NT Greek.—We find, as we might expect, that ‘NT Greek’ is a general term covering a large range of individual divergence. The author of Hebrews writes on a level which we might best characterize by comparing the pulpit style of a cultured extempore preacher in this country—a spoken style, free from artificiality and archaisms, but free from anything really colloquial. The two Lukan books show similar culture in their author, who uses some distinctively literary idioms. But St. Luke’s faithful reproduction of his various sources makes his work uneven in this respect. St. Paul handles Greek with the freedom and mastery of one who probably used it regularly all his life, except during actual residence in Jerusalem. He seems absolutely uninfluenced by literary style, and applies the Greek of common intercourse to his high themes, without stopping a moment to polish a diction the eloquence of which is wholly unstudied. Recent attempts to trace formal rhetoric and laws of rhythm in his writings have completely failed. At the other end of the scale, as judged by Greek culture, stands the author of the Apocalypse, whose grammar is very incorrect, despite his copious vocabulary and rugged vigour of style. Nearly as unschooled is St. Mark, who often gives us very literal translations of the Aramaic in which his story was first wont to be told; there seems some reason to suspect that in the oldest form of his text this occurred more frequently still. The other main Gospel ‘source,’ the ‘Sayings of Jesus,’ shows likewise the traces of processes of translation. Space forbids any attempt to distinguish the position of all the NT writers, but we may note that the papyri supply parallels in degrees of culture to compare with them in turn, except so far as sheer translation comes in.

5. Help derived from Modern Greek, and from reconstructed Aramaic originals.—We must now return to the development-history of Greek to observe that its later stages, even up to the present day, are full of important contributions to our study of the NT. The ‘Common’ or Hellenistic Greek, described above, is the direct ancestor of the vernacular of modern Greece and the Greek-speaking districts of Turkey. We are daily learning more of the immense significance of this despised patois for interpreting the sacred language. Here the student must carefully eliminate the artificial ‘Modern Greek’ of Athenian newspapers and books, which is untrustworthy for this purpose, just as is the Greek of Plutarch or Josephus. The genuine vernacular—with its dialects, based on inconsiderable local variations in Hellenistic, which may have no small weight ere long even in our NT criticism—may be placed by the side of modern folk-ballads and mediæval popular stories and saint legends, to take us back to the papyri and inscriptions, as our latest-found tools for NT study. The literature, classical and post-classical, will of course retain the place it has always held, when modern methods have taught us how to check its testimony. And Comparative Philology, with lights on the meaning of cases and tenses and moods, may be added to the equipment with which purely linguistic science may now help forward the interpretation of Scripture. All this is on the side of the student of Greek itself. But the other side of NT language must naturally not be forgotten. Contributions of great value have recently been made to our knowledge of the Aramaic, in which nearly all the sayings of Christ must have been uttered, and in which Papias (as usually understood) shows they were first written down. The possibility of reconstructing to some extent the original of our Greek Gospel sources is drawing nearer; and the co-operation of Greek and Semitic scholars promises marked advances in our knowledge of the very kernel of the NT (cf. next art.).

6. Characteristics of NT Greek.—A few concluding words may be given to the general characteristics of the language which had so providentially become the language of the civilized world just at the time when the gospel began its advance. It used to be frequently contrasted unfavourably with the classical Attic, which is undeniably the most perfect language the world has ever seen, for the clearness, subtlety, and beauty with which it can express thought. In Hellenistic Greek the subtlety, the sense of rhythm, and the literary delicacy have largely disappeared. But the old clearness is only enhanced by a greater simplicity; and the boundless resourcefulness of the language impresses us powerfully when in the NT for the first and (practically) last time the colloquial dialect of the people was enshrined in literature, the authors of which were nearly always unconscious that they were creating literature at all. The presentation of Christianity to the Western world as a system of thought could never have been accomplished in Hebrew, even if that language had attained universal currency. In Greek we are always conscious of a wealth of suggestiveness which no translation can convey, an accuracy and precision of thought which repay the utmost exactness of study. This is in no sense lost even when the simpler grammar of the later language becomes the tool of men who had no inheritance of Greek culture. A comparatively elementary knowledge of this simpler Greek, which can be attained without touching the complex structure of the classical language, will constantly reveal important elements in the writer’s meaning that are beyond the reach of our language to convey directly. In our own time at last this language is being studied for its own sake; and even classical scholars are beginning to allow that the renewed youth of Greek, under conditions which make it largely a new language, produced a literature which the philologist, and not merely the theologian, can admire.

JAMES HOPE MOULTON.

LANGUAGE OF CHRIST.—The records of our Lord’s words and discourses have descended to us in four Greek Gospels. Some early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew; but the Greek St. Matthew has universally, and from the first, been accepted as an authoritative and inspired document. It is not improbable that the writer published his book in the two languages, and that the Greek edition alone has survived. Josephus, who wrote in Greek, prepared a Semitic edition of his Wars for the benefit of those who understood only their vernacular.

At the present day, perhaps, most scholars would admit that the vernacular of Palestine in the time of our Lord was Semitic, and not Greek; but a difference is observed between their theory and their practice; for in all kinds of theological writings, critical as well as devotional, the references to the text of the Gospels constantly assume that the Greek words are those actually uttered by our Lord. But if Greek was not commonly spoken in the Holy Land, it is improbable that He who ministered to the common people would have employed an uncommon tongue. It follows that the Greek words recorded by the Evangelists are not the actual words Christ spoke. We may think we have good grounds for believing that they accurately represent His utterances; but to hear the original sounds we must recover, if that be possible, the Semitic vernacular which underlies the traditional Greek.

The evidence as to the nature of the Palestinian vernacular may be thus stated. In the first century of the Christian era the Holy Land was peopled by men of more than one race and nationality, but there is no reason to suppose they had been fused into one people, with Greek for their common tongue. Most of the inhabitants of Judæa were Jews, being descendants of the returned exiles. In Galilee there was a mixture of races; but the name ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ was a survival of the description of an earlier condition. The Syrian and Assyrian in vaders of the Northern Kingdom had passed, though leaving their mark, and a period of Jewish ascendency had followed, created by the victories of the Maccabees. The Idumæan princes, though Inclined to alliance with Rome, sought to pose as Judaizers. Herod the Great, while in sympathy with Hellenism, was famous as the builder of the third Temple. The strict, orthodox Jews, who were opposed to Hellenism, and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, would lose no opportunity of re-occupying their fatherland, from Jerusalem in the south to the north of Galilee, and would take with them the ancient customs and the ancestral tongue. Samaria, however, preserved its integrity as a foreign colony, with its own Semitic dialect. Beyond the Jordan, and in the border lands of the south, there was some mingling with the neighbouring Moabite, Idumæan, and Arab tribes, and probably many dialects were spoken, the records of which have perished for ever. Yet the Hebrew of the Jerusalem Pharisee, the language of the Samaritans, the speech of the men of Galilee, and the patois of the borderers, were all Semitic dialects. No place is found for the alien speech of Greece. Yet it must not be forgotten that Greek was the language of trade and literature. It would be heard in the seaports, and in the neighbourhood of the great roads by which communication was kept up through Palestine between Asia Minor,

Mesopotamia, and Egypt. It was spoken by many in the Roman garrisons, and was the adopted tongue of the Jews of the Dispersion, who cultivated Hellenism, and brought their foreign customs to Jerusalem, when they came to worship or for temporary residence (see Ac 6:1). But the language of the Palestinian home, of the Palestinian synagogue, of farmers, artisans, and labourers, as well as of educated Jews, who cultivated the ancient ways, was Hebrew, using that, term for the moment in a somewhat extended sense. Very significant is the reference to the vernacular in Ac 1:19, and the obvious inference is confirmed by the description of the title on the cross. Besides the official notice in Làtin, which probably few could read, the accusation was written in Greek and in Hebrew. If the majority of the passers by would understand the former, the latter was superfluous. Even if the Hebrew was added only to please the mob, this fact would prove that the lower classes were partial to their vernacular, and were at least bilinguists, and not in the habit of using Greek exclusively (cf. Ac 22:2).

The story of Peter’s denial incidentally adds another confirmation. He conversed in a language which was understood by the servants and others of the same class assembled round the fire, but he was recognized as a northerner by his accent. There is no evidence that the Galilæans pronounced Greek differently from the Judæans, but it is known that their pronunciation of some of the Hebrew letters differed from that of the southerners. Peter and the servants had a Semitic vernacular in common, though with dialectic differences of pronunciation, and possibly of vocabulary.

In the Syrian Church historical documents have been handed down which, whatever be the dates of the existing works, undoubtedly represent very ancient traditions, and depend on documents such as would have been preserved amongst the archives of Edessa. In the Doctrine of Addai this remarkable statement occurs: ‘Him whose Gospel has been spread abroad by the signs which his disciples do, who are Hebrews, and only know the tongue of the Hebrews, in which they were born.’ In the same Church there was a tradition that their national version of the NT was rather a second record than a translation, and dated from Apostolic times. Such a view (whether true or false matters not now) depends on an assumption that some language related to Syriac, if not Syriac itself, was the vernacular of the Apostles. The greater part of the NT consists of writings intended for the benefit of Jews who resided outside Palestine, and of converts from heathenism. For such readers the vernacular of Palestine would have been unsuitable; and those of the writers who were not familiar with Greek could employ a translator. St. Peter is said to have been attended by Mark in this capacity. We have already referred to the tradition that Matthew, who wrote for the benefit of his countrymen, composed a Gospel in Hebrew. That some one should have undertaken a work of that nature is highly probable; but the circulation would be limited, for the native Jewish Church did not long retain the position of importance it possessed at first (Ac 21:20) , and the collection of sacred writings into a Canon was the work of Greek-speaking Christians. The Epistle of St. James is one of the earliest books of the NT, but though intended for Jewish Christians it was written in Greek, as a literary vehicle. An apparent, though not a real, difficulty is presented by the style of certain pieces included in the sacred narratives. The Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, and Lord’s Prayer, for example, which must be translations, in accordance with our view of the use of a Semitic vernacular, are thought to savour rather of original composition than of translation. But it should be remembered that the ancient idea of a version was different from ours. Literal rendering often (though not always) yielded to the demands of commentary. Perhaps (to take another, and, as some think, crucial instance), the angel could not have saluted Mary in the native dialect with the famous alliteration—Chaire kecharitōmenē; and yet the Evangelist may have recorded the ‘Hail! highly favoured’ in that form, influenced by the style of OT diction, in which play on words is a marked feature.

The majority of the quotations in the Gospels appear to be derived from some form of the Septuagint Greek text of the OT. It does not follow that the speakers habitually used Greek. All we can safely infer is that the Evangelists, when writing in Greek, employed a version which had acquired considerable authority by usage, to express the quotations they recorded.

It has been thought that the conversations between our Lord and the woman of Samaria and the Syrophœnician woman must have been carried on in Greek as a common language. It is forgotten that Syriac, Samaritan, and the so-called Hebrew of Palestine, were nearly related. Many to whom one or other of these was the vernacular, would have some slight acquaintance with the others. However, the object of this article is not to deny that Christ knew, and sometimes spoke, Greek, but to reinforce the arguments by which we conclude that the vernacular of Palestine was Semitic, and that therefore Christ’s teachings were, for the most part, delivered in a different tongue from that in which they have come to us in the Greek Gospels.

By far the greater number of personal and place names connected with Palestine in the NT are of Semitic derivation, but they afford no evidence in relation to our inquiry. The preservation and use of such names would be consistent with a change in the vernacular. Place names are practically permanent; personal names are often sentimentally borrowed from a dead ancestral tongue. Nor would we lay stress on the occurrence of Semitic words, as rabbi, korban, pascha (‘passover’), in the Greek text. The men of our Lord’s day, whatever dialect they spoke, were the heirs of a religious and social system which had its roots in Hebraism, and of which there were constant reminiscences in the daily use of words belonging to the ancient terminology. But other non-Greek expressions are recorded in connexions which lend them a much greater significance. In Ac 1:19 we are informed that the Semitic name Akeldama, which was given to a certain field, was in the ‘proper tongue’ of ‘the dwellers at Jerusalem.’ Our Lord’s words on two occasions are given in Semitic,—Talītha kūmi (Mk 5:41), and Ephphatha (7:34). On the cross He uttered a cry which might have been a quotation from Ps 22:1; but the form preserved in Mk 15:34 varies dialectically from the Hebrew of the opening words of that psalm.

These and other Semitic remains preserved in the pages of the NT, even when account has been taken of all place and personal names and single words, as well as of the few phrases, afford but limited evidence, and are only a few specimens of the Palestinian vernacular. Yet they suffice to show that the dialect was neither ancient Hebrew nor the classical Syriac. It had arisen through corruption of the ancestral tongue, under the influence of surrounding languages, especially Aramaic. Probably it varied considerably in different parts of the Holy Land, and there were ‘dialects’ rather than ‘a dialect’ of Palestine. But all the evidence tends to the conviction that Christ habitually employed some form of the vernacular in His discourses, and not the alien language of Greece.

G. H. GWILLIAM.

LANTERN.—Only Jn 18:3, where some form of ‘torch’ is more probably intended. The Greek is phanos, a word not found elsewhere in Biblical Greek.

LAODICEA was situated in the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander in Asia Minor. It was founded by Antiochus II. about the middle of the 3rd cent. B.C. It was planted in the lower Lycus glen, Colossæ being situated in the upper. The Lycus glen was the most frequented path of trade from the interior of the country to the west, and the great road passed right through Laodicea. The city was nearly square, and strongly fortified, but dependent for its water supply on an acqueduct 6 miles long. It played a comparatively small part in the dissemination of Greek culture. Its prosperity advanced greatly under the Romans. It was an important manufacturing centre, for instance, for a soft glossy black wool, which was made into garments of various kinds (cf. Rev 3:18). In connexion with the temple of the Phrygian god Men Karou (13 miles W. of Laodicea), there grew up a celebrated school of medicine. Its most famous medicines were an ointment made from spice nard, which strengthened the ears, and Phrygian powder, obtained by crushing Phrygian stone, which was used for the eyes (Rev 3:18). There were many Jewish inhabitants of Laodicea, and the population as a whole was of very mixed race. There is a want of Individuality about the life of this city, which has been called ‘the city of compromise.’ The church there was not founded by St. Paul, but probably by one of his coadjutors, perhaps Epaphras (cf. Col 4:13). It was no doubt one of the cities which received the ‘Epistle to the Ephesians’ (Col 4:16), as well as the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 4:16). It was one of the ‘seven churches’ of the Apocalypse (3:14–22). Its condemnation is perhaps the severest of all.

A. SOUTER.

LAPPIDOTH (‘torches’ or ‘lightning flashes’).—The husband of Deborah the prophetess (Jg 4:4). Some commentators take the term to be descriptive of the character of Deborah, ‘a woman of lightning flashes.’ In favour of this they urge the feminine termination -oth, but the same termination is found elsewhere to men’s names, e.g. Meremoth.

T. A. MOXON.

LAPWING.—See HOOPOE.

LASCIVIOUSNESS.—The Greek word so translated in Mk 7:22 etc. is translated ‘wantonness’ in Ro 13:13. This is the translation in the VSS before AV in nearly all the passages where AV has ‘lasciviousness.’ The idea of the Gr. word is shameless conduct of any kind.

LASEA is mentioned by St. Luke (Ac 27:8), but by no other ancient author. It was the nearest town to Fair Havens in Crete, but it was 5 miles away, and this, apart from the inconvenience of the roadstead, would explain the reluctance of the captain of St. Paul’s ship to winter there. The ruins of Lasea were examined in 1856,—the site still bears the ancient name. A. E. HILLARD.

LASHA (Gn 10:19 marked the S.E. boundary of the land of the Canaanites. Jerome identified it with the hot springs of Callirrhoë, in the Wādy Zerqā Ma‘īn. Wellhausen would identify it with Laish, on the N. frontier. There is nothing to support this but the resemblance in the name. Against it is the order in which the names occur. It cannot now be identified.

W. EWING.

LASSHARON.—A town taken by Joshua (12:18). LXX B reads here ‘the king of Aphek in Sharon.’ The Onomasticon gives the name of ‘Sharon’ to a second district, viz. that between Mount Tabor and Tiberias. The name Sarōna attaches to an ancient site on the plateau, 6¹/₂miles S.W. of Tiberias, which may possibly represent Lassharon ( Conder ).

W. EWING.

LASTHENES.—An officer of high rank, ‘kinsman’ (1 Mac 11:31) and ‘father’ (v. 32) of Demetrius II. He raised a body of Cretan mercenaries, and enabled Demetrius to land in Cilicia, and wrest the throne of Syria from Alexander Balas (Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 3; cf. 1 Mac 10:67). When Demetrius was endeavouring to make terms with Jonathan the Maccabæan, he wrote to Lasthenes in favour of the Jews, and forwarded a copy of his letter to the Jewish prince (1 Mac 11:29–37).

LATCHET.—See DRESS, § 6.

LATIN.—In such provinces as Judæa the Latin language alone had place in official acts and Roman courts. Where Greek was allowed in court pleadings, it was, so to speak, an act of grace on the judge’s part, and there can be little doubt that, e.g., the speech of Tertullus in Ac 24 was in Latin. The Latin words used in a Greek form in the NT are mainly administrative, legal, or military (e.g. census, custodia, prœtorium, colonia, libertinus, centurio, legio), or names of Roman coins (denarius, quadrans), but the total number of such Latin words occurring is only about 25. The Gentile names adopted by Jews were generally of Greek form (e.g. Philip)—a Latin form like the name of St. Paul was an exception (to be expected perhaps with one so proud of Roman citizenship). Throughout Palestine, while Latin was the language of the administration, Greek was the main language of commerce, and Aramaic the language of common intercourse among Jews. Hence we find all three languages used for the superscription on the cross (Lk 23:38).

A. E. HILLARD.

LATIN VERSIONS.—See TEXT (of OT and NT) and VULGATE.

LATTICE.—See HOUSE, § 7.

LAUD.—In Ro 15:11 the AV has ‘Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.’ The Gr. vbs. being different, two different Eng. vbs. are used. But the RV turns ‘laud’ into ‘praise.’ In the OT, however, ‘laud’ and ‘praise’ are both used in order to distinguish two Heb. vbs., as in Ps 117:1, 145:4, though not quite consistently. In Ps 147:12 the difference between the verbs is ignored.

LAUGHTER.—Laughter is used in the Bible in three ways. (1) It is opposed to weeping, as Ec 3:4, 7:3, Job 8:21, Ps 126:2, Lk 6:21. (2) It expresses incredulity, as Gn 17:17, 18:12. (3) It signifies derision, as Ps 2:14, Bel 18.

LAVER.—See TABERNACLE, § 4, TEMPLE, § 6 (d).

LAW (IN OT).—1. That the ‘law was given by Moses’ (Jn 1:17) represents the unanimous belief both of the early Christians and of the Chosen Nation. He was their first as well as their greatest law-giver; and in this matter religious tradition is supported by all the historical probabilities of the case. The Exodus and the subsequent wanderings constitute the formative epoch of Israel’s career: it was the period of combination and adjustment between the various tribes towards effecting a national unity. Such periods necessitate social experiments, for no society can hold together without some basis of permanent security; no nation could be welded together, least of all a nation in ancient times, without some strong sense of corporate responsibilities and corporate religion. It therefore naturally devolved upon Moses to establish a central authority for the administration of justice, which should be universally accessible and universally recognized. There was only one method by which any such universal recognition could be attained; and that was by placing the legal and judicial system upon the basis of an appeal to that religion, which had already been successful in rousing the twelve tribes to a sense of their unity, and which, moreover, was the one force which could and did effectually prevent the disintegration of the heterogeneous elements of which the nation was composed.

2. We see the beginning and character of these legislative functions in Ex 18:16, where Moses explains how ‘the people come unto me to inquire of God: when they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and make them know the statutes of God, and his laws (tōrōth).’ Originally tōrah (the usual word in the OT for ‘law’) meant, as in this passage, oral instruction or direction. This kind of tōrah survived for long in Israel. It was a ‘method strictly practical and in precise conformity with the genius and requirements of primitive nations,’ W. R. Smith (OTJC²339). Cases of exceptional difficulty were brought to the sanctuary, and the decisions there given were accepted as emanating from the Divine Judge of Israel (cf. 1 S 2:25; and, for the use of ‘Elohim’ to signify the judges speaking in Jehovah’s name, cf. Ex 21:6, 22:7). The cases thus brought ‘before God’ may be divided into three classes, as they dealt respectively with (1) matters of moral obligation, (2) civil suits, (3) ritual difficulties. We read that Moses found it necessary to devolve some of this administrative work upon various elders, whom he associated with himself in the capacity of law-givers.

In this connexion it is important to remember that—

(a) These decisions were orally given. (b) Although binding only on the parties concerned, and in their case only so far as they chose to submit to the ruling of the judge, or as the latter could enforce his authority, yet with the increasing power of the executive government such decisions soon acquired the force of consuetudinary law for a wider circle, until they affected the whole nation. (c) Such oral direction in no sense excludes the idea of any previous laws, or even of a written code. The task of the judges was not so much to create as to interpret. The existence and authority of a law would still leave room for doubt in matters of individual application, (d) As social life became more complex, the three divisions of the tōrah became more specialized; civil suits were tried by the judge; the prophets almost confined themselves to giving oral direction on moral duties; the priests were concerned mainly with the solution of ritual difficulties. Cf. JUSTICE ( II. ).

Here, then, we can trace the character of Hebrew legislation in its earliest stages. Law (tōrah) means oral direction, gradually crystallizing into consuetudinary law, which, so far from excluding, may almost be said to demand, the idea of a definite code as the basis of its interpretative function. Finally, when these directions were classified and reduced to writing ( cf. Hos 8:12), tōrah came to signify such a collection; and ultimately the same word was used as a convenient and comprehensive term for the whole Pentateuch, in which all the most important legal collections were carefully included.

3. The tōrah of the Prophets was moral, not ceremonial. The priests, while by their office necessarily much engaged in ceremonial and ritual actions, nevertheless had boundless opportunities for giving the worshippers true direction on the principles underlying their religions observances; and it is for their neglect of such opportunities, and not, as is often crudely maintained, on account of any inherently necessary antagonism between priestly and prophetical ideals, that the prophets so frequently rebuke the priests,—not because of the fulfilment of their priestly (i.e. ceremonial) duties, but because of the non-fulfilment of their prophetical (i.e. moral) opportunities. For the priests claimed Divine sanction for their worship, and tradition ascribed the origin of all priestly institutions to Mosaic (or Aaronic) authorship. This the prophets do not deny; but they do deny that the distinctive feature of the Sinaitic legislation lay in anything but

its moral excellence. In this connexion the words of Jeremiah cannot be quoted too often: ‘I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying— Hear my voice, … and walk ye in the way that I command you’ (Jer 7:21, 22). The correct interpretation of Am 5:24–26 corroborates Jeremiah’s contention. It is wholly unwarrantable to say that the prophets condemned the sacrificial system, or denied its worth and Divine sanction; but, on the other hand, we are justified in asserting that the tōrah of Jehovah, ‘the law of the Lord,’ meant to the prophets something wholly different from the punctilious observance of traditional ceremonies; and what is more, they appeal without fear of contradiction to the contents of the Mosaic legislation as completely establishing their conviction that it was in the sphere of morality, rather than in the organizing of worship, that the essence of Jehovah’s law was to be found.

4. With this test (as well as with the considerations proposed in § 1) the character of the Decalogue is found to be in complete agreement. Its Mosaic origin has indeed been questioned, on the ground that such an ethical standard is wholly at variance with the ‘essentially ritualistic character’ of primitive religions. To this it may be replied: we cannot call the prophets as witnesses for the truth of two mutually contradictory propositions. Having already cited the prophets in disproof of the Mosaic authorship of the Levitical legislation, on the ground that the latter is essentially ritualistic (and therefore does not correspond to the prophets’ view of the Law of Moses), it is monstrously unfair to deny the Sinaitic origin of what is left in conformity with the prophetical standard, on the ground that it ought to be ‘essentially ritualistic’ also, and is not. We have rightly had our attention called to the witness of the prophets. But the weight of their evidence against the early elaboration of the ceremonial law is exactly proportioned to the weight attached to their evidence for the existence and authenticity of the moral code.

A more serious difficulty, however, arises from the fact that we have apparently three accounts of the Decalogue, exhibiting positively astounding divergences (Ex 20, Dt 5, and Ex 34). The differences between Ex 20 and Dt 5 are not hard to explain, as the Ten Words themselves are in each case identical, and it is only in the explanatory comments that the differences are marked. Stylistic peculiarities, as well as other considerations, seem to show that these latter are subsequent editorial additions, and that originally the Decalogue contained no more than the actual commandments, without note or explanation. It is, however, most instructive to observe that no theory of inspiration or literary scruples prevented the editors from incorporating into their account of the Ten Words of God to Moses, the basis of all Hebrew legislation, such comments and exhortations as they considered suitable to the needs of their own times. The difficulty with regard to Ex 34, where a wholly different set of laws seems to be called ‘The Ten Words,’ has not been solved. Hypotheses of textual displacement abound ( cf. OTJC²336), others confidently assert that the author ‘manifestly intends to allude to the Decalogue’ (Driver, LOT⁶39), while some scholars have suggested, with much force and ingenuity, that we have in Ex 20–23 and 34 a series of abbreviations, re-arrangements, and expansions of ten groups of ten laws each. No final solution has yet been reached; but we may hold with confidence that the traditional account of the Decalogue is correct, and that the Ten Commandments in their original and shorter form were promulgated by Moses himself. On this basis the law of Israel rests, and in the Pentateuch we can distinguish the attempts made from time to time to apply their principles to the life of the people.

5. The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:22–23:33) is a collection of ‘words’ and ‘judgments’ arising out of the needs of a very simple community. The frequent mention of the ox, the ass, and the sheep proves that this code of law was designed for an agricultural people. The state of civilization may be inferred from the fact that the principles of civil and criminal justice are all comprehended under the two heads of retaliation and pecuniary compensation (cf. OTJC²340). Religious institutions also are in an undeveloped and archaic stage. The laws, however, recognize, and even insist upon, the claims of humanity and justice. It is possible that the original code may have been promulgated at Sinai; but if so, it has received considerable expansions to suit the agricultural requirements, which first became part of Israel’s daily life in the early years of the occupation of Canaan.

6. The Law of Deuteronomy shows a civilization far in advance of that contemplated in the preceding code. Life is more complex; and religious problems unknown to an earlier generation demand and receive full treatment. It is not difficult to fix its approximate date. In the year B.C. 621, king Josiah inaugurated a national reformation resulting from the discovery of a Book of the

Law in the Temple. All the evidence points to this book being practically identical with Deuteronomy; all the reforms which Josiah inaugurated were based upon laws practically indistinguishable from those we now possess in the Deuteronomic Code; in fact, no conclusion of historical or literary criticism has been reached more nearly approaching to absolute certainty than that the Book of the Law brought to light in 621 was none other than the fifth book of the Pentateuch.

But was it written by Moses?—(i.) The book itself nowhere makes such a claim, (ii.) The historical situation (suiting the times of the later monarchy) is not merely anticipated, but actually presupposed, (iii.) The linguistic evidence points to ‘a long development of the art of public oratory.’ (iv.) The religious standpoint is that of, e.g., Jeremiah rather than Isaiah. (v.) Some of its chief provisions appear to have been entirely unknown before 600; even the most fervid champions of prophetism before that date seem to have systematically violated the central law of the one sanctuary, (vi.) While subsequent writers show abundant traces of Deuteronomic influence, we search in vain for any such traces in earlier literature. On the contrary, Deut. is itself seen to be an attempt to realize in a legal code those great principles which had been so emphatically enunciated by Hosea and Isaiah.

The laws of Deuteronomy are, however, in many instances much earlier than the 7th century. The Book of the Covenant supplies much of the groundwork; and the antiquity of others is independently attested. It is not so much the substance (with perhaps the exception of (a) below) as the expansions and explanations that are new. A law-book must be kept up to date if it is to have any practical value, and in Deuteronomy we have ‘a prophetic re-formulation and adaptation to new needs of an older legislation’ (LOT⁶91).

The main characteristics of Deut. are to be found in—

(a) The Law of the one Sanctuary, which aimed at the total extinction of the worship of the high places. By confining the central act of worship, i.e. the rite of sacrifice, to Jerusalem, this law certainly had put an end to the syncretistic tendencies which constituted a perpetual danger to Israelitish religion; but while establishing monotheism, it also somewhat impoverished the free religious life of the common people, who had aforetime learned at all times and in all places to do sacrifice and hold communion with their God.

(b) The wonderful humanity which is so striking a feature of these laws. The religion of Jehovah is not confined to worship, but is to be manifested in daily life: and as God’s love is the great outstanding fact in Israel’s history, so the true Israelite must show love for God, whom he has not seen, by loving his neighbour, whom he has seen. Even the animals are to be treated with consideration and kindness.

(c) The evangelical fervour with which the claims of Jehovah upon Israel’s devotion are urged. He is so utterly different from the dead heathen divinities. He is a living, loving God, who cannot be satisfied with anything less than the undivided heart-service of His children.

It is not surprising that Deuteronomy should have been especially dear to our Lord (cf. Mt 4) , or that He should have ‘proclaimed its highest word as the first law no longer for Judah, but for the world’ (Mt 12:28–30, Dt 6:4–5) [Carpenter, quoted by Driver, Deut. p. xxxiv.].

7. The Law of Holiness (Lv 17–26) is a short collection of laws embedded in Leviticus. The precepts of this code deal mainly with moral and ceremonial matters, and hardly touch questions of civil and criminal law. We should notice especially the prominence of agricultural allusions, the multiplication of ritual regulations, the conception of sin as impurity, and, again, the predominance of humanitarian principles.

8. The Priestly Code, comprising the concluding chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and other portions of the Hexateuch, probably represents a determined attempt to give practical effect to the teaching of Ezekiel. We may approximately fix its date by observing that some of its fundamental institututions are unknown to, and even contradicted by, the Deuteronomic legislation. On the other hand, the influence of Ezekiel is prominent. The Priestly editor, or school, lays special stress on the ceremonial institutions of Israelite worship. We must not, however, conclude that they are therefore all post-exilic. On the contrary, the origin of a great number is demonstrably of high antiquity; but their elaboration is of a far more modern date. It is sometimes customary to sneer at the Priestly Code as a mass of ‘Levitical deterioration.’ It would be as justifiable to quote the rubrics of the Prayer Book as a fair representation of the moral teaching of the Church of England. As a matter of fact, P does not profess to supplant, or even to supplement, all other laws. The editor has simply collected the details of ceremonial legislation, and the rubrics of Temple worship, with some account of their origin and purpose. In later history, the expression of Israel’s religion through Temple services acquired an increased significance. If the national life and faith were to be preserved, it was absolutely essential that the ceremonial law should be developed in order to mark the distinctive features of the Jewish creed. It is argued that such a policy is in direct contradiction to the universalistic teaching of the earlier prophets. That may be so, but cosmopolitanism at this stage would have meant not the diffusion but the destruction of Jewish religion. It was only by emphasizing their national peculiarities that they were able to concentrate their attention, and consequently to retain a firm hold, upon their distinctive truths. Ezekiel’s ideal city was named ‘Jehovah is there’ (48:35). P seeks to realize this ideal. All the laws, all the ceremonies, are intended to stamp this conviction indelibly upon Israel’s imagination, ‘Jehovah is there.’ Therefore the sense of sin must be deepened, that sin may be removed: therefore the need of purification must be constantly proclaimed, that the corrupting and disintegrating influences of surrounding heathenism may not prevail against the remnant of the holy people: therefore the ideal of national holiness must be sacramentally symbolized, and, through the symbol, actually attained.

9. It must be plain that such stress on ritual enactments inevitably facilitated the growth of formalism and hypocrisy. We know that in our Lord’s time the weightier matters of the law were systematically neglected, while the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, together with similar subtleties and refinements, occupied the attention of the lawyer and exhausted the energies of the zealous. But our Lord did not abrogate the law either in its ceremonial or in its moral injunctions. He came to fulfil it, that is, to fill it full, to give the substance, where the law was only a shadow of good things to come. He declared that not one jot or tittle should pass away till all things were accomplished; that is to say, until the end for which the law had been ordained should be

reached. It took people some time to see that by His Incarnation and the foundation of the Christian Church that end had been gained; and that by His fulfilment He had made the law of none effect—not merely abrogating distinctions between meats, but transferring man’s whole relation to God into another region than that of law.

10. ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ The impossibility of ever fulfilling its multitudinous requirements had filled the more earnest with despair. There it remained confronting the sinner with his sin; but its pitiless ‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Thou shalt not’ gave him no comfort and no power of resistance. The law was as cold and hard as the tables on which it was inscribed. It taught the meaning of sin, but gave no help as to how sin was to be overcome. The sacrificial system attempted to supply the want; but it was plain that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. In desperation the law-convicted sinner looked for a Saviour to deliver him from this body of death, and that Saviour he found in Christ. The law had been his ‘pedagogue,’ and had brought him to the Master from whom he could receive that help and grace it had been powerless to bestow. But Christianity not merely gave power; it altered man’s whole outlook on the world. The Jews lived under the law: they were the unwilling subjects of an inexorable despotism; the law was excellent in itself, but to them it remained something external; obedience was not far removed from bondage and fear. The prophets realized the inadequacy of this legal system: it was no real appeal to man’s highest nature; it did not spring from the man’s own heart; and so they prophesied of the New Covenant when Jehovah’s laws should be written in the heart, and His sin-forgiving grace should remove all elements of servile fear (cf. esp. Jer 31:31–34); but it was only the hard discipline of the law that made them realize the necessity and superiority of a more spiritual covenant between man and his God.

11. A word may be said about the giving of the law. Whatever physical disturbances may have accompanied its original proclamation, it is not upon such natural phenomena that its claims to the homage of mankind are based. It is, in a manner, far more miraculous that God should at that early age, among those half-civilized tribes, have written these laws by His spirit on man’s conscience and understanding, than that amid thunder and flame He should have inscribed them with His own fingers upon two tables of stone. The Old Testament itself teaches us that we may look in vain for God among the most orthodox manifestations of a thenphany, and yet hear Him speaking in the still, small voice. Miracle is not the essence of God’s revelation to us, though it may accompany and authenticate His message. The law stands because the Saviour, in laying down for us the correct lines of its interpretation has sealed it with the stamp of Divine approval, but also because the conscience and reason of mankind have recognized in its simplicity and comprehensiveness a sublime exposition of man’s duty to his God and to his neighbour; because ‘by manifestation of the truth it has commended itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God’ (cf. 2 Co 4:2).

ERNEST ARTHUR ENGHILL.

LAW (IN NT).—This subject will be treated as follows: (1) the relation of Jesus Christ to the OT Law; (2) the doctrine of law in St. Paul’s Epistles; (3) the complementary teaching of Hebrews; (4) the attitude of St. James representing primitive Jewish Christianity.

1. Our Lord stated His position in the saying of Mt 5:17: ‘I did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil.’ The expression covers the whole contents of Divine Scripture (sometimes, for brevity, spoken of simply as ‘the law’; see Jn 10:34, 12:34, 15:25), which He does not mean to invalidate in the least (Mt 5:18), as the novelty of His teaching led some to suppose (see 7:28f.), but will vindicate and complete. But His ‘fulfilment’ was that of the Master, who knows the inner mind and real intent of the Scripture He expounds. It was not the fulfilment of one who rehearses a prescribed lesson or tracks out a path marked for him by predecessors, but the crowning of an edifice already founded, the carrying forward to their issue of the lines projected in Israelite revelation, the fulfilment of the blade and ear in ‘the full corn.’ Jesus penetrated the shell to reach the kernel of OT representations; and He regarded Himself— His Person, sacrifice, salvation, Kingdom—as the focus of manifold previous revelations (see Lk 4:17–21, 16:16, 24:27, Jn 1:17, 6:45). The warning of Mt 5:17–20 was aimed at the Jewish legists, who dissolved the authority of the law, while jealously guarding its letter, by casuistical comments and smothering traditions, who put light and grave on a like footing, and blunted the sharpness of God’s commands in favour of man’s corrupt inclinations. The Corban formula, exposed in Mk 7:7–13, was a notorious instance of the Rabbinical quibbling that our Lord denounced. It is a severer not a laxer ethics that Jesus introduces, a searching in place of a superficial discipline; ‘Your righteousness,’ He says, ‘must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.’

Our Lord’s fulfilment of ‘the law’—i.e. in the stricter sense, the body of Mosaic statutes regulating Israelite life and worship—included (a) the personal and free submission to it, due to His birth and circumcision as a son of Israel (Gal 4:4; cf. Mt 3:15, 8:4, 15:24, 17:27, Lk 2:21 ff. ).

His fulfilment included (b) the development of its unrecognized or partially disclosed principles. Thus Jesus asserted, in accordance with views already advanced among the scribes, that ‘the whole law and the prophets hang on the two commandments’ of love to God and to our neighbour (Mt 22:34–40, Lk 10:25–37)—the parable of the Good Samaritan gives to the second command an unprecedented scope. His distinction between ‘the weightier matters’ of ‘justice, mercy, fidelity,’ and the lighter of tithes and washings, was calculated to revolutionize current Judaism.

(c) A large part of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:21–48) is devoted to clearing the law from erroneous glosses and false applications: on each point Jesus sets His ‘I say unto you’ against what ‘was said to the ancients’—mere antiquity goes for nothing; nor is He careful to distinguish here between the text of the written law and its traditional modifications. With each correction the law in His hands grows morestringent; its observance is made a matter of inoer disposition, of intrinsic loyalty, not of formal conduct; the criterion applied to all law-keeping is that it shall ‘proceed out of the heart.’

(d) Further, our Lord’s fulfilment of the law necessitated the abrogation of temporary and defective statutes. In such instances the letter of the old precept stood only till it should be translated into a worthier form and raised to a higher potency (Mt 5:18), by the sweeping away of limiting exceptions (as with the compromise in the matter of wedlock allowed to ‘the hardheartedness’ of Israelites, Mt 19:3–9), or by the translation of the symbolic into the spiritual, as when cleansing of hands and vessels is displaced by inner purification (Mk 7:14–23, Lk 11:37– 41; cf. Col 2:18f., He 9:9f.). Our Lord’s reformation of the marriage law is also a case for (b) above: He rectifies the law by the aid of the law; in man’s creation He finds a principle which nullifies the provisions that facilitated divorce. The abolition of the distinction of ‘meats’ ( Mk 7:19), making a rift in Jewish daily habits and in the whole Levitical scheme of life, is the one instance in which Jesus laid down what seemed to be a new principle of ethics. The maxim that ‘what enters into the man from without cannot defile,’ but only ‘the things that issue out of the man,’ was of far-reaching application, and supplied afterwards the charter of Gentile

Christianity. Its underlying principle was, however, implicit in OT teaching, and belonged to the essence of the doctrine of Jesus. He could not consistently vindicate heart-religion without combating Judaism in the matter of its ablutions and food-regulations and Sabbath-keeping.

(e) Over the last question Jesus came into the severest-conflict with Jewish orthodoxy; and in this struggle He revealed the consciousness, latent throughout His dealings with OT legislation, of being the sovereign, and not a subject like others, in this realm. Our Lord ‘fulfilled the law’ by sealing it with His own final authority. His ‘I say unto you,’ spoken in a tone never assumed by Moses or the prophets, implied so much and was so understood by His Apostles (1 Co 7:10, Gal 6:2, 1 Jn 2:3f. etc.). Christ arrogates the rôle of ‘a son over his house,’ whereas Moses was ‘a servant in the house’ (He 3:5f.). Assuming to be ‘greater than Solomon,’ ‘than Abraham,’ ‘than the temple’ (Mt 12:6, 42, Jn 8:53), He acted as one greater than Moses! The Sabbath-law was the chosen battle-ground between Him and the established masters in Israel (Mk 2:23–28, 3:2ff., Lk 13:16–17, Jn 5:9–16). In the public Sabbath assemblies Jesus was oftenest confronted with cases of disease and demoniacal possession; He must do His work as God’s ‘sent’ physician. The Sabbath-rules were clear and familiar; His infraction of them in acts of healing was flagrant, repeated, defiant; popular reverence for the day made accusations on this count particularly dangerous. Men were placed in a dilemma: the Sabbath-breaker is ipso facto ‘a sinner’; on the other hand, ‘how can a sinner do such signs?’ (Jn 9:16, 24ff.). Jesus argues the matter on legal grounds, showing from recognized practice that the 4th Commandment must be construed with common sense, and that ‘it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day’ and to work in the service of God (Mt 12:5, 11f.). He goes behind those examples to the governing principle (see (b) above), that ‘the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 2:27f.): the institution is designed for human benefit, and its usages should he determined by its object. But He is not content with saving this: the war against Him was driven on the Sabbath-question à outrance; Jesus draws the sword of His reserved authority. He claims, as sovereign in human affairs, to decide what is right in the matter—‘The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath’; more than this, He professes to have wrought His Sabbath works as God the Father does, to whom all days are alike in His beneficence, and through the insight of a Son watching the Father at His labour (Jn 5:17–

20)—a pretension, to Jewish ears, of blasphemous arrogance: ‘He maketh himself equal with

God!’ On this ground Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin (cf. Jn 19:7), because He set

Himself above the Sabbath, on the strength of being one with God. Thus the law of Moses put Jesus Christ to death; it was too small to hold Him; its administrators thought themselves bound to inflict the capital sentence on One who said, ‘I am the Son of the Blessed’ (Mk 14:61 ff. ).

(f) At the same time, Caiaphas, the official head of the system, gave another explanation, far deeper than he guessed, of the execution: ‘That Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only’ (Jn 11:49ff.). Virtually, He was offering Himself for ‘the lamb’ of the Paschal Feast, ready to be slain in sacrifice, that He might ‘take away the sin of the world.’ This mysterious relation of the death of Jesus to Divine law He had hinted at here and there (Mt 20:28, 26:28, Lk 22:37, Jn 3:14, 6:51, 12:24); its exposition was reserved for His Apostles speaking in the light of this grandest of all fulfilments. Jesus made good the implicit promise of the sacrificial institutions of Israel.

2. The word ‘law’ occurs 118 times in St. Paul’s Epistles,—103 times in Romans and Galatians alone. It is manifest how absorbing an interest the subject had for this Apostle, and where that interest mainly lay. Gal 2:19 puts us at the centre of St. Paul’s position: ‘I through law died to law, that I might live to God.’ From legalism, as from a house of bondage, he had escaped into the freedom of the sons of God. (a) Paul ‘died to the law,’ as he had understood and served it when a Pharisee, regarding obedience to its precepts as the sole ground of acceptance with God. He had sought there ‘a righteousness of’ his ‘own, even that which is of the law’ ( Ph 3:9), to be gained by’ works,’ by which he strove to merit salvation as a ‘debt’ due from God for service rendered,—a righteousness such as its possessor could ‘boast of, as ‘his own’ (Ro 4:1–5 , 9:31–10:3). Pursuing this path, ‘Israel’ had failed to win ‘the righteousness of God,’ such as is valid ‘before God’; the method was impracticable—justification on the terms of ‘the law of Moses’ is unattainable (Ac 13:38f., Ro 8:3). Instead of destroying sin, the law arouses it to new vigour, ‘multiplying’ where it aimed at suppressing ‘the trespass’ (Ro 5:20, 7:7–13, 1 Co 15:56). Not the ‘law’ in itself, but the ‘carnal’ sin-bound nature of the man, is to blame for this; arrayed against ‘the law of God,’ to which ‘reason’ bows, is ‘another law’ successfully oppugning it, that ‘of sin’ which occupies ‘my members’ (Ro 7:12–23), and which is, in effect, a ‘law of death’

(8:2).

(b) But St. Paul’s Judaistic experience had a positive as well as a negative result: if he ‘died to law,’ it was ‘through law’; ‘the law has proved our pœdagogus [for leading us] to Christ’ ( Gal 3:24). Law awakened conscience and disciplined the moral faculties; the Jewish people were like ‘an heir’ placed ‘under guardians and stewards until the appointed times,’ and trained in bondservice with a view to their ‘adoption’ (Gal 4:1–5). Even the aggravations of sin caused by the law had their benefit, as they brought the disease to a head and reduced the patient to a state in which he was ready to accept the proffered remedy (Ro 7:24). ‘The Scripture’ had in this way ‘shut up all things under sin,’ blocking every door of escape and blighting every hope of a selfearned righteousness (Gal 3:21f.), that the sinner might accept unconditionally the ‘righteousness which is through faith in Christ’ (Ph 3:9).

(c) Contact with Gentile life had widened St. Paul’s conception of moral law; it was touched by the influences of Greek philosophy and Roman government. He discerned a law established ‘by nature,’ and ‘inscribed in the hearts’ of men ignorant of the Mosaic Code and counting with Jews as ‘lawless.’ This Divine jus (and fas) gentium served, in a less distinct but very real sense, the purpose of the written law in Israel; it impressed on the heathen moral responsibility and the consciousness of sin (Ro 2:6–16). The rule of right and wrong Paul regards as a universal human institute, operating so as to ‘bring the whole world under judgment before God’ (Ro 3:9–19); its action is manifested by the universal incidence of death: in this sense, and in the light of 2:12– 16, should be read the obscure parenthesis of Ro 5:13f., as stating that ‘law’ is concomitant with ‘sin’; the existence of sin, followed by death, in the generations between Adam and Moses proves that law was there all along, whether in a less or a more explicit form; the connexion of sin and death in humanity is, in fact, a fundamental legal principle (Ro 8:2).

(d) Having ‘died to law’ by renouncing the futile salvation it appeared to offer, the Apostle had learned to live to it again in a better way and under a nobler form, since he had begun to ‘live to God’ in Christ. St. Paul is at the farthest remove from Antinomianism; the charge made against him on this score was wholly mistaken. While no longer ‘under law,’ he is ‘not lawless toward God, but in law toward Christ’ (Ro 6:14f., 1 Co 9:21). The old ego, ‘the flesh with its passions and lusts,’ has been ‘crucified with Christ’ (Gal 2:20, 5:16–24). God’s law ceases to press on him as an external power counteracted by ‘the law of sin in the members’; the latter has been expelled by ‘the Spirit of God’s Son,’ which ‘forms Christ’ in him; the new, Christian man is ‘in law’ as he is ‘in Christ’—he sees the law now from the inside, in its unity and charm, and it constrains him with the inward force of ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus’ possessing his nature. He ‘serves’ indeed, but it is ‘in the new’ life wrought ‘of the Spirit, and not in the old’ servitude to ‘the letter’ (Ro 7:6). Constituting now ‘one new man,’ believers of every race and rank ‘through love serve one another,’ as the hand serves the eye or the head the feet; for them ‘the whole law is fulfilled in one word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Ro 13:8–10, 1

Co 12:13, 25f., Gal 5:13f., Eph 2:16–18). The Christian ‘fulfils the law of Christ,’ as the limb the law of the head. Thus St. Paul’s doctrine of the Law joins hands with that of Jesus (see 1 above). Thus also, in his system of thought, the law of God revealed in the OT, when received from Christ revised and spiritualized, and planted by ‘faith’ along with Him in the believer’s heart ( cf. Jer 31:31–34), becomes for the first time really valid and effective: ‘Do we nullify law through faith? God forbid; nay,’ he cries, ‘we establish law!’ (Ro 3:31).

(e) Neither Jesus nor Paul makes a formal distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law (see, however, Ro 9:4). St. Paul’s teaching bears mainly on the former: as a Pharisee he had no ritualistic bent, and his ambition was for ethical perfection. ‘Circumcision’ has lost in his eyes all religious value, and remains a mere national custom, now that it ceases to be the covenantsign and is replaced in this sense by baptism (1 Co 7:18ff., Gal 6:16, Col 2:11ff.). It becomes a snare to Gentiles when imposed on them as necessary to salvation, or even to advancement in the favour of God; for it binds them ‘to keep the whole law’ of Moses, and leads into the fatal path of ‘justification by law’ (Gal 2:2–5, 3:2ff., 5:3–6). St. Paul’s contention with the legalists of Jerusalem on this question was a life and death struggle, touching the very ‘truth of the gospel’ and ‘the freedom’ of the Church (Ac 15:1–11, Gal 2:1–10, 5:1). The same interests were threatened, more insidiously, by the subsequent attempt, countenanced by Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, to separate Jewish from Gentile Christians at table through the re-assertion of the Mosaic distinction of ‘meats’ which had been expressly discarded by Jesus. The assumption of a privileged legal status within the Church meant the surrender of the whole principle of salvation by faith and of Christian saintship (Gal 2:11–21, Ro 14:17f., 1 Co 8:8; cf. Mk 7:14–28). In some Churches Paul had to deal with the inculcation of Jewish ritual from another point of view. At Colossæ the dietary rules and sacred seasons of Mosaism were imposed on grounds of ascetic discipline, and of reverence towards angelic (scil. astral) powers; he pronounces them valueless in the former respect, and in the latter treasonous towards Christ, who supplies ‘the body’ of which those prescriptions were but a ‘shadow’ (Col 2:16–32).

3. Col 2:17 forms a link between the doctrine of St. Paul on the Law and the complementary teaching of the writer of Hebrews,—a Jew of very different temperament and antecedents from Saul of Tarsus. This author emphasizes the ceremonial, as Paul the moral, factors of the OT; the

Temple, not the synagogue, was for him the centre of Judaism. ‘The first covenant,’ he says, ‘had ordinances of divine service,’ providing for and guarding man’s approach to God in worship (He 9:1 etc.); for St. Paul, it consisted chiefly of ‘commandments expressed in ordinances’ (Eph 2:15), which prescribe the path of righteousness in daily life. ‘The law’ means for this great Christian thinker the institutions of the Israelite priesthood, sanctuary, sacrifices— all consummated in Christ and His ‘one offering,’ by which ‘he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (He 9:1–10:14). In his view, the law is superseded as the imperfect, provisional, and ineffective, by the perfect, permanent, and satisfying, as the shadowy outline by the full image of things Divine (7:18f., 8:1–4, 10:1–4); ‘the sanctuary of this world’ gives place to ‘heaven itself,’ revealed as the temple where the ‘great high priest’—Divine-human in person, sinless in nature, perfected in experience, and immeasurably superior to the Aaronic order (4:14ff., 7:26ff.,)—‘appears before the face of God for us,’ ‘having entered through the virtue of his own blood’ as our ‘surety’ and ‘the mediator of’ our ‘covenant,’ who has won for mankind ‘an eternal redemption’ (2:9, 7:22, 8:8, 9:24–28). Jesus thus ‘inaugurated a new and living way into the holy place’ (in contrast with the old and dead way of the law); as experience proves, He has ‘cleansed the conscience from dead works to serve the living God,’ while the law with its repeated animal sacrifices served to remind men of their sins rather than to remove them (7:25 , 9:14, 10:1–4). Equally with St. Paul, the auctor ad Hebrœos regards ‘remission of sins’ as the initial blessing of the Christian state, which had been unattainable ‘under law,’ and ‘the blood of Christ’ as the means of procuring this immense boon. In Paul’s interpretation, this offering ‘justifies’ the unrighteous ‘before God’ and restores them to the forfeited status of sonship; in the interpretation of Hebrews, it ‘cleanses’ worshippers and brings them ‘nigh to God’ within His sanctuary; on either view, the sacrifice of Calvary removes the harriers set up, by man’s sin ‘under the law,’ between humanity and God.

4. For St. James also the OT law was transformed. He conceives the change in a less radical fashion than Paul or the writer of Hebrews; James stands sturdily on the platform of the Sermon on the Mount. Re-cast by ‘the Lord of glory’ and charged with ‘the wisdom that cometh from above,’ the law is new and glorified in his eyes; like Paul, he knows it as ‘the law of Christ.’ All the disciples of Jesus were one in the place they gave to that which James calls ‘the sovereign law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (2:8–13; cf. 1 Co 13); deeds of pure brotherly love prove ‘faith’ alive and genuine; they make it ‘perfect,’ and guarantee the believer’s ‘justification’

(ch. 2). When he describes this law as ‘a perfect law, the law of liberty,’ James’ idea is substantially that of Paul in 1 Co 9:21 and Ro 8:2, 4, viz. that the law of God is no yoke compelling the Christian man from without, but a life actuating him from within; the believer ‘bends over it’ in contemplation, till he grows one with it (1:24; cf. 2 Co 3:18). ‘The tongue’ is the index of the heart, and St. James regards its control as a sure sign of perfection in lawkeeping (3:1–12). James treats of the law, not, like Paul, as it affects the sinner’s standing before God,—nor, like the author of Hebrews, as it regulates his approach in worship,—but as it governs the walk before God of the professed believer. His Epistle is, in effect, a comment on the last clause of Ro 8:4, ‘that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us.’

5. The word ‘law’ is entirely wanting in the Epistles of St. Peter and of St. John. 1 P 1:18, 19 , 2:24, 3:18 manifest the influence of Paul’s doctrine of salvation on the writer; while 1 Jn 1:7, 9 , indicates a leaning to the mode of representation characteristic of Hebrews, and 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:10 virtually sustain the doctrine of St. Paul on law, sin, and sacrifice.

G. G. FINDLAY.

LAWGIVER.—The word is found six times in the AV of the OT (Gn 49:10, Nu 21:18, Dt 33:21, Ps 60:7, 108:8, Is 33:22). The Heb. mĕchōqēq, which it translates, is from a root meaning to ‘cut’ or ‘engrave,’ and hence to ‘enact’ a law, afterwards to be engraved on the public archives. The Heb. word appears to have two meanings: (1) ‘ruler’; so in Dt 33:21, where RVm gives ‘ruler,’ and in Is 33:22, where the parallelism shows the meaning—‘Jehovah is our judge,

Jehovah is our lawgiver.’ (2) ‘Ruler’s staff’; so in Gn 49:10, where the word is parallel to ‘sceptre,’ and in Ps 60:7, 108:8, where the RV renders it ‘Judah is my sceptre.’

In the NT the word ‘lawgiver’ (Gr. nomothetēs) is found once only (Ja 4:12); there it is applied to God as ‘the lawgiver and judge,’ who is regarded as the Supreme Source of all law. Other passages (He 7:11, Ro 9:4) where kindred Gr. words are used, have a reference to the law of Moses, or, to be more exact, the law of Israel.

T. A. MOXON.

LAWYER.—This term in Scripture does not belong so much to the legal as to the religious sphere. The ‘lawyers’ busied themselves with the study and exposition of the Written and the Oral Law of Israel, and were practically identical with the scribes (wh. see).

LAYING ON OF HANDS.—This ceremony, of frequent occurrence in both OT and NT, is a piece of natural symbolism with the central idea that through physical contact the person performing it identifies himself with the other in the presence of God. In OT this is done with a view to the transference (a) of a Divine blessing (Gn 48:14ff.; cf. Nu 27:18, 23, Dt 34:9); (b) of a burden of guilt (Lv 1:4, 4:3f., 24, 16:21f. etc.). In NT, while it is variously employed, the general idea is always that of blessing.

1. The simplest case is when Jesus lays hands of blessing on the little children (Mt 19:13, 15 ||). The fact that the mothers desired Him to do so shows that this was a custom of the time and people. The narrative in Mt. shows further that, as used by Jesus, it was no magical form, but the symbolic expression of what was essentially an act of prayer (19:13).

2. In His deeds of healing Jesus constantly made use of this symbol (Mk 6:5, 8:23, Lk 4:40 ,

13:13; cf. Mt 9:18 ||, Mk 7:32)—an example which was followed by the Apostolic Church ( Ac 9:12, 17, 28:8). In these cases, however, besides its religious symbolism, the act may further have expressed the healer’s sympathy (cf. the hand laid even on the leper, Mk 1:41, Lk 5:13), or have been designed to bring a reinforcement to faith.

3. In the early Church the imposition of hands was used, sometimes in close association with the act of baptism (Ac 9:17, 18, 19:5, 6; cf. He 6:2, which, however, may include all the various kinds of laying on of hands), but sometimes quite apart from it (Ac 8:17, 19), as an accompaniment of prayer that believers might receive a special endowment of the Holy Ghost in charismatic forms. That this endowment does not mean the essential gift of spiritual life, but some kind of ‘manifestation’ (1 Co 12:7), is proved when Ac 9:17 (‘filled with the Holy Ghost’) is compared with Ac 2:4, and when 8:15, 17 is read in the light of the request of Simon Magus (v. 18ff.), and 19:2 in the light of 19:6. The case of Ananias and Saul (9:17) further proves that the laying on of hands for this purpose was not a peculiar Apostolic prerogative.

4. In four passages the laying on of hands is referred to in connexion with an act that corresponds to ordination (the word in its ecclesiastical sense does not occur in NT. ‘Ordained’ in Ac 14:23 should be ‘elected’ or ‘appointed’; see RV). The Seven, after being chosen by the multitude, were appointed to office by the Apostles, with prayer and the laying on of hands ( Ac 6:6). The ‘prophets and teachers’ of the Church at Antioch ‘separated’ Barnabas and Saul for their missionary work by laying their hands on them with fasting and prayer (13:3). Timothy received the ‘gracious gift’ which was in him with the laying on of the hands of a body of elders

(see art. PRESBYTERY), with which St. Paul himself was associated (cf. 1 Ti 4:14 with 2 Ti 1:6). Timothy’s ‘gracious gift’ probably means his special fitness to be St. Paul’s companion in the work of a missionary evangelist (see Hort, Chr. Ecclesia, p. 184 ff.).

5. Of the manner in which deacons and elders or bishops were set apart to office no information is given in NT. The injunction, ‘Lay hands suddenly on no man’ (1 Ti 5:22), has often been supposed to refer to the act of ordination; but the fact that the whole passage (vv. 19– 25) deals with offenders points rather to the imposition of hands in the restoration of the penitent (cf. 2 Co 2:6f., Gal 6:1), a custom that certainly prevailed in the early Church at a later time. The fact, however, that Jewish Rabbis employed this rite when a disciple was authorized to teach, favours the view that it was commonly practised in the Apostolic Church, as it was almost universally in the post-Apostolic, in consecration to ministerial office. But the silence of the NT at this point is against the supposition that the rite was regarded as an essential channel of ministerial grace, or anything more than the outward and appropriate symbol of an act of intercessory prayer (see Mt 19:13, Ac 6:6, 13:3, 28:8; and cf. Augustine, de Baptismo, iii. 16 , ‘What else is the laying on of hands than a prayer over one?’). See, further, art. BISHOP.

J. C. LAMBERT.

LAZARUS.—A common Jewish name, a colloquial abbreviation of Eleazar.

1. The brother of Martha and Mary, the friend of Jesus (Jn 11:3, 11, 36, where ‘love’ and ‘friend’ represent the same root in Greek). The family lived at Bethany, a village within two miles of Jerusalem just over the brow of Olivet. Lazarus was the subject of the greatest miracle of the Gospel story (Jn 11:1–44). In the last year of His ministry Jesus sojourned at Jerusalem from the Feast of Tabernacles in October to that of the Dedication in December; and, on being driven out by the violence of the rulers (Jn 10:31, 39), He retired to ‘Bethany beyond Jordan’ (10:40; cf. 1:28 RV). A crowd followed Him thither, and in the midst of His beneficent activities of teaching and healing tidings reached Him that His friend had fallen sick. He might have responded immediately to the sisters’ appeal either by hastening to their home and laying His hand on the sick man, or by sending forth His word of power and healing him across the intervening distance of some twenty miles (cf. Jn 4:46–54, Mt 15:21–28 = Mk 7:24–30). But He did neither; He remained where He was for two days, until Lazarus was dead. He desired not only to manifest His power to His friends, but to make a signal appeal to impenitent Jerusalem, by working a miracle which would attest His Messiahship beyond all question.

At length He set forth. If the messenger started in the morning, he would reach Jesus the same evening. Jesus stayed two days, and setting out early would arrive on the evening of the fourth day. Thus on His arrival Lazarus had been dead four days (v. 39). In that sultry climate burial followed immediately on death, and it sometimes happened that a swoon was mistaken for death, and the buried man came to life again. The Jewish belief was that the soul hovered about the sepulchre for three days, fain to re-animate its clay. On the fourth day decomposition set in, and hope was then abandoned. Jesus arrived on the fourth day, and there was no doubt of the reality of Lazarus’ death and of the ensuing miracle. It was not a recovery from a trance, but a veritable resurrection. He went to the rock-hewn sepulchre, and in presence of the sisters and a large company of mourners, including many of the rulers who had come from the adjacent capital to testify their esteem for the good Lazarus and their sympathy with Martha and Mary ( v. 19), summoned the dead man forth and restored him, alive and well, to his home. It was a startling miracle. It made a profound impression on the multitude, but it only exasperated the rulers. They convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and determined to put Jesus to death (vv. 47–

53).

He retired to Ephraim near the frontier of Samaria, and stayed there until the Passover drew near; then He set out for Jerusalem to keep the Feast and to die. Six days before it began ( Jn 12:1), He reached Bethany, and despite the Sanhedrin’s decree He received a great ovation. He was honoured with a banquet in the house of one of the leading men of the village, Simon, who had been a leper and had probably been healed by Jesus (Jn 12:2–11 = Mt 26:6–13 = Mk 14:3– 9). Lazarus was one of the company. The news of His arrival at Bethany reached Jerusalem, and next day the multitude thronged out and escorted Him in triumph into the city. It was the raising of Lazarus that excited their enthusiasm (Jn 12:3, 17, 18).

After this Lazarus appears no more in the Gospel story. Surely he of all men should have stood by Jesus at His trial and crucifixion; and the explanation of his absence is probably that he had been forced to flee. Observing the popular enthusiasm, the infuriated rulers had determined to put him also to death (Jn 12:10, 11). He would withdraw more for Jesus’ sake than for his own. His presence only increased the Master’s danger.

2. The beggar in our Lord’s parable (Lk 16:19–31).—This is the only instance where Jesus gives a name to a parabolic character, and there was an idea in early times that it was not a parable but a story from real life. A name was found also for the rich man—Ninevis or Phinees. He is often styled Dives, but this is merely Latin for ‘the Rich Man.’ In fact, however, Lazarus is less a name than a definition. It means ‘God has helped’; and Jesus calls the beggar Lazarus by way of indicating what commended him to God. He was not only poor but also diseased. It is, however, a mistaken notion that he was a leper (hence lazzeretto, lazar-house), for then he must have kept afar off and durst not have lain at the rich man’s gateway.

The parable is a drama with two scenes: (1) The conditions of the Rich Man and the Beggar here—the former with his mansion, his fine clothing, his sumptuous table; and the latter lying at his gateway, full of sores, with none to tend him, hungrily eyeing the feast, and glad of any scraps that were flung to him. (2) Their conditions hereafter—a striking reversal: Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, i.e. the place of honour (cf. Jn 13:23), at the heavenly feast; the Rich Man in Hades, thirsting for a drop of water.

The parable is clothed with Jewish imagery. ‘Hell’ in v. 23 is Hades, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, the unseen world, where, according to Jewish theology, all souls, good and bad alike, had their abode and received their due reward. It was an aggravation of the misery of the wicked that they had the felicity of the righteous continually in view (cf. Rev 14:10). A feast, with Abraham the father of the faithful presiding, was the Jewish ideal of the felicity of the Messianic Kingdom (cf. Mt 8:11). Jesus, ever anxious to appeal to His hearers, has clothed His parable with this familiar imagery.

The purpose of the parable is not to condemn riches and exalt poverty in the spirit of Ebionitic asceticism. It is an enlargement of the Lord’s admonition in v. 9: ‘Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles’ (RV). The merit of Lazarus was not that he was poor, but that he had found his help in God; the offence of the Rich Man was not that he was rich, but that he lived a self-indulgent and luxurious life, regardless of the misery around him. Had he made friends to himself of Lazarus and others like him by means of his mammon of unrighteousness, he would have had a place and a welcome among them when he entered the unseen world.

DAVID SMITH.

LEAD.—See MINING AND METALS.

LEAH.—The elder daughter of Laban, married to Jacob by stratagem (Gn 29:21ff.). Jacob’s love for her was less than for Rachel (v. 30); sometimes she is said to be hated (vv. 31, 33). She was the mother of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and a daughter Dinah (29:31–35, 30:18, 20, 21). She was buried in the cave of Machpelah before Jacob went to Egypt

(49:31). She is mentioned in Ru 4:11. Her name probably means ‘mistress,’ equivalent to Assyrian li’at (Haupt, GGN, 1883, p. 100, and others). This is preferable to the view that it means ‘wild cow,’ from the Arabic, chiefly because the correspondence in form of the words is more exact.

GEORGE R. BERRY.

LEASING.—A ‘leasing’ is a lie. Wyclif uses the word often. Thus Jn 8:44 ‘Whanne he spekith a lesinge, he spekitb of his owne thingis; for he is a lyiere, and fadir of it.’ The word occurs in AV in Ps 4:2, 5:6 and 2 Es 14:18.

LEATHER.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 5.

LEAVEN.—The leaven both of OT and of NT may be assumed to have always consisted of a piece of fermented dough from a previous baking. There is no clear trace, even in the Mishna, of other sorts of leaven, such as the lees of wine or those enumerated by Pliny (Hist. Nat. xviii. 26). In ordinary cases, in the preparation of the household bread, the lump of dough, above referred to, was either broken down into the water in the kneading trough (see BREAD) before the fresh flour was added, or it might be ‘hid’ in the latter and kneaded along with it, as in the parable, Mt 13:33. The bread made from dough thus prepared was ‘leavened bread’ (Ex 12:16 and oft.); cakes made from flour without the addition of leaven received the special name mazzoth, ‘unleavened cakes,’ which gave their name to’ the feast of unleavened cakes’ ( Ex 23:15 = etc, EV ‘unleavened bread’).

The prohibition of leavened bread during the continuance of this Feast, including the

Passover, is probably another illustration of conservatism in ritual, the nomadic ancestors of the Hebrews, like the Bedouin of the present day, having made their bread without leaven. The further exclusion of leaven from the offerings placed upon the altar of J″—although admitted when the bread was to be eaten by the priests (Lv 7:13, 23:17)—is to be explained, like the similar exclusion of honey, from the standpoint that fermentation implied a process of corruption in the dough. The antiquity of this prohibition is attested by its occurrence in the earliest legislation (Ex 34:35, 23:18). It does not seem to have been observed, however, in Amos’ day in the Northern Kingdom (see the Comm. on Am 4:5).

This antique view of leaven as (in Plutarch’s words) ‘itself the offspring of corruption, and corrupting the mass of dough with which it has been mixed,’ is reflected in the figurative use of ‘leaven’ in such passages as Mt 16:6 ||, and especially in the proverbial saying twice quoted by

St. Paul, ‘a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump’ (1 Co 5:8, Gal 5:9; cf. 1 Co 5:7f.). In Mt 13:33, however, it is the silent but all-pervading action of leaven in the mass of the dough that is the point of comparison.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

LEBANA (Neh 7:48) or LEBANAH (Ezr 2:45).—The head of a family of returning exiles; called in 1 Es 5:29 Labana.

LEBANON, now Jebel Lebnān, is mentioned more than 60 times in the OT. The name, from the root lābān (‘white’), was probably given on account of the mountain’s covering of snow. The snow of Lebanon is mentioned in Jer 18:14. Many passages refer to its beauty, particularly in relation to its cedars and other trees (see Ps 72:16, Ca 4:11, Hos 14:5, 7). From Lebanon was obtained wood for building the first (2 Ch 2:8) and the second (Ezr 3:7) Temple. Lebanon was famous for its fruitfulness (Ps 72:16) and its wine (Hos 14:7).

The term ‘Lebanon’ may be considered in most places as referring to the whole mountain mass, more correctly distinguished as Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon (Libanus and Antilibanus of Jth 1:7). The two ranges traverse N. Syria, running roughly parallel, from S.W. to N.E., and are separated by a deep valley—the biq‘ah of Jos 11:17, 12:7—known to-day as el-Buqa. The western range, Lebanon proper, is nearly 100 miles long, but the eastern, if Hermon is deducted as a separate entity, is only 65 miles long. The former range is divided from the mountains of Galilee by the deep chasm made by the Litāni river in its passage seawards. In the N. a somewhat similar gorge formed by the Nahr el-Kebīr, the ancient Eleutherus, divides it from the Jebel Nusairiyeh. The summits of the range rise in height from south to north. In the S. a few points attain to almost 7000 feet; in the centre, E. of Beyrout, Jebel Kuneiseh is 6960 feet, and Jebel Sannīn 8554 feet; further N., to the S.E. of Tripoli, is a great semicircular group of mountains, sometimes known as the ‘Cedar group,’ on account of the famous group of these trees in their midst, where the highest point, Jebel Mukhmal, reaches 10, 207 feet, and several other points are almost as lofty. Geologically the Lebanon is built of three main groups of strata. Lowest comes a thick layer of hard limestone, named—after its most characteristic fossil (Cidaris glandaria)— Glandaria limestone; above this are strata of Nubian sandstone, yellow and red in colour, and in places 1500 feet thick, overlaid and interlaced with strata of limestone containing fossil echinoderms and ammonites; and thirdly, above this group, and forming the bulk of the highest peaks, is another layer, many thousand feet thick in places, of a limestone containing countless fossils known as hippurites, radiolites, and such like. The sandstone strata are most important, for where they come to the surface is the richest soil and the most plentiful water, and here flourish most luxuriantly the pines which are such a characteristic feature of W. Lebanon scenery. A great contrast exists between the W. and E. slopes. The former are fertile and picturesque, while down their innumerable valleys course numberless mountain streams to feed the many rivers flowing seawards. The E. slopes are comparatively barren, and, except at one point, near Zahleh, there is no stream of importance. Of the Lebanon rivers besides the Nahr Litāni (Leontes) and the Nahr el-Kebīr (Eleutherus), the following may be enumerated from S. to N. as the more important: Nahr ez-Zaherani, Nahr el-‘Auwali (Bostrenus), Nahr Beirūt (Magoras), Nahr el-Kelb (Lycus), Nahr Ibrahīm (Adonis), and the Nahr Qadīsha or ‘holy river,’ near Tripoli.

The Lebanon is still fairly well wooded in a few places, though very scantily compared with ancient times, when Hiram, king of Tyre, supplied Solomon with ‘cedar trees, fir trees, and algum trees out of Lebanon’ (1 K 5:6, 2 Ch 2:8). In regard to cultivation there has been a very great improvement in recent years, and the terraced lower slopes of the mountain are now covered with mulberry, walnut, and olive trees as well as vines. Many of the views in the Lebanon are of most romantic beauty, and the climate of many parts is superb. Wild animals are certainly scarcer than in olden days. In the time of Tiglath-pileser 1. the elephant was hunted here, but it has long been extinct. Jackals, gazelles, hyænas, wolves, bears, and panthers (in order of commonness) are found and, inland from Sidon, the coney (Hyrax) abounds.

Politically the Lebanon rejoices in a freer and better government than any other part of Syria, as, since the massacres of 1860, a Christian governor, appointed with the approval of the European Powers, rules on behalf of the Sultan. The district, except in the N., is now extensively supplied with excellent carriage roads, and the range is crossed by the French railway from Beyrout to Damascus, the highest point traversed being 4880 feet above sea-level.

Between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon is the great hollow known to the Greeks as CœleSyria, and to-day called Buqa‘ el-‘Azīz. Considered geologically, this wide valley is a product of the same great ‘fault’ as produced the deep Jordan valley. It is now a great, fertile, but little cultivated, plain, from 3 to 6 miles wide, and in its rise, not far from Baalbek, two famous rivers, the Litāni (Leontes), which flows S., and the Nahr el-Asi or Orontes, which flows N., and enters the sea near Antioch. This hollow plain, besides being crossed transversely by the Damascus railway and road, is traversed over more than half its length by the new line past Baalbek, Homs, and Hamath to Aleppo Some part of this plain, ‘the valley of the Lebanon, would appear to have been conquered by the Israelites (Jos 11:17).

The Anti-Lebanon is to-day known as Jebel esh-Sherki or ‘the east mountain,’ the equivalent of ‘Lebanon towards the sun-rising’ of Jos 13:5. In Ca 7:4 it is referred to as ‘the tower of Lebanon that looketh towards Damascus.’ In Dt 1:7, 3:25, 11:24, Jos 1:4, 9:1, the Heb. ‘Lebanon’ is in the LXX tr. ‘Anti-Lebanon.’ Anti-Lebanon is somewhat arbitrarily divided from Hermon, which is structurally its S. extremity, by a, pass (along which the French diligence road runs), and especially by the Wady Barada. In the N. it terminates in the plain around Homs. Its highest point is Tāla’ at Mūsa (8755 feet), but several other peaks are almost as lofty. A valley, like the Buqa‘ in miniature, traverses the S. part of the range from N. to S., and in this rises the Nahr Yafūfeh, which empties its waters down the Wady Yafūfeh to join the Litāni; and the Nahr Barada, which, after rising in a beautiful pool at the S.W. extremity of this plain, runs down the Wady Barada to Damascus. The N. part of this range is very bare and wild.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LEBAOTH.—See BETH-BIRI.

LEBBÆUS.—See THADDÆUS.

LEB-KAMAI.—In Jer 51:1 is a phrase ‘in the midst of them which rise up against me’ (Heb. leb-qamai). This is generally recognized as being an example of the Kabbalistic rule of hermeneutics whereby a cipher word was obtained by taking the letters of the alphabet in the reverse order, the last for the first, the last but one for the second, and so on. By this process (known as Atbash), leb-qamai gives us Kasdim (the Chaldæans).

W. F. COBB.

LEBONAH.—A place near Shiloh on the way to Shechem (Jg 21:19). It is prob. the ruin Khan el-Lubban, about 3 miles W.N.W. of Seilūn ( Shiloh ).

LEOAH.—The ‘son’ of Er (1 Ch 4:21).

LEEKS,—The Heb. word chātsīr, which is elsewhere tr. ‘grass’ or ‘herb,’ is rendered ‘leeks’ in Nu 11:5, and in this passage, owing to the association with onions and garlic, the tr. is probably correct, leeks being the herb par excellence. The leek (Allium porrum) is much grown in Palestine, where it is a general favourite.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LEES.—The sediment which settled at the bottom of the wine-jars, composed of morsels of husks, stalks, etc.; in OT only in figures. See WINE AND STRONG DRINK, § 3.

LEG.—1. kĕrā‘ ayim, a fem. dual, in which form alone it appears (Ex 12:9 etc.). It denotes the legs from knee to ankle (Gesenius). 2. regel (1 S 17:6), lit. ‘foot.’ 3. shōq, the leg, apparently including the thigh, for which it stands in Ex 29:22, 27, Lv 7:32, 33, 34, 8:25f., 9:21, 10:14f., Nu 6:20, 18:18, 1 S 9:24, in all of which AV tr. ‘shoulder,’ but RV, correctly, ‘thigh.’ In Ps 147:10 shōqē hā-īsh may mean ‘foot-soldiers.’ The proverbial phrase ‘hip and thigh,’ is literally ‘leg upon thigh’ (Jg 15:3), descriptive of the confusion of severed limbs. 4, shōbel (Is 47:2) means ‘train’ (RV, correctly, ‘strip off the train’). 5. skelos (Jn 19:31ff.). To hasten the death of the crucified, it was customary to break their legs.

W. EWING.

LEGION.—This term, which means literally ‘a gathering,’ looks back to the early days of the Roman citizen army. In the time of the Empire it indicated a force of about 6000 infantry, together with complements of other arms. The infantry proper were divided into ten cohorts ( the word is tr. ‘band’ [wh. see] in Mt 27:27, Mk 15:16, Jn 18:3, 12, Ac 10:1, 21:31, 27:1), each containing about 600 men, and each commanded on occasion by a military tribune. Of these tribunes there were six to a legion. A cohort was itself subdivided into ten centuries, each commanded by a centurion. It is not necessary to remember all these facts in studying the NT use of the word ‘legion’ (Mt 26:53, Mk 5:9, 15, Lk 8:30). What chiefly impressed Semites was apparently the size of the legion, and ‘legion’ appears to have become a proverb among them for a large number of persons in orderly combination.

A. SOUTER.

LEHABIM, occurring only in Gn 10:18 (= 1 Ch 1:11), are descendants of Mizraim, the Egyptian eponym. The general opinion is that they are the same as the Lubim (wh. see), whether the word is an alternative traditional pronunciation of the name of this people, or whether, as is more probable, the form here given is due to textual corruption. The fact that Lubim or Libyans is a fairly common word, and that it is not found in the ethnological list of Gn 10, where it would naturally appear in the place of Lehabim, adds something to the evidence of identity. Perhaps Ludim (wh. see) in the same verse is another variant.

J. F. M’CURDT.

LEHI (‘jawbone’).—The scene of Samson’s well-known adventure with the jawbone of an ass (Jg 15:9, 14, 18). The site has been placed in Judah, between the Cliff of Etam and the country of the Philistines.

LEMUEL.—The name of a king, otherwise unknown, to whom Pr 31:1–9 is addressed by his mother. His identity has been much discussed; he has been identified (by the Rabbinical commentators) with Solomon, (by Grotius) with Hezekiah. Cf. also Massa. It is possible that the name is a fanciful title to represent any virtuous king, invented for the purpose of conveying certain maxims.

T. A. MOXON.

LENDING.—See DEBT.

LENTILS (‘ådāshīm. Gn 25:34, 2 S 17:28, 23:11, Ezk 4:9).—These are without doubt the

Arab, ‘adas—a kind of small reddish bean, the product of Ervum lens, a small leguminous plant 6 or 8 inches high, much cultivated in Palestine, and ripening in June or July. It is the bean from which the well-known revalenta, a food for invalids, is made. In Palestine a kind of ‘pottage’ known as mujedderah, universally popular, is made from it. It is of a reddish-brown colour, and is certainly the original ‘red pottage’ of Esau (Gn 25:30).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LEOPARD (nāmēr).—This animal (Felis pardus, Arab. nimr) is still found at times in the wilder parts of Palestine. Its beautiful spotted skin (Jer 5:6) is from time to time brought into the towns for sale. Some dervishes clothe themselves in a leopard’s skin. Its fierceness (Hos 13:7) , its agility (Hab 1:8), and untamableness (Is 11:6) are all mentioned. The name Nimr is a favourite one with the Arabs, who admire these qualities. In the names ‘waters of Nimrīm’ (‘leopards,’ Is 15:6, Jer 48:34) and ‘Beth-nimrah’ (‘f. leopard,’ Nu 32:3–36) references to the leopard also occur; cf. the ‘mountains of nĕmērīm (i.e. ‘the leopards,’ Ca 4:8). The cheetah (Felix jubata) is found also in Galilee, and it too may have been included under the Heb. word nāmēr. E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LEPROSY.—This term, as used in Scripture, seems to include not only true leprosy (elephantiasis)—probably the disease of Job—but also such skin diseases as psoriasis, ringworm, and vitiligo. For the priestly regulations as to the diagnosis of the disease and the treatment of lepers, see art. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, § 5. The ‘leprosy’ in garments (Lv 13:47 ff. ) seems to be an effect of fungus or mildew, while that in houses (14:34ff.) is probably dry-rot.

LESHEM.—A form, occurring only in Jos 19:47bis, of the name Laish (see DAN).

LESSAU.—A village where an encounter took place between the Jews and Nicanor (2 Mac 14:16). The site is unknown, and the text is uncertain.

LET.—In Anglo-Saxon lætan meant ‘to permit’ and lettan, ‘to hinder.’ In course of time both words were spelled ‘let.’ Consequently in AV, besides its modern meaning of ‘permit,’ the vb. ‘let’ sometimes has the opposite meaning of ‘hinder.’ Thus 2 Th 2:7, ‘only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The other places are Ex 5:4, Nu 22:16m, Is 43:13, Wis 7:22, Ro 1:13.

LETHECH, LETHEK.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

LETTER.—See WRITING.

LETUSHIM.—One of the Dedanite tribes in N. Arabia (Gn 25:3), the others being Leummim and Asshurim (wh. see). In this verse LXX adds two other tribes; but in the parallel passage, 1 Ch 1:32, the sons of Dedan are omitted altogether both in MT and in most MSS of LXX. None of the three tribes has been identified.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

LEUMMIM.—A tribe of the Dedanites (Gn 25:3). Cf. LETUSHIM.

LEVI.—1. The third son of Jacob by Leah (Gn 29:34 [J]). The genealogical story connects the name with the verb lāwāh, ‘to be joined,’ and P (Nu 18:2, 4) playa upon the same word, saying to Aaron: ‘Bring the tribe of Levi … that it may be joined (yillāwū) unto thee.’ Many modern scholars hold to this improbable etymology of the name—improbable, among other reasons, because, unlike other tribal names, it is not nominal, but adjectival. It is said to signify ‘the one who attaches himself.’ Accordingly ‘the Levites are those who attached themselves to the Semites who migrated back from the Delta, therefore, Egyptians’ (Lagarde, Or. ii. 20, Mitt. i. 54). Others say ‘those who were attached to the ark’ as priestly attendants. Still others make it a gentilic noun, and connect it with the South-Arabian lavi’u, (f. lavi’at), ‘priest.’ Against this is the primitive use of ‘Levite’ as one of the tribe of Levi. The word is probably a gentilic from Leah (‘wild-cow’) as Wellh. (Proleg. 146) suggests, and as Stade (GVI 152) asserts. If this be correct, and it has the greater probability in its favour, it points to early totem worship.

In the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:5–7) we have one of the most important passages bearing upon the early history of this tribe and that of Simeon:

’Simeon and Levi are brethren;

Weapons of violence are their swords.

Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce;

And their wrath, for it was cruel;

I will divide them in Jacob,

And scatter them in Israel.’

From this passage it is abundantly evident that Levi was, like all the other Israelitish tribes, a purely secular organization. Simeon and Levi are both set forth as bloodthirsty characters, and there is not the slightest hint of Levi being a priestly caste. The treacherous act referred to, which was so serious a violation of tribal morals that it cost them the sympathy of the other tribes, is probably recorded in Gn 34 in two different versions, the oldest of which is J’a. The other now interwoven with it is probably P’s enlargement of the original. According to the story, Shechem, the son of Hamor, became enamoured of Dinah, the sister of Simeon and Levi, and seduced her. He made an honourable arrangement to marry the girl and to discharge whatever obligations her family might impose upon him. Simeon and Levi took advantage of the Shechemites’ disability and slew them. Like other stories, though related in personal form, it is tribal in intention. It portrays early relations between the Israelites and the original inhabitants. The love of the Shechemite for the daughter of Jacob points to some sort of an alliance in which the right of connubium was acknowledged, and the act of Simeon and Levi was, therefore, a barbarous repudiation of the rights of their native allies. From Jg 9 it is clear that the sons of Hamor repossessed themselves of the city, the other tribes having withheld their assistance, probably more from fear of Canaanite revenge than from any overwhelming moral detestation of the act. The result was fatal for the future of the tribes, at first more particularly for Levi, but later also for Simeon. So complete were the disastrous consequences to Levi at this time that the tribal independence was lost, and the members became absorbed by the other tribes, especially by Judah. There is no mention of Levi and Simeon in Jg 5.

Some early connexion with Moses may have aided them in finding recognition about the sanctuaries in the early days. Then the altar did not call for a consecrated servitor; but, as we see in the case of Micah, who had a private sanctuary in Ephraim, there existed apparently a preference for a Levite (Jg 17). It is not absolutely clear from the reference here that ‘Levite’ is equal to ‘priest,’ as is commonly held. This would imply that by this time all Levites were priests. ‘Filling up of the hand’ (translated ‘consecrated’ in vv. 6, 12) may refer to a ceremony of induction into the priestly office, the principal act of which was the solemn placing of the god (or other religious symbol) in the hands of the future officiant at the shrine. It is the phrase used by the Assyrian kings when they speak of the gods bestowing upon them the kingship. It is the phrase which became the terminus technicus for consecration to the priesthood, and there is no reason for giving a different meaning to it here. In Jg 3–16 there is no mention of a priest. For the altar-service alone priests were not necessary, as we see in the case of Gideon and Manoah. The fact that the word ‘levite’ became synonymous with ‘priest’ indicates that the priesthood drew heavily from the tribe. It is not the only time that worldly misfortune has contributed to religion. See also PRIESTS AND LEVITES, TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

2. See MATTHEW. 3. 4. Two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3:24, 29).

JAMES A. CRAIG.

LEVIATHAN.—In four of the five passages where this word appears, the LXX have dragon, and their belief that a creature of serpentine form was meant is coo-firmed by the derivation of Heb. lavāh, which signifies ‘to twist or wind.’ The leviathan of Job 41:1–34 is the crocodile, with added traits drawn from the ancient Creation myths. On the assumption that Ps 74:2–17 refers to the Exodus, we should again find the crocodile in v. 14. But it is at least equally probable that the allusion is to the creation of the world (vv. 16, 17), and to the mythological sea-monsters then vanquished. Leviathan here has several heads; the great serpent of Babylonian tradition had seven. Is 27:1 distinguishes between two leviathans, the flying serpent, and the crooked or coiled serpent—symbols of two heathen kingdoms. The identification of the kingdoms depends on the date of the prophecy: Assyria and Babylon, Persia and Greece, Syria and Parthia, are rival suggestions. The species of sea-monster pointed to in Ps 104:26 is left indefinite. The leviathan (RV; AV ‘their mourning’) aroused by magicians ( Job 3:8) is most likely a denizen of the abyss which threatens the world with destruction. Many, however, take him to be the mythical sky-dragon which was supposed to cause eclipses. It will be noted that there is a close connexion between leviathan and the watery world. Robertson Smith held that it is a personification of the water-spout (RS², p. 176). The Apocalyptic and

Rabbinical writers gave full scope to their fancy in dealing with this theme. Leviathan and Behemoth were created on the fifth day, and the depths of the sea were assigned to the former as his abode; during the last quarter of each day God plays with him (as the LXX and some recent expositors interpret Ps 104:26); the Jordan empties itself into his mouth; his flesh will be for food to the godly in the days of the Messiah; part of his skin will be made into a tent for them, whilst the rest is spread on the walls of Jerusalem, and its brightness is visible to the ends of the earth (En 60.7ff., 2 Es 6:40, Apoc. Bar 29:4; Aboda zara, 3b; Baba bathra, 74b; Targ. on Nu 11:26f.).

Cf. art. BEHEMOTH.

J. TAYLOR.

LEVIRATE LAW.—See MARRIAGE, § 4.

LEVIS.—Wrongly taken in 1 Es 9:14 as a proper name; in Ezr 10:15 ‘Shabbethai the Levite’ stands in place of ‘Levis and Sabbateus.’

LEVITES.—See LEVI, AND PRIESTS AND LEVITES.

LEVITICAL CITIES.—See PRIESTS AND LEVITES, § D.

LEVITICUS

1. Scope.—The book has received its title from the name ‘the Levitical book,’ which was prefixed to it in the LXX. Since, however, the special functions of the Levites are not referred to, the scope of the book is better brought out in the title ‘Law of the Priests,’ which is given to it in the Talmud. As such, Leviticus practically confines itself to legislation, and, except in the section chs. 17–26, to priestly legislation. Even the few passages, such as chs. 8 and 10, which are cast in the form of narrative, do not aim at describing what once happened, but use this form in order to prescribe what is to continue. The JE narrative, which was a history, does not appear to have been drawn upon; and Leviticus, unlike Exodus and Numbers, offers no exact dates of month and year. The book does not give a history of Israel’s past, but chiefly embodies some of the rules of the one living institution which persisted in Israel from its formation as a nation to the destruction of the Temple. Since, however, this institution was moulded to meet the nation’s changing circumstances, the praxis which regulated its services required and received constant modification. Some of these changes can be traced in Leviticus; but it is impossible to detail them in a brief sketch like the present. Readers who wish more details on the ritual can find them and their justification in the art. in Hastings’ DB, or in Driver’s LOT.

2. Sources—The general editor is the same as the editor who arranged Exodus in its present form, though a little has been added by later hands. (1) He took from P that history of the sacred institutions which appeared in Ex 25–29 (see EXODUS): chs. 8, 9, with 10:12–15 ( which supplements 9:21), 10:1–7 (:16–20) 16:2–4, 6, 12f., 24:1–4, 5–9, These sections are not all of the same period.

Thus ch. 8, which relates the anointing of the priests, is the fulfilment of Ex 29 and 40:12–15. It formed part of that expansion of Ex 25–29 which now occupies Ex 35–40, and to which also belong 24:1–4 on the Tabernacle lamps, vv. 5–9 on the shewbread—sections which in some inexplicable way have strayed into their present incongruous position. Ch. 9 with 10:12–15, which recounts the sacrifices at the inauguration of the Tabernacle, originally formed the sequel of Ex 25–29, and was followed by 10:1– 7 (the story of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire), and was closed by 16:2–4, 6, 12f. (the rule as to the time and way for Aaron to approach the Holy Place which had thus vindicated its awful sanctity). 10:16–20 (on the goat of the sin-offering) is a later addition, and gives an interesting illustration of the way in which it was sought to reconcile differences in the older laws (cf. it with 9:15 and 6:24–30).

(2) Chs. 1–6.—Into this framework the editor has fitted laws from other sources. Thus he seems to have separated ch. 8 from its natural position after Ex 40, because he counted it suitable, after the Tabernacle was set up and before the priests were anointed or the Tabernacle inaugurated, to insert the laws prescribing the sacrifices which the priests when anointed were to offer in the Tabernacle.

This law-book has its own history, and in particular once existed in two sections. Thus 6:8–7:21, with its subscription 7:37f., was originally a code addressed to the priests, dealing with matters ancillary to the sacrifices, and especially concerned with the priestly dues. Because of this esoteric character of the little code, 6:20–23 (on the priests’ meal-offering) was inserted. With the exception of that section, each of the regulations is introduced by the formula ‘this is the law of’; and this formula appears in the subscription.

It represents the early rules on this subject.

Again, 1:1–6:7 is a book addressed to the people, defining their sacrifices, but it has received large modification. From a comparison of 1:2f. with 3:1 it is evident that ch. 3 (the law of the peace-offering) once followed immediately on ch. 1 (the burnt-offering). These are probably very old. The different formulæ used in ch. 2 (3rd person in vv. 1–3, 2nd person in v. 4ff.) and its intrusive position prove that the law of the meal-offering has been developed. A comparison between the law of the sin-offering in ch. 4 and similar laws elsewhere proves how largely this part of the ritual has been elaborated. Thus the sinoffering for the congregation is a bullock in v. 14 instead of the goat of 9:15 and Nu 15:24; and the high priest’s sin-offering (vv. 3–12) is more elaborate than that in 9:8–11 and Ex 29:10–14, 5:1–13 ( examples of unintentional sins which require a sin-offering, and mitigations for the case of those who cannot afford a lamb or a goat) has suffered change, since vv. 2, 3 evidently break the connexion between v. 1 and v. 4. It is, however, older than ch. 4, though the relation is specially difficult to define. 5:15–6:7 defines the cases which require a guilt-offering, and makes it clear that originally this sacrifice was a composition for fraud practised upon God (5:15ff.) or man (6:1–7). When he united these codes on the sacrifices, the editor added a rule (7:22–27) forbidding fat and blood more expressively than 3:17, and a rule (7:28–34) giving heave leg and wave breast to the priest, and a subscription (v. 35f.).

(3) Chs. 11–15.—The priests, however, had other functions in the life of the people besides those immediately connected with the sacrifices. It was their business to determine on all questions connected with uncleanness. As soon, therefore, as the editor had described the inauguration of the Tabernacle and the priesthood, he grouped together a series of regulations bearing on this side of the priestly duties.

Chs. 11–15 deal with this more civil yet priestly function. The rules in ch. 11 on clean and unclean animals (vv. 2–23, 41–45, with their subscription v. 46f.) appear in a more primitive form in Dt 14:4–20 , and have probably been taken from the Law of Holiness (see below). The law of defilement from touching unclean animals and all carcases (vv. 24–40), which prescribes also the purification required in case of neglect of the regulations, is ignored in the subscription v. 46f. and must be an insertion. Chs. 12 , 15 prescribe the forms of purification after childbirth and after certain physical secretions. In their basis these rules are very old, but the careful detail of derivative uncleanness (cf. esp. 15:1–12, 19–27) shows where a slow elaboration has been at work. Chs. 13, 14 contain a series of directions for the diagnosis of leprosy in human beings, clothing, leather, and houses, and for the method of purification. The primitive character of the prescribed purification (14:2–8), along with the fact that this can be carried out apart from the Temple, proves the early origin of the rules. The gravity of the task thus imposed on the priest and the serious issues involved make it even probable that the directions were not left to the discretion of individuals, but were early committed to writing.

(4) In ch. 16 the sacrificial ritual culminates in the Day of Atonement. This embodies very old elements (see AZAZEL), but has been so altered that its original character is no longer to be distinguished. The chapter in its present form contains two parts. The historical introduction ( vv. 1–4, 6, 12f., once connected with ch. 10) prescribes how and when the high priest may approach the Holy Place. The ritual of the Day of Atonement (vv. 5, 7–10, 15–34) was united with this, because it defines the purpose for which the high priest made his annual entry. The place given to this ritual after chs. 11–15 is appropriate, because in its sacrifices priest and people united to make atonement for the sanctuary and holy things, and purge them from the pollution contracted through the forms of uncleanness specified in these chapters.

(5) LAW OF HOLINESS OR H.—Chs. 17–26 form an independent body of laws, which have had their own history, and which, after receiving something of their peculiar form from an earlier collector, have been incorporated, after considerable modifications by the general editor, into the greater law-book. That these were once independent is proved by: (a) the long hortatory conclusion in ch. 26 and the opening instructions as to the place of sacrifice; (b) the presence in them of matters which have already been dealt with (cf., e.g., 17:10–14 with 7:26f., 19:6–8 with 7:15–18, 20:25 with ch. 11); (c) the fact that the laws have a much wider scope than those of chs. 1–16. But this early code has not survived in its integrity, for (i.) certain subjects are broken off before completion (19:5–8, 20:25); and (ii.) the arrangement of subjects shows a considerable confusion (cf. 19:5–8, 20–22, 20:27).

Ch. 17 prescribes that all animals suitable for sacrifice must be slain at the sanctuary, that such animals, when sacrificed, must be offered to Jahweh alone, that blood and the flesh of carcases must not be eaten. If vv. 1–6 were ever in force while the Israelites inhabited Palestine, the order requiring every goat, sheep, or ox which was slaughtered to be brought to the Jerusalem Temple practically made it illegal to kill these animals. P, which required all sacrifices to be brought to the Jerusalem Temple as the only sanctuary, permitted all animals to be freely slaughtered, but forbade the eating of fat and blood. Probably the code, in its early form, recognized the local sanctuaries, and required the slaughter of animals suitable for sacrifice to take place before the Lord, i.e. at ooe of these accessible shrines. The change is due to the desire to discredit these shrines.

Ch. 18 is a series of laws on incest (and Molech-worship), with admonitory introduction and conclusion. Ch. 19 contains a group of miscellaneous laws, with introduction and conclusion. These laws, which are curt and direct, give an interesting view of the morals of early Israel, and should be compared and contrasted with the relative sections in Ex 20–23, Dt 22–25. Ch. 20, which is different in character from the preceding chapters, prescribes in general penalties for certain offences already specified. In it vv. 10–21 (with the penalties for incest) may be the conclusion of ch. 18. The fact, however, that it is followed by a conclusion (vv. 22–24), while ch. 18 is provided with its own, has led some to count the two sections independent. Again, vv. 25f. show where laws corresponding with ch. 11, if not that collection itself, originally stood in H; vv. 2–6 (against Molech-worship), vv. 6, 2 (against traffic with familiar spirits), v. 9 (against cursing father or mother) may have been brought together here, because, like most of the laws in vv. 10–21, they prescribe the death-penalty.

Chs. 21, 22 deal with priests and offerings. They state the ceremonial restraints required of the priests in their domestic life (21:1–15), demand bodily perfection in every officiating priest (vv. 16–24), ordain that sacrificial food may be eaten only by those who are ceremonially clean and who can claim membership in a priestly family (22:1–16), and require the sacrificial animals to be perfect (vv. 17–25). Three minor regulations as to the sacrifices (vv. 26–30) are followed by an exhortation (vv. 31–33). Not only the recurrent formula, ‘I am the Lord,’ but the insistence on a ceremonial holiness, which characterizes the early code, proves that the basis of these chapters is old. The material has been largely revised by P, but the elaborate analysis cannot be entered into here.

Ch. 23 is a calendar of the sacred seasons, which has necessarily received much change. In general, it may be said that vv. 8–20, 22, 39b, 40–43, though not left without minor modifications, belong to the early code. Here the festivals still represent the religious life of a people which is settled on the land and engaged in agriculture. No more precise date than, e.g., “when ye reap the harvest of your land,’ is laid down for a festival, because no other was practicable. The people celebrated the harvest when the harvest was gathered. The other sections (vv. 1–8, 21, 23–38, 39ac, 44) give rigid dates and betray the change which became necessary, as soon as many of the worshippers were no longer agriculturists and were scattered beyond the limits of Palestine. The definite dates prescribed by a centralized priesthood became a necessity of the national and religious life. These later sections come from P.

Ch. 24 (on vv. 1–9 see above) deals with blasphemy (v. 15f.) and injuries to men and cattle (vv. 17– 22). These early sections closely resemble ch. 20, and may once have stood in closer connexion with it. The penalty pronounced on blasphemy was specially interesting to P, and was illustrated by an incident taken from the desert-wanderings (vv. 10–14, 23; cf. Nu 15:32–35).

Ch. 25 contains the rules for the Sabbatical year (vv. 1–7, 20–22) and those for the year of Jubilee (vv. 8–19, 23–55). The section, vv. 20–22, has been separated from its original context in order to make the regulations contained in it apply to the Jubilee as well as the Sabbatical year. The analysis of the chapter is very uncertain. H seems to have contained the rule as to the Sabbatical year (cf. vv. 1–7 with Ex 23:10f. and note the prominent interest in agriculture). In connexion with the Jubilee, it ordered that land must not be alienated absolutely, but must revert to its original owners at the Jubilee (vv. 13–15). It also provided for the relief of an impoverished Israelite by ordering: (a) that his land might be redeemed by a kinsman (v. 25); (b) that usury was not to be exacted from him (vv. 35–38); (c) that, when he was in bondage, he must be treated humanely (vv. 39, 40a, 43, 47, 53, 55). P took over this early law with a number of modifications, added fresh regulations as to the redemption of land (vv. 9b, 10b–12, 23, 25– 34), and especially extended the benefits of the Jubilee from land to persons (vv. 40b–42, 44–45, 48–52 , 54). A comparison of vv. 40–42 with Dt 15:12–18 suggests that in the course of time the latter rule had proved impracticable, and that this relaxation was designed to take its place.

Ch. 26, after two fragments, of which v. 1 is parallel to 19:4, and v. 2 identical with 19:30, contains the hortatory conclusion (vv. 3–45), which the collector of H appended to his law-book. It closes with the subscription (v. 46), which the editor of Leviticus added when he inserted the collection in is present position. The resemblances between vv. 3–45 and the Book of Ezekiel are too numerous to be catalogued here, but they deserve special attention.

As H is evidently incomplete and its character is strongly marked, efforts have been made to detect fragments of its legislation in other parts of the Pentateuch. In particular, Ex 31:13, 14 a, LV 11:1–23, 41–47, Nu 15:37–41 have been asigned to it. It is necessary, however, to remember that undue stress should not be laid on the appearance of such characteristic formulæ as ‘I am the Lord,’ ‘I am the Lord which sanctify you,’ since, when once some laws had been countersigned by these formulæ, it was natural to introduce them into others. Even in the case of Lv 11:1–23 , all that can be said is that similar legislation must have been in H; it is unwise to suppose that this section belonged to H, for laws of this type must have appeared in several of the codes, and in the nature of the case the language used could not greatly vary.

The law-book which is obtained after the excision of the later elements is a valuable survival of one of the codes which represented and guided the life of early Israel under the monarchy. To estimate it, both in its uniqueness and in its common characteristics, it is useful briefly to compare H with the other codes which have come down. Thus it agrees with Deut. and the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20–23) in the prominence given to the social as well as to the ceremonial life of the people, and in the recognition that this life is still largely an agricultural life. Its closer affinity to the Book of the Covenant is found in the concise formulæ into which its laws are cast, as though they were meant for direct popular use, and in the fact that these laws are addressed to the people, not to the priest. It resembles Deut. very closely in forbidding certain forms of idolatry and semi-heathen practices which were common in Palestine. The two codes are penetrated throughout by the sense that what gives Israel its distinctive character is its religion, though they express this in different ways—H dogmatically forbidding (‘for I am the Lord’), Deut. developing the reason why some things are forbidden. On the other hand, Dent. betrays the existence of a more complex and developed social life than H, though the basis for both is still the land. Thus H leaves the great festivals connected with the agricultural life, while Deut. seeks to add historical motives to them, and thus prepares for the time when the people, even though torn from the land, can find a bond of national and religious life in these festivals. Again, to H the centralized priesthood and developed ritual of Deut. are unknown: it ignores the central sanctuary and the Levites. The chief distinction between H and the Book of the Covenant is that H is more detailed and shows a larger interest in the ceremonial side of Israel’s life. The latter point must not, however, be pressed too far, since H has not survived in its entirety, and, having passed through the hands of a Priestly editor, may have retained more particularly those sections which interested him, and which therefore may have been made to appear relatively more conspicuous.

Further, when compared with P, H does not conceive of Israel as grouped round the sanctuary, but regards the local sanctuaries as forming an element in the popular life. It knows nothing of the centralized and hierarchical priesthood, and the priesthood it knows is one side of a larger life, not its controlling factor. Its sacrifices are the older and simpler burnt-offering and thank-offering, without the development of guilt- and sin-offerings. Though 6:2–7 be taken to represent the early sin-offering required by this code, its place is very secondary compared with P. The laws of H are generally cast into concise formulæ to meet practical needs. They are backed continually by religion, but the religion supplies a sanction and a command rather than a reason and a motive. The book is specially conscious of Israel’s religion as one which requires separation from all heathen pollution. Holiness is separateness, ‘for I Jahweh sanctify you.’ The period at which the laws were compiled is still debated, but the affinity between H and Ezekiel is so close that a direct connexion must be presumed. This affinity does not consist in common phrases, nor can it be measured by identity of language; it shows itself in the common point of view which justified Ezekiel in borrowing phrases, because no others could be found which were so adequate to embody his meaning. To both holiness is the stamp of Israel’s religion, and this holiness is largely construed as absence of ceremonial pollution—a pollution which includes more than ethical elements. The law-book probably arose at some sanctuary other than

Jerusalem, and expressed and determined the religious life which centred there. As such, it offers a welcome and pleasant sketch of pre-exilic Israelitish life. It probably owed its survival through the Exile, in spite of the superior influence of Deut., to the fact that it deeply influenced the thought of Ezekiel. The priest-prophet preserved a book to which he owed so much; and it is not impossible that certain features in the conclusion (26:4–46) which have seemed to several to point to the Exile, may be due to Ezekiel himself or to a member of his school.

Ch. 27 contains rules on the commutation of vows and tithes. It belongs to P, and owes its present position to the fact that it presupposes the year of Jubilee (ch. 25).

A. C. WELCH.

LEWD.—In the AV ‘lewd’ does not always mean ‘lustful,’ as it does now. That meaning, indeed, is not found in the Apocr. or NT. There the meaning is simply ‘wicked,’ as Ac 17:5

‘certain lewd fellows of the baser sort.’ So ‘lewdness’ is usually simply ‘wickedness.’ LIBANUS.—The (Greek) form of the (Heb.) name Lebanon (wh. see), 1 Es 4:48, 5:65, 2 Es 15:20, Jth 1:7, Sir 24:13, 50:12 [ all ].

LIBERTINES.—Ac 7:8 brings the Libertines forward as a group or synagogue amongst the Hellenistic Jews concerned in the prosecution of Stephen. There is no sufficient reason for emending the text. And, the text standing as it is, the conclusion at once follows that the men in question came from Rome. The ‘Libertines,’ or ‘Freedmen’ of Rome, were a considerable class. Among the vast bodies of slaves composing the imperial and aristocratic households, emancipation was a common occurrence. The Freedmen frequently held positions of great influence, and sometimes played a noble, oftener an ignoble, part. Amongst the Libertines were found many Jews, not a few of them being the descendants of the Jerusalemites, carried away by Pompey. Some of these latter, having bought their freedom and returned to the Holy City, would probably be men of more than average force and earnestness. Hence they were natural leaders in the opposition to Stephen’s destructive criticism of Jewish institutionalism.

HENRY S. NASH.

LIBERTY.—Moralists are accustomed to distinguish between formal freedom, or man’s natural power of choice, and real freedom, or power to act habitually in accordance with the true and good. Scripture has little to say on the mere power of choice, while everywhere recognizing this power as the condition of moral life, and sees real liberty only in the possession and exercise of wisdom, godliness, and virtue. Where there is ignorance and error, especially when this arises from moral causes (Ro 1:21, Eph 4:18, 1 Jn 2:11 etc.)—subjection to sinful lusts (Ro 7:14–23 , Eph 2:8, 1 P 1:14, 4:2, 3; cf. 2:16 etc.), fear and distrust of God (Ro 8:15, He 12:18–21 etc.), bondage to the letter of the law (Gal 4:24, 25)—there cannot be liberty. Sin, in its nature, is a state of servitude (Jn 8:34). Spiritual liberty is the introduction into the condition which is the opposite of this—into the knowledge and friendship of God, the consciousness of cleansing from guilt, deliverance from sin’s tyranny, the possession of a new life in the Spirit, etc. Even under the Law, saints could boast of a measure of liberty; God’s commandment was found by them to be exceeding broad (Ps 119:46, 96, cf. Ps 51:11, 12). But the gospel gives liberty in a degree, and with a completeness, unknown under the Law and unthought of in any other religion. It does this because it is the religion of reconciliation, of the Spirit, of sonship, of love. Jesus already teaches that His yoke is easy and His burden light; this because He inculcates meekness and lowliness of heart—a spirit like His own (Mt 11:29, 30). His religion is to St. James ‘the perfect law, the law of liberty’ (1:25). The instrument in freeing from bondage is ‘the truth’ (Jn 8:32); the agent is the Spirit of God. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there,’ of necessity, ‘is liberty’ (2 Co 3:17). As the result of the reception of the truth of the gospel, the believer knows himself justified and saved (Ro 6:7), knows God as Father, and is assured of His love (1 Jn 4:14–16); receives the spirit of adoption, in which is liberty (Ro 8:15, 16); experiences deliverance from the dominion of sin (6:17, 18, 7:25, 8:2); is set free from the yoke of outward observances (Gal 4:9, cf. 5:1 ‘with freedom did Christ set us free; stand fast, therefore,’ etc.); has victory over the world ( Gal 4:14, 1 Jn 5:4); lives in the power of the Spirit (Gal 5:16–18, 22–25); has release from fear of death (He 2:15), etc. On the freedom of man’s will, see PREDESTINATION, p. 749^a.

JAMES ORR.

LIBNAH.—1. An unidentified station in the desert wanderings (Nu 33:20). 2. A Canaanite city taken by Joshua after Makkedah and before Lachish (Jos 10:29 etc.), named between Arad and Adullam (12:16), and between Makkedah and Ether in the Shephēlah (15:42). It was given to the Levites (21:18, 1 Ch 6:67). Taking advantage of an Edomite revolt, it rose against Judah under Joram (2 K 8:22). It was besieged by Sennacherib (2 K 19:8 = Is 37:8). Hamutal, mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, was a native of Libnah (2 K 23:31, 24:18, Jer 52:1). The district is clearly indicated, but the site is still unknown. Conder (PEFSt, 1897, p. 69) suggests el-Benawy, 10 miles S.E. of Lachish (Tell el-Hesy).

W. EWING.

LIBNI.—The eldest son of Gershon, that is to say, the eponym of a principal family of Gershonite Levites, Ex 6:17, Nu 3:18, 1 Ch 6:17, 20. In 1 Ch 6:29 [Heb. 14], perhaps owing to some dislocation of the text, the name appears as that of the eponym of a family of Merarites. The patronymic Libnites occurs in Nu 3:21, 26:58. Cf. LADAN.

LIBRARY.—See WRITING, § 5.

LIBYA, LIBYANS.—See LUBIM.

LICE (kinnīm, Ex 8:16–18, Ps 105:31; cf. kēn, Is 51:6, see GNAT).—RVm suggests

‘sandflies or fleas’ instead of ‘lice.’ All the insects named are only too common in Palestine and Egypt. The three well-known varieties of pediculi or lice are perpetually prevalent among the dirty, and a plague of them would certainly be much more terrible than one of the harmless, though irritating ‘sand-fly’ (Simulium), and far more disgusting than one of the flea (Pulex). Cf. p. 733^b.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LIDEBIR.—See DEBIR, No. 3, and LO-DEBAR.

LIE, LYING

1. In the OT.—The simple lie, which is a deliberate suppression of the truth in conversation, was condemned by the Levitical code as contrary to the character of holiness demanded by, and becoming to, the people of Israel’s holy God (Lv 19:11f., cf. 6:2f.). Perjury, as an aggravation of the ordinary sin, was emphatically condemned, and stringently punished in the legislative enactments of Israel (Ex 23:1, Dt 19:16–20). There can be no doubt that the moral consciousness of the Hebrews was alive to the sinfulness of deceit (Pr 19:22, 21:28, 24:28, 25:18, 30:5, 6; cf. Is 58:11 AVm). The lying selfishness of Cain, and the reprehensible deception practised by

Abraham, are recorded by the historian in a tone which reveals his attitude towards such acts ( Gn 4:9, 20:2–16, 12:11–20; cf. 2 K 5:20–27 where Gehazi’s punishment is the reward of his thoughtless levity at a time of national gloom, as well as of his deceitful conduct and words). The moral reprobation of falsehood reaches its climax in the utterances of the prophets. According to these teachers, it is at the foundation of all human depravity (Hos 7:13, 12:1, Mic 6:11f.). Truth can be arrived at and spoken only by those who are in personal touch with the sacred Fountain of truth (cf. Is 6:5–8). Indeed, some of the most emphatic declarations as to the moral attributes of Jehovah are based on the belief that He is above all else the God of truth (Nu 23:19, 1 S 15:28 ; cf. Ps 89:35, Ezk 24:14, Mal 3:6f.; see 2 Ti 2:13, Tit 1:2). Hence the enormity of the guilt of those teachers who had not Jehovah as the source of their inspiration, though they might speak in His name, who pandered to the prevailing moral degeneracy (Jer 5:31, 6:13, 29:9, Ezk 13:6; cf. Wis 14:28ff. etc.), or who encouraged their hearers in idolatry with its debasing ritual (Jer 16:19 , Jon 2:8; cf. Ps 31:6).

A curious phenomenon in the OT is the bold speculation which sought to explain the authorship of the lying instruction by which Jehovah’s enemies were seduced to their own destruction. The fatuity of Ahab’s conduct, and its fatal consequences, are detailed in the light of this conception (1 K 22), while, with a still more unequivocal directness, Samuel is said to have been counselled by God to deceive Saul (1 S 16:1f.). In both instances the historian is evidently interpreting events by the ideas current in his day.

2. In the NT.—Falsehood is here traced back to its source in the principle of evil. Jesus attributes its origin to Satan (Jn 8:44; cf. Ac 5:3, Rev 12:9). Membership in the Christian body postulated a new creation ‘in righteousness and holiness of truth’ (Eph 4:24f.) and forbade one member to lie to another (Col 3:9).

The denial of the Messiahship of Jesus is characterized by the Johannine author as a lie (1 Jn 2:22), while the same writer makes self-deceit the cause of that Pharisaic complacency which he so unsparingly condemns (1 Jn 1:8ff.). The Pauline representation of paganism bases its degrading moral Influence on the fact that it is founded essentially on a lie (Ro 1:22).

The awful fate which awaits ‘all liars’ (Rev 21:8) is the outcome and direct development of the OT judgment of this sin, for it fundamentally estranges the guilty from Him whose ‘word is truth’ (Jn 17:17; cf. Rev 21:27, 22:16, and see Ps 51:6, 24:4, 119:160). Cf. also TRUTH.

J. R. WILLIS.

LIEUTENANT.—See SATRAP.

LIFE

I. IN THE OT

The term ‘life’ in EV is used, with a few unimportant exceptions, as the equivalent of one or other of two Heb. expressions: (1) chai, or mostly in plur. chayyim; (2) nephesh. The LXX makes a general distinction between these two, by usually rendering the former as zōē and the latter as psychē. The former term occurs more frequently than the latter. The notion of life and the terms used to denote it belong, like ‘death,’ to the primitive elements in human thought and speech. Roughly speaking, we may explain (1) as primarily = what is fresh, new, in active existence; and (2) as primarily = breath.

1. Self-originated movement, especially as seen in locomotion and breathing, were naturally the earliest criteria of life. So still, scientists are investigating life as merely a ‘mode of motion.’ Life, however, has not yet yielded up its secret to human inquiry; not yet has life, by any experiment, been produced from purely inorganic origins. Meantime those who do not stumble at a theistic view of creation hold an entirely worthy and satisfactory position in following the Genesis Creation narratives, and ascribing the origin of all life to God, who ‘giveth to all life and breath and all things’ (Ac 17:25). The mystery of life abides, but it is not in the least likely that any results of scientific investigation will ever really conflict with this position.

Life as a physical phenomenon is pre-eminently associated with animals—the living creatures of the sea, the land, and the air (Gn 1:21ff.). Plant-life is hardly recognized as such. OT writers do not go so far as to predicate life of trees in much the same way as of animals, as is the case with some of the early Greek philosophers (e.g. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 7, 12). Still ‘green’ and ‘dry,’ as applied to plants, correspond to ‘living’ and ‘dead.’ There is the feeling that trees possess ‘a sort of’ life; and such references to trees as that concerning the fresh sprouting of a stock or root (Job 14:7ff., Is 11:1) are very significant. Notice also the way in which the prosperity of man is likened to that of a flourishing tree (Ps 1:3 etc.), and other frequent illustrative uses.

Physical life is not only primitively connected with the breath, but also with the blood. The effect of the draining away of the blood (as from a wound) in the lessening vitality of the body and finally death—a matter of early observation—naturally explains this. A certain sacredness thus attaches to the blood (1 S 14:33ff.), and definite prohibitive legislation relating to the eating of flesh with the blood becomes incorporated in the laws of Israel (Lv 3:17, 7:25 etc.). This primitive conception of blood as the seat of life lies at the root of the whole OT system of sacrifices and of all the Scripture Ideas and teachings based thereupon.

The sacredness of life as such is strongly emphasized. The great value ascribed to human life is indicated by the numerous laws relating to manslaughter and to offences which interfere in any way with a man’s right to live and with his reasonable use and enjoyment of life. The feeling extends to other creatures. See the suggestive words ‘and also much cattle’ in Jon 4:11. The beasts are associated with man’s humiliations and privations (Jon 3:7f., Jl 1:18, 20); their life is a thing to be considered. We find the ground of this feeling in the view that God is not only the original Creator or Source of life, but directly its Sustainer in all its forms (Ps 36:6, Pss 104, 145 passim). This seems also to be the fundamental significance of the very common expression ‘the living God’ (lit. ‘God of life’).

2. Life is predominantly set forth as man’s summum bonum. Life and death are respectively ‘the blessing and the curse,’ and that uniquely (Dt 30:19). ‘Choose life’ is the appeal pointing to the one desirable boon. Every man should answer to the description in Ps 34:12. The language which disparages life and praises death (e.g. Job 7:16, Ec 4:1ff. etc.) is the expression of an abnormal state of feeling, the outcome of man’s experience of misery in one form and another. But it is not mere existence that is in itself desirable. As Orr points out, life in its Scripture use has ‘a moral and spiritual connotation’ (Christian View [1893], p. 393); and it is only the godly and righteous life that is a boon from the Scripture point of view. Such is the burden of the Wisdom books, when they speak of ‘finding life,’ and describe wisdom as a ‘tree of life’ ( Pr 3:18, 8:35).

3. The idea of a life to come is in many portions of the OT conspicuous by its absence. There is nothing anywhere that will compare with the NT conception of ‘eternal life.’ The latter expression, it is true, is found in the OT, but only once, and that in the late-Hebrew Book of Daniel (12:2). It is to be remembered that, though this book is in EV numbered among the Major Prophets, its affinities are not with that group but rather with later post-Biblical Jewish writings. In these writings the use of this expression is best illustrated. Enoch, Ps.-Sol., 4 Mac. furnish examples. See also in Apocrypha, 2 Mac 7:9, 36. ‘Life’ alone in this later use comes to be used as = ‘life eternal.’ (See, e.g., 2 Mac 7:14; cf. in NT, Mt 7:14, 19:17). Later Jewish use, however, prefers the clearer phrase, ‘life of the age to come’: and along this line the genesis of the term ‘eternal life’ must be explained. (Cf. the last clause in the Nicene Creed: ‘the life of the world to come’). Jewish eschatological hopes, first for the nation and afterwards for the individual, contributed largely to the development of this idea.

At the same time, though in some parts of the OT the hope of life hereafter seems expressly excluded (see, e.g., Is 38:11, 18, Ec 9:5, 10 [Ec 12:7 is not in conflict, for it embodies the idea of ‘re-absorption,’ and is not to be read in the light of Christian hope and teaching]), and this world alone is known as’ the land of the living,’ the very asking of the question in Job 14:14 is significant, and the language of Ps 16 concerning ‘the path of life’ lends itself readily to an interpretation looking to life beyond death.

II. IN THE APOCRYPHA.—Chs. 1–5 of Wis. yield much that is of interest relating to contemporary Jewish thought; e.g. God is the author of life but not of death (1:13f., 2:23f.). The wicked live in harmony with the saying, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die’ (ch. 2). The righteous have immortality as their inheritance, whilst the wicked shall be brought to judgment and shall be destroyed (chs. 3–5). For an impressive presentment of a foolish appreciation of life, see also 15:7ff. In Sir 15:17 ‘Before man is life and death,’ we have an echo of Dt 30:19. The conception of life (‘soul’) as a loan that can be recalled is found in Wis 15:8, 18, a close parallel with Lk 12:20. Such phrases as ‘the fountain of life’ (Sir 21:13) and ‘the tree of life’ (2 Es 2:12 , 8:52) recall their use in both OT and NT. For the former, see Ps 36:8, Pr 10:11, Jn 4:10, 14; for the latter Gn 2:9, Rev 2:7, 22:2 etc. 2 Es 7 furnishes a notable and picturesque view of life beyond death, with the judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous. See especially the long passage beginning at v. 75. The return of the spirit ‘to him who gave it,’ v. 78, has none of the limitations that attend a similar reference to death in Ec 12:7. (See above.)

III. IN NT—

The term ‘life’ is the Eng. equivalent of three terms used in the original—(1) zōē. This is of most frequent occurrence; generally corresponding to chayyim in OT; = life in the absolute: vitality: full, active existence. It is the term capable of embodying all progressive conceptions as to what constitutes life, and so regularly occurring in the phrase ‘eternal life.’ (2) psychē, generally = OT nephesh, but the fluctuation between ‘life’ and ‘soul’ (see, e.g., the well-known passage Mt 16:25f.) as its rendering in English is significant. The primary notion is that of the animating principle (in contrast to the ‘body’). It further denotes the specific life or existence of any individual. By an easy transition it comes to stand for a man’s ‘self’ (roughly ‘soul’). (3) bios, occurring only a few times. = the present state of existence, this life; as in

Lk 8:14, 1 Ti 2:2, 2 Ti 2:4, 1 Jn 2:16, 3:17 (zōē, however, is sometimes used in this sense, with ‘this’ or ‘the present’ qualifying it, e.g. 1 Co 15:19); also = means of subsistence; and so = ‘living’ (Lk 8:43, 15:12 etc.).

1. The teaching of Jesus.—As regards the present life we gather from the Gospels that Jesus never bewailed its brevity and vanity. The mournful notes of some of the OT Scriptures, the pensive commonplaces of so much of man’s thoughts and moralizings, find no echo here. On the contrary, in His own life He graciously exemplifies the joie de vivre. This in one respect was made even a ground of complaint against Him (Mt 11:19). The sacredness of life is insisted on, and the Sixth Commandment is accentuated (Mt 5:21). The preciousness of life, even in its humblest forms (‘sparrows,’ Mt 10:29|| Lk 12:6), appears in connexion with our Lord’s arresting doctrine of Divine Providence, which stands in such unhesitating defiance of the sterner features of the world of life (In Memoriam, lv. f.).

Very conspicuously Jesus condemns over-anxiety about this life and its ‘goods.’ Simplicity and detachment in regard to these things are repeatedly insisted on (see, e.g., Mt 6:19, 31, Lk 12:15). Certainly the accumulation of a superabundance of the ‘goods’ of life at the expense of others’ deprivation and want is in direct opposition to the spirit of His teaching. The deep, paradoxical saying (Mt 16:25f.) about losing and finding one’s life is of significance here—a saying found not only in the three Synoptics (see Mk 8:35, Lk 9:24), but also in its substance in Jn 12:25.

Eternal life figures conspicuously in the teaching of Jesus. He did not originate the expression: it was already established in the Rabbinical vocabulary. The subject was, and continued to be, one greatly discussed among the Jews. The phrasing of Jesus—as when He speaks of ‘inheriting’ (Mt 19:29), ‘having’ (Jn. passim), ‘receiving’ (Mk 10:30), ‘entering into,’ or ‘attaining’ (Mt 19:17), eternal life, or life simply—is also that of the Jewish teachers of His own and a later day. (Note even the significance of the wording in Mk 10:17||). ‘Life’ alone as = ‘eternal life’ is used in Mt 7:14, Mk 9:43 etc.; also in John’s Gospel (as 3:36, 10:10 etc.). ( See above.)

The Johannine Gospel conspicuously gives ‘eternal life’ as a chief topic of Christ’s teaching; whilst in the Synoptics ‘the kingdom of God’ holds the corresponding place. The connexion between the two conceptions is intimate and vital. The primary characteristic of eternal life is that it is life lived under the rule of God. The definition found in Jn 17:3 (with which Wis 15:3 invites comparison) shows how essentially it is a matter of moral and spiritual interests. The notion of ever-lastingness rather follows from this: the feeling that death cannot destroy what is precious in God’s sight. Cf. Tennyson:

‘—Transplanted human worth

Shall bloom to profit otherwhere.’

But the life is a present possession, an actual fact of experience (Jn 3:35, 5:24, 6:47 etc.). We have, however, the indication of a special association of eternal life with the hereafter in Mk 10:30 (‘in the world to come’) Mt 25:40. Cf. also p. 490^a.

It is the teaching of Christ that has caused the words ‘eternal life’ to be written, as it were, across the face of the NT. Still more are we to notice the unique claim made as to His relation to that life. The keynote of the Johannine presentation is ‘in him was life’ (Jn 1:4), and throughout He is consistently represented as giving and imparting this life to His people. Note also, it is eternal life as predicated of these that is principally, if not exclusively, in view in the Evangelical teaching there is little or nothing on human immortality in the widest sense.

2. The rest of the NT.—The leading theme of. l Jn. is ‘eternal life,’ and it is handled in complete accord with the Fourth Gospel.—St. Paul is in agreement with the Johannine teaching on the cardinal topic of eternal life. His Epistles throb with this theme, and he conspicuously presents Christ as the source of this life in its fullest conception, or the One through whom it is mediated. See Ro 6:23, and note his strong way of identifying Christ with this life, as in Gal 2:20, Ph 1:21, Col 3:3, 4. Christ is also presented as author or mediator of life in the widest sense, the life that moves in all created things (Col 1:16, 17; cf. Jn 1:3). St. Paul, again, uses ‘life’ alone as containing all the implicates of ‘eternal life’ (Ro 5:17, 2 Co 5:4, Ph 2:16). The supremely ethical value associated with life is seen in the definition given in Ro 8:6, with which cf. Jn 17:3. The new life of the Spirit as a dynamic in the present and as having the promise of full fruition in eternity, is central in the Apostle’s exposition of Christianity.—For the rest, the

Apocalypse should be noticed for its use of such images as ‘crown of life,’ ‘book of life,’ ‘fountain,’ ‘river,’ and ‘water of life,’ and the ‘book of life’ (which we also meet with elsewhere)—all embodying the Christian hope of immortality.

J. S. CLEMENS.

LIGHT.—To the ancient mind light was a holy thing, and the Scriptures associate it with God. He dwells in light (Ex 24:10, 1 Ti 6:16); He is clothed with light (Ps 104:2); He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1 Jn 1:5); His glory is the effulgence of His light (Rev 21:23). Cf. the ancient Greek Evening Hymn rendered by Keble: ‘Hail, gladdening Light, of His pure glory poured,’ etc. Hence Jesus, God Incarnate, is called ‘the Light of the world’ (Jn 1:4, 5, 9 , 18:12), ‘an effulgence of the glory of God’ (He 1:3); and salvation is defined as walking in His light and being enlightened by it (Jn 8:12, 12:36, 38, 1 Jn 1:7, 2 Co 4:6, Eph 5:8, 14, 1 Th 5:5, 1 P 2:3). And Christians as His representatives and witnesses are the light of the world (Mt 5:14 , 16, Ph 2:15). On the contrary, a godless life is darkness (Jn 3:10, 8:12, 12:46, 1 Jn 2:11).

DAVID SMITH.

LIGHTNING.—Our colloquial use of ‘fire’ for ‘lightning’ had its counterpart in Heb., e.g. in such a phrase as ‘fire (’ēsh) and hail’ (Ex 9:23 etc.; cf. Gn 19:24, 1 K 18:38 etc.). The Heb. ’ōr (Job 37:3) is lit. ‘light’; bāzāq (Ezk 1:14) should probably read bārāq; lappīd, lit. ‘torch,’ is used in the plur. for ‘lightnings’ (Ex 20:18); a word of uncertain meaning, chāzĭz (Job 28:26, 38:35 , Zec 10:1), is evidently related to thunder, and should probably in each case be tr. ‘thundercloud.’ The usual Heb. word is bārāq, Gr. astrapē (2 S 22:16 etc., Mt 24:27 etc.). It is used fig. for the glitter of bright metal (Dt 32:41, lit. ‘the lightning of my sword’; cf. Ezk 21:10, Nah 3:3 , Hab 3:11), and for the glittering weapon itself (Job 20:25). It is suggested, either by the flash of polished metal, or by the speed of the chariot (Nah 2:4). Lightning is associated with the appearance of God (Ex 19:16 etc.), and He alone can control it (Job 38:33, Ps 18:14). With lightnings as with arrows, God scatters His enemies (Ps 144:5 etc.). A radiant face (Dn 10:8) , and gleaming garments (Mt 28:3), are like lightning. There is vivid suggestiveness in the comparison of Satan’s overthrow with the descent of lightning (Lk 10:18). Cf. the name Barak (Jg 4:6), with the Carthaginian Barca.

W. EWING.

LIGN ALOES.—See ALOES.

LIGURE.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

LIKHI.—The eponym of a Manassite family (1 Ch 7:18).

LIKING.—In older English ‘liking’ was used for the outward appearance, qualified by good or ill. So Job 39:4 ‘Their young ones are in good liking.’

LILITH.—The word occurs only in Is 34:14, and is rendered in AV by ‘screech-owl’ and in RV by ‘night-monster.’ Belonging to the post-exilic time, it is connected with Jewish ideas on demons which, as foreign influence became felt, were developed on the lines of Babylonian and Persian myths. The Lilith is mentioned in connexion with the desolation which would haunt Edom; it was a hairy monster, and specially dangerous to Infants (cf. Lamia). Strange stories are told about Lilith by the Rabbins. It was a nocturnal spectre who assumed the form of a beautiful woman in order to beguile and destroy young children. In the Talmud she is associated with the legends of Adam, whose wife she was before Eve was created, and so became the mother of the demons.

T. A. MOXON.

LILY (shūshan, 1 K 7:10; shōshannah, 2 Ch 4:5, Ca 2:1, Hos 14:5).—The Heb. word is probably a loan word from the Egyptian for the ‘lotus.’ In Arab, it is sūsan, which includes a great number of allied flowers—lilies, irises, gladioli, etc. No doubt the Heb. word was equally comprehensive. Flowers of this group are very plentiful in Palestine, the irises being pre-eminent for their handsome appearance. The ‘lily work’ (1 K 7:19, 22, 26) is likely to have been modelled after the lotus (Nymphœa lotus) itself: lotus-like flowers appear on some Jewish coins. The Gr. krinon of Mt 6:28, Lk 12:27 probably had as wide a significance as shūshan, and included much more than actual lilies.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LIME (sīdh, LXX konia) is mentioned by name in EV only in Is 33:12, Am 2:1, Is 33:12 ‘the peoples shall be as the burnings of lime,’ i.e. they shall he so utterly consumed as to be comparable to the heap of quicklime that is left after limestone has been burned in a furnace. In Am 2:1 the prophet denounces Moab because they ‘burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime’—phosphate of lime being the chief ingredient of the ash of well-burned bones. In Dt 27:2 ,

4 sīdh occurs both as vb. and noun, but is rendered ‘plaister.’ For Is 27:9 see CHALK-STONES.

The ‘whited sepulchres’ of Mt 23:27 and the ‘whited wall’ of Ac 23:3 are allusions to the whitewashing of tombs with diluted quicklime so as to render them conspicuous, and of walls for purposes of embellishment.

J. C. LAMBERT.

LINE.—1. qaw, which is of most frequent occurrence, is properly a measuring line (e.g. Jer 31:39, Ezk 47:3, Zec 1:16). Figuratively it denotes a rule of life (cf. ‘precept upon precept, line upon line’ of Isaiah’s teaching, Is 28:10). Ps 19:4 their line is gone out through all the earth’ has been variously interpreted. The LXX, taking the line to be a resonant cord, rendered by phthonggos—‘a musical sound,’ and St. Paul quotes that version in Ro 10:18 (EV ‘sound’). More probably, however, the idea is still that of a measuring line. Cf. Perowne (Psalms, in toc.) , who gives ‘line or boundary’—‘as the heavens seems to measure and mark out the earth ( whence the term horizon or boundary).’ 2. hebhel, a rope or cord, esp. a measuring cord used in measuring and dividing land (cf. Ps 78:55, Am 7:17, Zec 2:1). ‘The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places’ (Ps 16:6) alludes to the marking out of plots of land with a measuring cord. 3. tiqwāh (fr. the same root as qaw) is used of the cord of scarlet thread that Rahab bound in the window (Jos 2:18, 21). 4. chūt, properly a sewing-thread, only in 1 K 7:15, 5. pāthīl, a string or cord, only in Ezk 40:3, 6. seredh in Is 44:13 is misrendered ‘line,’ for which RV gives ‘pencil,’ RVm ‘red ochre.’ 7. In NT ‘line’ occurs only in AV of 2 Co 10:18. The Gr. word is kanōn, a measuring rod (AVm ‘rule,’ RV ‘province,’ RVm ‘limit’), and so, figuratively, a rule. Probably the Apostle’s idea is that of a measuring line, as defining the boundary between his own province and another’s.

J. C. LAMBERT.

LINEN is cloth made from the prepared fibre of flax. In ancient Egypt great proficiency was attained in its manufacture (Pliny, HN vii. 56; Strabo, xxvii. 41; Herod. ii. 182), and a flourishing trade was carried on (Pr 7:16, Ezk 27:7). As material of wearing apparel it has always been esteemed in the East. In a hot climate it tends to greater freshness and cleanliness than cotton or wool. The Egyptian priests were obliged to wear linen (Herod. ii. 37; Wilk. Anc. Egyp. iii. 117). The ‘cotton garments’ mentioned on the Rosetta stone were probably worn over the linen, and left outside when the priests entered a temple. The embalmed bodies of men and animals were wrapped in strips of linen. No other material was used for this purpose (Wilk. ib. iii. 115, 116 , 484). Perhaps we may trace Egyptian influence in the place given to linen in the hangings, etc., of the Tabernacle, and in the garments of the priests (Ex 25:4, 26:1 etc., 28:15 etc.). It formed part of the usual clothing of royalty, and of the wealthy classes (Gn 41:42, Est 8:15, Lk 16:19). It is the dress worn by persons engaged in religious service. The priests are those who ‘wear a linen ephod’ (1 S 22:18). The child Samuel in Shiloh (1 S 2:18), and David, bringing back the ark (2 S 6:14 etc.), also wear the linen ephod; cf. Ezk 9:2, 10:2, Dn 10:5. It formed the garment of the Levite singers (2 Ch 5:12). It was the fitting raiment of the Lamb’s wife, ‘the righteousness of the saints’ (Rev 19:3); presumptuously assumed by ‘the great city Babylon’ (18:16); in it are also arrayed ‘the armies that are in heaven’ (19:14).

No clear and uniform distinction can be drawn between several Heb. words tr. ‘linen.’ bad appears to be always used of garments (Gn 41:42 etc.), while shēsh may perhaps mean the thread, as in the phrase ‘bad of fine twined shēsh’ (Ex 39:28), the cloth made from it (Ex 25:4, 26:1, Ezk 27:7 etc.), and also garments (Ex 28:5 etc.). We cannot, indeed, be certain that ‘linen’ is always intended (Guthe, Bib. Wörterbuch, s.v.). The modern Arab. shash means ‘cotton gauze.’ būts is a word of Aramæan origin, occurring only in later books (Ezk 27:16, 1 Ch 4:21, Est 1:6), whence comes the Gr. byssos. which covered both bad and shēsh (Jos. Ant. III. vi. 1f.). By later writers it was taken to represent cotton ( Liddell and Scott, s.v.). pishtīm is a general term, denoting the flax, or anything made from it (Jos 2:5, Jg 15:14 , Jer 13:1 etc.). sādīn was a sheet in which the whole body might be wrapped (Jg 14:12f., Pr 31:24 etc.). It probably corresponded to the sindōn ‘linen cloth’ of Mk 14:51, and the shroud of Mt 27:59 etc. ’ētūm ( Pr 7:16) is probably fine Egyptian thread, with which cloths and haogiogs were ornamented, othonē ( Ac 10:11) is a large sheet: othonia (Jn 19:40 etc.) are strips for bandages, ōmolinon (Sir 40:4) was cloth of unbleached flax, sha‘atnēz (Lv 19:19) was probably cloth composed of linen and cotton.

Linen yarn (1 K 10:28, 2 Ch 1:15, miqweh) should almost certainly be rendered with RV

‘drove.’

W. EWING.

LINTEL.—See HOUSE, § 6.

LINUS.—One of the Christians at Rome from whom St. Paul sends greetings at the end of the Second Epistle to Timothy (4:21). All writers agree that he is identical with the first Bishop of Rome. Thus Irenæus: ‘Peter and Paul, when they founded and built up the Church of Rome, committed the office of its episcopate to Linus.’ And Eusebius: ‘Of the Church of the Romans after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first to be appointed to the office of Bishop was Linus, of whom Paul makes mention at the end of his letter to Timothy.’ His episcopate lasted about twelve years, but there is considerable difference of opinion as to its date.

MORLEY STEVENSON.

LION

(1) ’ări, ’aryeh, full-grown lion (Gn 49:9, Jg 14:8, 2 etc.).

(2) kĕphīr, a young strong lion (Jg 14:6, Job 4:10, Ezk 19:2 etc.).

(3) lābī (cf. Arab, labwah), specially lioness (Gn 49:9, Nu 23:24, Job 4:11 etc.); and lĕbīyyah ( Ezk 19:2).

(4) layīsh, particularly in poetry (Job 4:11, Pr 30:30, Is 30:6 etc.).

(5) shachal, poetically, lit. ‘the roarer’ (Job 4:10; 10:18, 28:8, Hos 5:14, Ps 91:13).

(6) benē-shachats is tr. in AV of Job 28:8 ‘lion s whelps,’ but ought to be, as in RVm, ‘sons of pride.’

Lions have been extinct in Palestine since the time of the Crusades, but evidently were once plentiful, especially in the thickets along the Jordan (Jer 49:19, 50:44, Zec 11:3). They were a source of danger to men (1 K 13:24f., 20:35, 2 K 17:25), and especially to shepherds’ flocks (1 S 17:34, Is 31:4, Am 3:12, Mic 5:8). The terrifying roar of the lion is referred to in Pr 19:12, 20:2 etc., and it is compared to the voice of God (Jer 25:30, Jl 3:16, Am 3:8). Metaphorically, Judah is described as a lion in Gn 49:9, Dan in Dt 33:22, and Israel in Nu 23:24, 24:9; but in the NT the lion is usually typical of Satan (1 P 5:8; ct. ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah,’ Rev 5:5).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LIP (Heb. sāphāh, sāphām; Gr. cheitos).—1. sāphāh, the usual OT word, and of very frequent occurrence. Only rarely are the lips referred to from the point of view of description of physical beauty and charm (Ca 4:3, 11, 5:13). Once they are associated with kissing (Pr 24:26) , once with drinking (Ca 7:9, with which cf. Ps 45:2), once (anthropomorphically of J″) as the source from which the breath issues (Is 11:4); once the protrusion of the lips occurs as a gesture of mocking contempt (Ps 22:7). Twice (2 K 19:28, Is 37:29) we have an allusion to the cruel Assyrian custom of passing a ring through the lips of captives and leading them about with a rope or thong. But in the great majority of cases the lips are referred to as organs of speech ( Job 27:4, Ps 119:171, Pr 15:7, 24:2). Hence, according to the kind of words they utter and the quality of the heart from which the words come, they are described figuratively as uncircumcised ( Ex 6:12, 30), flattering (Ps 12:2, 8), feigned (17:1), lying (31:18), joyful (63:5), perverse (Pr 4:24) , righteous (16:13), false (17:4), burning (26:23), unclean (Is 6:5). By an intensification or extension of this figurative use, swords are said to be in the lips (Ps 59:7), adders’ poison to be under them (140:3), or in them a burning fire (Pr 16:27). In Is 57:18 ‘the fruit of the lips’ = praise. For Hos 14:2 see CALVES OF THE LIPS. 2. sāphām (Ezk 24:17, 22, Mic 3:7, only in the phrase ‘cover the lips’), whose equivalent is ‘moustache,’ it being the Eastern custom to cover this as a sign of stricken sorrow. 3. cheitos occurs 6 times in NT, always in quotations from LXX: Mt 15:8 and Mk 7:6 = Is 29:18; Ro 3:13 = Ps 140:3 [139:4]; 1 Co 14:21 = Is 28:11; He 13:15 = Hos 14:2; 1 P 3:10 = Ps 34:18 [33:14].

J. C. LAMBERT.

LIST.—The Old Eng. vb. ‘to list’ occurs in Mt 17:12, Mk 9:13, Jn 3:8, Ja 3:4. It means ‘to desire or choose.’

LITTLE OWL.—See OWL.

LIVELY.—In AV ‘lively’ sometimes means ‘living.’ Thus in 1 P 2:5 Christians are ‘lively stones,’ while in the previous verse Christ is a ‘living stone,’ though the Gr. word is the same in both verses. The other passages are Ac 7:38 ‘lively oracles’ and 1 P 1:3 ‘lively hope.’

LIVER (kābēdh).—1. In the great majority of cases where the liver is mentioned, it is in connexion with the law of sacrifice as prescribed in P (Ex 29:13, 22, Lv 3:4, 10, 16 etc.), and always in association with the caul (yōthereth). The LXX, followed by Josephus (Ant. III. ix. 2) , takes yōthereth to be a lobe of the liver; but it is now agreed that it denotes the fatty mass at the opening of that organ. According to Semitic ideas, a peculiar holiness belonged to the liver and kidneys (wh. see), together with the fat attached to them; the reason being that they were regarded as the special seats not only of emotion but of life itself. Because of its sacredness the liver with its fat was not to be eaten, but was to be offered in sacrifice to J″. 2. Pr 7:23 ‘till a dart strike through his liver,’ La 2:11 ‘my liver is poured upon the earth’ (cf. Job 16:13 ‘he poureth out my gall upon the ground’) are further illustrations of the physiological ideas referred to above. Either they are strong expressions for a deadly disease, or they denote sorrowful emotion of the most poignant kind. 3. In Ezk 21:21 the king of Babylon, at the parting of the way, ‘looked in the liver’ as one of the three forms of divination he employed. 4. In To 6:4–16, 8:2 the liver of a fish is used for the purpose of exorcism. See, further, art. MAGIC DIVINATION AND SORCERY, p. 568^b.

J. C. LAMBERT.

LIVING CREATURES.—See BEAST, No. 2.

LIZARD

(1) lětā’āh, a generic name for ‘lizard.’

(2) tsāb (cf. Arab, dabb), tr. AV ‘tortoise,’ RV ‘great lizard.’

(3) ’ănāqāh, tr. AV ‘ferret,’ RV ‘gecko.’

(4) kōach, tr. AV ‘chameleon,’ RV ‘land crocodile.’

(5) chōmet, tr. AV ‘snail,’ RV ‘sandlizard.’

(6) tinshemeth, tr. AV ‘mole,’ RV ‘chameleon’ (wh. see).

All these names occur in Lv 11:29–30, as ‘unclean’ animals; most of them are very uncertain.

(7) sěmāmīth (Pr 30:28), tr. AV ‘spider,’ RV ‘lizard.’

Lizards are ubiquitous and exceedingly plentiful in Palestine: over 40 species have been identified. The most common is the green lizard (Lacerta viridis). The Palestinian gecko (Ptyodactylus Hasselquistii) is common in all native houses; it is able to walk up the walls and along the ceilings by means of the disc-like suckers at the ends of its toes. If sēmāmīth was, as many scholars claim, a lizard, then probably the gecko is the special species indicated. The dabb is a large lizard (Uromastix spinipes), with a long spiny tail. The sandlizards or skinks are common on soft, sandy soil; seven species are found in Palestine. The ‘land crocodile,’ known to the Arabs as the warrel, is a large lizard, sometimes five feet long; two species have been found in the Jordan valley—the Psammosaurus scineus and the Monitor niloticus. The chameleon is dealt with in a separate article.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LOAF.—See BREAD.

LO-AMMI.—A symbolical name given to Hosea’s son (Hos 1:9), signifying ‘not my people,’ as Lo-ruhamah, the name of his daughter, signifies ‘not-pitied.’ Opinions are divided as to whether these names are of actual persons used symbolically, or are purely allegorical. See art. HOSEA.

W. F. COBB.

LOAN.—See DEBT.

LOCK.—See HOUSE, § 6.

LOCUST

(1) ’arbeh (root = ‘to multiply’) occurs more than 20 times; in Jg 6:5, 7:12, Job 39:20, and Jer 46:23 it is, however, tr. ‘grasshopper’ in AV.

(2) chāgāb (tr. AV and RV ‘locust’ in 2 Ch 7:13, elsewhere ‘grasshopper’), possibly a small locust: see Lv 11:22, Nu 13:33, Ec 12:5, is 40:22.

(3) gēbīm (pl.), Am 7:1, AV ‘grasshoppers,’ RV ‘locusts,’ AVm ‘green worms’; gōbai, Nah 3:17, AV great grasshoppers,’ RV ‘swarms of grasshoppers.’

The remaining words are very uncertain. (4) gāzām, tr. ‘palmer worm’ (i.e. caterpillar). (5) yeleq, tr. (RV) ‘canker-worm.’ (6) chāsīl, tr. ‘caterpillar.’ (Jl 1:4, 2:25 etc.) may all be stages in the development of the locust, or they may, more probably, be some varieties of grasshoppers. (7) chargōl, Lv 11:22 (mistranslated in AV ‘beetle’; RV ‘cricket’), and (8) Sol‘ām, Lv 11:22. (tr. AV and RV ‘bald locust’), are also some varieties of locust or grasshopper (it is impossible to be certain of the varieties specified). (9) tsělātsal, Dt 28:42, from a root meaning ‘whirring,’ may refer to the cicada, which fills the countryside with its strident noise all through the hot summer.

Locusts and grasshoppers are included in the family Acrididæ. The latter are always plentiful, but the locusts fortunately do not appear in swarms, except at intervals of years. The most destructive kinds are Acridium peregrinum and Ædipoda migratoria. When they arrive in their countless millions, they darken the sky (Ex 10:15). The poetical description in Jl 2:1–11 is full of faithful touches; particularly the extraordinary noise they make (v. 5) when they are all feeding together. Their voracious onslaught is referred to in Is 33:4, and their sudden disappearance when they rise in clouds to seek new fields for destruction is mentioned in Nah 3:17. They clear every green thing in their path (Ex 10:15). No more suitable figure can be conceived for an invading army (Jg 6:5, 7:12, Jer 46:23). When, some forty years ago, the Anezi Bedouin from E. of the Jordan swarmed on to the Plain of Esdraelon, an eye-witness looking from Nazareth described the plain as stripped utterly bare, ‘just as if the locusts had been over it.’ When locusts are blown seaward, they fall into the water in vast numbers (Ex 10:19). The present writer has seen along the N. shore of the Dead Sea a continuous ridge of dead locusts washed up. The smell of piles of rotting locusts is intolerable. The feebleness and insignificance of these little insects, as viewed individually, are referred to in Nu 13:33, Ps 109:23, Is 40:22. Locusts are still eaten (cf. Mt 3:4). See FOOD, 8.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

LOD, LYDDA.—A town in the territory of Benjamin, not apparently of pre-Israelite origin, but built (1 Ch 8:12), along with One, by the Benjamite Shemed (but Luthen and Auanau occur side by side in the lists of Thothmes III.). Elsewhere it is mentioned only in the post-Captivity lists (Ezr 2:33, Neh 7:37, 11:35); and in connexion with the healing of Æneas at this place ( Ac 9:32). Its inhabitants were enslaved by Cassius, and freed by Antony (Jos. Ant. XIV. xi. 2, xii. 2). Cestius Gallus burned it, and it afterwards surrendered to Vespasian (BJ. II. xix. 1, IV. viii. 1). In the Middle Ages it was the seat of a bishopric. It is a centre of the cultus of that strange being called by the Christians Saint George (to whom the church is dedicated), and by the Muslims elKhudr—probably an ancient spirit of vegetation. It was known as Diospolis in the Byzantine period, but the dirty modern town which represents the ancient site retains the old name Ludd. R. A. S. MACALISTER.

LODDEUS (1 Es 8:45, 46).—The ‘captain in the place of the treasury’ (or ‘at the place Casiphia,’ Ezr 8:17)’ to whom Ezra sent for Levites; called Iddo in Ezr 8:17.

LO-DEBAR.—A place in Gilead, near to, and apparently east from, Mahanaim. It was the retreat of Mephibosheth till he was summoned to court by David (2 S 9:4, 5). It is mentioned also upon the occasion of David’s flight to the east of the Jordan (17:27). The site has not been recovered. It is perhaps the same as Lidebir of Jos 13:26.

LODGE.—See CUCUMBERS.

LOFT.—See HOUSE, 5.

LOG.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

LOGIA.—See GOSPELS, § 2 (c).

LOGOS.—In classical Greek logos signifies both ‘word’ and ‘reason,’ but in the LXX and the NT it is used, with few exceptions, in the former sense only. When it is God’s word that is spoken of, it denotes the declaration or revelation of the Divine will, and specifically the Christian gospel as the utterance of the Divine plan of salvation (e.g. Mt 13:19–23 ||, Ph 1:14). But in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (1:1 [3 times] 14, with which cf. 1 Jn 1:1 [5:7 of AV is spurious; see RV] and Rev 19:13) ‘Logos’ (EV Word) is applied to Jesus Christ, and is used to set forth His peculiar glory as the only-begotten Son of God, who is also the Life and Light of men. It is with this Johannine Logos that we have now to deal, and in doing so it seems necessary to consider (1) the content of John’s Logos doctrine; (2) its sources; (3) its place in the Fourth Gospel; (4) its theological significance.

1. Content.—Three stages appear in the exposition of the Logos doctrine given in the Prologue. (a) First (vv. 1–5), the nature and functions of the Logos are set forth in His relations to God, the world, and man. He was with God in the beginning, i.e. He eternally held a relation of communion with Him as a separate personality—a personality itself Divine, for ‘the Word was God.’ As to the world, it was made by Him (v. 3, cf. v. 10), perhaps with the further suggestion that from Him it draws continually the life by which it is sustained (v. 4). But from Him there flows also the higher life of man as a spiritual being possessed of reason and conscience, for His life becomes the universal light of human souls (v. 4, cf. v. 9). (b) The second stage of the exposition (vv. 5–13) is a contrast of the Logos with the word of God that came by John the Baptist. John was not the Light; he came only to bear witness of it. The Logos is the true Light, and the mediator of Divine life to all who believe on His name, (c) Finally ( vv. 14–18), the author describes the incarnation of the Logos in the flesh, and declares His identity with the historical Jesus Christ, the bringer of grace and truth. In v. 18 the whole Prologue is summed up. Here the writer returns to the point from which he set out (cf. v. 1), but his readers now understand that the eternal Logos is one with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2. Sources.—(1) For these some have been content to refer to the OT and the post-canonical Jewish writings. And it is true that a connexion is clearly to be traced. We can hardly mistake a reference in the Prologue (vv. 1, 3, 4, 10) to the creative word of God in Gn 1. In the Psalms and Prophets, again, a personification of the word of Jehovah is common (e.g. Ps 33:6, Is 55:11). And in the Wisdom literature, both canonical and apocryphal, this personifying tendency is carried still further (Pr 8:22–31, Sir 24), though it is God’s Wisdom, not His Word, that becomes His representative, and a full personification of the Word does not meet us till we have reached a point in Jewish history where Greek influences have begun to make themselves felt (Wis 9:1 , 16:12). All this, however, is very far from explaining the Johannine Logos doctrine. The most that can he said is that the doctrine of the Prologue reflects a tendency of Jewish thought, finding its roots in the OT, to conceive of the Divine self-revelation as mediated by the personified Wisdom or Word of Jehovah.

(2) Some have held that John’s Logos doctrine was derived entirely from the JudœoAlexandrian philosophy, and specifically from the teaching of Philo. From early times there had grown up among the Greeks a conception of the Logos as the Divine Reason manifested in the universe, and explaining how God comes into relation with it. To this Logos philosophy Plato’s doctrine of ideas had contributed, and afterwards the Stoic view of the Logos as the rational principle of the universe. In his efforts to blend Judaism with Hellenism, Philo adopted the term as one familiar alike to Jews and to Greeks, and sought to show by means of allegorical interpretations that the true philosophy of God and the world was revealed in the OT. And St. John, it is supposed, simply appropriated this teaching, and by means of an idealizing treatment of Christ’s life constructed in his Gospel a philosophical treatise on the doctrine of Philo. The theory breaks down on any examination. To Philo the Logos was the principle of Reason; to St. John He was the Divine revealing Word. Philo’s Logos is not really personal; St. John’s certainly is. Philo does not identify the Logos with the Messiah; to St. John He is no other than the Christ, the Saviour of the world. Philo sees in the flesh a principle opposed to the Godhead; St. John glories in the fact of the Incarnation. With Philo the antithesis between God and the world is a metaphysical one; with St. John it is ethical and religious. St. John cannot, then, have derived his doctrine of the Logos from Philo. But he undoubtedly used the term because Philo had made it familiar to Græco-Jewish thought as a means of expressing the idea of a mediation between God and the universe, and also because he himself had received certain formal influences from the Philonic philosophy (see, e.g., the value be assigns to knowledge; his crystallization of the gospel into such general terms as light,’ ‘truth,’ ‘life’; his constant antithesis of light and darkness). Apart, however, from such formal influences and the convenience of a familiar and suggestive term, the real source of the Johannine logos doctrine is still to seek.

(3) That source is assuredly to be found in the actual historical personality of Jesus Himself as we find it set forth in the rest of this Gospel. More and more it becomes impossible for the careful student of this book to treat it as a philosophical romance in which a purely idealizing treatment is given to the figure of Jesus; more and more the substantial historical truth of the presentation becomes evident. And, assuming the substantial truth of the narrative, it seems clear that St. John uses his Logos conception, not ‘to manufacture the Light of the World out of the Messiah of Israel,’ but to set forth, in a way that would appeal to the men of his own place and time, Christ’s real relations to God and the universe as these had been attested by His words and deeds, by His dying and rising from the dead, and by all the facts of His self-revelation. We must bear in mind, moreover, that while the term ‘Logos’ was a new one to be applied to Christ, the place of dignity and power assigned to Him by John was by no means new. Both St. Paul and the author of Hebrews had taught the doctrine of Christ’s eternal Sonship, and of His functions as the creator of the universe and the revealer of the Father (Ph 2:5–11, Col 1:13–20, 2:9, He 1:1– 4), and the teaching of both, already familiar and widely accepted in the Church, is subsumed in the Johannine doctrine of the Logos.

3. Place in the Fourth Gospel.—The attempt has been made to distinguish between the Logos doctrine in the Prologue as Hellenic, and the Gospel itself as Palestinian; and it has been maintained that the influence of the Logos idea does not extend beyond the Prologue, and that it was merely intended to introduce to Greek readers the story of the Jewish Messiah with a view to making it more attractive and intelligible. We may remind ourselves, however, of Strauss’s comparison of this Gospel to the seamless robe of Jesus, a judgment which has been verified by nearly every critical student of whatever school. It is true that when we pass beyond the Prologue the word ‘Logos’ is not repeated. The author nowhere puts it into the mouth of Jesus,—one evidence surely of his historical fidelity. But, all the same, the doctrine of the Prologue manifestly works right through the narrative from beginning to end (see such passages as 3:13– 21, 6:53–58, 7:28, 29, 8:12, 14, 16, 10:29ff., 12:44–50, 14:6–11, 17:5, 8, 24 etc.). It is very noticeable that in 20:31, where, before laying down his pen, the writer reveals the motive of his work, he really sums up the great ideas of the Prologue as he declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we may have life through His name. The Logos, then, is not a mere catchword, put forth in order to seize the eye and arouse the interest of the Greek reader. The Logos idea underlies the whole Gospel, and has much to do with the author’s selection of his materials. In the Prologue, as in any other well-written introduction, the plan of the work is set out, and the Logos doctrine is stated there because it supplies the key to a right understanding of the history that follows.

4. Theological significance.—From the time of Justin, and ever since, the Logos doctrine of St. John’s Prologue has served as the material of many a Christian metaphysic. It is no doubt inevitable that this should be the case; but we must be careful not to make St. John responsible for the theological constructions that have been woven out of his words. If an injustice is done him when his doctrine of the Logos is supposed to be nothing more than the fruitage of his study of Philo, another injustice is committed when it is assumed that he is setting forth here either a metaphysic of the Divine nature or a philosophy of the Incarnation. It is plain, on the contrary, that in all that he says it is the religious and ethical interests that are paramount. He uses the Logos conception for two great purposes,—to set forth Jesus (1) as the Revealer of God, and (2) as the Saviour of men. The first of these ideas, as has been said, is one that we find already in the Pauline Epistles and in Hebrews; but by his emphasis on the relations of Fatherhood and Sonship

St. John imparts a peculiarly moral meaning to the essential nature of the God who is revealed in Christ. But it is above all for a soteriological purpose that he seems to employ the Logos idea. The Logos, who is Identified with Jesus Christ, comes forth from the bosom of the Father, bringing life and light to men. He comes with a gospel that supersedes the Law of Moses, for it is a gospel of grace as well as of truth. Himself the Son of God, He offers to all who will believe on His name the right to become the children of God. And so, while the Logos is undoubtedly the agent of God’s creative will, He is still more distinctively the mediator of God’s redeeming purpose. It is therefore as a religious power, not as a metaphysical magnitude, that St. John brings Him before us. The Evangelist shows, it is true, as Kirn points out, that the absoluteness of Christ’s historical mission and His exclusive mediation of the Divine saving grace are guaranteed by the fact that the roots of His personal life reach Back into the eternal life of God. His Logos doctrine thus wards off every Christology that would see in Jesus no more than a prophetic personality of the highest originality. But, while the Logos idea ‘illuminates the history with the light of eternity, it can reveal eternity to us only in the ligbt of history, not in its own supernatural light’ (PRE³xi. 605).

J. C. LAMBERT.

LOIS.—The grandmother of Timothy (2 Ti 1:5), and probably the mother of Eunice, Timothy’s mother. The name is Greek. The family lived at Lystra (Ac 16:1), where St. Paul first made their acquaintance. Lois was a devout Jewess by conviction, who instructed her family diligently in the Holy Scriptures.

MORLEY STEVENSON.

LONGSUFFERING.—In the OT the RV uses this word only in Jer 15:15, where it is the translation of a phrase usually rendered ‘slow to anger’ (cf. Ex 34:6, Nu 14:18, Ps 86:15, in which passages AV has ‘longsuffering’).

In the NT ‘longsuffering’ is the usual tr. of makrothumia and the corresponding verb. ( The only exceptions are ‘patience,’ He 6:12, Ja 5:10; cf. vh. in Mt 18:25, 29, Ja 5:7f.; and adv. in Ac 26:3). The RV improves on AV by using ‘longsuffering’ in Lk 18:7, 1 Th 5:14. The Gr. word means ‘a long holding out of the mind before it gives room to action or passion—generally to passion.’ (Trench, Synonyms of NT, § liii.); it implies the opposite of short temper; cf. Old Eng. ‘longanimity.’ In the NT the longsuffering of God is regarded as a proof of His ‘goodness’ ( Ro

2:4; here and elsewhere ‘longsuffering,’ || ‘forbearance’ [arochē]) and of his faithfulness (2 P 3:9, 15); it is manifested in the gracious restraint which characterizes His attitude towards those who deserve His wrath (Ro 9:22, 1 P 3:20). The Divine longsuffering is perfectly exemplified in Christ’s dealings with sinners (1 Ti 1:16). Longsuffering is, therefore, a conspicuous grace in the ideal Christian character (2 Co 6:5, Eph 4:2, Col 3:12, 1 Th 5:14, 2 Ti 3:10, 4:2); it is viewed as an evidence of Divine strengthening (Col 1:11), as a manifestation of love (1 Co 13:4), and as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22).

J. G. TASKER.

LOOKING-GLASS.—See GLASS.

LOOM.—See SPINNING AND WEAVING.

LOOPS.—See TABERNACLE, § 5 (a).

LORD.—The Heb. OT has three leading names for God: (1) ‘the name of four letters’ (lelragrammaton) JHWH (familiar to us in the incorrect form ‘Jehovah’; the real vocalization is almost certainly ‘Jahweh’ [see GOD, p. 299^b]); (2) Adonai; (3) Elohim. By a misinterpretation of Lv 24:15 the Jews shrank from uttering the first of these, and added to its four consonants, in their reading of the OT, the vowels of either Adonai or Elohim. When the vowels of the former were added, the AV and RV generally translate the word by ‘LORD’; when those of the latter, by ‘GOD’; using small capitals in each case. If, however, Adonai is originally in the text, they represent it by ‘Lord,’ using an initial capital only. Thus in the OT ‘LORD ‘represents Jahweh when it was read as Adonai; and ‘Lord’ represents Adonai when it stands in the original text. This distinctive printing is not observed in the NT. There are several other Hebrew words in the OT expressing the general Idea of lordship, which are rendered by ‘lord’ (Gn 45:8, Jos 13:3, Ezr 8:25 etc.).

In the NT ‘Lord’ is used once as tr. of Rabboni (Mk 10:51), and five times of despotēs ( Lk 2:29, Ac 4:24, 2 P 2:1, Jude 4, Rev 6:10); in all the latter cases the RV has ‘master’ in text or margin. Elsewhere it represents kyrios, applying the title (1) to God (Mt 1:20, Ac 5:19 etc.); (2) to Christ (Lk 6:46, Jn 20:28 etc.). Indeed, as applied to Christ, it is the highest confession of His Person (1 Co 12:3, Ro 10:9, Rev 19:16). The form ‘lord’ In NT indicates mere possession of authority (Mt 18:25, Lk 16:8 etc.).

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

LORD OF HOSTS (Jahweh lsbĕā’ōth) appears in the OT as a title of God 282 times, of which all but 36 are found in the Prophetical writings. There is considerable uncertainty as to what the term ‘hosts’ signifies, and it seems best to suppose that its meaning underwent modifications in the course of time. We can, perhaps, distinguish three stages.

1. It is possible that at one time the title suggested the idea of Jahweh as the leader of the Israelite forces. In favour of this view is the fact that the word tsěbā’ōth outside this phrase always refers to bodies of men, and usually to Israelite forces. There is no doubt that in the early stages of the history of the nation the popular view of the functions of Jahweh was concentrated to a large extent on this point that He was the guider and commander of the armies in warfare; and the same idea lingered late, and lies at the bottom of the objection to the institution of the monarchy which is put in Samuel’s mouth (cf. 1 S 8:20 with 1 S 12:12). In the same way, David, as he taunts Goliath, says to him, ‘I come in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel’ (1 S 17:45). And once more there is evidently a special connexion between the title ‘Lord of hosts’ and the Ark which is regarded as the habitation of Jahweh in His capacity as War-God (cf. 1 S 4:3, 6–8, 5, 6). But this explanation of the origin of the title, as Delitzsch pointed out, is greatly invalidated by the fact that we do not find it in the period in which we should expect it to be most common, that is, in the wars of the Wandering in the Wilderness.

2. So we are brought to another view, which may merely mark a later stage: the ‘hosts’ are the spiritual forces which stand at God’s disposal. So in Jos 5:13, 14, when Joshua asks the unknown warrior whether he is on their side or on that of their enemies, the implied answer of the Divine stranger is that he belongs to neither side, but is come as captain of the Lord’s host to succour His people. For the idea of the angelic host engaged in the service of God, cf. 2 S 24:16 , 1 K 22:19, 2 K 6:17; and in the NT Mt 26:52, Lk 2:13, He 1:14.

3. The third stage is reached in the prophets, esp. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Malachi, where the title assumes a far wider meaning and embraces all the forces of the universe. The term ‘host of heaven’ is commonly used of the heavenly bodies to which the later kings paid idolatrous worship (cf. also Gn 2:1, Ps 33:6). As the Idea of the omnipotence of God grew loftier and wider, the elemental forces of nature were regarded as performing service to their Creator. So the sun is God’s minister (Ps 19:4, 5), and even so early as the Song of Deborah the stars are represented as joining by God’s behest in the battle against the invader (Jg 5:20). Hence the term ‘Lord of hosts’ becomes with the prophets the highest and most transcendental title of God, and is even rendered by the LXX in a certain number of passages ‘Lord of the forces (of nature).’ It serves as a constant reminder of the illimitable width of God’s sway, and as such it acquires a close connexion with the other great attribute of God, His holiness. Hence we get the summit of the OT creed in the angelic song of praise, Is 6:3, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the fulness of the whole earth is his glory.’

In the NT, with the exception of a quotation from Is 1:9 in Ro 9:29, the term occurs only in Ja 5:4 (in both passages EV has the form ‘Lord of Sabaoth’), where it is singularly appropriate in the passionate denunciation of the oppression practised by the unscrupulous landowners, recalling as it does the spirit of the Hebrew prophets.

H. C. O. LANCHESTER.

LORD’S DAY

1. Name and origin.—The title used by St. John (Rev 1:10), probably to describe the day upon which the Christian Church in Apostolic days assembled for worship. The Acts of the Apostles shows us the disciples of Christ immediately after Pentecost as a closely united body, ‘of one heart and soul,’ supported by daily gatherings together and the Eucharist (4:32, 2:42, 46). Their new faith did not at first lead them to cut themselves off from their old Jewish worship, for their belief in Jesus as Messiah seemed to them to add to and fulfil, rather than to abolish, the religion of their childhood. This worship of Christians with their Jewish fellow-countrymen secured the continuation of the Church of God from one dispensation to another; while their exclusively Christian Eucharists consolidated the Church and enabled it to discover itself.

The daity worship of the Christian Church would no doubt soon prove impracticable, and a weekly gathering become customary. For this weekly gathering the Sabbath was unsuitable, as being then observed in a spirit radically different from the joy and liberty of the new faith; doubtless also the restrictions as to length of a Sabbath day’s journey would prove a bar to the gathering together of the little body. Of the other six days none so naturally suggested itself as the first. To it our Lord had granted a certain approval; for on it He rose from the grave and appeared to His disciples, and on the following Sunday repeated His visitation; while, if Pentecost that year fell on the first day of the week (which it did if the chronology of St. John be followed), it received a final seal as the special day of grace.

That this day was actually chosen is seen in the NT (Ac 20:7, 1 Co 16:2). And mention of it is found in the literature immediately following the Apostolic writings.

Not the least interesting evidence is found in a report to the Emperor Trajan written by Pliny, a heathen magistrate, not long after the death of St. John, which mentions that the custom of the Christians was to meet together early in the morning on a certain ‘fixed day’ and sing hymns to Christ as a god, and bind themselves by a sacramentum to commit no crime. Ignatius, the earliest of post-Apostolic Christian writers, also speaks of it, telling the Magnesians to lead a life comformable to ‘the Lord’s Day.’

And from then to now a continuous stream of evidence shows that the Church has faithfully observed the custom ever since.

The title by which early Christian writers usually called the festival was ‘the Lord’s Day’; but before long the Church felt no difficulty in adopting the heathen title of ‘Sunday,’ realizing that as on that day light was created, and the Sun of Righteousness arose on it, there was to them a peculiar fitness in the name.

The most valuable evidence as to the method by which the early Church observed the day is found in Justin Martyr’s Apotogy (i. 67, A.D. 120), where we read that on the day called Sunday the Christians met together, out of both city and country, and held a religious service at which first the writings of Apostles and Prophets were read; then the president preached; after which common prayers were said; and when these were ended, bread and wine were brought to the president, who uttered prayers and thanksgivings, to which the people said, ‘Amen’; all present then participated in the Eucharist, the deacons carrying it to the absent. Thus it is clear that the early Church continued the Apostolic custom (Ac 20:7) of celebrating the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day—a custom so wide-spread as to enable Chrysostom to call Sunday dies panis, or ‘the day of bread.’

2. Relation to the Sabbath.—The relation of the Lord’s Day to the Sabbath is best defined as one of close affinity rather than of identity. The Sabbath was originally instituted as a provision for deep physical and spiritual needs of human nature. It sprang from the love of God for man, providing by religious sanction for the definite setting apart of the seventh day as a time for rest from labour and for communion with God. Our Lord found the original institution almost hidden beneath a mass of traditional regulations. Thus his action towards the Sabbath as He found it, was to bring men back to its first ideal. This He did by showing that their tradition told how David broke the letter of its regulation and yet was guiltless (Lk 6:3); how charity and common sense led men to break their own rules (13:15); how the Sabbath was granted to man as a blessing and not laid on him as a burden (Mk 2:27); and how He as Son of Man, fulfilling ideal manhood, was its Lord (2:28); but while our Lord thus purified the Sabbath, there is no proof that He abolished it. He foreknew its ultimate abolition, as He foreknew the ultimate destruction of the Temple; and He cleansed it as He cleansed the Temple.

We can best see Christ’s will regarding the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day in what actually happened. For what happened had its rise in Apostolic times, and has been adopted by the Church universal ever since, and is thus assuredly His will as wrought by the Spirit. The Acts shows us that the Christians who were originally Jews observed both the Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s Day (Ac 21:20f.); and this double observance lasted among them at least until the destruction of the Temple. The Jewish members of the Church were soon outnumbered by the Gentile, and these latter would feel in no way drawn to continuing the observance of the Jewish Sabbath as well as their own Lord’s Day; and this the more so that they had received the gospel under the wider teaching of St. Paul, who had emphasized the danger of an undue observance of days, and had spoken of the Sabbath as ‘a shadow of the things to come’ (i.e. the Christian dispensation; cf. Col 2:16f., Gal 4:9–11, Ro 14:5f.). But if the Gentile Christian did not observe the Jewish Sabbath, yet he could not be ignorant of its deeper meaning, for he saw the Sabbath observed by his Jewish neighbours, and read in the OT of its institution and uses; and thus imperceptibly the essential principles of the Sabbath would pass into the Christian idea of their own sacred day of rest and worship. Christ’s intention, then, seems to have been to allow the Sabbath to die slowly, but by His Spirit to teach the Church to perpetuate for mankind in her Lord’s Day all that was of eternal moment in the Sabbath. Thus was avoided the danger of pouring the new wine of Christian truth and liberty into the old bottles of Jewish traditional observances.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

LORD’S PRAYER

Mt 6:9–13.

v. 8 Thus therefore pray ye:

(1) Our Father which art in the heavens;

(2) Hallowed be thy name.

v. 10 (3) Thy kingdom come.

(4) Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on [the] earth.

v. 11 (5) Our daily (?) bread give us to-day.

v. 12 (6) And forgive us our debts, as we also [forgive] our debtors.

v. 13 (7) And bring us not into temptation;

(8) But deliver us from the evil (one?).

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, unto the ages. Amen. Lk 11:2–4.

v. 2 Whensoever ye pray, say,

(1) [Our] Father [which art in the heavens];

(2) Hallowed be thy name.

(3) Thy kingdom come.

(4) [Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on the earth.]

v. 3 (5) Our daily (?) bread give us day by day.

v. 4 (6) And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.

(7) And bring us not into temptation; (8) [But deliver us from the evil (one?)].

The request of one of the disciples—‘Lord, teach us to pray’ (Lk 11:1)—expresses a desire which doubtless found a place in the hearts of all. Great teachers were expected to give their disciples a form of prayer. Because John had taught his disciples to pray, Christ was petitioned to do the same for His followers.

The Lord’s Prayer has been delivered to us in two forms, one by Mt., another by Lk.; in each case in a different context. The forms are set out above for comparison, in a literal translation, as a preliminary to the consideration of questions connected with the texts and the contexts. The places in which there is a difference of reading, or where words are omitted by some authorities, are enclosed in brackets. The form in Mt. consists of eight clauses, which correspond, clause by clause, to an equal number in Lk., according to the longer text. The shorter Lukan text omits clauses 4 and 8. The Doxology is found only in MSS of Mt., and not in the oldest of these.

‘Thus,’ ‘after this manner’ (Mt 6:9) introduces the prayer as a model of acceptable devotion. ‘Whensoever’ (Lk 11:2) enjoins the use of the words which follow, and implies that the prayers of Christ’s disciples should be conceived in the spirit of the form He was giving them.

In clause 4 (Mt.) the article before ‘earth’ is omitted in some MSS; but as, by a well-known rule, the article in Greek is often implied, but not expressed, after a preposition, the omission does not demand a change in the translation.

In clause 6 (Mt.) a few old authorities read the perfect—‘have forgiven.’

In Lk., clause 1, the words ‘Our’ and ‘which art in the heavens,’ and the whole of clauses 4 and 8, are omitted by a few ancient authorities, and, in consequence, have been rejected by the RV. Yet the TR of Lk. is attested by the majority of the MSS. If we go behind these witnesses, and, in spite of their evidence, accept the shorter Lukan form, it will perhaps follow that the rejected clauses were never parts of the Prayer, as taught by Christ, but are later amplifications, which obtained a place in Mt., and thence were copied into the Lukan text.

Clause 6 in Lk. explains the corresponding words in Mt. In the latter ‘as’ is not of strict proportion, but of general condition. It cannot be, as is sometimes stated in devotional exegesis, that we are to pray God to measure His boundless pity by our imperfect attempts to forgive; but we plead that we have endeavoured to remove what would be a bar to His grant of pardon; and this is expressed clearly in Lk., ‘for we ourselves also forgive.’

The Doxology, which is not found in the oldest MSS, is contained in the majority of copies. The evidence of the ancient versions is divided. Some of the Fathers, in commenting on the Lord’s Prayer, take no account of a Doxology; but Chrysostom and others recognize it, and note its connexion with the preceding petitions. If the Doxology be not an integral part of the Matthæan text, it is certainly of very great antiquity. It may have been interpolated from a Liturgy; for it is now admitted that liturgical forms existed in the earliest days of Christianity, although perhaps at first they were unwritten, and were transmitted orally.

The word in clause 5 which we have provisionally rendered ‘daily’ was of doubtful import in early times, for different interpretations have been given by the ancients.

Origen (3rd cent.), the greatest textual critic of primitive days says that the word (epiousios) was coined by the Evangelists, and is not found in earlier Greek writers. Among the Syrians, one Version (Curetonian) has in Mt. ‘bread constant of the day,’ in Lk. ‘bread constant of every day’; in Lk. the Lewis Version (not extant in Mt.) has the same as the Curetonian; in Mt. the Pesh. has ‘bread of our need today,’ in Lk. ‘bread of our need daily.’ The ancient Latin rendering of epiousios was ‘daily.’ This is read now in the Vulgate in Lk., but in Mt. was altered by Jerome to ‘super-substantial.’ The term is derived either from epi and ienai, ‘to come upon,’ i.e. ‘succeed,’ ‘be continual’; or from epi and ousia, upon substance,’ i.e. ‘added to, or adapted to, substance.’ The Syriac rendering ‘constant’ comes from the first derivation; the second derivation permits their other rendering ‘of our need,’ bread ‘adapted to our human substance.’ Jerome’s rendering in Mt. takes epiousios in a spiritual sense, ‘something added to natural substance.’ In either case ‘bread’ may be taken in an earthly or a heavenly sense. The fulness of Scriptural language justifies the widest application of the term. If we adopt the derivation from ienai ‘to come,’ the bread epiousios will be—(i) whatsoever is needed for the coming day, to be sought in daily morning prayer—‘give us to-day’; (ii) whatsoever is needed for the coming days of life. The petition becomes a prayer for the presence of Him who has revealed Himself as ‘the Bread.’ Another application, the coming feast in the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk 14:15), seems excluded by the reference to the present time in both Evangelists.

In clause 8 the Greek may be the genitive case of ho ponēros, ‘the evil one,’ or of to ponēron, where the article to is generic, ‘the evil,’ ‘whatsoever is evil.’ The Greek is indefinite, and commentators have taken the words in both applications.

We have already observed that the longer readings in the Lukan form of the Prayer may be due to the attempts of copyists to harmonize the text with the form found in their days in Mt. Some may further argue that the two forms are different reminiscences of the same instruction. If it beheld that the Gospels are late compositions, in which, long after the events recorded, certain unknown writers gathered together, without method, or accurate knowledge, such traditions as had reached them, it will be as justifiable as it is convenient to treat all related passages as mere varying traditions of the same original. But if it be admitted that the Evangelists were accurate and well-informed historians, there is no ground for identifying the Prayer in Lk. with that in Mt. They occupy different places in the history. Mt. records the Prayer as part of a discourse. It was delivered unasked, as a specimen of right prayer, in contrast to the hypocritical and superstitious habits which the Master condemned; and it is followed by an instruction on forgiveness. The occasion in Lk. is altogether different. Christ had been engaged in prayer; then, in response to a request, He delivered a form for the use of His disciples, and enforced the instruction by a parable and exhortations teaching the power of earnestness in prayer. The differences of text, especially if the shorter readings in Lk. be adopted, distinguish the one form from the other; and it is unreasonable to deny that the Master would, if necessary, repeat instructions on an important subject.

The Prayer is rightly named ‘the Lord’s,’ because it owes to the Master its form and arrangement; but many of the sentiments may be paralleled in Jewish writings, and are ultimately based on the teachings of the OT.

In a work accessible to the ordinary reader, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (ed. C. Taylor), we read (ch. 5:30): ‘R. Jehudah ben Thema said, Be strong as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven.’ In ch. 4:7 (n. 8) examples are given of the use of ‘the Name’ as a substitute for titles of the Almighty, and including all that they imply. The Rabbinical doctrine of the correspondence of the upper with the lower world is exemplified by Taylor, ch. 3:15 n. Hillel said of a skull floating on the water (2:7), ‘Because thou drownedst, they drowned thee, and in the end they that drowned thee shall be drowned’; which illustrates clause 6 of the Prayer. From Talmudic prayers are quoted (p. 128) the petitions: ‘May it be thy will to deliver us from evil man, evil chance,’ etc.; and ‘Bring me not into the hands of sin, nor into the hands of temptation.’ In the OT we may compare with clause 1, Is 63:16; clause 2, Ex 20:7; clauses 2, 3, Zec. 14:9; clause 4, Ps 103:20, 135:6; clause 5, Ex 16:4, Pr 30:8; clause 6, Ob 15. The Doxology may be compared with 1 Ch 29:11.

It is remarkable that there is no instance in the NT of the use of the Prayer by the disciples; but the scantiness of the records forbids an adverse conclusion. There is in 2 Ti 4:18 what seems to be an allusion to clause 8, and to the Doxology, in relation to St. Paul’s experience. The first word of the Prayer in our Lord’s vernacular and in the Evangelists’ translation is alluded to in Ro 8:15, Gal 4:6. It is doubtful whether an Oriental would consider that he had satisfied the requirements of the ‘thus’ and the ‘whensoever’ by ex tempore or other devotions, which merely expressed the sentiments of the Prayer. In any case, from early days the opinion has prevailed in the Church that the use of the actual words is an essential part of every act of worship.

G. H. GWILLIAM.

LORD’S SUPPER.—See EUCHARIST.

LORDS OF THE PHILISTINES.—The chieftains or ‘tyrants’ of the five Philistine cities,

Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. Wherever they are mentioned (Jos 13:3, Jg 3:3, 16:5 , 8, 18, 27, 30, 1 S 5:8, 11, 6:4, 12, 16, 18, 7:7, 29:2, 8, 7, 1 Ch 12:19) the word translated ‘lord’ is a peculiar one, being identical with the Heb. word for ‘axle.’ Once (1 S 18:30) the Heb. word for ‘princes’ is applied to them. Probably the peculiar word is a native Philistine title. Their functions, so far as can be gathered from the OT, were the same as those of petty kings.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

LO-RUHAMAH.—See HOSEA, LO-AMMI.

LOT.—The son of Haran, brother of Abraham. His name seems clearly derived from a root meaning to wrap closely. The account of his life is contained in Gn 11:27–14:16, 19. He was born in Ur, and went with Abraham to Haran, and thence to Canaan. He accompanied Abraham in much of his wandering. The separation between them (ch. 13) was due to a quarrel between their herdsmen, each having great possessions of cattle. As a result, Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, making his home in Sodom. During the expedition of Chedorlaomer (ch. 14) he was carried away captive, and rescued by Abraham. In ch. 19 is narrated the escape of Lot and his daughters from Sodom, with the subsequent incidents. The city of Zoar, where they dwelt for a time, is possibly the Zoara or Zoōr of Josephus, at the S.E. extremity of the Dead Sea, in the modern Ghōr es-Sāfieh, a well-watered region. The mountain to which he finally went is doubtless the mountainous region later known as Moab. The story of the daughters of Lot (19:30–38) is now usually considered to be not history, but a traditional account of the origin of the two nations, Moab and Ammon. The basis of the story is partly popular etymology of the two names; while it is prompted chiefly by national rivalry and hostility. That Lot was a righteous man (2 P 2:7, 8) may be granted in a relative sense, in comparison with the Sodomites; but he shows no great strength of character.

Lot’s wife.—The historical character of the story of Lot’s wife and her transformation into a pillar of salt is doubtful: it may have arisen from the peculiarities of the cliffs in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. At its S.W. extremity is a range of cliffs 6 miles long and 600 feet high, called Jebel Usdum, ‘the mountain of Sodom.’ These consist of crystallized rock salt, covered with chalky limestone and gypsum, and curiously furrowed and worn, so as sometimes to resemble a human figure.

GEORGE R. BERRY.

LOTAN.—A Horite clan (Gn 36:20, 22, 29 = 1 Ch 1:38, 39).

LOTHASUBUS (1 Es 9:44).—A corruption of Hashum in Neh 8:4.

LOTS.—See MAGIC (567f.), URIM AND THUMMIM, PURIM.

LOTUS TREES.—The correct (RV) tr. of tse’ělim (Job 40:21f., AV ‘shady trees’), the haunt of Behemoth (i.e. the hippopotamus). The tree is probably = the Arab, dāl, the ‘dom-tree,’ and must not he confused with the Egyptian water-lilies. It is a prickly shrub found in N. Africa and S. Europe.

W. EWING.

LOVE, LOVER, LOVELY, BELOVED

1. ‘Love’ (noun and verb, native Eng.) represents a single Heb. word, which ranged, like the Eng. term, from (1) sensuous, and often (though not necessarily) evil, desire (as in Gn 25:28, 2 S 13:4, Jer 2:33), through (2) family affection and natural friendship (Gn 22:2, Ex 21:5, 1 S 18:16, 2 S 1:26), up to

(3) the highest spiritual passion. Under (3) comes (a) J″’s love to Israel, to the righteous, etc. (Dt 4:37 , 7:7f., 1 K 10:9, Hos 3:1, 9:5, 11:4, 14:4, Zeph 3:17, Jer 2:2, Is 43:4, 48:14, 63:9, Mal 1:2, Ps 11:1, 47:4 , 78:68, 87:2, 146:8, Pr 3:12, 8:17, 2 Ch 2:11, 9:8); and (b) Israel’s love to J″, His name, word, ways, etc.

(e.g. in Ex 20:6, Dt 6:5 etc., Neh 1:5; 1 K 3:3—same verb as in 11:1; Ps 5:11, 31:23, 116:1, 119:97 etc.;

Mic 6:8). Under a strong synonym meaning to cleave to or hang upon’ J″ is said (Dt 7:7) to have ‘set his love upon’ Israel, and the saint (Ps 91:14) to have ‘set his love upon’ J″. Passages coming under (b) are relatively numerous, and date from the redemption of the Exodus. The instances of (a) we have enumerated in full; none of these is certainly earlier than Hosea, who first represented the covenant of Jehovah as a spousal contract. In similar connexion, J″’s love to His people is poetically expressed by a word, of twofold form, signifying ‘darling’ (‘beloved,’ etc.), in Dt 33:12, Is 5:1, Ps 60:5, 127:2; this term figures much in Canticles. ‘Love does not appear with this association in Gn.; but the phrass ‘walked with God,’ of 5:22, 24, 6:9 (also Mic 6:8, Mal 2:6), conveys the idea of companionship. Several other Heb. synonyms occur, of limited use and slight significance. Lover (OT) is used in the evil meaning of (1) = paramour, and in sense (2) above—a derivative (in Heb.) from the main stem first referred to. Lovely in 2 S 1:23 = lovable. For ‘greatly beloved’ in Dn 9:23 etc., see RVm.

Love, like joy (wh. see), holds a unique place in the Israelite as compared with other religions, as it signifies the reciprocal affection of God and people. According to Greek philosophy, the gods are as much above human affection as inanimate things are below it: ‘for friendship demands reciprocity; but relationship with God admits of no return of love, and therefore of no love in the proper sense, for it would be preposterous if any one said that he loves Zeus!’ (Magna Moralia). The sentiment of the OT is just the opposite of this; J″ calls Israel ‘the seed of Abraham, my friend’ (Is 41:8; cf. Pss 91, 116 etc.). In several of the texts referred to under (3) above, usages (a) and (b) are correlative; the people’s love to J″ presupposes and grows out of J″’s love to it. The fact that the word denoting this affection comes from the sphere of conjugal love and of friendship imports reciprocity; see, in illustration, Ex 33:11, Hos 2:14–23 , 11:1–4, Is 62:3–5, 63:7–10. The Divine Wisdom says, in Pr 8:17, ‘I love them that love me,’ conditioning J″’s affection on the return made to it (cf. Jn 14:28, 15:4, 10). Yet it was not because of the greatness or the worth of this people that J″ ‘chose’ them—the case was quite otherwise—but out of His unmerited goodness and His faithful regard for their forefathers ( Dt 7:7ff., 9:4ff., Ezk 16:3–4; cf. Ro 5:7f.; the characteristic saying of 1 Jn 4:19, ‘We love, because he first loved us,’ equally applies to the OT redemption. The union of affection between J″ and Israel, grounded on the covenant with the fathers and the redemption from Egypt, is the distinctive and vital element in the OT doctrine of love. ‘Love’ becomes increasingly prominent in the prophetic speech as the relations between God and people become increasingly strained, during the national downfall and exile; see esp. Hosea and Deutero-Isaiah.

The character of J″, ‘the Holy One of Israel,’ gives to His love its qualities—purity, intensity, selflessness, fidelity; reciprocal love calls forth like qualities in His people (see the relevant

expressions of love to J″ in the Psalms). Israel’s sin is the base requital it has rendered; see Dt

32:4–6, Is 5:1–4, 63:7–10, Mic 6:3f., Jer 2:5, 31, Mal 1:2, 6, Neh 9:7–17. God’s love is kindness, lovingkindness (see artt.: very frequent); to those in any degree worthy and approved, becoming delight, joy, in special cases, it is mercy (wh. see) toward the weak, sinful, needy—‘mercy’ is more conspicuous than ‘love’ in the OT, and looks beyond the covenant-bond. God’s love breaks into grief, anger, wrath, threatening (the reaction of affronted love) against the faithless and wanton (Dt 7:7–11, Ps 78:40, Is 63:9f., Am 3:1f. etc.); it burns with jealousy, when its chosen are seduced into idolatry and vice—J″’s loathing of Israel’s corruption reveals at once the purity of His nature and the zeal of His affection (Ex 20:5, Nu 25:11, Dt 29:18–21, Zeph 1:18, Jer 44:4 etc.). For the same reason, there is in Him a ‘jealousy over Zion,’ etc., when His ‘beloved’ is injured or wronged (Jl 2:18, Zec 1:14 etc.). Is 19:25, 42:1–5 etc., adumbrate the inclusion of ‘the nations’ in the covenant; and Ps 100, 103:13–15, 145:8–12, Jon 4:11 reveal a universal and truly humane love in J″ (cf. Lk 2:29–32, Tit 3:4).

2. The Greek language discriminated in expressing love: it distinguished (1) sexual love. erōs; (2) family love, natural affection, storgē; (3) social love, friendship, philia; (4) sometimes, in a broader ethical sense, philanthropia, humanity, kindness. The LXX translators, though not consistent in their usage, enlisted (5) agapē to denote religious love, the love of God to man or man to God, or of man to man under God’s covenant (Lv 19:18)—i.e. love suffused with religion. The lower kinds of love, (1) and (2), they express by philia—erōs is avoided; agapē, however, encroaches here upon philia. The verb agapaō (or -azō; noun agapē rare outside of Scripture) was used in all periods of Greek synonymously with phileō, implying in distinction therefrom affection rather than passion, and practical affection, love shown by signs, rather than sentiment. The AV, after the Latin caritas (charitas), rendered agapē in NT 30 times by ‘charity,’ which RV has corrected to ‘love.’ Being a term of the heart, free from debasing and narrow associations, agapē was suitable for Biblical use. In the NT vocabulary of love, (1) never occurs—‘lust’ represents the evil erōs; agapē and philia are the prevailing synonyms (verbs agapaō and phileō), the latter sometimes replacing the former in application to the higher love, with the connotation of endearment or intimacy; see Jn 5:20 and 16:27, (a quasi-family affection), 11:3, 36—spoken about Jesus (agapaō in v. 5), 20:2 (agapaō, in parallels), 21:15ff. (no idle variation); and in 1 Co 16:22, where the negative coalesces with the verb (‘If any one is no friend of the Lord’), storgē (2) is found in its negative in Ro 1:31, 2 Ti 3:3; and in the peculiar compound of Ro 12:10, the adjective ‘tenderlyaffectioned.’ In Tit 3:4 Paul speaks of ‘the philanthropy (4) of God.’ ‘Beloved’ (‘well-.’ ‘dearly-’) represents a derivative of agapaō, used of Christ, or Christians as dear to God; and of Christians, as dear to fellow-believers. It is synonymous with ‘brethren’; this usage is frequent in salutations and apostrophes. ‘Lovely’ in Ph 4:8 reproduces an adjective akin to philia (3) = amiable’ or ‘affectionate.’ There are several NT Gr. compounds of phil-, rendered ‘love of—’ and ‘lover(s) of—.’ agapē (agapaō), signifying primarily a voluntary, active affection, has brought from the LXX into the NT the deeper sense of spiritual affection, the love that links God and man and unites soul and soul in the Divine communion. Like philia, it implies reciprocity, fellowship,—if not existing, then desired and sought.

The Apostle John gives the final and complete NT doctrine of love. (a) The love of God John sees ‘perfected’ in those who ‘love one another’ and thus ‘keep God’s commands,’ from whose souls accordingly ‘fear’ is ‘cast out,’ who ‘abide’ wholly in the realm of love that is constituted by the one Spirit dwelling in their hearts (1 Jn 2:5, 3:24, 4:11f., 15–21); by such love men are ‘perfected into one,’ even as Christ is ‘one’ with the Father by virtue of the love subsisting eternally between them (Jn 17:21–26: cf. Mt 3:17, 17:5)—there is love’s prime fountain. Gradually, almost timidly, OT saints had learned to speak of J″’s ‘love’ to men; Christ builds everything upon this. Coming from His ‘bosom’ (Jn 1:18), He knows the Father’s love, and seeks to convey it to and share it with His brethren. His mission is to ‘show the Father,’—to declare how much, and to what effect, ‘God loves the world’ (Jn 3:16f., 17:25f. etc.), ‘thankless and evil’ though it is (Lk 6:35). In love which heaps kindness on the worst and seeks out the most alienated, lies the ‘perfection’ of God in His character of Father (Mt 5:48, Lk 15 etc.; cf. Ro 2:4, Col 1:21f.). The bestowment of ‘the Son of his love,’ ‘the only begotten,’ on our race, and the sacrifice of that Son’s life for man’s redemption, display with infinite force and effect the love of the Father towards His unworthy children; see Jn 1:14, 3:14–19, Ro 5:5–8 (‘love of God,’ or ‘of Christ,’ means always in Paul God’s, or Christ’s, love to man) 8:32, 1 Jn 4:9f., 14, Col 1:13. The love which God thus ‘commends’ subsisted in Him apart from and anterior to this proof; it actuates all God’s dealings with mankind,—in creation, providence, and moral discipline (Mt 5:45, 6:26–33, 10:29ff., Ja 1:17f., 1 P 4:18). ‘Love is of God,’ since ‘God is love’; it comes from Him, being absolutely in Him; ‘love’ gives the best conception we can form of God’s nature. Since its objects are pitiable, God’s redeeming love is mercy (Lk 1:50, Eph 2:4, Tit 3:6, 1 P 1:3—‘love’ predominates in the NT, as ‘mercy’ in the OT); and as men are sinful and undeserving, love wears the form of grace (wh. see: Paul’s favourite term, as ‘love’ is John’s). God’s ‘good-will’ (or ‘pleasure’) is His love taking determinate expression (Lk 2:14, 12:32, 1 Co

1:21, Eph 1:5ff. etc.); His ‘kindness’ is love in its considerateness or bounty (Lk 6:35, Ro 2:4) ;

His ‘long-suffering’ is love in its patience. restraining anger and delaying chastisement (Ro 2:4 , 9:22, 1 Ti 1:16, 1 P 3:20). Jesus Christ is not the mere channel of the Father’s good-will; He shares in it infinitely—‘the love of God’ is seen in ‘the love of Christ’ (Ro 8:35, 39, 2 Co 5:14 , Gal 2:20, Eph 3:19; cf. Jn 10:11–15, 13:1, 34, 14:21, Rev 1:5 etc.). Ja 4:5 testifies to a ‘jealous yearning’ in the Holy Spirit, over Christians infected with ‘love of the world’; cf. Eph 4:13, Is 63:10.

(b) The love of Christians towards God and Christ is the heart’s response to the Father’s love exhibited in Christ (1 Jn 4:18). This is not spontaneous on man’s part, but comes by ‘knowing the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge’ (Eph 3:19, Ro 5:17f., Eph 2:3–5, 3:17–19, Jn 15:16 , 17:23). Grateful and obedient love to God results from faith (wh. see: ‘faith and love,’ also ‘faith, hope, love,’ are companions; 1 Co 13:13, 1 Th 1:3, 1 Ti 1:14, Philem 5 etc.) in Jesus Christ—His mission and sacrifice for sin, His Person recognized as the full representation of the mind of God (2 Co 4:4–6, Gal 5:5, Eph 5:1f.; cf. 2:8, 1 P 1:8f., 1 Jn 4:16, 19); it is the ‘fruit’ and evidence of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling, who is the Father’s ‘gift’ of love to His reconciled children ( Gal 5:22, 1 Co 2:12, Ro 5:5, 1 Jn 4:13f.). ‘Abba, Father!’ was the cry of this new-horn filial love ( Ro

8:15, Gal 4:5). Its antithesis is found in ‘the love of the world,’ of ‘self,’ ‘pleasure,’ ‘money’ (1 Jn 2:15ff., Ja 4:4, 2 Ti 3:2–5, Lk 16:13f., Jn 15:19–24). Love towards God is the fundamental law of man’s nature, broken by his transgression—a law proclaimed in comprehensive terms in the OT, recalled by Jesus and recognized by the true Israelite (Mt 22:37); the false professors of Judaism ‘had not the love of God in them,’ for indeed they ‘had not known Him’ or they would have ‘received’ His messenger, they would have ‘loved’ His Son (Lk 11:42, Jn 5:33, 42f., 8:42 , 55). The world’s radical hostility towards God shows itself in unbelief towards Christ, and consequent persecution of Christians (Jn 15:19–16:3, Ro 8:7, 38, Gal 4:29, 1 Jn 3:12f.). Love towards God (and Christ) renovates and purifies the heart, inspires a constant self-devotion, and makes the perfect vision of God the object of fervent anticipation (1 P 1:3–9, 18–23, Eph 4:31 , 5:5, Col 3:12–15, 1 Jn 3:1–3, 4:11, Rev 21:7, 22:3f., Jn 14:23, 17:24). To cherish this love to the Father is to live as one who ‘has learnt Christ’; it is to follow in His steps, with the certainty of arriving where He is (Jn 17:24ff., 15:8ff., 14:2ff., Eph 4:20–24). Thus one wins ‘the crown of life’ (Ja 1:12, Rev 2:10, Ro 8:28–30); hence the coupling of ‘love and hope’ (wh. see).

(c) If love to God is rekindled by the knowledge of God’s love to man in Christ, this holds no less of man’s love to man, to which most NT instances of the word refer. This was the matter of ‘the second commandment’ of Jesus, which is ‘like unto the first and great commandment,’ and is grounded equally with it upon creation and the true order of the world (Mt 22:38ff.). Sin, brought in by ‘the wicked one,’ confounded this order, planting hate, lust, deceit, the destroyers of love and life, in human nature (Jn 8:44, 1 Jn 3:12, Ja 1:14f., 4:1f., 11); this whole evil brood Paul traces to wilful ignorance of God (Ro 1:19–32, Eph 4:17–19). In ‘laying down his life for us’ Jesus Christ has laid the foundation of a new empire of love, a regime and fashion of life the opposite of that inaugurated by Cain (1 Jn 3:12; cf. 1 P 2:21ff., 2 Co 5:15f., Eph 4:31–5:5, Col 1:13, Tit 3:3–7). The ‘new commandment’ is, after all, ‘the old commandment which’ men ‘had from the beginning’ (1 Jn 2:7f.); God’s Fatherly love manifest in the unstinted bounties of nature, which visit ‘just and unjust’ every day, dictates to His ‘children’ love to ‘enemies’ and kindness to ‘the evil’ (Mt 5:43–48). ‘The love of Christ,’ reaffirming and immensely reinforcing the primeval law, ‘constrains us’ to ‘live no longer to ourselves but to him’ (2 Co 5:14–19); in living to Him one lives for His Church and for humanity (Eph 5:25ff., Mt 25:34–45, 1 Co 8:11 f., Ro 1:14f., 1 Jn 3:16, Eph 3:3–9, Col 1:24–29). ‘If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar’ (1 Jn 2:9, 4:20f.; cf. Tit 1:15); true love ever speaks in beneficent deed (Ja 1:27 , 2:15f., 1 Jn 3:17ff.). The terms of Christ’s redemption bind His redeemed to human service; they have become both witnesses and engaged parties to God’s covenant of grace in Christ made with mankind (Jn 1:29, 6:33, 51, Mt 10:8, 26:28, Mk 16:15, Lk 24:45ff., Ac 1:8, Ro 5:12–21, Col 1:23, 1 Jn 2:2, Rev 5:9, etc.). The gift of the Spirit is bestowed expressly with this world-aim in view; the salvation of each sinner is a step towards and an earnest of the world’s salvation ( Mt 5:13f., 13:33, Ja 1:18, 1 P 2:9, Eph 3:7ff., Gal 3:14). The love of God must reach the world and rule the world through those who know it in ‘knowing the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.’

G. G. FINDLAY.

LOVE FEAST (Agape).—The Love Feast of the Christian Church in Apostolic times was a common meal of which all the brethren partook, and was still connected with the Eucharist. The ‘breaking of bread from house to house’ (Ac 2:46) probably included both under the title ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (1 Co 11:20). From Ac 20:7 we gather that the religious exercises of the Love

Feast were prolonged till dawn, and ended with the Eucharist. The scandalous behaviour, which St. Paul was constrained to rebuke at Corinth in A.D. 57–58 (1 Co 11:17–34), shows that not all who came to the Love Feast were in a fit condition to communicate. More serious evils still were introduced by false teachers described by Jude 12: ‘they who are hidden rocks at your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves.’ The writer is dependent on 2 P 2:13: ‘spots are they and blemishes, revelling in their love feasts, while they feast with you.’

In spite of the disorders, which marred the religious value of these social club-feasts and led in the end to their suppression, they lasted for a considerable period. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnæans (c. 8): ‘It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love feast,’ in a context which proves that the Agape included the Eucharist. Tertullian (Apol. c. xxxix.) gives a vivid description of the feast explained by its own name.

‘The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger: as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the Holy Scriptures or one of his own composing. This is a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so it is closed with prayer.’

The food consisted of bread, fish, and vegetables. The pictures of the Love Feasts in the catacombs give fish a prominent place. Interesting specimens of prayers used at them are found in the Didache. The direction to give thanks ‘after ye are satisfied’ plainly associates the prayer with the Love Feast rather than the Eucharist (c. 10):—

‘We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Servant Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for

Thy Name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee; but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.…’

The separation of the Love Feast from the Eucharist seems to have been due, in the first instance, to the action of the Roman Government, always jealous of secret societies. Pliny’s letter to Trajan speaks of the celebration of the Eucharist in the early morning as followed by a simple meal, which had been left off since the issue of the edict forhidding clubs. On the other hand, fear of calumnies regarding any more or less secret feast, and experience of disorders like those which prevailed at Corinth, were motives which from time to time hindered the practice in certain districts, and finally extinguished it.

A. E. BURN.

LOVINGKINDNESS.—Two ideas are blended in this expressive word; it denotes kindness which springs from the loyalty of love. It is the frequent tr. (30 times in the AV, 42 times in the RV) of the Heb. word chesedh, which G. A. Smith renders ‘leal love’ (Book of the Twelve

Prophets, i. 243 n). The EV most frequently tr. chesedh ‘mercy’ and not seldom ‘kindness.’ The Amer. RV gives ‘lovingkindness’ uniformly when the reference is to God’s love to man. The adoption of this helpful suggestion would bring out the connexion between ‘lovingkindness’ as a fundamental attribute of the Divine nature (Ex 34:6f. etc.), its poetic personification (Ps 42:8 , 57:3, 89:14), and the appeal to God to be true to Himself,—to save and to redeem ‘for His lovingkindness’ sake’ (Ps 6:4, 44:26, 115:1). For the combination of ‘lovingkindness’ with ‘faithfulness’ see Ps 89, where each word occurs seven times, and cf. La 3:22f., Is 55:3. Cf. also

LOVE.

J. G. TASKER.

LOZON (1 Es 5:33) = Darkon, Ezr 2:56, Neh 7:58.

LUBIM.—The name of a people, standing in EV for the Libyans in Nah 3:9, 2 Ch 12:3 , 16:8, and replaced by the word ‘Libyans’ itself in Dn 11:43. These were a very ancient people living west of Egypt, who were subdued by the Egyptians at an early date and long furnished mercenary soldiers to their armies. At length they invaded Egypt, subdued it in the 10th cent. B.C., and established a powerful dynasty, of which the Biblical Shishak was the founder. Probably Lubim should be read for Ludim (wh. see) in certain passages. Cf. LEHABIM.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

LUCAS, Philem 24 (AV), for Luke (wh. see).

LUCIFER.—In Is 14:12 occurs the phrase ‘helēl (helāl) ben shachar,’ commonly but incorrectly rendered ‘Lucifer son of the morning,’ as if the expression helēl (helāl) must mean ‘the morning-star’ (cf. AVm and RV ‘day-star’). In this connexion, helēl (helāl) can denote only the waning of some luminary, as it is forcibly compared with the impending fate of the then king of Babylon, whose utter destruction the prophet is engaged in foretelling, The waning luminary intended by the author may probably have been only the old moon crescent seen at dawn, just about to disappear. It could scarcely have been a morning-star, whose chief point would be its brightness. This allusion to a waning luminary possibly reflects some myth similar to the Greek

Phaethon legend (Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 132–134). From a supposed reference in Lk 10:18 and Rev 9:1–11 to this passage in Isaiah, the name ‘Lucifer’ came to be used synonymously with ‘Satan.’

N. A. KOENIG.

LUCIUS.—1. A ‘consul of the Romans’ (1 Mac 15:16ff.), who transmitted the decree of the senate in favour of the Jews. Probably the reference is to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, consul in B.C. 139. 2. Of Cyrene, one of certain prophets and teachers at Antioch in Syria, mentioned in Acts 13:1, to whom it was revealed that Paul and Barnabas should be separated for the work to which they had been called. The suggestion that he was the same person as St. Luke, the Evangelist, has nothing to support it. 3. Mentioned in Ro 16:21, as sending greetings to the brethren at Rome. Possibly the same person as 2, but of this there is no certain proof.

MORLEY STEVENSON.

LUCRE.—The Eng. word ‘lucre’ is in AV always qualified by the adj. ‘filthy,’ because the word itself had not then the offensive meaning it has now. Erasmus speaks of God turning men’s wickedness ‘into the lucre and encreace of godlynesse.’ It simply meant gain. Filthy lucre means sordid gain.

LUD, LUDIM.—Usually supposed to stand for the country and people of Lydia (wh. see).

In Gn 10:22 (1 Ch 1:17) Lud is named as one of the ‘sons’ of Shem, along with the well-known

Elam, Asshur, and Aram, and the uncertain Arpachshad. In this list the Elamites at least are not Semitic, but are regarded as such by reason of association with the Babylonians. In a similar way the Lydians may be associated here with the Semitic Assyrians, whose rule once extended to the borders of the Lydian empire. No better explanation has been given, and they are at any rate an Asiatic people.

On the other hand, Ludim is given as the name of one of the descendants of Mizraim ( Egypt ) in Gn 10:13 (1 Ch 1:11) in a list of peoples all undoubtedly African. Here there can be no question of Asiatic Lydians, and experts are divided as to whether an unknown African people is referred to, or whether we are to read Lubim (wh. see). This reading would suit equally well Jer 46:9, and even the singular form Lud might with advantage be emended into Lub in Ezk 27:10 , 30:5, Is 66:19.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

LUHITH.—The ascent of ‘Luhith’ (Is 15:5) is probably the path called the ‘descent or going down of Horonaim,’ the latter lying, probably, higher than Luhith (cf. Jer 48:5). The way leading through Wādy Bene Hammād, from the district of Zoar to the eastern plateau, may be intended. The Onomasticon places Luhith between Areopolis and Zoar. It is not now known.

W. EWING.

LUKE (EVANGELIST).—Luke, a companion of St. Paul, is mentioned in Col 4:14, Philem 24, 2 Ti 4:11, in all three places in connexion with Mark. He is generally believed to be the author of the Third Gospel and Acts, and therefore a frequent fellow-traveller with the Apostle of the Gentiles. (See art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES for proofs, and for his place of origin.) He has been identified, but without probability, with Lucius of Cyrene (Ac 13:1). He may have been converted by St. Paul, possibly at Tarsus, where he could have studied medicine. Tertullian calls St. Paul his ‘illuminator’ and ‘master’ (adv. Marc. iv. 2), which perhaps has this meaning; but it may be a mere conjecture. Luke joined St. Paul on his Second Missionary Journey, apparently for the first time, at Troas. He was not an eye-witness of the Gospel events (Lk 1:2), but had ample means of getting information from those who had been. He was a Gentile (cf. Col 4:10 f. and v. 14); thus he could not have been of the Seventy, or the companion of Cleopas (Lk 24:13 , 18), as some have thought. He was a doctor (Col 4:14), and perhaps had attended St. Paul in his illnesses. A tradition, perhaps of the 6th cent., makes him a painter, who had made a picture of the Virgin. He was possibly of servile origin; his name, which seems to be an abbreviation of Lucanus, Lucius, Lucilius, or Lucianus, may well have been a slave’s name; and physicians were often slaves. Chrysostom and Jerome take him for ‘the brother whose praise in the gospel’ is spread abroad (2 Co 8:18; see art. GOSPEL). Other traditions connect him with Achaia, Bithynia, or Alexandria; some assign to him a martyr’s crown.

A. J. MACLEAN.

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

1. The Third Gospel in the Early Church—Of 2nd cent. writers the following can without doubt be said to have known the Gospel or to imply its previous composition: Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.), who gives particulars found in Lk. only; Tatian, his pupil, who included it in his Harmony (the Diatessaron); Celsus (c. A.D. 160 or c. 177), who refers to the genealogy of Jesus from Adam; the Clementine Homities (2nd cent.); the Gospel of pseudo-Peter, a Docetic work (c. A.D. 165? Swete); the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a Jewish-Christian work (before A.D.

135, Sinker in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.); the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (A.D. 177); Marcion, who based his Gospel upon Lk. and abbreviated it [this is certain—as against the hypothesis that Lk. is later than, and an expansion of, Marcion, as the Tübingen school maintained—from the evidence of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius; from the exact similarity of style between the portions which are not in Marcion and those which are; and for other reasons]; the Valentinians; and Heracleon, who wrote a commentary upon it. The first writers who name Luke in connexion with it are Irenæus and the author of the Muratorian Fragment (perhaps Hippolytus), Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria—all at the end of the 2 nd century. If we go back earlier than any of the writers named above, we note that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Didache writer perhaps knew Lk.; but we cannot be certain if their quotations are from Mt. or from Lk. or from some third document now lost, or even from oral tradition. Yet Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp probably quote Acts, and the title of the Didache seems to come from Ac 2:42, and this presupposes the circulation of Luke. It will be observed that the ecclesiastical testimony shows the existence of Lk. before the second quarter of the 2nd cent., but we have not, as in the case of Mt. and Mk., any guidance from that early period as to the method of its composition or as to its author.

2. Contents of the Gospel.—The preface (1:1–4) and the Birth and Childhood narratives (1:5–2:52) are peculiar to Luke. The Evangelist then follows Mk. (up to 6:19) as to the Baptist’s teaching and the early ministry, inserting, however, sections common to him and Mt. on the Baptist and on the Temptation, and also the genealogy, the miraculous draught of fishes, the anointing by the sinful woman, and some sayings (especially those at Nazareth) peculiar to himself. From 6:29 to 8:3 Lk. entirely deserts Mk. The intervening portion contains part of the Sermon on the Mount (not in the order of Mt.), the message of the Baptist, and the healing of the centurion’s servant (so Mt.) and some fragments peculiar to himself, especially the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (Lk. practically omits the section Mk 6:45–8:26 = Mt 14:22–16:12). The Markan narrative, containing the rest of the Galilæan ministry, the charge to the Twelve, the Transfiguration, etc., is then resumed, nearly in the same order as Mk., but with some omissions, to 9:50 (= Mk 9:40), where a long insertion occurs (9:51–18:14). After this Luke takes up Mk. almost where he left it (Lk 18:15 = Mk 10:13). The insertion deals largely with the Peræan ministry and the journeys towards Jerusalem, and contains many parables peculiar to Lk ( the Good Samaritan, the Importunate Friend, the Rich Fool, the Barren Fig-tree, the Lost Sheep, the

Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Ten Lepers, the Unjust Judge, the Pharisee and the Publican), and also several incidents and sayings peculiar to Lk., e.g. the Mission of the Seventy; this section also has portions of the Sermon on the Mount and some parables and sayings common to Mt. and Lk., a few also which are found in other parts of Mk. From 18:15 to the end the Markan narrative is followed (from 19:45 to 22:14 very closely) with few omissions, but with some insertions, e.g. the parable of the Pounds, the narrative of Zacchæus, of the Penitent Robber, of the two disciples on the Emmaus road, and other incidents peculiar to Lk. In the Passion and Resurrection narrative Luke has treated Mk.

very freely, adding to it largely, and in several cases following other sources in preference.

Viewing the Third Gospel as a whole, we may with Dr. Plummer divide it thus: Preface, 1:1– 4; Gospel of the Infancy, 1:5–2:52; Ministry, mainly in Galilee, 3:1–9:60; Jourueyings towards Jerusalem, and the Ministry outside Galilee, 9:51–19:28; the Ministry in Jerusalem in the last days, 19:29–21:28; the Passion and Resurrection, 22–24.

3. The Sources.—The preface (1:1–4), the only contemporary evidence of the manner in which Gospels were written, tells us that the Evangelist knew of written Evangelic narratives, and had access to eye-witnesses, though he himself had not seen the events which he chronicles. Of the former sources (documents), the preceding section will lead us to name two (see also art.

GOSPELS), namely the ‘Petrine tradition’ (see art. MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO]), which is our Mk. or else something very like it, and which the First Evangelist also used; and another, which is often called the ‘Logia,’ but which it is safer to call the ‘non-Markan document,’ which is a common source of Mt. and Lk., but which is now lost (see art. MATTHEW [GOSPEL ACC. TO]). In the use of the latter the order of Lk. differs greatly from that of Mt., and the question arises which of the two Evangelists has followed this source the more closely. Now we have seen (§ 2) that Luke has followed the order of his Markan source very closely; it is therefore probable that he did the same with the ‘non-Markan document.’ We may then presume that the order of the latter is more faithfully reproduced in Lk. than in Mt.—With regard to the sections peculiar to Lk. we must probably separate 1:5–2:52 from the rest. This section has a strong Aramaic tinge; it is an ‘episode of family history of the most private character’ (Ramsay); it is told from the point of view of a woman, and is full of womanly touches; it represents the Mary side of the story, while the narrative in Mt. represents the Joseph side. It is therefore highly probable that the ultimate, if not the immediate, source was the Virgin Mother, and that the story had not passed through many hands. Some postulate an Aramaic written source for this section (Plummer). But it is by no means certain that Luke the Gentile understood Aramaic; and the character of the narrative rather points to an oral source (Ramsay). The introduction of the Aramaic style (which begins abruptly at 1:5 after the very Greek preface) may probably be an intentional change on the author’s part, and be due to a diligent study of the LXX. For the rest of the matter peculiar to Lk., it is usual, perhaps rightly, to assume a special source, oral or written; but it must be observed that the silence of Mt. does not negative the supposition that much or most of this matter was contained in the ‘non-Markan document.’ Silence does not necessarily mean ignorance.

Assuming now (see § 5) that the author was Luke, Paul’s companion, we can see at once that he was in a position to gather together not only written materials, but also first-hand oral reports. The two years at Cæsarea (Ac 24:27) would give him good opportunities for collecting materials both for the Gospel and for Acts. Mary may well have been alive at the time (c. A.D. 57), or at least Luke may have met several of the women best known to her. And both in Palestine at this time and later at Rome, he would have direct access to Apostolic information: in the former case, of several of the Twelve; in the latter, of St. Peter. At Rome he would probably read the written ‘Petrine tradition,’ his Markan source.

We must notice that Lk. is not the Pauline Gospel in the same sense that Mk. is the Petrine. St. Paul could not be a ‘source’ as St. Peter was; and indeed the preface to Lk. contradicts such an idea. Yet the Pauline influence on Luke is very great, not only in his ideas but in his language. Many words and phrases are peculiar in NT to Luke and Paul. Among other topics insisted on by both may be mentioned the universality of the Gospel (Lk 3:5f., 4:24ff., 10:29ff., 13:29 etc.).

As a detail in the consideration of the treatment of his sources by Luke, we may notice the Lord’s Prayer, which is much shorter in Lk. than in Mt. (see RV). Does this mean that the Prayer was delivered twice, in two different forms, or that Luke abbreviated the original, or that Matthew enlarged it? The first hypothesis is a priori quite probable; but if we have to choose between the two others, the presence of the Lukan phrase ‘day by day’ (11:3, so 19:47, Ac 17:11, not elsewhere in NT), and of others which seem to be simplifications (as ‘we forgive’ for ‘we have forgiven’ of Mt. RV, or ‘sins’ for ‘debts’ of Mt.), points to the Matthæan prayer being the original. But it is difficult to believe that either Evangelist would deliberately alter the Lord’s Prayer as found in his sources; the case is not parallel with other alterations. If we hold the Prayer to have been given only once, the most probable explanation of the differences would seem to be that, our Lord not haying laid down fixed rules for worship, but only general principles, the first Christians did not feel bound to use, or did not know, His ipsissima verba; hence the liturgical usage with regard to the Prayer would vary. The First and Third Evangelists might well incorporate in their Gospels that form to which they were accustomed in worship. We must not forget also that as originally delivered the Prayer was, doubtless, in Aramaic, and so in any case we have not Jesus’ exact words.

4. The writer’s style and interests—The Third Evangelist is at once the most literary and the most versatile of the four. The sudden change from a classical to an Aramaic style at 1:5 has been noticed in § 3; when the writer is working on the ‘Petrine tradition,’ and the ‘non-Markan document,’ the Aramaic tinge is much less marked. The same thing is seen in Acts, where the early chapters have a strong Aramaic tinge which is absent from the rest. Yet the special characteristics of language run through both the books, and their integrity and common authorship, is becoming more and more certain. The writer has a keen sense of effective composition, as we see by the way in which he narrates his incidents (e.g. that of the sinful woman, 7:36ff.). Yet his descriptions are not those of an eyewitness; the autoptic touches which we find in the Second Gospel (see MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO]) are absent here. The author’s interests are many—his sympathy with women, his ‘domestic tone’ shown by the social scenes which he describes, his medical language and descriptions of cures (a large number of technical phrases used by Greek medical writers and by Luke have been collected), and his frequent references to angels, are clearly marked in both books. It has been said that in his Gospel he avoids duplicates; but this statement can hardly stand examination (cf. the two songs (1:45, 68) , the two feasts (5:29, 19:5), the mission of the Twelve and of the Seventy (9:1, 10:1), the two disputes as to who is the greatest (9:45, 22:24), etc.).

The Evangelic symbol usually ascribed by the Fathers to Luke is the calf, though pseudo-Athanasius gives him the lion; and it is said that the Gospel has a sacrificial aspect, the calf being the animal most commonly used for sacrifice. But this appears to be very fanciful, and it is not easy to see why Lk. is more sacrificial than the other Gospels.

5. Authorship and date.—(a) The Third Gospel and Acts have the same author. Both books are addressed to the same person, Theophilus; the style of both is identical, not only in broad features, but in detail (see § 4), and Ac 1:1 refers to a ‘former’ (or ‘first’) treatise. Thus, if the author is not the same in both cases, the later writer has deliberately interwoven into his book the whole style of his predecessor, in a manner that absolutely defies detection. That this should have happened is a gross Improbability. (b) We have no external evidence of authorship before Irenæus, who names Luke (§ 1). But the internal evidence of Acts is very strong that the writer was Luke, the companion of St. Paul (see art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES). We must therefore conclude either that the author was Luke, or that he wished to pass for him. The latter hypothesis is maintained by some on the ground that the writer is indebted to Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities c. A.D. 94. It may be remarked that this fact, if proved, would not preclude the Lukan authorship, for if Luke was a young man when travelling with St. Paul, he might well have been alive and active in a literary sense c. A.D. 100 (so Burkitt). But it is extremely improbable that he had ever read Josephus. The crucial cases are those of the taxing in Lk 2:2 and of Theudas in Ac 5:36, discussed in § 7 below, and in art. THEUDAS, where dependence is shown to be most unlikely (see also art. EGYPTIAN [THE]). Other things point to an absence of literary connexion; e.g. Acts describes Agrippa’s death quite independently of Josephus. The argument from language, on the other side, scarcely deserves serious refutation; the common use of the LXX accounts for most of the resemblances (see, further, Plummer, St. Luke, p. XXX; the connexion between Lk. and Josephus is denied by Schürer, Harnack, Zabn, and by most English writers).

For the reasons, then, which are stated in art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, we conclude that Luke was the author. It may be added that it is difficult to conceive any reason which the author, if not Luke, could have had for the pretence. Luke was not sufficiently well known for a forger to use his name.

(b) Date.—For the reasons just stated we must probably choose a date immediately after Ac 28:30 (Blass, Headlam, Salmon, etc.), or else between A.D. 70 and 80 (Sanday, Plummer, Ramsay, etc.). To the present writer the earlier date for Acts, and therefore for Lk., seems on the whole more likely (see art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES), and this probability is not diminished by Lk 1:1, 21:20, the chief passages adduced for the later date. Sanday and Plummer think that the earlier date does not allow enough time for drawing up the narratives spoken of in 1:1; but it is not obvious why written Gospels should not have been attempted at an early stage. The passage 21:20, where ‘Jerusalem compassed with armies’ replaces ‘the abomination of desolation’ of Mk 13:14, is said to betoken a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, and to describe what had actually happened. But if the change be due to Luke, it is just what we should expect—a Hebraism interpreted for Gentile readers (see § 6); in any case it scarcely goes further than Dn 9:26. Sir J. Hawkins (Horœ Synopticœ) thinks that there must have been a considerable interval between Lk. and Acts. The whole question of date is far from certain.

6. Purpose of the Gospel.—St. Luke clearly writes for the Gentiles, being a Gentile himself

(see art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, § 2), and undertakes his task because the works of his predecessors were incomplete,—probably as not beginning with our Lord’s birth,—and because he was in possession of good information. He writes to Theophilus, thought by Origen and Ambrose to be an imaginary Christian, but more probably a real person, perhaps, as Ramsay deduces from the epithet ‘most excellent’ (Lk 1:3), a Roman citizen of rank [this is denied by Blass and Plummer]. He has also in view, however, other Gentile converts. He explains Jewish customs (22:1), substitutes Greek names for Hebrew (‘Zelotes’ for ‘Cananæan’ 6:15, Ac 1:13 , ‘the Skull’ for Golgotha’ 23:33, ‘Master’ for ‘Rabbi’ often), is sparing of OT quotations and of references to prophecy, uses ‘Judæa’ for the whole of Palestine (1:5, 7:17, 23:5, Ac 2:9, 10:37 , 11:29; but in Lk 4:44 RVm and Ac 11:1 the more restricted sense is probable), and insists on the universality of the Gospel (see § 3). An Interesting detail which shows the readers to whom the book is addressed is pointed out by Sir Wm. Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem p. 63). In 5:19 Luke alters the description of the breaking up of the mud roof through which the paralytic was let down (Mk 2:4)—a description which would be unintelligible to a Western—and speaks of the man being let down through the ‘tiles.’

7. Accuracy of Luke—Very different estimates have been made as to the trustworthiness of Luke as a historian. He is the only Evangelist who connects his narrative with contemporary events in the world at large (2:1f., 3:1, Ac 11:28, 18:2, 24:27, etc.), and who thus gives us some opportunities of testing his accuracy. His accuracy has been assailed by a large number of scholars, and as strongly defended by others. The former fix especially on two points: (a) Gamaliel’s speech about Theudas (Ac 5:36f.) is said to be absolutely unhistorical, and to be an invention of the writer, who had read and misread Josephus (see § 5 and art. THEUDAS). (b) The reference to the enrolment (AV taxing) in Lk 2:1ff. is said to be also unhistorical. It is objected that Augustus did not order a general enrolment, that if he did, the order did not apply to Herod’s kingdom, and that, even if it did so apply, there was no reason why Joseph and Mary should go to Bethlehem; that no census had been made in Judæa till A.D. 6–7, when Quirinius was governor of Syria (‘the census’ Ac 5:37, Josephus); and that Quirinius was never governor of Syria in Herod’s lifetime (he died B.C. 4). As against these objections it used to be urged that

Luke was accurate in most particulars, but that he made a mistake about Quirinius only. Now Luke does not say that a Roman census was being made in Palestine when Jesus was born; the enrolment is said by him to have been tribal and according to lineage, not according to the place where persons happened to be at the time, as was the Roman custom. He says that this was the first of a series of enrolments, and that Augustus instituted the rule of enrolments for the [Roman] world—this is the force of the Greek phrase used. A remarkable confirmation of Lk. has recently come to light, by the discovery in Egypt of some papyri which show that periodic enrolments by households in a cycle of 14 years did as a matter of fact take place in that country.

Many actual census papers, beginning A.D. 20, have been found. This fact is confirmed by

Clement of Alexandria. Sir Wm. Ramsay, in his fascinating work (Was Christ born at

Bethlehem? 1st ed. 1898), argues with much probability that the first enrolment in Syria was in B.C. 8, and that the 14 years’ cycle was used. The second enrolment would be that of Ac 5:37 , which led to great riots in Palestine, because the Roman system, so offensive to Jewish patriotism, was then first introduced. No such riots are said by Luke to have occurred at the census when Jesus was born. Ramsay gives reasons for thinking that this was because Herod, ruling a semi-independent kingdom, though he could not from fear of losing Augustus’ favour forego the census (this agrees with Josephus’ account of his relations with Rome), yet conducted it in Jewish fashion, and postponed it for a year or two. This would give B.C. 6 (summer) for our Lord’s birth. All this fits in well with Luke. The difficulty of Quirinius alone remains. An inscription found near Tibur makes it probable that he was for the second time governor of Syria A.D. 6–9. He was consul B.C. 12; and his former governorship must therefore have fallen between these dates. In a technical argument Ramsay urges that Quirinius, during a time of war, held in B.C. 6 a special office in Syria as the Emperor’s deputy, with command of the forces, while another was civil governor; and that Luke’s phrase (lit. ‘while Quirinius was ruling Syria’) suits this state of affairs. This would completely vindicate Luke’s accuracy. Cf. QUIRINIUS.

The accuracy of the Gospel is really vouched for by the remarkable accuracy of Acts, which gives so many opportunities of testing it (see art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, § 12, and also art. LYSANIAS). But it may be asked whether Luke was a good chronologer. Did he really write ‘in order’ (Lk 1:3)? This phrase does not necessarily imply chronological order; it may merely imply method. Yet the chronological note in 3:1 leads us to think that Luke meant the former, though he certainly is less definite as to dates than Josephus or Tacitus, who were able to consult public records. Sir Wm. Ramsay decides that he had ‘little of the sense for chronology.’ It may be said, however, that he had more of this characteristic than his predecessors. The sources used by him had probably few, if any, marks of time. The earliest generation of disciples did not write histories for posterity, but religious narratives to teach their contemporaries faith. Luke, however, does insert some definite chronological landmarks; we may be certain that they come from him and not from his sources. He shows his trustworthiness in giving dates when he can do so; and when he has no information he does not pretend to guide us.

A. J. MACLEAN.

LUNATIC.—See MOON, POSSESSION.

LUST.—The Eng. word ‘lust,’ which is now restricted to sexual desire, formerly expressed strong desire of any kind. And so, as Thomas Adams says, there can be a lusting of the Spirit, for the Spirit lusteth against the flesh (Gal 5:17).

LUTE.—See MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, 4 (1) (b).

LUZ.—1. Gn 28:19, 35:6, 48:3, Jos 16:2, 18:13, Jg 1:23–26. The exact locality is uncertain, and a comparison of the above passages will show that it is also uncertain whether Luz and Bethel were one or two sites. In Gn 28:19 it is stated that Jacob changed the name of the place of his vision from Luz to Bethel (cf. also Gn 35:6, Jg 1:23). The two passages in Joshua, however, seem to contradict this; both of them speak of Luz and Bethel as two distinct places. A possible solution is that Luz was the name of the old Canaanite city, and Bethel the pillar and altar of Jacob outside the city. 2. Luz is also the name of a city built on Hittite territory after the destruction of the original Canaanite city (Jg 1:26).

T. A. MOXON.

LYCAONIA meant originally the country inhabited by the Lycaones, a central tribe of Asia Minor. It is for the most part a level plain, which is merged on the north and east in the plains of Galatia and Cappadocia, and is bounded on the west and south by hills. It was and is an excellent country for pasturage. Its exact boundaries varied at different times. At some uncertain date a part of Lycaonia, containing fourteen cities, of which Iconium was one, was transferred to Galatia. (See ICONIUM.) Lycaonia was part of the Seleucid Empire until B.C. 190. Later the whole or part of it belonged successively to the Pergamenian kings, the Galatians, Cappadocia, and Pontus. At the settlement of B.C. 64 by Pompey, the north part was added to Galatia, the southeast to Cappadocia, and the west was added to the Roman Empire, to be administered by the governor of the Roman province Cilicia. In B.C. 39 Mark Antony gave the western part (including Lystra and Iconium) to Polemon, but in B.C. 36 it was transferred to Amyntas along with Galatia proper. (See GALATIA.) Amyntas conquered Derbe and Laranda, which were incorporated in the Roman Empire when Amyntas’ kingdom was made into the province Galatia in B.C. 25. In A.D. 37 Eastern Lycaonia, which up to that time had continued under the weak Cappadocian rule, was placed under Antiochus of Commagene, along with most of Cilicia Tracheia, and got the name Lycaonia Antiochiana.

Under Claudius and Nero, when St. Paul visited the churches of South Galatia, Lycaonia included the two parts, the Roman and Antiochian. The former part included Lystra and Derbe and a number of smaller places, and it is correctly described in Ac 14:6. The Apostles, when persecuted at Iconium in Phrygia (or the Phrygian district of the vast province Galatia), crossed into Lycaonia (another district of the same province). In Ac 16:1–4 this territory is not explicitly named, but its two cities are mentioned by name. In Ac 18:23 the same cities are included in the expression used.

Both parts of Lycaonia were comprised in the united province of Galatia-Cappadocia under Vespasian and his sons (A.D. 70 onwards). They were again divided by Trajan in 106. About A.D. 137 ‘the triple eparchy’ was formed, consisting of Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria.

The name of the Lycaonins is not mentioned in the Bible, but their language is in Ac 14:11: it was no doubt prevalent in the villages and smaller towns.

A collection of Christian inscriptions (of 3rd cent. A.D. and later) has been discovered in Lycaonia, which for numbers cannot be matched in any other Eastern province. They show the wide diffusion of Christianity in this district evangelized by St. Paul.

A. SOUTER.

LYCIA was a mountainous country in the S.W. of Asia Minor, which played very little part in the early history of Christianity. In it were situated many great cities, such as Patara ( Ac 21:1) and Myra (Ac 27:5, cf. 21:1). The former was a celebrated seat of the worship of Apollo, the latter an important harbour, between which and Alexandria there was constant traffic in ancient times. Lycia was ruled by the Persians, and conquered by Alexander the Great. After his death it belonged to the Seleucid Empire, was then taken from Antiochus by the Romans in B.C. 188, and given to Rhodes at first, but afterwards freed in B.C. 168. It was one of the selfgoverning states, to which the Romans sent letters in favour of the Jews in B.C. 138–7 (1 Mac 15:22); see CARIA, DELOS. This proves that there were Jews there. Lycia was made a Roman province by Claudius in A.D. 43 on account of dissensions between its cities, and in A.D. 74 was formed into a double province along with Pamphylia.

A. SOUTER.

LYDDA.—See LOD.

LYDIA was the name for the central part of the coast-land on the west of Asia Minor in ancient times, having been so called from the race which inhabited it, the Lydians. At the earliest time of which we have any knowledge it was a prosperous kingdom, and the name of the last king, Crœsus, has become proverbial for wealth. The Persians seized the kingdom from him about B.C. 546 (‘Lydia’ in Ezk 30:5 AV is corrected to ‘Lud’ in RV). Alexander the Great conquered it in B.C. 334. The possession of it was disputed by the Pergamenians and Seleucids till B.C. 190, in which year it became definitely Pergamenian (cf. 1 Mac 8:8). In B.C. 133 it passed by will with the rest of the Pergamenian kingdom into the Roman Empire, and the whole kingdom was henceforth known as the province Asia, by which name alone it is indicated in the NT (see ASIA). After the formation of this province, the term ‘Lydia’ had only an ethnological significance. The chief interest of Lydia for us is that it contained several very ancient and important great cities (of the Ionian branch), Smyrna, Ephesus, Sardis, Colophon, etc., some of which were among the ‘churches of Asia.’ The evangelization of the country is connected with St. Paul’s long residence in Ephesus (Ac 19:1 ff. ).

A. SOUTER.

LYDIA.—A seller of purple-dyed garments at Philippi, probably a widow and a ‘proselyte of the gate’ (see art. NICOLAS), whom St. Paul converted on his first visit to that city, together with her household, and with whom he and his companions lodged (Ac 16:14f., 40). She was of Thyatira in the district of Lydia, the W. central portion of the province Asia, a district famed for its purple dyes; but was doubtless staying at Philippi for the purpose of her trade. She was apparently prosperous, dealing as she did in very fine wares. It has been held that Lydia is the proper name of this woman; but it seems more likely that it merely means ‘the Lydian,’ and that it was the designation by which she was ordinarily known at Philippi. She is not mentioned ( at least, by that name) in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, and unless we identify her with Euodia or Syntyche, she had probably left the city when the Apostle wrote; for a conjecture of Renan’s, see art. SYNZYGUS. The incident in Ac 16 is one example out of many of the comparatively Independent position of women in Asia Minor and Macedonia.

A. J. MACLEAN.

LYE.—See NITRE and SOAP.

LYRE.—See MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, 4 (1) (a).

LYSANIAS.—This tetrarch of Abilene is mentioned only in Lk 3:1. St. Luke has been accused of gross inaccuracy here, and is said to he referring to a Lysanias who died B.C. 36. But that Lysanias was king (not tetrarch) of chalcis (not Abilene). Josephus speaks of ‘Ahila of Lysanias’ and of a tetrarchy of Lysanias; he is confirmed on the latter point by a medal and an inscription. Thus Luke’s statement is made at least quite probable. Perhaps Lysanias was a dynastic name of the rulers of Abilene. Ahila was the capital of Abilene, and lay on the N. side of Mount Hermon. See also ABILENE.

A. J. MACLEAN.