RAAMAH is called (Gn 10:7 = 1 Ch 1:9 [Raama]) a son of Cush, and father of Sheba and Dedan (Gn 10:28). The locality of this Arabian tribe is not yet ascertained. Opinion is divided between the Regma of Ptolemy, on the W. of the Persian Gulf, and the Rammanitœ of Strabo in
S. Arabia, N.W. of Hadramaut (see HAZARMAVETH) and E. of the ancient Sheba. The latter is the more probable identification. Raamah is also associated with Sheba in Ezk 27:22 as trading with Tyre.
J. F. M‘CURDY.
RAAMIAH.—One of the twelve chiefs who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 7:7 = Ezr 2:2 [Reelaiah], 1 Es 5:8 [Resaias]).
RAAMSES, RAMESES.—One of the treasure cities built by the Israelites in Egypt, and the starting-point of the Exodus (Ex 1:11, 12:37, Nu 33:3, 5). The site is not quite certain, but it was probably one of the cities called in Egyp. P-Ra’messe, House of Ramesse,’ after Ramesses II. In Gn 47:11 Joseph, by Pharaoh’s command, gives to Jacob’s family ‘a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses.’ It thus lay in the Land of Goshen (wh. see), and is to be looked for in the first place in the Wady Tumilat. Petrle identifies it with Tell Rotab, where he has found sculptures of the age of Ramesses II.
F. LL. GRIFFITH.
RABBAH.—1. The capital city of the Ammonites (wh. see). Rabbah was situated on the upper Jabbok on the site of the modern ’Ammān. It was distant from the Jordan about 20 miles, though the distance by way of the Jabbok is much greater, for the stream at Rabbah flows towards the N.E. and reaches the Jordan only after a wide detour. The Ammonite city was situated on the hill-top to the N. of the river. From its position it commanded a wide view in all directions, but especially extensive to the N.E. Rabbah is mentioned in Dt 3:11 as the place where Og’s ‘bedstead ‘might still be seen. This is thought by some to be a reference to a large dolmen still visible not far from ‘Ammān. In Jos 13:25 Rabbah is mentioned in defining the boundaries of the tribe of Gad. The chief event connected with Rabbah which the OT relates is its siege by Joab, in connexion with which Uriah the Hittite, by the express direction of king David, lost his life (see 2 S 11:1, 12:26, 27, 29 and 1 Ch 20:1). The city was at this time confined apparently to the hill mentioned above: and since the sides of the hill are precipitous (see the photograph in Barton’s Year’s Wandering in Bible Lands, opp. 156), the task of capturing it was difficult, and the siege was stubborn and prolonged. These conditions gave Joab his opportunity to carry out David’s perfidious order (2 S 11:15ff.).
From 2 S 12:26–29 it appears that the city consisted of two parts, one of which was called the
‘royal city’ or the ‘city of waters.’ This Joab captured, after which David came and captured Rabbah itself. What relation this ‘royal city’ bore to Rabbah proper, it is difficult now to conjecture. It is probable, however, that the text of Samuel is corrupt—that we should read ‘city’ or ‘cistern of waters’—and that Joab, like Antiochus III. and Herod in after centuries, captured the covered passage by which they went to a cistern for water, or the fort which defended it, and so compelled a surrender to David. This cistern was discovered by Conder (see Survey of Eastern Pal. p. 34 ff.).
The Israelites did not occupy Rabbah, but left it in the possession of the Ammonite king, who became David’s vassal. When David later fled to Mahanaim, east of the Jordan, because of Absalom’s rebellion, the Ammonite king was residing in Rabbah (2 S 17:27).
In the time of Amos (c. B.C. 750 Rabbah was still the capital of the Ammonites (Am 1:14), and such it continued to be down to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who, if we may judge from the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 49:2, Ezk 21:20, 25:5), punished Rabbah for a rebellion of the Ammonites by a siege. Whether the siege resulted in a capture we do not know, but it probably did. Only cities situated like Tyre, which was partly surrounded by water, could withstand the might of that monarch.
For a time the city (one of the Decapolis group) bore the name Philadelphia, given to it by Ptolemy Philadelphia (B.C. 285–247), but finally received its modern name, ‘Ammān. It is to-day quite a flourishing city, inhabited partly by Arabs and partly by Circassians. The latter form a more energetic element than is found in most Syrian cities, and give ‘Ammān a greater air of prosperity. The Haj railway, from Damascus to Mecca, passes near ‘Ammān, which has a station on the line.
2. A city in Judah (Jos 15:60); site unknown.
GEORGE A. BARTON.
RABBI.—The transliteration of a Heb. word meaning my master. In Mt 23:7 it is referred to as ‘the usual form of address with which the learned were greeted’ (Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 331); in the following verse it is regarded as synonymous with ‘teacher.’ John the Baptist is once called ‘Rabbi’ by his disciples (Jn 3:28). Elsewhere in the Gospels it is our Lord who is thus addressed: by His disciples (Mt 26:25, 49, Mk 9:5, 11:21, 14:45, Jn 1:38, 49, 4:31, 9:2, 11:8), by others (Jn 3:2, 6:25). Rabboni is the transliteration of the Pal.-Aram. form of the word; it occurs twice, namely in Mk 10:51 and Jn 20:16.
J. G. TASKER.
RABBITH.—A town of Issachar (Jos 19:20), probably the modern Rāba, on the S. of Gilboa.
RABBONI.—See RABBI.
RAB-MAG.—The title of Nergal-sharezer, a Babylonian official present at the taking of Jerusalem (Jer 39:3, 13). For various conjectures as to the origin of the title, see Hastings’ DB, s.v. Tentatively adopting the oldest and most obvious account, that it means ‘chief magus,’ we note here that the name magus may very well have been applied to a sacred caste employed in Babylon long before it became associated with Zoroastrianism, to which the silence of the Avesta shows it was originally foreign. See MAGI.
JAMES HOPE MOULTON.
RAB-SARIS.—1. The title of an Assyr. official who was sent by Sennacherib to Hezekiah to demand the surrender of Jerusalem (2 K 18:17). 2. The title borne by two Bab. officials, one of whom is recorded to have been present at the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, while the other is mentioned among the officials who ordered the release of Jeremiah after the capture of the city (Jer 39:3, 13). Rabsaris is the transcription, both in Heb. and Aram., of the Assyr. and Bab. title rabū (or rubū)-sha-rēshu, borne by a high court-official, who may perhaps have been the ‘chief eunuch,’ though his office cannot be determined with absolute certainty.
L. W. KING.
RAB-SHAKEH.—The title of an Assyr. officer, who with the Tartan and the Rab-saris was sent by Sennacherib to Hezekiah to demand the surrender of Jerusalem (2 K 18f., Is 36f.). The word is the Heb. transcription of the Assyr. rab-shaqē—a title borne by a military officer of high rank, subordinate to the Tartan.
L. W. KING.
RACA.—A term occurring only in Mt 5:22. It is a Semitic word, probably a popular pronunciation of the Rabbinic rēqā, a noun formed from the adjective rēq ‘empty.’ Several instances of its use occur in the Talmud as a term of contempt applied to a person devoid of education and morals. From Mt 5:22 it may be inferred that it was employed as a term of abuse in the time of Christ.
While the general force of our Lord’s words in Mt 5:21, 22 is clear enough, the significance of the judgments referred to is obscured in the present text. A distinction has been drawn between ‘Raca’ as denying intellectual capacity, and ‘thou fool’ as denying a man’s religious worth, which cannot he sustained. Our ‘Lord’s reference to the ‘Council’ (i.e. the supreme Jewish Court, the Sanhedrin) in v. 22, implying its possession of the power of life and death, is especially difficult. The Sanhedrin possessed no such power in fact, nor is it at all likely, that our Lord would recognize the validity of such a claim on its behalf even in theory. It was after all only a provisional institution devised by the Rabbis; whereas the ‘Gehenna of fire’ is a Messianic judgment.
The true meaning and real antithesis emerge clearly if a slight re-arrangement of the text, first suggested by J. P. Peters (in JBL x. (1891) 131f., xv. (1896) 103: adopted in the EBi, s.v. ‘Raca,’ vol. iv. col. 4001), is accepted. The clause about ‘Raca’ should be transferred to v. 21. Read then: ‘Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not murder, and whosoever murders is liable to the judgment, and whosoever says “Raca” to his brother is liable to the Sanhedrin: but I say unto you, whosover is angry with his brother is liable to the (Divine) judgment, and whosoever says “thou fool” is liable to the Gehenna of fire.’ Rabbinic law is very stringent against libellous expressions, which were to be treated as serious offences liable for punishment to the supreme court (like murder).
G. H. BOX.
RACAL In 1 S 30:29 is prob. a mistake for ‘Carmel’ (No. 1).
RACE.—See GAMES, p. 282b.
RACES.—The following is a list of the races mentioned in the Bible, so far as they are Identified. They are classified according to modern ethnological principles. In Gn 10, cities are frequently classed as tribes or patriarchal personages.
I. ARYANS (sons of Japheth, Gn 10).—1. Greeks ( Ro 1:14 etc.). 2. Javan (Ionian Greeks). 3. Parthians (Ac 2:9). 4. Persians (Est 1:19 etc.). 5. Medes (Madai). 6. Romans (Jn 11:48 etc.).
II. HAMITES.—1. Egyptians (Mizraim). 2. Cushites (Nubians, Ethiopians). 3. Libyans ( Put [ Somaliland ]).
III. SEMITES.—1. North Semites: (a) Babylonians (Shinar, Accad, Bahel, Erech); (b)
Assyrians (Asshur, Nineveh, Calah); (c) Aramæans (Syrians); (d) Canaanitish peoples—(1)
Ammonites, (2) Amorites, (3) Canaanites, (4) Edomites, (5) Hivites, (6) Israelites, (7) Jebusites,
(8) Moabites, (9) Phœnicians (Tyre, Sidon, Arvad, etc.). 2. South Semites: (a) North Arabs—(1) Amalekites, (2) Ishmaelites (Kedar, Nebaioth, Tema, etc.), (3) Midianites; (b) South Arabs ( Sheba ).
IV. UNCLASSIFIED RACES.—1. Cimmerians (Gomer, Gimirrai of Assyr, inscriptions). 2.
Elamites. 3. Hittites. 4. Horites. 5. Philistines. 6. Tubal (the Tabali of Assyr. inscriptions). 7. Meshech (Muski of Assyr. inscriptions).
GEORGE A. BARTON.
RACHEL (Rahel in Jer 31:15 AV, ‘ewe’).—The younger daughter of Laban, and favourite wife of Jacob (Gn 29:28–30) , who married her after her sister Leah. In the quarrel between Jacob and Laban, she, as well as Leah, took the part of Jacob (31:14–16) . When leaving her father, she stole his household divinities, the teraphim (31:19)—an incident which suggests the laxity in worship and in ideas of property characteristic of the times. Her sons were Joseph and Benjamin: she died in giving birth to Benjamin.
Rachel’s grave.—The location of this is disputed. It was near Ephrath. Gn 35:16, 19, 20, 1 S 10:2, Jer 31:15 indicate that it was on the N. border of Benjamin towards Ephraim, about ten miles N. of Jerusalem. In other places, however (Ru 1:2, 4:11, Mic 5:2), Ephrath is another name for Bethlehem, as it is also explained in Gn 35:19, 48:7. In accordance with this latter group of passages, tradition from at least the 4th cent. has fixed the spot 4 miles S. of Jerusalem and 1 mile N. of Bethlehem. Either the northern location is correct, or there are here two variant accounts. The former view is probably to be preferred, since Rachel has no connexion with Judah. In that case ‘that is Bethlehem’ is an incorrect gloss. Cf. also RAMAH, 3.
GEORGE R. BERRY.
RADDAI.—The fifth son of Jesse (1 Ch 2:14).
RAFTS.—See SHIPS AND BOATS.
RAGAU.—See following article.
RAGES.—The modern Rei, 6 miles S.E. of Teheran, one of the seats of the ancient Iranian civilization, but now a mass of fallen walls and stupendous ruins covered with mounds of débris. Its position near the Caspian Gates gave it great strategic importance. It was the capital of Media before Ecbatana, and has the distinction of having been the home of the mother of Zoroaster. It is frequently mentioned in the Apocrypha. In Tobit (1:14, 4:1 , 20, 5:5, 6:13, 9:2) it was visited by the angel Raphael, and there he recovered for Tobias the deposit of silver which his father had placed there. In Judith (1:5, 15) it is said that in Ragau ( evidently the same place )
Nebuchadnezzar slew in battle ‘Arphaxad’ prince of the Medes. In To 6:9 read Ecbatana for Rages.
J. F. M‘CURDY.
RAGUEL.—1. See REUEL, 2. 2. The father of Sarah, the wife of Tobias (To 3:7, 17, 18, 14:12).
RAHAB (‘wide’).—1. The story of this woman, called a harlot, of Jericho is given in Jos 2.
The two spies sent out by Joshua to view the Promised Land come first to the house of Rahab, in Jericho. The king hears of it, and bids Rahab bring them forth; but she asserts that they have left her house and that she does not know where they have gone; she had, however, previously hid them among stalks of flax upon the roof. After their pursuers have left, Rahab comes to them, professes her belief in Jahweh, and adjures them to spare her and her kinsfolk when the attack on Jericho is made; this they promise shall be done; and after arranging that a scarlet thread is to be hung from her window, in order to denote which house is to be spared when the sack of the city takes place, the two spies escape from her house by a rope (Jos 2). The promise is duly kept, and Joshua spares her when the city is burned (6:22–25) . In Mt 1:5 Rahab is mentioned in the genealogy of our Lord.
2. A name for the Dragon, applied also to Egypt. This name is not the same as that just considered, which is written Rachab in Hebrew, while this is written Rahab. It is the name given to a mythological monster who is frequently referred to in the Bible. In Is 30:7 the old myth that Jahweh in the beginning subdued Rahab (= Tĕhōm, the ‘Great Deep,’ the Bab. Tiamat) is employed to show that Jahweh will in like manner subdue Egypt (cf. Ps 87:4), and that it is therefore vain for Judah to trust to it. The words in RV, ‘Rahab that sitteth still,’ imply that Rahab had been subjugated, but not annihilated, i.e. it was believed that Rahab was still living somewhere in the depths of the sea; the final destruction is referred to in Rev 21:1 ‘And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more.’ The next reference to Rahab is in Is 51:9, 10, a very important passage, which shows distinctly that Rahab, the Dragon, the sea or the ‘Great Deep’ (Tĕhōm) , are all names for one and the same monster. The belief is also expressly stated that in ‘the days of old’ there was a conflict between Jahweh and Rahab, and that the latter was overcome. Further references to the Rahabmyth are to be found in Ps 89:9, 10, Job 9:13, 26:10, 11; it is important to note how in all these passages the myth is treated as well known, it is taken for granted that the reference is perfectly understood. [See, further, DRAGON, LEVIATHAN, SEA.]
W. O. E. OESTERLEY.
RAHAM.—A descendant of Caleb (1 Ch 2:44).
RAHEL.—See RACHEL.
RAIMENT.—See DRESS.
RAIN.—The Palestine year is divided roughly into two parts—the rainy and the dry. The first rains after the summer begin to fall in November, though showers in October are not unknown; and the weather continues intermittently wet until the following March, or sometimes till April. As a rule the first rainfalls, which are accompanied by heavy thunderstorms, are followed by comparatively fine weather, broken by occasional wet days, after which, towards the end of the rainy season, there are again heavy successions of rain-storms. The agricultural value of this division is obvious, and it is recognized by the expressions ‘former’ and ‘latter’ rains which we meet with in the Biblical writings. The first rains soften the iron-bound soil, baked hard, so to speak, by the summer heat, and so make it fit for ploughing; the comparatively fine intervals give the husbandman time to sow; and the second showers water the seed. The average annual rainfall in Jerusalem is about 28 inches, though this is subject to much variation. In the winter of 1904–1905 nearly 40 inches fell. Such very wet winters are nearly always followed by an epidemic of malaria in the succeeding summer.
R. A. S. MACALISTER.
RAINBOW.—In Gn 9:11–17 (P) the rainbow appears as the token of the covenant between God and Noah. As the covenant is universal, so is its sign. The Heb. of v. 13 is ambiguous as to whether the rainbow is conceived of as created for the first time (see RVm). Though from a scientific point of view this is absurd, it may well have been part of the primitive tradition. Perhaps, however, all that is meant is that the rainbow received a new significance as the symbol of mercy. Its appropriateness is obvious: the storm passes, and the sun casts its beams over the still clouded sky, marking its return by one of the most beautiful phenomena of nature. So God renews His favour after He has hidden His face for a season. But there may be a further mythological significance. The rainbow may be J″’s war-bow (Ps 7:12, Hab 3:9, 11) which He has laid aside; the Heb. word is the same. So ‘it is to the Hindu the bow of Rama, and to the Finn the bow of Tiermes the Thunderer, who slays with it the sorcerers who hunt after men’s lives’ (Tylor, Primitive Culture3, i. p. 298). It is, indeed, prominent in all mythology. To the Greek it is a portent, or Iris, the messenger of the gods; in the Icelandic Edda it is the bridge connecting heaven and earth (cf. Wagner, Rheingold). It is uncertain whether it is alluded to in the Babylonian narrative of the Flood (see Driver, ad loc) . In Sir 43:11 the rainbow is one of the wonderful works of God; in 50:7 it is a type of the glory of Simon. In Ezk 1:28 it surrounds the throne of God; so Rev 4:3. If there is a reference to the Genesis narrative, it will be the symbol of mercy, possibly typified also by the ‘emerald’ to which it is compared, assuming that a green stone is meant (see Swete, ad loc.) . But instead of the word for ‘bow’ found in the LXX, ‘Iris’ is substituted in Rev 4:3 , as in 10:1. Here evidently it is simply part of the picture, unless there is an allusion to the Greek conception of Iris as the messenger of the gods.
C. W. EMMET.
RAISINS (tsimmūqīm, Nu 6:3 [EV ‘dried grapes’], 1 S 25:18, 30:12, 2 S 16:1, 1 Ch 12:40; ’ăshīshīm, Hos 3:1 RV, etc.; see FLAGON).—Raisins are now, as of old, prepared in great quantities in the Holy Land; the bunches are dipped in a strong solution of potash before being dried. Es-Salt, across the Jordan, has long been famous for the excellence of its stoneless raisins.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
RAKEM.—See REKEM, 3.
RAKKATH.—A ‘fenced city’ of Naphtali (Jos 19:35). The later Rabbis placed it at or near Tiberias.
RAKKON.—This name in Jos 19:46 is prob. due to a textual error—a dittography from the latter half of Me-jarkon.
RAM.—1. An ancestor of David (Ru 4:19, Mt 1:3, 4; in Lk 3:33 Arni) . In 1 Ch 2:9 he is called the brother, but in vv. 25, 27 the son of Jerahmeel. 2. The family to which Elihu belonged (Job 32:2). Some have supposed that Ram is a contraction for Aram.
RAM.—See SHEEP, and (for battering-ram) FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT, 6 (c).
RAMAH.—The name of several places in Palestine, so called from their ‘loftiness,’ that being the radical meaning of the word. These are as follows:—
1. A city of Naphtali (Jos 19:36) not otherwise known, perhaps Rāmeh between ‘Akka and Damascus, 8 miles W.S.W. of Safed. 2. A city of Asher (Jos 19:29) not elsewhere mentioned, and Identified not improbably with Rāmia, near Tyre. 3. A city of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) between which and Bethel was the palm of Deborah (Jg 4:5); one of the alternatives which the Levite of Bethlehem had to choose for a lodging on his fatal journey (Jg 19:13); yielded with Geba 621 men to the post-exilic census of Ezra (Ezr 2:26); re-settled by Benjamites (Neh 11:33). Its place is indicated between Geba and Gibeah in Isaiah’s picture of the Assyrian advance (10:29). A tradition placed here the site of Rachel’s tomb: this explains the allusions in 1 S 10:2, Jer 31:15 ( quoted in Mt 2:18). Here Jeremiah was loosed from his chains (40:1). The name, and not improbably the site, of this place is preserved by a little village on a hillside north of Jerusalem known as er-Rām, which answers the geographical requirements of these incidents. Near it are some remarkable ancient monuments, known locally as ‘The Graves of the Children of Israel,’ which possibly are the ‘tomb of Rachel’ of the ancient tradition. This town was probably the home of Shimei, the Ramathite, David’s vine-dresser (1 Ch 27:27). 4. A place in the district called Ramathaim-zophim (1 S 1:1), a (corrupt) name prob.= ‘the two heights of the Zuphites.’ The latter ethnic can hardly be dissociated from the name of the great high place of Mizpah
(Neby Samwīl). Its chief distinction is its connexion with Samuel. It was ‘In the hill-country of Ephraim,’ but might have been over the S. border of the tribe. Here Elkanah lived, and here was the headquarters of Samuel throughout his life (1 S 1:19, 2:11, 7:17, 8:4, 15:34, 16:18, 19:18–23 ,
20:1 , 25:1, 28:8). This is probably the Ramah fortified by Baasha against the Judahite kingdom
(1 K 15:17, 2 Ch 16:1), rather than the Benjamite Ramah: the latter being actually within
Judahite territory would not have been accessible to him. This Ramah appears also in 1 Mac 11:34 as Ramathaim. No satisfactory Identification of the Ephraimite Ramah has yet been proposed. It may be identical with No. 3. Rām-allah, a large village about 12 miles N. of
Jerusalem, would fairly well suit the requirements of the history, but there are no definite Indications of antiquities there. 5. By the name Ramah allusion is made to Ramoth-gilead ( wh. see) in 2 K 8:23 and the parallel passage 2 Ch 22:6. 6. Ramathlehi, the scene of Samson’s victory over the Philistines with the jawbone (Jg 15:17), is unknown. See LEHI. Ramath here is probably a common noun, and we ought to render it ‘the height of Lehi.’ 7. Ramath-mizpeh (Jos 13:26). See MIZPAH, No. 4. 8. Ramah (or Ramoth) of the South ( Jos 19:8). A town in the tribe of Judah, given to Simeon; to which David sent the spoil of Ziklag (1 S 30:27). It is quite unknown.
R. A. S. MACALISTER.
RAMAH (RAMOTH) OF THE SOUTH.—See RAMAH, No. 8.
RAMATHAIM, RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM.—See RAMAH, 4.
RAMATHITE.—See RAMAH, No. 3.
RAMATH-LEHI.—See RAMAH, No. 6.
RAMATH-MIZPEH.—See MIZPAH, No. 4.
RAMESES.—See RAAMSES.
RAMIAH.—One of the sons of Parosh who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:25 [1 Es 9:26 Hiermas]).
RAMOTH.—1. A Gershonite Levitical city in Issachar (1 Ch 6:58, (73)), apparently = Remeth of Jos 19:21 and Jarmuth of Jos 21:23, 2. For ‘Ramoth of the south’ see RAMAH, No.
8, 3. For ‘Ramoth in Gilead’ (Dt 4:43, Jos 20:8, 21:38, 1 Ch 6:65 (80)) see
RAMOTH-GILEAD.
RAMOTH-GILEAD, or ‘Ramoth in Gilead’ (cf. RAMAH, 5) , was one of the cities of refuge (Dt 4:43, Jos 20:8), assigned to the Merarite Levites of Gad (Jos 21:38, 1 Ch 6:80). It was in the administrative district of Solomon’s lieutenant Ben-geber (1 K 4:13); the scene of Ahab’s last fight with the Syrians (1 K 22, 2 Ch 18) and of another battle with them fought by Ahab’s son Jehoram, where he was wounded (2 K 8:28, 29, 2 Ch 22:5); the place where Elisha’s messenger anointed Jehu (2 K 9:1ff.). That it was a place of some sanctity is probable from its name (‘the high places of Gilead’), and arguments, not altogether conclusive, have been offered in favour of its identification with Mizpeh, the place of the reconciliation of Jacob and Laban.
The attempt has plausibly been made to identify it with Gerasa, the modern Jerash—an extensive town in the ancient territory of Gilead, of unknown origin, whose ruins are still among the most striking east of the Jordan. For this identification several forcible arguments can be brought forward. An identification with another place, Reimun, rests solely on the superficial similarity of the name, which is always an unsafe guide. Es-Salt is another suggestion. On the whole, however, Jerash is perhaps the most probable, though final decision must, as usual, be left to the test of excavation.
R. A. S. MACALISTER.
RAMPART.—See FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT, 3.
RANGES in AV of 2 K 11:8, 15, 2 Ch 23:14 = ‘ranks’ (RV).
RANSOM.—See REDEEMER, REDEMPTION. RAPE.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, 3.
RAPHA.—1. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:2). 2. See REPHAIM.
RAPHAEL (‘God has healed’) is the good angel of Tobit. In 3:17 he is sent to heal Tobit, by restoring his sight; to give Sarah, daughter of his kinsman Raguel, to his son Tobias for wife; and to prevent the demon Asmodæus from adding him to the seven husbands he has already killed. In 5:4ff. he appears as ‘brother Azarias’ to accompany Tobias on his journey to Media. Tobit despatches them with the parting ‘May [God’s] angel go with you’ (v 16, cf. v. 21), and they start with their dog (a favourite subject with the great painters). In 6:3ff. he directs Tobias to take the heart, liver, and gall of a fish, manages the marriage, binds the demon, fetches money from Rages, and heals Tobit. 12:12–20 gives his description of himself, a passage which probably became the groundwork of later speculations. (1) He is one of the seven ‘angels of the presence’ ( Lk 1:13, Rev 8:2 [1:4?], Enoch 90). So in Enoch 20.3 he is one of the ‘watchers,’ the ‘angel of the spirits of men.’ The conception is usually traced to Persian influence; cf. the seven ‘princes of light’ of Zoroastrianism. (2) He is an intermediary, bringing the memorial of prayers before God (Rev 8:3). The doctrine of the Divine aloofness made it hard to conceive that man could have direct access to the ear of God, any more than a subject could enter into the presence of an Oriental monarch, or that He could interfere directly in the petty affairs of men. See ANGELS. (3) He is also a guardian angel, being present at Tobit’s good deeds, and the companion of Tobias. The long-maintained disguise is a unique feature; the ‘eating and drinking’ is explained as an illusion (12:19). (4) He is true to his name, ‘the healer’; cf. Enoch 10.7, where he is ordered to bind Azazel (so 54), and heal the earth which the angels have defiled; and 40.5, where he is ‘set over the diseases and wounds of the children of men.’ (5) In Enoch 22 he is a guide in Sheol; in 32 , in Paradise.
C. W. EMMET.
RAPHAH.—See REPHAIAH, 4.
RAPHAIM.—An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8:1).
RAPHON.—A city of Bashan (1 Mac 5:37), the Raphana of Pliny (HN, v. 16); the site has not been recovered.
RAPHU.—The father of the Benjamite spy (Nu 13:9).
RASSES.—A people subdued by Holofernes (Jth 2:23).
RATHUMUS.—See REHUM, 2.
RAVEN (‘ōrēb, Arab. ghurāb).—An ‘unclean’ bird (Lv 11:15, Dt 14:14), numbers of which may always be seen gathered, together with the dogs, around the carrion thrown out into the valley of Hinnom (cf. Pr 30:17). Its glossy plumage is referred to in Ca 5:11; it often dwells in the wilderness (Is 34:11), and yet God cares for and watches over it (Job 38:41, Ps 147:8, Lk 12:24). The name ‘ōrēb is doubtless generic, and includes all the eight species of the Corvidæ known in Palestine.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
RAVIN.—The vb. ‘to raven,’ i.e. prey upon, and the subst. ‘raven’ or ‘ravin,’ i.e. prey, both occur in AV. We find also the adj. ‘ravening’ (Ps 22:13, Mt 7:15) as well as the form ‘ravenous’ (Is 35:9, 46:11, Ezk 39:4). ‘Ravening’ is used as a subst. in Lk 11:39 ‘Your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness’ (RV ‘extortion’).
RAZIS.—The hero of a narrative in 2 Mac 14:37ff.
RAZOR.—See HAIR and KNIFE.
REAIAH.—1. A Calebite family (1 Ch 4:2), called in 2:52 Haroeh (wh. see). 2. A Reubenite family (1 Ch 5:5). 3. A Nethinim family name (Ezr 2:47 = Neh 7:50 = 1 Es 5:31 Jairus).
REAPING.—See AGRICULTURE, 3.
REBA.—One of the five kinglets of Midian slain by Moses (Nu 31:8, Jos 13:21).
REBEKAH (in Ro 9:10 Rebecca).—The daughter of Bethnel, the son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, and his wife Milcah (Gn 22:23). She was also the sister of Laban and became the wife of Isaac. The well-known story of the facts leading up to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah is told in Gn 24, and gives valuable information as to early marriage customs. Isaac is not consulted. Abraham’s servant Eliezer (Gn 15:2) is sent to seek for a wife among his master’s kinsfolk. The servant proceeds to the ‘city of Nahor’ (Haran), and, arriving at the gate of the city, waits by the well till the women come out to draw water (v. 11). He prays that God may prosper him and give him a sign by which he may recognize the woman Providence has set apart for Isaac. Rebekah comes out and offers to draw water for the stranger and his camels. The servant loads her with gifts, and her family, led by her brother Laban, being convinced of Abraham’s wealth, and recognizing the will of Heaven in the selection, agrees to the marriage. Rebekah returns with the servant and becomes Isaac’s wife (v. 67).
In Gn 25:21 we are told that Rebekah, like many other favourite wives of the OT (e.g. Sarah, Rachel, Hannah), was at first barren, but in answer to Isaac’s prayer Jacob and Esau were born (Gn 25:24–26). Before their birth Rebekah received the oracle from Jehovah, that two nations were in her womb and that the elder should serve the younger. No doubt this story is a late Jewish legend, arising from the desire to find the history of the two peoples Israel and Edom foreshadowed in the lives of their progenitors.
Rebekah again comes before us during Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar (Gn 26:6–11) . Fearing lest the beauty of his wife might excite the desire of the king of Gerar and so lead to his own death, Isaac passed her off as his sister—a course of action which led him into difficulties with Abimelech (Gn 26:10).
The destiny of Jacob, her favourite son, was strongly influenced by his strong-minded mother. She was the author of the treacherous plan by which Jacob deprived Esau of his father’s blessing (Gn 27). She advised him to flee from his home to her brother Laban (Gn 27:43–45) . In Gn 28:1f., however, the motive of the journey is that he might take a wife from the family of his mother, in contrast to Esau, who had grieved his parents by taking a wife from among the Canaanites (Gn 26:34, 35). Rebekah died before Jacob’s return from Haran, and her burial at Machpelah is mentioned in Gn 49:31. The death and burial of Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah, who had followed her from Haran (24:59), are reported to have taken place after Jacob had returned to Canaan (Gn 35:8).
The character of Rebekah has a peculiar charm and fascination. Appearing first as a pure, unselfish, loving girl, she becomes a woman of great strength of mind and depth of character. She is clever, active, energetic. She can make plans and carry them out, give orders and expect them to be obeyed, but her masterful spirit cannot brook opposition or contradiction. Esau’s wives vex her beyond measure. When she loves, she loves with all her soul, and will spare no pains, consider no consequences, or grudge any sacrifice for those she loves. ‘Upon me be thy curse, my son’ (Gn 27:13), is her answer to Jacob when he fears that a curse will fall on his deception. Although that curse fell and her beloved son had to flee and she saw his face no more, yet we forget the scheming, plotting woman in the loving wife and self-sacrificing mother.
W. F. BOYD.
RECAH.—A place name (1 Ch 4:12) quite unknown.
RECEIPT OF CUSTOM.—See CUSTOM(S), TRIBUTE.
RECHAB, RECHABITES
1. Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, appears in 2 K 10:15–28 as a fervent supporter of Jehu’s attack on the house of Ahab and his endeavour to root out the idolatrous worship which that dynasty had allowed. That his influence was a matter of some importance is clear from the prominent place which the new ruler gave him (2 K 10:16, 23). The principles which actuated him are to be gathered from Jer 35, where his descendants refuse to drink wine because he had bidden them abstain from it, build no houses, sow no seed, plant no vineyard, but dwell in tents all their days. He evidently held that civilization and settled life inevitably led to apostasy from Jahweh, the ancestral Deity of his tribe. And the peril was a very real one, because of the inveterate popular belief that the local baals were the dispensers of all blessings pertaining to field and vineyard (Hos 2:5, 10–12) . Hence it seemed to more than one of the prophets that the early, simple period of the nation’s life, ere it became immersed in the Canaanite civilization, was preferable to all later developments (Jg 2:2, Hos 10:1). Again, the self-restraint of the Rechabites reminds us of the Nazirite vow (see NAZIRITE) . But the latter did not include so many taboos. It permitted the cultivation of land and the building of houses. It was not binding on an entire clan. A genuine tradition is probably embodied in the Chronicler’s statement (1 Ch 2:55), that the clan of the Rechabites was connected with the Kenites, and this would square admirably with the view that the Jahweh-religion was communicated to Israel by Kenite influence.
Subsequently to Jeremiah we do not find more than two Biblical allusions to the clan in question, and one of these is doubtful. Neh 3:14 reports that Malchijah, the son of Rechab, the ruler of part of Bethhaccerem, assisted in re-fortifying Jerusalem. But if he was a Rechabite by descent, he must have abandoned their principles. The men whom Jeremiah approached were but temporary sojourners, driven into the city through dread of the invader. This Malchijah was doubly a townsman, living in a country town, and interested in the metropolis. The title of Ps 71 in the LXX is: ‘Belonging to David. Of the sons of Jehonadab and of the earliest captives,’ as though the exiles and the Rechabites agreed in appropriating this poem of sorrow and hope. Finally, it may be noted that later Rabbis found the fulfilment of Jer 35:19 in those marriages of Rechabite maidens into priestly families, from which later priests sprang. Hegesippus relates that one of the Rechabite priests interceded in vain for the life of James the Just (Euseb. HE II. 23).
2. Rechab and his brother Baanah, two guerilla captains, treacherously murdered Ishbosheth, their king, and met with the due reward of their deed at David’s hands (2 S 4).
J. TAYLOR.
RECONCILIATION.—The word ‘reconciliation,’ with its cognates, is a Pauline one, and is not found in the Gospels, or other NT writings. The chief passages in which it and related terms are employed are Ro 5:10, 11 (RV), 2 Co 5:18–20 , Eph 2:16, Col 1:20, 21. In He 2:17, where the AV has ‘to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,’ the RV reads, more correctly, ‘to make propitiation.’ OT usage, where the word occasionally tr. ‘reconcile’ (Lv 6:30 etc.) is again more correctly rendered in RV ‘make atonement,’ throws little light on the NT term. The effect of propitiation is to remove the variance between God and man, and so bring about
‘reconciliation.’ The means by which this result is accomplished in the NT is the reconciling death of Christ (Col 1:20–22). On the special questions involved, see artt. ATONEMENT and
REDEMPTION.
Perhaps better than any other, this term brings out in vivid form St. Paul’s conception of the gospel. As proclaimed to men, the gospel is a message of ‘reconciliation’ (2 Co 5:18–20) . It is a misunderstanding of the Apostle’s meaning in such passages to suppose that the need of reconciliation is on man’s side only, and not also on God’s. Man, indeed, does need to he reconciled to God, from whom he is naturally alienated in his mind in evil works (Col 1:21). ‘The mind of the flesh is enmity against God’ (Ro 8:7), and this enmity of the carnal heart needs to be overcome. On this side, the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ is a beseeching of men to be reconciled to God (2 Co 5:20). But the very ground on which this appeal is based is that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses’ (v. 19) . It is an essential part of the Apostle’s teaching that sinners are the objects of a Divine judicial wrath (Ro 1:18). They lie under a condemnation that needs to be removed (3:19ff.). They are described as ‘enemies’ in two passages (5:10, 11:28) where the word is plainly to be taken in the passive sense of objects of wrath (cf. in Ro 11:28, the contrast with ‘beloved’). It is this barrier to God’s reconciliation with men that, in the Apostle’s doctrine, Christ removes by His propitiatory death (Ro 3:25, Col 1:20). The ground on which men are called to be reconciled to God is: ‘Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Co 5:20, 21). Believers ‘receive’ a reconciliation already made (Ro 5:11 RV). The gospel reconciliation, in other words, has a twofold aspect—a Godward and a manward; and peace is made by the removal of the variance on both sides. See artt. above referred to.
JAMES ORR.
RECORDER.—See KING, 2 (6) ( c ).
RED.—See COLOURS, 3.
RED HEIFER.—The ashes of a ‘red heifer’—more correctly a red cow—added to ‘running water,’ formed the most powerful means known to the Hebrews of removing the defilement produced by contact with a dead body. The method of preparing the ashes and the regulations for the application of the ‘water of impurity’ (see below) are the subject of a special section of the Priests’ Code (Nu 19). It will be advisable to summarize the contents of the chapter, in the first place, and thereafter to inquire into the significance of the rite in the light of recent anthropological research.
1. The chapter above cited consists of two parts; the first part, vv. 1–13 , gives instructions for the preparation of the ashes, and (vv. 11–13) for the removal by their means of the defilement contracted by actual contact with the dead body. The second part, vv. 14–22 , is an expansion of vv. 12f., extending the application of ‘the water of impurity’ to uncleanness arising from a variety of sources connected with death.
The animal whose ashes acquired this special virtue had to be of the female sex, of a red, or rather reddish-brown, colour, physically without blemish, and one that had never borne the yoke. The duty of superintending the burning, which took place ‘without the camp,’ was entrusted to a deputy of the high priest. The actual burning, however, was carried through by a lay assistant, which fact, taken along with the detail (v. 5) that every particle of the animal, including the blood, was burned, shows that we have not to do here with a ritual sacrifice, as might be inferred from the EV of v. 9. The word there rendered ‘sin-offering’ properly denotes in this connexion (cf. 8:7) ‘a purification for sin’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex. 310a; cf. SACRIFICE, § 14). The priest’s share in the ceremony was confined to the sprinkling of some of the blood ‘toward the front of the tent of meeting’ (v. 4 RV), in token of the dedication of the animal to J″, and to the casting into the burning mass of a piece of cedar wood and a bunch of hyssop bound with a piece of scarlet cloth ( such, at least, is the regulation of the Mishna treatise dealing with this subject ).
A third person—the priest and his assistant having themselves Become ‘unclean’ through contact with these sacred things (see below)—now gathered the ashes and laid them up ‘without the camp in a clean place,’ to be used as occasion required. The special name given to the mixture of ‘running water’ (v. 17, lit. ‘living water,’ i.e. water from a spring, not a cistern) and the ashes is properly ‘water of impurity’ (v. 9, 13, 20, 21—so RVm; Amer. RV ‘water for impurity’; EV water of separation), i.e. water for the removal of impurity or uncleanness. This powerful cathartic was applied to the person or thing to be cleansed, either by being thrown over them (see Gray, Com. on v. 13), or by being sprinkled with a sprinkler of hyssop (v. 18). This was done on the third and seventh days, after which the defiled person washed his person and garments, and was then restored to the privileges of the cult and the community. The only other reference to ‘the water of impurity’ is in the late passage, Nu 31:23.
2. The clue to the significance of the rite above described is found in the primitive conception of uncleanness, as this has been disclosed by modern anthropological research (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN) . In all primitive societies a dead body in particular is regarded as not only unclean in itself, but as capable of infecting with uncleanness all who come in contact with it or are even in proximity to it. The Semites shared these ideas with primitive communities in every part of the world. Hence, although the literary formulation of the rite of the Red Heifer in Nu 19 may be late, the ideas and practices thereof are certainly older than the Hebrews themselves.
While the central idea of the rite—the efficacy of ashes as a cathartic, due probably to their connexion with fire (cf. Nu 31:23, and Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, 101 n.)—has its parallels elsewhere, the original significance of several of the details is still very obscure. This applies, for example, to the red colour of the cow, and to the addition to her ashes of the ‘cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet’ (for various suggestions see, in addition to Gray, op. cit., Hastings’ DB iv. 208 ff.; Bewer in JBL xxiv. (1905) 42 ff., who suggests that the cow may have been originally a sacrifice to the dead).
The value of the chapter for the student of Hebrew ritual lies in the illustration it affords of the primitive conceptions of uncleanness, especially of the uncleanness of the dead, and of the ‘contagiousness of holiness,’ the nature of which has been so clearly expounded by Robertson Smith (see RS2 446 ff. ‘Holiness, Uncleanness, and Taboo’). The ashes of the red heifer and the water of impurity here appear, in virtue of their intense ‘holiness,’ as ‘a conducting vehicle of a dangerous spiritual electricity’ (Farnell, op. cit. 95) , and have the same power as the dead body of rendering unclean all who come in contact with them (see vv. 7ff., 21f. and art. CLEAN AND
UNCLEAN).
There are no inventions in ritual, it has been said, only survivals, and in the rite under review we have one of the most interesting of these survivals. The remarks made in a previous article
(ATONEMENT [DAY OF]) are equally applicable to the present case. As re-interpreted by the compilers of the Priests’ Code, the rite conveys, in striking symbolism, the eternal truth that purity and holiness are the essential characteristics of the people of God.
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
RED SEA.—The body of water, over 1000 miles in length, which divides Africa from
Arabia. The Biblical interest of the name centres at its northern end in its two projections, the Gulf of Suez, running north-west, and the Bay of Akabah almost due north. The former once extended much farther to the north, along the route of the present Suez Canal. Anciently it was known as the Gulf of Heroöepolis, running as far north as the Bitter Lakes. In this region it is probable that the passage of the sea described in Ex 14 took place, though it has been located by some at the present Suez, and by others still farther south.
This primitive extension of the gulf to the north, the region of weeds, probably accounts for its name, Yam Suph, ‘sea of weeds’ (Ex 10:19, 15:4), which was later applied also to the eastern extension, the Bay of Akabah (Nu 21:4), to the entire body of water now known as the Red Sea, stretching from the Ras Mohammed southward to the straits, and perhaps even to the Persian Gulf (Ex 23:31). No satisfactory explanation of the term ‘red’ (Gr. Erythra, Lat. Rubrum) has been found.
Biblical history is concerned with the western gulf (Suez, 130 m. long) only in connexion with the Exodus. Those who locate Mt. Sinai in the peninsula between the two gulfs, either at Mt. Serhal or at Jebel Musa, trace the route of the wanderings down the eastern shore of this water as far as Ras Abu Zenimeh, or (with Shaw, Pococke, etc.) as far as Tor, and then through the mountain wadys to Sinai. Those who locate the mountain of the Law farther north in the region north of Akahah, trace the wanderings directly eastward from the sea (Jg 11:16).
The Bay of Akabah, 90 m. long, lies in the southern end of the long trench which extends from the Red Sea proper northward to the Lehanons, the upper portion of which is occupied by the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Between the latter and the Bay of Akabah lies the Arabah. At the northern end was an important maritime highway in the reign of Solomon. At the harbour of Ezion-geber (near to, or perhaps the same as, Elath), at its northern end, Solomon built his navy, with the help of Phœnician seamen (1 K 9:26), and sent out expeditions to India. Jehoshaphat was less successful (1 K 22:48).
H. L. WILLETT.
REDEEMER, REDEMPTION.—Redemption means in strictness deliverance by payment of a price or ransom, hence, metaphorically, at any great cost or sacrifice; but in the OT, outside the Law (especially in Deut., Psalms, Isaiah), is often used also of deliverance simply, as from oppression, violence, sickness, captivity, death—redemption by power. The typical redemption in the OT was the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (cf. Is 51:9–11).
Two words, with their derivatives, are used in the OT to express the idea. The one, gā’al (from which gā’āl, ‘redeemer’), is used technically of redemption of ant inheritance, of tithes, and the like: in a wider sense it is a favourite term in the later Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah. The other, pādhāh, is frequent in Deut. and in the earlier Psalms. The gō’el is the kinsman who has the right to redeem; the term is used also of the ‘avenger of blood’ (Nu 35:12 etc.); elsewhere, as in Job 19:25, Ps 19:14 etc., but especially in Deutero-Isaiah, it denotes Jehovah as the vindicator, deliverer, and avenger of His people (cf. Is 40:14,
43:14 etc.). The NT, likewise, employs two words—one agorazō, ‘to buy or purchase’ (1 Co 6:20, 7:23, 2 P 2:1, Rev 5:9, 14:3, 4; St. Paul uses a compound form in Gal 3:13, 4:5); the other, and more usual, lutroumai (from lutron, ‘a ransom’), and its derivatives. The special Pauline word for redemption is apolutrōsis ( Ro 3:24, 8:23, 1 Co 1:30, Eph 1:7 etc.). In Ro 11:26 ‘Deliverer’ is used for the OT ‘Redeemer’ (Is 59:20).
In pious circles in Israel the coming Messianic salvation was viewed as a ‘redemption’ (Lk 2:38) , in which, possibly, political deliverance was Included, but in which the main blessings were spiritual—knowledge of salvation, remission of sins, holiness, guidance, peace (Lk 1:74– 79). In Christ’s own teaching the political aspect altogether disappears, and the salvation He brings in is something wholly spiritual. He connects it with His Person, and in certain wellknown passages with His death (Jn 3:14–16, 6:51–56, Mt 20:28 || and 26:26–28 || etc.). In the Apostolic teaching (Acts, Paul, Peter, Heb., Rev.) Christ’s work is distinctively a ‘redemption.’ Redemption, moreover, is not used here simply in the general sense of deliverance, but with definite emphasis on the idea of purchase (Ac 20:28, 1 Co 6:20, Eph 1:7, 1 Ti 2:9, 1 P 1:18, 19, Rev 5:9 etc.). This glances back to Christ’s own saying that He came ‘to give his life a ransom
(lutron; cf. antilutron in 1 Ti 2:6) for many’ (Mt 20:28). Further, ‘ransom,’ ‘price,’ ‘purchase,’ ‘redeem,’ are not to be taken simply figuratively, in the sense that Christ has procured salvation for us at the cost of great suffering, even of death, to Himself. This is true; but the consensus of Apostolic teaching gives a much more definite interpretation to the language; one in accordance with Christ’s own intimation. His death was an explatory sacrifice by which those who avail themselves of it are literally redeemed from the wrath of God that rested on them, and from all other effects of sin. It is St. Paul who works out this idea most systematically (cf. Ro 3:23–26 , 2 Co 5:18–21, Gal 3:10–13 , 4:4, 5, Tit 3:14, etc.), though all the NT writers share it. The immediate effect of Christ’s redeeming death is to free from guilt and annul condemnation (Ro 8:1, 33, 34), but it carries in its train deliverance from sin in every form (from sin’s dominion, from the tyranny of Satan, from an evil world, from ‘all iniquity,’ Ro 6, Gal 1:4, Tit 2:14, He 2:14 etc.); ultimately from death itself (Ro 8:23). It not merely redeems from evil, but puts in possession of the highest possible good—‘eternal life’ (Ro 6:23, Eph 1:3 etc.). It is a redemption in every way complete. See, further, artt. ATONEMENT, PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION,
SALVATION.
JAMES ORR.
REED.—1. qāneh, tr. ‘reed,’ 1 K 14:15, 2 K 18:21, Is 36:6, 42:3 ; ‘stalk,’ Gn 41:6, 22; ‘sweet cane’ (RVm ‘calamus’) , Is 43:24, Jer 6:20; ‘calamus,’ Ca 4:14, Ezk 27:19; ‘spearmen,’ Ps 68:30 ( AV, but RV ‘reeds’); also metaphorically used for a ‘bone,’ Job 31:22; the arm of ‘a balance,’ Is 46:6; and ‘branches’ of a candlestick, Ex 25:31, 32. The qāneh is probably the familiar qasāb (Arundo donax) , which flourishes on the banks of all the streams and lakes of the Jordan Valley. Miles of it are to be seen at the ‘Ain Feshkhah oasis on the Dead Sea shore, and at the Huleh marshes. It is a lofty reed, often 20 feet high, brilliantly green in the late summer, when all around is dry and bare; but dead-looking, from a distance, in the spring, when it stands in full flower and the lofty stems are crowned by beautiful silken pannicles. In the district mentioned the reeds are cleared from time to time by fire, that the young and tender shoots may grow up to afford fodder for cattle. The covert of the reeds is often the only possible shade (Job 40:21). The bruised reed, which, though standing, a touch will cause to fall and lie bedraggled on the ground, is a familiar sight (2 K 18:21, Is 36:8, Ezk 29:6–7). A reed forms a most convenient measuringrod, being straight and light (Ezk 40:3, 5, Rev 11:1 etc.). In certain passages where qāneh is tr. ‘calamus,’ or ‘sweet cane,’ some imported aromatic cane or hark is meant. For the use of reeds as pens, see WRITING, 6.
2. ‘ārōth, Is 19:7 (AV ‘paper reeds,’ RV ‘meadows’). See MEADOW.
3. ’ăgammīm, lit.‘pools’ (see POOL), is in Jer 51:32 tr. ‘reeds.’ For bulrushes see RUSH.
4. ’ āchū, Job 8:11 EV ‘flag,’ RVm ‘reed-grass.’ See MEADOW.
5. ’ēbeh, Job 9:26 (RVm ‘reed’). The reference is to light skiffs of papyrus.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
REELAIAH.—See RAAMIAH.
REELIAS, 1 Es 5:8, corresponds in position to Bigvai in Ezr 2:2, Neh 7:7; the form of the name may be due to a duplication of Reelaiah in the same verse of Ezra.
REFINER, REFINING.—The ancient Egyptians purified gold by putting it into earthen crucibles with lead, salt, a little tin, and barley bran, sealing the crucibles with clay, and then exposing them to the heat of a furnace for five days and nights. Refining silver by cupellation is a very old process. The silver mixed with lead is put into a crucible made of bone earth, and placed in a reverberatory furnace. As the oxide of lead forms, it is blown off by bellows, and towards the end of the process the thin covering of oxide becomes iridescent and soon disappears, and the pure bright surface of the silver flashes out. This process of refining silver is referred to in Jer 6:29. The reference in Mal 3:2f. is to the purifying influence of affliction on the people of God; their sinful Impurities gradually disappear, and at last the Divine image is reflected from the soul, as the face of the refiner from the surface of the purified silver.
REFUGE, CITIES OF
1. Origin of the right of asylum.—The city of refuge was the product of two primitive religious ideas that were employed to neutralize one another,—the sacredness of blood or life and the sacredness of locality; both were based on the presence of the Divine in the blood and the locality. There was a community of blood or life between the god and his people that made it an unpardonable offence to slay one of his people; it mattered not whether the slayer was within or without his people, whether the deed was intentional or accidental. A wrong had been done that could be atoned for only by blood (Robertson Smith, RS, [1907] p. 32 ff.). On the other hand, the god chose certain places for his manifestation, and there it was customary for his people to meet and worship him. Within the precincts claimed by his presence all life was sacred, and so it came about that even a murderer, if he escaped to the haunts of a god, would be safe from those to whom he had forfeited his life, so long as he remained within their sacred limits (ib. p. 148 f.). The murderer thus escaped the penalty of his wrong, but he remained an ineffective unit for his tribe; immediately he left the asylum of the god he was at the mercy of the avenger of blood, and so both tribe and individual were in a measure punished. This primitive usage still prevails in savage communities, and has been widened by extending the privilege of asylum to places occupied by former kings and to the graves of former rulers (Frazer, Fort. Review, 1899, pp.
650–654).
2. Development of asylum in OT.—In this absolute form the right of asylum is not recognized anywhere in the OT. It is extended only to one who has without intention committed homicide ( Ex 21:13). One who has treacherously sullied his hands with blood can find no refuge at the altar of God; he may be taken from it to death (Ex 21:14), or he may even be struck down at the altar, as was the fate of Joab (1 K 2:30, 31, 34) . The community came between the fugitive and the avenger of blood, and determined whether he should be handed over to death. This was likely the result of the fusion of different tribes and the necessity of recognizing one common authority. We can trace three stages of development of this right of asylum in the OT.
(1) Every altar or sanctuary in the land could extend its protection to one who had without intention taken the life of another. He had to justify his claim to protection by showing to the authorities of the sanctuary that his deed was unpremeditated. But after the fugitive had submitted satisfactory evidence, he was allowed to remain within the sacred precincts. He could not, however, return home, and had evidently to pass the remainder of his life in the refuge to which he had fled. He could not appease the avenger by money. His want of prudence must entail some punishment, and so he could not pass beyond the city boundaries without risk of death at the hands of the avenger of blood. What provision was made for his maintenance is not revealed, but very likely he had to win his subsistence by his work. Whether his family could join him in his asylum is a question that is also unanswered. This is the stage of development in Ex 21:13, 14, 1 K 1:50 , 2:28, 34. It is not at all likely that Joab’s death was brought about at the altar in Jerusalem because of some exceptional authority exercised over it by the king. Joab evidently knew he could be put to death there (1 K 2:30).
(2) When the provincial high places and altars were suppressed by Josiah in B.C. 621 , the right of asylum there fell with them, and provision had to be made for the continuance of ancient usage on a modified basis. Very likely there was less need for it, as the power of the Crown had been growing. Cities of refuge, situated at convenient distances, were set apart for the manslayer (Dt 19:2–7) , and it may even be that the roads thither were specially kept and marked to make escape easy (Dt 19:3; but cf. Steuernagel, Deut. p. 71 f.). The fugitive had to justify his claim to protection by showing to the elders of the city whither he had fled his innocence of murderous motives. Any one who failed to convince them of the validity of his defence was handed over to the elders of his own city, and they in turn surrendered him to the avenger of blood. Practically, then, the community administered justice, but when the death penalty was to be exacted, it was exacted not by the community, but by the avenger of blood in accordance with primitive usage ( Dt 19:12, 13).
(3) In post-exilic times the cities of refuge established under the Deuteronomic Code remained, and the judicial procedure followed was very much the same, only the community— presumably at Jerusalem—and not the elders of the city of refuge (Nu 35:12, 24, 25) was to determine the guilt or the innocence of the fugitive. Jos 20:4, however, contemplates a provisional inquiry by the elders of the city before protection is granted. The law was mitigated so far that the unwitting manslayer was no longer doomed to spend all his days there but was free to return to his home on the death of the high priest of the time (Nu 35:25, 23, Jos 20:6). This points to the post-exilic origin of this modification. The high priest was then the only constituted authority that Jewish law could recognize.
3. Number of cities of refuge.—The statements bearing on the number of the cities of refuge are conflicting (Nu 35:11, 13–15, Dt 4:41–43, 19:7–10, Jos 20:2, 7, 8; cf. Driver, Deut. pp. 78, 233; Gray, Num. p. 469) . Ultimately there were six, but at first there appear to have been only three (Dt 19:2, 7). They were established first in the time of Josiah when the boundaries and the population of the Jewish State would be comparatively small, and Jewish authority did not likely cross the Jordan to the east. In such conditions three cities would be ample. But when in postexilic times the Jews covered a wider area, there would naturally be need for more cities; and so we find the number in Numbers and Joshua stated at six, and additions made to the text in Dt 4:41–43 and 19:3 to suggest that the number six had been contemplated from the beginning. These six cities were Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron on the west,—all well-known sanctuaries from early times,—and Golan, Ramoth, and Bezer on the east. Of the situation of these last we know nothing definitely; even the site of Ramoth, to which reference is made elsewhere in the OT (1 K 4:13, 22:3ff.), is a subject of doubt (see G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 587; Driver, Deut. xviii, xix), but they probably shared the sacred character of the cities on the west.
J. GILROY.
REFUSE.—The vb. ‘to refuse’ has lost much of its vigour. In AV it often means ‘to reject.’ Thus Ps 118:22 ‘The stone which the builders refused.’ Cf. Tindale’s trans. of Mt 24:40 ‘Then two shalbe in the feldes, the one shalbe receaved, and the other shalbe refused.’
REGEM.—The eponym of a Calebite family (1 Ch 2:47).
REGEM-MELECH.—One of the deputation sent to the prophet Zechariah (Zec 7:2).
REGENERATION.—In the language of theology, ‘regeneration’ denotes that decisive spiritual change, effected by God’s Holy Spirit, in which a soul, naturally estranged from God, and ruled by sinful principles, is renewed in disposition, becomes the subject of holy affections and desires, and enters on a life of progressive sanctification, the issue of which is complete likeness to Christ. The term, however, to which this word corresponds (Gr. palingenesia) , occurs only twice in the NT (Mt 19:28, Tit 3:5), and in the first instance denotes, not the renewal of the individual, but the perfected condition of things at the Parousia (cf. Ac 3:21, 2 P 3:13; see RESTORATION) . In the other passage (Tit 3:5), the expression ‘the washing [laver] of regeneration’ connects ‘the renewing of the Holy Ghost’ with the rite of baptism, which is its outward symbol and seal (see below). The doctrine, nevertheless, is a thoroughly Scriptural one, and the change in question is expressed by a great variety of terms and phrases: ‘born,’ ‘born anew,’ ‘a new creation,’ ‘renewed,’ ‘quickened,’ etc., to which attention will immediately be directed. The fundamental need of regeneration is recognized in the OT as well as in the NT (e.g. Ps 51:10, 11), though, necessarily, the prophecies speak more frequently of national renewal (Jer 31:31ff., 32:38–40, Ezk 36:25–28, Hos 6:1–3 etc.) than of individual.
The classical passage on the need of regeneration is Jn 3:3ff. Spiritual life, it is taught, can come only from a spiritual source, and man, naturally, has not that life (v. 6). Hence the declarations: ‘Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God’; ‘Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.… Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew’ (vv. 3, 5). The miracle is wrought by the Spirit of God, whose action is sovereign (v. 8). Many do marvel, like Nicodemus, at the strangeness and universality of this demand of Christ; yet the strangeness will disappear, and the need of a supernatural agent to effect the change will be felt, if due consideration is given (1) to the vastness of the change, and (2) to the condition of the human nature in which the change is to be made.
(1) It is sufficient, to show the vastness of this change, to reflect that here, and elsewhere, regeneration means nothing less than a revolution of such a kind as results in the whole man being brought round from his ordinary worldly way of feeling, and thinking, and willing, into harmony with God’s mind and will; truly brought round to God’s point of view, so that he now sees things as God sees them, feels about things as God feels about them, judges of things as God judges of them, loves what God loves, hates what God hates, sets God’s ends before him as his own. Who can doubt, if this is the nature of the change, that it does not lie in man’s own powers to produce it; that it can be effected only through a higher power entering his being, and working the change?
(2) The need of a supernatural agency in the change is further evident from the condition of the human nature in which the change is wrought. The testimony of Scripture is uniform that man has turned aside from God (Ps 14:1–3 , Ro 3:9ff.), and that his nature has undergone a terrible depravation (Gn 6:5, 8:21, Ps 51:5, Is 1:2–4, Ro 7:14ff., Eph 2:1–3 , 4:17, 18 etc.); that the bent of the will is away from God (Ro 8:7, 8); that the love of God has been replaced by love of the world, and the self-seeking principles connected therewith (1 Jn 2:15, 16, cf. Jn 5:42, 44); that the better nature is in bondage to a law of sin, which works lawlessness in thought, feeling, and desire (Ro 7:22, 23, 1 Jn 3:4 RV). Is it not obvious, leaving out of account altogether the darker forms in which evil manifests itself, that this is a condition of soul which only a Divine power can rectify?
Nothing, therefore, is more plainly taught in Scripture than that this spiritual change we call regeneration is one which nothing short of Divine power can effect. It is spoken of as a being born of God (Jn 1:12 , 13, 3:5, 1 Jn 3:9 etc.); as a new creation (2 Co 5:21); as a being raised from the dead (Eph 2:5, 6). It is compared to that great work of the omnipotence of God in raising Christ Himself from the dead (Eph 1:19, 22, 2:1, 6). It is a complete renewal, transformation, of the inner man (Ro 12:2, Eph 4:23, Col 3:10, Tit 3:15, 1 P 1:22, 23). Yet, while so distinctively a supernatural work, it is made equally clear that it is not a magical work; not a work bound up with rites and words, so that, when these rites and ceremonies are performed, regeneration is ipso facto effected. This is the error of sacerdotalism, which binds up this spiritual change with the rite of baptism. It would be wrong to say that baptism has no connexion with the change, for it is often brought into most intimate relation with it (Ro 6:4, Tit 3:5, 1 P 3:21; perhaps even in Christ’s words, Jn 3:5; with the historical examples of the connexion of the receiving of the Spirit with baptism, Ac 2:38, 19:2–8 etc.). Baptism is connected with regeneration as outwardly representing it, and being a symbol of it; as connected with profession (1 P 3:21), and pledging the spiritual blessing to faith; but it neither operates the blessing, nor is indispensable to it, nor has any virtue at all apart from the inward susceptibility in the subjects of it. In some cases we read of those on whom the Spirit of God fell, that they were baptized afterwards (Ac 10:44, 48), and in all cases faith is presumed to be already present before baptism is administered; that is, the inward decisive step has already been taken.
On the other hand, when we look to the means—the instrumentality—by which the Holy Spirit effects this change, we find it always in Scripture declared to be one thing, namely, the word. This is what is meant by saying that regeneration is effected, not magically, but by the use of. rational means. It is connected with the outward call of the gospel (hence the older divines were wont to treat of this subject under the head of ‘vocation,’ or ‘effectual calling’). We speak, of course, only of adults, of those who are capable of hearing and understanding the call, and are far from limiting the grace of God in infants, or others whom this call does not or cannot reach. What is affirmed is, as regards those who have come to years of intelligence, that God’s dealing with them is through the word, and this is the constant representation. The OT equally with the NT extols the saving, converting, quickening, cleansing, sanctifying power of the word of God (e.g. Ps 19:7ff., 119). Jesus declares the word to be the seed of the Kingdom (Lk 8:11). He prays:
‘Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth’ (Jn 17:17). Conversion, regeneration,
sanctification, are connected with the word (Ac 11:19–21, Eph 1:13, Col 1:5, 1 Th 2:13, 2 Th 2:13, Ja 1:18, 1 P 1:23–25 [‘Begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God,’ etc.])
If this is the nature, generally, of regeneration, then it has what may be termed a psychology; that is, there is a process which the mind goes through in the experience of this spiritual change. The Spirit of God, doubtless, has innumerable ways of dealing with human souls; still, if we look closely, it will be found that there are certain elements which do in some degree enter into all experience in regeneration, and furnish, so far, a test of the reality of the change. There is first, of necessity, the awakening of the soul out of its customary spiritual dormancy—out of that deep insensibility to spiritual things in which ordinarily the natural mind is held (Eph 5:14, cf. Ro 14:11 , 12). Especially there comes into view here the peculiar awakening of the soul through the conscience, which takes the form of what we call conviction of sin towards God (cf. Ac 16:29, 30). Probably no one can undergo this spiritual change without in some degree being brought inwardly to the realization of his sinful condition before God, and to the sincere confession of it (Ps 51:4). The law of God has its place in producing this conviction of sin; but law alone will not produce spiritual contrition. See REPENTANCE. For this there is needed the exhibition of mercy. Hence the next stage in this spiritual process is that described as enlightenment—growing enlightenment in the knowledge of Christ, This also, like the preceding stages, is a Divine work ( Jn 16:14, 15, 2 Co 4:4). Even with this, however, the work of regeneration is not complete. The will of God for man’s salvation has not only to be understood, it has also to be obeyed. There is the will to be laid hold of—the will, the centre and citadel of the being. So the work of the Holy Spirit is directed, finally, to the renewing of the will. It is directed to the renewing of the will, first of all, in the form of persuasion, for the Holy Spirit does none of His work by violence. Everything that God accomplishes is accomplished in accordance with the nature He has given us; but God most graciously, most lovingly, brings His persuasions to bear upon our wills, and by the power of appropriate motives draws us to the acceptance of Christ (Jn 6:44). With this there goes what, in the next place, may be called the potentiation of the will—the enabling of it, or imparting to it the power needful in order to lay hold on Christ with full and fast faith (Eph 4:16) . Last of all, this work of regeneration is completed when the soul is brought to the point of absolute surrender of itself to Christ—when, drawn and persuaded, and at length enabled by the Spirit, it yields itself up entirely to Christ as its Saviour, and lays hold on Christ for a complete salvation. There is now union with Christ by faith, and, with that, entrance into the life—the experience—of the newborn child of God. ‘If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new’ (2 Co 5:17).
JAMES ORR.
REGISTER (i.e. genealogical record).—See GENEALOGY, 2.
REHABIAH.—A Levitical family (1 Ch 23:17, 24:21, 26:26).
REHOB.—1. A town at the northern end of the valley of the Jordan (Nu 13:21, 2 S 10:3), most probably the same as Beth-rehob, of which the exact site is unknown. 2, 3. Two Asherite towns, neither of which has been identified (Jos 19:28, 21:31, 1 Ch 6:75, Jos 19:30, Jg 1:31). 4.
The father of Hadadezer (2 S 8:3, 12). 5. A signatory to the covenant (Neh 10:11).
REHOBOAM, son of Solomon, is said to have reigned seventeen years. The statement that his mother was Naamah, the Ammonitess (1 K 14:21), has nothing improbable about it. The LXX may even be right in calling her a daughter of Nahash, the Ammonite king. In the history of Rehoboam the chief point is his indiscreet treatment of the tribes at his accession—treatment which resulted in the revolt of the best part of the nation and the establishment of a rival kingdom (1 K 12) . The coherence of the tribes was evidently imperfect under Solomon.
Ephraim, which had always been conscious of its own strength, was not minded to recognize the young king without some concessions on his part. For this reason Rehoboam went to Shechem to be crowned. Here the hereditary chiefs demanded that he should lighten the yoke. In this they had reference particularly to the forced labour exacted by Solomon. Rehoboam’s arrogant answer is well known, and the result.
It was natural that an effort should be made to reduce the rebel tribes to subjection. But Rehoboam seems not to have had either adequate resources or military capacity. The brief notice that there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually is all that we are told. Besides this, the Biblical author describes the religious condition of the people in this reign in dark colours. This condition, however, is no more than prevailed under Solomon. The chief event in the secular history of the time was the invasion of the country by Shishak, king of Egypt. This monarch claims to have reduced the whole country to subjection, probably reviving ancient claims to suzerainty. The author of our Books of Kings is chiefly concerned at the Egyptian’s plundering the Temple (1 K 14:26), while the Chronicler (2 Ch 12) as usual is ready to make an edifying story out of the incident. It would interest us to know whether Egypt maintained its claims on the successors of Rehoboam, but on this point we are left in the dark.
H. P. SMITH.
REHOBOTH.—1. A well dug by the servants of Isaac and finally conceded to him, after two others, dug also by them, had become a subject of quarrel with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 26:22). Several identifications have been proposed, of which the most probable is that made by Palmer with er-Ruhaibeh, about 20 miles S. of Beersheba. 2. The name of a king of Edom in Gn 36:37, where he is called ‘Rehoboth of the River.’ ‘The River’ here may not be, as usually, the Euphrates, but the ‘River of Egypt’ (see EGYPT [RIVER OF]).
J. F. M’CURDY.
REHOBOTH-IR (lit. ‘broad places of the city’).—One of the four cities in Assyria built by Nimrod (Gn 10:11). It immediately follows Nineveh, and might mean a suburb of that city, originally separate from it, but later annexed and containing some of its most spacious streets or market-places. A suitable identification has been found in the Assyr. rēbīt Ninā ( ‘broad places of
Nineveh’), mentioned by king Esarhaddon (B.C. 681–668) . This is the exact equivalent of the
Biblical name. In taking it over, ‘the city’ was substituted for ‘Nineveh.’
J. F. M’CURDY.
REHUM.—1. One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community (Ezr 2:2; in Neh 7:7, perhaps by a copyist’s error, Nehum; in 1 Es 5:8 Roimus). 2. ‘The chancellor’ (Ezr 4:8, 9, 17 , 23; in 1 Es 2:16 Rathumus). See BEELTETHMUS. 3. A Levite who helped to repair the wall (Neh 3:17). 4. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:25 (26)). 5. The eponym of a priestly family (Neh 12:3). See HARIM, 2.
REI (‘J″ is a friend’).—The name is given to one of the supporters of Solomon at the time of
Adonijah’s attempt to secure the throne (1 K 1:8). He is mentioned along with Shimei, and was likely an officer in the royal guard. These troops seem to have had an enormous influence in determining the succession to the throne.
The reading, however, is not above suspicion, and Jos. (Ant. VII. xiv. 4) reads ‘Shimei, the friend of David,’ and thus gets rid of Rei as a personal name (so Lucian). Several attempts have been made to identify him with other figures, as Ira or Jair (Winckler, Gesch. ii. 247) or Raddai (Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 266 note).
W. F. BOYD.
REINS.—See KIDNEYS.
REKEM.—1. One of the five kinglets of Midian slain by Moses (Nu 31:8, Jos 13:21). 2. A Calebite family (1 Ch 2:43). 3. A clan of Machir (1 Ch 7:16 [AV and RV Rakem, but this is simply the pausal form of the Heb. name]). 4. An unidentified city of Benjamin (Jos 18:27).
RELIGION.—The word ‘religion,’ wherever it occurs in AV, signifies not the inner spirit of the religious life, but its outward expression. It is thus used of one form of religion as distinguished from another; as in 2 Mac 14:36, where the same word is translated in the middle of the verse ‘Judaism,’ and in the end of it ‘the religion of the Jews.’ It is also used by St. James (1:26 , 27) to contrast moral acts with ritual forms.
REMALIAH.—The father of Pekah (2 K 15:25ff., 16:1, 5, 2 Ch 28:6, Is 7:1ff., 8:8).
REMETH.—See RAMOTH, 1.
REMNANT.—See ISRAEL, p. 387b.
REMPHAN.—See REPHAN.
REPENTANCE.—Repentance, in the sense of turning from a purpose, is frequently predicated of God in the OT (Gn 6:6, 7, Ex 32:14 etc.). Repentance for sin is commonly expressed by ‘turn’ or ‘return’ (e.g. Dt 4:30, Is 55:7, Ezk 3:2, Hos 14:2). Repentance has a prominent place in the NT, alone (Mt 4:17, Lk 15:7, Ac 2:38 etc.), or in conjunction with faith ( Mk 1:15, Ac 20:21 etc.), as an Indispensable condition of salvation. The word ordinarily used (metanoia) means literally ‘change of mind.’ The change, however, is one in which not the intellect only, but the whole nature (understanding, affections, will), is involved. It is such an altered view of God and sin as carries with it heartfelt sorrow for sin, confession of it, and decisive turning from it to God and righteousness (Lk 15:17, 18, Ro 6:17, 18, 2 Co 7:10, 11 etc.).
Its reality is tested by its fruits (Mt 3:8, Lk 6:43–46) . From this ‘godly sorrow’, which works
‘repentance unto salvation’ (2 Co 7:10, 11), is distinguished a ‘sorrow of the world’ which ‘worketh death’ (v. 10), i.e. a sorrow which has no relation to God, or to the intrinsic evil of sin, but only to sin’s harmful consequences. There may be keen remorse, and blaming of one’s self for one’s folly, yet no real repentance.
Disputes have arisen in theology as to the priority of faith or repentance, but unnecessarily, for the two, rightly viewed, are but the positive and negative poles of the same state of soul. There can be no evangelical faith which does not spring from a heart broken and contrite on account of sin; on the other hand, there can be no true repentance which has not the germ of faith in God, and of hope in His mercy, in it. The Law alone would break the heart; the Gospel melts it. Repentance is the turning from sin; Gospel faith is the turning to Christ for salvation. The acts are inseparable (Ac 20:21).
JAMES ORR.
REPHAEL.—A family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26:7).
REPHAH.—An Ephraimite family (1 Ch 7:25).
REPHAIAH.—1. A Judahite (1 Ch 3:21). 2. A Simeonite chief (1 Ch 4:42). 3. A descendant of Issachar (1 Ch 7:2). 4. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 9:43); called in 8:37 Raphah. 5. One of those who helped to repair the wall (Neh 3:9).
REPHAIM.—A name given in several Biblical passages to some pre-Israelitish people. In Gn 14:5 they are said to have dwelt in Ashteroth-karnaim. Gn 15:20 classes them with Hittites and Perizzites (similarly Jos 17:15). Dt 2:11, 20 calls certain peoples ‘Rephaim’ whom the Moabites and Ammonites called respectively ‘Emim’ and ‘Zamzummin.’ Dt 3:11 says that Og, king of Bashan, alone remained of the Rephaim (so also Jos 12:4, 13:12), while Dt 3:13 says that
Argob was a land of Rephaim. A valley near Jerusalem was also called the ‘Vale of Rephaim’
( see 2 S 5:18, 22, 23:13, 1 Ch 11:15, 14:9, Is 17:5). Because Dt 2:11 counts them with the Anakim, who were giants, and 2 S 21:18–22 says that the sons of a certain Rapha ( see RVm ) were giants, it has been supposed by some that Rephaim means ‘giants,’ and was given to a race as their name by their neighbours because of their stature. Cf. art. GIANT.
The word răphā’īm in Hebrew means also ‘shades’ or disembodied spirits. At least it is used to describe the dead, as in Ps 88:10. Schwally is probably right, therefore (Leben nach dem Tode, 64 ff. and ZATW, xviii. 127 ff.), in holding that the word means ‘shades,’ and that it was applied by the Israelites to people who were dead and gone, and of whom they knew little.
GEORGE A. BARTON.
REPHAN (AV Remphan).—A word which replaces Chiun of the Hebrew text of Am 5:26, both in the LXX and in the quotation in Ac 7:48 . The generally accepted explanation of this
word is that Rephan (the preferable form) is a corruption and transliteration of Kewan (Kaiwan, Kaawan—see CHIUN)—r having somehow mistakenly replaced k, and w (the Hebrew wau or vav) having been transliterated ph (the Gr. phi).
W. M. NESBIT.
REPHIDIM.—A stage in the Wanderings, between the wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai (Ex 17:1, 8, 19:2; cf. Nu 33:14f.). Here water was miraculously supplied, and Israel fought with Amalek. Those who accept the traditional Sinal generally place Elim in Wādy Gharandel, and Rephidim in Wādy Feirān, about four miles N. of Mt. Serbal (Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, Index). The tribesmen would naturally wish to defend the springs in the valley against such a host as Israel. Moses might have surveyed the conflict from the height of Jebel Tahūneh, on the N. of the valley. Only we should hardly expect the Amalekites so far to the south. If the scholars who place Sinai east of the Gulf of ‘Akabah, identifying Elath and Elim, are right, then Rephidim must be sought somewhere in that district. (Sayce, HCM, p. 269.)
W. EWING.
REPROBATE.—The Heb. word so rendered in Jer 6:30 (AV; RV ‘refuse’) has its meaning explained by the context. ‘Refuse silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.’ Like metal proved to be worthless by the refiner’s fire (v. 29), they are thrown away (cf. Is 1:22). In the NT, in accordance with the meaning of the Gr. word (adokimos) , ‘reprobate’ is used of that which cannot abide the proof, which, on being tested, is found to be worthless, had, counterfeit, and is therefore rejected. ‘A reprobate mind’ in Ro 1:28 (with tacit reference to the previous clause, ‘they did not approve to have God in their knowledge’) is, as the context shows, a mind depraved and perverted by vile passions. To such a mind God abandoned those who wilfully exchanged His truth for a lie (v. 25). In 1 Co 9:27, St. Paul declares that he ‘buffets’ his body and ‘brings it into bondage,’ lest, having preached to others, he himself should be rejected ( reprobate). The figure is that of an athlete who, through remissness in training, fails in the race or fight (for the opposite figure, cf. 2 Ti 2:15). In 2 Co 13:6–7 , the word (‘reprobates’) occurs three times, in each case as opposed to genuine, true. Christ is in them, except they be reprobates, i.e. false to their profession, hence rejected by God. Let them ‘prove’ themselves by this test (v. 5). St. Paul trusts that they will know that he abides this test (v. 6); but let them think of him what they will, if only they themselves do what is honourable (v. 7). ‘Reprobate’ here is contrasted with what is ‘approved,’ ‘honourable’; it is identified with ‘doing evil.’ In 2 Ti 3:8, certain are described as ‘corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith,’ where both moral corruption and false speculation as the result of this corruption seem intended. They fail, brought to the test of ‘sound’ or ‘healthful’ doctrine (1:13, 14, 4:3). Similarly Tit 1:16 speaks of those who, denying God by their works, are ‘unto every good work reprobate.’ Their hypocrisy is brought home to them by their wicked lives. ‘Professing that they know God,’ they are proved by their works to be counterfeits, imposters. The word occurs, finally, in He 6:8, where those whom it is impossible ‘to renew again to repentance’ are compared to ground which, receiving the rain oft upon it, and being tilled, brings forth only thorns and thistles, and is ‘rejected.’ From all this we may conclude that ‘reprobate,’ generally, denotes a moral state so had that recovery from it is no longer possible; there remains only judgment (cf. He 6:8). It is only to be added that the term has no relation in Scripture to an eternal decree of reprobation; at least, to none which has not respect to a thoroughly had and irrecoverable condition of its objects. Cf. PREDESTINATION.
JAMES ORR. RESAIAS.—See RAAMIAH.
RESEN.—The last of the four cities built by Asshur, or, according to the RV, by Nimrod, and described as lying between Nineveh and Calah (i.e. Kouyunjik and Nimroud), on the E. bank of the Tigris (Gn 10:12). From its position the site referred to should be at or near the present Selamīyeh, which lies between the two points named. Resen seemingly represents the Assyrian place-name Rēsh-ēni, ‘fountain-head,’ but is probably not to be confused with the Rēsh-ēni mentioned by Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription, which is regarded as being the modern Räs el-‘Ain a little N. of Khorsabad. That the words ‘the same is a great city’ should refer to Resen alone seems unlikely—more probably Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, and Calah are included, the two latter forming, with Resen, suburbs of the first.
T. G. PINCHES.
RESH.—The twentieth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 20th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.
RESHEPH.—An Ephraimite family (1 Ch 7:25).
REST.—The conception of rest as a gift of God runs through the Bible, the underlying idea being not idleness, but the freedom from anxiety which is the condition of effective work. It is promised to Israel in Canaan (Ex 33:14, Dt 3:20), and Zion is the resting-place of J″ (Ps 132:8, 14), the Temple being built by ‘a man of rest’ (1 Ch 22:9; a contrast is implied with the desert wanderings in Nu 10:33–36). At the same time no earthly temple can be the real resting-place of J″ (Is 66:1, Ac 7:49). The rest of the Sabbath and the Sabbatical year are connected with the rest of God after creation (Gn 2:2, Ex 20:11, Lv 25:4; see art. SABBATH) . The individual desires rest, as did the nation (Ps 55:8); it is not to be found in ignoble ease (Gn 49:15 Issachar), but in the ways of God (Ps 37:7, Jer 6:10); it is the gift of Christ (Mt 11:28). Sinners fail to find it (Is 28:12 , 57:20), as Israel failed (Ps 95:11). He 4 develops the meaning of this failure, and points to the ‘sabbath rest’ still to come. This heavenly rest includes not only freedom from labour, as in OT (Job 3:13, 17 [in Ps 16:9, see RV]), but also the opportunity of continued work (Rev 14:13).
C. W. EMMET.
RESTITUTION.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, 8.
RESTORATION.—In a variety of phrases ‘regeneration’ (palingenesia, Mt 19:28), ‘restitution of all things’ (Ac 3:21), ‘summing up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth’ (Eph 1:10), ‘new heavens and a new earth’ (2 P 3:13, Rev 21:1), ‘make all things new’ (Rev 21:6)—the NT points forward to a perfected condition which shall supervene upon the present imperfect condition of mingled good and evil (cf. Mt 13:39, 40, 49, 50) , including a renewal of nature, the quelling of all evil (Ph 2:10, 11), and restoration of order and harmony in the universe, with Christ as Head. The hope is connected with OT prophecy (Ac 3:21 , 2 P 3:13), and the transformation itself is invariably associated with the Parousia (cf. Mt
19:28 etc.). The question of chief interest is, how far these predictions of a coming ‘restitution (apokatastasis) of all things’ point forward to a future universal salvation. Gladly as one would read this meaning into them, sober exegesis shows that they will not bear so large an interpretation. The passage which speaks of ‘restitution’ tells also of those who will not hearken, and shall be destroyed (Ac 3:23). The Parousia, when the new state of things is represented as introduced, is always connected in the NT with an awful judgment. St. Paul speaks of all things being summed up in Christ, of Christ subduing all things to Himself, etc. (Eph 1:10, 1 Co 15:24– 28 , Ph 2:10, 11); but unbiassed study of the passages and their context shows that it is far from the Apostle’s view to teach an ultimate conversion or annihilation of the kingdom of evil. It must be owned, however, that the strain of these last passages does seem to point in the direction of some ultimate unity, be it through forcible subjugation or in some other way, in which active opposition to God’s Kingdom is no longer to be reckoned with.
JAMES ORR.
RESURRECTION
1. In OT.—In our study of the OT doctrine of the resurrection we recognize the need for taking into consideration the chronological order of the different documents of which it is composed. No other belief, perhaps, presents a history into which the process of slow and halting development enters so visibly and consistently. That the later orthodox Jews advocated the existence in their earlier Scriptures of the principles which give vitality and a rational basis to this doctrine, is seen in their satisfaction with the answer of Jesus to the Sadducean cavils of His day (see Mk 12:28; cf. Lk 20:39, Mt 22:34). The gradual awakening of human consciousness in this respect is the best attestation to the Divine self-accommodation to the needs and limitations of the race. Beginning with the vague belief in the existence of a germinal principle of Divine life in man (cf. Gn 2:7), the latest passages of the OT dealing with the subject embody a categorical assertion of the resurrection of individual Israelites (cf. Dn 12:2f.). Between these two utterances we have the speculations of Psalmists and Prophets, while death became gradually shorn of many of its terrors and much of its power. The common Jewish belief in the time of Jesus finds expression in the words of Martha concerning her brother Lazarus (Jn 11:24), while this formed one of the deep lines of religious cleavage between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Ac 23:6ff.; cf. Jos. BJ II. viii. 14; Schürer, HJP II. ii. 13).
A peculiar feature of Jewish thought as to human life, marking it off clearly from some of the ethnic speculations and philosophic conceptions, consists in their habit of regarding the body as essential to man’s full existence. The traditions embodied in the stories of the translations of Enoch and Elijah (Gn 5:24, 2 K 2:11) receive their explanation on the assumption that in this way alone would they be enabled to enjoy the continuance of a full and complete life beyond the grave. It was this idea also that gave such a strong feeling of the incompleteness of the existence in Hades, and inspired the Psalmist’s assurance, ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption’ (Ps 16:10, cf. Job 14:13ff., 19:25f.).
The first specific mention of the hope of a resurrection is found in Hosea, where the prophet’s words are rather of the nature of an aspiration than the distinct announcement of a future event (6:2, cf. 13:14). This is, however, the expression not of an individual who looks forward to being raised from the dead, but of one who sees his nation once more quickened and ‘brought up again from the depths of the earth’ (Ps 71:20; cf. Kirkpatrick, The Psalms, ad loc.). A similar hope finds expression in Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezk 37:1–14) . A distinct advance on these utterances is found in the post-exilic prophecy, Is 26:19, where the prophet breathes a prayer for the resurrection of the individual dead. When this passage is contrasted with the confident assertion of v. 14 it is seen that as yet there was no thought of a resurrection save for the Israelite. The same restriction is also found to exist at the later date, when the Book of Daniel was written. In this book there is a clear, unambiguous assertion of the resurrection of individuals, and at the same time a no less clear announcement that there is a resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous (Dn 12:2). It is true that these words not only have no message of a resurrection hope for nations other than Israel, but even limit its scope to those of that nation who distinguish themselves on the side of good or of evil (cf. Driver, ‘Daniel,’ ad loc., in Camb. Bible) . At the same time it is easy to see that a great stride forward had been taken already, when the atrocities of Antiochus Epiphanes brought religious despair to the hearts of all true Israelites, and roused the fervid patriotism of Judas Maccabæus and his followers.
2. In the Apocrypha.—The development of this doctrine in the deutero-canonical and apocryphal literature of the Jews presents a varied and inharmonious blend of colours. Inconsistencies abound, and can be explained only on the ground that each writing was influenced by the individual experience as well as by the theological Idiosyncrasies of its author.
Sirach.—The oldest of the deutero-canonical books is that of ben-Sira, and in his work we look in vain for the idea of a resurrection, either national or individual. On the other hand, the eschatological conceptions of this author do not seem to advance beyond those of Ecclesiastes ( cf. Sir 17:30).
Book of Enoch.—Very different from the foregoing are the ideas prevalent in this composite apocalyptic writing. The oldest portion contains an elaborate theory of Sheol, and teaches the resurrection of all righteous Israelites, and so many of the wicked as have escaped ‘without incurring judgment in their life time’ (22.10f.). The sinners who have suffered here ‘will not be raised from thence’ (22.13), inasmuch as retribution, in part at least, has overtaken them. Another writer of a somewhat later date speaks of the resurrection of righteous Israelites only. These shall be raised, after judgment and retribution have been meted out to sinners, to share in the glories of the Messianic Kingdom (90.29–33). A similar opinion is expressed in another part of this writing. None but the righteous shall rise (91.10); but the author seems to interpret the resurrection as that of the spirit only, and not of the body (103.3f.).
The most important and best known section of the Book of Enoch (chs. 37–70) , which is known as the Similitudes, contains an explicit assertion of a general resurrection (51.1). Whether, however, the writer intended to convey the idea of a resurrection of the Gentiles is somewhat doubtful. The words of this passage, if taken literally, would certainly convey the impression that a universal resurrection is meant. At the same time we must remember that this thought would be quite contrary to the whole habit of Jewish eschatological thinking, and would stand unique in Jewish pre-Christian literature. (For discussions of this question see the admirable critical edition of the Book of Enoch by R. H. Charles, passim.)
Psalms of Solomon.—These are probably the product of the 1st cent. B.C. Here, too, a resurrection of the righteous alone is taught (3:16, 13:9, cf. 4:6). Moreover, no resurrection of the body is mentioned explicitly, though it would be rash to assume from his words that the author did not hold this doctrine.
2 Maccabees.—A very definite doctrine of the resurrection is taught in this book, though the author expressly denies its applicability to the Gentiles (7:14, cf. 2 Es 7 [79f]). The resurrection of the body is strongly held, as affording a powerful incentive and a glorious hope for those who underwent a cruel martyrdom (14:46, 7:11, cf. 7:9, 14). At times the writer seems to be controverting the denial of a resurrection, as when he stops to praise the action of Judas in offering sacrifices and prayers for those who had fallen in battle, on the ground that he did so because ‘he took thought for a resurrection’ (12:43). If there were no resurrection of the dead, such a course of action would be superfluous and idle (12:44).
Book of Wisdom.—It is only necessary to say of this writing that it is an Alexandrian work, written about the beginning of the Christian era, and that according to it the body is an incubus dragging the soul, which is destined for incorruption (2:23, 3:1), earthwards (9:15 [cf. art.
‘Wisdom, Book of,’ in Hastings’ DB iv. 930 f.]).
3. Position of the doctrine at and immediately subsequent to the time of Jesus Christ.— It might be said, and said with justice, that the foregoing views were representative, not of contemporary popular beliefs and ideas, but of conceptions prevalent among the educated and thinking classes. It is reasonable, however, to expect that by the time of Jesus these lines of thought would have penetrated to the masses, with such modifications as they were likely to assume in and during the process. This expectation is found to be in harmony with what we observe to have actually existed; for, with one or two exceptions, when He felt called on to make a specific declaration (cf. Mk 12:18–27 = Mt 22:23–32 = Lk 20:27–38 , Jn 5:28f.). Jesus everywhere in His teaching assumed the truth of, and belief in, the resurrection of the dead. We know that materialistic views of this doctrine were held side by side with the more spiritual ideas so prominent in the Book of Enoch (cf. 51.4, 104.4, 8, 62.15f. etc.).
In the Apocalypse of Baruch, for example, the questions were asked, ‘In what shape shall those live who live in thy day?’ ‘Will they then resume this form of the present, and put on these entrammelling members, which are now involved in evils, and in which evils are consummated, or wilt thou perchance change these things which have been in the world, as also the world?’ (49.2f.). To these the answer is given, that the bodies of the dead shall be raised exactly as they were when committed to the ground, in order that they may be recognized by their friends (50.2ff.). After this object has been achieved, a glorious change will take place: ‘they shall be made like unto the angels, and be made equal to the stars, and they shall be changed into every form they desire, from beauty into loveliness, and from light into the splendour of glory’ (51.10, cf. Mk 12:25 = Lk 20:36 = Mt 22:30). Even in Rabbinical circles sensuous conceptions were frequent, so that even the clothes in which one was to be buried became a subject of anxious care (see The Apoc. of Baruch ed. R. H. Charles, notes on chs. 50–51 , and Introd. p. lxxx ).
At this period, too, the ideas of a universal and of a first and a second resurrection were held and taught (Apoc. Bar 30.2–5, 2 Es 7:28, 31–37) . For our purpose it is not necessary to do more than refer to the Hellenistic or Pythagoræan speculations of the Essenes to which Josephus makes reference (see BJ II. viii. 11; Schürer, HJP II. iii. 205). The only form of Judaism which contained principles of continuity and life was represented by Pharisaism. The view of this, the most religions and the most orthodox of the Jewish sects, with regard to the resurrection, limited it to the righteous, for whom they postulated a new and a glorified body (see BJ II. viii. 14, cf. Ant. XVIII. i. 3). While this doctrine of a personal resurrection seems to have made much more headway in the Judaism of this age than the other ideas referred to above, it also clearly appears that the limitation of its scope to the righteous was more universally held than its extension to the wicked, in spite of the teaching in Daniel (12:2), Apoc. of Baruch (30.2–5), and 2 Esdras (7:32– 37). Moreover, a difference of opinion continued to exist as to the time when it was supposed to take place, some writers placing it immediately before (cf. En 51.1f.) and others immediately after the close of the Messianic era (cf. En 91.10, 92.3, Apoc. Bar 40–42, 2 Es 4:41, Ps-Sol 3:16, 13:9 etc. ).
4. Teaching of Jesus
(a) The Synoptics.—Many of the passages in which Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection is recorded by the Synoptists might be interpreted as leaving no room for the doctrine that the wicked shall rise again from the dead. The most conspicuous, perhaps, of these is that Incorporated in the Lukan narrative of His controversy with the Sadducees (Lk 20:35f.). The form of the expression ‘the resurrection from the dead,’ as has been pointed out, ‘implies that some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not’ (see Plummer, ‘St. Luke’ in ICC, ad loc.) . The other expression, ‘sons of the resurrection,’ is remarkable for a similar reason. There seems to be an implied antithesis between those whose sonship results in immortality and those who can have no such hope (cf. Plummer, op. cit. Lk 20:36 n.). Other instances, which might be considered as lending countenance to this view, speak of the ‘resurrection of the just’ ( Lk 14:14), and contain promises of restoration in the glory of His Kingdom to ‘his elect’ (Mk 13:27 = Mt 24:31). When, on the other hand, we take a general survey of the eschatological teaching of Jesus, we find that the doctrine of a general bodily resurrection occupies a very assured position even in the Synoptic records. Not only do we find, as already noted, that His teaching on this subject, as against Sadducean negations, was pleasing in Pharisaic circles (cf. Lk 20:39) , but He is also seen to refer to this question in terms of current Jewish orthodoxy. The future life is personal in the fullest sense, and it is not incorporeal, for’ many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven’ ( Mt 8:11, cf. Lk 13:29).
(b) The Fourth Gospel.—The Johannine record of Jesus’ eschatological teaching reveals a profounder view of the resurrection life than that contained in the Synoptics, for it is there dealt with as a spiritual process intimately connected with the quickening life which is ‘given to the Son’ (Jn 5:26; cf. 17:2, 1:4). When Martha expresses her assurance that her brother ‘shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day’ (Jn 11:24), Jesus at once lays broader and deeper the foundations upon which this belief is to rest for the future. While tacitly acquiescing in her conviction as a ‘sure and certain hope,’ He establishes an organic relationship, immediate and spiritual, between Himself and those committed to Him. This living relationship, in which all believers share, contains the germ of that resurrection life which springs into being at present, and will be perfected at ‘the last day’ (Jn 11:26, cf. 6:40, 44, 5:21, 3:36).
It is true that Jesus seems to have given no thought to the difficulty of conceiving a resurrection of the wicked on the ground that all resurrection life has its origin in Himself; at the same time no doubt can be reasonably entertained that He looked for the resurrection of all men (see Jn 12:48; cf. those passages which speak of the body being cast with the soul into Gehenna, Mt 10:28, 5:29f.). Perhaps He considered that a sufficient explanation consisted in asserting the omnipotence of ‘the Father’ after the manner of the OT; ‘The Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them’ (Jn 5:21; cf. Dt 32:38, 2 Co 1:9). In the Lukan version of Jesus’ argument with the Sadducees we may understand a reference to the idea of the resurrection of all men based on the truth that ‘all live unto him’ (Lk 20:38, cf. a slightly different expression in Ac 17:28).
It may be pointed out here that Jesus seems to have made no attempt to answer the often debated question of the curious as to the nature of the resurrection body. He compared the condition of those who had arisen to that of the angels (Mk 12:25), a comparison which is noteworthy for what it implies as well as for the reserve which Jesus used when speaking on this subject. At the same time, we must remember that certain incidents in the post-resurrection life of Jesus on earth appear to have been designed to meet what is legitimate in speculation of this kind. He was anxious to prove that His was a bodily resurrection (Lk 24:41ff., Jn 20:20; cf. Ac 10:41) , and that His risen body was capable of being identified with the body to which His disciples had been accustomed for so long (Jn 20:27). On the other hand, the conditions of His existence underwent a complete alteration. For Him now physical limitations, as regards time or space, did not exist (Mt 28:2, Jn 20:19, 25, Lk 24:15, cf. 24:34); and this freedom from temporal conditions resulted in a life which transcended ordinary experience. Sometimes He remained unrecognized until a well-known characteristic phrase or act revealed His personality (Jn 20:14f., 21:4 , Lk 24:16; cf. the author’s comment ‘but some doubted’ In Mt 28:17).
5 . Apostolic teaching
(a) The Acts.—Although the Apostles do not seem at first to have shaken themselves free from Judaistic conceptions of the Messianic Kingdom (Ac 1:6), it is plain that they looked on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection as of primary importance (see Ac 1:22). At all costs this must be placed in the forefront of their evangelistic work, and the principal element of their Apostolic claims to the attention of their Jewish hearers lay in their power, as eye-witnesses, to offer irrefragable proof of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Ac 2:24, 32, 3:15, 4:10 , 33, 5:30, 32 ; cf. 10:40f.). When we compare the fragmentary reports of Petrine teaching in the Acts with the doctrine of 1 Peter, we find that in the latter document the Apostle is no less insistent on the fact (1 P 1:21), while he has learned to assign to it the power of penetrating the present life and renewing it ‘unto a living hope’ (1:3). Christian Baptism for him receives its spiritual validity ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,’ which enables us to satisfy ‘the appeal of a good conscience toward God’ (3:21). At the same time we must not forget that elements of this power are recognized more than once in his discourses in Acts. The Pentecostal outpouring, the work of healing, the gifts of repentance and forgiveness of sins, are all described as (flowing from the risen life of Jesus (see Ac 2:33, 4:10, 5:31; cf. 5:20, where the angelic messenger speaks of the Apostolic teaching as having reference to ‘this life’).
(b) St. Paul.—When we turn to the teaching of St. Paul as it gradually comes into contact with Hellenic and Gentile thought, we find the doctrine of the resurrection assuming a new and developed prominence in connexion with the resurrection of Jesus. When addressing Jewish audiences, he emphasizes the fact that God raised up Jesus according to certain promises recorded in the OT (of. Ac 13:32f., 26:6ff.), and at the same time bases his doctrine of the resurrection on its necessity, and on the relationship of Jesus and the human race. When, however, he came face to face with the Greek mind, his experience was entirely different. The philosophers of Athens met his categorical assertion of the resurrection of Jesus not merely with a refusal to credit his statement, but with a plain derision of the very idea (Ac 17:32, cf. 26:8). It was doubtless the calm mockery of the Athenian Stoics that made him feel that his mission to them was hopeless (Ac 18:1), and caused him, when writing afterwards to the essentially Greek community of Corinthian Christians, to expound fully his doctrine of the resurrection. In the first of the two letters addressed to this Church he establishes the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, by revealing its harmony with the Divine plan set forth to the Jews in the OT, and showing that it was attested by numerous witnesses of His post-resurrection existence. He next goes on to demonstrate the organic connexion between this resurrection and that of those ‘who are fallen asleep in Christ’ (1 Co 15:16ff.), and the necessity of accepting the doctrine as fundamentally essential to Christian belief and hope (15:3f., 19, cf. He 6:1).
St. Paul’s eschatological doctrine included a belief in a real bodily resurrection. This is quite certain not only from the chapter we have been considering, but also from incidental references scattered throughout his Epistles (cf. the expression, He ‘shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,’ Ph 3:21; see Ro 8:11, 4:14, 2 Co 5:1–5 etc.). Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the Apostle’s contribution to this doctrine is contained in his conception of the nature of the resurrection body. It is evident from the analogies he employs that he intended to establish the identity of the mortal and the glorified bodies (1 Co 15:35–41). this idea he puts on a rational, though an apparently paradoxical, basis by postulating the existence of ‘a spiritual body’ as distinct from ‘a natural body’ (v. 44), and at the same time by insisting on their strict continuity (cf. the repeated doublets ‘it is sown’ … ‘it is raised,’ v. 42ff.). Doubtless his presentment of this speculative and mysterious question was founded on what he had already learned regarding the nature of the traditional appearances of the risen Jesus. ‘The body of his glory’ Ph 3:21) is the ultimate attainable glory of those whose ‘citizenship is in heaven’ (Ph 3:20; cf. Col 3:10, Ro 8:20 , 1 Jn 3:2, 1 Co 15:49).
Side by side with the doctrine of a literal, bodily resurrection, St. Paul’s writings are rich with another conception which is more especially connected with the present life. Following the teaching of Jesus, who claimed to be the power by which resurrection life was alone possible, the Apostle declares that Christ gives this new and glorious life here and now. It is rooted, so to speak, in the earthly life of men, and its final growth and fruit are consummated hereafter (cf. Col 2:12, 3:1, Ph 3:10f., Ro 6:5). This inchoative resurrection life has its origin in the spiritual union of baptized Christians with Christ (cf. Ro 6:3f., Col 2:12, Gal 3:27), and the tremendous possibilities of development are, according to St. Paul, due to a transcendent fellowship with the glorified Jesus (see Eph 1:20–2:10 , 19ff.). His resurrection is the power by which this union, in all its aspects, is perfected (Ph 3:10f., cf. Ro 1:4). It was doubtless the one-sided presentation of Pauline eschatology that led to the heresy of Hymenæus and Philetus (2 Ti 2:18), and the Apostle seems to have felt the necessity of balancing his mystical interpretation by an emphatic insistence on the literal truth that the resurrection is a future objective fact in the progressive life of man.
That St. Paul held the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous is evident not only from the words of his defence before Felix at Cæsarea (Ac 24:15, cf. Lk 14:14), but also from incidental remarks in his Epistles (see 1 Th 4:16 and 1 Co 15:22f., where the emphasis which is laid on the first resurrection implies a second and a separate event; cf. Ac 26:7f. and Ph 3:11 , where the same implication may be observed). What the connexion is, however, between these two distinct resurrections does not appear to have occurred to the Apostle’s mind, and there seems to be little ground for the supposition that he believed in a distinction between them as regards time. Indeed, the particular passage upon which millenarians rely to prove the affinity of the Pauline and Apocalyptic doctrines in this respect says nothing of any resurrection except that of ‘those that are Christ’s’ (cf. 1 Co 15:22ff.). The resurrection of the wicked occupies a very subordinate place in Pauline eschatology, and we need not be surprised at the scanty notice taken of it, when we remember how constantly he is pressing on his readers’ attention the power by which the resurrection to life is brought about (Ro 8:11, 1 Co 15:45 ; cf. Jn 6:40, 44, 54, 5:21 for the teaching that it is the quickening Spirit of Christ which causes the resurrection ‘at the last day’). It is sufficient for him to urge men to the attainment of this resurrection which was the goal of his own aspirations (cf. Ph 3:11), and to warn them of the fate attendant on the rejection of Christ (note the expressions ‘day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,’ Ro 2:5; ‘eternal destruction from the face of the Lord,’ 2 Th 1:9; cf.
1 Th 1:10, Ph 3:19 etc. ).
6. The Apocalypse.—The principal contribution of the apocalyptic eschatology to the doctrine of the resurrection is contained in ch. 20. Although there is no specific reference to the resurrection of the wicked, this is implied in the expression ‘the first resurrection’ (20:5), as well as in the connexion established between the Resurrection and the Judgment. Rewards and punishments are meted out to all as they stand ‘before the throne,’ for ‘death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works’ (v. 12 f.). What precisely is the interpretation by which the millennial reign of the martyrs and loyal followers of Jesus is to be adequately explained it is difficult to conjecture. See, further, artt.
CHILIASM, MILLENNIUM.
For the Resurrection of Christ, see, further, JESUS CHRIST, p. 456 ff.
J. R. WILLIS.
REU.—Son of Peleg (Gn 11:18–21 , 1 Ch 1:25, Lk 3:35).
REUBEN.—The firstborn of Jacob by Leah, Gn 29:32 (J) 35:23 (P) 46:8 (R). The popular etymology connects the name with Leah’s distress, because of Jacob’s previous dislike of her. She called his name Reuben: for she said, because Jahweh hath looked upon my affliction (rā’āh be‘onyi). This, however, is clearly a paronomasia, though evidently intended seriously; otherwise the passage has no meaning. The Hebrew word = ‘Behold ye a son.’ In Josephus the form is Rubel, and in Syriac it is Rūbīl. Lengthy discussions have been given of the name, and numerous theories advanced by way of solution of the problems it raises, but no conclusion that can he accepted has been reached. Cheyne regards Reubel as the correct form, and makes both it and Reuel corruptions of Jerahme’el, but this conclusion is based upon his own peculiar theories of the history of Israel and of the Hebrew text.
The remarkable thing about Reuben is that he was of so little importance in the history of Israel, and yet in all the traditions he is represented as the firstborn. He, however, lost his birthright, the reason for which is apparently given by J (Gn 35:22), viz., because he had lain with his father’s concubine, Bilhah. Unfortunately, the remainder of the story, which probably told what Israel did when ‘he heard of it,’ has been dropped. The Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:3, 4) attributes his decadence to the curse pronounced upon him for the act:
‘Reuben, thou wast my firstborn,
My strength, and the first of my virility;
Over-impetuous, exceedingly passionate,
Seething like water, thou shalt not excel;
For thou didst ascend thy father’s bed,
Then cursed I my couch thou didst ascend.’
[ Reading the first part of the last line with Gunkel (p. 434) and the second part with LXX. ] In the ‘Blessing of Moses’ ( Dt 33:6) the curse has sealed his doom, and a pitiful remnant depleted in strength is all that remains:
‘Let Reuben live, and let him not die, Yet, let his men be very few.’
The meaning of this alleged incest, stated in the language of tribal history, seems to be that the Reubenites committed some outrage upon the Bilhah clans, which was resented and punished by Israel, Dan, and Naphtali and perhaps other tribes. As Dan and Naphtali were settled together in the north, it is not improbable (and there are some indications of this) that at an earlier time they may have been neighbours in the south, and there have come into conflict with Reuben.
It is worth noticing in this connexion that two of the descendants of Reuben given in the genealogy of Reuben (Gn 46:9 etc.), viz. Hezron and Carmi, reappear as Judahites; Hezron as the grandson of Judah
( Gn. 46:12 etc.) and Carmi in Jos 7:1, 18. Moreover, Shimei is a Reubenite 1 Ch 5:4, a Simeonite 1 Ch 4:27, and a Levite Ex 6:17. In Jos 15:6 P, in describing the lot of Judah, makes the north border’ go up by the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben.’ Either, then, as it would seem, Reuben must have first settled in the West, or else Reubenite clans migrated thither from the East. These facts are not conclusive, but they support the theory that Reuben was first settled in the West. Another explanation is given, e.g. by Stade (GVI, p. 151), to the effect that the Reuben-Bilhah story may refer to the custom in vogue among the heathen Arabs of inheriting the father’s concubines with his other possessions, and that the tribe of Reuben may have held to it, being less advanced culturally than the others. In this way, therefore, it is implied, they may have brought upon themselves the displeasure of the other tribes who stood upon a higher moral plane. This is not in harmony with the tradition which makes Reuben’s offence one against Israel. Besides, it is an illustration of OT writing in which the virtues of a later age are ascribed to the earlier. Bathsheba did not scruple to ask Abishag for Adonijah, and Solomon did not object on moral grounds (1 K 2).
P in his Sinai census (Nu 1:21, 2:11) enumerates the tribe at 46,500 fighting men. At Moab it had decreased to 43,730 (26:7).
Reuhen is linked with Gad (Nu 32) in connexion with the conquest. The inviting pasturage of the East Jordan is said to have determined these pastoral tribes to settle on the east. Moses, however, requires of them that they shall first cross over and aid the other tribes in getting possession of their respective lots. When this was effected, we are told in Jos 22:7ff. that Joshua sent them back with great riches of spoils to their tents (see GAD) . Nothing is said, however, of the previous settlement of Judah; nor, indeed, are we told of that anywhere.
The territory of the tribe is said in Nu 32:37, 38 (P) to have included six cities, which appear to have formed a sort of enclave within Gadite territory. ‘The children of Reuben built Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Kiriathaim; and Nebo, and Baal-meon (their names being changed), and Sibmah: and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.’ The names given here must be the original names, as it is improbable that the author would allow the worshippers of Jahweh to couple with the names of their cities the gods Nebo and Baal. But we nowhere read of the new names. Their list of cities is increased in Jos 13:15ff. without regard to the above list, Kiriathaim and Sibmah being the only ones in it that are mentioned. Three cities elsewhere assigned to Gad and four assigned elsewhere to Moab are here given to Reuben.
Reuben is rebuked hi the Song of Deborah, because it did not participate in the war against
Sisera, in words that reflect the pastoral occupation of its people. It is there followed by Gilead (Gad). In the Mesha inscription (9th cent.), though the ‘men of Gad’ are referred to as having dwelt in Ataroth ‘from of old,’ the name of Reuben is omitted, though some of the cities ascribed to the tribe in the genealogies are said to have been taken or rebuilt. As we have seen in the above reference to the Blessing of Moses (probably about the first half of the 8th cent.), the tribe was apparently reduced at that time to an inconsiderable remnant—‘men of number,’ i.e. so few that they might easily be counted. It is, however, still mentioned in 2 K 10:32 as though it maintained its separate organization when Hazael of Damascus overran and smote the eastern Israelites. Its name appears more than one hundred years later, when Tiglath-pileser III. deported the tribes to Assyria in 734 (1 Ch 5:26). In all probability, however, it had long before ceased to exist as an independent unit (see GAD). See also TRIBES.
JAMES A. CRAIG.
REUEL.—1. A son of Esau (Gn 36:4, 10, 13, 17, 1 Ch 1:35, 37). 2. Ex 2:18, Nu 10:29 (AV in the latter Raguel). See HOBAB and JETHRO. 3. The father of Eliasaph (Nu 2:14; called
[probably by mistaking r for d] Deuel in 1:14, 7:42, 47, 10:20). 4. A Benjamite (1 Ch 9:8).
REUMAH.—The concubine of Nahor (Gn 22:24).
REVELATION
1. Meaning of revelation.—The English word, which comes from the Latin, implies the drawing back of a veil, the unveiling of something hidden. It is the almost exact equivalent of the NT word apocalypse or ‘uncovering’ (Rev 1:1). For our present purpose the word is specially applied to the revelation of God, the ‘unveiling’ of the unseen God to the mind and beart of man. The application of the word is very varied. The widest sense is that in which it is used by Gwatkin (Knowledge of God, vol. i. p. 5): ‘Any fact which gives knowledge is a revelation, … the revelation and the knowledge of God are correlative terms expressing two sides of the same thing.’ The following specific uses of the term need consideration: (a) The revelation of God through nature. This refers to the indications of wisdom, power, and purpose in the material world around (Ro 1:20). (b) The revelation of God in man. This applies to the traces of God in man’s conscience with its sense of obligation, in his emotional nature with its desire and capacity for fellowship, in his personality which demands personality for its satisfaction. (c) The revelation of God in history. This means the marks of an over-ruling providence and purpose in the affairs of mankind, of a Divinity that has shaped man’s ends, the traces of a progress and onward sweep in history. All these aspects of revelation are usually summed up in the term ‘natural religion,’ and do not touch the specific meaning of revelation which is associated with Christianity. (d) The revelation of God in Judaism and Christianity. By revelation, as applied in this way, we mean a special, historical, supernatural communication from God to man. Not merely information about God, but a revelation—a disclosure of God Himself in His character and His relation to man. In addition to revelation through nature, conscience, and reason, Christianity implies a special revelation in the Person of Christ.
2. Problem of revelation.—The statement of the full content of the Christian revelation is naturally excluded from this article, but for our purpose we may say briefly that its essence is the self-manifestation of God in the Person of Christ for the redemption of mankind. Christianity is the revelation of God’s grace for man through the historic Personality of Christ. The problem is to correlate this supernatural content with the historical process by means of which it has been revealed, and to do justice at once to the superhuman fact and content, and the human media and conditions of the revelation. In so doing we shall be brought face to face with the antitheses of revelation and discovery, of revelation and speculation, of revelation and evolution; and, while we recognize to the full the historical processes by which Christianity has come to us, we shall see that the gospel of Christ is not adequately accounted for except by means of a personal revelation of God, using and guiding history for the purpose, and that it cannot be explained merely in terms of history, discovery, philosophy, and evolution.
3. Possibility of revelation.—We argue this on two grounds. (a) From the Being of God. Granted a God as a Supreme Being (which for our present purpose we assume), He must necessarily be able to reveal Himself to man. Given God as personal, this includes the power of self-revelation. Belief in a Divine Being at once makes revelation possible. A bare theism has never been a permanent standing-ground, for men either have receded from it or have gone forward in the direction of the Christian revelation. (b) From the nature of man. The fact of personality, with all its possibilities, implies man’s capacity for communion with a Being higher than himself, or higher than any other human personality. ‘Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee’ (Augustine).
4. Probability of revelation.—This also we argue on two grounds: (a) from the nature of
God, and (b) from the needs of man. Granted a Supreme Personal Being, we believe not only in His ability, but in His willingness to reveal Himself to man. Belief in God prepares us to expect a revelation. Human personality with its capacity for God prepares us to expect a revelation, which thus becomes antecedently probable. The desire for it is an argument for expecting it. Man, as man, needs a revelation to guide him, an authority above and greater than himself in things spiritual and Divine. Still more does man as a sinner need such a Divine revelation. Amid the sins and sorrows, the fears and trials, the difficulties and perplexities of life, man needs some Divine revelation that will assure him of salvation, holiness, and immortality. No one can say that the light of nature is sufficient for these needs, and that therefore a revelation could add nothing. Most men would agree that there is at least room for a revelation in view of the sin and suffering in the world. Our deepest instincts cry out against the thought that sin is final or permanent, and yet it is equally clear that nothing but an interposition from above can deal with it. It is impossible to conceive of God leaving man to himself without a definite, clear, and sufficient manifestation of His own character, His will, His love, His grace.
5. Credibility of revelation.—The proofs of a Divine revelation are many, varied, converging, and cumulative, (a) Speculatively, we may argue that ‘the universe points to idealism, and idealism to theism, and theism to a revelation’ (Illingworth, Reason and Revelation, p. 243). (b) Historically, the Christian revelation comes to us commended by its witnesses in (1) miracle, (2) prophecy, and (3) spiritual adaptation to human nature, (c) Behind all these are the presuppositions of natural religion as seen in nature, man, and history, (d) But ultimately the credibility of Christianity as a revelation rests on the Person of its Founder, and all evidences converge towards and centre in Him. Christ is Christianity, and Christians believe primarily and fundamentally in the fact and trustworthiness of Christ. Herein lies the final proof of the credibility of Christianity as a Divine revelation. If it he said that God has made other manifestations of Himself in the course of history, we do not deny it. All truth, however mediated, must necessarily have come from the primal Source of truth. The genuineness of Christianity does not necessarily disprove the genuineness of other religions as ‘broken lights.’ Each system claiming to be a revelation, whether partial or final, must be tested by its own evidence, and a decision made accordingly. The real criterion of all religions claiming to he Divine is their power to save. It is not truth in itself, but truth as exemplified in human life and delivering from sin, that constitutes the final proof of a religion. Not the ideal, but the ideal practically realized in human experience, is the supreme test. When this is applied, the true relation of Christianity to other systems is at once seen.
6. Methods of revelation.—(a) The Christian revelation is first and foremost a revelation of life. Christianity is primarily a religion of facts rather than of truths, the doctrines only arising out of the facts. All through the historic period God’s manifestation has been given to life. Whether we think of the patriarchs, kings, and prophets of the OT, or of Christ and His Apostles in the NT, revelation has ever been connected with human life and personality. (b) But mediately it has been given in word, first oral and then written. Both in the OT and in the NT we notice first what God was and did to men, and afterwards what He said. We can and must distinguish between the revelation and the record, the former being necessarily prior to the latter, but nevertheless the revelation needed the record for accuracy and availability. At the same time it is essential to remember that Scripture is not simply a record of a revelation, but that the history itself is a revelation of God. On the one hand, the Bible is a product of the Divine process of selfmanifestation; and, on the other, the Bible itself makes God known to man. Christianity, therefore, like Judaism before it, is a book religion (though it is also much more), as recording and conveying the Divine manifestation to man. A revelation must be embodied somewhere to he made available for all generations, and of the three possible media—human reason, an ecclesiastical institution, and a hook,—the last-named is by far the most trustworthy as a vehicle of transmission. It matters not how God reveals Himself, so long as we can he sure of the accuracy of that which is transmitted. Christ is our supreme and final authority, and our one requirement is the purest, clearest form of His historic personal manifestation. We do not set aside reason because it is human, or an institution because it is liable to error, nor do we accept the book merely as a book; hut we believe that the two former do not, and the latter does, enshrine for us the record of Christ’s revelation in its best available form.
7. Development of revelation.—Revelation has been mediated through history, and has therefore been progressive, (a) Primitive revelation is the first stage. How men first came to conceive of God must remain a matter of conjecture. As there is so little known about primitive man, so also there must be about primitive religion. One thing, however, is quite clear, that the terms ‘savage’ and ‘primitive’ are not synonymous, for the savage to-day often represents a degeneration from primitive man. All analogy favours the idea that primitive revelation was such a manifestation of God when man was created as would he sufficient to maintain a true relation with Him, that at the Creation man had an immediate capacity, however immature, of entering into fellowship with God; and with this religions endowment we may assume a measure of Divine revelation sufficient to enable man to worship in an elementary way, and to keep true to God. No one is able to prove this, hut there is no reason to deny its possibility or probability. Without some such assumption, all idea of revelation vanishes, and religion is resolved into merely human conceptions of God. Revelation is more than the soul’s instinctive apprehension of God, for the simple reason that the instinctive apprehension itself has to he accounted for. The difficulties urged by some writers on the philosophy of religion against primitive revelation arise out of the assumption that all revelations are mere natural processes. There is no argument against primitive revelation which is not valid against all revelation, Christianity included. The power and possibility of man’s self-development towards God are inconsistent with the fact of sin and man’s bent towards evil. (b) OT revelation. However and whenever the OT came into existence, we cannot help being conscious of something in it beyond that which is merely human and historical. There is that in the OT characters and record which cannot be explained solely in terms of historic continuity. The OT does not merely represent an endeavour to obtain an ever worthier idea of God; it records a true idea of God impressed on the people in the course of history, under a Divine direction which we call a revelation. The OT conception of God is so vastly different from that which obtained in the surrounding nations, that unless we predicate something supernatural, there is no possibility of accounting for so marked a difference between people who were in other respects so very much alike. As Wellhausen truly says, ‘Why did not Chemosh of Moah, for instance, develop into a God of Righteousness, and the Creator of heaven and earth?’ It is possible to give a satisfying answer to this question only by predicating a Divine revelation in the OT. (c) The NT revelation. The historical revelation culminated in the
manifestation of Jesus Christ. It was given at a particular time and place, mediated through One Person, and authenticated by supernatural credentials. In Christ the self-disclosure of God reached its climax, and the NT is the permanent witness of the uniqueness of Christianity in the world. ‘God, who in ancient days spoke to our forefathers in many distinct messages and by various methods through the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken unto us through a Son’ ( He 1:1, Weymouth). And the Person of Christ is utterly inexplicable in terms of history, or discovery, and requires the hypothesis of revelation.
This brief sketch of the historical development of revelation will enable us to understand the importance of the truth of the progressiveness of revelation. God taught men as they were able to bear it, leading them step by step from the dawn to the noonday of His self-disclosure. While each stage of the revelation was adequate for that time, it was not necessarily adequate with reference to succeeding stages. This principle of progress enables us to avoid a twofold error: it prevents us from undervaluing the OT by reason of the fuller light of the NT; and it prevents us from using the OT in any of its stages without guidance from the completer revelation of the NT. We thus distinguish carefully between the dispensational truth intended absolutely for immediate need at each stage, and those permanent elements in the OT which are of eternal validity. It is necessary to remember the difference between what is written for us and to us. ‘All Scripture was written for our learning,’ but not all was written to us directly. If it be said that revelation should be universal, and not limited to one time or place or nation, the answer is that the historical method is in exact accordance with the method of communicating and receiving all our knowledge. It is obvious that in the course of history some nations and men have influenced mankind more than others, and this fact constitutes an analogy, and argues the possibility that a special revelation might also be mediated through some particular race and person. Further, by limiting revelation in this way, God took the best means of preserving the revelation from corruption. Continuous and universal tradition has very few safeguards against deterioration, as the Jewish history only too clearly shows. Our acceptance of the revelation enshrined in the NT is based on the belief that it comes through men uniquely authorized and equipped to declare God’s will. Its authority depends on the fact that their special relation to Christ and their exceptional possession of the Spirit gave them the power to receive and declare God’s truth for mankind. Not fitness to edify, or age, or the possession of truth, but with these, and underlying them, the presence of a Divine element in the men whose writings we possess, gives the books their authority for us as a record and vehicle of Divine revelation. This uniqueness may be seen by a simple appeal to fact. The comparison of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic ages shows the uniqueness of the NT. Between the first and second centuries there is a chasm ‘sheer, abrupt, abysmal’ (Schaff), and no transition exists which was so silent, and yet so sudden and remarkable. The most beautiful product of the second century, the Epistle of Diognetus, is incomparably inferior to any book of the NT. ‘There is no steeper descent in history than that which directly follows the Apostolic age. We pass at once from writings unsurpassed in creative power to writings of marked intellectual poverty, … the distinction commonly made between the books of the Canon and the rest is fully justified’ (Gwatkin, Knowledge of God, ii. 80). This difference marks the distinction between the Spirit of God in revelation and in illumination. Since the close of the NT times there has been strictly no addition to the revelation, but only its manifold realization and application in the Christian Church and the world. It should be carefully noted that we believe in the Divine revelation contained in the Scriptures, without holding any particular theory of inspiration. The supreme question is whether they contain a revelation of Divine truth. Are they true and trustworthy for our spiritual life? If so, they are authoritative whatever may have been the precise method of their delivery. The primary question is not the method of inspiration, but the fact of authority. Yet, however difficult it may be to define its character or limits, we believe in a special inspiration of the Bible based on the authority of its authors and on their unique power to reveal God’s will. This special inspiration is (1) testified to by the Scriptures themselves, (2) has ever been held in the Christian Church, and (3) constantly authenticates itself to the Christian conscience through the ages.
8. Purpose of revelation.—The essential purpose of revelation is life: the gift of the life of God to the life of man. Its practical character is stamped on every part. The ‘chief end of revelation’ is not philosophy, though it has a philosophy profound and worthy. It is not doctrine, though it has a doctrine satisfying and inspiring. It is not enjoyment, though it has its experiences precious and lasting. It is not even morality, though it has its ethic unique and powerful.
Christianity has all these, but is far more than them all. It is the religion of redemption, including salvation from sin, equipment for holiness, and provision for life to be lived in fellowship with God and for His glory. The ‘chief end’ of revelation is the union of God and man, and in that union the fulfilment of all God’s purposes for the world. The elements of sonship, worship, stewardship, fellowship, heirship, practically sum up the purpose of Divine revelation as it concerns man’s life—a life in which he receives God’s grace, realizes God’s will, reproduces God’s character, renders God service, and rejoices in God’s presence in the Kingdom of grace below and the Kingdom of glory above.
W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS.
REVELATION, BOOK OF.—This single representative of the literature of apocalypse (Gr. apokalypsis, whence the alternating name, ‘The Apocalypse’) preserved in the NT belongs to a large group of Christian writings of a similar sort. It was characteristic of the early Church to build up a literature about the names of the various Apostles. Normally this literature consisted of a narrative, an apocalypse, and some form of doctrinal writing; as, for example, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Preaching of Peter. With the exception of the present book, no Christian apocalypse is held to be even possibly authentic.
1. Canonicity.—The Revelation was not universally accepted by the early Church as canonical. There is no evidence of its existence worthy of consideration in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, although it is just possible that Papias may have known of it. By the middle of the 2nd cent., however, Revelation is well known, and is declared by Justin to he by the Apostle
John (Dial. lxxxi. 15). It is also used, among others, by Melito, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen, and attributed to the Apostle John by the first-named as well as by Irenæus. The fact that it appears in the Canon of the Muratorian Fragment is evidence that by the middle of the 2nd cent. it was accepted in the West. After its defence by Hippolytus its position was never seriously questioned except in the East. Jerome is, in fact, the only Western theologian of importance who doubts it, and he puts it among those books which are ‘under discussion,’ neither canonical nor apocryphal.
In the East, as might be expected, it was rejected by Marcion, and, because of disbelief in its Apostolic authorship, by Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the 3rd cent.). Palestinian and Syrian authors (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem) generally rejected it, in large measure because of the struggle with the Montanists, by whom Revelation was used as a basis of doctrine. It does not appear in the lists of the Synod of Laodicea, the Apostolic Constitutions, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, the Chronography of Nicephorus, the ‘List of the Sixty Books,’ or in the Peshitta version of the NT. It was included by the Gelasian Decree at the end of the 5th cent. as canonical, and was finally recognized by the Eastern Church. Yet as late as 692 a Synod could publish two decrees, the one including the Apocalypse in the Canon, the other excluding it. It was not held in high repute by the reformers Carlstadt, Luther, Zwingli, all of whom doubted its Apostolicity, or apparently by Calvin, who omitted to comment upon it. At most, the first two of these theologians were apparently inclined to recognize a division of sacred writings similar to that of Jerome.
2. Authorship.—The title, ‘Revelation of John,’ which occurs in several MSS, including the Codex Sinaiticus, is an obvious expression of a belief regarding authorship. This John was believed by many in the early Church to be the Apostle. Whether this view was correct or not is to-day a subject of lively debate. The book itself contains little internal evidence serving to substantiate this claim, for the author simply states that he is named John (1:1 , 4, 9, 22:8). Justin (Dial. lxxxi. 15) distinctively states that Revelation is by ‘John, one of the Apostles of Christ,’ and Tertullian along with the Western Church generally held to its Apostolic authorship. Eusebius, however, suggests that it may have been written by John ‘the Presbyter,’ mentioned by Papias but otherwise unknown. At the present time the belief is divided as to whether the author of Revelation is John the Apostle or John the Presbyter. The chief argument against the view that the author is John the Apostle lies in the differences existing between Revelation and the Gospel and the Epistles of John, both in style and in method. Notwithstanding the use of the term ‘Logos’ (19:13), these divergences are too obvious to need specifying. If Johannine authorship be assigned the Gospel and Epistles, it is difficult to claim it for Revelation; but, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe it to be either pseudonymous or written by the mysterious John the Presbyter. As the case now stands, criticism seems to have reached an impasse, and the plain reader may best use the book in disregard of questions of authorship,—a procedure the more justifiable because its teaching is independent of personal matters.
3. Date.—Although the fixing of the date of Revelation presupposes conclusions as to its composition and purpose, it may here be said that in all probability the book reached its present form in the latter part of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96).
4. Composition.—The prevailing hypotheses may be grouped in three classes.
(1) The currently accepted view that it was written entirely by the Apostle John. Such a view is, however, open to serious objections, because of the similarities, if not identities, existing between Revelation and other apocalyptic literature of the period, as well as because of the evidences of composite character of the writing, implying sources of different origins and dates, such as the various breaks in the process of the vision (the lack of any single historical point of view is seen by a comparison of 12:3, 13:1, 17:3, in an effort to identify historically the two breaks, or in a comparison of 11:1–13 with 17:11).
(2) The view that the work, while essentially a literary unit, is a Christian redaction of a
Jewish writing. This view would attribute to the Christian redactor the first three chapters and important sections like 5:9–14, 7:9–17, 13:11ff., 22:6–21 , in addition to separate verses like 12:11, 14:1, 5, 12:13, 15, 16:15, 17:14, 19:9, 10, 13b, 20:4–6, 21:5b–8. The difficulties with this position are not only those which must be urged against any view that overlooks the evidences of the composite authorship of the work, but also the impossibility of showing that ch. 11 is Jewish in character.
(3) Theories of composite origin.—These are of various forms—(a) The theory according to which an original work has been interpolated with apocalyptic material of various dates (7:1–8 , 9–17, 11:1–13, 12:1–11, 12–17, 13:17) and subjected to several revisions. (b) The view that Revelation is a Christian book in which Jewish apocalypses have been framed. (c) The theory according to which Revelation is composed of three sources, each of which has subdivisions, all worked together by a Christian redactor. (d) Notwithstanding the difficulty in determining the sources, critics are pretty thoroughly agreed that, as the book now stands, it has a unity which, though not inconsistent with the use of older material by its author, is none the less easily recognized. Some of this older material, it is now held, undoubtedly represents the general stream of apocalyptic that took its rise in Babylonian mythology. The structural unity of the book appears in the repetition of sevenfold groups of episodes, as well as in a general grammatical and linguistic similarity. In achieving this remarkable result, the redactor so combined, recast, and supplemented his material as to give the book an essentially Christian rather than Jewish character.
5. Analysis.—As it now stands, literary and critical analyses do not altogether coincide, but until criticism has finished its task, literary analysis must be of primary Importance. Authorities here differ, but the following analysis does not differ fundamentally from that of other writers. i. Introduction (ch. 1).
ii. The message of the Spirit to the Seven Churches (chs. 2, 3). iii. The period of struggle and misery (chs. 4–7). iv. The final Messianic struggle (chs. 8–14).
v. The victory of the Messiah (chs. 15–20).
vi. The vision of the Messianic Kingdom (chs. 21–22:5).
vii. Epilogue (22:6–21).
6. Interpretation.—No Biblical writing, with the possible exception of the Book of Daniel, has been so subjected to the vagaries of interpreters as Revelation, (a) On the one extreme are those (‘Futurists’) who have seen in its pictures a forecast of universal Christian history, as well as all the enemies of Christianity, both within and without the Church. To such interpreters the book has been a thesaurus of that chiliastic doctrine which the Greek as well as the modern scientific attitude of mind has found so repugnant. (b) At the other extreme there are those interpreters who see in Revelation simply a reference to the historical conditions of the first century of the Christian era. (c) There is a measure of truth in each of these two methods, but the real method of interpretation must be independent of dogmatic presuppositions. As narrative matter must be interpreted by the general principles applicable to all literature of its class, so must Revelation be interpreted in accordance with the general principles applicable to apocalypses as a form of literary expression. The fundamental principles of such interpretation involve the recognition of the facts—(i.) that apocalypses are the outgrowth of definite historical situations; (ii.) that they attempt to stimulate faith by an exposition in symbolic terms of the deliverance which God will give His suffering people from actually existing sufferings; (iii.) that the message of deliverance gains authority because of its claim to superhuman origin reinforced by pseudonymous authorship; (iv.) that the deliverance which is thus supernaturally portrayed is dependent upon the introduction of a new age whose conditions are set miraculously by God rather than by evolving historical forces, and is not described with the same detail as are the conditions from which God is to deliver His people.
An application of these principles to the interpretation of Revelation demands (1) that an historical interpretation be given the pictures describing the miseries of the Church. The conditions of such interpretation are most naturally fulfilled in the persecution under Domitian (81–96), although there may be references to that under the dead Nero. The persecuting force is clearly Rome, as represented both by the Emperor and by Emperor-worship, whatever the origin of the pictures with which the oppression of the Church is set forth. A point of departure for the identification of the historical figures who are to be subjected to the Messianic punishment might be thought to be the number of the Beast—666—that is to say, the Emperor Nero, who was expected to return from the dead (see BEAST [IN APOC.]). Pseudo-Nero did, in fact, appear in Asia Minor in A.D. 69, and among the Parthians in 79–81 and 88. The identification, however, is not altogether satisfactory, as the Hebrew letters, whose numerical equivalents give by the process of Gematria 666, are not precisely those in Cæsar Nero. If the correct reading be 616 , the equivalent is Gaius Cæsar. Another interpretation would make ‘the Latin or the Roman Empire.’ The best that can be said, however, is that if the interpretation by Gematria is unsatisfactory, the interpreter is forced back upon the general references of ‘the hills,’ ‘the city,’ and ‘the horns’ or kings, as a basis for regarding Rome as the great enemy of the Christian and his Church.
A further difficulty in formulating precisely the historical situation, arises from the fact that the author, though producing a book of great literary unity, has embodied sources which refer to conditions of different times. Thus 11:1–13 would naturally infer the existence of the Temple, which was destroyed in 70; ch. 13 may have come from the days of Caligula; 17:10 most naturally implies some time in the reign of Nero; 17:11 apparently implies Domitian, the eighth emperor; 17:8 would also argue that the book was written during the period that believed in Nero redivivus. The redactor (or redactors) has, however, so combined these materials as to give a unified picture of the approaching Messianic struggle.
(2) On the other hand, the deliverance of the Church is, like all apocalyptic deliverances, miraculous, and described transcendentally. Besides the martyrs, the only identification possible in this connexion is that of the conquering Lamb with Jesus the Christ. The fall of Rome is foretold definitely in ch. 17, but the seer is true to the general apocalyptic form in that he makes Rome and its religion the agents of Satan. The ultimate victory of the Church is similarly portrayed as the victory of God, and is identified with the return of Jesus to establish His Messianic Kingdom.
Such a method of interpretation, based upon general characteristics of apocalypses, preserves the element of truth in both the futurist and the historical methods of interpretation, the pictures of persecution symbolizing actual historical conditions, but the forecast of deliverance reverting to the general Messianic expectation of events lying outside of history.
The sublime theme of Revelation thus becomes evident—the victory of the Messiah over the Roman Empire, together with the miseries to be inflicted on His enemies and the blessings to be enjoyed by His followers.
7. Religious value.—If properly interpreted, Revelation is of really profound religious value. It cannot serve as a basis of theology, but, like any piece of imaginative writing, will serve to stir the emotion and the faith of the Christian. Its literary form is so remarkable, the passages descriptive of the triumph of the Messianic Kingdom are so exquisite, its religious teaching is so impressive, as not only to warrant its inclusion in the Canon, but also to make it of lasting value to the devotional life. More particularly the Letters to the Churches are of value as criticism and Inspiration for various classes of Christians, while its pictures of the New Jerusalem and its insistence upon the moral qualifications for the citizens of the Messianic Kingdom are in themselves notable incentives to right living: Stript of its apocalyptic figures, the book presents a noble ideal of Christian character, an assurance of the unfailing justice of God, and a prophecy of the victory of Christianity over a brutal social order.
SHAILER MATHEWS.
REVENGE.—See AVENGER OF BLOOD, KIN [NEXT OF].
REVISED VERSION.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, 35.
REVIVE.—In 1 K 17:22, 2 K 13:21, Neh 4:2, Ro 14:9, ‘to revive’ is literally ‘to come to life again,’ as in Shaks. 1 Henry VI. I. i. 18—‘Henry is dead, and never shall revive.’ We thus see the force of Ro 7:9 ‘When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.’
REZEPH.—A city mentioned in the message of the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib to Hezekiah (2 K 19:12, Is 37:12). It is the Ratsappa or Ratsapi of the Assyrian inscriptions, the modern Rasafa, between Palmyra and the Euphrates. This district belonged for several centuries to the Assyrians, and many of the tablets show it to have been an important trade-centre. Between B.C. 839 and 737 the prefects who had authority in the place were, to all appearance, Assyrians, only one, of unknown but apparently late date, having a name which may be West Semitic, namely, Abda’, possibly a form of ‘Abda or ‘Obadiah.
T. G. PINCHES.
REZIN.—From the ancient versions and the cuneiform inscriptions it is clear that the form should be Razon or Razin.
1. The last king of Damascus. Towards the close of the 8th cent. B.C. Damascus and Israel were under the suzerainty of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser III. enumerates the articles paid him in tribute by Ra-sun-nu of Damascus and Menahem of Israel (B.C. 738). Pekah, one of Menahem’s successors, joined Rezin in the attempt to throw off the yoke. Failing to secure the co-operation of Ahaz, they turned their arms against Judah (B.C. 734). 2 K 16:6 mentions, among the incidents of the campaign, that Rezin ‘recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath.’ [This statement originated in a scribal error, the r in Aram ( ‘Syria’) having been accidentally substituted for the d of Edom, and Rezin’s name being added still later for the sake of completeness (cf. 2 Ch 28:17).] The two allies besieged Jerusalem, greatly to the alarm of the populace, and Isaiah strove in vain to allay the terror (Is 7–9). Ahaz implored aid from Tiglathpileser, to whom he became tributary (2 K 16:8). On the approach of the Assyrians, Pekah was murdered by his own subjects. Damascus sustained a siege of more than a year’s duration, but was eventually taken (B.C. 732), and Rezin was slain (2 K 16:9). Rawlinson found an inscription on which this was recorded, but the stone has unfortunately disappeared. It is not quite certain who ‘the son of Tabeel’ (Is 7:6) is. Winckler (Alttest. Untersuch., p. 74f.) fails to carry conviction in his attempt to identify this man with Rezln. More probably he was the tool whom the confederates proposed to seat on the throne of Judah.
2. The ‘children of Rezin’ are mentioned as a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2:48, Neh 7:50). Like the Nethinim generally, they were very likely of foreign descent. In 1 Es 5:31 they are called ‘sons of Daisan,’—another instance of the confusion of r and d.
J. TAYLOR.
REZON.—According to the Heb. text of 1 K 11:23–25 , Rezon, son of Eliada, was one of the military officers of that Hadadezer, king of the little realm of Zobah (cuneiform, Subiti) , S. of Damascus and not far from the Sea of Tiberias, whom David overthrew (2 S 8:3ff.). For some unknown reason he deserted Hadadezer, gathered a band of freebooters, seized Damascus, and founded there the dynasty which created the most powerful of the Syrian kingdoms. He was a thorn in Solomon’s side, and his successors were bitter adversaries of Israel. Unfortunately, the text presents a suspicious appearance. Vv. 23–25a have evidently been interpolated between 22 and 25b, and in the best MSS of the LXX the story, with some variations, follows v. 14. In either position it interrupts the course of the narrative, and the best solution of the difficulty is to regard it as a gloss, embodying a historical reminiscence. There is not sufficient evidence for the view maintained by Thenius and Klostermann, that the name should be spelled Hezron and identified with Hezion (1 K 15:18).
J. TAYLOR.
RHEGIUM (now Reggio) was an old Greek colony near the south-western extremity of
Italy, and close to the point from which there is the shortest passage to Sicily. Messana (modern
Messina) on the opposite side is but 6 or 7 miles distant from Rhegium. The whirlpool of Charybdis and the rock of Scylla are in this neighbourhood, and were a terror to the ancient navigators with their small vessels. Rhegium was in consequence a harbour of importance, where favourable winds were awaited. The situation of the city exposed it to changes of government. In the 3rd cent. B.C. Rome entered into a special treaty with it. In NT times the population was mixed Græco-Latin. St. Paul’s ship waited here one day for a favourable south wind to take her to Puteoli. Ac 28:13 describes how the ship had to tack to get from Syracuse to Rhegium, owing to the changing winds.
A. SOUTER.
RHEIMS VERSION.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, 29.
RHESA.—A son of Zerubbabel (Lk 3:27).
RHODA.—The name of the maid-servant in the house of Mary, John Mark’s mother, when St. Peter came there on his release from prison by the angel (Ac 12:13).
A. J. MACLEAN.
RHODES was one of the most important and successful cities in ancient Greece. It was founded in B.C. 408, at the N.E. corner of the island of the same name, which is 43 miles long and 20 miles wide at its widest. The situation was admirable, and the people were able to take advantage of it and to build up a splendid position in the world of commerce. It reached the summit of its success in the 2nd cent. B.C., after the settlement with Rome in 189 made it mistress of great part of Caria and Lycia. Rome’s trade interests were seriously interfered with by this powerful rival, and in B.C. 166 Rome declared the Carian and Lycian cities independent, and made Delos a free port. Its conspicuous loyalty to Rome during the first Mithradatic War was rewarded by the recovery of part of its former Carian possessions. It took the side of Cæsar in the civil war, although most of the East supported Pompey, and suffered successive misfortunes, which reduced it to a common provincial town, though it remained a free city in St. Paul’s time, and retained its fine harbours, walls, streets, and stores. St. Paul touched here on his way from Troas to Cæsarea (Ac 21:1), as it was a regular port of call on that route. Rhodes is mentioned in 1 Mac 15:23 as one of the free States to which the Romans sent letters in favour of the Jews. Ezk 27:15, according to the LXX, reads ‘sons of the Rhodians’: this is an error; the mention of them in Gn 10:4 (LXX) and 1 Ch 1:7 (LXX) is probably correct. The famous Colossus was a statue of the sun-god at the harbour entrance, 105 feet high. It stood only from B.C. 280 to 224.
A. SOUTER.
RHODOCUS.—A Jewish traitor (2 Mac 13:21).
RIBAI.—The father of Ittai (2 S 23:29 = 1 Ch 11:31).
RIBLAH.—1. An important town (mod. Ribleh) and military station on the eastern bank of the Orontes, 50 miles S. of Hamath. It is mentioned in the Bible only in the literature of the Chaldæan period, and was apparently the headquarters of Nebuchadrezzar the Great for his South-Syrian and Palestinian dominions. From this position the Phœnician cities of the coast were within easy command, as also were Cœle-Syria and the kingdom of Damascus, along with the land-routes leading farther south. Here judgment was pronounced upon Zedekiah and his officers (2 K 25:6, 20, 21, Jer 39:5f., 52:9ff.).
The statement of 2 K 23:33, that Pharaoh-necho put Jehoahaz in bonds at Riblah in the land of Hamath, is to be corrected by the parallel passage 2 Ch 36:3, where the transaction is said to have taken place in Jerusalem itself. The true reading is, ‘and Pharaoh-necho removed him from reigning in Jerusalem’ (cf. also the LXX). It was the later action of Nebuchadrezzar with regard to Zedekiah, above referred to, that suggested the change in the text. The phrase ‘in the land of Hamath’ (2 K 25:21) is to be compared with the ‘nineteen districts of Hamath’ enumerated in the Annals of Tiglath-pileser III.
Riblah should be read for Diblah in Ezk 6:14. See No. 2.
2. Riblah (with the article) is, it the reading is correct, mentioned as one of the eastern boundary marks of Israel in Nu 34:11. The place intended was not far N.E. of the Sea of Galilee, but the exact site is unknown.
It was, of course, not the Riblah on the Orontes. It is remarkable, however, that this Riblah is mentioned in connexion with the ‘approach to Hamath’ (v. 8). which, as Winckler has shown, was on the S.W. of Mt. Hermon, and the centre of the kingdom of Hamath of the time of David. Cf. Ezk 6:14 as above corrected.
J. F. MCCURDY.
RIDDLES.—See GAMES, and PROVERB, 2.
RIE (the AV spelling of ‘rye’) occurs twice (Ex 9:32, Is 28:25) in AV as rendering of kussemeth, which in Ezk 4:9 is rendered ‘fitches.’ In all three passages RV has ‘spelt,’ Whatever kussemeth was, it was neither true rye, which is a cereal unknown in Palestine, nor spelt. See
FITCHES.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
RIGHTEOUSNESS
I. In OT.—
‘Righteousness,’ ‘righteous’ (except in a few passages) stand in EV for some offshoot of the Semitic root tsdq which is met with as early as the Tell el-Amarna letters in the sense of ‘to be innocent.’ The Heb. derivatives are the adjective tsaddīq and the nouns tsedeq and tsĕdāqāh ( which seem to be practically indistinguishable in meaning), and the verbal forms tsādaq, hitsdīq, etc. This group of words is represented in EV in about 400 passages by ‘righteousness,’ ‘righteous,’ etc.; in the remainder, about onefifth of the whole, by ‘just,’ ‘justice,’ ‘justify,’ ‘right.’ Whether the primary notion was ‘straightness’ or ‘hardness’ is uncertain, and quite immaterial for the present inquiry.
The material can be conveniently arranged under two heads: (1) righteousness in common speech; (2) righteousness in religious terminology. The order is not without significance. It has been justly remarked that the development of the idea of righteousness in OT moves in the opposite direction to that traversed by the idea of holiness. Whilst the latter starts from the Divine and comes down to the human, the former begins with the human and ascends to the Divine.
1. Righteousness in common speech.—(a) It is perhaps safest to begin with the forensic or juristic application, The plaintiff or defendant in a legal case who was in the right was
‘righteous’ (Dt 25:1, Is 5:23); and his claim resting on his good behaviour was ‘righteousness’ (1 K 8:32). A judge who decided in favour of such a person gave ‘righteous judgment,’ lit. ‘judgment of righteousness’ (Dt 16:18), judged ‘righteously’ (Dt 1:16). The Messianic King, who would be the ideal judge, would he ‘swift to do righteousness’ (Is 16:5), would ‘judge the poor with righteousness’ (11:4), and would have ‘righteousness for the girdle of his loins’ (v. 5). A court of justice was, in theory, ‘the place of righteousness’ (Ec 3:16). The purified Jerusalem would be ‘a city of righteousness’ (Is 1:26). On the other hand, corrupt judges ‘cast down righteousness to the earth’ (Am 5:7), and ‘take away the righteousness of the righteous from him’ (Is 5:23). (b) From the forensic use is readily developed the general meaning ‘what is right,’ ‘what ought to be’ [some scholars invert the order of a and b, starting with the idea of ‘rightness’]. In Pr 16:8 we read: ‘Better is a little with righteousness (i.e., a little got by right conduct) than great revenues with injustice.’ Balances, weights, and measures which came up to the required standard were ‘just balances,’ etc., lit. ‘balances of righteousness’ (Lv 19:36), whilst their converse were ‘wicked balances,’ lit. ‘balances of wickedness’ (Mic 6:11) or ‘balances of deceit’ (Am 8:5). (c) Righteous speech also, i.e. truthful speech, came under the category of ‘righteousness.’ ‘Righteous lips,’ lit. ‘lips of righteousness,’ ‘are the delight of kings’ (Pr 16:13).
2. Righteousness in religious terminology.—(a) For the ancient Hebrew, ‘righteousness’ was especially correspondence with the Divine will. The thought of God, indeed, was perhaps never wholly absent from his mind when he used the word. Note, for this conception of righteousness, Ezk 18:5–9, where ‘doing what is lawful and right (tsĕdāqāh) ’ is illustrated by a number of concrete examples followed up by the general statement, ‘hath walked in my statutes and kept my judgments to deal truly,’ The man who thus acts, adds the prophet, is ‘just,’ rather
‘righteous’ (tsaddīq) . The Book of Ezekiel has many references to righteousness thus understood.—(b) As the Divine will was revealed in the Law, ‘righteousness’ was thought of as obedience to its rules (Dt 6:25). Note also the description of a righteous man in Ps 1 (cf. v. 1f. with v. 5b and v. 6a). The expression was also used of obedience in a single instance. Restoring a pledge at sun-down was ‘righteousness’ (Dt 24:13). The avenging deed of Phinehas was ‘counted to him for righteousness’ (Ps 106:31). So we find the word in the plural: ‘The Lord is righteous: he loveth righteous deeds’ (Ps 11:7 RVm).—(c) In most of the passages quoted, and in many places in Ezk., Job, Prov., and Eccles., the righteousness of the individual is referred to; but in others Israel (Ps 14:5, 97:11, 118:20 etc., Is 41:8–11, and other parts of Deutero-Isaiah, Hab 1:13 etc.), or a portion of Israel (Is 51:1, 7 etc.), is represented as ‘righteous.’—(d) Since righteousness is conformity to the Divine will, and the Law which reveals that will is righteous in the whole and its parts (Ps 119:7, 62, 75, 172 etc.), God Himself is naturally thought of as essentially righteous (Dt 32:4 where ‘just’ = ‘righteous’; Jer 12:1, Is 42:21, Ps 7:9 (10) 11 (12), His throne is founded on righteousness and judgment (Ps 89:14, (15)), and all His ways exhibit righteousness (Ps 145:17). As, however, Israel was often unrighteous, the righteousness of Jehovah could then be revealed to it only in judgment (Is 1:27, 5:18, 10:22). In later times it was revealed in judgment on their heathen oppressors (Ps 40:9f., 98:2 etc.).—(e) So in a number of passages, especially in Is 40–66, ‘righteousness’ is almost synonymous with justification, salvation (Is 45:8, 46:13, 51:6f., 58:6, 59:9, 61:11, 62:1 ; many passages in Psalms [22:31 (32)
24:5 etc.], Mal 4:2 [Heb 3:19]). For more on this subject cf. art. JUSTIFICATION.
II. In NT.—
The Greek equivalents of tsaddīq, tsedeq, etc., are dikaios (81 times), ‘righteous,’ ‘just’; dikaiōs (5 t.), ‘justly,’ ‘righteously’; dikaiosynē (92 t.), ‘righteousness’; dikaioō (39 t.), ‘justify’; dikaiōma (10 t. ). ‘righteousness’ (4t. [AV] ‘righteous act,’ ‘judgment,’ ‘ordinance,’ ‘justification’]); dikaiōsis (2 t.), justification’; dikaiokrisia, ‘righteous judgment’ (Ro 2:5).
In the teaching of Jesus (Mt 5:6, 10, 20, 6:1, 33, 21:32, Jn 16:8, 10), and in NT generally, ‘righteousness’ means, as in OT, conformity to the Divine will, but with the thought greatly deepened and spiritualized. In the Sermon on the Mount righteousness clearly includes right feeling and motive as well as right action. In Mt 6:1 (where dikaiosynē is unquestionably the true reading) there may be an echo of the later meaning acquired by tsĕdāqāh, its Aramaic equivalent, the beginnings of which can be traced in LXX (Dt 6:25 and 8 other passages) and the Heb. Sirach about B.C. 200 (3:14, 40:17)—‘benevolence,’ ‘almsgiving.’ If, as cannot be reasonably doubted, the Sermon on the Mount was originally in Aramaic, the word for ‘righteousness’ can hardly have been used in such a connexion without a side glance at a common popular application of it. Still, it is not safe to find more than a hint or echo.
In Mt 3:15, Zahn has observed, dikaiosynē seems to be used in the sense of dikaiōma, ‘ordinance.’ In the Pauline Epistles, where dikaiosynē and dikaioō are most frequently used (85 times out of 131), the former in a considerable number of cases describes not the righteousness required by God, but the righteousness bestowed by God and accepted by faith in Christ (Ro 1:17 etc.).
For fuller treatment cf. art. JUSTIFICATION.
W. TAYLOR SMITH.
RIMMON (god).—Rimmon is the Hebraized form of Rammān, the Bab. air-, weather-, and storm—god assimilated by popular etymology to the word for ‘pomegranate.’ He is mentioned, however (in 2 K 5:18), not as a Palestinian or Babylonian, but as a Syrian, deity, who was honoured as the chief god of Damascus. Elsewhere there are many Indications that the chief Aramæan divinity was called by that people not Rimmon or Rammān, but Hadad (wh. see). Rammān (meaning the thunderer) was, in fact, indigenous in Babylonia, where he played a great mythological and religious rôle, in his twofold aspect of a beneficent deity, as the giver of rain, and of a maleficent, as the maker of storms and the wielder of the thunderbolt. His symbol was the axe and a bundle of lightning-darts. He was thus in some features the analogue of Zeus or Jupiter and Thor.
In Assyria, both the Aram, and the Bab. forms of the name were current (see HADAD) . The currency of the latter among the Hebrews (as Rimmon) is to be attributed to the long Babylonian occupation of Palestine before Aramæan times. The same combination as the Assyrian is indicated in the Biblical Hadad-rimmon (wh. see).
J. F. MCCURDY.
The emblem of Rammān was the bull, and the widespread cult of the air-god may have had something to do with nationalizing the worship of Jahweh as represented by that animal. Cf. also the name Tab-rimmon.
J. F. MCCURDY.
RIMMON.—1. A Beerothite (2 S 4:2, 5, 9). 2. The rock whither the remnants of the Benjamites fled (Jg 20:45, 21:13). It has been identified with a lofty rock or conical chalky hill, visible in all directions, on the summit of which stands the village of Rummōn, about 3 miles E. of Bethel. 3. A city in the south of Judah, towards the border of Edom, Jos 15:32; in 19:7 counted to Simeon; In Zec 14:10 named as lying to the far south of Jerusalem. See, further, ENRIMMON. 4. In Jos 19:13 one of the boundaries of Zebulun is given as ‘Rimmon which stretcheth to the Nē‘āh’ ( AV wrongly ‘Remmonmethoar to Neah’). In 1 Ch 6:77 [Heb. 62] the name appears as Rimmono, and in Jos 21:35 as Rimmonah (for which, by a textual error, MT has Dimnah). This Rimmon is the modern Rummāneh, north of Nazareth.
RIMMONAH, RIMMONO.—See RIMMON, No. 4.
RIMMON-PEREZ.—A ‘station’ (unidentified) of the children of Israel (Nu 33:19f.).
RING.—See ORNAMENTS, 2, 4. In Ca 5:14 RVm ‘cylinder’ is preferable to EV ‘ring,’ the comparison being probably with the fingers of the hand.
RINGSTRAKED.—See COLOURS, 6.
RINNAH—A Judahite (1 Ch 4:20).
RIPHATH.—One of the sons of Gomer (Gn 10:3). The parallel passage 1 Ch 1:6, by a scribal error, reads Diphath.
RISSAH.—A ‘station’ of the Israelites (Nu 33:21f.).
RITHMAH.—A ‘station’ of the Israelites (Nu 33:18f.).
RIVER.—For the meaning and use of ’āphīq, ye’ōr, and nachal, sometimes rendered ‘river,’ see art. BROOK. yūbal (Jer 17:8), ’ūbal (Dn 8:2, 3, 6), are from the root yābal, ‘to flow.’ peleg, ‘division,’ signifies an artificial water-channel, used for irrigation (Ps 1:3 etc.), by which the water from cistern or stream is led to the various parts of field, garden, or orchard requiring moisture. It is used poetically of the stream bringing the rain from the great storehouses on high (Ps 65:9). te‘ālāh (Ezk 31:4) is properly a ‘channel’ or ‘conduit’ (so 2 K 18:17, 20:20, Is 7:3, 36:2, also Job 38:25 RV). The usual word for river in OT is nāhār ( Job 40:23, Ps 46:4 etc.). It is often used of rivers that are named: e.g. the rivers of Eden (Gn 2:10 etc.), the Euphrates (Gn 15:18 etc.), the rivers of Damascus (2 K 5:12). The Euphrates is called ‘the river’ (Gn 31:21 etc.), and ‘the great river’ (Gn 15:18, Dt 1:7), a title given also to the Tigris (Dn 10:4). Aramnaharaim (Ps 60 [title], also Heb. Gn 24:10, Dt 23:4), ‘Aram of the two rivers,’ is Mesopotamia. The word appears to have been used like the Arab, nahr, only of perennial streams. It is applied, indeed, to the Chebar (Ezk 1:1) and the Ahava (Ezr 8:21), while in Ps 137:1, Nah 2:7, Ex 7:19, 8:5, canals seem to be intended. But in all these cases they were probably not mere temporary conduits, but had become established as permanent sources of supply, so that, as with Chebar and Ahava, they might have names of their own. The NT word is potamos ( Mk 1:5 etc. ).
In the fig. language of Scripture the rising of a river in flood signifies the furious advance of invading armies (Jer 46:7f., 47:2, Is 8:7). The trials of affliction are like the passage of dangerous fords (Is 43:2). The river is significant of abundance ( Job 29:6 etc.), and of the favour of God (Ps 46:4) . To the obedient peace is exhaustless as a river (Is 48:18, 30:28). Prevailing righteousness becomes resistless as an overflowing stream (Am 5:24).
Palestine is not rich in rivers in our sense of the term. The Jordan is perhaps the only stream to which we should apply the name. Apart from the larger streams, the wādy of the mountain is sometimes the nahr of the plain, before it reaches the sea, if in the lower reaches it is perennial. Bearing the name nahr in modern Palestine, there are: in the Philistine plain, the Sukreir and the Rūbīn; to the N. of Jaffa, el-‘Aujā, el-Fālik, Eskanderūneh, el-Mefjir, ez-Zerkā, and ed-Difleh; to the N. of Carmel, el-Muqatta’ (the ancient Kishon), Na‘mein (the Belus), and Mefsūh. The streams that unite to form the Jordan in the N. are Nahr el-Hasbāni, Nahr el-Leddān, and Nahr Bāniās. The only nahr flowing into the Jordan from the west is the Jalūd, near Beisān. From the east Nahr Yarmūk drains the Jaulān and Haurān, and at its confluence with the Jordan is almost of equal volume. Nahr ez-Zerkā is also an important stream, draining a wide region.
The rivers are crossed to-day, as in ancient times, almost entirely by fords. When the rivers are in flood, tragedies at the fords are not infrequent. The rivers that open into the Mediterranean have their main fords at the mouth. The sand washed up by the waves forms a broad bank, over which the water of the stream spreads, making a wide shallow.
W. EWING.
RIVER OF EGYPT.—See EGYPT [RIVER OF].
RIZIA.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:39).
RIZPAH.—Daughter of Aiah, concubine of Saul, seized by the ambitious Abner after he had placed Ishbosheth (Ishbaal) on the throne. When accused by the king, Abner, who was the real ruler of Israel, promptly proffered the Northern Kingdom to David (2 S 3:6f.). A three years’ famine was divined to be due to the displeasure of Jehovah at the slaughter of the Gibeonites by Saul. When David inquired what expiation he should make, the Gibeonites refused money compensation, but demanded descendants of Saul to expose before Jehovah. The king gave them two of Rizpah’s, and three of Michal’s (Merab’s) sons, who were slain and exposed on Mount Gibeah (2 S 21:1–14). Rizpah spread sackcloth on the rock,—a sign that the land repented,—and watched the dead till the anger of Jehovah relented and the rain came. Her vigil ended, she was at liberty to perform the rite of burial.
J. H. STEVENSON.
ROADS AND TRAVEL.—See TRADE AND COMMERCE. ‘Byways’ in Jg 5:8 should rather be ‘roundabout ways.’ In Jer 18:15 ‘bypaths’ (RV) are opposed to the old tracks.
ROBBERS OF CHURCHES.—See CHURCHES [ROBBERS OF].
ROBE.—See DRESS.
ROCK represents various Heb. words, which, generally speaking, have the same ideas as the Eng.—strength, security, height, etc. (cf. Stanley, SP, Appendix). The rocks named in OT are
Oreb (Jg 7:25, Is 10:26), Etam (Jg 15:8), Rimmon (20:45, 21:13), the crags Bozez and Seneh (1 S 14:4), Sela-hammahlekoth (23:28). In 2 K 14:7, Is 16:1, 42:11 ‘the Rock’ (RV ‘Sela’) is a proper name. Sela or Petra, the rock-city par excellence; in Jg 1:36 (RVm ‘Sela’) the identification is doubtful; es-Safieh, ‘a bare and dazzling white sandstone promontory 1000 ft. high,’ near the south of the Dead Sea, is probably intended. Rocks were the haunt of the eagle ( Job 39:28), of the wild goat (v. 1), or the coney (Pr 30:28); cf. Ps 104:18, Ps 30:19 refers to the mysterious gliding of the serpent over a rock; Am 6:12, to the proverbial impossibility of horses running over crags. Dt 32:13 emphasizes the fact that in Palestine even the rocks are the home of bees (Ps 81:16, Is 7:19), and the rocky soil produces olives (Job 29:6). Besides this natural marvel, we have the miracles of Ex 17:6, Nu 20:8 etc. In 1 Co 10:4 St. Paul follows a widespread Jewish haggādāh, which can be traced to the 1st century A.D., according to which the rock (perhaps originally the well) followed Israel; when the Tabernacle was pitched, the water gushed out afresh, the princes singing the song of Nu 21:17. The epithet ‘spiritual’ does not deny the literal reality of that to which it refers; the manna was literal to St. Paul, and the water and rock must have been so too. He sees in the literal fact a foreshadowing of the Christian sacraments. Further, he identifies the rock with Christ, implying His pre-existence and care for His people; cf. Philo’s identification of it with the Wisdom and Word of God.
Rocks, particularly the soft sandstone of Edom, were primitive dwelling places (Job 24:8, 30:6; cf. cave-dwellers of Dt 2:12), and were used for sepulchres (Is 22:16, Mk 15:46). Job 19:24 refers to the permanence of the rock inscription; 28:9 (a somewhat unusual word, ‘flinty rock’ RV) to mining. In Jg 6:20, 13:16 the rock is a natural monolithic altar; in 6:26 tr. ‘strong-hold’ with RV. Rocks as dangers to ships are mentioned in Ac 27:29, and metaphorically in Jude12 RV [but RVm and Bigg retain ‘spots’ of AV, which has the support of the parallel 2 P 2:13]. The barrenness and desolation of a rock is the point of Ezk 26:4, 14, with a pun on Tyre (= rock); cf. the unfruitful ‘rock’ (Lk 8:6), or ‘rocky places’ (Mt 13:5 RV) of the parable of the Sower; i.e. rock with a thin layer of earth. The rock meets us continually as a place of refuge, literal or metaphorical (Nu 24:21, 1 S 13:6, Is 2:19, Jer 48:28, 49:16, Ob 6); cf. ‘feet on rock’ (Ps 27:5, 40:2) In Is 32:2 it is a shade from the heat. And so it is a frequent title for God, as the unvarying strength and support of His people (Dt 32:4ff. [6 times], Ps 18:2 etc., Is 17:10, 30:29, Hab 1:12). It is often represented by ‘God,’ and vague terms (‘help,’ etc.) in the ancient versions, as well as AV and Pr. Bk. (e.g. Ps 95:1). A sufficient explanation of the use is found in the natural scenery of Palestine. It is doubtful how far ‘Rock’ (Zur) was a definite name for God. It has been found in compounds in two S. Arabian inscriptions, and occurs in the proper names of Nu 1:5, 6, 10, 3:35. ‘Great Rock’ is a common title of Asshur and Bel in Assyria. In Dt 32:31, Is 31:9 the title is given to heathen gods, but in the latter passage the word sela is used. And the fact that this word is freely employed in this connexion side by side with zur rather contradicts the supposition that the latter was technically a proper name. Convulsions of nature and the power of God are connected with breaking the rock (1 K 19:11, Job 14:18, Jer 23:29, Nah 1:6, Mt 27:51), and in Jer 5:3 it is a symbol of obstinacy. In Mt 7:24 it represents the sure foundation; cf. Mt 16:18 and art. POWER OF THE KEYS, p. 742b. The name ‘Peter’ is a tr. of the Aram. Cephas, the Heb. form of which is used Jer 4:29, Job 30:6 (see art. PETER). For the ‘rock of offence or stumbling,’ see Is 8:14, 28:16, Ro 9:33, 1 P 2:6. Precipitation from a rock was a form of execution (2 Ch 25:12 [? 2 S 21:8, 10], cf. Lk 4:29).
C. W. EMMET. ROCK BADGER (Lv 11:6 RVm) is Hyrax syriacus. See CONEY.
ROD.—The rods, sticks, staves, and clubs carried or otherwise used by the Hebrews were probably as varied in size and shape as those in use among the inhabitants of Palestine at the present day, of which a minute description, with illustrations, is given by Baldensperger in PEFSt, 1905, 35 ff. No hard-and-fast distinction can be made out between the matteh, the shēbet, and the maqqēl—all three rendered in EV by ‘rod’ or ‘staff.’ The context must generally decide which of the two is the better rendering. For example, the twigs which Jacob peeled in the device recorded in Gn 30:37ff. are true rods; but in 32:10 the same word (maqqēl) is properly rendered ‘staff.’ On the other hand, Moses’ ‘rod’ (so EV) is rather his shepherd’s ‘staff’ (Ex 4:2 etc.).
For the rod as an instrument of punishment, shēbet is more frequently employed than matteh, as Pr 10:13, 13:24 , 26:3, although both are not seldom employed in parallel lines (Is 10:24, 30:31f. etc.). The former also denotes the shepherd’s club ( described and figured in Hastings’ DB iv. 291a, PEFSt, 1905, 36), as in Ps 23:4, Lv 27:32 etc. (EV ‘rod’). See also SCEPTRE.
A. R. S. KENNEDY. RODANIM.—See DODANIM.
ROE, ROEBUCK.—1. zĕbī and zĕbīyyāh.—See GAZELLE 2. ya‘ălāh, Pr 5:19, RV ‘doe’; see ‘Wild Goat’ in art. GOAT. 3. ‘ōpher, Ca 4:5, 7:3, AV ‘young roe,’ RV ‘fawn.’ 4. yachmūr (lit. ‘red’), Dt 14:5, 1 K 4:23, AV ‘fallow deer,’ RV ‘roebucks.’ The true fallow-deer is the ’ayyāl or hart; see HART. In the LXX yachmūr is tr. boubalos, the bubale; but it is much more probable that it is the roebuck (Cervus capreolus), still called the yahmur by some Arabs. It is a gazelle-like animal with three-branched upright horns.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
ROGELIM.—The native place of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 S 17:27, 19:31). The exact site is unknown.
ROHGAH.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:34).
ROIMUS (1 Es 5:8).—See REHUM, 1.
ROLL.—See WRITING, 6.
ROMAMTI-EZER.—A son of Heman (1 Ch 25:4, 31).
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
1. Time, occasion, and character.—The letter to the Romans belongs to the central group— which includes also Galatians, and the two letters to the Corinthians—of St. Paul’s Epistles. Marcion’s order—Gal., Cor., Rom.—Is not unlikely to be the order of writing. A comparison of the data to be found in the letter, with statements in Acts, suggests that Rom. was written from Corinth at the close of the so-called third missionary journey (i.e. the period of missionary activity described in Ac 18:23–21). After the riots in Ephesus (Ac 19:23–40) St. Paul spent three months in Greece (20:3), whither Timothy had preceded him. He was thus carrying out a previous plan somewhat sooner than he had originally intended. Ac 19:21, 22 informs us that the Apostle wished to make a tour through Macedonia and Achaia, and afterwards, having first visited Jerusalem once more, to turn his steps towards Rome. From the letter itself we learn that he was staying with Gains (16:23), who is probably to be identified with the Gains of 1 Co 1:14. At the time of writing, Paul and Timothy are together, for the latter’s name appears in the salutation (16:21). Sosipater, whose name also appears there, may he identified with the Sopater mentioned in Ac 20:4. Phœbe, the bearer of the letter, belongs to Cenchreæ, one of the ports of Corinth. The allusions in the letter all point to the stay in Corinth implied in Ac 20. Above all, the letter itself, apart from such important passages as 1:10, 11 and 15:22, 30, is ample evidence of St. Paul’s plans to visit Rome,—the plans mentioned in Ac 19:21, 22. It is then more than probable that the letter was written from Corinth during the three months’ stay in Greece recorded in Ac 20:3.
A comparison of Ro 15:22, 30 with Ac 19:21, 22 brings out one of the most striking of Paley’s ‘undesigned coincidences.’ The parallel references to Jewish plots in Ro 15:31 and Ac 20:3 are also noteworthy. It should, however, be mentioned that if on critical grounds ch. 16 has to be detached from the original letter, and regarded as part of a lost letter to the Ephesians, much of the evidence for the place and date of Romans is destroyed, though the remaining indications suffice to establish the position laid down above.
The date to which the letter is to be assigned depends on the chronology of St. Paul’s life as a whole. Mr. Turner (Hastings’ DB, s.v. ‘Chronology of NT’) suggests A.D. 55–56 . But for further treatment of this subject, readers must consult the general articles on CHRONOLOGY OF NT and
PAUL.
The immediate occasion for the letter is clearly the prospective visit to Rome. St. Paul is preparing the way for his coming. This explains why he writes to the Romans at all; it does not explain why he writes the particular letter we now possess. A shorter letter would have been sufficient introduction to his future hosts. How are we to account for the lengthy discussion of the central theme of the gospel which forms the larger part of the letter? Some suspect a controversial purpose. The Church at Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles; through Priscilla and Aquila and others St. Paul must have known the situation in Rome; he could, and doubtless did, accommodate his message to the condition of the Church. The objections he discusses may be difficulties that have arisen in the minds of his readers. But the style of the letter is not controversial. St. Paul warns the Romans against false teachers, as against a possible rather than an actual danger (16:17–20) . Similarly, the discussion of the reciprocal duties of strong and weak ( ch. 14) is marked by a calm conciliatory tone which suggests that the writer is dealing with problems which are probable rather than pressing. In fact, St. Paul seems to be giving his readers the result of his controversial experiences in Corinth and Galatia, not so much because the Church in Rome was placed in a similar situation, as because he wished to enable her members to profit from the mistakes of other Churches. If the letter is not controversial, it is not, on the other hand, a dogmatic treatise. Comprehensive as the letter is, it is incomplete as a compendium of theology. The theory that St. Paul is here putting his leading thoughts into systematic form ‘does not account for the omission of doctrines which we know Paul held and valued—his eschatology and his Christology, for instance’ (Garvie). Romans is a true letter, and the selection of topics must have been influenced by the interest of the Church to which he was writing.
But apart from the position of the Roman Christians, and apart from the wish of the Apostle to prepare the way for his visit to them, the form and character of the letter were probably determined by the place Rome held in the Apostle’s mind. St. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship. He was the first to grasp the significance of the Empire for the growth of the Church. The missionary statesmanship which led him to seize on the great trade-centres like Ephesus and Corinth found its highest expression in his passionate desire to see Rome. Rome fascinated him; he was ambitious to proclaim his gospel there, departing even from his wonted resolve to avoid the scenes of other men’s labours.
It should be noted that the Church at Rome was not an Apostolic foundation. The Christian community came into existence there before either St. Paul or St. Peter visited the city.
He explains his gospel at some length, because it is all-important that the capital of the Empire should understand and appreciate its worth. He is anxious to impart some spiritual gift to the Roman Christians, just because they are in Rome, and therefore, lest Jewish plots thwart his plans, he unfolds to them the essentials of his message. Indeed, his Roman citizenship helped to make St. Paul a great catholic. The influence of the Eternal City may be traced in the doctrine of the Church developed in Ephesians, which was written during the Roman captivity. The very thought of Rome leads St. Paul to reflect on the universality of the gospel, and this is the theme of the letter. He is not ashamed of the gospel or afraid to proclaim it in Rome, because it is as world-wide as the Empire. It corresponds to a universal need: it is the only religion that can speak to the condition of the Roman people. It is true he is not writing for the people at large. His readers consist of a small band of Christians with strong Jewish sympathies, and perhaps even tending towards Jewish exclusiveness. His aim is to open their eyes to the dignity of the position, and to the world-wide significance of the gospel they profess.
Jülicher further points out that Rome was to be to St. Paul the starting-point for a missionary campaign in the West. Consequently the letter is intended to win the sympathy and support of the Roman Church for future work. It is to secure fellow-workers that the Apostle explains so fully the gospel which he is eager to proclaim in Spain and in neighbouring provinces.
2. Argument and content.—Romans, like most of the Pauline letters, falls into two sections: doctrinal (chs. 1–11) and practical (chs. 12–16) . In the doctrinal section, it is usual to distinguish three main topics: justification (chs. 1–4), sanctification (chs. 5–8) , and the rejection of the Jews (chs. 9–11) . It is not easy to draw any sharp line between the first two. The following is a brief analysis of the argument:—
The salutation is unusually long, extending to seven verses, in which St. Paul emphasizes the fact that he has been set apart for the work of an Apostle to all the Gentiles. Then follows a brief introduction. The Apostle first thanks God for the faith of the Roman Christians, and then expresses his earnest desire to visit them and to preach the gospel in Rome. For he is confident—and here he states is central theme— that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all men, if they will only believe (1:1–17).
Salvation for all through the gospel—that is the thought to be developed. And first it is necessary to show that such a saving power is a universal need. The evidence for this is only too abundant. Nowhere have men attained God’s righteousness: everywhere are the signs of God’s wrath. The wilful ignorance which denies the Creator has led to the awful punishment of moral decay with which St. Paul had grown sadly familiar in the great cities of the Empire. Indeed, so far has corruption advanced that the consciences of many have been defiled. They not only commit sin without shame; they openly applaud the sinner (vv. 18–32) . Nor can any one who still perceives this failure hold himself excused. The very fact that he recognizes sin as such, condemns him in so far as he commits it. His keener conscience, if it leaves him unrepentant, will evoke the heavier penalty. God will judge all men according to their deeds. Both Jew and Gentile will be judged alike, the conscience in the Gentile corresponding to the Law in the case of the Jew (2:1–16). This passage is usually referred to the Jews, whose habit of judging and condemning others is rebuked in Mt 7:1. It may have a wider application. The remainder of the chapter deals with the Jews. The principle of judgment according to deeds will be applied without distinction of persons. The privileges of the Jew will not excuse him in the eyes of God. Neither the Law nor circumcision will cover transgression. The true Jew must be a Jew inwardly: the actual Jews have by their crimes caused the name of God to be blasphemed. A Gentile who does not know the Law and yet obeys it is better than the Jew who knows and disobeys (2:17–29) . But is not this condemnation a denial of the Jews’ privileges? No, the privileges are real, though the Jews are unworthy of them; and the mercy of
God is magnified by their ingratitude. Yet even so, if God’s mercy is brought to the light by their sin, why are they condemned? The full discussion of this difficulty is reserved to chs. 9–11 . Here St. Paul only lays down the broad truth that God must judge the world in righteousness, and apparently he further replies to Jewish objectors by a tu quoque argument. Why do they condemn him if, as they say, his lie helps to make the truth clearer? (3:1–8) . St. Paul now returns to his main point, the universality of sin, which he re-states and re-enforces in the language of the OT. The whole world stands guilty in the sight of God, and the Law has but intensified the conviction of sin (3:9–20).
To meet this utter failure of men, God has revealed in Christ Jesus a new way of righteousness, allembracing as the need. Here too is no distinction of persons; all have sinned, and salvation for all stands in the free mercy of God, sealed to men in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son, whereby we know that our past sins are forgiven, and we enter the new life, justified in the sight of God. The righteousness of God is thus assured to men who will receive it in faith. Faith is not defined, but it seems to mean a humble trust in the loving God revealed in Jesus. There can no longer be any question of establishing a claim on God by merit, or of superiority over our fellows. All need grace, and none can be saved except by faith. Jew and Gentile here stand on the same level (3:21–30).
Does not this righteousness through faith make void the Law? St. Paul scarcely answers the general question, but at once goes on to prove that the father of the race, Abraham, was justified by faith, i.e. by humble trust in God, in whose sight he could claim no merit. His trust in God was reckoned unto him for righteousness. His blessedness was the blessedness of the man whose sins are hidden, St. Paul here introducing the only beatitude found in his letters. This blessing came to Abraham before circumcision, on which clearly it did not depend. Similarly, the promise of inheriting the earth was given to him apart from the Law, and the seed to whom the promise descends are the faithful who follow their spiritual ancestor in believing God even against nature, as Abraham and Sarah believed Him. Surely it was for our sakes that the phrase ‘was reckoned unto him for righteousness’ was used in the story of Abraham. It enables us to believe in salvation through our faith in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (3:31–4:25).
At this point opens the second main stage in the doctrinal section of the letter. The fact of justification by faith has been established. It remains to say something of the life which must be built on this foundation. Jesus has brought us into touch with the grace of God. His death is the unfailing proof of God’s love to us sinful men. What can lie before us save progress to perfection? Reconciled to God while yet enemies, for what can we not hope, now that we are His friends? Christ is indeed a second Adam, the creator of a new humanity. His power to save cannot be less than Adam’s power to destroy. Cannot be less? Nay, it must be greater, and in what Jülicher rightly calls a hymn, St. Paul strives to draw out the comparison and the contrast between the first Adam and the Second. Grace must reign till the kingdom of death has become the kingdom of an undying righteousness (5:1–21).
Does this trust in the grace of God mean that we are to continue in sin? Far from it. The very baptismal immersion in which we make profession of our faith symbolizes our dying to sin and our rising with Christ into newness of life. If we have become vitally one with Him, we must share His life of obedience to God. The fact that we are under grace means that sin’s dominion is ended. If we do not strive to live up to this we fail to understand what is involved in the kind of teaching we have accepted. If we are justified by faith, we have been set free from sin that we may serve God, that we may win the fruit of our faith in sanctification, and enjoy the free gift of eternal life (6:1–23). The new life likewise brings with it freedom from the Law; it is as complete a break with the past as that which comes to a wife when her husband dies. So we are redeemed from the Law which did but strengthen our passions (7:1–6) . Not that the Law was sin; but as a matter of experience it is through the commandment that sin deceives and destroys men (7:7–12) . Is, then, the holy Law the cause of death? No, but the exceeding sinfulness of sin lies in its bringing men to destruction through the use of that which is good. And then in a passage of intense earnestness and noble self-revelation St. Paul describes his pre-Christian experience. He recalls the torturing consciousness of the hopeless conflict between spirit and flesh, a consciousness which the Law only deepened and could not heal. The weakness of the flesh, sold under sin, brought death to the higher life. But from this law too, the law of sin and of death, Christ has set him free (7:13–25) . For the Christian is not condemned to endure this hopeless struggle. God, in sending His Son, has condemned sin in the flesh. The alien power, sin, is no longer to rule. The reality and the strength of the Spirit of God have come into our lives with Jesus, so that the body is dead, to be revived only at the bidding of the indwelling Spirit (8:1–12) . We are no longer bound to sin. God has put it into our hearts to call Him ‘Abba, Father.’ We are His little ones already. How glorious and how certain is our inheritance! That redemption for which creation groans most surely awaits us, far more than recompensing our present woes; and patience becomes us who have already received the first-fruits of the Spirit. The Spirit of God prays for us in our weakness, and we know that we stand in God’s foreknowledge and calling. All must be well (8:12–31). And then in a final triumph-song St. Paul asks, ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’ The victory of the Christian life requires a new word: we are more than conquerors. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (8:31–37).
Almost abruptly St. Paul turns to his third main question. The rejection of the Jews, by which the grace of God has come to the Gentile, grieves him to the heart. How is God’s treatment of the Jews to be justified? There was from the first an element of selectiveness in God’s dealings with the race of Abraham. The promise was not the necessary privilege of natural descent. It was to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau (9:1–13) . God’s mercy is inscrutable and arbitrary but it must be just. Whom He wills, He pities: whom He wills, He hardens. If it be said, ‘Then God cannot justly blame men; how can the clay resist the potter?’, St. Paul does not really solve the problem, but he asserts most emphatically that God’s right to choose individuals for salvation cannot be limited by human thought (9:14–21). The justice of God’s rejection of the Jews cannot be questioned a priori. But what are the facts? The Jews, in seeking to establish their own righteousness, have failed to find the righteousness of God. They have failed, because the coming of Christ puts an end to legal righteousness, a fact to which Moses himself bears testimony. They ought to have realized this, and they cannot be excused on the ground that they have had no preachers. They are responsible for their own rejection: they have heard and known and disobeyed (9:30–10:21) . But though God has the right to reject His people, and though the Jews are themselves responsible for, their refusal to accept the gospel, yet St. Paul cannot believe that it is final. Even now a remnant has been saved by grace; and the present rejection of Israel must have been inteoded to save the Gentiles. What larger blessing will not God bestow when He restores His people? The Gentiles must see in the fall of Israel the goodness of God towards themselves, and the possibilities of mercy for the Jews. This is enforced by the illustration of the wild olive and the natural branches (11:17–24). The Jews are enemies now, in order that God may bless the Gentiles. But they are still beloved, for the sake of the fathers. No, God has not deserted His people. If they are at present under a cloud, it is God’s mercy and not His anger that has willed it so. And the same unsearchable mercy will one day restore them to His favour (11:25–36).
With the thought of the infinite mercies of God so strikingly evidenced, St. Paul begins his practical exhortation. Self-surrender to God is demanded as man’s service. ‘Thou must love Him who has loved thee so.’ A great humility becomes us, a full recognition of the differing gifts which God bestows on us. A willingness to bear wrong will mark the Christian. He must he merciful, since his confidence is in the mercy of God. The conclusion of ch. 11 underlies the whole of ch. 12. St. Paul goes on to urge his readers to obey the governing powers; to pay to all the debt of love, which alone fulfils the Law; to put off all sloth and vice, since the day is at hand (ch. 13). The duties of strong and weak towards each other will call for brotherly love. We must not surrender the principle of individual responsibility. Each standeth and falleth to the Lord. We have no right to judge, and we must not force our practices on our fellows. On the other hand, we must not push our individual liberty so far as to offend our brothers. Let us give up things we feel to be right, if we cause strife and doubt by asserting our liberty. The strong must bear the infirmities of the weak. Even Christ pleased not Himself. May we find our joy and peace in following Him! (14–15:12).
St. Paul then concludes by explaining why he was so bold as to write to them at all, and by unfolding his plans and hopes for the future (15:13–33) . The last chapter contains a recommendation of Phœbe who brings the letter, and a number of detailed salutations to individual members of the Church, and to some house-churches. A brief warning against teachers who cause division, greetings from St, Paul’s companions, and an elaborate doxology bring the letter to a close (ch. 16).
The theology and leading ideas of the letter cannot be treated here. In a sense, however, the importance of Romans lies rather in its religious power than in its theological ideas. The letter is bound together by St. Paul’s central experience of the mercy of God. In God’s grace he has found the strength which can arrest the decay of a sinful, careless world. In God’s grace he has found also the secret of overcoming for the man who is conscious of the awfulness of sin, and of his own inability to save his life from destruction. The problem of the rejection of the Jews is really raised, not so much by their previous privileges as by God’s present mercy. St. Paul cannot be satisfied till he has grasped the love of God, which he feels must he at the heart of the mystery. The reality and nearness of God’s mercy determine the Christian character and render it possible. It is noteworthy that, though St. Paul seldom refers to the sayings of Jesus, he arrives at the mind of Christ through the gospel of the grace of God. A comparison of the Sermon on the Mount with Ro 12–14 makes the antithesis, ‘Jesus or Paul,’ appear ridiculous. Above all, the glowing earnestness with which in chs. 4–8 he seeks to share with the Roman Christians—( note the use of ‘we’ throughout that section)—the highest and holiest inspirations he has learnt from Christ, reveals a heart in which the love of God is shed abroad. As Deissmann suggests, we do not recognize the special characteristic of St. Paul if we regard him as first and foremost the theologian of primitive Christianity. Romans is the passionate outpouring of one who has come into living touch with his heavenly Father.
3. Some textual points: integrity and genuineness.—The omission in manuscript G of the words en Rōmē in 1:7, 15 is an interesting indication of the probability that a shortened edition of Romans, with the local references suppressed, may have been circulated in quite early times. The letter to the Ephesians seems to have been treated in the same way. This shorter edition may have concluded at 14:23, where the final doxology (16:25–27) is placed in several MSS (ALP, etc. ). But the shifting position of this doxology in our authorities perhaps indicates that it is not part of the original letter at all (see Denney, in the EGT). But there is further evidence to show that some early editions of the letter omitted chs. 15 and 16. Marcion apparently omitted these chapters. Tertullian, Irenæus, and Cyprian do not quote them. There is also some internal evidence for thinking that ch. 16 at least may be part of a letter to Ephesus. The reference to Epænetus in 16:5 would be more natural in a letter to Ephesus than in a letter to Rome. In view of Ac 18:2 it is difficult to suppose that Aquila and Priscilla had returned from Ephesus to Rome. Moreover, it is not likely that St. Paul would have so many acquaintances in a church he had not visited. On the other hand, none of these considerations affects or explains ch. 15, and the two chapters cannot be separated very easily. Further, Sanday and Headlam have collected an imposing array of evidence to prove the presence at Rome of persons with such names as are mentioned in ch. 16 (‘Romans’ in ICC xxxiv f.). The question must still be regarded as open.
But while there is some probability that ch. 16 is part of a distinct letter, the theories of dismemberment, or rather the proofs of the composite character of Romans advanced by some Dutch scholars, cannot be considered convincing. The views of the late Prof. W. C. van Manen have received perhaps undue attention, owing to the fact that the art. on ‘Romans’ in the EBi is from his pen. His criticism was certainly arbitrary, and his premises frequently inaccurate. Thus he quotes with approval Evanson’s statement that there is no reference in Acts to any project of St. Paul’s to visit Rome—a statement made in direct contradiction of Ac 19:21 (EBi, vol. iv. col. 4137). The year A.D. 120 is regarded as the probable date of Romans, in face of the external evidence of 1 Clement (ib. col. 4143). The general argument against the genuineness of Romans, which weighs most with van Manen, lies in the fact that ‘it has learned to break with Judaism, and to regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past and done with.’ This is ‘a remarkable forward step, a rich and farreaching reform of the most ancient type of Christianity; now, a man does not become at one and the same moment the adherent of a new religion and its great reformer’ (ib. col. 4138). Of this disproof of Pauline authorship it is quite sufficient to say with Prof. Schmiedel, ‘Perhaps St. Paul was not an ordinary man.’ Indeed, Prof. Schmiedel’s article on ‘Galatians’ (ib. vol. ii. col. 1620f.) is a final refutation of the Dutch school represented by van Manen. They have advanced as yet no solid reason for doubting the genuineness of Romans.
H. G. WOOD.
ROME.—The beginnings of Rome are shrouded in obscurity. The city was situated on the left bank of the Tiber, about 18 miles from its mouth. The original Rome was built on one hill only, the Palatine, but the neighbouring hills were successively included, and about the middle of the sixth century B.C., according to tradition, a wall was built to enclose the enlarged city. The whole circuit of this wall was about 5 miles, and it was pierced by nineteen gates. Within these was a large area of vacant spaces, which were gradually built on later, and at the beginning of the Empire (roughly middle of 1st cent. B.C.) not only was the city congested with buildings, but large areas without the wall were also covered with houses. The Roman Forum, an open space measuring over 300 ft. in length, and about 150 ft. in breadth, was the centre of political, legal, and commercial life. At one end was the rostra or platform, from which speeches were delivered to the public; at the other end were shops. It was flanked by the senate-house and law-courts. On the top of the Capitoline Hill was the Capitolium, or great temple dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, and on the Palatine Hill the principal residence of the Emperor, and the Temple of Apollo, containing the public libraries, Greek and Latin. In the Imperial period four additional fora were built, devoted entirely to legal, literary, and religious purposes—the Forum Iulium begun by Julius Cæsar, the Forum Augustum built by Augustus, the Forum Transitorium completed by Nerva, and the Forum Traiani built by Trajan—the most splendid work of Imperial times. Various estimates of the population of Rome in the time of Christ have been given: 2,000,000 seems not unlikely. All nationalities in the Empire were represented—among them many Jews, who were expelled by Claudius in A.D. 50, but returned at his death four years later. The slave population was very large.
The Romans began as one of the members of the Latin league, of which, having become presidents, they eventually became masters. After conquering Latium they were inevitably brought into conflict with the other races of Italy, over most of which they were sovereign about the middle of the 3rd cent. B.C. The extension of Roman territory steadily continued until, in the time of Christ, it included, roughly, Europe (except the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Russia), the whole of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the north-west of Africa.
The Roman State was at first ruled by kings, but these gave place to two rulers, known later as consuls. Their powers were gradually circumscribed by the devolution of some of their duties on other magistrates. The period of steady accession of territory was coincident with a bitter struggle between the patrician and the plebeian classes, both of which comprised free citizens. The contest between the orders lasted for about two centuries, and at the end of that period all the offices of State were equally open to both. This was not, however, the establishment of a real democracy, but the beginning of a struggle between the governing class and the mass of the people, which eventually brought the Republic to an end. The civil wars, which during the last century of its existence had almost destroyed it, had shown clearly that peace could be reached only under the rule of one man. The need of the time was satisfied by Augustus, who ruled as autocrat under constitutional forms: the appearance of a republic was retained, but the reality was gone, and the appearance itself gradually disappeared also. For the city of Rome the Empire was a time of luxury and idleness, but the provinces entered upon an era of progressive prosperity. The Emperor was responsible for the government of all provinces where an army was necessary (for instance, Syria), and governed these by paid deputies of his own. The older and more settled provinces were governed by officials appointed by the senate, but the Emperor had his financial interests attended to by procurators of his own even in these. Under the Empire the provinces were much more protected against the rapacity and cruelty of governors than in Republican times. The Emperors themselves stood for just as well as efficient administration, and most of them gave a noble example by strenuous devotion to administrative business.
The resident Romans in any province consisted of (1) the officials connected with the Government, who were generally changed annually; (2) members of the great financial companies and lesser business men, whose interests kept them there; (3) citizens of coloniœ ( or military settlements), which were really parts of Rome itself set down in the provinces; (4) soldiers of the garrison and their officers; (5) distinguished natives of the province, who, for services rendered to the Roman State, were individually gifted with the citizenship. Such must have been one of the ancestors of St. Paul. The honour was not conferred on all the inhabitants of the Empire till 212 A.D., and in NT times those who possessed it constituted the aristocracy of the communities in which they lived.
The Romans have left a great legacy to the world. As administrators, lawyers, soldiers, engineers, architects, and builders they have never been surpassed. In literature they depended mainly on the Greeks, as in sculpture, music, painting, and medicine. In the arts they never attained more than a respectable standard.
A. SOUTER.
ROOF.—See HOUSE, § 5.
ROOM.—See HOUSE, § 2. For the ‘upper room,’ see ib. § 5, and for the now obsolete use of ‘room’ in the sense of place at table, as ‘the chief room’ (Lk 14:7), the ‘highest room’ (v. 8—RV in both cases ‘chief seat’), or ‘the uppermost room’ (Mt 23:6, Mk 12:39, RV ‘chief place’), see
MEALS, § 6.
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
ROPE.—See CORD.
ROSE.—1. chăbazzeleth [Heb.], Ca 2:1 [‘rose of Sharon’], Is 35:1. All authorities are agreed that the tr. ‘rose’ adopted in the EV is incorrect. The chăbazzeleth appears to have been a bulbed flower. The RVm suggests ‘autumn crocus’ (Colchicum autumnale) ; on the other hand, many good authorities suggest the much more striking and sweeter-scented plant—the narcissus, which is a great favourite to-day in Palestine. Two species are known—N. Tazetta and N. serotinus. In Wis 2:8, Sir 24:14, 39:13, 50:8 we have mention of rhodon ( Gr.). Whether this is, as Tristram maintains, the Rhododendron or the true rose is uncertain; both occur in parts of Palestine.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
ROSH.—1. A descendant of Benjamin (Gn 46:21 [text doubtful]). 2. In Ezk 38:2f., 39:1 the word Rosh is thought by many interpreters to refer to a people, otherwise unknown, but coupled with Meshech and Tubal ( wh. see). It is possible, however, that the word meaning ‘bead’ is used as a preposition ‘over,’ so that the phrase here applied to Gog (wh. see) simply means, ‘prince over Meshech and Tubal’; cf. AVm.
J. F. MCCURDY.
RUBY.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.
RUDDER.—See SHIPS AND BOATS, 2 (2).
RUE (Lk 11:42).—The rue of Palestine is Ruta chalepensis, a variety of the officinal plant, which is cultivated as a medicine.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
RUFUS.—1. The brother of Alexander and son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15:21 only). 2. A Christian at Rome greeted by St. Paul (Ro 16:13) as ‘the chosen in the Lord,’ together with ‘his mother and mine.’ It has been conjectured that these two are the same person, that Simon’s widow (?) had emigrated to Rome with her two sons, where they became people of eminence in the Church, and that this is the reason why the brothers are mentioned by St. Mark, who probably wrote in Rome.
A. J. MACLEAN.
RUG—Jg 4:18 (RV). The tr. is doubtful.
RUHAMAH.—The second child (a daughter) of Gomer, Hosea’s wife, was called Loruhamah, ‘unpitied’ (Hos 1:6, 8). The name was given symbolically to indicate that God had ceased to pity Israel, and given her over to calamity. The return of God’s mercy is indicated in Hos 2:1 ‘Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi (i.e. ‘my people,’ in opposition to Lo-ammi, ‘not my people’); and to your sisters, Ruhamah’ (i.e. ye are ‘pitied’). A similar play on the word is found in Hos 2:23 ‘I will have mercy on “her that had not obtained mercy” (Lo-ruhamah) .’
W. F. BOYD.
RULE.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 1.
RULER OF THE FEAST.—See GOVERNOR, MEALS, 6.
RULER OF THE SYNAGOGUE.—See SYNAGOGUE.
RULERS OF THE CITY.—EV tr. in Ac 17:6, 8 of the Gr. politarchai, which was the special local title of the magistrates of Thessalonica.
RUMAH.—The home of Pedaiah, the maternal grandfather of Jehoiakim (2 K 23:36).
Josephus (Ant. X. v. 2) reads Abouma, no doubt a scribal error for Arouma, which may be the Arumah of Jg 9:41 near Shechem. There was another Rumah in Galilee (Jos BJ III. vii. 21), perhaps the modern Rumeh near Nazareth; and Pedaiah may have been a Galilæan.
W. F. BOYD. RUNNERS.—See FOOTMAN, GUARD.
RUSH, RUSHES.—1. gōme,’ Ex 2:3 (EV ‘bulrushes’ RVm ‘papyrus’), Job 8:11, Is 18:2
(AV ‘bulrushes,’ RV ‘papyrus’) 35:7. This was probably the once famous plant the papyrus (Cyperus papyrus, Arab, babīr) , which now flourishes in the Huleh swamps. The bulrush (Scirpus maritimus) and other species may have been included in the Heb. name gōme’. 2.
’agmōn, Job 41:2 (AV ‘hook,’ RV ‘rope,’ RVm ‘Heb. a rope of rushes’) 41:20 (AV ‘caldron,’ RV ‘[burning] rushes’), Is 9:14, 19:15, 58:5 (AV ‘bulrush’). There are some twenty kinds of rushes in Palestine, but it is impossible to fit the references to any one kind, and, indeed, some kind of ‘reed’ (wh. see) is quite as probable, especially in Is 58:5.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
RUTH (meaning uncertain).—A woman of Moab, who, like her mother-in-law Naomi, and her sister-in-law Orpah, was left a widow. On Naomi desiring to return to her own people in Bethlehem-Judah—which she had left with her husband owing to a famine—Ruth refused to leave her, and the two returned together to Bethlehem. Here she became the wife of Boaz, and bore him Obed, who became the father of Jesse; she therefore figures in the genealogy of Christ ( Mt 1:5). See, further, the next article.
W. O. E. OESTERLEY.
RUTH (Book of)
1. Contents.—The book is really the narrative of a family story, told in a charmingly idyllic way. The fact of most far-reaching interest which it contains is that the Moabitess Ruth, i.e. one who is non-Israelite, is represented as the ancestress of the house of David; this is very important, as testifying to a spirit which is very different from ordinary Jewish exclusiveness, and as far as the OT is concerned can be paralleled only by the Book of Jonah. A point of subsidiary but yet considerable interest in the book is its archæology; the notices concerning the laws of the marriage of next-of-kin (2:20, 4:1ff.), and of the method of transferring property (4:7, 8) , and of the custom of the formal ratification of a compact (4:11, 12), are all evidently echoes of usages which belonged to a time long anterior to the date at which the book was written, though in part still in vogue.
2. Date.—The language of the book has an ‘Aramaicizing tendency’; it implicitly acknowledges itself to have been written long after the time of the events it professes to describe (1:1, 4:7); in the Hebrew Canon it is placed among the Hagiographa; these considerations lead to the conclusion that the book must be of late date. That it is post-exilic cannot admit of doubt; but to assign to it a date more definite than this would be precarious. This much, at least, may be said: the third portion of the Hebrew Canon was completed, at the earliest, after the close of the 3rd cent. B.C. Now it is not likely that a book which purported to contain a fuller genealogy of David than that of 1 Samuel would have been long in existence without being admitted into the Canon.
W. O. E. OESTERLEY.
RYE.—See RIE.