K

W. EWING.

KALLAI.—The head of a priestly family (Neh 12:20).

KAMON (AV Camon).—The burial-place of Jair (Jg 10:5). The site has not been recovered. It was probably east of the Jordan; possibly identical with the Kamūn of Polybius (v. lxx. 12).

KANAH.—1. A ‘brook’ or wady in the borders of Ephraim (Jos 16:8, 17:9) which has been identified (doubtfully) with Wady Kanah near Shechem (Nāblus). 2. A town in the northern boundary of Asher (Jos 19:28), possibly to be identified with the modern Kana, a short distance S.E. of Tyre.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

KAPH.—See CAPH.

KAREAH (‘bald’).—Father of Johanan, No. 1.

KARIATHIARIUS.—1 Es 5:19 for Kiriath-Jearim (wh. see).

KARKA.—An unknown place in the S. of Judah (Jos 15:3).

KARKOR.—A place apparently in Gilead (Jg 8:10). The site is unknown.

KARTAH.—A city of Zebulun (Jos 21:34); not mentioned in the parallel passage, 1 Ch 6:77. The site is unknown. It might be for Kattath by a clerical error.

KARTAN.—A city of Naphtali (Jos 21:32). The parallel passage, 1 Ch 6:76, has Kiriathaim.

KATTATH.—A city of Zebulun (Jos 19:15), perhaps to be identified with Kartah or with Kitron of Jg 1:30. The site is unknown.

KEDAR.—The name of a nomadic people, living to the east of Palestine, whom P ( Gn 25:13) regards as a division of the Ishmaelites. Jeremiah (49:28) counts them among the ‘sons of the East,’ and in 2:10 refers to them as symbolic of the East, as he does to Citium in Cyprus as symbolic of the West. In Isaiah (21:17) they are said to produce skilful archers, to live in villages (42:11), and (60:7) to be devoted to sheep-breeding. The latter passage also associates them with the Nebaioth. Jeremiah alludes also (49:29) to their nomadic life, to their sheep, camels, tents, and curtains. Ezekiel (27:21) couples them with ‘Arab.’ and speaks of their trade with Tyre in lambs, rams, and goats. In Ps 120:5 Kedar is used as the type of barbarous unfeeling people, and in Ca 1:5 their tents are used as a symbol of blackness. The Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (B.C. 668–626), in his account of his Arabian campaign (cf. KIB ii. 223), mentions the Kedarites in connexion with the Aribi (the ‘Arab’ of Ezekiel) and the Nebaioth, and speaks of the booty, in asses, camels, and sheep, which he took. It is evident that they were Bedouin, living in black tents such as one sees in the southern and eastern parts of Palestine to-day, who were rich in such possessions as pertain to nomads, and also skilful in war.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

KEDEMAH.—A son of Ishmael (Gn 25:15 = 1 Ch 1:31). The clan of which he is the eponymous head has not been identified. See also KADMONITES.

KEDEMOTH.—A place apparently on the upper course of the Arnon, assigned to Reuben (Jos 13:18), and a Levitical city (21:37 = 1 Ch 6:79). From the ‘wilderness of Kedemoth’ messengers were sent by Moses to Sihon (Dt 2:26). The site may be the ruin Umm er-Rasās, N.E. of Dibon.

KEDESH.—1. A city in the south of Judah (Jos 15:23) whose site is uncertain. It is probably to be distinguished from Kadesh-barnea. 2. A city in Issachar (1 Ch 6:72), where, however, Kedesh is not improbably a textual error for Kishion of the parallel passage (Jos 21:28). 3. See next article.

KEDESH-NAPHTALI (Jg 4:6; called also ‘Kedesh’ Jos 12:22, 19:37, Jg 4:9–11, 2 K 15:29; and ‘Kedesh in Galilee’ in Jos 20:7, 21:32, 1 Ch 6:76).—Evidently, from the name meaning ‘holy,’ a sacred site from ancient times; a city of refuge (Jos 20:7) and a Levitical city (21:32). It was the home of Barak (Jg 4:6). It was captured by Tiglath-pileser (2 K 15:29) in the reign of Pekah.

The site is the village of Kedes, one of the most picturesque spots in Galilee; to the E. of the village the ground is strewn with ancient remains. There are several fine sarcophagi and the ruins of a large building, possibly once a Roman temple.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

KEHELATHAH (Nu 33:22, 23).—One of the ‘stations’ of the children of Israel ( Nu 33:22f.). Nothing is known about its position.

KEILAH.—A city of Judah in the Shephēlah, named with Nezib and Achzib (Jos 15:44).

David delivered it from the marauding Philistines, and it became his residence for a time. Becoming aware of the treachery of its inhabitants, he left it (1 S 23:1ff.). It was reoccupied after the Exile (Neh 3:17f., 1 Ch 4:19). It is commonly identified with Khirbet Kīlā, about 7 miles E. of Beit Jibrīn. It lies very high, however, for a city in the Shephēlah, being over 1500 ft. above the level of the sea.

W. EWING.

KELAIAH.—A Levite who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:23), called in 1 Es 9:23 Colius. In Ezr. the gloss is added ‘which is Kelita’ (in 1 Es. ‘who was called Calitas’). Kelita appears in Neh 8:7 as one of the Levites who assisted Ezra in expounding the Law (cf. 1 Es 9:48 Calitas), and his name occurs amongst the signatories to the covenant (Neh 10:10). It does not follow, however, that because Kelaiah was also called Kelita he is to be identified with this Kelita.

KELITA.—See KELAIAH.

KEMUEL.—1. The son of Nahor and father of Aram, Gn 22:21 (contrast 10:22, where Aram is son of Shem). 2. The prince of the tribe of Ephraim, one of the twelve commissioners for the dividing of the land (Nu 34:24). 3. The father of Hashabaiah, the ruler of the Levites (1 Ch 27:17).

KENAN.—Son of Enoch and father of Mahalalel (Gn 5:9, 12 [AV Cainan; but AVm, like RV, Kenan], 1 Ch 1:2). The name Kenan is simply a variation of Cain.

KENATH.—A city lying to the E. of the Jordan, taken by Nobah, whose name for a time it bore (Nu 32:42). Geshur and Aram re-conquered it (1 Ch 2:23). It is usually identified with Kanawāt, fully 16 miles N. of Bozrah, on the W. slope of Jebet ed-Druze. It occupies a commanding position on either bank of the Wādy Qanawāt, which here forms a picturesque waterfall There are tall, graceful columns, and massive walls, together with other impressive remains of buildings from Græco-Roman times. The modern village, lower down the slope, is now occupied by Druzes. Baedeker (Pal. ⁸, 207), stating no reason, Moore (Judges, 222), for reasons that do not appear adequate, and others reject the identification. To speak of Qanawāt as ‘in the remote north-east’ (Moore), conveys a wrong impression. It is only some 50 miles N.E. of Jerash, which in turn is near the S. boundary of Gilead. No other identification seems possible. W. EWING.

KENAZ.—See KENIZZITES.

KENITES.—A nomadic tribe, closely connected with the Amalekites (wh. see), and probably indeed a branch of them, but having friendly relations with Israel, and ultimately, it seems, at least in the main, absorbed in Judah. Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law (Jg 1:16, 4:11 RVm), who had been invited by Moses—and had doubtless accepted the invitation—to he a guide to Israel in the wilderness (Nu 10:29–32), was a Kenite; and his descendants came up from Jericho with the tribe of Judah into the S. part of their territory (Arad is about 17 miles S. of Hebron), though afterwards, true to their Bedouin instincts, they roamed beyond the border and rejoined their kinsmen, the Amalekites, in the N. of the Sinaitic Peninsula (Jg 1:16; read in this verse, with MSS of LXX, ‘the Amalekite’ for ‘the people’—three letters have dropped out in the Heb.). When Saul, many years later, attacked the Amalekites, he bade the Kenites separate themselves from them, on the ground that they had shown kindness to Israel at the time of the Exodus (1 S 15:6,—alluding doubtless to Hobab’s guidance, Nu 10:29–32). In Jg 4:11 Heber the Kenite is mentioned as having separated himself from the main body of the tribe, and wandered northwards as far as the neighbourhood of Kedesh (near the Waters of Merom). From 1 S 27:10 , 30:29 we learn that in the time of David there was a district in the S. of Judah inhabited by Kenites; it is possible also that Kinah, in the Negeb of Judah (Jos 15:22), and Kain in the hillcountry (v. 57), were Kenite settlements. The Rechabites, with whom the nomadic life had become a religious Institution (Jer 35), were Kenites (1 Ch 2:55). In Gn 15:19 the Kenites are mentioned among the ten nations whose land was to be taken possession of by Israel; the reference is doubtless to the absorption of the Kenites in Judah. In Nu 24:21f. Balaam, with a play on the resemblance of the name to the Heb. kēn, ‘nest,’ declares that though their ‘nest’ is among the rocky crags (namely, in the S. of Judah), they would in the end be carried away captive by the Assyrians (‘Kain’ in v. 22 is the proper name of the tribe of which ‘Kenite’ Is the gentilic adj.; cf. Jg 4:11 RVm. Observe here that the oracle on the Kenites follows closely upon that on the Amalekites).

The word kain means in Heb. a ‘spear’ (2 S 21:16), and in Arab. an ‘iron-smith’; in Aram, also the word corresponding to ‘Kenite’ denotes a ‘metal-worker’; it has hence been conjectured (Sayce) that the ‘Kenites’ were a nomad tribe of smiths. There is, however, no support for this conjecture beyond the resemblance in the words.

S. R. DRIVER.

KENIZZITES.—A clan named from an eponymous ancestor, Kenaz. According to J ( Jos 15:17, Jg 1:13), Caleb and Othniel were descended from him. (The Inference, sometimes made, that Kenaz was a brother of Caleb, arose from a misunderstanding of these passages.) R in Jos 14:6, 14 definitely calls Caleb a Kenizzite, as P does in Nu 32:12. R also (Gn 15:18–21) counts the Kenizzites among the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine. P in Gn 36:42 enrols Kenaz among the ‘dukes’ of Edom, while a Priestly supplementer counts him both as a ‘duke’ and as a grandson of Esau (Gn 36:11, 16). The Chronicler names Kenaz as a grandson of Esau (1 Ch 1:36), and also as a descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4:13–15). The probable meaning of all these passages is that the Kenizzites overspread a part of Edom and southern Judah before the Israelitish conquest and continued to abide there, a part of them being absorbed by the Edomites, and a part by the tribe of Judah. This latter portion embraced the clans of Caleb and Othniel.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

KENOSIS.—This word means ‘emptying,’ and as a substantive it does not occur in the NT. But the corresponding verb ‘he emptied himself is found in Ph 2:7. This passage is very important as a definite statement that the Incarnation implies limitations, and at the same time that these limitations were undertaken as a voluntary act of love. 2 Co 8:9 is a similar statement. The questions involved are not, however, to be solved by the interpretation of isolated texts, but, so far as they can be solved, by our knowledge of the Incarnate Life as a whole. The question which has been most discussed in recent years relates to the human consciousness and knowledge of Christ, and asks how it is possible for the limitations of human knowledge to coexist with Divine omniscience.

The word kenosis, and the ideas which it suggests, were not emphasized by early theologians, and the word was used as little more than a synonym for the Incarnation, regarded as a Divine act of voluntary condescension. The speculations which occupied the Church during the first five centuries were caused by questions as to the nature and Person of Christ, which arose inevitably when it had been realized that He was both human and Divine; but while they established the reality of His human consciousness, they did not deal, except incidentally, with the conditions under which it was exercised. The passages which speak of our Lord’s human knowledge were discussed exegetically, and the general tendency of most early and almost all mediæval theology was to explain them in a more or less docetic sense. From the 16th cent. onwards there has been a greater tendency to revert to the facts of the Gospel narrative, consequently a greater insistence on the truth of our Lord’s manhood, and more discussion as to the extent to which the Son, in becoming incarnate, ceased to exercise Divine power, especially in the sphere of human knowledge. The question is obviously one that should be treated with great reserve, and rather by an examination of the whole picture of the human life of Christ presented to us in the NT than by a priori, reasoning. The language of the NT appears to warrant the conclusion that the Incarnation was not a mere addition of a manhood to the Godhead, but that ‘the Son of God, in assuming human nature, really lived in it under properly human conditions, and ceased from the exercise of those Divine functions, including the Divine omniscience, which would have been incompatible with a truly human experience.’ It has even been held that the Son in becoming incarnate ceased to live the life of the Godhead altogether, or to exercise His cosmic functions. But for this there is no support in the NT, and Col 1:17 and He 1:3 more than suggest the contrary.

J. H. MAUDE.

KERAS (1 Es 5:29) = Ezr 2:44 and Neh 7:47 Keros.

KERCHIEFS (from the Fr. couvrechef, a covering for the head) are mentioned only in Ezk 13:18, 21, a somewhat obscure passage having reference to certain forms of divination or sorcery, which required the head to be covered. They evidently varied in length with the height of the wearer (v. 18), and perhaps resembled the long veils worn by the female captives from Lachish represented on an Assyr. sculpture, see DRESS, § 5 (b).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

KERE or QERE.—See TEXT OF OT.

KEREN-HAPPUCH (lit. ‘horn of antimony’).—The youngest daughter born to Job in his second estate of prosperity (Job 42:14). The name is indicative of beautiful eyes, from the dye made of antimony, used to tinge the eyelashes (2 K 9:30, Jer 4:30).

KERIOTH.—A city of Moab, named in Jer 48:24, 41, Am 2:2, and in line 13 of the Moabite Stone. It has been identified with Ar, the capital city of Moab, as that has been with Rabbah— both identifications being precarious. More is to be said for Kerioth being the same as Kir-heres of Is 16:11 and of Jer 48:31, 36. The latter is a stronghold to this day, and fits in with the suggestion of the passages above that Kerioth was a capital city of Moab, and the seat of the worship of Chemosh.

W. F. COBB. KERIOTH-HEZRON (Jos 15:25).—See HAZOR, No. 3.

KEROS.—Name of a family of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:44 = Neh 7:47); in 1 Es 5:29 Keras.

KESITAH is given in RVm as the Heb. word rendered ‘piece of money’ in the three passages Gn 33:19, Jos 24:32, and Job 42:11. No clue has yet been found to the weight, and therefore the value, of the kesitah; but that it was an ingot of precious metal of a recognized value is more probable than the tradition represented by several ancient versions, which render it by ‘lamb.’

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

KETAB (1 Es 5:30).—Head of a family of Temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel. There is no corresponding name in the lists of Ezr. and Neh.

KETHIBH.—See TEXT OF OT.

KETTLE.—1 S 2:14 only. See HOUSE, § 9.

KETURAH.—Abraham’s wife (Gn 25:1–4), or concubine (1 Ch 1:32f.; cf. Gn 25:6), after the death of Sarah; named only by J and the Chronicler in the passages referred to; said to be the ancestress of sixteen tribes, several of which are distinctly Arabian—Midian, Sheba, Dedan. Some Arabic writers mention an Arabian tribe near Mecca called Qatūrā. The old Israelites evidently regarded some Arabs as distant relatives (see artt. ABRAHAM, ESAU, HAGAR). The name Qetūrāh = ‘incense,’ is a perfume-name like Keziah (Job 42:14).

W. TAYLOR SMITH.

KEY.—See HOUSE, § 6. Of the passages where this word is used in a figurative sense the most important are Is 22:22 (cf. Rev 3:7), where the key is the symbol of authority and rule; Lk 11:52 ‘the key of knowledge’; and the crux interpretum, Mt 16:19, for which see POWER OF THE

KEYS.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

KEZIAH (‘cassia’).—The name of the second daughter born to Job after his restoration to prosperity (Job 42:14).

KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH (‘graves of lust,’ Nu 11:34, 33:16, Dt 9:22).—The march from Taberah (Nu 11:3) is not mentioned in Nu 23, but Kibroth-hattaavah was one day’s journey from the wilderness of Sinai. It is placed by tradition to the N. of Naqb el-Hawa (‘mountain path of the wind’), which leads to the plain below the traditional Sinai.

W. EWING.

KIBZAIM.—See JOKMEAM.

KID.—See GOAT, and (for Ex 23:19) MAGIC, p. 569^b.

KIDNAPPING.—See CRIMES, etc. § 7.

KIDNEYS

1. Literal.—(1) The choice portions of animals sacrificed to J″ included the kidneys (Ex 29:13, 22, Lv 3:4, 10, 15, 4:9, 7:4, 8:16, 25, 9:10, 19; cf. Is 34:6). The term is even transferred ( if the text is correct) to choice wheat (Dt 32:14). (2) Limited to poetry is the use of this term in regard to human beings, and the rendering is always ‘reins’ (see below). They are ‘possessed’ (RVm ‘formed’) by J″ (Ps 139:13), and are, metaphorically, wounded by J″’s arrows (Job 16:13; cf. 19:27, La 3:13). (3) AVm of Lv 15:2, 22:4 is incorrect; there is no mention of reins; and in Is

11:5 the “word so rendered means ‘loins.’

2. Figurative.—Here the EV rendering is always ‘reins’ (Lat. renes, pl.; the Gr. equivalent being nephroi, whence ‘nephritis,’ etc.). The avoidance of the word ‘kidneys’ is desirable, because we do not regard them as the seat of emotion. But the Biblical writers did so regard them. It was as natural for them to say ‘This gladdens my reins’ as it is natural—and incorrect— for us to say ‘This gladdens my heart.’ And, in fact, in the passages now cited the terms ‘reins’ and ‘heart’ are often parallel: Ps 7:9, 16:7, 26:2, 73:21, Pr 23:16, Jer 11:20, 12:2, 17:10, 20:12 , Wis 1:6, 1 Mac 2:24, Rev 2:23.

H. F. B. COMPSTON.

KIDRON.—A place fortified by Cendebæus (1 Mac 15:39, 41), and the point to which he was pursued after his defeat by the sons of Simon the Maccabee (16:9). It may be the modern Katrah near Yebna, and is possibly identical with ‘Gederoth of Jos 15:41, 2 Ch 28:18.

KIDRON (AV Cedron), THE BROOK (nachat, ‘torrent valley,’ ‘wady,’ 2 S 15:23, 1 K 2:37, 2 Ch 33:14, Neh 2:15 etc.; Gr. cheimarrous, Jn 18:1).—The name of a valley, nearly 3 miles in length, which bounds the plateau of Jerusalem on the East. It is always dry except during and immediately after heavy rain; it is the same valley that is referred to as the Valley of Jehoshaphat (wh. see). It commences about 1¹/₄miles N. of the N.W. corner of the city walls, as a wide, open, shallow valley. At first it runs S.E., receiving tributaries from the W. and N., but where it is now crossed by the modern carriage road to the Mt. of Olives, it turns South. Near this spot (as well as higher up) there are a number of ancient tombs; among them on the W. side of the valley are the so-called ‘Tombs of the Kings,’ and on the East the reputed tomb of ‘Simon the Just,’ much venerated by the Jews. The whole of this first open section of the valley is to-day known as Wady el-Joz; (‘Valley of the Nuts’): it is full of fertile soil, and in a great part of its extent is sown with corn or planted with olives or almonds. As the valley approaches the East wall of the city it rapidly deepens, and rocky scarps appear on each side; it now receives the name Wady Sitti Miriam, i.e. ‘Valley of the Lady Mary.’ Opposite the Temple area the bottom of the valley, now 40 feet below the present surface, is about 400 feet below the Temple platform. S. of this it continues to narrow and deepen, running between the village of Silwān (see SILOAM) on the E. and the hill Ophel on the West. Here lies the ‘Virgin’s Fount,’ ancient Gihon (wh. see), whose waters to-day rise deep under the surface, though once they ran down the valley itself. A little farther on the valley again expands into a considerable open area, where vegetables are now cultivated, and which perhaps was once the ‘King’s Garden’ (wh. see). The Tyropœon Valley, known now as el-Wād, joins the Kidron Valley from the N., and farther on the Wady er-Rabābi traditionally Hinnom (wh. see), runs in from the West. The area again narrows at Bīr Eyyūb, the ancient En-rogel (wh. see), and the valley continues a long winding course under the name of Wady en-Nār (‘Valley of Fire’) till it reaches the Dead Sea.

There is no doubt whatever that this is the Kidron of the OT and NT. It is interesting that the custom of burying Israelites there, which is observed to-day (see JEHOSHAPHAT [VALLEY OF]), is referred to in 2 K 23:4, 6, 12, and 2 Ch 34:5. It is probable that the place of the ‘graves of the common people’ (Jer 26:23) was also here, and it has been suggested, from a comparison with Jer 31:40, with less plausibility, that this may have been the scene of Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones (Ezk 37). The ‘fields of Kidron’ (2 K 23:4), though generally identified with the open part of the valley when it is joined by the Tyropœon Valley, are more likely to have been the open upper reaches of the valley referred to above as Wady el-Joz, which were on the way to Bethel.

The Valley of the Kidron is mentioned first and last in the Bible at two momentous historical crises,—when David crossed it (2 S 15:23) amid the lamentations of his people as he fled before Absalom, and when Jesus ‘went forth with His disciples over the brook Kidron’ (Jn 18:1) for His great and terrible agony before His crucifixion.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

KILAN.—Sixty-seven sons of Kilan and Azetas returned with Zerub. (1 Es 5:15); in the lists of Ezr 2 and Neh 7 the names are omitted.

KIN (NEXT OF), KINSMAN, AVENGER OF BLOOD, GOEL.—1. ‘Next of kin’ is the

nearest equivalent in modern jurisprudence of the Heb. gō’ēl, itself the participle of a verb originally signifying to claim (vindicare), then to buy back. The duties devolving on the goel belonged to the domain both of civil and of criminal law. If a Hebrew, for example, were reduced to selling a part, or the whole, of his property, it was the duty of his next of kin to purchase the property, if it was in his power to do so. The classical instance of the exercise of this ‘right of redemption’ is the case of the prophet Jeremiah, who purchased the property of his cousin Hanamel in Anathoth, on being asked to do so in virtue of his relationship (Jer 32:8 ff. ). Similarly, should a sale have actually taken place, the right of redemption fell to ‘his kinsman that is next to him’ (Lv 25:25). The case of Naomi and ‘the parcel of land’ belonging to her deceased husband was complicated by the presence of Ruth, who went with the property, for Ru 4:5 must read ‘thou must buy also Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead. The true goel accordingly transferred his rights to Boaz, who came next to him in the degree of relationship. In all these cases the underlying idea is that the land is the inalienable property of the clan or ‘family’ (Ru 2:1) in the wider sense.

The duties of the goel, however, extended not merely to the property but also to the person of a relative. Should the latter have been compelled by misfortune to sell himself as a slave, it fell to his next of kin to redeem him. Hence arose an extensive use of the verb and its participle in a figurative sense, by which J″ is represented as a goel (EV redeemer), and Israel as His redeemed (so esp. in Is 41:14, 43:14 and oft.).

2. The most serious of all the duties incumbent on the goel, in earlier times more particularly, was that of avenging the murder of a relative. In this capacity he was known as the avenger of blood (gō’ēl had-dām). The practice of blood-revenge is one of the most widely spread customs of human society, and is by no means confined to the Semitic races, although it is still found in full vigour among the modern Arabs. By the Bedouin of the Sinaitic peninsula, for instance, the hereditary vendetta is kept up to the fifth generation (see the interesting details given in Lord Cromer’s Report on Egypt, 1906, 13 ff.).

In primitive times, therefore, if a Hebrew was slain, it was the sacred duty of his next of kin to avenge his blood by procuring the death of his slayer. This, it must be emphasized, was in no sense a matter of private vengeance. It was the affair of the whole clan, and even tribe, of the murdered man (2 S 14:7), the former, as it were, delegating its rights to the nearest relatives. Hebrew legislation sought to limit the application, and generally to regulate the exercise, of this principle of a life for a life. Thus the Book of the Covenant removes from its application the case of accidental homicide (Ex 21:13; cf. Dt 19:1–13, Nu 35:9–34), while the legislation of Dt. further restricts the sphere of the vendetta to the actual criminal (Dt 24:16). In the older legislation the local high places appear as asylums for the manslayer, until his case should be proved to be one of wilful murder, when he was handed over to the relatives of the man he had slain (Ex 21:13, 14). With the abolition of the local sanctuaries by the reforms of Josiah it was necessary to appoint certain special sanctuaries, which are known as cities of refuge (see REFUGE

[CITIES OF]).

An interesting feature of the regulations concerning blood-revenge among the Hebrews is the almost total absence (cf. Ex 21:30) of any legal provision for compounding with the relatives of the murdered man by means of a money payment, the poinē of the Greeks (see Butcher and Lang’s tr. of the Odyssey, 408 ff.) and the wergeld of Saxon and Old English law.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

KINAH.—A town in the extreme south of Judah (Jos 15:22). The site is unknown. Cf. KENITES.

KINDNESS.—The pattern of all kindness is set before us in the Bible in the behaviour of God to our race. He gives the sunshine and the rain, and fruitful seasons and glad hearts, food and all the good they have to the just and the unjust alike (Mt 5:45, 7:11, Ac 14:17). But the exceeding wealth of His grace is shown unto us in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:7). God’s glory no man can look upon and live. It is a light that no man can approach unto. It is inconceivably great, incomprehensibly grand, unimaginably exalted above the grasp of man’s mind. But the kindness of God is God’s glory stooping to man’s need. It is God’s power brought within man’s reach. It is God’s mercy and God’s love and God’s grace flowing through time and through eternity, as broad as the race, as deep as man’s need, as long as man’s immortality. The Bible reveals it. Jesus incarnated it. In His life the kindness of God found its supreme manifestation (Tit 3:4–7). All the children of God are to be like the Father in this regard ( Mt 5:48, Ro 12:10, Col 3:12–14). The philanthropy of God (Tit 3:4) is to be reproduced in the philanthropy of men (2 P 1:7).

D. A. HAYES.

KING

1. Etymology and use of the term.—The Heb. name for ‘king’ (melek) is connected with an Assyr. root meaning ‘advise,’ ‘counsel,’ ‘rule,’ and it seems to have first signified ‘the wise man,’ the ‘counsellor,’ and then ‘the ruler.’ The root occurs in the names of several Semitic deities, e.g. Molech, the tribal god of the Ammonites, and the Phœn. Melkarth. In the days of Abraham we find the title ‘king’ applied to the rulers of the city-States of Palestine, e.g. Sodom, Gomorrah, etc. (Gn 14:2). We also find references to kings in all the countries bordering on Canaan—Syria, Moab, Ammon, Egypt, etc., and in later times Assyria, Babylonia and Persia. In the NT the title ‘king’ is applied to the vassal-king Herod (Mt 2:1, Lk 1:5) and to Agrippa ( Ac 25:13). In the Psalms and the Prophets God Himself is constantly designated ‘King of Israel’ or ‘my King’ (e.g. Is 43:15, 44:6, Ps 10:16, 24:7, 9, 9, 10, 44:4, 74:12, 84:3 etc.), and the Messianic advent of the true King of the Kingdom of God is predicted (Zec 9:9, Is 32:1 etc.). In the NT Christ is represented as the fulfilment of this prophecy and as the true King of God’s Kingdom (cf. Jn 18:33, 37, 1 Ti 6:15, Rev 17:14).

2. The office of king in Israel

(1) Institution. The settlement of the people of Israel in Canaan, and the change from a nomadic to an agricultural life, laid the incomers open to ever fresh attacks from new adventurers. Thus in the time of the judges we find Israel ever liable to hostile invasion. In order to preserve the nation from extermination, it became necessary that a closer connexion and a more intimate bond of union should exist between the different tribes. The judges in the period subsequent to the settlement seem, with the possible exception of Gideon (Jg 8:22), to have been little more than local or tribal heroes, carrying on guerilla warfare against their neighbours. The successes of the warlike Philistines made it clear to patriotic minds that the tribes must be more closely connected, and that a permanent leader in war was a necessity. Accordingly Saul the Benjamite was anointed by Samuel (1 S 10:1), and appointed by popular acclamation (10:24 ,

11:14). The exploits of Saul and his sons against the Ammonites (11:11ff.), against the

Amalekites (15:7), and against the Philistines (14:1ff.) showed the value of the kingly office; and when Saul and his sons fell on Mt. Gilboa, it was not long till David the outlaw chief of Judah was invited to fill his place.

(2) The duties of the king are partly indicated by the history of the rise of the kingship. The king was (a) leader in war. He acted as general, and in person led the troops to battle (cf. Saul on Mt. Gilboa, 1 S 31:2; Ahab at Ramoth-gilead, 1 K 22:29ff.), By and by a standing army grew up, and fortresses were placed on the frontiers (cf. 1 K 12:21f., 2 Ch 17:2). (b) Besides being leader of the army in war, the king was the supreme Judge (cf. 2 S 14:5, 15:2, 1 K 3:15). Before the institution of the monarchy judicial functions were exercised by the heads of the various houses—the elders. These elders were gradually replaced by officials appointed by the king (2 Ch 19:5–11), and the final appeal was to the king himself, who in Am 2:3 is called ‘the judge.’ (c) Further, according to the usual Semitic conception, the king was also the chief person from a religious point of view. This idea has been lost sight of by later Jewish writers, but there is little doubt that in early times the king regarded himself as the supreme religious director, the chief priest. Thus Saul sacrifices in Samuel’s absence (1 S 13:9–11, 14:33ff.), so also David (2 S 6:13 , 17, 24:25); while both David and Solomon seem to appoint and dismiss the chief priest at pleasure (cf. 2 S 8:17, 1 K 2:26, 27, 35), and both bless the people (2 S 6:18, 1 K 8:14). Jeroboam sacrifices in person before the altar in Bethel (1 K 12:32, 33), and Ahaz orders a special altar to be made, and offers in person on it (2 K 16:12). In later times, however, the priestly functions of the kings were less frequently exercised, priests being appointed, who are usually regarded as royal officials and numbered among other civil servants (2 S 20:23 ff. ).

(3) The kingship hereditary. It was a fixed idea in ancient Israel that the office of the kingship passed from father to son, as the judgeship passed from Gideon to his sons (Jg 9:2), or from Samuel to his sons (1 S 8:1). Although Saul was chosen by the people and David invited by the elders of Judah to be king, yet Saul himself regarded it as the natural thing that Jonathan should succeed him (1 S 20:30ff.). Adonijah assumed that, as David’s son, he had a right to the throne

(1 K 2:15), and even the succession of his younger half-brother Solomon was secured without any popular election. It is impossible to speak of an elective monarchy in Israel. The succession in Judah remained all along in the house of David, and in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes father always succeeded son, unless violence and revolution destroyed the royal house and brought a new adventurer to the throne.

(4) Power of the king. While the monarchy in Israel differed considerably from other Oriental despotisms, it could not be called a limited monarchy in our sense of the term. The king’s power was limited by the fact that, to begin with, the royal house differed little from other chief houses of the nation. Saul, even after his election, resided on his ancestral estate, and came forth only as necessity called him (cf. 1 S 11:4ff.). On the one hand, law and ancient custom exercised considerable restraint on the kings; while, on the other hand, acts of despotic violence were allowed to pass unquestioned. A powerful ruler like David or Solomon was able to do much that would have been impossible for a weakling like Rehoboam. Solomon was practically an Oriental despot, who ground down the people by taxation and forced labour. David had the power to compass the death of Uriah and take his wife, but public opinion, as expressed by the prophets, exerted a considerable influence on the kings (cf. Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab). The idea was never lost sight of that the office was instituted for the good of the nation, and that it ought to be a help, not a burden, to the people at large. Law and ancient custom were, in the people’s minds, placed before the kingly authority. Naboth can refuse to sell his vineyard to Ahab, and the king is unable to compel him, or to appropriate it till Naboth has been regularly condemned before a judicial tribunal (1 K 21:1ff.). Thus the king himself was under law (cf. Dt. 17:14–20) , and he does not seem to have had the power to promulgate new enactments. Josiah bases his reform not on a new law, but on the newly found Book of the Law (2 K 23:1–3), to which he and the elders swear allegiance.

(5) Royal income. The early kings, Saul and David, do not seem to have subjected the people to heavy taxation. Saul’s primitive court would be supported by his ancestral estate and by the booty taken from the enemy, perhaps along with presents, more or less compulsory, from his friends or subjects (1 S 10:27, 16:20). The census taken by David (2 S 24:1) was probably intended as a basis for taxation, as was also Solomon’s division of the land into twelve districts (1 K 4:7). Ezekiel (45:7, 8, 48:21) speaks of crown lands, and such seem to have been held by David (1 Ch 27:26ff.). The kings in the days of Amos laid claim to the first cutting of grass for the royal horses (Am 7:1). Caravans passing from Egypt to Damascus paid toll (1 K 10:16), and in the days of Solomon foreign trade by sea seems to have been a royal monopoly (1 K 10:16). It is not quite certain whether anything of the nature of a land tax or property tax existed, though something of this kind may be referred to in the reward promised by Saul to the slayer of Goliath (1 S 17:25); and it may have been the tenth mentioned in 1 S 8:15, 17. Special taxes seem to have been imposed to meet special emergencies (cf. 2 K 23:35), and the kings of Judah made free use of the Temple treasures.

(6) Royal officials have the general title ‘princes’ (sārīm). These included (a) the commander-in-chief, ‘the captain of the host,’ who in the absence of the king commanded the army (e.g. Joab, 2 S 12:27). (b) The prefect of the royal bodyguard, the leader of the ‘mighty men of valour’ of AV (in David’s time the Cherethites and Pelethites, 2 S 8:18, 20:23). (c) The ‘recorder,’ lit. ‘one who calls to remembrance.’ His functions are nowhere defined, but he seems to have held an influential position, and was probably the chief minister, the Grand Vizier of modern times (cf. 2 S 8:16, 2 K 18:26). (d) The ‘scribe’ (sōphēr) frequently mentioned along with the ‘recorder’ seems to have attended to the royal correspondence, and to have been the Chancellor or rather Secretary of State (2 K 18:18, 37, 2 Ch 34:8). (e) The officer who was ‘over the tribute’ (2 S 20:24) seems to have superintended the forced labour and the collecting of the taxes, (f) The governor of the royal household, the royal steward or High Chamberlain, seems to have held an important position in the days of the later monarchy (Is 36:3, 22, 22:15). Mention is also made of several minor officials, such as the ‘king’s servant’ (2 K 22:12), the ‘king’s friend’ (1 K 4:5), the ‘king’s counsellor’ (1 Ch 27:33), the ‘head of the ward-robe’ (2 K 22:14), the head of the eunuchs (AV ‘officers,’ 1 S 8:15), the ‘governor of the city’ (1 K 22:26). We hear much from the prophets of the oppression and injustice practised by these officials on the poor of the land (cf. Am 2:6, 7, Is 5:8, Jer 5:28, Mic 3:11 etc.).

W. F. BOYD.

KINGDOM OF GOD (or HEAVEN).—The Biblical writers assume that the Creator of the heavens and the earth must needs be also the everlasting Ruler of the same. The universe is God’s dominion, and every creature therein is subject to His power. And so the Hebrew poets conceive God as immanent in all natural phenomena. Wind and storm, fire and earthquake, lightnings and torrents of waters are but so many signs of the activity of the Almighty Ruler of the world (Ps 18:7–15, 68:7–18, 104). The same heavenly Power is also the supreme Sovereign of men and nations. ‘The kingdom is Jehovah’s, and he is the ruler over the nations’ (Ps 22:28).

‘Jehovah is king over all the earth’ (Zec 14:9). ‘He sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the Inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers … He bringeth princes to nothing’ (Is 40:22). This general idea of God’s dominion over all things receives various forms of statement from the various Biblical writers, and the entire presentation constitutes a most important portion of the revelation of God and of Christ. But the Biblical doctrine has its OT and NT setting.

1. In the Old Testament.—Apart from that general concept of God as Maker and Governor of the whole world, the OT writers emphasize the Divine care for individuals, families, tribes, and nations of men. It is God’s rule over those creatures who exist in His own image and likeness that calls for our special study, and this great truth is manifest from various points of view. (1) From Am 9:7 we learn that Jehovah is the supreme Ruler of all the peoples: Syrians, Philistines, Ethiopians, as well as the tribes of Israel, were led by Him and settled in their separate lands. So He gave all the nations their inheritance (Dt 32:8). But one most conspicuous feature of the OT revelation is God’s selection of Abraham and his posterity to be made a blessing to all the families of the earth. When this peculiar family had become a numerous people in the land of Egypt, God led them marvellously out of that house of bondage and adopted them to be ‘a people for his own possession above all peoples upon the face of the earth’ (Dt 7:6), and ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Ex 19:6). The subsequent facts of the history of this chosen people reveal a noteworthy aspect of the Kingdom of God among men. (2) Along with this idea of the election and special guidance of this people there was gradually developed a lofty doctrine of the Person and power of the God of Israel. Out of the unique and sublime monolatry, which worshipped Jehovah as greatest of all the gods (Ex 15:11, 18:11) , there issued the still higher and broader monotheism of the great prophets, who denied the real existence of any other God or Saviour besides the Holy One of Israel. He was conceived as seated on a lofty throne, surrounded with holy seraphs and the innumerable hosts of heaven. For naturally the highest embodiment of personal power and glory and dominion known among men, namely, that of a splendid royalty, was employed as the best figure of the glory of the heavenly King; and so we have the impressive apocalyptic portraiture of Jehovah sitting upon His throne, high and lifted up (Is 6:1–3, Ezk 12:26–28, 1 K 22:19). The mighty Monarch of earth and heaven was enthroned in inexpressible majesty and glory, and no power above or below the heavens could compare with Him. (3) This concept of the heavenly King became also enlarged so as to include the idea of a righteous Judge of all the earth. This idea appears conspicuously in the vision of Dn 7:9–12, where the Eternal is seen upon His throne of fiery flames, with ten thousand times ten thousand ministering before Him. His execution of judgment is as a stream of fire which issues from His presence and devours His adversaries. Zeph 3:8 also represents Him as ‘gathering the nations and assembling the kingdoms,’ in order to pour out upon them the fire of His fierce anger. And so in prophecy, in psalm, and in historical narrative we find numerous declarations of Jehovah about His entering into judgment with the nations and also with His own people. The unmistakable doctrine of all these Scriptures is that God is the supreme Judge and Ruler of the world. His overthrow of mighty cities and kingdoms, like Nineveh and Babylon, is a way of His ‘executing judgment in the earth,’ and the prophets call such a national catastrophe a

‘day of Jehovah.’ (4) The Messianic prophecies throw further light on the OT doctrine of the

Kingdom of God. From the times of David and Solomon onwards the highest ideal of ‘the Anointed of Jehovah’ was that of a powerful and righteous king of Israel. The name of David became a synonym of the ideal king and shepherd of the Chosen People (Hos 3:5, Jer 30:9, Ezk 34:23, 37:24). These ideals became the growing Messianic hope of Israel. According to Is 9:3, 7 , the child of wonderful names is to sit ‘upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it in judgment and in righteousness for ever.’ In Ps 2 we have a dramatic picture of Jehovah establishing His Son as King upon Zion, and in Ps 110 the conquering hero, to whom Jehovah says, ‘Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool.’ unites in Himself the threefold office of king, priest, and judge. (5) In all these and in other Messianic scriptures we shoud notice that the Anointed of Jehovah is an exalted associate of the Most High. He executes judgment in the earth, but he himself possesses no wisdom or power to act apart from Jehovah. We also note the fact that God’s dominion over the earth is entirely compatible with divers forms of human administration. Ambitious potentates may usurp authority, and think to change times and seasons, but sooner or later they come to nought. Though Nebuchadrezzar, Cyrus, or Alexander wield for a time the sceptre of the world, it is still true ‘that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will’ (Dn 4:32). ‘He removeth kings and setteth up kings’ (Dn 2:21). When Israel desired a king like other nations, Samuel charged them with rejecting God as their King (1 S 8:7); but such rejection of God and the anointing of Saul for their king did not remove Jehovah from actual dominion over them; and the prophet himself admonished all Israel to fear and obey Jehovah lest He should consume both them and their king (1 S 12:15–25). And when, according to the apocalyptic imagery of Dn 7:13 , 14, the ‘one like unto a son of man’ receives the kingdom from ‘the Ancient of days,’ it is not to be supposed that the Most High Himself is for a moment to abdicate His throne in the heavens, or cease to rule over all the kingdoms of men. (6) It is not given us to determine how fully or how clearly any OT prophet or psalmist conceived the real nature of the future Messianic Kingdom. It is not usually given to the prophets of great oracles to know the time and manner of the fulfilment, and such ideals as those of Mic 4:1–5 and Is 11:1–10 may have been variously understood. The advent of the Messianic Son of David, expected among the seed of Abraham, would naturally be conceived as introducing a new era in the history of the people of God. He would not rule apart from Jehovah, or exercise a different authority; for the Kingdom of Messiah would also he the Kingdom of God. But it would naturally he expected that the Messiah would introduce new powers, new agencies, and new enlightenment for a blessing to all the families of the earth. According to Is 65:17, 66:22, the new era was conceived as the creation of a new heavens and a new earth, but the prophetic language and its context do not justify the opinion

that the dawn of the new era must needs be ushered in along with physical changes in the earth and the heavens, or involve any physical change in the natural constitution of man on the earth.

2. In the New Testament.—In presenting the NT doctrine of the Kingdom of. God we should notice (1) the prevalent expectation of the Messiah at the time Jesus was born. There was no exact uniformity of belief or of expectation. Some enthusiasts looked for a warlike chieftain, gifted with an ability of leadership, to cast off the Roman yoke and restore the kingdom of Israel to some such splendour as it had in the days of Solomon. Others seem to have entertained a more spiritual view, as Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna (Lk 1:67–79, 2:25–38), and to have united the general hope of the redemption of Jerusalem with the blessed thought of confirming the ancient covenants of promise, obtaining remission of sins, personal consolation, and a life of holiness. Between these two extremes there were probably various other forms of expectation, but the more popular one was that of a temporal prince. John the Baptist shared somewhat in this current belief, and seems to have been disappointed in the failure of Jesus to fulfil his concept of the Messianic hope (Mt 11:2–6). Nevertheless, John’s ministry and preaching evinced much spiritual penetration, and his baptism of repentance was a Divinely appointed preparation for the Kingdom of heaven which he declared was close at band.

(2) The chief source of the NT doctrine is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. His preaching and that of His first disciples announced the Kingdom of heaven as at hand (Mt 4:17, Mk 1:16). Such a proclamation could have meant to the hearers only that the reign of the Messiah, of whom the prophets had spoken, was about to begin. The real nature of this Kingdom, however, is to be learned only by a careful study of the various sayings of Jesus upon the subject, (a) It should first be observed that our Lord gave no sanction to the current Jewish expectation of a temporal prince, who would fight for dominion and exercise worldly forms of power. He did not directly oppose the prevalent belief, so as to provoke opposition, but sought rather to inculcate a more spiritual and heavenly conception of the Kingdom. His views were evidently different from those of John, for while He extolled him as His immediate forerunner, ‘much more than a prophet,’ and ‘greatest among them that are born of women,’ He declared that any one who ‘is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’ (Mt 11:11). With all his greatness John was but a Jewish prophet, and never passed beyond the necessary limitations of the pre-Messianic age. (b) The spiritual and heavenly character of the Kingdom is indicated, and indeed emphasized, by the phrase ‘kingdom of heaven.’ This accords with the statement that the Kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36), and cometh not with observation (Lk 17:20). It belongs, therefore, to the unseen and the spiritual. It is the special boon of the ‘poor in spirit,’ ‘persecuted for righteousness’ sake,’ and whose righteousness shall ‘exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees’ (Mt 5:3, 10, 20). The great ones in this Kingdom are such as become like little children ( Mt 18:3), and as to rulership and authority, the greatest is he who acts as the minister and bondservant of all (Mk 10:43, 44).

It may be noticed that the phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ (or ‘of the heavens’) is peculiar to the Gospel of Matthew, in which it occurs about thirty times. In 2 Ti 4:18 we read of ‘his heavenly kingdom,’ but elsewhere the term employed is ‘kingdom of God.’ There is no good reason to doubt that Jesus Himself made use of all these expressions, and we should not look to find any recondite or peculiar significance in any one of them. The phrase ‘kingdom of God’ occurs also four times in Mt., and often in the other Gospels and in the Acts and Epistles. We may also compare, for illustration and suggestion, ‘my Father’s kingdom’ (Mt 26:29), ‘my heavenly Father’ (Mt 15:13), and observe in the parallel texts of Mt 26:29, Mk 14:25, Lk 22:20, the interchangeable use of ‘my Father’s kingdom,’ ‘my kingdom,’ and ‘the kingdom of God.’ All these designations indicate that the Kingdom is heavenly in its origin and nature.

(c) The parables of Jesus are especially important for learning the nature and mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven. They show in many ways that the heavenly Kingdom has to do with the spiritual nature and possibilities of man, and is, in fact, the dominion of Jesus Christ over the hearts of men. They show also that the Kingdom has its necessary collective and communal relations, for the same ethical principles which are to govern an individual life have also their manifold application to the life of a community and of all organized societies of men. Several of our Lord’s parables indicate a Judicial transfer of the Kingdom of heaven from the Jews to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43, 22:1–14, Lk 14:10–24). The parable of the Two Sons warned the Jewish priests and elders that publicans and harlots might go into the Kingdom of God before them ( Mt 21:28–32). From all this it is evident that the Kingdom of heaven includes the dispensation of heavenly grace and redemption which was inaugurated and is now continuously carried forward by the Lord Jesus. It is essentially spiritual, and its holy mysteries of regeneration and the righteousness of faith can be only spiritually discerned, (d) The important petitions in the Lord’s prayer, ‘Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth,’ are of great value in determining the nature of the Kingdom. This prayer assumes by its very terms a moral and spiritual relationship and the ideal of a moral order in the universe of God. As the word ‘kingdom’ implies an organized community, so the will of God implies in those who do it a conformity to God in spiritual nature and action. The coming Kingdom is not a material worldly establishment, but it has its foundations in the unseen and eternal, and its power and growth will become manifest among men and nations according as the will of God is done on earth as it is in heaven. The performance of all that the will of God requires in moral beings may vary in degrees of perfect observance in heaven and in earth; we naturally predicate of heavenly things a measure of perfection far above that of earthly things. But the members of the Kingdom of God, whether on earth or in heaven, have this in common, that they all do the will of the heavenly Father, (e) So far as the Gospel of John supplies additional teachings of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God, it is in essential harmony with what we find in the Synoptics, but it has its own peculiar methods of statement. We read in 3:3, 5, ‘Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ The Kingdom, then, is not a spectacle of worldly vision, but has to do first of all with the inner life of man. It accords with this, that in 8:23 and 18:36, 37 Jesus says, ‘I am from above; I am not of this world: My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.’ To one of Pilate’s questions Jesus answered, ‘I am a king; to this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice’ (18:37). So Christ’s Kingdom comes not forth out of the world, but is of heavenly origin. It makes no display of military forces or carnal weapons for establishing its dominion in the world. It is especially remarkable in being a Kingdom of truth. This conception is peculiarly Johannine, for in the first Epistle also Jesus Christ is set forth as the embodiment and revelation of the truth of God (1 Jn 3:18, 19, 5:20; cf. Jn 1:17, 8:32, 14:6, 17:17). Jesus Christ is the heavenly King who witnesses to the truth, and whose servants know, love, and obey the truth of God.

3. In the Pauline Epistles the Kingdom of God is represented as the blessed spiritual inheritance of all who enjoy life in God through faith in Jesus Christ. Its spiritual character is obvious from Ro 14:17, where, in discussing questions of conscience touching meats and drinks, it is said that ‘the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.’ So it is not a dominion that concerns itself about ceremonial pollutions; it grasps rather after the attainment of all spiritual blessings. It is impossible for the unrighteous and idolaters, and thieves and extortioners, and such like, to inherit this Kingdom (1 Co 6:9, 10 , Gal 5:21, Eph 5:5).

4. Other portions of the NT add somewhat to this doctrine of the Kingdom, but offer no essentially different ideal. In He 12:28 mention is made of our ‘receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.’ The context speaks of the removal of some things that were of a nature to be shaken, and the allusion is to the old fabric of defunct Judaism, which was a cult of burdensome ritual, and had become ‘old and aged and nigh unto vanishing away’ (8:13). These temporary things and their ‘sanctuary of this world,’ which were at the most only ‘a copy and shadow of the heavenly things,’ must needs be shaken down and pass away in order that the immovable Kingdom of heaven might be revealed and abide as an ‘eternal inheritance.’ The old Jerusalem and its temporary cult must pass away and give place to ‘the heavenly Jerusalem,’ which affords personal communion and fellowship with God and Christ, and innumerable hosts of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect (12:22–24).

5. Eschatological elements of the NT doctrine.—Questions of the time and manner of the coming of the Kingdom arise from the various sayings of Jesus and of the NT writers, which have seemed difficult to harmonize. From the point of view both of Jesus and of the first Apostles, the Kingdom of heaven was nigh at hand, but not yet come. The coming of the Kingdom is also associated with the Parousia, or coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, the resurrection, and the final judgment of all men and nations. Jesus spoke of ‘the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory’ (Mt 19:28). His great eschatological discourse, reported in all the Synoptics (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21), represents His coming and the end of the age as in the near future, before that generation should pass. It also clearly makes the sublime Parousia follow immediately after the woes attending the ruin of the city and Temple of Jerusalem. Also in Mt 16:28 and the parallels in Mk. and Lk. Jesus declares emphatically, ‘There are some of them that stand here who shall in no wise taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.’ The exegetical problem is to show how these statements may be adjusted to the idea of a gradually growing power and dominion which appears in Daniel’s vision of the stone which ‘became a great mountain and filled the whole earth’ (2:35), and is also implied in Jesus’ parables of the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, and the Seed Growing Secretly,—‘first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear’ (Mk 4:26– 29). The problem is also complicated by the fact that nearly two thousand years have passed since these words of Jesus were spoken, and ‘the end of the world’ is not yet. Of the many attempts at the explanation of these difficulties we here mention only three.

(a) A considerable number of modern critics adopt the hypothesis that these various sayings of Jesus were misunderstood by those who heard Him, and have been reported in a confused and selfcontradictory manner. The disciples confounded the fall of the Temple with the end of all things, but Jesus probably distinguished the two events in a way that does not now appear in the records. Some critics suppose that fragments of a small Jewish apocalypse have been incorporated in Mt 24. This hypothesis makes it the chief work of the expositor to analyze the different elements of the Evangelical tradition and reconstruct the sayings of Jesus which are supposed to be genuine. The result of such a process naturally includes a considerable amount of conjecture, and leaves the various eschatological sayings of Jesus in a very untrustworthy condition.

(b) According to another class of expositors, the prophecies of Mt 24 contain a double sense, the primary reference being to the fall of Jerusalem, whereas the ultimate fulfilment, of which the first is a sort of type, is to take place at the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the world. It is conceded that the two events are closely conjoined, but it is thought that vv. 4–28 deal mainly with the former event, and from v. 29 onwards the lesser subject is swallowed up by the greater, and the statements made refer mainly to the still future coming of the Lord. But scarcely any two interpreters, who adopt the doublesense theory, agree in their exposition of the different parts of the chapter.

(c) Another method of explaining and adjusting the teaching of Jesus and of all the NT statements about the coming of Christ, the resurrection and the judgment, is to understand all these related events as part and parcel of an age-long process. ‘The end of the age,’ according to this view, is not the close of the Christian era, but the end or consummation of the pre-Messianic age. The coming of the Kingdom of God, according to Jesus (Lk 17:20), is not a matter of physical observation, so that one could point it out and say, ‘Lo, it is here!’ or, ‘Lo, it is there!’ Like the lightning it may appear in the east or in the west, or anywhere under the whole heaven, at one and the same moment of time. Nevertheless, no reported sayings of Christ are more positive or more notably reiterated than His declarations that some of His contemporaries would live to ‘see the kingdom of God come with power,’ and that ‘this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled.’ The decisive end of an era or dispensation or a particular cult may be seen to be near at hand, sure to come within a generation, for ‘that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away’ (He 8:13); but the coming of a kingdom and power and glory which belongs to the things unseen, heavenly and eternal, is not of a nature to be limited to a given day or hour. There need be, then, no contradiction or inconsistency in the sayings of Jesus as they now stand in the Gospels. No great and noteworthy event could more decisively have marked the end of the preMessianic age and the Jewish cult than the destruction of the Temple. But ‘the powers of the age to come’ were manifest before that historic crisis, and ‘the times and the seasons’ of such spiritual, unseen things are not matters for men or angels or even the Son of God to tell. But the fall of the Temple and the establishment of the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God were so coincident that the two events might well have been thought and spoken of as essentially simultaneous. Accordingly, ‘the regeneration’ (Mt 19:28) and ‘the restoration of all things’ (Ac 3:21) are now in actual process. The Son of Man is now sitting on the throne of His glory, at the right hand of God, and ‘he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet’ (1 Co 15:25). Such a Kingdom is essentially millennial, and has its ages of ages for ‘making all things new.’ Its crises and triumphs are portrayed in terms of apocalyptic prophecy, and so the language of Jesus in Mt 24:29–31 and similar passages in other parts of the NT is to be interpreted as we interpret the same forms of speech in the OT prophets (cf. Is 13:9, 10, 19:1, 2, 34:4, 5, Dn 7:13, 14).

According to this last interpretation, the Apocalypse of John is but an enlargement of Jesus’ discourse on the Mount of Olives, and the descent of the New Jerusalem out of heaven is a visional symbol of the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the continuous answer to the prayer, ‘Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.’ The Apostles, like their Lord, thought and spoke of things supernatural and invisible after the manner of the Hebrew prophets. St. Paul’s picture of the Lord’s coming from heaven (1 Th 4:14–18) is in striking accord with the language of Mt 24:29–31, and yet has its own peculiar points of difference. In Ro 16:20 he speaks of ‘the God of peace “bruising Satan” under your feet shortly,’ and in 2 Th 2:1–12 he teaches that the

Antichrist, ‘the man of sin,’ is destined to be destroyed by the manifestation of the coming of the Lord Jesus. It was probably not given to the Apostle to understand that what he saw in the vision of a moment would occupy millenniums. In his forms of statement we may discern survivals of his Jewish modes of thought, and a failure to distinguish the times and seasons and methods in which the Kingdom of heaven is ultimately to overcome the prince of the powers of wickedness in high places. But in all essentials of content his prophetic picture of the coming and triumph is true to fact and to the teaching of the Lord Himself. St. Paul also speaks of the Kingdom of God as an inheritance. It is in part a present possession, but it contemplates also a future eternal blessedness. The redeemed ‘shall reign in life through Jesus Christ.’ Our heavenly Father ‘makes us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, delivers us out of the power of darkness and translates us into the kingdom of the Son of his love’ (Col 1:12, 13). Such heirs of God are ‘sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession’ (Eph 1:14). According to this conception of the heavenly Kingdom, Christ is now upon His throne and continuously making all things new. His Parousia is millennial. He is drawing all men unto Himself, and the resurrection of the dead is as continuous as His own heavenly reign. Whenever ‘the earthly house’ of any one of His servants is dissolved, he has a new habitation from God, ‘a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens’ (2 Co 5:1–10). Each man must have his own last day, and each one be made manifest and answer for himself before the judgment-seat of Christ. And when all things are ultimately put in subjection unto the Christ, then also shall the Son of God Himself have perfected His redemptive reign, and God shall be all in all. See AUTHORITY, DOMINION, PAROUSIA, POWER.

M. S. TERRY.

KINGS, BOOKS OF

1. Title, etc.—This is the name of two well-known narrative books of the OT. In Heb. MSS and early printed editions they appear as one book, and even to the present day the Massoretic note appears at the end of the second book only. The division into two was made for the convenience of Greek readers, and passed from the LXX to the Vulgate, and so to the Church. In fact, the division between the parts of the great Biblical narrative which extends from Genesis to 2 Kings is more or less arbitrary,—there is no clear line of demarcation between 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, any more than between 1 and 2 Kings.

2. Method and sources.—What we have just said does not imply that the Books of Kings are exactly like the other historical books. They differ in their method, and in the way in which the narrative is presented. The most striking feature is the attempt to date the events recorded, and to keep two parallel lines of history before the reader. The period of time they cover is something over 400 years, and when it is remembered that these books give us almost the only light we have on events in Israel for this period, their historical value will be evident. At the same time, the light they throw on the method by which the Biblical authors worked is almost equally great. To estimate the historical value, it will be necessary to look at the literary method. The phenomenon which first strikes the reader’s attention is the unevenness of the narrative. In some cases we have an extended and detailed story; in others a long period of time is dismissed in a few words. The reign of Solomon occupies eleven chapters—about a fourth part of the work; while the longer reign of Manasseh is disposed of in sixteen verses. From our point of view there is reason to think that the reign of Manasseh was quite as interesting and quite as important as the other.

Still closer examination shows that there are well-marked characteristics of style in certain sections which are replaced by equally marked but totally different ones in other sections. Moreover, there are seemingly contradictory assertions which can hardly have come from the same pen, though they might have occurred in different documents, and have been retained by a compiler who did not fully realize their force. Thus the account of Solomon’s forced labour ‘raised out of all Israel’ seems inconsistent with the other declaration that Solomon made no bond-servants of Israel (1 K 5:13ff., cf. 11:28 and 9:22). One passage says without qualification that there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days; another tells us how Rehoboam gathered a mighty army, but dismissed it at the word of a prophet without making war (1 K 12:21–24 and 14:30). These indications of a compilatory activity, such as we find also in other parts of the OT, are confirmed by the author’s reference to some of the books from which he has drawn. Two of these are mentioned so often that they attract the attention of every reader. They are the Books of Annals (in our version ‘books of chronicles’) of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah. To these we may add the references to the Book of the Acts of Solomon. The author had these three books in his hand, and, what is of more importance, he thought his readers were likely to have them at their command. This is the reason why he refers to them—that those readers who are curious for further details may find them in these books. It follows that these sources of his are not the archives of the two kingdoms, but regular books circulated and read among the people at large. But it is clear that other sources were drawn upon.

Some of the material cannot have come from either of the books named. The description of the Temple might supposedly have been embodied in the Acts of Solomon, though this seems improbable. But it is quite certain that the extended life of Elijah and the equally diffuse life of Elisha never had a place in the history of the kings. There must have been a Life of Elijah circulated by some of his disciples or admirers after his death, and the probability is strong that there was also a separate Life of Elisha. Whether these two may not have been embodied in a general work on the Lives of the Prophets, whence the sections which interested him were taken by our author, we may not be able to determine. That these sections did not come from the source with which they are most nearly combined is evident from the difference in tone and point of view. Ahab appears very differently in the Elijah sections and in the chapters which treat of the Syrian wars.

The narratives which deal with Isaiah suggest reflexions similar to those which come to us in looking at Elijah and Elisha. They look like portions of a biography of Isaiah. This biography was not our Book of Isaiah, in which some sections are duplicates of what we find in the Second Book of Kings. But other portions of the Book of Isaiah seem to have been drawn from the same Life of Isaiah which furnished the duplicate material of which we have spoken.

Although some of the points that have been touched upon are more or less obscure, we are justified in saying that the Books of Kings are a compilation from at least five separate sources— three which the author cites by name, a Temple chronicle, and a History of the Prophets. The hypothesis of compilation explains some of the discrepancies already noted, and it also explains some of the violent transitions in the narrative. Ch. 20 of 1 Kings is inserted between two passages which belong together, and which were once continuous. This chapter introduces Benhadad as though we knew him, when in fact we have not heard of him. In like manner Elijah appears suddenly in the narrative, without the slightest intimation as to who he is or what he has been doing. These indications confirm the theory of compilation, and they show also that the author has in no case (so far as we can discover) embodied the whole of any one of his sources in his work. He used his freedom according to his main purpose, taking out what suited that purpose and leaving the rest behind.

3. Purpose.—The next inquiry is, What was the purpose which explains the book? In answer to this it is at once seen that the purpose was a religious one. The author was not trying to write history; he was trying to enforce a lesson. For those who were interested in the history as history he gave references to the books in which the history could be found. For himself, there was something more important—this was to point a moral so plainly that his people would take heed to it and act accordingly. This comes to view plainly in the recurring sentences which make up what has been called the framework of the book. These are not always exactly alike—sometimes they are scantier, sometimes they are fuller. But they are the same in purport. A complete example is the following: ‘Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab, king of Israel. Thirty-five years old was Jehoshaphat when he began to reign; and twenty-five years he reigned in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Azubah, daughter of Shilhi. He walked in all the way of Asa, his father; he turned not from it, doing right in the eyes of Jahweh. Only the high places were not removed,—the people continued sacrificing and offering at the high places.… And the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat—and the mighty deeds which he did—are they not written in the Book of Annals of the kings of Judah?… And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David, and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead’ (1 K 22:41–43, 45 , 50). The first part of this formula is found at the beginning of a reign, the rest at the end. Sometimes there is so little recorded about a king that the two parts come in immediate sequence. But usually they are separated by a narrative, longer or shorter according to what the author thinks fit to give us. The framework itself shows that the author desires to preserve the name of the king, his age at accession, the length of his reign, the name of his mother, who was of course the first lady of the land. These items he was interested in, just because his work would not have been a history without them. But what most interested him was the judgment which he felt justified in pronouncing on the character of the monarch. The very fact that he gives such a judgment in every case shows that he had before him more material than he has handed down to us, for it would have been obviously unjust to pronounce so positively if he had as little ground for his opinion as in many cases he gives to us.

It is important to notice the reference to the high places which comes in immediate sequence to the judgment on the character of the king. The high places in the opinion of later times were illegitimate places of worship. Their toleration casts a shadow on the piety even of kings otherwise commendable, while their destruction is regarded as a proof of religious zeal. What light this throws on the date of the book will appear later. For the present it is sufficient that the treatment of the high places furnishes the ground on which the kings are graded in excellence. The first place is given to Hezekiah and Josiah (who are classed with David), just because they did away with these ancient sanctuaries. The next rank is accorded to Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash of Judah, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, and we notice that they all effected certain reforms in the Temple. With reference to each of these, the commendation is tempered by the statement that the high places were not taken away. In the third class we find the remaining kings of Judah, and all the kings of Israel, who are condemned as bad. The formula for the kings of Israel is not quite the same as the one just noticed. For one thing, the name of the queen-mother is not given— whether because the names had not been handed down, or because they were thought to be of minor importance after the destruction of the kingdom, is not clear. The formula may be illustrated by the one used for Baasha,—‘In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king over Israel in Tirzah, (and reigned) twenty-four years. He did evil in the eyes of Jahweh, and he walked in the ways of Jeroboam, and in his sin by which he made Israel sin.… And the rest of the affairs of Baasha, and what he did, and his power, are they not written in the Book of Annals of the kings of Israel? And Baasha slept with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah, and Elah his son reigned in his stead’ (1 K 15:33f., 16:5f.). The reason given for the condemnation which is visited on all the kings of the Northern Kingdom is that they walked in the ways of Jeroboam I.,—that is, they fostered the worship of the golden bulls (calves they are called in derision) at Bethel and Dan. This is, in the eyes of the author, distinct rebellion against the God whose legitimate sanctuary is at Jerusalem.

While the longer quotations from his sources usually show the compiler’s religious intent, yet he often presents us with brief notices for which he is probably indebted to the Books of Annals, but which have no very direct bearing on his main object. Thus in the case of Jehoshaphat he inserts in his framework a brief notice to the effect that this king made peace with Israel. In the three-membered contest between Zimri, Tibni, and Omri (1 K 16:15–22) he compresses the story of a prolonged civil war into a few lines. In the case of Omri we find a brief notice to the effect that this king built the city of Samaria, having bought the land from a man named Shemer (1 K 16:24). Such a notice probably compresses a detailed account in which Omri was glorified as the founder of the capital.

As some of these shorter notices duplicate what we find elsewhere, it seems as if the compiler made out his framework or epitome first and filled it in with his excerpts afterwards. In the insertion of these longer passages the religious motive is always apparent. The matter of supreme importance to him is the worship of the God of Israel as carried on at the Temple in Jerusalem. He is under the influence known as Deuteronomistic. This is seen first in the phrases which recur in those sections which we suspect to be his own composition. In many cases it is not possible to say whether these sections come from the hand of the compiler or whether they were inserted by one of his followers. This is, in fact, of minor importance,—if various hands have been concerned they worked under the same bias. The attitude taken towards the high places is distinctly Deuteronomistic, for the demand that these sanctuaries should be abolished was first formulated by Deuteronomy. Josiah’s reforms, as is well known, were the direct result of the finding of this book in the Temple. Hence the strong, we might say extravagant, commendation of this king.

Moreover, it was laid down by the writer of Deuteronomy that obedience to the law which he formulates will be followed by temporal well-being, and that disobedience will be punished by calamity. Now, one object of the writer or compiler of the Book of Kings is to show how this has proved true in the past. He is less thorough in the application of this theory than the author of the Book of Chronicles, but that he has it at heart will be evident on examination. The Northern

Kingdom had perished—why? Because kings and people had from the first been disobedient to Jahweh, revolting from His legitimate sanctuary at Jerusalem, and provoking His wrath by the hulls of Bethel. In Judah the same lesson is taught. David, who laid the foundations of the kingdom, was of unusual piety, and was favoured by unusual prosperity. Solomon was the builder of the Temple, and to this extent an example of piety; his prosperity was in proportion. But there were shadows in the picture of Solomon which our author was too honest to ignore. It had not been forgotten that this king built altars to foreign gods. History also told that he had suffered by the revolt of Edom and Damascus. It was easy to see in this the punishment for the king’s sins. The historic fact seems to be that the revolt preceded the defection, so that the punishment came before the crime. In any case, the compiler has dealt freely with his material, dating both the defection and the revolt late in the king’s reign, at a time when senile weakness would excuse the wise man for yielding to his wives.

The most distinct instance in which the author teaches his lesson is the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple. It was the custom with ancient historians, as we know, to compose speeches for their heroes which tell us what ought to have been said rather than what was actually said. Our author makes use of this perfectly legitimate literary device. A reading of the prayer shows that it is Deuteronomistic in word and thought throughout. More than one hand has been concerned in it, but the tone is that of the Deuteronomistic school. It confirms what has been said about the purpose of the book. It follows that the historical value of the work must be estimated with due allowance for this main purpose.

4. Date.—The date of the Book of Kings in its present form cannot be earlier than the Babylonian exile. The latest event which it mentions is the release of king Jehoiachin from confinement, which took place in the year B.C. 561; and as the author speaks of the allowance made to the king ‘all his life’ (2 K 25:30), we conclude that he wrote after his death. It will not be far out of the way, therefore, to say that the work was completed about B.C. 550. Some minor insertions may have been made later. While this is so, there are some things which point to an earlier date for the greater part of the work. The purpose of the author to keep his people from the mistakes of the past is intelligible only at a time when the avoidance of the mistakes was still possible,—that is, before the fall of Jerusalem. We find also some phrases which indicate that the final catastrophe had not yet come. The recurrence of the phrase ‘until this day’ (1 K 8:8; cf. 9:21, 12:19, 2 K 2:22, 8:22, 16:6) is one of these indications. It is, of course, possible that all these belong to the older sources from which the author drew, but this hardly seems probable. On these grounds it is now generally held that the substance of the book was compiled about B.C. 600, by a writer who was anxious to enforce the lesson of the Deuteronomic reform while there was yet hope. This first edition extended to 2 K 23:25 or 28. About fifty years later an author living in the Exile, and who sympathized with the main purpose of the book, completed it in substantially its present form. The theory receives some confirmation from the double scheme of chronology which runs through the book. As has been shown in the formula quoted above, there is a series of data concerning the length of each king’s reign, and also a series of synchronisms, according to which each king’s accession is brought into relation with the era of his contemporary in the other kingdom. The two series are not always consistent—a state of things which is best accounted for on the theory that one was the work of one author, the other the work of the other.

5. Text.—The text of the Books of Kings has not been transmitted with the care which has been shown in some parts of the OT. The LXX shows that early copies did not always agree in their wording or in the order of the paragraphs. In some cases the LXX has a better reading. But the differences are not such as to affect the meaning in any essential point.

H. P. SMITH.

KING’S GARDEN (2 K 25:4, Jer 39:4; 52:7, Neh 3:16).—This garden was clearly near the ‘gate of the two walls’ which was near the Pool of Siloam, and it was in all probability just outside the walls, being irrigated by overflow water from the Siloam tunnel and pool, just as the land in this situation is treated to-day. Indeed, the garden may have covered much the same area as is now cultivated as irrigated vegetable garden by the women of Silwān. See KIDRON [BROOK

OF], SILOAM

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

KING’S POOL.—Neh 2:14, prob. identical with Pool of Siloam. See SILOAM.

KING’S VALE.—Gn 14:17 (AV king’s dale). See SHAVEH.

KIR.—An unidentified place, subject in the 8th and 7th cents. to Assyria. Amos (1:5) , according to the present Hebrew text, predicted that the Aramæans should be carried captive to Kir. In 9:7 he declares that Jahweh brought them from Kir. It is said in 2 K 16:9 that Tiglathpileser carried the people of Damascus captive to Kir, while in Is 22:6 Kir is mentioned in connexion with Elam as furnishing soldiers to the Assyrian army which fought against Israel. It has been identified with Kur, a river flowing into the Caspian Sea; with Cyropolis; with the Syrian province of Cyrrhestica; with Cyrene; with Kurenia in Media; with Kuris, north of

Aleppo; with Koa of Ezk 23:23, which has been supposed to be the same as the Gutium of the Bab.-Assyr. inscriptions, which possessed a high civilization as early as B.C. 3000. In reality nothing certain is known of the locality of Kir.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

KIR (of Moab).—Coupled with Ar of Moab (Is 15:1), possibly identical with it. Following the Targum, Kir of Moab has long been identified with the modern Kerak, a place of great importance in the times of the Crusades. Kerak is situated on a lofty spur between the Wady elKerak and the Wady ‘A in Franji, about 4000 feet above the Dead Sea level. The hills behind rise much higher, so that it is commanded on every side by higher ground, which explains 2 K 3:25– 27. It was surrounded by a wall of great thickness, and there are remains of ancient rock-hewn cisterns. The gates were to be reached only through long tunnels in the solid rock.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

KIRAMA (1 Es 5:20) = Ezr 2:25 Ramah.

KIR-HARESETH (Is 16:7), Kir-haraseth (2 K 3:25 AV [pausal form]), Kir-heres ( Jer 48:31, 36), Kir-haresh (Is 16:11 AV [pausal form]).—A place of great strength and importance in Moab; generally regarded as identical with Kir of Moab (wh. see). The LXX and Vulg. take these names as phrases, and translate them on some more or less fanciful Hebrew etymology. The Targum on Isaiah renders Kerak tokpehon, which suggests that haraseth may be connected with the Assyrian hurshu, ‘a cliff,’ etc., but the word may be Moabite or Canaanite, and seems to occur in ‘Harosheth of the Gentiles’ (Jg 4:2, 13, 16). The modern Kasr harasha, 35 minutes’ walk above Dera’a, preserves a similar title.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

KIRIATH is the st. constr. of Kiriah, the complement of which, -jearim, seems to have fallen out in Jos 18:28, from its resemblance to the word for ‘cities’ which follows. Therefore we ought probably to read Kiriath-jearim, a reading supported by the LXX.

W. EWING.

KIRIATHAIM.—1. A town E. of the Jordan, in the disputed territory between Moab and Reuben, placed by the Onomasticon 10 Roman miles W. of Madeba (Gn 14:5, Nu 32:37, Jos 13:19, Jer 48:23, Ezk 25:9); unidentified. 2. A town in Naphtali (1 Ch 6:76), called Kartan in Jos 21:32.

W. EWING.

KIRIATH-ARBA is used as a name for Hebron (wh. see) in Gn 23:2 etc. Only in Gn 35:27 and Neh 11:25 is Arba‘ written with the article. The city may have been so called as the seat of a confederacy between four men or tribes, or the name may be = Tetrapolis, ‘the city of four quarters.’ The Heb. text explains it as ‘the city of Arba,’ ‘the greatest man among the Anakim’ (Jos 14:16 RV), or ‘the father of Anak’ (15:13, 21:11). In the first passage LXX reads ‘the city Argob, the metropolis of the Anakim’: in the second ‘the city Arbok, metropolis,’ etc. Perhaps in the last two, therefore, we should read ’ēm, ‘mother,’ i.e. ‘mother-city,’ instead of ’abi, ‘father.’ W. EWING.

KIRIATH-ARIM (Ezr 2:25).—See KIRIATH-JEARIM.

KIRIATH-BAAL.—See KIRIATH-JEARIM.

KIRIATH-HUZOTH.—A spot unidentified, apparently between Ar-moab and Bamoth-baal (Nu 22:39, cf. vv. 38, 41). It may be Kureiāt, S. of Jebel ‘Attārūs.

W. EWING.

KIRIATH-JEARIM (‘city of forests’).—One of the cities of the Gibeonites (Jos 9:17) , occupied by the Danites (Jg 18:12), on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15:9 , 18:14). From there David brought up the ark (2 S 6:2, 1 Ch 13:5, 2 Ch 1:4). Its older name appears to have been Kiriath-baal (Jos 15:60) or Baalah. (Jos 15:9, 10, 1 Ch 13:6). It is also mentioned as Baale Judah (2 S 6:2), and through a textual error as Kiriath-arim (Ezr 2:25; cf. Neh 7:29). It was probably, like Kedesh, Gezer, etc., an old Canaanite ‘high place.’ In Jer 26:20 it is mentioned as the home of Uriah the prophet, the son of Shemaiah. See also 1 Ch 2:50, 53 and 1 Es 5:19 [in this last passage it is called Kariathiarius]. The site of this important ancient sanctuary and frontier town has been very generally accepted, since the 5th cent. A.D., as close to that of the modern Kuriet el-‘Enab, a flourishing little village on the high-road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, about 9 miles from the latter. The ancient remains are to the W. of the village, but a handsome Crusading Church in the village itself has recently been restored. Kuriet el-‘Enab is generally known as Abu Ghosh, after a family of semi-hrigands of that name who established themselves there nearly a century ago, and for long held the whole surrounding country at their mercy. Another site, which has been powerfully advocated by Conder, is Khurbet ‘Erma, on the S. of the Vale of Sorek, just where the narrow valley opens into the plain. The similarity of ‘arim (Ezr 2:25) and ‘erma, and the nearness of the site to Zorah and Eshtaol, are in its favour. There, too, are ancient remains, and a great rock platform which would appear to mark an ancient ‘high place.’ On the other hand, it is far from the other cities of the Gibeonltes (Jos 9:17). The question cannot he considered as settled.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

KIRIATH-SANNAH, KIRIATH-SEPHER.—See DEBIR, No. 1.

KISEUS.—The form in Ad. Est 11:2 of Kish (Est 2:5), the name of the great-grandfather of Mordecai. See KISH, No. 4.

KISH.—1. The father of Saul the first king of Israel (1 S 9:1, 10:21, 14:51, Ac 13:21). His home was at Gibeah (rendered ‘the hill of God’ and ‘the hill’ in both AV and RV of 1 S 10:5 and 10:10). 2. The uncle of the foregoing (1 Ch 8:30, 9:36). 3. The eponym of a family of Merarite Levites (1 Ch 23:21, 22, 24:29, 2 Ch 29:12). 4. A Benjamite ancestor of Mordecai (Est 2:5).

KISHI.—A Merarite Levite, ancestor of Ethan (1 Ch 6:44; the parallel passage, 1 Ch 15:17 , has Kushaiah, prohably the correct form of the name).

KISHION.—A town allotted to Issachar (Jos 19:20), given to the Levites (21:28). The parallel passage, 1 Ch 6:72, reads Kedesh, which is perhaps a textual error for Kishion. The latter name has not been recovered.

KISHON (Jg 4:7, 5:21, 1 K 18:40, Ps 83:9).—The ancient name of the stream now called Nahr el-Mukatta’, which drains almost the whole area of the great Plain of Esdraelon. The main channel may be considered as rising near the W. foot of Mt. Tahor, and running W. through the centre of the plain until it enters the narrow valley between the S. extension of the Galilæan hills and the E. end of Carmel. After emerging from this it enters the Plain of Akka, running a little N. of the whole length of Carmel, and enters the sea about a mile E. of Haifa. The total length is about 23 miles. In the first part of its course it is in winter a sluggish stream with a bottom of deep mud, and in summer but a chain of small marshes; from just below where the channel is crossed by the Nazareth road near Carmel it usually has a certain amount of water all the year round, and in parts the water, which is brackish, is 10 or 12 feet deep. At its mouth, however, it is almost always fordable. Numerous small watercourses from the Galilæan hills on the N. and more important tributaries from ‘Little Hermon,’ the Mountains of Gilboa, and the whole southern range of Samaria and Carmel on the E. and S., contribute their waters to the main stream. The greater number of these channels, in places 10 or 15 feet deep with precipitous sides, are perfectly dry two-thirds of the year, but during the winter’s rains are filled with raging torrents. A number of copious springs arise along the edge of the hills to the S. of the plain. At Jenin there are plentiful fountains, but they are, during the summer, entirely used up in irrigation; at Ta‘anak, at Lejjūn, near Tell el-Kasīs, at the E. end of Carmel, and at the ‘Ayūn el-Sa‘di, perennial fountains pour their water into the main stream. Those who have seen the stream only in late spring or summer can hardly picture how treacherous and dangerous it may become when the winter’s rain fills every channel with a tumultuous flood of chocolate-brown water over a bottom of sticky mud often itself several feet deep. Both animals and baggage have not infrequently been lost at such times. Under such conditions, the Kishon, with its steep, uncertain banks, its extremely crooked course, and its treacherous fords, must have been very dangerous to a flying army of horses and chariots (Jg 5:21, 22). Of all parts the section of the river from Megiddo (wh. see) to ‘Harosheth of the Gentiles’ (now el-Harithīyeh), where the fiercest of the battle against Sisera was fought (cf. Jg 5:10 and 4:16), must have been the most dangerous. The other OT incident connected with this river is the slaughter there of the prophets of Baal after Elijah’s vindication of Jehovah on the heights of Carmel (1 K 18:40).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

KISS (Heb. nĕshīqah, Gr. Philēma).—Kissing is a mark of affection between parents and children (Gn 27:26f., Ru 1:9, 1 K 19:20 etc.), members of a family, or near connexions ( Gn 29:13, 45:15), and equals in rank (2 S 20:9, Ac 20:37). Guests are received with a kiss (Lk 7:45). A kiss from a superior marks condescension (2 S 15:5, 19:39). These kisses may he on the lips, but are usually on the cheek or neck. The kiss was a token of love (Ca 1:2, 8:1), of homage and submission (Gn 41:40, Job 31:27, Ps 2:12), and was also an act of idolatrous worship (1 K 19:18 , Hos 13:2). The Moslems kiss the black stone at Mecca. Juniors and inferiors kiss the hands of seniors and superiors. A wife kisses the hand or beard of her husband. The hand, garments, even the feet of one appealed to may he kissed. Prohably Judas presumed to salute with the kiss of an equal (Mt 26:49 etc.). A kiss on the hand would have been natural. The ‘holy kiss,’ or ‘kiss of love’ (1 Co 16:20, 1 P 5:14), marked the tie that united Christians in a holy brotherhood.

W. EWING.

KITE.—1. ’ayyāh. In Lv 11:14, Dt 14:13 AV renders this word by ‘kite’ in job 28:7 by

‘vulture’; RV has uniformly ‘falcon.’ 2. dā’āh: Lv 11:14 (AV ‘vulture’; RV ‘kite’). 3. dayyāh; Dt 14:13 (EV ‘glede’ [Old Eng. kite, the black kite, and the Egyptian kite are all found in Palestine, but it is impossible to say which birds are denoted by the different words.

W. EWING.

KITRON.—A Canaanite town in the territory of Zebulun (Jg 1:30). See KATTATH.

KITTIM (AV Chittim, which is retained by RV in 1 Mac 1:1, 8:5) designates properly the island of Cyprus, and is to he so understood in the geographical list of the descendants of Javan (wh. see), that is, the Ionians, in Gn 10:4. The name is based on that of the settlement on the south-east of the island, called Kition by the Greeks, the modern Larnaka. This was the first trading post of the Phœnicians on the Mediterranean, hence it is vaguely used in Ezk 27:8 as the mother-city of all the maritime settlements westward. The connexion with the Ionians or Greeks is not quite clear, since these were not the first settlers on the island. There were, however, undoubtedly Greek colonists there in the 8th cent. B.C., as we learn from the inscription of the Assyrian Sargon of 720, pointing to a settlement of Ionian Cyprians in Ashdod. A use of the word, still more vague, is found in Dn 11:30, where it refers to the Romans, while in Nu 24:24 (as in 1 Mac 1:1, 8:5) it is applied apparently to the Macedonians.

J. F. M‘CURDY.

KNEADING-TROUGH.—Only Ex 8:3, 12:34 and RV of Dt 28:5, 17 (AV ‘store’). See BREAD, HOUSE, § 9.

KNEE, KNEEL.—The knees are often referred to in Scripture as the place where weakness of the body, from whatever cause, readily manifests itself: e.g. from terror (Job 4:4, Dn 5:8), or fasting (Ps 109:24). The reference in Dt 28:35 seems to be to ‘joint leprosy,’ in which, after the toes and fingers, the joints of the larger limbs are attacked (Driver, Deut. in loc.). The laying of children on the knees of father or grandfather seems to have involved recognition of them as legitimate members of the family (Gn 30:8, 50:23). In many passages of Scripture kneeling is spoken of as the attitude assumed in prayer (1 K 8:54, Ps 95:8, Dn 6:10, Ac 20:36 etc.). To ‘bow the knee’ is equivalent to ‘worship’ (1 K 19:18, ls 45:23, Ro 14:11 etc.). To fall upon the knees before a superior is an act at once of reverence and of entreaty (2 K 1:13, Mt 17:14, Lk 5:8 etc.). In the court of an Eastern judge the writer has often seen men prostrate themselves, and then make their plea, resting upon their knees.

W. EWING.

KNIFE.—Of the various sorts of knives noticed in the OT mention may be made of the flint knives used for the rite of circumcision (Jos 5:2f., cf. Ex 4:25)—an instance of conservatism in ritual, to which parallels may be found in all religions. The knives for ordinary purposes under the monarchy were mostly of bronze, of which, as of the earlier flint knives, the recent excavations have furnished many varieties. We also read of sacrificial knives (Gn 22:6, 10, Ezr 1:9), of ‘a barber’s knife’ or razor (Ezk 5:1), and of a scribe’s knife (Jer 36:23 EV ‘penknife,’), used for sharpening his reed-pen and making the necessary erasures. Cf. HOUSE, § 9.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

KNOP.—Another form of ‘knob,’ is used to render two different words in EV. 1. The knops of the stem and arms of the golden candlestick, or rather lampstand, of the Tabernacle (Ex 25:31 etc.) were the spheroidal ornaments still recognizable in the representation on the Arch of Titus. 2. Knops also denote certain ornaments, probably egg- or gourd-shaped, carved on the cedar lining of the walls of Solomon’s Temple (1 K 6:18—note RVm), and similar ornaments on the ‘brazen sea’ (7:24).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

KNOWLEDGE

I. HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

1. In the OT.—Knowledge, so far as it has a theological use, is moral rather than intellectual. It is assumed that a knowledge of God is possible, but this is the result of a revelation of Himself by God, and not a speculative knowledge achieved by man. So knowledge becomes practically equivalent to religion (Ps 25:14, Is 11:2), and ignorance to irreligion (1 S 2:12, Hos 4:1, 6:6). The Messianic age is to bring knowledge, but this will be taught of God ( Is

54:13). This knowledge of God is therefore quite consistent with speculative ignorance about the universe (Job 38, 39). Perhaps some expressions in the NT which seem to refer to Gnostic ideas may be explained by this view of knowledge.

2. In the NT.—(a) In the Gospels knowledge is spoken of in the same sense as in the OT. Christ alone possesses the knowledge of God (Mt 11:25–27). This knowledge gives a new relation to God, and without it man is still in darkness (Mt 5:8, Jn 7:17, 17:3). (b) In St. Paul’s Epistles.—In the earlier Epistles knowledge is spoken of as a gift of the Spirit (1 Co 1:30, 2 ,

12:8), although God can to a certain extent be known through nature (Ac 14:7, Ro 1:19, 20). 1 Cor. especially urges the subordination of knowledge to charity. In Col 2 and 1 Ti 6:20 a wrong kind of knowledge is spoken of—perhaps an early form of Gnosticism. True knowledge, however, centres in Christ, who is the mystery of God (Col 2:2). In Him all questions find their answer, and this knowledge is not, like Gnosticism, the property of a few, but is intended for all men (Col 1:28). In the Pastoral Epp. knowledge is spoken of with reference to a definite body of accepted teaching, which is repeatedly alluded to; it is, however, not merely intellectual but moral (Tit 1:1). (c) In the other NT books knowledge is not prominent, except in 2 Peter, where, however, there is nothing specially characteristic. In Hebrews the ordinary word for ‘knowledge’ does not occur at all, but the main object of the Epistle is to create and confirm a certain kind of Christian knowledge. Although knowledge in both OT and NT is almost always moral, there is no trace of the Socratic doctrine that virtue is knowledge.

II. DIVINE KNOWLEDGE.—It is not necessary to show that perfect knowledge is ascribed to God throughout the Scriptures. In some OT books—Job and some Psalms—the ignorance of man is emphasized in order to bring God’s omniscience into relief (cf. also the personification of the Divine Wisdom in the Books of Proverbs and Wisdom).

III. DIVINE AND HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IN CHRIST.—The question has been much debated how Divine and human knowledge could co-exist in Christ, and whether in His human nature He was capable of ignorance. It is a question that has often been argued on a priori grounds, but it should rather be considered with reference to the evidence in the records of His life. The Gospels certainly attribute to Christ an extraordinary and apparently a supernatural knowledge. But even supernatural illumination is not necessarily Divine consciousness, and the Gospel records also seem to attribute to our Lord such limitations of knowledge as may be supposed to make possible a really human experience. 1. There are direct indications of ordinary limitations. He advanced in wisdom (Lk 2:52); He asked for information (Mk 6:38, 8:5, 9:21, Lk 8:30, Jn 11:34); He expressed surprise (Mk 6:38, 8:5, 9:21, Jn 11:34). His use of prayer, and especially the prayer in the garden (Mt 26:39) and the words upon the cross (Mk 15:34), point in the same direction. 2. With regard to one point our Lord expressly disclaimed Divine knowledge (Mk 13:32). 3. In the Fourth Gospel, while claiming unity with the Father, He speaks of His teaching as derived from the Father under the limitations of a human state (Jn 3:34, 5:19, 20, 8:28, 12:49, 50). 4. While speaking with authority, and in a way which precludes the possibility of fallibility in the deliverance of the Divine message, He never enlarged our store of natural knowledge, physical or historical. If it be true that Christ lived under limitations in respect of the use of His Divine omniscience, this is a part of the self-emptying which He undertook for us men and for our salvation (see KENOSIS).

J. H. MAUDE.

KOA.—A people associated with Pekod and Shoa (Ezk 23:23), probably, therefore, a byform of Kutū (also Gutium), often mentioned in Assyr. inscriptions in the same company. Their seat lay N.E. of Babylonia, in the mountains between the upper Adhem and the Dijālā. Cf. KIR. C. H. W. JOHNS.

KOHATH, KOHATHITES.—Although the origin of the name Levi is doubtful, and scholars are still uncertain whether or not it was the name of a tribe before ‘Levite’ was a descriptive term denoting one who was trained in priestly duties, there is no doubt that the term ‘Levite’ had this meaning as early as the period of the Judges (see Jg 17:7, 8, 13). And in process of time every member of the Levitical or priestly ‘caste’ traced his descent through one line or another to Levi. These genealogies must have been in the making before the Exile, but were afterwards stereotyped and reduced to system by the priestly school. The name Kohath is found nowhere except in P and Chronicles. The three main divisions of Levites bore the names of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and these are accordingly given as the names of the ‘sons’ of Levi

(Gn 46:11, Ex 6:16, Nu 3:17, 1 Ch 6:1, 16, 23:6). The second division is described either as ‘the

Kohathites’ (Nu 3:27, 30, 4:18, 34, 37, 10:21, 26:57, Jos 21:4, 11, 1 Ch 6:33, 54, 9:32, 2 Ch

20:18, 29:12) or ‘the sons of Kohath’ (Ex 6:18, Nu 3:19, 29, 4:2, 4, 15, 7:9, Jos 21:5, 20, 26, 1 Ch 6:2, 18, 22, 61, 66, 70, 15:5, 23:12). These were subdivided into four groups, the Amramites, the Izharites, the Hebronites, and the Uzzielites (Nu 3:27), each being traced to a son of Kohath (Ex 6:18, Nu 3:19, 1 Ch 6:2, 18, 23:12). From these families fragments of genealogies remain.

Amram is of peculiar importance, because his children were Aaron and Moses (Ex 6:20, 1 Ch 23:13–17); and Korah, a son of Izhar, was notorious in priestly tradition (Nu 16). See KORAH,

DATHAN, ABIRAM.

The importance of these families after the Exile was small, with the exception of the priests who traced their descent from Aaron. Some Kohathites are named as appointed to humble offices (1 Ch 9:10, 8f., Ezr 2:42, Neh 12:25). But the tendency of the period to idealize ancient history led the Prlestly writers, including the Chronicler, to construct narratives in which the eponymous ancestors of the Levitical families played a prominent part; see 1 Ch 9:19. (1) During the desert wanderings the Kohathites were on the south side of the Tent (Nu 3:30), and they carried the screen of the sanctuary and its furniture, after it had been prepared for travel by the greatest of all the descendants of Kohath—Aaron and his sons (3:31, 4:4–18, 10:21); they were privileged to carry their burden upon their shoulders (7:9), instead of in waggons, as the Gershonites and Merarites; they were superintended by Eleazar, Aaron’s son (4:16). (2) After the settlement in

Palestine, 23 cities were assigned to them (Jos 21:4f., 18–26 = 1 Ch 6:57–61, 67–70). (3) In

David’s reign the Chronicler relates that the Temple music was managed partly by Heman, a

Kohathite, and his family (1 Ch 6:31–38, 16:41f., 25:1, 4–5, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22f., 25–31; and see

15:8, 8–10, 17, 19). David divided the Levites into courses ‘according to the sons of Levi’ (23:6 ;

Kohathites vv. 12–20, 24:20–25); and particular offices of Kohathites are stated in 26:1–9, 12– 15, 17–19, 23–31. (4) Under Jehoshaphat they led the song of praise at the battle of En-gedi (2 Ch 20:19). (5) Under Hezekiah they took part in the cleansing of the Temple (29:12, 14).

A. H. M‘NEILE.

KOHELETH.—See ECCLESIASTES.

KOLAIAH.—1. The father of the false prophet Ahab (Jer 29:21). 2. The name of a Benjamite family which settled in Jerusalem after the Captivity (Neh 11:7).

KONÆ (Jth 4:4).—An unknown town of Palestine (AV, following a different reading, ‘the villages’).

KOPH.—The nineteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119 th Psalm to designate the 19th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.