I
Ibhar – Imri
Page 101 of 259
Ibhar
One of David’s sons, born at Jerusalem (, ).
IBLEA3I. — A town belonging to West Manasseh (, ). It is mentioned also in in connexion with the death of king Ahaziah, who fled by the way of Beth-haggan and ‘the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleam.’ The Biblical data seem to be well satisfied by the modern ruin BeV ame, some 13 miles E. of N. of Samaria, more than half-way to Jezreel.
In (AV and RV) ‘before the people’ should certainly be emended to ‘la Ibleam.’ Gath-rimmon of Joa is a scribal error for Ibleam. It is the same place that is called Bileam in .
Ibneiah
A Benjamlte ().
Ibnuah
A Benjamite ().
Ibri
A Merarite Levite ().
Ibsasi
A descendant of Issachar ().
Ibzan
One of the minor judges, following Jephthah (). He came from Bethlehem, probably the Bethlehem in Zebulun (), 7 miles N.W. of Nazareth. He had 30 sons and 30 daughters — an evidence of his social importance — and arranged their marriages. He judged Israel 7 years, and was buried at Bethlehem. According to Jewish tradition, Ibzan was the same as Boaz.
Ichabod
Son of Phinehas and grandson of EU. The name means ‘inglorious,’ but probably should be ‘Jahweh is glory,’ from an original Jochebed. If this guess be well founded, then the turn given to the story in is due to a desire to mould It on the story of the birth of Benjamin in . W. F. Cobb.
Iconiu
Iconiu m, now called Konia, is an ancient city of continuous importance from early times to the present day. Situated at the western edge of the vast central plain of Asia Minor, and well watered, it has always been a busy place. It is surrounded by beautiful orchards. which cover the meanness of its modern buildings. About the beginning of the Christian era it was on the border of the two ethnic districts, Lycaonia and Phrygia. It was in reality the easternmost city of Phrygia, and the inhabitants considered themselves Phrygians, but ancient writers commonly speak of it as a city of Lycaonia (wh. see), the fate of which it generally shared. In the 3rd cent. B.C. it was ruled by the Seleucids, and about B.C. 164, probably, it passed under the power of the Galatae (Asiatic Celts). It was the property of the Pontic kings from about 130, was set free during the Mithridatic wars, and in B.C. 39 was given by Mark Antony to Polemon, king of Cilicia Tracheia. In b.c. 36 Antony gave it to Amyntas, who was at that time made king of Galatia (wh. see). On his death in B.C. 25 the whole of his kingdom became the Roman province of Galatia. Iconium could thus be spoken of as Lycaonian, Phrygian, or Galatie, according to the speaker’s point of view. In the time of the Emperor Claudius, it, along with Derbe, received the honorary prefix Claudio-, becoming Claudiconium (compare our Royal Burghs), but it was not till Hadrian’s time (a.d. 117-138) that it became a Roman colony (wh. see) . Its after history may be omitted. It was eighteen miles distant from Lystra, and a direct route passed between them.
The gospel was brought to Iconium by Paul and Barnabas, who visited it twice on the first missionary journey ( ). The presence of Jews there is confirmed by the evidence of inscriptions. According to the view now generally accepted by English-speaking scholars, it is comprehended in the ‘Phrygo-Galatic region’ of and the ‘Galatie region and Phrygia’ of . It was thus visited four times in all by St. Paul, who addressed it among other cities in his Epistle to the Galatians. During the absence of Paul it had been visited by Judaizers, who pretended that Paul was a mere messenger of the earlier Apostles, and contended that the Jewish ceremonial law was binding on the Christian converts. Paul’s Epistle appears to have been successful, and the Galatians afterwards contributed to the collection for the poor Christians of Jerusalem. The alternative view is that Iconium is not really included in the Acts narrative after ff.; as the words quoted above from and refer to a different district to the far north of Iconium, and that the Epistle to the Galatians, being addressed to that northern district, had no connexion with Iconium. In any case, Iconium is one of the places included in the (province) Galatia which is addressed in First Peter (about a.d. 80 probably), and the large number of Christian inscriptions which have been found there reveal the existence of a vigorous Christian life in the third and following centuries. A. Souteb.
Idalah
A town of Zebulun ().
Idbash
One of the sons of the father of Etam ().
Iddo
1. (1 Esdras 8:45 f. Loddeus) the chief at Casiphia, who provided Ezra with Levites and Nethinim. 2. gon of Zechariah, captain of the half tribe of Manasseh in Gilead, perh. =No. 4. 3. (1 Esdras 9:35 Edos) one of those who had taken ‘strange’ wives. 4. father of Abinadab, who was Solomon’s commissariat officer in Mahanaim in Gilead (see No. 2). 5. a Gershonite Levite called Adaiah in . 6. A seer and prophet cited by the Chronicler as an authority for the reigns of Solomon (), Rehoboam (), Abijah (). 7. Zee !’■ ‘, (1 Esdras 6:1 Addo) grandfather (father ace. to Ezr.) of the prophet Zechariah; possibly of the same family as No. 2. 8. , one of the priestly clans that went up with Zerubbabel.
Idolatry
Hebrew religion Is represented as beginning with Abraham, who forsook the idolatry, as well as the home, of his ancestors (, ) but it was specially through the influence of Moses that Jehovah was recognized as Israel’s God. The whole subsequent history up to the Exile is marked by frequent lapses into idolatry. We should therefore consider (1) the causes of Hebrew idolatry, (2) its nature, (3) the opposition it evoked, and (4) the teaching of NT. The subject is not free from difficulty, but in the light of modem Biblical study, the main outlines are clear.
1. Causes of Hebrew idolatry. — (l) When, after the Exodus, the Israelites settled in Canaan among idolatrous peoples, they were far from having a pure monotheism (cf. ). Their faith was crude, (o) Thus the idea that their neighbours’ gods had real existence, with rights of proprietorship in the invaded land, would expose them to risk of contamination. This would be the more likely because as yet they were not a united people. The tribes had at first to act independently, and in some cases were unable to dislodge the Canaanites (). (6) Their environment was thus perilous, and the danger was intensified by intermarriage with idolaters. Particularly after the monarchy was established did this become a snare. Solomon and Ahab by their marriage alliances introduced and promoted idol cults. It is significant that post-exilic legislation had this danger in view, and secured that exclusiveness so characteristic of mature Judaism ( f.). (c) The political relations with the great world-powers, Egypt and Assyria, would also tend to influence religious thought. This might account for the great heathen reaction under Manasseh.
■(2) But, specially, certain ideas charadenatic of Semitic religion generally had a strong influence, (a) Thus, on Israel’s settling in Canaan, the existing shrines, whether natural (hills, trees, wells — each understood to have its own tutelary baal oi lord) or artificial (altars, stone pillars, wooden poles), would be quite innocently used for the worship of J". (b) Idols, too, were used in domestic worship (; cf. , ). (e) A darker feature, inimical to Jehovism, was the sanction of sexual impurity, cruelty and lust for blood (see below, § 2 (1)).
Here then was all the apparatus for either the inappropriate worship of the true God, or the appropriate worship of false gods. That was why, later on in the eighth and seventh centuries b.c, when the earlier Jehovism was changing into typical Judaism, all such apparatus was felt to be wrong, and was attacked with increasing violence by prophets and reformers, as their conception of God became more clear and spiritual.
2. Itsnatnre. — (1) Common to all CanaanitereUgions, apparently, was the worship of Baal as representing the male principle in nature. Each nation, however, had its own provincial Baal with a specific name or title — Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, Dagon of Philistia, Hadad-Rimmon of Syria. Associated with Baalism was the worship of Ashtoreth (Astarte), representing the female principle in nature. Two features of these religions were prostitution [of both sexes] (cf. f.; f.; , , , Baruch 6:43) and human sacrifice (cf. , , and art. Topheth). Baalism was the chief Israelite idolatry, and sometimes, e.g. under Jezebel, it quite displaced Jehovism as the established religion.
(2) The underlying principle of all such religion was nature-worship. This helps to explain the calf-worship, represented as first introduced by Aaron, and at a latei^ period established by Jeroboam i. In Egypt — which also exercised a sinister infiuence on the Hebrews — religion was largely of this type; but living animals, and not merely images of them, were there venerated. Connected with this idolatry is totemism, so widely traced even to-day. Some find a survival of early Semitic totemism in .
(3) Another form of Hebrew nature-worship, asirolatry, was apparently of foreign extraction, and not earlier than the seventh cent. b.c. There is a striking allusion to this idolatry in . There were sun-images (2 Gh ), horses and chariots dedicated to the sun () an eastward position was adopted in sun-worship (). The expression ‘queen of heaven’ in is obscure; but it probably points to this class of idolatry. In the heathen reaction under Manasseh the worship of the ‘host of heaven’ is prominent (). Gad and Men! () were possibly star-gods. Related to such nature-worship perhaps was the mourning for Tammuz [Adonis] (, RVm) . Nature-worship of all kinds is by implication rebuked with amazing force and dignity in , where the word God as Creator is written ‘in big letters over the face of creation.’ Stars and animals and all things, it is insisted, are created things, not creators, and not self-existent.
(4) There are no clear traces of ancestor-worship in OT, but some find them in the teraphim (household gods) and in the reverence for tombs (.e.g. Machpelah); in the context suggests idolatry.
(5) A curious mixture of idolatry and Jehovism existed in Samaria after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. The foreign colonists brought with them the worship of various deities, and added that of J" (). These gods cannot be identified with certainty. By this mixed race and religion the Jews of the Return were seriously hindered, and there resulted the Samaritan schism which, in an attenuated form, still exists.
3. Opposition to idolatry. — While fully allowing for the facts alluded to in § 1, it is impossible to account — not for mere temporary lapses, but — for the marked persistence of idolatry among the Hebrews, unless we recognize the growth which characterizes their laws and polity from the simple beginning up to the finished product. Laws do but express the highest sense of the community— however deeply that sense may be quickened by Divine revelation — whether those laws are viewed from the ethical or from the utilitarian standpoint. It the legislation embodied in the Pentateuch had all along been an acknowledged, even though a neglected, code, such a complete neglect of it during long periods, taken with the total silence about its distinctive features in the sayings and writings of the most enlightened and devoted men, would present phenomena quite inexplicable. It is needful, therefore, to observe that the true development from original Mosaism, though perhaps never quite neglected by the leaders of the nation, does not appear distinctly in any legislation until the closing decades of the 7th cent. B.C. This development continued through and beyond the Exile. Until the Deuteronomic epoch began, the enactments of Mosaism in regard to idolatry were clearly of the slenderest proportions. There is good reason for thinking that the Second of the Ten Commandments is not in its earliest form; and it is probable that (from the document J, i.e. c. B.C. 850) contains an earlier Decalogue, embodying such traditional Mosaic legislation as actually permitted the use of simple images (distinct from molten cultus-idols. ). Such development accounts for the phenomena presented by the history of idolatry in Israel. For example, Samuel sacrifices in one of those ‘high places’ (I S Q’^ff-) which Hezekiah removed as idolatrous (). Elijah, the stern foe of Baalism, does not denounce the calf- worship attacked later on by Hosea. Even Isaiah can anticipate the erection in Egypt of a pillar () like those which Josiah in the next century destroyed (). As vrith reforming prophets, so with reforming kings. Jehu in Israel extirpates Baalism, but leaves the calf-worship alone ( f.). In Judah, where heathenism went to greater lengths, but where wholesome reaction was equally strong, Asa, an iconoclastic reformer, tolerates ‘high places’ (; cf. Jehoshaphat’s attitude, ). It was the work of the 8th cent. prophets that prepared the way for the remarkable reformation under Josiah (. 23). Josiah’s reign was epoch-making in everything connected with Hebrew religious thought and practice. To this period must be assigned that Deuteronomic legislation which completed the earlier attempts at reformation. This legislation aims at the complete destruction of everything suggestive of idolatry. A code, otherwise humane, is on this point extremely severe: idolatry was punishable by death (; cf. etc.). Such a view of idolatry exhibits in its correct perspective the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the elaborate Levitical enactments, the exilic and post-exilic literature. Distinctive Judaism has succeeded to Jehovism, monotheism has replaced henotheism, racial and religious exclusiveness has supplanted the earlier eclecticism. The Exile marks practically the end of Hebrew Idolatry. The lesson has been learned by heart.
A striking proof of the great change is given by the MaccabaBan war, caused by the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to force idolatry on the very nation which in an earlier period had been only too prone to accept it. Relations with Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. illustrate the same temper. Had not Caligula’s death so soon followed his insane proposal to erect his statue in the Temple, the Jews would assuredly have offered the most determined resistance; a century later they did actively resist Rome when Hadrian desecrated the site of the ruined Temple.
4. Teaching of the NT. — As idolatry was thus non-existent in Judaism in the time of Christ, it is not surprising that He does not allude to it. St. Paul, however, came into direct conflict with it. The word itself (eidSlolatreia) occurs first in his vmtings; we have his illuminating teaching on the subject in . , etc. But idolatry in Christian doctrine has a wider significance than the service of material idols. Anything that interferes between the soul and its God is idolatrous, and is to be shunned (cf. . , f.; and the context of etc.). See also art. Images.
H. F. B. COMPSTON.
Idttel
Idttel (1 Esdras 8:43) =Ezr S" Ariel. The form is due to confusion of Heb. d and r.
Idu
Idu lLffiA.— The Greek equivalent (in RV only in ) of the name Edom, originally the territory east of the Jordan-Arabah valley and south of the land of Moab. This country was inhabited, when we first catch a glimpse of it, by a primitive race known as Horites, of whom little but the name is known. The apparent meaning of the name (‘cave-dwellers ‘) and comparison with the remains of what seems to ha ve been an analogous race discovered in the excavations at Gezer, shew that this race was at a low stage of civilization. They were partly destroyed, partly absorbed, by the Bedouin tribes who claimed descent through Esau from Abraham, and who were acknowledged by the Israelites as late as the date of the Deuteronomic codes as brethren (). They were governed by sheiks (EV’ dukes,’ a lit. tr. of the Lat. dux), and by a non-hereditary monarchy whose records belonged to a period anterior to the time of Saul (, 1 ch ). See Edom.
After the fall of Babylon the pressure of the desert Arabs forced the Edomites across the Jordan-Arabah valley, and the people and name Were extended westward. In 1 Maccabees 5:65 we find Hebron included in Idumaea. Josephus, with whom Jerome agrees, makes Idumaea extend from Beit Jibrin to Petra; Jerome assigns the great caves at the former place to the troglodyte Horites. The Herod family was by origin Idumsan in this extended sense. In the 2nd cent. a.d. the geographer Ptolemy restricts Idumaea to the cis-Jordanic area, and includes the original trans-Jordanic Edom in Arabia. R. A. S. Macalister.
lEDDIAS (1 Esdras 9:26). — One of those who agreed to put away their ‘strange’ wives, called Izziah in .
lEZER, lEZERITES (). .—Contracted from Abiezer, Abiezerites. See Abiszer.
Igal
1. The spy representing the tribe of Issachar (). 2. One of David’s heroes, the son of Nathan of Zobah (). in the parallel list () the name is given as ‘Joel, the brother of Nathan.’ 3. Son of Shemaiah of the royal house of David ().
Igdaliah
A ‘man of God,’ father of Hanan, whose name is mentioned in connexion with Jeremiah’s interview with the Rechabites ().
I&KORANCE. — It appears to be in accordance with natural justice that ignorance should be regarded as modifying moral responsibility, and this is fully recognized in the Scriptures. In the OT, indeed, the knowledge of God is often spoken of as equivalent to true religion (see Knowledge), and therefore ignorance is regarded as its opposite (, ). But the Levitical law recognizes sins of ignorance as needing some expiation, but with a minor degree of guilt (, ). go ‘ignorances’ are spoken of in 1 Esdras 8:75 (RV ‘errors’). Tobit 3:3, Sirach 23:2 f. as partly involuntary (cf. ). The whole of the OT, however, is the history of a process of gradual moral and spiritual enlightenment, so that actions which are regarded as pardonable, or even praiseworthy, at one period, become inexcusable in a more advanced state of knowledge. In the NT the difference between the ‘times of ignorance’ and the light of Christianity is recognized in (cf. , 1 p ), and ignorance is spoken of as modifying responsibility in , , . This last passage, especially, suggests that sin is pardonable because it contains an element of ignorance, while appears to contemplate the possibility of an absolutely wilful choice of evil with full knowledge of what it is, which will be unpardonable (cf. ). Immoral and guilty ignorance is also spoken of in ff.; . For the question whether Christ in His human nature could be ignorant, see Kenosis, Knowledge. J. H. Maude.
nM. — A city of Judah () site unknown. See lYiM, 2.
Ikkesh
The father of Ira, one of David’s heroes (, ).
Ilai
One of David’s heroes (). In the parallel list () the name appears as Zalmon, which is probably the more correct text.
njADUN’ (1 Esdras 5:58). Perhaps to be identified with Henadad of .
Illyricum
The only Scripture mentionis , where St. Paul points to the fact that he had fully preached the good news of the Messiah from Jerusalem and round about as far as lUyricum. Neither geographical term is included in the sense of the Greek, which is that he had done so from the outer edge of Jerusalem, so to speak, round about (through various countries) as far as the border of Illyricum. These provinces in order are Syria, Cilicia, Galatia, Asia, and Macedonia, and a journey through them in succession describes a segment of a rough circle. The provinces Macedonia and Illyricum are conterminous, and the nearest city in Macedonia in which we know St. Paul to have preached is Bercea (). Illyricum is a Latin word, and denotes the Roman province which extended along the Adriatic from Italy and Fannonia on the north to the province Macedoma on the south. A province Illyria had been formed in b.c. 167, and during the succeeding two centuries all accessions of territory in that quarter were incorporated in that province. In A.D. 10 Augustus separated Paimonia from Illyricum, and gave the latter a settled constitution. The government of this important province was difficult, and was entrusted to an ex-consul with the style legalus Augusti pro prcetore. The northern half was called Libumia and the southern Dalmatia (wh. see). The latter term gradually came to indicate the whole province of Illyricum. A. Souteb.
Imagination
In the AV Imagine always means ‘contrive’ and imagination ‘contrivance.’ In the case of imagination a bad Intention is always present (except AVm), as in ‘they . . . became vain in their imaginations’ (RV ‘reasonings’); 2 Co ‘casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself (RVm’ reasonings’). The Greek words have in these passages the same evil Intent as the AV word, so that the RV renderings are not so good. Coverdale translates ‘Let the ungodly man forsake his wayes, and the unrightuous his ymaginacions, and turne agayne unto the Lokdb.’
Imalcue
(1 Maccabees 11:39). An Arab prince to whom Alexander Balas entrusted his youthful son Antiochus. After the death of Alexander, in B.C. 145, Imalcue reluctantly gave up the boy to Tryphon, who placed him on the throne of Syria as Antiochus vi. in opposition to Demetrius 11.
Immanuel
The name occurs in la 7" 8’, . and is a Heb. word meaning ‘God is with us’; the spelling Emmanuel comes from the LXX (see AV, RVm). Its interpretation involves a discussion of , esp. ..
1. Grammatical difficulties. — The RV should be consulted throughout. The exact implication of the word ‘virgin’ or ‘maiden’ (RVm) is doubtful (see art. Vihqin); it is sufficient here to say that it ‘Is not the word which would be naturally used for virgin, if that was the point which it was desired to emphasize’ (Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, p. 187). The definite article may either indicate that the prophet has some particular mother in mind, or be generic, referring to the class. In v. the renderings of RV and RVm are both admissible, but the former is more probable; in V." RV should be followed, AV being quite misleading. In there may be no reference to Immanuel at all; a very slight alteration of the vowel points would give the reading ‘... of the land; for God is with us’; the refrain occurs in ..
2. Historical situation. — In B.C. 735 the kings of Syria and Ephraim formed an alliance against Judah, with the object of setting Tabeel, a nominee of their own, on the throne of David, and forcing the Southern Kingdom to join in a confederacy against Assyria. Ahaz had only lately come to the throne, and the kingdom was weak and demoralized (). The purpose of Isaiah was to calm the terror of the people (). and to restore faith in Jehovah (). But the policy of Ahaz was to take the fatal step of Invoking the aid of Assyria itself. Hence, when the prophet offered him a sign from God, he refused to accept It, for fear of committing himself to the prophet’s policy of faith and independence. He cloaked his refusal in words of apparent piety. A sign is, however, given — the birth of a child, who shall eat butter and honey (i.e. poor pastoral fare; cf. ) till (?) he comes to years of discretion. Before that time, i.e. before he Is four or five years old, Syria and Ephraim shall be ruined (). But Ahaz and his own kingdom shall become the prey of Assyria () the rest of the chapter consists of pictures of desolation. The interpretation of the sign is by no means clear. Who is the child and what does his name imply? Is the sign a promise or a threat? It should be noticed, as probably an essential element in the problem, that it is the house or dynasty of David which is being attacked, and which is referred to throughout the chapter ( ").
3. Who is the childf (see Driver, Isaiah, p. 40 ff.). (a) The traditional interpretation sees in the passage a direct prophecy of the Virgin-birth of Christ, and nothing else. In what sense, then, was it a sign to Ahaz? The view runs counter to the modern conception of prophecy, which rightly demands that its primary interpretation shall be brought into relation to the ideas and circumstances of its age. The rest of the chapter does not refer to Christ, but to the troubles of the reign of Ahaz; is it legitimate to tear half a dozen words from their context, and apply them arbitrarily to an event happening generations after? (b) It is suggested that the maiden is the wife of Ahaz and that her son is Hezekiah, the king of whom Isaiah rightly had such high hopes; or (c) that she is the ‘prophetess,’ the wife of Isaiah himself. In both cases we ask why the language is so needlessly ambiguous. The chronological difficulty would seem to be fatal to (6), Hezekiah being almost certainly several years old in 735; and (c) makes the sign merely a duplication of that given in . It becomes a mere note of time (‘before the ctdld grows up, certain things shall have happened’); it leaves unexplained the solemn way in wtilch the birth is announced, the choice of the name, and its repetition in (if the usual reading be retained). It also separates this passage from ni-9, which almost certainly stand in connexion with it. Similar objections may be urged against the view (d), which sees in the maiden any Jewish mother of marriageable age, who in spite of all appearances to the contrary may call her child, then about to be born, by a name indicating the Divine favour, in token of the coming deliverance. The point of the sign is then the mother’s faith and the period of time within which the deliverance shall be accomplished, (e) A more allegorical version of this interpretation explains the maiden as Zion personified, and her ‘son’ as the coming generation. But the Invariable word for Zion and countries In such personifications is bethulah, not ‘almah (see art. Virgin). (f) There remains the view which sees in the passage a reference to a Messiah in the wider use of the term, as understood by Isaiah and his contemporaries. There prgbably already existed in Judah the expectation of an ideal king and deliverer, connected with the house of David (). Now at the moment when that house is attacked and its representative proves himself unworthy, Isaiah announces in oracular language the immediate coming of that king. The reference in . and the passages in chs. 9. 11, will then fall into their place side by side with this. They show that the prophet’s thoughts were at this period dwelling much on the late and the work of the’ wondrous child,’ who will, in fact, be a scion of the house of David ( ). Strong support is given to this view by (‘until the time when she that beareth hath brought forth’); whether the passage belong to Micah himself, a contemporary of Isaiah, or be of later date, it is cleariy a reference to , and is of great Importance as an indication of the ideas current at the time. With regard to the beliefs of the time, evidence has been lately brought forward (esp. by Jeremias and Gressmann) showing that outside Israel (particularly in Egypt and Babylonia) there existed traditions and expectations the pledge of the Divine presence, and endowed in a of a semi-divine saviour-Icing, to be born of a divine, perhaps a virgin, mother, and to be wonderfully reared. That is to say, there was an already existing tradition to which the prophet could appeal, and which is presupposed by his words; note esp. ‘the virgin.’ How much the tradition included, we cannot say; e.g. did it include the name ‘Iramanuel’? The ‘butter and honey’ seems to be a pre-existing feature, representing originally the Divine nourishment on which the child is reared ; so, according to the Greek legend, the infant Zeus is fed on milk and honey in the cave on Ida. But in the prophecy, as it stands, it seems to be used of the hard fare which alone is left to the inhabitants of an Invaded land. We must indeed distinguish throughout between the conceptions of the primitive myth, and the sense in which the prophet applies these conceptions. The value of the supposition that he was working on the lines of popular beliefs ready to his hand, is that it explains how his hearers would be prepared to understand his oracular language, and suggests that much that is obscure to us may have been clear to them. It confirms the view that the prophecy was intended to be Messianic, i.e. to predict the birth of a mysterious saviour.
4. Was the sign favourable or not? The text, as it stands, leaves it very obscure whether Isaiah gave Ahaz a promise or a threat. The fact that the king had hardened his heart may have tiirned the sign which should have been of good omen into something different. The name of the child and speak of deliverance; vv. and the rest of the chapter, of judgment. It is perfectly true that Isaiah’s view of the future was that Ephraim and Syria should be destroyed, that Judah should also suffer from AssjTlan invasion, but that salvation should come through the faithful remnant. The difhculty is to extract this sense from the passage. The simplest method is to follow the critics who omit , or at least the words ‘whose two kings thou abhorrest’; ‘the land’ will then refer naturally to Judah; if referring, as it is usually understood, to Syria and Ephraim, the singular is very strange. The prophecy is then a consistent announcement of judgment. Immanuel shall be born, but owing to the unbelief of Ahaz, his future Is mortgasged and he is born only to a ruined kingdom (cf. ) it is not stated in this passage whether the hope implied in his name will ever be realized. Others would omit , and even , making the sign a promise of the failure of the coalition. Whatever view be adopted, the inconsistencies of the text make it at least possible that it has suffered from interpolation, and that we have not got the prophecy in its original form. The real problem is not to account for the name ‘Immanuel,’ or for the promise of a saviour-king, but to understand what part he plays in the rest of the chapter. Connected with this is the further difiSculty of explaining why the figure of the Messianic king disappears almost entirely from Isaiah’s later prophecies.
6. Its application to the Virgin-birth. — The full discussion of the quotation in is part of the larger subjects of Messianic prophecy, the Virgin-birth, and the Incarnation. The following points may be noticed here, (a) Though the LXX (which has parthenos ‘virgin’) and the Alexandrian Jews apparently interpreted the passage in a Messianic sense and of a virgin-birth, there is no evidence to show that this interpretation was sufficiently prominent and definite to explain the rise of the belief in the miraculous conception. The text was applied to illustrate the fact or the belief in the fact; the fact was not imagined to meet the requirements of the text. The formula used in the quotation suggests that it belongs to a series of OT passages drawn up in the primitive Church to illustrate the life of Christ (see Alien, St. Matthew, p. Ixii.). (6) The text would not now be used as a proof of the Incarnation.’ Immanuel’ does not in itself imply that the child was regarded as God, but only that he was to be special sense with the spirit of Jehovah (cf . ). . The Incarnation ‘fulfils’ such a prophecy, because Christ is the true realization of the vague and halt-understood longings of the world, both heathen and Jewish.
C. W. Emmet.
Immer
1. Eponym of a priestly family ( 24", , ). 2. A priest contemp, with Jeremiah (). 3. The name of a place (7) ( =.Neh ). The text is uncertain (cf. 1 Esdras 5).
Immortality
See EscHATOLOor.
Imna
An Asherite chief ().
Imnah
1. The eldest son of Asher (, ). 2. A Levite in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31).
Imnites
Patronymic from Imnah (No. 1), .
Importunity
The Greek word so translated in is literally ‘shamelessness.’ It is translated ‘impudence’ in Sirach 25:22. These are its only occurrences in the Bible. It is probable, however, that it had lost some of its original force, and that ‘importunity’ is a fair rendering. The Eng. word signified originally ‘difficulty of access’ (in-portus), hence persistence. It is now practically obsolete, and ‘persistence’ might have been introduced into the RV.
Impotent
This word, now obsolescent in common speech, means literally ‘without strength.’ It is used as the tr. of Gr. words which mean ‘without power’ (Baruch 6:28, ) or ‘without strength’ (, , ). . ‘When religion is at the stake,’ says Fuller (.Holy State, ii. 19, p. 124), ‘there must be no lookers on (except impotent people, who also help by their prayers), and every one is bound to lay his shoulders to the work.’
Imprisonment
See Crimes and Punishments, §9-
Imrah
An Asherite chief ().
Imri
1. A Judahite (). 2. Father of Zaccur, who helped to build the wall (). INCANTATIONS. — See Magic Divination and SORCBHY.
James Hastings (ed.), with John A. Selbie and John C. Lambert, Dictionary of the Bible (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909). Public domain. Scan of Cornell University Library’s copy from the Internet Archive; text from its OCR, with the Bible references read again from the page images.