Leviticus – Lieutenant

Leviticus

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

2. Sources. — The general editor is the same as the editor who arranged Exodus in its present form, though a little has been added by later hands. (1) He took from P that history of the sacred institutions which appeared in Ex 25-29 (see Exodus): chs. 8. 9, with 1012.15 (which supplements 92’), 10’-‘(n-2») 16"- 121. 241-1. 6-9. These sections are not all of the same period.

Thus ch. 8, which relates the anointing of the priests, is the fulfilment of Exodus 29 and 40. It formed part of that expansion of Ex 25-29 which now occupies Ex 35-40, and to which also belong 24:1–4 on the Tabernacle lamps, w.^-" on the shewbread — sections which in some inexplicable way have strayed into their present incongruous position. Ch. 9 with 1012-‘^, which recounts the sacrifices at the inauguration of the Tabernacle, originally formed the sequel of Ex 25-29, and was followed by 10:1–7 (the stoiy of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire), and was closed by IS’-*- (the rule as to the time and way for Aaron to approach the Holy Place which had thus vindicated its awful sanctity ) . 10:16–20 (on the goat of the sin-offering) is a later addition, and gives an interesting illustration of the way in which it was sought to reconcile differences in the older laws (cf. it with 9:15 and 6:24–30).

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

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

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

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

Chs. 11-15 deal with this more civil yet priestly function. The rules in ch. 11 on clean and unclean animals (vv., with their subscription v. 46 f.) appear in a more primitive form in Deuteronomy 14:4–20. and have probably been taken from the Law of Holiness (see below) . The law of defilement from touching unclean animals and all carcases (w.2*-*‘‘), which prescribes also the purification required in case of neglect of the regulations, is ignored in the subscription v. 46 f. and must be an insertion. Chs. 12. 16 prescribe the forms of purification after childbirth and after certain physical secretions. In their basis these rules are very old, but the careful detail of derivative uncleanness (cf . esp. 15:1–12, 1) shows where a slow elaboration has been at work. Chs. 13. 14 contain a series of directions for the diagnosis of leprosy in human beings, clothing, leather, and houses, and for the method of purification. The primitive character of the prescribed purification (I42-8), along with the fact that this can be carried out apart from the Temple, proves the early origin of the rules. The gravity of the task thus imposed on the priest and the serious issues involved make it even probable that the directions were not left to the discretion of individuals, but were early committed to writing.

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

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

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

Ch. IS is a series of laws on incest (and Molech-worship), with admonitory introduction and conclusion. Ch. _ 19 contains a group of miscellaneous laws, with introduction and conclusion. These laws, which are curt and direct, give an interesting view of the morals of early Israel, and should be compared and contrasted with the relative sections in Ex 20-23, Dt 22-25. Ch. 20, which is different in character from the preceding chapters, prescribes in general penalties for certain offences already specified. In it vv. 10–21 (with the penalties for incest) may be the conclusion of ch. 18. The fact, however, that it is followed by a conclusion (w.22-2*), while ch. 18 is provided with its own, iias led some to count the two sections independent. Again, w.25’- show where laws corresponding with ch. 11, if not that collection itself, originally stood in H; vv. 2–5 (against Molech-worship), w.*- 27 (against traffic with familiar spirits), v. 9 (against cursing father or mother) may have been brought together here, because, like most of the laws in w.i’‘-2i, they prescribe the death-penalty.

Chs. 21. 22 deal with priests and offenngs. They state the ceremonial restraints required of the priests in their domestic life (21:1–15). demand bodily perfection in every officiating priest (w.’^-2*), ordain that sacrificial food may be eaten only by those who are ceremonially clean and who can claim membership in apriestly family (22:1–16). and require the sacrificial animals to be perfect (w."-^). Three minor regulations as to the sacrifices (w.28-^‘‘) are followed by an -ejchortation (w.^‘-^). Not only the recurrent formula,’ I am the Lord,’ but the insistence on a ceremonial holiness, which characterizes the early code, proves that the basis of these chapters is old. The material has been largely revised by P, but the elaborate analysis cannot be entered into here.

(jh . 23 is a calendar of the sacred seasons, which has necessarily received much change. In general, it may be said that vv. 9–20 a- a*. 40-13, though not left without minor modifications, belong to the early code. Here the festivals still represent the religious life of a people which is settled on the land and engaged in agriculture. No more precise date than, e.ff., ‘when ye reap the harvest of your land,’ is laid down for a festival, because no other was practicable. The people celebrated the harvest when the harvest was gathered. The other sections (w.’-‘- 21. 28-38. 39ao. 44) give rigid dates and betray the change which became necessary, as soon as many of the worehippera were no longer agriculturists and were scattered beyond the limits of Palestine. The definite dates prescribed by a centralized priesthood became a necessity of the national and religious life. These later sections come from P.

Ch. 24 (on w.i-" see above) deals with blasphemy (v. 15 f.) and injuries to men and cattle (w."-22). These early sections closely resemble ch. 20, and may once have stood in closer connexion with it. The penalty pronounced on blasphemy was specially interesting to P, andwas illustrated by an incident taken from the desert-wanderings (w.’"-"- 2S: rf. Numbers 15:32–36). .

Ch. 25 contains the rules for the Sabbatical year (w.’-‘- 21-22) and those for the year of Jubilee (w.8->»- 23-5S). The section, w.20-22, has been separated from its original context in order to make the regulations contained in it apply to the Jubilee as well as the Sabbatical year. The analysis of the chapter is very uncertain, H seems to iiave contained the rule as to the Sabbatical year (cf. w.’-‘with Exodus 23:10 f. and_ note the prominent interest in agriculture). In connexion with the Jubilee, it ordered that land must not be alienated absolutely, but must revert to its original owners at the Jubilee (w."-"). It also provided for the relief of an impoverished Israelite by ordering: (a) that his land might De redeemed by a kinsman (v. 25) (6) that usury was not to be exacted from him (w.^-^^v (c) that, when he was in bondage, he must be treated humanely (w.^b- 40a- 43. 47.^ 63. 65)^ p took over this early law with a number of modifications, added fresh regulations as to the redemption of land (w.s’‘. iiib-12. 23. 26-34) and especially extended the benefits of the Jubilee from land to persons {vv.*‘‘b-^2. 44-46. 4B-S2. 64). A. comparison of vv. 40–42 with Dt lSi2-is suggests that in the course of time the latter rule had proved impracticable, and that this relaxation was designed to take its place.

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

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

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

Further, when compared with P, H does not conceive of Israel as grouped round the sanctuary, but regards the local sanctuaries as forming an element in the popular life. It knows nothing of the centraUzed and hierarchical priesthood, and the priesthood it knows is one side of a larger life, not its controlling factor. Its sacrifices are the older and simpler burnt-offering and thank-offering, without the development of guilt- and sin-offerings. Though 6:2–7 be taken to represent the early sin-offering required by this code, its place is very secondary compared with P. The laws of H are generally cast into concise formulse to meet practical needs. They are backed continually by religion, but the religion supplies a sanction and a command rather than a reason and a motive. The book is specially conscious of Israel’s reUglon as one which requires separation from all heathen pollution. Holiness is separateness, ‘for I Jahweh sanctify you.’ The period at which the laws were compiled is still debated, but the affinity between H and Ezekiel is so close that a direct connexion must be presumed. This affinity does not consist in common phrases, nor can it be measured by identity of language; it shows itself in the common point of view which justified Ezeldel in borrowing phrases, because no others could be found which were so adequate to embody his meaning. To both holiness is the stamp of Israel’s religion, and this holiness is largely construed as absence of ceremonial pollution — a pollution which includes more than ethical elements. The law-book probably arose at some sanctuary other than Jerusalem, and expressed and determined the religious life which centred there. As such, it offers a welcome and pleasant sketch of pre-exilic Israelitish lite. It probably owed its survival through the Exile, in spite of the superior influence of Deut., to the fact that it deeply influenced the thought of Ezekiel. The priest-prophet preserved a book to which he owed so much; and it is not impossible that certain features in the conclusion (26:4–45) which have seemed to several to point to the Exile, may be due to Ezekiel himself or to a member of his school.

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

A. C. Welch.

Lewd

In the AV ‘lewd’ does not always mean ‘lustful,’ as it does now. That meaning, indeed, is not found in the Apocr. or NT. There the meaning is simply ‘wicked,’ as Acts 17 ‘certain lewd fellows of the baser sort.’ So ‘lewdness’ is usually simply ‘wickedness.’

I.IBANUS. — The (Greek) form of the (Heb.) name Lebanon (wh. see), 1 Esdras 4:48 5:55. 2 Esdras 15:20. Judith 1:7. Sir 24:13 50:12 [all],

Libeetinbs

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

Henky S. Nash.

Liberty

Moralists are accustomed to distinguish between formal freedom, or man’s natural power of choice, and real freedom, or power to act habitually in accordance with the true and good. Scripture has little to say on the mere power of choice, while everywhere recognizing this power as the condition of moral life, and sees real liberty only in the possession and exercise of wisdom, godliness, and virtue. Where there is ignorance and error, especially when this arises from moral causes (Romans 1:21. Ephesians 4:18, 1 John 2:11 etc.) — subjection to sinful lusts (Romans 7:14–23, Ephesians 2, 1 Peter 1:14 4:2, 3; cf. 2:16 etc.), fear and distrust of God (Romans 8 Hebrews 12:18–21 etc.), bondage to the letter of the law (Gal 4) — there cannot be liberty. Sin, in its nature, is a state of servitude (John 8:34). Spiritual liberty is the introduction into the condition which is the opposite of this — into the knowledge and friendship of God, the consciousness of cleansing from guilt, deliverance from sin’s tyranny, the possession of a new life in the Spirit, etc. Even under the Law, saints could boast of a measure of liberty; God’s commandment was found by them to be exceeding broad (Psalms 119:45, 96, ct. Psalms 51:11, 12). But the gospel gives liberty in a degree, and with a completeness, unknown under the Law and unthought of in any other religion. It does this because it is the religion of reconciliation, of the Spirit, of sonship, of love. Jesus already teaches that His yoke is easy and His burden light; this because He inculcates meekness and lowliness of heart — a spirit like His own (Mt 11). jjjg religion is to St. James ‘the perfect law, the law of liberty’ (l^*). The instrument in freeing from bondage is ‘the truth’ (John 8:32) the agent is the Spirit of God. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there,’ of necessity, ‘is Uberty’ (2 Corinthians 3:17). As the result of the reception of the truth of the gospel, the believer knows himself justified and saved (Romans 6:7), knows God as Father, and is assured of His love (1 John 4:14–16) receives the spirit of adoption, in which is Uberty (Ro 8) experiences deliverance from the dominion of sin (6 7 8) is set free from the yoke of outward observances (Galatians 4:9, cf. 5:1 ‘with freedom did Christ set us free; stand fast, therefore,’ etc.); has victory over the world (Galatians 4:14, 1 John 5:4) lives in the power of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16–18, 22–25) has release from fear of death (Hebrews 2:15), etc. On the freedom of man’s will, see Predestination, p. 749". James Orb.

Libnah

1. An unidentified station in the desert wanderings (Numbers 33:20). 2. A Canaanite city taken by Joshua after Makkedah and before Lachish (Joshua 10:29 etc.), named between Arad and AduUam (12:15), and between Makkedah and Ether in the ShephSlah (15:42). It was given to the Levites (21:13. 1 Chronicles 6:57). Taking advantage of an Edomite revolt, it rose against Judah under Joram (2 Kings 8:22). It was besieged by Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:8 37). Hamutal, mother of Jehoahaz and Zedeldah, was a native of Libnah (2 Kings 23:31 24:18. Jeremiah 52:1). The district is cieariy indicated, but the site is still unknown. Gender (,PEFSt, 1897, p. 69) suggests el- Benawy, 10 miles S.E. of Lachish (Tell el-Hesy).

W. EWINQ.

Libni

The eldest son of Gershou, that is to say, the eponym of a principal family of Getshonite Levites, Exodus 6:17. Numbers 3:18. 1 Oh 6:17, 20. In 1 Chronicles 6:29 [Heb. "], perhaps owing to some dislocation of the text, the name appears as that of the eponym of a family of Merarites. The patronymic Libnites occurs in Numbers 3:21 26. CS. Ladan.

Library

See Writing, § 5.

Libya, Libyans

See Lubim.

Lice

Lice ikinnlm. Exodus 8:16–18. Psalms 105:31; cf. kin. Isaiah 51:6, see Gnat). — RVm suggests ‘sandflies or fleas’ instead of ‘lice.’ All the insects named are only too common in Palestine and Egypt. The three well-known varieties of pediculi or lice are perpetually prevalent among the dirty , and a plague of them would certainly be much more terrible than one of the harmless, though irritating ‘sandfly’ (Simvlium), and far more disgusting than one of the flea (Pvlex). Cf. p. 733i>. E. W. G. Masteeman.

Lidebir

See Debir, No. 3, and Lo-debae.

Lie, Lying

1. In the OT.— The simple lie, which is a deliberate suppression of the truth in conversation, was condemned by the Levitical code as contrary to the character of holiness demanded by, and becoming to, the people of Israel’s holy God (Leviticus 19:11 f.: cf. &"■). Perjury, as an aggravation of the ordinary sin, was emphatically condemned, and stringently punished in the legislative enactments of Israel (Exodus 23:1, Deuteronomy 19:16–20). There can be no doubt that the moral consciousness of the Hebrews was alive to the sinfulness of deceit (Proverbs 19:22 21:28 24:28 25:18 30:6, 8; cf. Isaiah 58:11 AVm). The lying selfishness of Cain, and the reprehensible deception practised by Abraham, are recorded by the historian in a tone which reveals his attitude towards such acts (On 4 20 12; cf. 2 Kings 5:20–27 where Gehazi’s punishment is the reward of his thoughtless levity at a time of national gloom, as well as of his deceitful conduct and words). The moral reprobation of falsehood reaches its climax in the utterances of the prophets. According to these teachers, it is at the foundation of all human depravity (Hosea 7:13 12:1. Micah 6). Truth can be arrived at and spoken only by those who are in personal touch with the sacred Fountain of truth (cf. Isaiah 6:5–8). Indeed, some of the most emphatic declarations as to the moral attributes of Jehovah are based on the belief that He is above all else the God of truth (Numbers 23:1, 1 Samuel 15:29; cf. Psalms 89:35, Ezekiel 24:14. Mai 3:5 f.; see 2 Timothy 2:13. Titus 1:2). Hence the enormity of the guilt of those teachers who had not Jehovah as the source of their inspiration, though they might speak in His name, who pandered to the prevailing moral degeneracy (Jeremiah 5:31 6 29. Ezekiel 13:6; cf. Wisdom 14:28 ff. etc.) , or who encouraged their hearers in idolatry with Its debasing ritual (Jeremiah 16:19. Jonah 2:8; cf. Psalms 31:6).

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

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

The denial of the Messiahship of Jesus is characterized by the Johannine author as a Ue (1 John 2:22). while the same writer makes self-deceit the cause of that Pharisaic complacency which he so unsparingly condemns (1 Jn 1:8 ff.). The Pauline representation of paganism bases its degrading moral influence on the fact that it is founded essentially on a lie (Ro I22).

The awful fate which awaits ‘all liars’ (Revelation 21:8) is the outcome and direct development of the OT judgment of this sin, for it fundamentally estranges the guilty from Him whose ‘word is truth’ (John 17:17; cf. Revelation 21:27 22:15, and see Psalms 51:6 24:4 119). Cf. also Thuth.

J. R. Willis.

Lieutenant

See Satrap.