Logia – Lotus Trees

Logia

See Gospels, § 2 (c).

Logos

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

1. Content. — Three stages appear in the exposition of the Logos doctrine given in the Prologue, (a) First (vv. 1–5). the nature and functions of the Logos are set forth in His relations to God, the world, and man. He was with God in the beginning, i.e. He eternally held a relation of communion with Him as a separate personality— a personality itself Divine, for ‘the Word was God.’ As to the world, it was made by Him (v. 3, cf. v. 10), perhaps with the further suggestion that from Him it draws continually the life by which it is sustained(v.*). But from Him there flows also the higher life of man as a spiritual being possessed of reason and conscience, for His hte becomes the universal light of human souls (v. 4. cf. v. 9). (6) The second stage of the exposition (vv. 5–13) is a contrast of the Logos with the word of God that came by John the Baptist. John was not the Light ; he came only to bear witness of it. The Logos is the true Light, and the mediator of Divine life to all who believe on His name, (c) Finally (vv.) the author describes the incarnation of the Logos in the flesh, and declares His identity with the historical Jesus Christ, the bringer of grace and truth. In v. 18 the whole Prologue is summed up. Here the writer returns to the point from which he set out (cf. v. 1). but his readers now understand that the eternal Logos is one with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

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

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

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

3. Place in the Fourth Gospel. — The attempt has been made to distinguish between the Logos doctrine in the Prologue as Hellenic, and the Gospel itself as Palestinian; and it has been maintained that the influence of the Logos idea does not extend beyond the Prologue, and that it was merely intended to introduce to Greek readers the story of the Jewish Messiah with a view to making it more attractive and intelligible. We may remind ourselves, however, of Strauss’s comparison of this Gospel to the seamless robe of Jesus, a judgment which has been verified by nearly every critical student of whatever school. It is true that when we pass beyond the Prologue the word ‘Logos’ is not repeated. The author nowhere puts it into the mouth of Jesus, — one evidence surely of his historical fidelity. But, all the same, the doctrine of the Prologue manifestly works right through the narrative from beginning to end (see such passages as 3 e^^-" 7 gl2. 14. 10 12 4:6–11 7:5, 8, 24 etC). It is very noticeable that in 20, where, before laying down his pen, the writer reveals the motive of his work, he really sums up the great ideas of the Prologue as he declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we may have life through His name. The Logos, then, is not a mere catchword, put forth in order to seize the eye and arouse the interest of the Greek reader. The Logos idea underiies the whole Gospel, and has much to do with the author’s selection of his materials. In the Prologue, as in any other well-written introduction, the plan of the work is set out, and the Logos doctrine is stated there because it supplies the key to a right understanding of the history that follows.

4. Theological significance.— From the time of Justin, and ever since, the Logos doctrine of St. John’s Prologue has served as the material of many a Christian metaphysic. It is no doubt inevitable that this should be the case; but we must be careful not to make St. John responsible for the theological constructions that have been woven out of his words. It an injustice is done him when his doctrine of the Logos is supposed to be nothing more than the fruitage of his study of Philo, another injustice is committed when it is assumed that he is setting forth here either a metaphysic of the Divine nature or a philosophy of the Incarnation. It is plain, on the contrary, that in all that he says it is the religious and ethical interests that are paramount. He uses the Logos conception for two great purposes, — to set forth Jesus (1) as the Revealer of God, and (2) as the Saviour of men. The first of these ideas, as has been said, is one that we find already in the Pauline Epistles and in Hebrews; but by his emphasis on the relations of Fatherhood and Sonship St. John imparts a peculiarly moral meaning to the essential nature of the God who is revealed in Christ. But it is above all tor a soteriological purpose that he seems to employ the Logos idea. The Logos, who is identified with Jesus Christ, comes forth from the bosom of the Father, bringing life and light to men. He comes with a gospel that supersedes the Law of Moses, for it is a gospel of grace as well as of truth. Himself the Son of God, He offers to all who will believe on His name the right to become the children of God. And so, while the Logos is undoubtedly the agent of God’s creative will, He is still more distinctively the mediator of God’s redeeming purpose. It is therefore as a religious power, not as a metaphysical magnitude, that St. John brings Him before us. The Evangelist shows, it is true, as Kirn points out, that the absoluteness of Christ’s historical mission and His exclusive mediation of the Divine saving grace are guaranteed by the fact that the roots of His personal life reach back into the eternal life of God. His Logos doctrine thus wards off every Christology that would see in Jesus no more than a prophetic personality of the highest originality. But, while the Logos idea ‘illuminates the history with the light of eternity, it can reveal eternity to us only in the light of history, not in its own supernatural light’ iPRE’ xi. 605). J. C. Lambert.

Lois

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

MoRLEY Stevenson.

Longsuffering

In the OT the RV uses this word only in Jeremiah 15:15. where it Is the translation of a phrase usually rendered ‘slow to anger’ (cf. Exodus 34:6, Numbers 14:18. Psalms 86, in which passages AV has ‘longsuffering’).

In the NT ‘longsuffering’ is the usual tr. of makrothumia and the corresponding verb. (The only exceptions are ‘patience,’ Hebrews 6:12. James 5:10; cf. vb. in Matthew 18, James 5:7 f.; and adv. in Acts 26:3). The RV improves on AV by using ‘longsuffering’ in Luke 18:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:14. The Gr. word means ‘a long holding out of the mind before it gives room to action or passion — generally to passion.’ (Trench, Synonyms of NT, § liii.) ; it implies the opposite of short temper; cf. Old Eng. ‘longanimity.’ In the NT the longsuffering of God is regarded as a proof of His ‘goodness’ (Romans 2:4; here and elsewhere ‘longsuffering,’ II ‘forbearance’ [arochg]) and of his faithfulness (2 P 3:9, 15) it is manifested in the gracious restraint which characterizes His attitude towards those who deserve His wrath (Romans 9:22. 1 Peter 3:20). The Divine longsuffering is perfectly exemplified in Christ’s dealings with sinners (1 Timothy 1:16). Longsuffering is, therefore, a conspicuous grace in the ideal Christian character (2 Corinthians 6:6. Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:14. 2 Timothy 3:10 4:2) it is viewed as an evidence of Divine strengthening (Colossians 1:11). as a manifestation of love (1 Corinthians 13:4), and as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). J. G- Taskeb.

Looking-glass

See Glass.

Loom

See Spinning and Weaving.

Loops

See Tabernacle, § 5 (o).

Lord

The Heb. OT has three leading names for God: (1) ‘the name of four letters’ Itetragrammaton)

Lord of Hosts

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

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

2. So we are brought to another view, which may merely mark a later stage: the ‘hosts’ are the spiritual forces which stand at God’s disposal. So in Joshua 5:13, 14. when Joshua asks the unknown warrior whether he is on their side or on that of their enemies, the implied answer of the Divine stranger is that he belongs to neither side, but is come as captain of the Lord’s host to succour His people. For the idea of the angelic host engaged in the service of God, cf. 2 Samuel 24:16, 1 K 22:19. 2 Kings 6:17; and in the NT Matthew 26:53. Luke 2:13. Hebrews 1:14.

3. The third stage is reached in the prophets, esp. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Malachi, where the title assumes a far wider meaning and embraces all the forces of the universe. The term ‘host of heaven’ is commonly used of the heavenly bodies to which the later kings paid idolatrous worship (cf. also Genesis 2:1. Psalms 33:6). As the idea of the omnipotence of God grew loftier and wider, the elemental forces of nature were Martyr s Apology (1. 67, a.d. 120), where we read that on regarded as performing service to their Creator. So the sun is God’s minister (Psalms 19:4, 5), and even so early as the Song of Deborah the stars are represented as joining by God’s behest in the battle against the invader(Jg S2»). Hence the term ‘Lord of hosts’ becomes with the prophets the highest and most transcendental title of God, and is even rendered by the LXX in a certain number of passages ‘Lord of the forces (of nature).’ It serves as a constant reminder of the illimitable width of God’s sway, and as such it acquires a close connexion with the other great attribute of God, His holiness. Hence we get the summit of the OT creed in the angelic song of praise. Isaiah 6:3, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the fulness of the whole earth Is his glory.’

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

Lord's Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 . Relation to the Sabbath .—The relation of the Lord’s Day to the Sabbath is best defined as one of close affinity rather than of identity. The Sabbath was originally Instituted as a provision for deep physical and spiritual needs of human nature. It sprang from the love of God for man, providing by religious sanction for the definite setting apart of the seventh day as a time for rest from labour and for communion with God. Our Lord found the original institution almost hidden beneath a mass of traditional regulations. Thus his action towards the Sabbath as He found it, was to bring men back to its first ideal. This He did by showing that their tradition told how David broke the letter of its regulation and yet was guiltless (Luke 6:3) how charity and common sense led men to break their own rules (IS’s); how the Sabbath was granted to man as a blessing and not laid on him as a burden (Mark 2:27) ; and how He as Son of Man, f ulfilUng ideal manhood, was its Lord (2:28) ; but while our Lord thus purified the Sabbath, there Isaiah 9 that He abolished it. He foreknew Its ultimate abolition, as He foreknew the ultimate destruction of the Temple; and He cleansed it as He cleansed the Temple.

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

Charles T. P. Gbiehson.

LORD’S PRAYER.

Matthew 6. v. 9 Thus therefore pray ye:

(1) Our Father which art in the heavens;

(2) Hallowed be thy name. v. 10 (3) Thy kingdom come.

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

V." (5) Our daily_ (7) bread give us to-day.

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

debtors. V." (7) And bring us not into temptation; (8) But deliver us from the evil (one f ).

For thine is the. kingdom, and the power, and the glory, unto the ages. Amen. Luke 11:2–4. v. 2 Whensoever ye pray, say. ‘11 [Our] Father [which art in the heavens]; 2) Hallowed be thy name. .3) Thy kingdom come.

(4) [Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on the earth.] V.’ (5) Our daily (7) bread give us day by day. v. 4 (6) And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. f7) And bring us not into temptation; (8) [But deliver us from the evil (oiu 7)].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Doxology. which is not found 1h the oldest MSS, is contained in the majority of copies. The evidence of the ancient versions is divided. Some of the Fathers, in commenting on the Lord’s Prayer, take no account of a Doxology; but Chrysostom and others recognize It, and note its connexion with the preceding petitions. If the Doxology be not an integral part of the Matthaean text, it is certainly of very great antiquity. It may have been interpolated from a Liturgy; for it is now admitted that liturgical forms existed in the earliest days of Christianity, although perhaps at first they were unwritten, and were transmitted orally.

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

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

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

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

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

In a work accessible to the ordinary reader. Sayings of (he Jewish Fathers (ed. C. Taylor), we read (ch. v. 30): ‘R. Jehudah ben Thema said, Be strong as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven.* In ch. iv. 7 (n. 8) examples are given of the use of’ the Name’ as a substitute for titles of the Almighty, and including all that they imply. The Rabbinical doctrine of the correspondence of the upper with the lower world is exemplified by Taylor, ch. iii. 15 n. Hillel said of askull floating on the water (ii. 7), ‘Because thou drownedst, they drowned thee, and in the end they that drowned thee shall be drowned’; which illustrates claxise 6 of the Prayer. From Talmudic prayeis are quoted (p. 1 28) the petitions: ‘May it be thy will to deliver us from evil man, evil chance,’ etc.; and ‘Bring me not into the hands of sin, nor into the hands of temptation.’ In the OT we may compare with clause 1, Isaiah 63:16; clause 2, Exodus 20:7; clauses 2, 3, Zee. 14:9; clause 4, Psalms 103:20 135:6; clause 5, Exodus 16:4. Proverbs 30; clause 6, Ob i*. The Doxology may be compared with 1 Chronicles 29:11.

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

Lord's Supper

See Eucharist.

Lords of the Philistines

The chieftains or ‘tyrants’ of the five Philistine cities, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. Wherever they are mentioned(Jos 133, Judges 3:3 16:5, 8, 18, 27. 30_ 1 Samuel 5:8, 11 6:4, 12, 16. IS 7:7 29:2, 6, 7. 1 Chronicles 12:19) the word translated ‘lord’ is a peculiar one, being Identical with the Heb. word for ‘axle.’ Once (1 Samuel 18:30) the Heb. word for ‘princes’ is applied to them. Probably the peculiar word is, a native Philistine title. Their functions, so far as can be gathered from the OT, were the same as those of petty kings. George A. Bakton.

Lo-ruhamah

See Hosea, Lo-ammi.

Lot

The son of Haran, brother of Abraham. His name seems clearly derived from a root meaning to wrap closely. The account of his life is contained in Genesis 11:27 19. He was born in Ur, and went with Abraham to Haran, and thence to Canaan. Hebrews 9 panied Abraham in much of his wandering. The separation between them (ch. 13) was due to a quarrel between their herdsmen, each having great possessions of cattle. As a result, Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, making his home in Sodom. During the expedition of Chedorlaomer (ch. 14) he was carried away captive, and rescued by Abraham. In ch. 19 is narrated the escape of Lot and his daughters from Sodom, with the subsequent incidents. The city of Zoar, where they dwelt for a time, is possibly the Zoara or Zoor of Josephus, at the S.E. extremity of the Dead Sea, in the modem GliSr es-Safieh., a well-watered region. The mountain to which he finally went is doubtless the mountainous region later known as Moab. The story of the daughters of Lot (19) is now usually considered to be not history, but a traditional account of the origin of the two nations, Moab and Ammon. The basis of the story is partly popular etymology of the two names; while it is prompted chiefly by national rivalry and hostility. That Lot was a righteous man (2 Peter 2:7, 8) may be granted in a relative sense, in comparison with the Sodomites; but he shows no great strength of character. .

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

Lotan

A Horite clan (Genesis 36 = 1 Chronicles 1:38, 39).

Lothasubxts

Lothasubxts (1 Esdras 9:44). A corruption of Hashum in Nehemiah 8:4.

Lots

See MAaic(567f.),UBrM ANDTHUMMiM, PnRiM.

Lotus Trees

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