Parable – Pashhur

Parable

(IN OT). 1. The ward represents Heb. mashal, which is used with a wide range of meaning, and is very variously tr. both in LXX and in EV. The root means ‘to be like,’ and Oxf. Heb. Lex. refers the word to ‘the sentences constructed in parallelism,’ which are characteristic of Heb. poetry and gnomic literature; i.e. it refers to the literary form in which the sentence is cast, and not to any external comparison implied in the thought. Such a comparison, however, is often found in the m&shal, and, according to many scholars, is the main idea underlying the word. We are concerned here with the cases where the EV tr. ‘parable’ ; it is important to notice that in OT ‘parable’ has the varying senses of mash&l, and is never used in the narrow technical sense of the NT. In Numbers 23:7 etc. it is used of the figurative discourse of Balaam (cf. Isaiah 14:4 [RV], Micah 2:4. Habakkuk 2:6) in Job 27:1 29:1 of Job’s sentences of ethical wisdom, differing little from the ‘proverbs’ of 1 Kings 4, Proverbs 1:1 10:1 (the same word mashal). So in Luke 4 (RV) it is used of a proverb. Proverbs 26:7–9 speaks of ‘a parable in the mouth of fools,’ which halts and is misapplied. In Psalms 49:4 78:2 ‘parable’ is coupled with ‘dark saying’ and implies something of mystery; ct. the quotation in Matthew 13 and John 16:25 AVm, RVm, where it represents a Gr. word usually tr. ‘proverb.’ In Wisdom 5 (AVm, RV) , ‘parable’ means ‘by-word,’ a sense which m&shBX often has. In Ezekiel 17:2 we have ‘the parable’ of the eagle, really an allegory (see below); ct. the use in John 10:6, Hebrews 9:9 RV, 11:19 RV, where it represents a figure or allegory. Closely connected is Ezekiel 24:3. the parabolic narrative of the caldron; the action described was probably not actually performed. Such mysterious figures are characteristic of Ezekiel, and he is reproached as ‘a speaker of parables’ (20:49).

2. The meaning of ‘parable^ in the technical sense. — If Christ did not create the parabolic type of teaching. He at least developed it with high originality, and gave it a deeper spiritual import. His parables stand as a type, and it is convenient to attach a technical sense to the word, as describing this special type. As distinguished from fable (wh. see), it moves on a higher ethical and literary plane. Fables violate probability in introducing speech of animals, etc., in an unnatural way, and their moral is confined to lessons of worldly wisdom. The allegory, again, is more artificial. It represents something’ other’ than itself (the Gr. word means ‘speaking other’), the language of the spiritual life being translated into the language, e.g., of a battle, or a journey. ‘The qualities and properties of the first are transferred to the last, and the two thus blended together, instead of being kept quite distinct and placed side by side, as is the case in the parable’ (Trench, On Parables, ch. 1). Hence each detail has its meaning, and exists for that meaning, not for the sake of the story. In the parable, particularly in those of the NT, the story is natural and sell-sufBcient as a story, but is seen to point to a deeper spiritual meaning. ‘The details as a rule are not to be pressed, but are simply the picturesque setting of the story, their value being purely literary. In the allegory, each figure, king or soldier, servant or child,’ is’ some one else without qualification; each detail, sword or shield, road or tree, ‘means’ something perfectly definite. It is not so in most of the parables; the lesson rests on the true analogy which exists between the natural and the spiritual world. Without requiring any fictitious ‘licence,’ the parable simply assumes that the Divine working in each sphere follows the same law. Like an analogy, it appeals to the reason no less than to the imagination.

3. OT parables. — There are five passages in the OT which are generally quoted as representing the nearest approach to ‘parables’ in the technical sense. It is noticeable that in none of them is the word used; as we have seen, where we have the word, we do not really have the thing; in the same way, where we have the thing, we do not find the word. The first two passages (2 Samuel 12:1–4 [Nathan’s parable], 14:6 [Joab’s]) are very similar; we have a natural story with an application. The first is exactly parallel to such a parable as ‘the Two Debtors,’ but the second has no deep or spiritual significance. The same is true of 1 Kings 20:39 [the wounded prophet], where the story is helped out by a piece of acting. In all three cases the object is to convey the actual truth of the story, and by the unguarded comments of the listener to convict him out of his own mouth. The method has perhaps in the last two cases a suspicion of trickery, and was not employed by our Lord; the application of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33) was obvious from the first in the light of Isaiah 5:1–6. This passage is the fourth of those referred to, and is a true parable, though only slightly developed. It illustrates well the relation between a parable and a metaphor; and a comparison with Psalms 80:8 shows how narrow is the border-line between parable and allegory. The last passage is Isaiah 28:24–28, where we have a comparison between the natural and the spiritual world, but no story. It should be noted that post-Biblical Jewish literature makes a wide use of parable, showing sometimes, alike in spirit, form, and language, a remarkable resemblance to the parables of the NT.

C. W. Emmet. PARABLE (IN NT).— l. iWeaninffandform.—d) The constant use of a word, meaning resemblance both in Hebrew and in Greek, makes it evident that an essential feature of the parable lay in the bringing together of two different things so that the one helped to explain and to emphasize the other. In the parables of Christ the usual form is that of a complete story running parallel to the stages and divisions of a totally different subject. Thus in the parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1–8) the kinds of soil in the narrative are related to certain distinctions of character in the interpretation (13). The teaching value thus created came from an appeal to the uniformity of nature. In the Oriental thought of the Bible writers this contained a factor or field of illustration often grudgingly conceded by the materialistic provincialism of modern Western science. It was recognized and believed by them that the Lord of all had the right to do as He pleased with His own. Instead of being an element of disruption, this was to them the guarantee of all other sequences. He who gave to the frail grass its form of beauty could be relied upon with regard to higher forms of life. The attention given to the fall of the sparrow would not be withheld from the death of His saints. The conception gave solidarity to all phenomenal sequences, and forced into special notice whatever seemed to be subject to other influences. Such was the parable value of contrast between the behaviour of Israel towards God and the common sentiment of family relationship, and even the grateful instincts of the beasts of burden (Isaiah 1:2, 3). Thus also Christ spoke of His own homelessness as a privation unknown to the birds and the foxes (Matthew 8:20). This effect of contrasting couples formed a literary feature in some of Christ’s parables where opposing types of character were introduced side by side (Matthew 21:28 25:2, Luke 18:10).

(2) The use of the word paroimia in LXX and in the Gospel of John indicates that a proverb or parable, being drawn from common objects and incidents, was available and meant for public use. What was once said in any particular case could always be repeated under similar circumstances.

(3) Occasionally the public parable value was reached by making an individual represent all others of the same class. The parable then became an example in the ordinary sense of the term (Luke 14:8, 12, 1). In John 10:1–6 15:1–7. there is no independent introductory narrative dealing with shepherd life and the care of the vineyard. Certain points are merely selected and dwelt upon as in the interpretation of a parable story previously given. Here there is all the explanatory and persuasive efficiency of the appeal to nature and custom, but, as in this case the reference is to Christ Himself as Head of the Kingdom, the parable has not the general application of those belonging to its citizenship. It is nevertheless a parable, though ‘the Door’ and ‘the Vine’ are usually called emblems or symbols of Christ.

2. Advantages and Disadvantages. — In the parable two different planes of experience were brought together, one familiar, concrete, and definite, the other an area of abstractions, conjectures, and possibilities. At the points of contact it was possible for those who desired to do so to pass from the known to the unlinown. Imagination was exercised and the critical faculty appealed to, and sympathy was enlisted according to the merits of the case presented. A moral decision could thus be impartially arrived at without arousing the instinct of self-defence, and when the parallelism was once recognized, the hearer had either to make the desired application or act in contempt of his own judgment (2 Samuel 12:1–4). In Christ’s parables, as distinct from the ordinary fable which they otherwise completely resembled in form, the illustrations were always drawn from occurrences that were possible, and which might therefore have belonged to the experience of the hearer. When the meaning was perceived, this fact gave to the explanation the persuasive value of something sanctioned, by the actuahties of Mfe. But, on the other hand, the meaning might not be understood. Its acceptance was limited by the power to discover it. Only he who could see the prophet’s chariot could use the prophet’s mantle. The transition of responsibility from the speaker to the hearer was sometimes indicated by the words, ‘He that hath ears to hear, let him hear’ (Matthew 13:9). Christ’s most solemn utterances were directed towards the insensibihty that took its music without dancing, and sat silent where the wail for the dead was raised (Matthew 11:17). His last act towards such imperviousness was to pray for it and to die for it (Luke 23:34, 37, Rq 5:8).

3. The special need of Parables in Christ’s teaching. — If the teaching of Christ had been devoted to matters already understood and accepted as authoritative, such as the conventional commentary on the law of Moses, such a presentation of moral and spiritual truth, while imparting the charm of freshness to things f amiUar, would not have been actually necessary. The Scribes and Pharisees did not require it. Even if, passing beyond the Jewish ceremonial observance and externahsm. He had been content to speak of personal salvation and ethical ideas after the manner so prevalent in the Western Church of to-day, He would not have needed the vehicle of parable instruction. But the subject which, under all circumstances, privately and pubhcly, directly and indirectly, He sought to explain, commend, and impersonate, was that of a Kingdom that had for its destiny the conquest of the world. Alike in His preaching and in His miraculous works. His constant purpose was to reveal and glorify the Father (John 15:8 16:25) and to unfold the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 4:23 13:11, Luke 8:10). These mysteries were not in themselves obscure or remote (Matthew 16:1–4, Luke 17:21 18:16), but its principles and motives and rewards were so opposed to all that had entered the mind of man, that it had to be characterized as a Kingdom that was not of this world (John 18). It was this Kingdom of Messianic expectation that united Christ with the historic past of the elected nation to which according to the flesh He belonged. Its appearance had been the chief burden of prophecy, and its expansion and attendant blessing to humanity had been dwelt upon as the recompense for the travail of Zion. The Messiah was to be the Prince of Peace in that Kingdom of exploded and exhausted evil, where in symbol the wolf and the lamb were to feed together (Isaiah 65:25). The princes of the people of the earth were to be gathered together to be the people of the God of Abraham (Genesis 12:3, Psalms 47:9). But the same mysteries of the Kingdom, which connected Christ with the prophetic utterances and developed history of Israel, also brought Him into a relationship of antagonism towards the religious teaching of His own time. The people recognized in His words the authority that belonged to Moses’ seat, but they saw very clearly that another than Moses was there. The point of distinction between Him and the Pharisees was that in His hands the Law was no longer an end in itself, but became a minister to what was beyond and greater than itself. While the Rabbinical teaching boasted that the world had been created only for the Torah, He taught that the Law had been created for the world. This radical opposition appeared in what He said about the proper use and observance of the Sabbath day, and in His condemnation of those who would neither enter the Kingdom nor allow others to do so. They taught with pdde and complacency that the Kingdom of God had reached its final consummation and embodiment in their own exclusive circle, whereas the message of Christ was to be borne over new areas of progress and expansion until it reached and conquered the uttermost parts of the earth. It was a parting at the fountain-head. One teaching meant the extinction of the other. Of this Kingdom and its mysteries Christ spoke in parables. He thereby turned the thoughts of men from the Mosaic succession of Kabbinical precedents and their artiflcial mediation of the Law of God, and discovered a new source of illumination and authority in the phenomena of the seasons, the relationships of the family, and the industries of village lite. Faith, obedience, and love took the place of technical knowledge and ofBcial position. The Kingdom of heaven was at hand, and the King’s invitation to enter was always wider than the willingness to accept it. To His disciples He more intimately explained that it was a Kingdom of relationship to God, and of men’s relationship, in consequence, towards one another. This, along with the story of His own life and ministry and resurrection, was to be the gospel they were to preach, by the power of the Spirit, as the message of God’s salvation to the whole world. In the Sermon on the Mount those mysteries of the Kingdom were indicated in outline, and in the parables the theme was still the same, whether the story started from the initiative of the Teacher in the presence of the multitude, or was suggested by some incident of the hour. In the long warfare of the world’s kingdoms men had grown familiar with the cry, ‘Woe to the vanquished!’ but, in that Kingdom of which He spoke, a new social instinct, created and nourished by its citizenship, was to inflict an intolerable pain on those who could relieve misery and uplift the down-trodden and cheer the despairing, and did it not. It was to take upon itself the world’s estrangement from God and hardness of heart, and make Its own the Christless shame of moral defeat, and social discord, and all unloveHness of life. In the citizenship of that Kingdom the sorest impoverishment would not be in the humble byways of the lame and the blind, but in the hornes of selfish luxury and privileged exemption. The chief crime of the Kingdom, involving a complete negation of discipleship, would be an evaded cross. ‘I was sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not’ (Matthew 25:43). Both from the novelty of the vision thus presented, and from its hostility to the spirit and authority of the religious leaders, it is evident that teaching by parable was the form best adapted to Christ’s purpose and subject, and to the circumstances of the time. It was an eiflcient and illuminating method of instruction to those who were able to receive it. The petition once presented by two of His disciples indicates what might have become general if the rewards of the Kingdom had been announced to those who had not the true spirit of its service (Matthew 20:21). By leaving altogether the traditions and controversies of the exhausted Church of that day, Hebrews 6 a fresh positive re-statement of the nature and dimension of the Kingdom of God.

4. The foUowiug selection from Christ’s parables indicates some of the points of relationship to the Kingdom. Whatever is stated generally applies also to the individual, and the latter should not regard anything as essential and vital which he cannot share with the whole membership. The humblest service Is regarded as done directly to the King. (1) The parable of boundaries, the conditions and environment of the Kingdom: the Sower and the Seed (Matthew 13:1–23) difliculties and dangers arising fromlnattention, superficiality. and divided allegiance. Failure abnormal. (2) Accepted circumstance: Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13) malignity progressively revealed in the advancing stages of the Kingdom; the patience of the Spirit. (3) Continuous development and adaptation: Growing Seed (Ml£ 4) union in the service of the Kingdom not an artificial pattern commending itself to a particular age, but a new circle of growth around the parent stem which moves onwards and upwards towards flower and fruit. (4) The appointed task: Talents (Matthew 25:14–30). Pounds (Luke 19:12–27) faith accepting personal responsibility; the servant of the Kingdom, being relieved from the dangers of success and failure, labours so that he may present his account with joy in the presence of the King, being prepared for that which is prepared for him. (5) The parable of office: T?ie Husbandmen in the Vineyard(Mt 21. Luke 12:42–46) names and claims in the Church that dispossess and dishonour Christ. (6) The King’s interest: Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3–7), Lost Coin (15:8–10), Lost Son (15:11–32) forfeited ownership sorrowfully known to the owner; social relationship to the Kingdom indicated by the fact that the sheep was one of a hundred, the coin one of ten, and the son a member of a family. (7) Cost and recompense of citizenship: Hid Treasure (Matthew 13:44). Pearl of Great Price (13:45) self is eliminated, but ‘all things are yours.’ (8) Fulfilment: The Great Supper (Luke 14:15–24) the King’s purpose must be carried out; if individuals and nations of civilized pre-eminence hold back, others will be made worthy of the honour of the service. (9) Rejected membership and lost opportunity: Rich Fool (Luke 12:16–21), Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19–31). (10) Personality in the Kingdom: (a) humility (Matthew 18:1–4, Luke 18:9–14) (6) sincerity (Mt 7:15–27) (c) usefulness (Luke 13:6–9) (d) gratitude (Matthew 18, Luke 7:41–43) (e) readiness to help (Luke 10) (f) assurance of faith (Luke 11 8:1–8) (g) patient hope (Mk 13, Luke 12). G. M. Mackie.

Paraclete

See Advocate, Paul, p. 693".

PARADISE, — A Persian word for ‘park’ or ‘garden’ (see Orchard) , used in later Jewish and Christian thought to represent the abode of the blessed dead.

1, In the OT. — While the word pardes occurs only 3 times in the OT (Song of Songs 4:12. Ecclesiastes 2:5. Nehemiah 2:8), and then with no reference to the Garden of Eden, it is unquestionable that Eden serves as the basis for the later conception. The transition from the usage of Genesis to one less literal is to be seen in Ezekiel 31, which is doubtless modified to a considerable degree by Babylonian conceptions. These, undoubtedly, are also to be seen in the Genesis picture of Eden. The significance of Ezekiel’s conception is that it shows the anticipation of the apocalyptic conception of Eth. Enoch (chs. 23-28) and other apocalypses both Jewish and Christian.

2. In Jewish apocalyptic literature and in the NT. — In the apocalypses there are elaborate descriptions (particularly Eth. Enoch, Apoc. Baruch 4, and 2 Esdras 8:52) of Paradise as the opposite of Gehenna. In the Rabbinical conception of the universe. Paradise is the abode of the blessed dead. There is the tree of life, and there also the righteous feast. Gehenna and Paradise are, according to the Rabbis, close together, being separated only by a handbreadth. This view, however, is difficult to harmonize with other conceptions, and the adjustment is probably to be made by the other view of a twofold’ Paradise, one in Sheol and the other in Heaven. Such a view would harmonize with the conception that the righteous would rise from the nether Paradise to the heavenly. The word is never used by Jesus or St. Paul except in Luke 23:43 and 2 Corinthians 12:4. From some points of view it would be more natural to make these two passages refer to the two Paradises respectively, but a final conclusion is prevented by lack of evidence. The reference of Paul (2 Corinthians 12:4) is undoubtedly to the upper Paradise — that is, the third heaven. Here agam, however, it is not safe to derive dogma from what may be a merely conventional expression.

3. In Christian theology the term is commonly used as identical with ‘heaven,’ although in some cases it is distinguished as the ‘temporary abode of the saints, either in some place on earth or above the earth. It has been particularly developed in connexion with the speculation as to the intermediate state as the place where the righteous live between their death and the Farousia. Lack of data, however, makes it impossible to reach certainty in the matter, and the most modern theology maintains an attitude of reverent agnosticism regarding the state of the dead, and uses the term’ Paradise ‘as a symbol rather than with precise definition. Shaileb Mathews.

Parah

A city in Benjamin (Joshua 18:23). Now the ruin FOrah, near the head of the Valley of Michmash.

Paralysis, Paralytic

See Medicine, p. 699».

Paran

E; Paran, ‘the oak or terebinth (LXX) of Paran’ (Genesis 14:6), is probably identical with Elath, the ancient seaport on the Gulf of Akabah. Perhaps in this region should be sought ‘Paran’ of Deuteronomy 33:2. Habakkuk 3 (Driver, ‘Deut.’ UCC\, 392). Palmer (. Desert of the Exodus, p. 510) identifies it with Jehel Magrah, c. 29 miles S. of ‘Ain Kadis. If Deuteronomy 2:8 refers to a place in Moab, no trace of it has yet been found. A city may be intended in 1 Kings 11:18. lymg between Edom and Egypt, which cannot now be identified. The exiled Ishmael settled m the ‘Wilderness of Paran,’ evidently S. of Beersheba (Genesis 21:21). Israel’s first march from Sinai brought them to this wilderness (Numbers 10:12). Within it lay Taberah, Kibroth-hattaavah, Mazeroth, Kadesh, and what is called the ‘Wilderness of Zin.’ The spies went from the ‘Wilderness of Zin’ (13:21), jn which lay Kadesh (20:1 27:14, cf . 33:36), and this again is identified with the ‘Wilderness of Paran’ (13:26). It corresponds to the great limestone plateau of et-Tlh, stretching from the S. of Judah to the mountains of Sinai, having the Arabah on the E. and the desert of Shur on the W. Hither David fled after Samuel’s death (1 Samuel 25:1. LXX B here gives Maan =Heb. Ma’ dn, See Smith, • Samuel’ [7CC], 220 f.). W. Ewma.

Parbar

A term identified with parvarlm (AV ‘suburbs,’ RV ‘precincts’) of 2 Kings 23:11 and applied to part of the Temple buildings lying on the W., where two Levites were stationed (1 Chronicles 26:18). The word is supposed to be of Persian origin and to have been taken over into Hebrew to indicate a colonnade or portico open to the light. The pi. form parvarlm (2 Kings 23:11) describes the situation of the ‘chamber of Nathanmelech,’ and might be translated ‘in the colonnades,’ but it is difficult to understand how a Persian word could occur so early. Either the word is a late explanatory addition to the text, or perhaps we have a diCferent^word altogether, descriljing the office of Nathanmelech. If we read bapperddim instead of bapparvarim, we get the meaning ‘who was over the mules.’

W. F. Boyd.

Parched Corn

Parched corn (qdll, or more fully ‘Oblb qalui bWlsh [Leviticus 2:14). Leviticus 23:14. Joshua 5:11. Ruth 2:14, 1 Samuel 17:17 25:18. 2 Samuel 17:28) is often made on the harvest field by holding a bundle of ears in a blazing fire or by roasting them over a piece of metal. Cf . Food, 2. E. W. G. Masterman.

Parchment

See Pebgamum, Writing, § 6.

Pardon

See Forgiveness.

Parents

See Family.

Parlour

See House, § 6.

Parmashta

The seventh of the sons of Haman, put to death by the Jews (Esther 9:9).

Parmenas

One of the ‘Seven’ (Acts 6:5).

PARNACH,— The father of Elizaphan (Numbers 34).

Parosh

The name of a post-exilic family (Ezra 2:3 = Nehemiah 7:8) Ezra 8:3 lO^*, Nehemiah 3:25 10:14. The Gr. form FhoTOS is adopted in 1 Esdras 5:9 S’" 9.

Parousia

The ‘appearance,’ Advent, or Second Coming of Christ at the end of ‘this age’ in order to establish His Kingdom. 1. Origin of the expectation. — The Messianic interpretation given to Jesus by the Apostles was essentially eschatological. No one of them understood Him to be engaged in the work of establishing the Kingdom of God during the period culminating in His death. He was the Christ in the sense that (a) Hebrews 1 anointed (empowered) by God to deliver men; (6) Hebrews 6 and preparing men for His Kingdom; (c) He died and rose to manifest the justice and love of God, and thus save those who accepted Him as Christ; (d) He would return to conquer Satan, judge both the living and the dead, and establish His Kingdom either in heaven or on a renewed earth. How far we are to believe that this view was held or countenanced by Jesus Himself will be determined by the view taken as to the authorship of Mark 13 and other apocalyptic sections of the Synoptic Gospels. At this point Christain scholars are divided into three groups: first, those who believe that Jesus was thoroughly in sympathy with the eschatological views of His contemporaries; second, those who hold that He rejected those views, and that the eschatological sayings attributed to Him are the result of reading back into His word the admitted eschatological expectation of the Apostles and the early Church as a whole. There seems little likelihood at present of agreement between these two groups, for the reason that the second group uses as critical criteria dogmatic or highly subjective presuppositions concerning Jesus. The nearest approach to a compromise view is to be found in the position of the third group, who hold that Jesus to some extent utilized the eschatology of His day, but that His references have been developed and made specific by the Evangelists. However these larger questions may be answered, an impartial criticism and exegesis can hardly deny that Jesus leferred to His future in terms which, if interpreted literally, would mean His return in judgment (cf . particularly Mk 14:61–63. Matthew 23:37–39). As to the exact time at which He expected His return we have no information, except such sayings as Mark 8 [Matthew 16:24–28, Luke 9:23–27 show influence of Apostolic interpretation] and Luke 17:22. 2 . Expectation in the early Church . — The elements in the expectation of the Parousia found in the Gospels and in the Epistles can be formulated without serious difficulty. It was expected within the lifetime of the writers (except 2 Peter 3:3–9) 1 Thessalonians 4:15. 1 Corinthians 15:51 f.; or immediately: Ja 5:8. Philippians 4:5, Romans 13:11, 1 Corinthians 7:29, 1 Peter 4:7. The exact day is, however, not known (1 Thessalonians 5:2). but will be preceded by sorrows and the appearance of Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and the conversion of the Jews (Romans 11:25, 26). The order of events awaited is the descent of Jesus with His angels from the upper heavens to the lower; the sounding of the trumpet and the voice of the archangel which will summon the dead from Sheol; the giving to the saints of the body of the resurrection; the catching up of the living saints, who have been changed in the twinkling of an eye, to meet Jesus and the risen saints in the air; the general judgment of both living and dead; the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, which, after a period of struggle, is to be victorious over the kingdom of Satan; and finally the fixing of the eternal supremacy of God. Among certain Christians this view was further elaborated, so that the appearance of Christ in the sky was followed by the resurrection of the martyrs, a thousand years of peace, during which Satan was to be boimd, then the conquest of Satan, the general resurrection, and the establishment of the final conditions of eternity. This latter view, however, although popular in the 2nd cent., does not appear in the NT except in Revelation 20:2–7 (see Millennium). It easily passed over into the sensuous chiliastic views which were finally rejected from the main current of Christian thought largely through the influence of Augustine, but which have continued to exist among different sects or groups of Christians.

3. Various identifications of the Parousia. — (a) With Christ’s resurrection. Such a view, however, disregards many of the elements of the NT expectation, and has never been widely accepted. (6) The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost — a view commonly held by those who reject the literalistic interpretation of the apocalyptic elements of the NT, and identify the influence of the risen Jesus in the world with the Holy Spirit. This view makes such passages as John 14:23 and 16:7 ff. the exegetical point of approach to the entire question, (c) The destruction of Jerusalem. This is generally combined with (6) and said to be forecast in Mark 13 and 14:61–63. (d) The theory of the successive comings of the Christ in judgment. Thus various historical crises, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Roman Empire, are regarded as due to the immediate influence of the Christ and as a part of the new dispensation of the Spirit, (e) The death of the believer — a view exegetically untenable. (/) The historicalcritical view sees in the expectations of the NT Christianity survivals of Jewish eschatology. Such a view does not deny an element of truth in the expectation, but regards the belief as due to the attachment to Jesus of Jewish expectations (cf. Eth. Enoch 48) now seen to be impossible of realization.

The view probably most generally held at the present time involves elements from several of these specific explanations, and is to the effect that, while the Apostles doubtless expected the eschatological cataclysm to occur in their day, they saw the future in prophetic rather than historical perspective. As a consequence the Second Coming with its attendant events is still to be expected. At different times men have endeavoured by the interpretation of the Book of Daniel to determine the precise date at which it will occur; but among those who still await a literal appearance of Christ in the air it is usual to regard the Parousia as likely to occur immediately, or at any time during an indefinite future period. Shaileb Mathews.

Parshandatha

The eldest of the sons of Haman, put to death by the Jews (Esther 9:7).

Parthians

The founders of a powerful dynasty in Persia which overthrew the yoke of the Syrian Seleucidas b.c. 250, and maintained itself against all external enemies till a.d. 226, defying even the Romans. They came from northern Iran, and their language or dialect greatly affected the cultivated speech of the empire, which was known as Pahlavi during their rSgime. But the exact form of the language of the Jews or proselytes who came to Jerusalem from Parthia, referred to in Acts 2:9. cannot be ascertained. J. F. M’ Cuedy.

Partridge

Partridge (qSre’, 1 Samuel 26:20, Jeremiah 17:11). Two kinds of partridge abound in Palestine. The chukar or rock partridge (Caccabis chukar) is the commonest of game birds. Its cry may be heard all over the land, and large coveys may be encountered in the autumn. It is distinguished by its red legs. It is excellent eating. Hey’s sand partridge (.Amm^perdix heyi) occurs in enormous numbers around the Dead Sea. It is probably the partridge referred to in 1 Samuel 26:20: its short flights from place to place when hunted; its hiding, trusting to its invisibility on account of its colour being so like the environment; its quick run from danger before taking to wing; and its flnal capture when too wearied to fly — must form a very suitable image of a poor human fugitive remorselessly pursued. The reference in Jeremiah 17:11 is hard to understand; it may perhaps refer to the fact that when disturbed from their nests such birds sometimes never return. In Sirach 11:30 the heart of a proud man is compared to a decoy partridge in a cage. It is still customary in Palestine to hunt the red-legged partridge by the aid of such decoys.

E. W. G. Masterman.

Paruah

Father or clan of Jehoshaphat, Solomon’s prefect in Issachar (1 Kings 4:17).

Parvaim

A region whence, according to 2 Chronicles 3:6, the gold was obtained which was used for ornamenting the Temple of Solomon. The name is most plausibly identified with Farwa in Yemen, or S. W. Arabia. It was possibly from this place that the ‘gold of Sheba’ (Psalms 72:15; cf. Isaiah 60:6) was in part derived.

J. F. M’ CnHDY.

Pasach

An Asherite (1 Chronicles 7:33).

Paseah

1. A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:12). 2. The father of Joiada (Nehemiah 3:6). 3. The eponym of a family of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:49 = Nehemiah 7:51) in 1 es S^‘Phinoe.

Pashhur

1. A son of Malchiah, a prince of Judsea in the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 21:1). who was opposed to the prophet (Jeremiah 38:1–13). Perhaps he is the father of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 38:1). and likely identical with Pashhur, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:12. Nehemiah 11:12, as the ancestor of Adaiah. 2. The son of Immer, a Temple official and priest, who caused Jeremiah to be beaten and put in the stocks after he had predicted the fall of Jerusalem. The prophet told him his name was not Pashhur (probably’ peace,’ lit. ‘staying on every side’) but Magor-missabib (‘terror [or perhaps wandering] round about’), and added that he would die in Babylon (Jeremiah 20:1–6). Perhaps he was the father of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 38:1). 3. The father of the Gedaliah mentioned in Jeremiah 38:1. and may be either 1 or 2, or neither. 4. The head of a priestly family, ‘the sons of Pashhur’ mentioned in Ezra 2:38. Nehemiah 7:41. Ezra 10:22. 1 Esdras 5:25 (Phassunis) 9:22 (Phaisur) . 6. A priest who signed the covenant with Nehemiah, probably identical with 4, or used of the clan as a whole (Nehemiah 10:3). W. F. Boyd.