Paul the Apostle (continued) – Pelethites

Paul the Apostle (continued)

In this connexion we may glance at St. Paul’s view of the mosaic Law. He was no Marciouite, rejecting the OT. In his view the Law was useful as a guardian, a tutor, having charge of the world in its childhood (Galatians 3:23 f.). It is proved, however, to have been subsidiary and transitory, (a) by the fact that the promise was given to Abraham, before the Law (Galatians 3:17) — and in this place St. Paul uses a Rabbinical argument from the grammatical form of the word ‘seed,’ which he applies to Christ; and (6) by the fact that it was given not direct from God, as was the promise to Abraham, but by the hands of angel ministers (Galatians 3:19; the reference is perhaps to Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalms 68:17; cf. Acts 7:38). and by a mediator, Moses (cf. Deuteronomy 5:5). The Law affixes a penalty to sin, but does not provide the way to escape from it; thus those who are under the Law are under a curse, which is removed by the gospel (Galatians 3). In another passage St. Paul draws an allegory from the story of Moses’ veil, put on his face that the people might not see the glory passing away from it. For the Lawgiver veiled himself, not because they could not bear to look on his face, but because he knew that the Law was transitory, and wished to hide the fact from the people. This seems to be the Apostle’s meaning in 2 Corinthians 3:13 ff. (see Thackeray, op. dt. p. 75).

In teaching free forgiveness St. Paul does not teach lawlessness (Romans 6:1 f.; see 8). But it was perhaps a distorted account of his early teaching that caused St. James to write the famous passage on works which occurs in his Epistle (James 2:14 ff.). There is no real contradiction between the two Apostles; as so often in religious controversy, an apparent difference comes from words being used in diverse senses. St. James speaks of an empty faith which does not produce a holy life, that is, which is no real faith at all ; while St. Paul speaks of barren works that are a mere mechanical obedience to the Law, as opposed to a faith which necessarily produces active obedience to the commands of the Master.

8. Sanctification and Sacraments. — As has been said, St. Paul dwells on the necessity, not only of forgiveness, but of holiness. The two are inextricably interwoven. We must ‘become the righteousness of God’ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and be ‘conformed to the image of his Son’ (Romans 8:29) as the Son is the image of the Father (see above, 3). Sanctification is described as an implanting in the Christian of the life of Christ (Galatians 2:20). for the risen life must begin in a very real sense here below if it is to be perfected hereafter (Colossians 3:1). By a slightly different figure we are said in Ro & (see RV) to be united by growth [with Christ], in respect of, or by, the likeness of (i.e. by partaking in) His death and resurrection (cf. Philippians 3:10) the language closely resembles our Lord’s words at Capernaum (John 6:53–57). and His parable of the Vine (John 15:1 ff.). Of this union baptism is at once a symbol and an instrument; we are immersed and submerged, then emerge from the font — the reference is to the custom of baptism by immersion — and so we die, are buried, and rise with Christ to a new life (Romans 6:3 f. ; cf . Colossians 2:12. Titus 3:5) by baptism we are incorporated with Him (Romans 6:3; cf. Galatians 3:27. 1 Co !"■ RV, Matthew 28:19 RV, Acts 8:16 RV, 19:5 RV). The phrase ‘baptized into’ or ‘unto’ denotes either the purpose of baptism (e.g. remission of sins) or the person to whom the baptized is united. [In 1 Corinthians 10:2 the words are used in an inferior sense, of the obedience of the Israelites to Moses.] It has been objected to this interpretation that our Lord gave the command to baptize (Matthew 28:19) in Aramaic, and that the phrase used in that language could only mean ‘to baptize under the authority of’ (Dean Robinson). But whatever the phrase ‘in the name of might formerly have meant among the Jews, St. Paul’s language seems to show that the Apostles understood our Lord’s words, even in Aramaic, to convey the new truth that baptism is an incorporation into the Name of Jesus, or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Bp. Chase). For a full discussion on both sides see JThSt vi. 481, vii. 186, viii. 161.

Again, of this union with Christ St. Paul makes the Eucharist at once a symbol and an instrument. That Sacrament is not only a union of Christians among themselves (‘one bread, one body’), but also a ‘participation in’ or ‘communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10). It is this feature of the Sacrament that made the Corinthian abuses so heinous, and that makes an unworthy reception by the communicant so serious,’ if he discern not the body’ (1 Corinthians 11:23–32).

This union with Christ cannot be effected by man’s own unaided power, but requires grace . It is impossible here to describe all the shades of meaning which St. Paul gives to this word. But we may say in brief that it is God’s good favour towards us, not only as a Divine attribute, but as actively operating and as freely given to man through the Incarnation (Romans 5:21. 1 Corinthians 1:4). Hence it is the ‘grace of Jesus Christ’ (2 Corinthians 8:9 13:14). It is at once God’s good favour towards us and the active help or power which God gives to man to enable him to overcome (Ephesians 4:7). and is ‘sufficient’ for him (2 Corinthians 12:9). Emphasis is laid on the fact that grace is not earned, and it is opposed to a ‘debt’ (Romans 4:4) and to meritorious deeds (‘works,’ Romans 11:6). The word is especially used in connexion with the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, of the help given both to the evangelizer (1 Corinthians 3:10 etc.) and to the evangelized (2 Co &■, Acts 13:43 etc.). But in St. Paul the use of it is somewhat more fluid than in Latin theological language, in which ‘Divine help’ became the crystallized sense.

9. The Catholic Church and Universality of the Gospel. — The large subject of the Church can here be referred to only very briefly. St. Paul maintains in Rom. and Gal. the universality of the Church, a society for all the world, which need not be entered through Judaism. Christ has broken down the wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14 3:6). His Church is a visible society (Ephesians 4:11 f.) ; one (1 Corinthians 10:17 12:13) because God is one (Ephesians 4) holy because all Christians are called to be saints (1 Corinthians 1:2). and it is ‘cleansed by the laver of water with the word’ (Ephesians 5:26). though it contains some wicked men (cf . 1 Corinthians 5) ; catholic, because for every man (Colossians 1:28: there is no ‘inner circle’ of the initiated), and for all nations and ages, and containing all truth (Galatians 3:28 etc., 1 Timothy 3:15. 2 Timothy 2:15; cf. John 16:13: the name itself is not found before Ignatius); and apostolic (Ephesians 2:20). The last thought is the same as that of John 20:21. for Christians are not a self-constituted body, but are ‘sent’ by God ; that is, they are ‘apostolic’ St. Paul describes the Church under various metaphors. It is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27. Ephesians 4:12 5:30. Colossians 1:18, 24) because its members are united to (3hrist (see 8 above), and Christ is its head (Ephesians 1:22 f.) the idea is led up to by Romans 12:5 (‘one body in Christ’), 1 Corinthians 12:12 (‘the body is one’). Also the Church is the bride of Christ; the title is implied in Eph (cf. Revelation 21:2). It is the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15), a common metaphor which still gives us the double meaning of ‘church’ and the phrase ‘to be edified’ (Romans 15:2 etc.) ; the building, foundation, and corner-stone are described in Ephesians 2:20 ff.: where ‘each several building’ of RV means ‘each stone that is built into the one building.’ The metaphors of ‘body’ and ‘house’ are joined in Ephesians 4:12. In another figure the Church is an olive tree, being regarded as a continuation of the old dispensation, new branches (the Gentiles) having been grafted in, and the old ones (the Jews) broken off, though they too may again be grafted in’(Ro ll’s-M). See Grafting.

In this Church St. Paul describes a regular ministry ; Apostles like himself; apostolic delegates such as Timothy and Titus, whose work, like that of the Apostles, was mainly itinerant; settled or local officers, called bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers) at Philippi (Philippians 1:1) and in the Pastoral Epistles (no deacons are mentioned in Tit.). Presbyters (elders) are also mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles (cf. also Acts 11:30 15:2 ff. 16:4 21:18 for those at Jerusalem, 14:23 20:17 for those elsewhere); and the identity of these with ‘bishops’ in the Apostolic age seems to be shown by a comparison of these pairs of passages: Acts 20:17, 28. 1 Timothy 3:1 5:1. Titus 1:5, 7. 1 Peter 5:1, 2. though this inference is denied by some. The appointment is by laying on of hands (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 6). Timothy is said to have been ordained ‘with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery’ (1 Timothy 4:14; probably the body of presbyters is intended), and ‘through the laying on’ of St. Paul’s hands (2 Timothy 1:6). Nothing is said in the Pauline Epistles of the method of choosing ministers (see Acts 6:5 f.). — In 1 Corinthians 12:28 St. Paul seems to enumerate not so much names of officials as various works done by the ministry (Apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, gifts of healings, helps, governments, tongues) ; so in Ephesians 4:11 (Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers — the last two denote the same persons). In any case the regular ministry did not exclude the existence side by side with it of a ‘charismatic’ ministry, gifts of prophecy, tongues, healings, and other miracles being exercised by many outside the official ministry (Romans 12:3 ff.: 1 Co 12-14; see also art. Tongues [Gift of]).

The power of exercising discipline in the Church is recognized by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:5. 1 Timothy 1:20. though the exact force of the phrase ‘to deliver unto Satan’ is uncertain. It may denote either simple excommunication or the miraculous infliction of some punishment; but the former seems to be the more probable explanation.

10. Eschatology . — As St. Paul makes the Resurrection of our Lord the foundation of his teaching, so he insists on the resurrection of the body at the Last Day as a cardinal truth. But in the Epistles he does not always deal with the same side of eschatological doctrine, (o) In the earliest of his extant Epistles (1 Thessalonians 4:13 ff.) his language is so deeply coloured by his expectation of the immediate return of our Lord, that he says nothing of the time between death and the Judgment, but thinks only of Jesus coming with His saints (3:13). at the sound of the trump (4:16; cf. also 1 Corinthians 15:52. 2 Esdras 6:23). to awaken the sleeping dead (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20, 51) — all common Jewish figures; for the phrase ‘we that are left’ cf. 2 Esdras 7:28 13:24, 26. Perhaps the supposed nearness of the Second Advent is reflected in Maran atha, ‘The Lord cometh’ (1 Corinthians 16:22), but the phrase may mean ‘The Lord hath come.’ Lest misapprehension of his language should arise, St. Paul adds in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ff. the caution that the ‘man of sin’ must first come, and persecution must arise (so 1 Corinthians 7:26 if we translate ‘the imminent distress’). ‘The idea of trouble before the End is common in the Jewish apocalypses. The one thing certain is that the Coming will be unexpected (1 Thessalonians 5:2).) — (6) In these earliest Epistles nothing is said of the transformation of the body. But in 1 Corinthians 15:35 ff. this is insisted on (so Philippians 3:21 ; cf. Romans 8:23). As the Resurrection of Christ is an assured fact, so that of all men is certain (1 Corinthians 15:12 ff.) the resurrection body is at once the same and not the same as the terrestrial body; there is an identity, and yet a change. The resurrection body is a spiritual body, the necessary result of the terrestrial body, just as a particular seed must result in a particular plant, and yet the seed is changed to become the plant (cf: our Lord’s similar metaphor in John 12:24). In the Apocalypse of Baruch (1st cent, a.d.) there is the thought of the transformation, but as taking place after the Judgment; the dead in this book rise as they were, in order that they may be recognized (cf . also 4 Maccabees 9:22’ as though transformed by fire into immortality, he nobly endured the rackings ‘). St. Paul says that this transformation is necessary, because in our present state we cannot see God ; for this seems to be the meaning of the saying that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50, cf. also Philippians 3:21). In this discussion St. Paul does not speak of the resurrection of the wicked; but elsewhere he re-echoes the teaching of Daniel 12:2 that the righteous and the evil rise together for judgment (Acts 24:15, Romans 2:5 ff. Um-n 2 Corinthians 5:10). It is therefore not probable that in 1 Corinthians 15:23 f. a resurrection first of the righteous, and then, after an interval, of the wicked, is intended; the righteous alone are here considered, and they rise at Christ’s coming, and’ then’ (at Christ’s coming) is the end. Those who see in this passage a millennium, and an interval between the rising of the good and of the wicked, are influenced greatly by Revelation 20:4–6; but the ‘thousand years’ there seems to be a symbolical phrase for the interval between the first Advent and the last conflict, in which the baptized share in Christ’s resurrection(cf. Colossians 3:1, a paradox of obvious meaning). See Swete’s Apocalypse of St. John, p. 260 Cf. — (c) In yet another passage, 2 Corinthians 4:16, the Apostle looks only at the state of the departed immediately after death. Here the metaphor of sleep is dropped, and the nearness to Christ of the faithful dead is dwelt on; they are ‘with Christ,’ whereas in 1 Thessalonians 4 ‘we that are left’ shall meet the Lord only at the sound of the trump at the Last Day, and the ‘dead in Christ’ will meet Him at the same time. An excessive literalism has suggested to some that St. Paul changed his mind about the resurrection of the body and gave up the belief in it in favour of a belief in the immortality of the soul only, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theology (Wisdom 9:15 is cited as showing that the latter had no doctrine of the resurrection of the body.) But this supposition, which is very unlikely in itself when we consider the short interval between the two Corinthian Epistles, is decisively negatived by Philippians 3:21. In 2 Timothy 4:8. written in daily expectation of imminent death, he yet looks beyond the intermediate state to the Day of Judgment, ‘that day,’ ‘the day of the Lord,’ when he shall receive the crown of righteousness.

ll. Marriage andvirgimty.— St. Paul writes no treatise on marriage, but he often alludes to it. Both Jews and Gentiles had been accustomed to divorce being easily obtained. But St. Paul says that a Christian woman is to be bound to her husband for life, though a widow may marry again (Romans 7:1 ff.). Marriage is not to be forbidden (1 Timothy 4:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5). In 1 Corinthians 7, according to the usual interpretation, the Corinthians having asked whether among Christians marriage should be discouraged, St. Paul answers that marriage is permissible for all, though the unmarried state is the better one because of the present (or imminent) distress (.v.^); the thought is of the nearness of Christ’s coming, and of the persecutions which would precede it. But Ramsay thinks that such a question is not to be expected from either Jews or Gentiles of that time, seeing that the Jews for many ages had looked on marriage as a universal duty, and that the Roman law greatly encouraged it; he supposes, therefore, that the Corinthians had asked whether marriage ought to be made obligatory for Christians, and that St. Paul pleaded for a permissible celibacy. — In Ephesians 5:22 ff. the Apostle emphatically treats marriage as holy, symbolizing the union between Christ and His Church.

In 1 Timothy 3:2, 12, Titus 1:6 a bishop (presbyter) or deacon must be ‘the husband of one wife.’ This need not necessarily imply compulsory marriage for the clergy. It has, however, been variously interpreted as forbidding (a) bigamy — but that was forbidden to all Christians; or (b) digamy, i.e. marrying again after the death of the first wife, as In a later ecclesiastical discipline; or (c) divorce: i.e. the bishop must be one who, in his pre- Christian days, had not divorced his wife and taken another. [The last two explanations are not exclusive.] So in 1 Timothy 5:9 a ‘widow’ on the roll must have been ‘the wife of one man.’

iv. Predecessors and Teachers. — In the Apostle of the Gentiles all will recognize one of the most original of thinkers; but originality does not necessarily mean having no predecessors in one’s line of thought. It lies rather in new organization and arrangement, in the employment of old terminology in a higher and wider sense, or in the re-construction of old material so as to make a nobler whole. Again, the fact that the Christian Church believes that St. Paul was an inspired Apostle does not preclude the idea of human preparation for his life-work. And he undoubtedly gleaned from many fields.

1. Jewish of&cial teachers. — St. Paul had been a pupil of Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). This Rabbi, whom we may take to be the famous grandson of Hillel (Acts 5:34 ff.). was of that liberal school of the Pharisees which encouraged the study of Greek literature. It has been objected by Baur that the statement in Acts 22:3 cannot be historical, because Paul before his conversion was such a zealot, so blindly bigoted, so unlike Gamaliel. But pupils do not always follow their masters, and we cannot doubt that in God’s providence Gamaliel’s moderation had its influence on the Apostle in the end, and eventually contributed much to his well-balanced character.

2 . Influence of popular Jewish writings . — The Jewish apocalypses have greatly influenced St. Paul (for examples see § iii.); the Alexandrian writings not so much. But the Book of Wisdom is clearly used in the descriptions of heathen corruption in Romans 1:18–32, and of the power of the Creator jn Romans 9:19 ff.: The influence of contemporary Jewish thought is also seen in St. Paul’s method of treating the OT. His running commentaries (Romans 10:5 ff.; Galatians 4:22 ff.; Ephesians 4:7 ff.). the making of a cento of OT passages to prove a point, thought to be due to the use of a Jewish anthology (Romans 3; 2 Corinthians 6:16 ff.), his mystical interpretations of OT such as those of 1 Timothy 5:18. 1 Corinthians 9:9 f. (‘for our sake it was written’; cf. Romans 15:4. 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 P 1 Corinthians 10:1 ff. (the passage of the Red Sea a ‘Baptism,’ the manna and the water from the rock an ‘Eucharist’), Galatians 4:21 ff. (Hagar, note v. 24), are all thoroughly Jewish; and so is the adoption by the Apostle, for purposes of illustration, of some legendary stories added by the Jews to the OT, such as the references to the Rock which was said to have followed the Israelites in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4). the persecution of Isaac by Ishmael (Galatians 4:29), and Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3:8 f.). For these and some other possible instances of the use of legends see Thackeray, op. cit. pp. 180, 204, 50, 159 ff.

3. Greek philosophy. — This influence, to be expected in a pupil of Gamaliel, is certainly noticeable in St. Paul’s speeches and writings. Stoicism especially seems to have left a mark on them. Here we may remark on the undoubted connexion which exists between St. Paul and the Stoic philosopher Seneca (see Lightfoot’s essay in his Philippians, p. 270 ff.). Seneca’s writings have very numerous coincidences with the Pauline Epistles, with the Gospels, and even with the other books of NT. He and the Apostle were contemporaries. Ck)uld either have influenced the other? There are difficulties in the way of supposing that Seneca was influenced by NT. Chronology forbids us to think that he knew the Johannine writings or Hebrews, as he died in Nero’s reign; yet he has many coincidences with these books also. Again, Seneca quotes many of the phrases common to him and NT from older writers; these, then, are not due to NT. Further, the coincidences are often verbal rather than real; the sense is often quite dissimilar, the Stoic pantheism and materialism and the absence in that philosophy of any real consciousness of sin making an absolute separation from Christianity. Yet many striking coincidences remain, — more between NT and Seneca than between NT and Epictetus or any other Stoic writer. Thus we are surprised to find that the phrase ‘to spend and be spent’ (2 Corinthians 12) is common to St. Paul and Seneca; and this is only one out of many parallels. The connexion, however, is probably not between the two writers directly; nor yet (as has been suggested) through Seneca’s brother Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, who was the last person likely to have been interested in St. Paul’s doctrine (Acts 18:17). But probably the Apostle, educated partly at Tarsus, a great Stoic centre, imbibed in his youth many Stoic phrases which we find repeated in the Hispano-Latin Seneca, who derived his Stoicism from the East. If so, we notice that St. Paul often assigned quite a new and a much higher meaning to these phrases. In the same way St. John drew on Alexandrian Judaism for the word Logos, but assigned to it a higher sense than it ever had before. The influence of Stoic philosophy on St. Paul may be seen in the speech at Athens (where many Stoics were present), containing as it does a quotation from the Stoic Aratus (Acts 17:28; also found in the Stoic Cleanthes). An example of a striliing word which comes into Christianity from Stoicism is ‘conscience.’ — We are not here concerned with the coincidences mentioned above between Seneca and the other NT writers; but the explanation in their case is probably similar to that just given.

4. Influence o£ the Soman Empire. — It has already been remarlted (ii. 3) that St. Paul was greatly influenced by his position as a Roman citizen, to which he owed his great plan of evangelization. The same thing may be incidentally seen from the allusions to the law of the Empire in the special form in which it was in force in the particular province to which he was writing. The Greelc law was left in possession by the Romans in those provinces where it had formerly been in force. Accordingly in Gal. 3:15 the reference is to the form of testamentary disposition known to the Greek (and to the older but obsolete Roman) law, the irrevocable will. In Galatians 4:1 ff. the adoption of an heir, like the making of a will, is irrevocable, the adopted heir becoming necessarily a son, and the terms ‘heir’ and ‘son’ becoming interchangeable. In the existing Roman law wills were revocable and heirs could be disinherited; accordingly, writing to Rome (Romans 8). St. Paul puts the truth of which he had written to the Galatians in a different way. Heirship is now deduced from sonship, whereas in Galatians sonship is deduced from heirship; for at Rome a son must be an heir, but an heir need not be a son (ct. Hebrews 9:15 ff. which presupposes Roman law and the revocability of a will). — So in Galatians 3:24, 1 Corinthians 4:15 the ‘pedagogue’ or ‘tutor’ (not ‘schoolmaster ‘) is a reference to a Greek institution adopted by the Romans; this person was the guardian of the child, often one of the upper slaves, who took him to school. The guardian of the child’s property (Galatians 4:2) was a different person. On the whole subject see Ramsay, Galatians, pp. 337-393.

6. Christian teachers. — In Gal. St. Paul insists so much on his Apostleship being Divine, not only in its source but in the channel by which it Is conveyed ‘(esp. 1:1). and on his not having received anything from the Twelve (2:6), that at first sight it seems as if he describes himself as having become a fully instructed Christian in a moment, on his conversion. Yet he must have learned much from Christians both before and after that great change. He. was clearly much influenced by Stephen, with whom he had perhaps had arguments (Acts 6:9; note’ Cilicia,’ Paul’s province). After his conversion he must have learned the facts of Christianity from Christian teachers such as Ananias at Damascus, and the prophets and teachers (especially Barnabas) at Antioch (Acts 13:1), and no doubt also at Tarsus. Of this instruction there are some traces in the Pauline Epistles; the facts of the Last Supper, though ‘received of the Lord’ (1 Corinthians 11:23), must have come by a human channel; and so the account of the Resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:3). On the other hand, St. Paul ascribes to direct revelation from God his knowledge of the spiritual meaning of the facts (Galatians 1:12) his visions are frequently referred to (Acts 9:3 ff. 166’- 18:9 22«b- " 23:9, 11 26:13 ff.; 1 Corinthians 9:1 15:8, 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff.: Galatians 2:2. Ephesians 3:3)) he was directly ‘taught of God.’

In such ways was St. Paul prepared for his work. His education was manifold. Partly the Jew, partly the Greek, partly the Roman citizen, but wholly the Christian, he went forth equipped for his many labours as the Apostle of the Gentiles. A. J. Maclean.

Paulus, Sergius

Proconsul of Cyprus at the time of the visit of Paul and Barnabas in the first missionary journey (Acts 14:7). The translators of the AV always use the term ‘deputy’ when speaking of a proconsul. The provinces of the Roman Empire were divided into two classes, governed respectively by ‘propraetors’ and ‘proconsuls.’ Strabo describes Cyprus as governed by a propraetor, and hence some have impugned the accuracy of the author of the Acts; but there is ample evidence to show that it was sometimes under one and sometimes under the other. A coin has been discovered in Cyprus bearing the inscription ‘in the time of Paulus, proconsul.’ This inscription may probably be dated a.d. 55, when its subject would be the proconsul of Acts. Pliny in his Natural History gives Sergius Paulus as his authority for certain facts, and among these are two specially connected with Cyprus. MoHLEY Stevenson.

Pavement

See Gabbatha.

Pavilioit

Pavilioit is formed (through Fr. pamllon) from Lat. papilio, which meant a ‘butterfly,’ and also (from the resemblance to a butterfly’s outspread wings) a ‘tent.’ ‘Pavilion’ is the tr. in AV of sok in Psalms 27:5, and of mkkah in 2 Samuel 22:12. 1 Kings 20:12, 16, Psalms 18:11 31:20 (to which RV adds Job 36:29 and Isaiah 4:6 for AV ‘tabernacle’). sukkah is of frequent occurrence, and is often rendered ‘booth’ or ‘tabernacle,’ once ‘tent’ (2 Samuel 11:11). Besides these, shaphrur in its single occurrence (Jeremiah 43:10) is tr. ‘royal pavilion^ (RVm’ glittering pavilion’). RV has also given ‘pavilion’ in Numbers 25:8. with mg. ‘alcove’ for AV ‘tent.’ It is possible that the Heb. gubbah in this passage is a mistake for chuppah, ‘nuptial tent.’

PE. — The seventeenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 17th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

Peace

From Latin pax, through French. — 1. Except in Daniel 8:25 11:21, 24 (where RV corrects to ‘security’), the OT ‘peace’ represents uniformly the Heb. shSlSm (Eastern salaam), the fundamental sense of which — always more or less distinctly implied — is welfare (as in Genesis 43:27, Psalms 73:3 etc.); of well-being, in the old turljulent times, peace was the prime condition. The word has the following specific religious uses: (1) it is the common formula of courteous well-wishing, employed both at meeting and at parting (see Genesis 43:23, 1 Samuel 1:17. Psalms 122:7 f.; cf. Matthew 10:12 f.) (2) ‘peace’ constituted the most conspicuous blessing of the Messianic Kingdom of God (wh. see; cf. Psalms 72:3, 7, Isaiah 2:4 9:5–7 H«-», Haggai 2:9. Zee 9) and (3) it signified a sound and settled understanding between J" and His people (Numbers 6:26, Psalms 29:11 5:8 ff. 122:6, Jeremiah 16:5 etc.) — hence J"‘s’ covenant of peace’ is lodged with His priests (Numbers 25:12, Mai 2:4 f.). In this last and richest use the word approximates to its subjective NT signification, implying tranquillity of heart, as in Psalms 4:8 119. Isaiah 48:18, 22.

2. The transition, from OT to NT usage strikingly illustrates the inwardness of Christianity. Out of some 90 NT instances of ‘peace’ there are not more than 8 or 9 which do not refer to heart-peace. The Greek eirSril in its proper sense signified pea/x strictly, as the opposite of conflict; but it took over, first in the LXX and then in the NT, the broader import of shUlBm, which is conspicuous in ttie (Hebraistic) Benedictions (see Mk 5. Luke 7:50 24:36, John 14:27. James 2:16 etc.) and in the epistolary Salutations. In the latter formulae, ‘peace’ comprehends the sum of blessing experienced, as ‘grace’ the sum of blessing bestowed, from God in Christ. The Messianic peace (1 (2), above) reappears in Luke 1:79 2:14. Matthew 10:34; and the peace of harmony with God (1 (3)) in John 16:33. Acts 10. Romans 8:6 15:33. Philippians 4:7 etc. The uses just named are gathered up, with a deepened sense, into the specific NT doctrine of peace, of which Paul is the exponent, and Romans 5:1 the classical text (cf. V", also 2 Corinthians 6. Ephesians 2:13–18. Colossians 1:20; see article on Justification): ‘peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ is the state and the experience of those who have been ‘reconciled’ to the Father through the sacrifice offered by the Son of His love, whose ‘trespasses’ are ‘torgiven’ and in whose heart ‘the spirit of adoption’ dwells. Reconciled to God, men are reconciled to life and the world; by His cross Christ ‘has slain’ at a blow ‘the enmity’ between God and man and between race and race (Ephesians 2:16). ‘Peace on earth’ is to flow from ‘the peace of Christ’ that ‘rules in’ Christian ‘hearts’

(Colossians 3:15). G. G. FiNDLAY.

Peace-offering

See SACSIFIC& AND Offbkinq, 12.

Peacocks

1. tUkklyyfm, 1 Kings 10:22. 2 Chronicles 9:21. The word may be from the Tamil tokei meaning ‘peacock,’ but from the fact that the LXX has in 1 Kings 10 ‘carved stones,’ and that in 2 Chronicles 9:21 the word is omitted, the tr. is doubtful. The peacock (.Pavo crislatus) is a native of India. 2. rmanim, AV tr. in Job 39:13 ‘peacock.’ See Obthich. E. W. G. Mastehman.

Pearl

References in OT are uncertain. In Job 28:18 gabish is in AV tr. ‘pearls,’ but in RV ‘crystal,’ while penlnlm in same verse is in AV tr. ‘rubies,’ but in RVm ‘pearls.’ In Esther 1:6 dar should perhaps be rendered ‘pearl’ or ‘mother-of-pearl.’ In NT pearls (Gr. margaritai) are mentioned in Matthew 7:6 13:45 f.; 1 Timothy 2:9. Revelation 21. The last ref. must be to mother-of-pearl. Pearls are a pathological production of the mollusc Amcula margarUifera. E. W. G. Masterman.

Pedahel

The prince of Naphtali (Numbers 34:28).

Pedahzur

The father of the prince of the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 1:10 2:20 ?"■ " 10:23).

Pedaiah

(‘J" has redeemed’). 1. Father of Joel, ruler of Manasseh, west of the Jordan, in the time of David (1 Chronicles 27:20). 2. ‘Of Rumah,’ father of Zebudah the mother of Jehoiaklra (2 Kings 23:36). 3. Son of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:18). in 1 Chronicles 3 called the father of Zerubbabel, who, however, is otherwise represented as the son of Pedaiah’s brother Shealtiel. 4. A man of the family of Parosh, who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:25). 6. One of those who stood by Ezra when he read the Law to the people (Nehemiah 8:4; 1 Esdras 9:44 Phaldeus), perhaps identical with 4. 6. A Levite (Nehemiah 13:13). 7. A Benjamite (Nehemiah 11:7). W. F. Boyd.

Pedias

Pedias (1 Esdras 9:34) = Ezra 10:35 Bedeiah.

Peep

Tobit 9 (Isaiah 8:19 10:14) is to ‘cheep’ as nestlings do. RV mistakenly has ‘chirp.’

Peeah

Peeah was one of the last kings of Israel. The country was unsettled, and there was great discontent on account of the heavy tribute paid to Assyria. Pekah made himself the organ of the dissatisfaction, and murdered his king Fekahiah (2 Kings 15:25). He needed the help of only fifty soldiers or bravos to accomplish his purpose. Once on the throne he set on foot a movement against the Assyrians in which all the kingdoms of Syria were to unite. When the king of Judah held out against it, Pekah and Rezin invaded that country, as is set forth in the art. Ahaz. The Assyrians were prompt in meeting the coalition, and the issue can hardly have been doubtful, except to those who were blinded by patriotism. The fall of Damascus was followed by the ravaging of the districts of Israel north and east of Samaria, and the transportation of their inhabitants to remote portions of the empire. The capital would no doubt have been besieged had not the party friendly to Assyria got the upper hand and removed Pekah by the usual method of assassination (v.). The leader in this movement, Hoshea by name, had an understanding with the Assyrian king, and was perhaps from the first a creature of his. Abject submission on his part saved Samaria for the time being. The length of Pekah’s reign is given as twenty years, which is difficult to reconcile with other data at our command. The true period cannot have been more than five years. H. P. Smith.

FEKAHIAH, son of Menahem, was king of Israel for a short time in the troubled period which preceded the fall of Samaria. The record tells us nothing about him except that he displeased Jahweh by walking in the sins of Jeroboam i., and that he was assassinated by Pekah, one of his officers (2 K lS2»-»). H. P. Smith.

Pekod

Probably the Bab. Pukudu, a people settled in Lower Babylonia, possibly of Aramaean race (Ezekiel 23:23, Jeremiah 50:21). Their seat was near the mouth of the Uknu River. C. H. W. Johns.

Pelaiah

1. A son of Elioenai (1 Chronicles 3:24). 2. A Levite who helped Ezra to expound the Law (Nehemiah 8:7 [1 Esdras 9:48 Phalias)), and sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:10).

Pelaliah

A priest (Nehemiah 11:12).

Pelatiah

1. A ‘prince of the people’ (Ezekiel 11:1) he died as the prophet delivered his message (v."). It is difficult to decide whether Pelatiah’s death is to be understood as actual or merely symbolical. 2. A grandson of Zerubbabel (1 Chronicles 3:21). 3. A Simeonite (1 Chronicles 4:42). 4. A signatory to the covenant (Nehemiah 10:22).

Peleg

A descendant of Shem in the fourth generation, according to the table of peoples given in Genesis 10. In Luke 3:35 he stands a generation further off through the interpolation of Cainan from the LXX. The etymology of the name is uncertain. Its reference may be geographical, or racial, or, as the word means ordinarily ‘a water-course,’ it may denote a land cut up by streams. W. F. Cobb.

Pelet

1. A son of Jahdai (1 Chronicles 2:47). 2. A Benjamite chief who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:3).

Peleth

1. See Pallu. 2. A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2M).

Pelethites

See Cherethites and Pelethiteb.