Post – Prjetor

Post

‘Post’ is used in 2 Chronicles 30:6, Esther 8:14, Job 9:25. Jeremiah 51:31 for ‘a bearer of despatches,’ ‘a runner.’ These runners were chosen from the king’s bodyguard, and were noted for their swiftness, whence Job’s simile (g*‘),’ My days are swifter than a post.’

Post, Doorpost

See House, § 6.

Pot

See House, § 9.

Potiphar

Genesis 39, a high Egyptian offlclal in the story of Joseph. The name is perhaps a deformation of Potiphera (wh. see) or an unsuccessful attempt to form an Egyptian name on the same lines. Potiphar seems to be entitled ‘chief cook’ (EV ‘captain of the guard’), and likewise sorts, ‘eunuch’ of Pharaoh. But the former title ‘cook’ may be only a mark of high rank; persons described as royal tasters in the New Kingdom were leaders of expeditions, investigators of criminal cases, judges in the most important trials, etc.; as yet, too, there is little indication that eunuchs were employed in Egypt even at a later period: so this also was but an honorific ofllcial title; the Hebrew word saris is actually found attached to the names of Persian officers in Egypt. Joseph was sold to Potiphar, on whose wife’s accusation he was cast into the king’s prison (in Potiphar’s own house), to which Pharaoh afterwards committed his chief butler and chief baker The office thus held by Potiphar cannot yet be precisely identified in Egyptian documents. In the passage Genesis 41:45 and the repeated description of Joseph’s wife, the forms of the names and the title of the priest are much more precisely Egyptian. F. Ll. Griffith

Potiphera

Genesis 41 46:20. The consonants in the Hebrew are an almost exact transcript of the Egyp. Peteprl, ‘Given by the Sun-god,’ a late name found from the 22nd Dyn. onwards; only the letter w (represented by Eng. o) is puzzling. Potiphera, father of Joseph’s wife Asenath (wh. see), was priest of On, i.e. probably high priest of Re, the Sun-god, in On. He would thus be the head of the most learned sacerdotal college in the country, and of high rank. F. Ll. Griffith.

Potsherd

See Pottery.

Pottage

See Food, 3.

Potter, Pottery

The artificer (yStsSr) is first named in 2 Samuel 17:28. This implies the use of pottery at an earlier period. The ancient Egyptians were familiar with its manufacture (Wilk. Anc. Egyp. ii. 190 ff.), and Israel could not be entirely ignorant of it. During their nomad life, however, such brittle material would be little serviceable, and its use would be reduced to a minimum — skins, vessels of wood, metal, etc., being preferred. Skins for water, wine, etc., have been in use at all times, down to the present day (Genesis 21:14, Judges 4:19. 1 Samuel 16:20 etc.); but we also find the earthenware pitcher, or jar ikad), similarly employed (Genesis 24:14, Judges 7:16, 1 Kings 17:12 [EV ‘barrel’] etc.). Only after settlement in Palestine was the art developed to any extent by Israelites. In the later writings the potter is frequently referred to (Psalms 2:9. Isaiah 29:16, Jeremiah 18:2 etc.).

The potter first kneaded the clay with his feet (Isaiah 41), then shaped the vessel on the wheel (Jeremiah 18). This consisted of two wooden disks attached to a perpendicular axle, the larger being below the work-table. This the potter turned with his foot. The vessel was then fired in an oven (Sirach 38:29 ff.). In later times the art of glazing was also understood, oxide of lead (‘silver dross ‘), obtained in refining silver, being used for the purpose (Proverbs 26, Sirach 38:30). In Jeremiah’s day the potters seem to have had a stance by the ‘gate of potsherds’ (Jeremiah 18:1 19:1 f., the neighbourhood of the clay pits, where they offered their wares for sale.

The thought of the potter moulding his clay at will is Implicit in many passages where ystsar, ‘to form,’ is the verb used (Genesis 2:7 f.; Psalms 33:15 95:5 etc.), and is made explicit in such passages as Isaiah 29:16 45:9, Romans 9:21 etc.

The reading el ha’otsar (Syr.), ‘into the treasury,’ is preferred in Zee 11 by many scholars and RVm to MT el hayyUWer, ‘unto the potter.’ The passage is one of great difficulty.

What is known of the potter’s art in Palestine is due mainly to the work of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and especially to that carried out by Flinders Petrie, Bliss, and Macalister, at Tell el-Hesy — possibly the ancient Lachish — and elsewhere, from 1890 onwards. The result of their investigations, and discussions by other scholars, are found in the PEFSt; Petrie’s Tell el Hesy; Bliss’s Mound of Many Cities; Excavations in Palestine, by Bliss, Macalister, and Wtlnsch, etc.

Petrie distinguishes three periods of ancient pottery. 1. Amorite, pre-historic, where the shape and markings of the vessels seem to show that they were moulded on the old leathern vessels. 2. Phoenician, rough and porous in character, often with painted ornamentation, of which possibly metal vessels furnished the models. This may be dated from B.C. 1400 to 1000. 3. Jewish, in which Amorite and Phoenician styles are blended; this apparently belongs to the time of the later monarchy. On many jar handles are legends stamped in characters resembling those of the Siloam inscription. Along with the Jewish, Greek types of pottery are found, ‘chiefiy ribbed bowls, and large amphorae with loop handles. The red and black figured ware was also imported’ (Bliss, in Hastings’ DB iv. 27).

Where pottery of the Seleucid age, with Greek names stamped on the handles, or Roman pottery, ‘ribbed amphorse, and tiles stamped with the stamp of the tenth legion,’ or Arab glazed ware, is found, sites may be dated with approximate accuracy. But for these and older times, data furnished by remains of pottery must be used with caution. Thus certain jars found at a great depth below the surface at Jerusalem, undoubtedly belonging to a comparatively early time, closely resemble some of those in use at the present day (Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. 26511.). W. Ewino.

Potter's Field

See Akeldama.

Pound

See Monet, S 7; Weights and Measures, § HI.

Poverty

1 . In the OT.— The character and degree of the poverty prevalent in a community will naturally vary with the stages of social development through which it successively passes. Poverty is more acutely felt, and its extremes are more marked, where city-life and commerce have grown up than where the conditions of life are purely nomadic or agricultural.

The causes of poverty referred to in the OT (apart from those due to individual folly) are specially (o) bad seasons, involving failure of crops, loss of cattle, etc. (cf. 2 Kings 8:1–7, Nehemiah 5:3) (6) raids and invasions; (c) land-grabbing (cf. Isaiah 5:8) (d) over-taxation and forced labour (cf. Jeremiah 22:13 f.)) (e) extortionate usury, the opportunity for which was provided by the necessity for meeting high taxation and the losses arising from bad harvests (cf. Nehemiah 5:1–6).

In the earlier period, when the tribal system with its complex of clans and families fiourished, poverty was not acutely felt. Losses, of course, there were, arising from bad seasons, invasion, and pestilence; we hear, too, of rich men oppressing the poor (cf . Nathan’s parable, 2 Samuel 12:1–6) but there was little permanent poverty. Matters were maintained in a state of equilibrium so long as the land-system, under which all free Israelitish families possessed a patrimony, remained in working order. It is significant that in the earlier legislation of JE (cf. esp. the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:1–17, and the ‘Book of the Covenant,’ Exodus 20:23) the few references that do occur (.e.g. Exodus 22:25 23:6) do not suggest that poverty was very wide-spread or acutely felt. During the period of the later monarchy, however, commerce, city-life, and luxury grew apace, and the greed and heartless oppression of the rich, the corruption and perversion of justice, which this state of things brought in its train, were constantly denounced by the great writing prophets, esp. in the 8th cent, (cf. e.g.. Isaiah 1:23, Amos 4:1 6:1 ff.; Micah 2:1 ff.).

The Deuteronomiclegislation (7th cent.) bears eloquent testimony to the prevalence of poverty under the later monarchy (cf. Deuteronomy 10:17–19 4:28–29 15. 23:19, 20 24:10–21 26:12–15), and in one famous sentence predicts Its permanence(‘the poor shall never cease out of the land,’ 15:11).

The classes of poor more particularly mentioned are widows, orphans, and the ‘sojourners,’ or resident strangers, who possessed no landed rights (.girim). The Levites also are specially referred to in Deut. as an impoverished class (cf. 12:12, 19 18), — a result of the centralization of worship in the one sanctuary at Jerusalem. All classes of the poor are the objects of special solicitude and consideration in the Mosaic legislation, particularly in the Priestly Code (cf. e.g. Leviticus 5:7, 11 19:9–15 etc.)

For a long time after the Exile and Return the Palestinian community remained in a state of miserable poverty. It was a purely agricultural society, and suffered much from contracted boundaries and agricultural depression. The ‘day of small things’ spoken of by the prophet Zechariah (4:10) was prolonged. A terrible picture of devastation (produced by a locust plague) is given by the prophet Joel (ch. 1), and matters were aggravated during the last years of Persian rule (down to 332), and by the conflict between the Seleucids and Ftolemys for the possession of Palestine which raged for considerably more than a century (322-198). It Is significant that in the Psalms the term ‘poor’ or ‘lowly’ has become synonymous with ‘pious.’ During the earlier part of the post-exilic period the wealthy Jewish families for the most part remained behind In Babylon. In the later period, after the conquests of Alexander the Great (from 322), prosperous communities of Jews grew up in such centres as Antioch and Alexandria(the Greel£ ‘Dispersion’). Slowly and gradually the Palestinian community grew in importance; for a time under the Maccabees there was a politically independent Jewish State. A certain amount of material prosperity ensued. Jerusalem, as being a centre of pilgrimage, received large revenues from the Jewish pilgrims who thronged to it: a Temple-tax swelled the revenues of the priesthood. The aristocratic priestly families were very wealthy. But the bulk of the priesthood still remained comparatively poor. The Jewish community of Palestine was still mainly agricultural, but more prosperous under settled government (the Herods and the Romans); while Galilee became a hive of industry, and sustained a large industrial population(an artizan class).

In dealing with poverty the Jewish legislation displays a very humane spirit. Usury is forbidden: the poor are to have the produce of the land in Sabbatical years; and in Deut. tithes are allotted to be given them (14:28 etc.); they are to have the right to glean (24:15, 21), and in the Priestly Code there is the unrealized ideal of the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25, cf. Deuteronomy 15:12–15). All these provisions were supplemented by almsgiving, which in later Judaism became one of the most important parts of religious duty (see Alms, Almsgiving).

2. In the NT. — In the NT period conditions were not essentialy altered. The exactions of tax-collectors seem to ha ve been acutely felt (notice esp. the collocation’ publicans and sinners’), but almsgiving was strongly inculcated as a religious duty, the early Christians following in this respect the example set by the synagogue (cf. Romans 12:13; and St. Paul’s collection for ‘the poor saints at Jerusalem,’ Romans 15:26, Galatians 2:10). The early generations of Christians were dravra mostly from the poorer classes (slaves or freedmen), but the immediate disciples ox our Lord belonged rather to what we should call the lower middle class — sturdy Galilsean fishermen, owning their own boats, or tax-collectors. It should be noted that in the Gospels U g- in the Beatitudes) the term ‘poor’ sometimes possesses a religious connotation, as in the Psalms.

G. H. Box.

POWER.^In general the word means ability for doing something, and includes the idea of adequate strength, might, slcill, resources, energy, and efficiency, either material, mental, or spiritual, to effect intended results. Strictly spealiing, there is no real power or authority in the universe but that which is ultimately of God (Psalms 62:11, John 19:11, Romans 13:1). But this Almighty One has originated innumerable subordinate powers, and some of these are possessed of ability to perform acts contrary to the will and commandments of the Creator. And so we may speak of the power of God, or of man, or of angel, or of demon, or of powers inherent in things inanimate. Inasmuch as in the highest and absolute sense ‘power belongeth unto God,’ it is fitting to ascribe unto Him such doxologies as appear in 1 Ch 29, Matthew 6:13. In jit 26:64 the word ‘power’ is employed for God Himself, and it is accordingly very natural that it should be often used to denote the various forms of God’s activity, especially in His works of creation and redemption. Christ is thus the power of God both In His Person and in His gospel of salvation (1 Corinthians 1:18, 24, Romans 1:16). The power of the Holy Spirit is also another mode of the Divine activity. By similar usage Simon the sorcerer was called ‘the power of God which is called Great’ (Acts 8:10), i.e. a supposed incarnation of the power of God. The plural powers is used in a variety of meanings. (1) In Matthew 7:22, Luke 10. Acts 2:22 8:13. ‘powers,’ or ‘mighty works,’ along with ‘signs and wonders,’ are to be understood as miracles, and were concrete manifestations of supernatural power. (2) ‘The powers of the heavens’ (Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25) are understood by some as the forces inherent in the sun, moon, stars, and other phenomena of the heavens, by virtue of which they ‘rule over the day and over the night’ (Genesis 1:18) by others these heavenly powers are understood to be the starry hosts themselves conceived as the armies of the heavens. (3) Both good and evil angels are designated by the terms ‘principalities and powers’ in such passages as Ephesians 1:21 3:10 6:12, Colossians 1:16 2:10, 15. 1 p 3:22. The context of each passage must show whether the reference is to angels or demons. In Ephesians 2:2 Satan is called ‘the prince of the power of the air,’ and these powers are further defined in 6:12 as ‘world-rulers of this darkness, the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.’ These are thought of as so many ranks of evil spirits who are ever at war with God’s hosts, and seek to usurp the heavenly regions. (4) In Romans 13:1 civil magistrates are called ‘the higher powers’ because of their superior rank, authority, and influence as officers ordained of God for the administration of justice among men (cf. Luke 12:11, Titus 3:1). (5) ‘The powers of the age to come’ (Hebrews 6:5) are best understood of all supernatural gifts and spiritual forces which belong to the age or dispensation of the New Covenant, of which Jesus is the Mediator (cf. Hebrews 9). They include the ‘greater works’ (John 14:12) which Jesus assured His disciples they shoidd do after His going unto the Father and sending them the Spirit of truth. See Authority, Kingdom of God. M. S. Terry.

Power of the Keys

In ecclesiastical history the phrase is associated primarily with the so-called ‘Privilege of Peter," upon which the dogma of papal supremacy has been built, but also with the delegated authority of an official priesthood to pronounce sentence of the absolution or the retention of sins.

1. The fundamental passage is Matthew 16:18. When St, Peter at Csesarea Philippi had made his great confession of Jesus as the Christ, Jesus blessed him and announced that upon this rock He would build His Church. Then He added, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed m heaven.’ That this double promise, like the one in the preceding verse, was made to St. Peter personally can hardly be doubted. The question is as to what it means. Evidently Jesus is carrying out the figure He has already used of a building founded upon a rock — the rock, viz., of believing confession, of which the Apostle was the splendid type; and He now declares that as the reward of a confession which stamped him as the first true Christian, the bottom stone of the great edifice that was about to rise, he should have the privilege of wielding the keys of that Church of Christ which was to be realized in the Kingdom of heaven. There are some who think that by this gift of the keys St. Peter was appointed to the position of a steward in charge of his Lord’s treasuries, entrusted with the duty of feeding the household (Luke 12:42, cf. Matthew 13:52). But from the use of the word ‘key’ by Jesus Himself in Luke 11, and from the analogy of Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7, it is probable that the keys are those not of the storehouse but of the mansion itself, and that the gift of them points to the privilege of admitting others into the Kingdom. The promise was fulfilled, accordingly, on the day of Pentecost, when St. Peter opened the doors of the Christian Church to the Jewish world (Acts 2:41) and again at Cffisarea, when he, first of the Apostles, opened that same door to the Gentiles (Acts 10 15:7). But, as the two incidents show, there was nothing arbitrary, ofBcial, or mysterious about St. Peter’s exercise of the power of the keys on these occasions. It was his believing confession of Christ that had gained him the privilege, and both in Jerusalem and at Cxsarea it was by a renewed confession of Christ, accompanied by a testimony to the truth regarding Him as that had been made known in the experience of faith (Acts 2:32–36 10). that he opened the doors of the Kingdom alike to Jews and to Gentiles.

With regard to the second part of the verse, ‘Whatsoever thou Shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou Shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,’ some scholars have regarded it as merely explaining what is meant by the keys of the Kingdom, while others hold that it confers a privilege. The latter view is the more probable. And as we know that in the Kabbinic language of the time, to ‘bind’ and to ‘loose’ were the regular terms for forbidding and permitting, these words confer upon the Apostle a power of legislation in the Christian Church — a power which we see him exercising by and by, along with the other Apostles and the elders, at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:6–11, 22–29)

But now comes the question. Was this twofold promise, which was given to St. Peter personally, given him in any exclusive sense? As regards the second part of it, clearly not; for on a later occasion in this same Gospel we find Jesus bestowing precisely the same privilege on His disciples generally (18:18; cf. v. 1 and also w."- ‘"). Moreover, the later NT history shows that St. Peter had no supreme position as a legislator in the Church (see Acts 15:13, 19. Galatians 2:11 ff.). And if the power of binding and loosing was not given to him exclusively, the presumption is that the same thing holds of the parallel power of the keys. As a matter of fact, we find it to be so. Though St. Peter had the privilege of first opening the doors of the Kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles, the same privilege was soon exercised by others (Acts 8:4 l l"". 13:2 ff.). By and by Peter falls into the background, and we find Paul and Barnabas rehearsing to the Church how God through their preaching had’ opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles’ (14:27). But this does not mean that the privilege was withdrawn from St. Peter; it means only that it was extended to others on their fulfilment of those same conditions of faith and testimony on which Peter had first received it.

2. In Matthew 18:18 there appears to be no reference whatever to the remission and retention of sins. As in 16:18. ‘whatsoever’ not ‘whomsoever’ is the word employed, and here as there the binding and loosing must be taken to refer to the enactment of ordinances for regulating the affairs of the Church, not to the discharge of such a purely spiritual function as the forgiveness of sins. In any. case, the promise Is made not to the Apostles, much less to an official priesthood deriving authority from them by an Apostolic succession, but to •the Church’ (v. 17).

3. In John 20:23 we find the assurance definitely given of a power to remit or retain sins. But the gift is bestowed upon the whole company present (cf. Luke 24:33) as representing the Christian society generally. That society, through its possession of the Holy Spirit (v. 22). is thus empowered to declare the forgiveness or the retention of sins (cf. 1 John 2:20. Galatians 6:1; and see F. W. Robertson, Serm., 2nd ser. xl.). J. C. Lambert.

FR^TOR. — See Magistrate, Province.

PR.a!TORIAN GUARD.— See next art. and Guard.

Prjetor

Prjetor nnS (Gr. praitl>rion) occurs only once In AV (Mark 15:16). Elsewhere it is represented by ‘common hall’ (Matthew 27:27. RV ‘palace’), ‘judgment hall’ (Jn 18 19:9. Acts 23:35; RV in all ‘palace’) and ‘palace’ (Philippians 1. RV ‘praetorian guard’). The word at first denoted the headquarters in the Roman camp, a space within which stood the general’s tent, the camp altar, the augurBle, and the tribunal; then the military council meeting there. Each praetor, on completing his year of office, went as governor to a province, and his official residence was called ‘prsetorium’ ; then any house distinguished by size and magnificence, esp. the Emperor’s residence outside Rome. In the Gospels, prcetorium perhaps (but see Pilate, p. 729") stands for the palace of Herod the Great, occupied by Pontius Pilate — a splendid building, probably in the western part of the city. In Philippians 1:13 it is probably the barracks of the praetorians, the Imperial bodyguard. Originally the Cohors PTcetaria was a company attached to the commander-in-chief in the field. Augustus retained the name, but raised the number to ten cohorts of 1000 each, quartering only 3 cohorts in the city at a time. Tiberius brought them all to Rome, and placed them in a fortified camp, at the northern extremity of the Viminal. Under Vitellius their number was raised to 16,000. W. EwiNQ.