Red Heifer – Rehum

Red Heifer

The ashes of a ‘red heifer’— more correctly a red cow— added to ‘running water,’ formed the most powerful means known to the Hebrews of removing the defilement produced by contact with a dead body. The method of preparing the ashes and the regulations for the application of the ‘water of impurity’ (see below) are the subject of a special section of the Priests’ Code (Numbers 19). It will be advisable to summarize the contents of the chapter, in the first place, and thereafter to inquire into the significance of the rite in the light of recent anthropological research.

1. The chapter above cited consists of two parts; the first part, vv. 1–13. gives instructions for the preparation of the ashes, and (vv. 11–13) for the removal by their means of the defilement contracted by actual contact with the dead body. The second part, vv. 14–22, is an expansion of w.’^‘-, extending the application of’ the water of impurity ‘to uncleanness arising from a variety of sources connected with death.

The animal whose ashes acquired this special virtue had to be of the female sex, of a red, or rather reddish-brown, colour, physically without blemish, and one that had never borne the yoke. The duty of superintending the burning, which took place ‘without the camp,’ was entrusted to a deputy of the high priest. The actual burning, however, was carried through by a lay assistant, which fact, taken along with the detail (v. 5) that every particle of the animal, including the blood, was burned, shows that we have not to do here with a ritual sacrifice, as might be inferred from the EV of v. 9. The word there rendered ‘sin-offering’ properly denotes in this connexion (cf. 8:7) ‘a purification for sin’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex. 310»; cf. Sacrifice, § 14). The priest’s share in the ceremony was confined to the sprinkling of some of the blood ‘toward the front of the tent of meeting’ (v. 4 RV), in token of the dedication of the animal to J", and to the casting into the burning mass of a piece of cedar wood and a bunch of hyssop bound with a piece of scarlet cloth (such, at least, is the regulation of the Mishna treatise dealing with this subject).

A third person — the priest and his assistant having themselves become ‘unclean’ through contact with these sacred things (see below) — now gathered the ashes and laid them up ‘without the camp in a clean place,’ to be used as occasion required. The special name given to the mixture of ‘running water’ (v. 17, lit. ‘living water,’ i.e. water from a spring, not a cistern) and the ashes is properly ‘water of impurity’ (v.. zo- 21 — so RVm; Amer. RV ‘water for impurity’; EV water of separation), i.e. water for the removal of impurity or uncleanness. This powerful cathartic was applied to the person or thing to be cleansed, either by being thrown over them (see Gray, Com. on v. 13), or by being sprinkled with a sprinkler of hyssop (v. 18). This was done on the third and seventh days, after which the defiled person washed his person and garments, and was then restored to the privileges of the cult and the community. The only other reference to ‘the water of impurity’ is in the late passage, Numbers 31:23.

2. The clue to the significance of the rite above described is found in the primitive conception of uncleanness, as this has been disclosed by modern anthropological research (see Clean and Unclean). In all primitive societies a dead body in particular is regarded as not only unclean in itself, but as capable of infecting with uncleanness all who come in contact with it or are even in proximity to it. The Semites shared these ideas with primitive communities in every part of the world. Hence, although the literary formulation of the rite of the Red Heifer in Numbers 19 may be late, the ideas and practices thereof are certainly older than the Hebrews themselves.

While the central idea of the rite — the efficacy of ashes as a cathartic, due probably to their connexion with fire (cf . Numbers 31:23. and Farnell, TheEvolution at Religion, 101 n.) — has its parallels elsewhere, the original significance of several of the details is still very obscure. This applies, for example, to the red colour of the cow, and to the addition to her ashes of the ‘cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet’ (for various suggestions see, in addition to Gray, op. dt., Hastings’ DB iv. 208 fl.; Bewer in JBL xxiv. (190S) 42 ff., who suggests that the cow may have been originally a sacrifice to the dead).

The value of the chapter for the student of Hebrew ritual lies in the illustration it affords of the primitive conceptions of uncleanness, especially of the uncleanness of the dead, and of the ‘contagiousness of holiness,’ the nature of which has been so clearly expounded by Robertson Smith (see RS’ 446«- ‘Holiness, Uncleanness, and Taboo ‘). The ashes of the red heifer and the water of impurity here appear, in virtue of their intense’ holiness,’ as ‘a conducting vehicle of a dangerous spiritual electricity’ (Farnell, op. dt. 95), and Jiave the same power as the dead body of rendering umclean all who come in contact with them (see vv. and art. Clean’ AND Unclean).

There are no inventions in ritual, it has been said, only survivals, and in the rite under review we have one of the most interesting of these survivals. The remarks made in a previous article (Atonement [Day op]) are equally applicable to the present case. As re-interpreted by the compilers of the Priests’ Code, the rite conveys, in striking symbolism, the eternal truth that purity and holiness are the essential characteristics of the people of God. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Red Sea

The body of water, over 1000 miles in length, which divides Africa from Arabia. The Biblical interest of the name centres at its northern end in its two projections, the Gulf of Suez, running north-west, and the Bay of Akabah almost due north. The former once extended much farther to the north, along the route of the present Suez Canal. Anciently it was known as the Gulf of HeroOpolis, running as far north as the Bitter Lakes. In this region it is probable that the passage of the sea described in Exodus 14 took place, though it has been located by some at the present Suez, and by others still farther south.

This primitive extension of the gulf to the north.

3 D the region of weeds, probably accounts for its name, Yam Suph, ‘sea of weeds’ (Exodus 10:19 IS’), which was later applied also to the eastern extension, the Bay of Akabah (Numbers 21:4). to the entire body of water now known as the Red Sea, stretching from the Bas Mohammed southward to the straits, and perhaps even to the Persian Gulf (Exodus 23:31). No satisfactory explanation of the term ‘red’ (Gr. Erythra, Lat. Bubrum) has been found.

Biblical history is concerned with the western gulf (Suez, 130 m. long) only in connexion with the Exodus. Those who locate Mt. Sinai in the peninsula between the two gulfs, either at Mt. Serbal or at Jebel Musa, trace the route of the wanderings down the eastern shore of this water as far as Bas Abu Zenimeh, or (with Shaw, Pococlce, etc.) as far as Tor, and then through the mountain wadys to Sinai. Those who locate the mountain of the Law farther north in the region north of Akabah, trace the wanderings directly eastward from the sea (Judges 11:16).

The Bay of Akabah, 90 m. long, lies in the southern end of the long trench which extends from the Red Sea proper northward to the Lebanons, the upper portion of which is occupied by the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Between the latter and the Bay of Akabah lies the Arabah. At the northern end was an important maritime highway in the reign of Solomon. At the harbour of Ezion-geber (near to, or perhaps the same as, Elath), at its northern end, Solomon built his navy, with the help of Phoenician seamen (1 Kings 9). and sent out expeditions to India. Jehoshaphat was less successful

(1 Kings 22:48). H. L. WiLLETT.

Redeemer, Redemption

Redemption means in strictness deliverance by payment of a prwe or raTisom, hence, metaphorically, at any great cost or sacrifice; but in the OT, outside the Law (especially in Deut., Psalms, Isaiah), is often used also of deliverance simply, as from oppression, violence, sickness, captivity, death — redemption by power. The typical redemption in the OT was the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (cf. Isaiah 51:9–11).

Two words, with their derivatives, are used in the OT to express the idea. The one, gd’al (from which go’el, ‘redeemer’), is used technically of redemption of an inheritance, of tithes, and the like; -in a wider sense it is a favourite term in the later Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah. The other, pddhdh, is frequent in Deut. and in the earher Psalms. The go’el is the Idnsman who has the light to redeem; the term is used also of the ‘avenger of blood’ (Numbers 35:12 etc.); elsewhere, as in Job 19:25. Psalms 19:14 etc., but especially in Deutero-Isaiah, it denotes Jehovah as the vindicator, deliverer, and avenger of His people (cf . Isaiah 40:14 43:14 etc.). The NT, likewise, employs two words — one agorazOf to buy or purchase’ (1 Corinthians 6:20 7:23, 2 Peter 2:1. Revelation 5:9 14:3, 4) St. Paul uses a compound form in Galatians 3:13 4:5) -the other, and more usual, luiroumai (from lutron, ‘a ransom’), and hs derivatives. The special Pauline word for redemption is avolutrosis (Romans 3:24 8:23, 1 Corinthians 1:3 Ephesians 1:7 etcO. In Romans 11:26 ‘Deliverer’ is used for the OT ‘Redeemer’ (Isaiah 59:20).

In pious circles in Israel the coming Messianic salvation was viewed as a ‘redemption’ (Luke 2:38). in which, possibly, political deliverance was included, but in which the main blessings were spiritual — knowledge of salvation, remission of sins, holiness, guidance, peace (Luke 1:74–79). In Christ’s own teaching the political aspect altogether disappears, and the salvation He brings in is something wholly spiritual. He connects it with His Person, and in certain well-known passages with His death (John 3:14–16 6:51–56. Matthew 20:28 II and 26:26–28 etc.). In the Apostolic teaching (Acts, Paul, Peter, Heb., Rev.) Christ’s work is distinctively a ‘redemption.’ Redemption, moreover, is not used here simply in the general sense of deliverance, but with definite emphasis on the idea of purchase (Acts 20:28. 1 Corinthians 6:20. Ephesians 1:7. 1 Timothy 2:9. 1 Peter 1:18, 19, Revelation 5:9 etc.). This glances back to Christ’s own saying that He came ‘to give his life a ransom {lutron; cf. anlUulrm, in 1 Timothy 2:6) for many’ (Matthew 20:28). Further, ‘ransom,’ ‘price,’ ‘purchase,’ ‘redeem,’ are not to be taken simply figuratively, in the sense that Christ has procured salvation for us at the cost of great suffering, even of death, to Himself. This is true; but the consensus of Apostolic teaching gives a much more definite interpretation to the language; one in accordance with Christ’s own intimation. His death was an expiatory sacrifice by which those who avail themselves of it are literally redeemed from the wrath of God that rested on them, and from all other effects of sin. It is St. Paul who works out this idea most systematically(cf. Romans 3:23–26, 2 Corinthians 5:18–21. Galatians 3:10–13 4:4, 5. Titus 3:14 etc.), though all the NT writers share it. The immediate effect of Christ’s redeeming death is to free from guilt and annul condemnation (Romans 8), but it carries in its train deliverance from sin in every form (from sin’s dominion, from the tyranny of Satan, from an evil world, from ‘all iniquity,’ Romans 6, Galatians 1:4, Titus 2:14. Hebrews 2:14 etc.); ultimately from death itself (Ro It not merely redeems from evil, but puts in possession of the highest possible good — ‘eternal life’ (Ro &", Ephesians 1:3 etc.). It is a redemption in every way complete. See, further, artt. Atonement, Propitiation, Reconciliation, Salvation. James Ore.

Reed

1. qaneh, tr. ‘reed,’ 1 Kings 14:15. 2 Kings 18:21. Isaiah 36:6 42:3; ‘stalk,’ Genesis 41; ‘sweet cane’ (RVm ‘calamus’), Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20; ‘calamus,’ Song of Songs 4:14, Ezekiel 27:19; ‘spearmen,’ Psalms 68:30 (AV, but RV ‘reeds’); also meta^ phoricaliy used for a ‘bone,’ Job 31:22; the arm of ‘a balance,’ Isaiah 46:6; and ‘branches’ of a candlestick. Exodus 25. The qaneh is probably the familiar qasab (Arundo donax), which flourishes on the banks of all the streams and lakes of the Jordan Valley. Miles of it are to be seen at the ‘Ain Feshkhah oasis on the Dead Sea shore, and at the Huleh marshes. It is a lofty reed, often 20 feet high, brilliantly green in the late summer, when all around is dry and bare; but deadlooking, from a distance, in the spring, when it stands in full flower and the lofty stems are crowned by beautiful silken pannicles. In the district mentioned the reeds are cleared from time to time by fire, that the young and tender shoots may grow up to afford fodder for cattle. The covert of the reeds is often the only possible shade (Job 40:21). The bruised reed, which, though standing, a touch will cause to fall and lie bedraggled on the ground, is a familiar sight (2 Kings 18:21. Isaiah 36:6, Ezekiel 29:6–7). A reed forms a most convenient measuring-rod, being straight and light (Ezekiel 40. Revelation 11:1 etc.). In certain passages where qaneh is tr.’ calamus,’ or ‘sweet cane,’ some imported aromatic cane or bark is meant. For the use of reeds as pens, see Whiting, 6.

2. ‘droth. Isaiah 19:7 (AV ‘paper reeds,’ RV ‘meadows’). See Meadow.

3. ‘agammim, lit.’poola’(see Pool) , is in Jeremiah 51:32 tj.^ ‘reeds.’ For bulrushes see Rush.

4. ‘dchu. Job 8:11 EV ‘flag,’ RVm ‘reed-grass.’ See Meadow.

5. ‘efceft. Job 9:26 (RVm’ reed’). The reference is to light skiffs of papyrus. E. W. G. Mabtebman.

Reelaiah

See Raamiah.

REELIAS, 1 Esdras 5:8, corresponds in position to Bigrai in Ezra 2:2. Nehemiah 7:7; the form of the name may be due to a duplication of Reelaiah in the same verse of Ezra.

Refiner, Refining

The ancient Egyptians purified gold by putting it into earthen crucibles with lead, salt, a little tin, and barley bran, sealing the crucibles with clay, and then exposing them to the heat of a furnace for five days and nights. Refining silver by oupellation is a very old process. The silver mixed with lead is put into a crucible made of bone earth, and placed in a reverberatory furnace. As the oxide of lead forms, it is blown oH by bellows, and towards the end of the process the thin covering of oxide becomes iridescent and soon disappears, and the pure bright surface of the silver flashes out. This process of refining silver is referred to in Jeremiah 6:29. The reference in Mai 3:2 f. is to the purifying influence’of affliction on the people of God; their sinful impurities gradually disappear, and at last the Divine image is reflected from the soul, as the face of the refiner from the surface of the purified silver.

Refuge, Cities of

1. Origin of the right of asylum. — The city of refuge was the product of two primitive religious ideas that were employed to neutralize one another, — the sacredness of blood or life and the sacredness of locality; both were based on the presence of the Divine in the blood and the locality. There was a community of blood or life between the god and his people that made it an unpardonable offence to slay one of his people; it mattered not whether the slayer was within or without his people, whether the deed was intentional or accidental. A wrong had been done that could be atoned for only by blood (Robertson Smith, RS, [1907] p. 32 B.). On the other hand, the god chose certain places for his manifestation, and there it was customary for his people to meet and worship him. Within the precincts claimed by his presence all life was sacred, and so it came about that even a murderer, if he escaped to the haunts of a god, would be safe from those to whom he had forfeited his life, so long as he remained within their sacred limits (i6. p. 148 f.). The murderer thus escaped the penalty of his wrong, but he remained an ineffective unit for his tribe; immediately he left the asylum of the god he was at the mercy of the avenger of blood, and so both tribe and individual were in a measure punished. This primitive usage still prevails in savage communities, and has been widened by extending the privilege of asylum to places occupied by former kings and to the graves of former rulers (Fiazer, Fort. Review, 1899, pp. 650-654).

2. Development of asylum in OT. — In this absolute form the right of asylum is not recognized anywhere in the OT. It is extended only to one who has without intention committed homicide (Exodus 21:13). One who has treacherously sullied his hands with blood can find no refuge at the altar of God; he may be taken from it to death (Exodus 21:14). or he may even be struck down at the altar, as was the fate of Joab (1 Kings 2:30, 31, 34) The community came between the fugitive and the avenger of blood, and determined whether he should be handed over to death. This was likely the result of the fusion of different tribes and the necessity of recognizing one common authority. We can trace three stages of development of this right of asylum in the OT.

(1) Every altar or sanctuary in the land could extend its protection to one who had without intention taken the life of another. He had to justify his claim to protection by showing to the’authorities of the sanctuary that his deed was unpremeditated. But after the fugitive had submitted satisfactory evidence, he was allowed to remain within the sacred precincts. He could not, however, return home, and had evidently to pass the remainder of his life in the refuge to which he had fied. He could not appease the avenger by money. His want of prudence must entail some punishment, and so he could not pass beyond the city boundaries without risk of death at the hands of the avenger of blood. What provision was made for his maintenance is not revealed, but very likely he had to win his subsistence by his work. Whether his family could Join him in his asylum is a question that is also unanswered. This is the stage of development in Exodus 21. 1 Kings 1:50 2:28, 34. It is not at all likely that Joab’s death was brought about at the altar in Jerusalem because of some exceptional authority exercised over it by the king. Joab evidently knew he could be put to death there (1 Kings 2:30).

(2) When the provincial high places and altars were suppressed by Josiah in b.c, 621, the right of asylum there fell with them, and provision had to be made for the continuance of ancient usage on a modified basis. Very likely there was less need for it, as the power of the Crown had been growing. Cities of refuge, situated at convenient distances, were set apart for the manslayer (Deuteronomy 19:2–7), and it may even be that the roads thither were specially kept and marked to make escape easy (Deuteronomy 19:3) but cf. Steuernagel, Deut. p. 71 f.). The fugitive had to justify his claim to protection by showing to the elders of the city whither he had fied his innocence of murderous motives. Any one who failed to convince them of the validity of his defence was handed over to the elders of his own city, and they in turn surrendered him to the avenger of blood. Practically, then, the community administered justice, but when the death penalty was to be exacted, it was exacted not by the community, but by the avenger of blood in accordance with primitive usage (Deuteronomy 19:12, 13).

(3) In post-exilic times the cities of refuge established under the Deuteronomic Code remained, and the judicial procedure followed was very much the same, only the community — presumably at Jerusalem — and not the elders of the city of refuge (Numbers 35) was to determine the guilt or the innocence of the fugitive. Joshua 20:4. however, contemplates a provisional inquiry by the elders of the city before protection is granted. The law was mitigated so far that the unwitting manslayer was no longer doomed to spend all his days there but was free to return to his home on the death of the high priest of the time (Numbers 35, jos 20:6). This points to the post-exilic origin of this modification. The high priest was then the only constituted authority that Jewish law could recognize.

3 . Number of cities of refuge .—The statements bearing on the number of the cities of refuge are confiicting (Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 4 19:7–10, Joshua 20:2, 7, 8) cf. Driver, Deut. pp. 78, 233; Gray, Num. p. 469). Ultimately there were six, but at first there appear to have been only three (Deuteronomy 19:2, 7). They were established first in the time of Josiah when the boundaries and the population of the Jewish State would be comparatively small, and Jewish authority did not likely cross the Jordan to the east. In such conditions three cities would be ample. But when in post-exilic times the Jews covered a wider area, there would naturally be need for more cities; and so we find the number in Numbers and Joshua stated at six, and additions made to the text in Deuteronomy 4 and 19:8 to suggest that the number six had been contemplated from the beginning. These six cities were Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron on the west, — all well-known sanctuaries from early times,— and Golan, Ramoth, and Bezer on the east. Of the situation of these last we know nothing definitely; even the site of Ramoth, to which reference is made elsewhere in the OT (1 Kings 4 22:3 ff.). is a subject of doubt (see G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 587; Driver, Deut. xviii, xix), but they probably shared the sacred character of the cities on the west.

J. GiLROY.

Refuse

The vb. ‘to refuse’ has lost much of its vigour. In AV it often means ‘to reject.’ Thus Psalms 118:22 ‘The stone which the builders refused.’ Cf. Tindale’s trans, of Matthew 24:40 ‘Then two shalbe in the feldes, the one shalbe receaved, and the other shalbe refused.’

Regem

The eponym of a Calebite family (1 Chronicles 2:47).

Regem-melegh

One of the deputation sent to the prophet Zechariah (Zee 7’).

Regeneration

In the language of theology, ‘regeneration’ denotes that decisive spiritual change, effected by God’s Holy Spirit, in which a soul, naturally estranged from God, and ruled by sinful principles, is renewed in disposition, becomes the subject of holy affections and desires, and enters on a life of progressive sanctiflcation, the issue of which is complete likeness to Christ. The term, however, to which this word corresponds (Gr. palingenesia), occurs only twice in the NT (Matthew 19:28. Titus 3:5). and in the first instance denotes, not the renewal of the individual, but the perfected condition of things at the Parousia (cf. Acts 3:21. 2 Peter 3:13) see Restoration). In the other passage (Titus 3:5), the expression ‘the washing [laver] of regeneration’ connects ‘the renewing of the Holy Ghost’ with the rite of baptism, which is its outward symbol and seal (see below). The doctrine, nevertheless, is a thoroughly Scriptural one, and the change in question is expressed by a great variety of terms and phrases: ‘born,’ ‘born anew,’ ‘a new creation,’ ‘renewed,’ ‘quickened,’ etc., to which attention will immediately be directed. The fundamental need of regeneration is recognized in the OT as well as in the NT (.e.g. Psalms 51:10, 11). though, necessarily, the prophecies speak more frequently of natiorml renewal (Jeremiah 31:31 ff. 32:38–40, Ezekiel 36:25–28. Hos 6 etc.) than of individual.

The classical passage on the need of regeneration is John 3:3 ff.: Spiritual life, it is taught, can come only from a spiritual source, and man, naturally, has not that life (v. 6). Hence the declarations: ‘Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God’; ‘Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. . . . Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must be born anew’ (vv. 3, 5). . The miracle is wrought by the Spirit of God, whose action is sovereign (v. 8). Many do marvel, like Nicodemus, at the strangeness and universality of this demand of Christ; yet the strangeness will disappear, and the need of a supernatural agent to effect the change will be felt, if due consideration is given (1) to the vastness of the change, and (2) to the condition of the human nature in which the change is to be made.

(1) It is sufficient, to show the vastness of this change, to reflect that here, and elsewhere, regeneration means nothing less than a revolution of such a kind as results in the whole man being brought round from his ordinary worldly way of feeling, and thinking, and willing, into harmony with God’s mind and will; truly brought round to God’s point of view, so that he now sees things as God sees them, feels about things as God feels about them, judges of things as God judges of them, loves what God loves, hates what God hates, sets God’s ends before him as his own. Who can doubt, if this is the nature of the change, that it does not lie in man’s own powers to produce it; that it can be effected only through a higher power entering his being, and wojrking the change?

(2) The need of a supernatural agency in the change is further evident from the condition of the human nature in which the change is wrought. The testimony of Scripture is uniform that man has turned aside from God (Psalms 14:1–3, Romans 3:9 ff.), and that his nature has undergone a terrible depravation (Genesis 6:5 8:21, Psalms 51:5. Isaiah 1:2–4. Romans 7:14 ff.; Ephesians 2:1–3 4:17, 18 etc.); that the bent of the will is away from God (Romans 8:7, 8) that the love of God has been replaced by love of the world, and the self-seeking principles connected therewith (1 John 2:15, 16. cf. John 5:42, 44) that the better nature is in bondage to a law of sin, which works lawlessness in thought, feeling, and desire (Romans 7:22, 23, 1 John 3:4 RV). Is it not obvious, leaving out of account altogether the darker forms in which evil manifests itself, that this is a condition of soul which only a Divine power can rectify?

Nothing, therefore, is more plainly taught in Scripture than that this spiritual change we call regeneration is one which nothing short of Divine power can effect. It is spoken of as a being born of God (Jn !"• " 3:5, 1 John 3:9 etc.); as a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:21) as a being raised from the dead (Ephesians 2). It is compared to that great work of the omnipotence of God in raising Christ Himself from the dead (Ephesians 1:19, 22 2:1, 6). It is a complete renewal, transformation, of the inner man (Romans 12:2, Ephesians 4:23. Colossians 3:10. Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:22, 23). Yet, while so distinctively a supernatural work, it is made equally clear that it is not a magical work; not a work bound up with rites and words, so that, when these rites and ceremonies are performed, regeneration is ipso facto effected. This is the error of sacerdotalism, which binds up this spiritual change with the rite of baptism. It would be wrong to say that baptism has no connexion with the change, for it is often brought into most intimate relation with it (Romans 6:4, Titus 3:5. 1 Peter 3:21; perhaps even in Christ’s words, John 3:5) with the historical examples of the connexion of the receiving of the Spirit with baptism, Acts 2:38 W-‘etc.). Baptism is connected with regeneration as outwardly representing it, and being a symbol of it; as connected with profession (1 Peter 3:21). and pledging the spiritual blessing to faith; but it neither operates the blessing, nor is indispensable to it, nor has any virtue at all apart from the inward susceptibility in the subjects of it. In some cases we read of those on whom the Spirit of God fell, that they were baptized afterwards (Acts 10:44, 48), and in all cases faith is presumed to be already present before baptism is administered; that is, the inward decisive step has already been taken.

On the other hand, when we look to the means — the instrumentality — by which the Holy Spirit effects this change, we find it always in Scripture declared to be one thing, namely, the word. This is what is meant by saying that regeneration is effected, not magically, but by the use of, rational means. It is connected with the outward call of the gospel (hence the older divines were wont to treat of this subject under the head of ‘vocation,’ or ‘effectual calling’). We speak, of course, only of adults, of those who are capable of hearing and understanding the call, and are far from limiting the grace of God in infants, or others whom this call does not or cannot reach. What is affirmed is, as regards those who have come to years of intelligence, that God’s dealing with them is through the word, and this is the constant representation. The OT equally with the NT extols the saving, converting, quickening, cleansing, sanctifying power of the word of God {e.g. Psalms 19:7 ff. 119). Jesus declares the word to be the seed of the Kingdom (Luke 8:11). Hebrews 9: ‘Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth’ (John 17:17). Conversion, regeneration, sanctification, are connected with the word (Acts 11:19–21, Ephesians 1:13, Colossians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 2. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. James 1:18, I p 1:23–25 [‘Begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God,’ etc.])

If this is the nature, generally, of regeneration, then it has what may be termed a psychology; that is, there is a process which the mind goes through in the experience of this spiritual change. The Spirit of God, doubtless, has innumerable ways of dealing with human souls; still, if we look closely, it will be found that there are certain elements which do in some degree enter into all experience in regeneration, and furnish, so far, a test of the reality of the change. There is first, of necessity, the awakening of the soul out of its customary spiritual dormancy — out of that deep insensibility to spiritual things in which ordinarily the natural mind is held (Ephesians 5:14, cf. Romans 14:11, 12). Especially there comes into view here the peculiar awakening of the soul through the conscience, which takes the form of what we call conviction of sin towards God (cf. Acts 16:29, 30). Probably no one can undergo this spiritual change without in some degree being brought inwardly to the realization of his sinful condition before God, and to the sincere confession of it (Psalms 51:4). The law of God has its place in producing this conviction of sin; but law alone will not produce spiritual contrition. See Repentance. For this there is needed the exhibition of mercy. Hence the next stage in this spiritual process is that described as enlightenment — growing enlightenment in the knowledge of Christ This also, like tiie preceding stages, is a Divine worls: (John 16:14, 15, 2 Corinthians 4:4). Even witti this, iiowever, the worlc of regeneration is not complete. The will of God for man’s salvation has not only to be understood, it has also to be obeyed. There is the vriU to be laid hold of — the will, the centre and citadel of the being. So the worlj of the Holy Spirit is directed, finally, to the renewing of the will. It is directed to the renewing of the will, first of ail, in the form of persuasion, for the Holy Spirit does none of His worlj by violence. Everything that God accomplishes is accomplished in accordance with the nature He has given us; but God most graciously, most lovingly, brings His persuasions to bear upon our wills, and by the power of appropriate motives draws us to the acceptance of Christ (John 6:44). With this there goes what, in the next place, may be called the potentiation of the will — the enabling of it, or imparting to it the power needful in order to lay hold on Christ with full and fast faith (Ephesians 4:16). Last of all, this work of regeneration is completed when the soul is brought to the point of absolute surrender of itself to Christ — when, drawn and persuaded, and at length enabled by the Spirit, it yields itself up entirely to Christ as its Saviour, and lays hold on Christ for a complete salvation. There is now union with Christ by faith, and, with that, entrance into the life — the experience — of the new-born child of God. ‘If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new’ (2 Corinthians 5:17). James Orh.

REGISTER {i.e. genealogical record).— See Gene- AliOQT, 2.

Rehabiah

A Levitioal family (1 Chronicles 23:17 24:21 26:25).

Rbhob

1. A town at the northern end of the valley of the Jordan (Numbers 13:21. 2 Samuel 10:8). most probably the same as Beth-rehob, of which the exact site is unknown.2, 3. Two Asherite towns, neither of which has been identified (Joshua 19:28 21:31. 1 Chronicles 6:75. Joshua 19:30. Judges 1). 4. The father of Hadadezer (2 Samuel 8). 5. A signatory to the covenant (Nehemiah 10:11).

REHOBOAM, son of Solomon, is said to have reigned seventeen years. The statement that his mother was Naamah, the Ammonitess (1 Kings 14:21), has nothing improbable about it. The LXX may even be right in calling her a daughter of Nahash, the Ammonite king. In the history of Rehoboam the chief point is his indiscreet treatment of the tribes at his accession — treatment which resulted in the revolt of the best part of the nation and the establishment of a rival kingdom (1 Kings 12). The coherence of the tribes was evidently imperfect under Solomon. Ephraim, which had always been conscious of its own strength, was not minded to recognize the young king without some concessions on his part. For this reason Rehoboam went to Shechem to be crowned. Here the hereditary chiefs demanded that he should lighten the yoke. In this they had reference particularly to the forced labour exacted by Solomon. Rehoboam’s arrogant answer is well known, and the result.

It was natural that an effort should be made to reduce the rebel tribes to subjection. But Rehoboam seems not to have had either adequate resources or military capacity. The brief notice that there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually is all that we are told. Besides this, the Biblical author describes the religious condition of the people in this reign in dark colours. This condition, however, is no more than prevailed under Solomon. The chief event in the secular history of the time was the invasion of the country by Shishak, king of Egypt. This monarch claims to have reduced the whole country to subjection, probably reviving ancient claims to suzerainty. The author of our Books of Kings is chiefly concerned at the Egyptian’s plundering the Temple (1 Kings 14:26). while the Chronicler (2 Chronicles 12) as usual is ready to make an edifying story out of the incident. It would interest us to know whether Egypt maintained its claims on the successors of Rehoboam, but on this point we are left in the dark.

H. P. Smith. REHOBOTH.— 1. A well dug by the servants of Isaac and finally conceded to him, after two others, dug also by them, had become a subject of quarrel with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Genesis 26:22). Several identifications have been proposed, of which the most probable is that made by Palmer with er-Ruhaibeh, about 20 miles S. of Beersheba. 2. The name of a king of Edom in Genesis 36:37. where lie is called ‘Rehoboth of the River."’ The River’ here may not be, as usually, the Euphrates, but the ‘River of Egypt’ (see Egypt [Riveb of]).

J. F. lU’CUBDY.

Rehoboth-ir

(lit. ‘broad places of the city’). One of the four cities in Assyria built by Nimrod (Genesis 10:11). . It immediately follows Nineveh, and might mean a suburb of that city, originally separate from it, but later annexed and containing some of its most spacious streets or market-places. A suitable identification has been found in the Assyr. rSKt Nina (‘broad places of Nineveh’), mentioned by kingEsarhaddon(B.c. 681-668) . This is the exact equivalent of the Biblical name. In taking it over, ‘the city’ was substituted for ‘Nineveh.’

J. F. M’CUKDY.

Rehum

1. One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community (Ezra 2:2; in Nehemiah 7:7. perhaps by a copyist’s error, Nehum ; in 1 Esdras 5:8 Roimus). 2. ‘The chancellor’ (Ezra 4:8, 9, 17 2S; in 1 Esdras 2:16 Rathumus). See Beel- TETHMUS. 3. A Levite who helped to repair the wall (Nehemiah 3:17). 4. One of those who sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:25 <28)). 5. The eponym of a priestly family (Nehemiah 12:3). See Habim, 2.