Reumah – Rhodes

Reumah

The concubine of Nahor (Genesis 22:24). REVELATION. — 1. Meaning of revelation.— The English word, which comes from the Latin, implies the drawing back of a veil, the unveiling of something hidden. It is the almost exact equivalent of the NT word apocalypse or ‘uncovering’ (Revelation 1:1). For our present purpose the word is specially applied to the revelation of God, the ‘unveiling’ of the unseen God to the mind and heart of man. The application of the word is very varied. The widest sense is that in which it is used by Gwatkin {Knowledge of God, vol. 1. p. 5): ‘Any fact which gives knowledge is a revelation, . . . the revelation and the knowledge of God are correlative terms expressing two sides of the same thing.’ The following specific uses of the term need consideration:(a) The revelation of God through nature. This refers to the indications of wisdom, power, and purpose in the material world around (Romans 1:20). (5) The revelation of God in man. This applies to the traces of God in man’s conscience with its sense of obligation, in his emotional nature with its desire and capacity for fellowship, in his personality which demands personality for its satisfaction, (c) The revelation of God in history. This means the marks of an over-ruling providence and purpose in the affairs of mankind, of a Divinity that has shaped man’s ends, the traces of a progress and onward sweep in history. All these aspects of revelation are usually summed up in the term ‘natural religion,’ and do not touch the specific meaning of revelation which is associated with Christianity, (d) The revelation of God in Judaism and Christianity. By revelation, as applied in this way, we mean a special, historical, supernatural communication from God to man. Not merely information about God, but a revelation — a disclosure of God Himself in His character and His relation to man. In addition to revelation through nature, conscience, and reason, Christianity Implies a special revelation in the Person of Christ.

2. Problem of revelation. — The statement of the full content of the Christian revelation is naturally excluded from this article, but for our purpose we may say briefly that its essence is the self-manifestation of God in the Person of Christ for the redemption of mankind. Christianity is the revelation of God’s grace for man through the historic Personality of Christ. The problem is to correlate this supernatural content with the historical process by means of which it has been revealed, and to do justice at once to the superhuman fact and content, and the human media and conditions of the revelation. In so doing we shall be brought face to face with the antitheses of revelation and discovery, of revelation and speculation, of revelation and evolution; and, while we recognize to the full the historical processes by which Christianity has come to us, we shall see that the gospel of Christ is not adequately accounted tor except by means of a personal revelation of God, using and guiding history for the purpose, and that it cannot be explained merely in terms of history, discovery, philosophy, and evolution.

3. Possibility of revelation. — We argue this on two grounds, (a) From the Being of God. Granted a God as a Supreme Being (which for our present purpose we assume). He must necessarily be able to reveal Himself to man. Given God as personal, this includes the power of self-revelation. Belief in a Divine Being at once makes revelation possible. A bare theism has never been a permanent standing-ground, for men either have receded from it or have gone forward in the direction of the Christian revelation. (6) From the nature of man. The fact of personality, with all its possibilities, implies man’s capacity for communion with a Being higher than himself, or higher than any other human personality. ‘Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee’ (Augustine).

4. Probability of revelation. — This also we argue on two grounds; (a) from the nature of God, and (6) from the needs of man. Granted a Supreme Personal Being, we believe not only in His ability, but in His willingness to reveal Himself to man. Belief in God prepares us to expect a revelation. Human personality with its capacity for God prepares us to expect a revelation, which thus becomes antecedently probable. The desire for it is an argument for expecting it. Man, as man, needs a revelation to guide him, an authority above and greater than himself in things spiritual and Divine. Stfll more does man as a sinner need such a Divine revelation. Amid the sins and sorrows, the fears and trials, the difficulties and perplexities of life, man needs some Divine revelation that will assure him of salvation, holiness, and immortality. No one can say that the light of nature is sufficient for these needs, and that therefore a revelation could add nothing. Most men would agree that there is at least room for a revelation in view of the sin and suffering in the world. Our deepest instincts cry out against the thought that sin is final or permanent, and yet it is equally clear that nothing but an interposition from above can deal with it. It is impossible to conceive of God leaving man to himself without a definite, clear, and sufficient manifestation of His own character, His will. His love, His grace.

5. Credibility of revelation. — The proofs of a Divine revelation are many, varied, converging, and cumulative, (a) Speculatively, we may argue that ‘the universe points to idealism, and idealism to theism, and theism to a revelation’ (Illingworth, Reason and Revelation, p. 243). (6) Historically, the Christian revelation comes to us commended by its witnesses in (1) miracle, (2) prophecy, and (3) spiritual adaptation to human nature, (c) Behind all these are the presuppositions of natural religion as seen in nature, man, and history, (.d) But ultimately the credibility of Christianity as a revelation rests on the Person of its Founder, and all evidences converge towards and centre in Him. Christ is Christianity, and Christians believe primarily and fundamentally in the fact and trustworthiness of Christ. Herein lies the final proof of the credibility of Christianity as a Divine revelation. If it be said that God has made other manifestations of Himself in the course of history, we do not deny it. All truth, however mediated, must necessarily have come from the primal Source of truth. The genuineness of Christianity does not necessarily disprove the genuineness of other religions as ‘broken lights.’ Each system claiming to be a revelation, whether partial or final, must be tested by its own evidence, and a decision made accordingly. The real criterion of all religions claiming to be Divine Is their power to save. It is not truth in itself, but truth as exemplified in human life and delivering from sin, that constitutes the final proof of a religion. Not the ideal, but the ideal practically realized in human experience, is the supreme test. When this is applied, the true relation of Christianity to other systems is at once seen.

6. Methods o£ revelation. — (a) The Christian revelation is first and foremost a revelation of life. Christianity is primarily a religion of facts rather than of truths, the doctrines only arising out of the facts. All through the historic period God’s manifestation has been given to life. Whether we think of the patriarchs, kings, and prophets of the OT, or of Christ and His Apostles in the NT, revelation has ever been connected with human life and personality. (6) But mediately it has been given in word, first oral and then written. Both in the OT and in the NT we notice first what God was and did to men, and afterwards what He said. We can and must distinguish between the revelation and the record, the former being necessarily prior to the latter, but nevertheless the revelation needed the record for accuracy and availability. At the same time it is essential to remember that Scripture is not simply a record of a revelation, but that the history itself is a revelation of God. On the one hand, the Bible is a product of the Divine process of self-manifestation; and, on the other, the Bible itself makes God known to man. Christianity, therefore, like Judaism before it, is a book religion (though It is also much more), as recording and conveying the Divine manifestation to man. A revelation must be embodied somewhere to be made available for all generations, and of the three possible media — human reason, an ecclesiastical institution, and a book, — the last-named is by far the most trustworthy as a vehicle of transmission. It matters not how God reveals Himself, so long as we can be sure of the accuracy of that which is transmitted. Christ is our supreme and final authority, and our one requirement is the purest, clearest form of His historic personal manifestation. We do not set aside reason because it is human, or an institution because it is liable to error, nor do we accept the book merely as a book; but we believe that the two former do not, and the latter does, enshrine for us the record of Christ’s revelation in its best available form.

7. Development of revelation. — Revelation has been mediated through history, and has therefore been progressive,(a) Primitive revelation is the first stage. How men first came to conceive of God must remain a matter of conjecture. As there is so little known about primitive man, so also there must be about primitive religion. One thing, however, is quite clear, that the terms ‘savage’ and ‘primitive’ are not synonymous, for the savage to-day often represents a degeneration from primitive man. All analogy favours the idea that primitive revelation was such a manifestation of God when man was created as would be sufficient to maintain a true relation with Him, that at the Creation man had an immediate capacity, however immature, of entering into fellowship with God; and with this religious endowment we may assume a measure of Divine revelation sufficient to enable man to worship in an elementary way, and to keep true to God. No one is able to prove this, but there is no reason to deny its possibility or probability. Without some such assumption, all idea of revelation vanishes, and religion is resolved into merely human conceptions of God. Revelation is more than the soul’s instinctive apprehension of God, for the simple reason that the instinctive apprehension itself has to be accounted for. The difiiculties urged by some writers on the philosophy of religion against primitive revelation arise out of the assumption that all revelations are mere natural processes. There is no argument against primitive revelation which is not valid against all revelation, Christianity included. The power and possibility of man’s self-development towards God are inconsistent with the fact of sin and man’s bent towards evil. (6) OT revelation. However and whenever the OT came into existence, we cannot help being conscious of something in it beyond that which is merely human and historical. There is that in the OT characters and record which cannot be explained solely in terms of historic continuity. The O’T does not merely represent an endeavour to obtain an ever worthier idea of God; it records a true idea of God impressed oh the people in the course of history, under a Divine direction which we call a revelation. The OT conception of God is so vastly different from that which obtained in the surrounding nations, that unless we predicate something supernatural, there is no possibility of accounting tor so marked a difference between people who were in other respects so very much alike. As Wellhausen truly says, ‘Why did not Chemosh of Moab, for instance, develop into a God of Righteousness, and the Creator of heaven and earth?’ It is possible to give a satisfying answer to this question only by predicating a Divine revelation in the OT. (e) The NT revelation. The historical revelation culminated in the manifestation of Jesus Christ. It was given at a particular time and place, mediated through One Person, and authenticated by supernatural credentials. In Christ the self-disclosure of God reached its climax, and the NT is the permanent witness of the uniqueness of Christianity in the world. ‘God, who in ancient days spoke to our forefathers in many distinct messages and by various methods through the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken unto us through a Son’ (Hebrews 1:1. Weymouth). And the Person of Christ is utterly inexplicable in terms of history, or discovery, and requires the hypothesis of revelation.

_ This brief sketch of the historical development of revelation will enableua to understand theimportanceof the truth of the progressiveneas of revelation. God taught men as they were able to bear it, leading them step by step from the dawn to the noonday of His self-disclosure. While each stage of the revelation was adequate for that time, it was not necessarily adequate with reference to succeeding stages. This principle of progress enables us to avoid a twofold error: it prevents us from undervaluing the OT by reason of the fuller light of the NT; and it prevents us from using the OT in any of its stages without guidance from the completer revelation of the NT. We thus distinguish carefully between the dispensational truth intended absolutely for immediate need at each stage, and those permanent elements in the OT which are of eternal validity. It is necessary to remember the difference between what is written for us and to us. ‘All Scnpture was written for our learning, but not all was written to us directly. If it be said that revelation should be universal, and not limited to one time or place or nation, the answer is that the historical method is m exact accordance with the method of communicating and receiving all our knowledge. It is obvious that in the course of history some nations and men have influenced mankind more than others, and this fact constitutes an analogy, and argues the possibility that a special revelation might also be mediated through some particular race and person. Further, by limiting revelation in this way, God took the best means of preserving the revelation from corruption. Continuous and universal tradition has very few safeguards against deterioration, aa the Jewish history only too clearly shows. Our acceptance of the revelation enshrined in the NT is based on the belief that it comes through men uniquely authorized and equipped to declare God’s will. Its authority depends on the fact that their special relation to Christ and their exceptional possession of the Spirit gave them the power to receive and declare God’s truth for naankind. Not_ fitness to edify, or age, or the possession of truth, but with these, and underlying them, the presence of a Divine element in the men whose writings we possess, gives the boolcs their authority for us as a record and vehicle of Divine revelation. This uniqueness may be seen by a simple appeal to fact. The comparison of the Apostohc and sub- Apostolic ages shows the imiqueness of the NT. Between the first and second centuries there is a chasm’ sheer, abrupt, abysmal ‘(Schaff), and no transition exists which was so silent, and yet so sudden and remarkable. The most beautiful i)roduct of the second century, the EpisUe of Diognetus, is incomparably inferior to any book of the NT. ‘There is no steeper descent in history than that which directly follows the Apostolic age. We pass at once from writings unsurpassed in creative power to writings of marked in tellectual poverty, . . . the distinction commonly made between the books of the Canon and the rest is fully justified’ (Gwatkin, Kiumledge of God, ii. 80). This difference marks the distinction between the Spirit of God in revelation and in illumination. Since the close of the NT times there has been strictly no addition to the revelation, but only its manifold realization and appUcatiou in the Christian Church and the world. It should be carefully noted that we believe in the Divine revelation contained m the Scriptures, without holding any particular theory of inspiration. The supreme question is whether they contam a revelation of Divme truth. Are they true and trustworthy for our spiritual life? If so, they are authoritative whatever may have been the precise method of their delivery. The primary question is not the method of inspiration, but the fact of authority. Yet, however difficult it may be to define its character or limits, we believe in a special inspiration of the Bible based on the authority of its authors and on their unique power to reveal God’s will. This special inspiration is (1) testified to by the Scriptures themselves, (2) has ever been held in the Christian Church, and (3) constantly authenticates itself to the Christian conscience through the ages.

8. Purpose o£ revelation. — The essential purpose of revelation is life: the gift of the life of God to the life of man. Its practical character is stamped on every part. The ‘chief end of revelation’ is not philosophy, though it has a philosophy profound and worthy. It is not doctrine, though it has a doctrine satisfying and inspuring. It is not enjoyment, though it has its experiences precious and lasting. It is not even morality, though it has its ethic unique and powerful. Christianity has all these, but is far more than them all. It is the religion of redemption, including salvation from sin, equipment for holiness, and provision for life to be lived in fellowship with God and for His glory. The ‘chief end’ of revelation is the union of God and man, and in that union the fulfilment of all God’s purposes for the world. The elements of sonship, worship, stewardship, fellowship, heirship, practically sum up the purpose of Divine revelation as it concerns man’s life — a life in which he receives God’s grace, realizes God’s will, reproduces God’s character, renders God service, and rejoices in God’s presence in the Kingdom of grace below and the Kingdom of glory above.

W. H. Gkiffith Thomas.

Revelation, Book of

This single representative of the literature of apocalypse (Gr. apokalypsis, whencethealternatingname,’TheApocalypse’)preserved in the NT belongs to a large group of Christian writings of a similar sort. It was characteristic of the early Church to build up a literature about the names of the various Apostles. Normally this literature consisted of a narrative, an apocalypse, and some form of doctrinal writing; as, for example, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Preaching of Peter. With the exception of the present book, no Christian apocalypse is held to be even possibly authentic.

1. Canonicity. — The Revelation was not universally accepted by the early Church as canonical. There is no evidence of its existence worthy of consideration in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, although it is just possible that Paplas may have known of it. By the middle of the 2nd cent., however, Revelation is well known, and is declared by Justin to be by the Apostle John {Dial. Ixxxi. 15). It is also used, among others, by Melito, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and attributed to the Apostle John by the first-named as well as by Irenaeus. The fact that it appears in the Canon of the Muratorian Fragment is evidence that by the middle of the 2nd cent, it was accepted in the West. After its defence by Hippolytus its position was never seriously questioned except in the East. Jerome is, in fact, the only Western theologian of importance who doubts it, and he puts it among those books which are ‘under discussion,’ neither canonical nor apocryphal.

In the East, as might be expected, it was rejected by Marcion, and, because of disbelief in its Apostolic authorship, by Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the 3rd cent.). Palestinian and Syrian authors (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem) generally rejected it, in large measure because of the struggle with the Montanists, by whom Revelation was used as a basis of doctrine. It does not appear in the lists of the Synod of Laodicea, the Apostolic Constitutions, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, the Chronography of Nicephorus, the ‘List of the Sixty Books,’ or in the Peshitta version of the NT. It was included by the Gelasian Decree at the end of the 5th cent, as canonical, and was finally recognized by the Eastern Church. Yet as late as 692 a Synod could publish two decrees, the one including the Apocalypse in the Canon, the other excluding it. It was not held in high repute by the reformers Carlstadt, Luther, Zwingli, all of whom doubted its Apostolicity, or apparently by Calvin, who omitted to comment upon it. At most, the first two of these theologians were apparently inclined to recognize a division of sacred writings similar to that of Jerome.

2. Authorship. — The title, " Revelation of John,’ which occurs in several MSS, including the Codex Sinaiticus, is an obvious expression of a belief regarding authorship. This John was believed by many in the early Church to be the Apostle. Whether this view was correct or not is to-day a subject of lively debate. The book itself contains little internal evidence serving to substantiate this claim, for the author simply states that he is named John (!’• <■ ‘22=). Justin (Dial. Ixxxi. 15) distinctivelystatesthat Revelation is by’ John, one of the Apostles of Christ,’ and Tertullian along with the Western Church generally held to its Apostolic authorship. Eusebius, however, suggests that it may have been written by John ‘the Presbyter,’ mentioned by Papias but otherwise unknown. At the present time the belief is divided as to whether the author of Revelation is John the Apostle or John the Presbyter. The chief argument against the view that the author is John the Apostle lies in the differences existing between Revelation and the Gospel and the Epistles of John, both in style and in method. Notwithstanding the use of the term ‘Logos’ (19’^), these divergences are too obvious to need specifying. If Johannine authorship be assigned the Gospel and Epistles, it is difiicult to claim it for Revelation; but, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe it to be either pseudonymous or written by the mysterious John the Presbyter. As the case now stands, criticism seems to have reached an impasse, and the plain reader may best use the book in disregard of questions of authorship, — a procedure the more justifiable because its teaching is independent of personal matters.

3. Date. — Although the fixing of the date of Revelation presupposes conclusions as to its composition and purpose, it may here be said that in all probability the book reached its present form in the latter part of the leign of Domitian (a.d. 81-96).

4. Composition. — The prevailing hypotheses may be grouped in three classes.

(1) The currently accepted view that it was written entiTely by the Apostle John. Such a view is, however, open to serious objections, because of the similarities, if not identities, existing between Revelation and other apocalyptic literature of the period, as well as because of the evidences of composite character of the writing, implying sources of different origins and dates, such as the various breaks in the process of the vision (the lack of any single historical point of view is seen by a comparison of 12= 13’ IT, in an effort to identify historically the two breaks, or in a comparison of lli-i’ with 17").

(2) The view that the work, while essentially a literary unit, is a Christian redaction of a Jewish writing. This view would attribute to the Christian redactor the first three chapters and important sections like 5’-" 7"-" 13ua. 22^-2’, in addition to separate verses like 12" 141. c 1213. 15 1615 17" 199. 10. 13b 20i-« 21«‘-8. The difficulties with this position are not only those which must be urged against any view that overlooks the evidences of the composite authorship of the work, but also the impossibility of showing that ch. 11 is Jewish in character.

(3) Theories of composite origin. — These are of various forms — (a) The theory according to which an original work has been interpolated with apocalyptic material of various dates (7>-8- 11’-" 12i-"- ‘2-" 13") and subjected to several revisions. (6) The view that Revelation is a Christian book in which Jewish apocalypses have been framed, (c) The theory according to which Revelation is composed of three sources, each of which has subdivisions, all worked together by a Christian redactor, (d) Notwithstanding the difficulty in determining the sources, critics are pretty thoroughly agreed that, as the book now stands, it has a unity which, though not inconsistent with the use of older material by its author, is none the less easily recognized. Some of this older material, it is now held, undoubtedly represents the general stream of apocalyptic that took its rise in Babylonian mythology. The structural unity of the book appears in the repetition of sevenfold groups of episodes, as well as in a general grammatical and linguistic similarity. In achieving this remarkable result, the redactor so combined, recast, and supplemented his material as to give the book an essentially Christian rather than Jewish character.

6. Analysis. — As it now stands, literary and critical analyses do not altogether coincide, but until criticism has finished its task, literary analysis must be of primary importance. Authorities here differ, but the following analysis does not differ fundamentally from that of other writers.

i. Introduction (ch. 1).

ii. The message of the Spirit to the SevenChurche3{cha.2,3).

iii. The period of struggle and misery (chs, 4-7).

iv. The final Messianic struggle (chs. 8-14).

V. The victory of the Messiah (chs. 15—20). vi. The vision of the Messianic Kingdom (chs. 21-22^). vii. Epilogue (225-2’).

6. Interpretation. — No Biblical writing, with the possible exception of the Book of Daniel, has been so subjected to the vagaries of interpreters as Revelation, (a) On the one extreme are those (‘Futurists’) who have seen in its pictures a forecast of universal Christian history, as well as all the enemies of Christianity, both within and without the Church. To such interpreters the book has been a thesaurus of that chiliastic doctrine which the Greek as well as the modern scientific attitude of mind has found so repugnant. (6) At the other extreme there are those interpreters who see in Revelation simply a reference to the historical conditions of the first century of the Christian era. (c) There is a measure of truth in each of these two methods, but the real method of interpretation must be independent of dogmatic presuppositions. As narrative matter must be interpreted by the general principles applicable to all literature of its class, so must Revelation be interpreted in accordance with the general principles applicable to apocalypses as a form of literary expression. The fundamental principles of such interpretation involve the recognition of the facts — (i.) that apocalypses are the outgrowth of definite historical situations; (ii.) that they attempt to stimulate faith by an exposition in symbolic terms of the deliverance which God will give His suffering people from actually existing sufferings; (iii.) that the message of deliverance gains authority because of its claim to superhuman origin reinforced by pseudonymous authorship; (iv.) that the deliverance which is thus supernaturally portrayed is dependent upon the introduction of a new age whose conditions are set miraculously by God rather than by evolving historical forces, and is not described with the same detail as are the conditions from which God is to deliver His people.

An application of these principles to the interpretation of Revelation demands (1) that an historical interpretation be given the pictures describing the miseries of the Church. The conditions of such interpretation are most naturally fulfilled m the persecution under Domitian (81-96), although there may be references to that under the dead Nero. The persecuting force is clearly Rome, as represented both by the Emperor and by Emperor-worship, whatever the origin of the pictures with which the oppression of the Church is set forth. A point of departure for the identification of the historical figures who are to be subjected to the Messianic punishment might be thought to be the number o£ the Beast— 666 — that is to say, the Emperor Nero, who was expected to return from the dead (see Beast [in Apoc.]) . Pseudo-Nero did, in fact, appear in Asia Minor in a.d. 69, and among the Parthians in 79-81 and 88. The identification, however, is not altogether satisfactory, as the Hebrew letters, whose numerical equivalents give by the process of Gematria 666, are not precisely those in Csesar Nero. If the correct reading be 616, the equivalent is Gains Csesar. Another interpretation would make ‘the Latin or the Roman Empire.’ The best that can be said, however, is that if the interpretation by Gematria is unsatisfactory, the interpreter is forced back upon the general references of ‘the hills,’ ‘the city,’ and ‘the horns’ or kings, as a basis for regarding Rome as the great enemy of the Christian and his Church.

A further difficulty in formulating precisely the historical situation, arises from the fact that the author, though producing a book of great literary unity, has embodied sources which refer to conditions of different times. Thus 11’-" would naturally infer the existence of the Temple, which was destroyed in 70; ch. 13 may have come from the days of Caligula; 17’" most naturally implies some time in the reign of Nero; 17" apparently implies Domitian, the eighth emperor; 17’ would also argue that the book was written during the period that believed in Nero redivivus. The redactor (or redactors) has, however, so combined these materials as to give a unified picture of the approaching Messianic struggle.

(2) On the other hand, the deliverance of the Church is, like all apocalyptic deliverances, miraculous, and described transcendentally. Besides the martyrs, the only identification possible in this connexion is that of the conquering Lamb with Jesus the Christ. The fall of Rome is foretold definitely in ch. 17, but the seer is true to the general apocalyptic form m that he makes Rome and its religion the agents of Satan. The ultimate victory of the Church is similarly portrayed as the victory of God, and is identified with the return of Jesus to establish His Messianic Kingdom.

Such a method of interpretation, based upon general characteristics of apocalypses, preserves the element of truth in both the futurist and the historical methods of interpretation, the pictures of persecution symbolizing actual historical conditions, but the forecast of deliverance reverting to the general Messianic expectation of events lying outside of history.

The sublime theme of Revelation thus becomes evident — the victory of the Messiah over the Roman Empire, together with the miseries to be inflicted on His enemies and the blessings to be enjoyed by His followers.

7. Religious value. — If properly interpreted, Revelation is of really profound religious value. It cannot serve as a basis of theology, but, like any piece of imaginative writing, will serve to stir the emotion and the faith of the Christian. Its literary form is so remarkable, the passages descriptive of the triumph of the Messianic Kingdom are so exquisite, its religious teaching is so impressive, as not only to warrant its inclusion in the Canon, but also to make it of lasting value to the devotional life. More particularly the Letters to the Churches are of value as criticism and Inspiration for various classes of Christians, while its pictures of the New Jerusalem and its insistence upon the moral qualifications for the citizens of the Messianic Kingdom are in themselves notable incentives to right living; Stript of its apocalyptic figures, the book presents a noble ideal of Christian character, an assurance of the unfailing justice of God, and a prophecy of the victory of Christianity over a brutal social order.

Shaileb Mathews.

Revenge

See AvENQEHOF Blood, Kin [Nextof].

Revised Version

See English Versions, 35.

Revive

In 1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 13:21, Nehemiah 4:2. Romans 14:9, ‘to revive’ is literally ‘to come to life again,’ as in Shaks. 1 Henry VI. i. i. 18 — ‘Henry is dead, and never shall revive.’ We thus see the force of Romans 7:9 " When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.’

Rezeph

A city mentioned in the message of the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib to Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:12, Is 37). It is the Batsappa or Ratsapi of the Assyrian inscriptions, the modern Basafa, between Palmyra and the Euphrates. This district belonged for several centuries to the Assyrians, and many of the tablets show it to have been an important trade-centre. Between B.C. 839 and 737 the prefects who had authority in the place were, to all appearance, Assyrians, only one, of unknown but apparently late date, having a name which may be West Semitic, namely, Abda’, possibly a form of ‘Afida or ‘06(j(Zio/s. T. G. Pinches.

Rezin

From the ancient versions and the cuneiform inscriptions it is clear that the form should be Bason or Bazin.

1. The last king of Damascus. Towards the close of the 8th cent. B.C. Damascus and Israel were under the suzerainty of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser iii. enumerates the articles paid him in tribute by Ba-sun-n« of Damascus and Menahem of Israel (b.c. 738). Pekah, one of Menahem’s successors, joined Rezin in the attempt to throw off the yoke. Failing to secure the co-operation of Ahaz, they turned their arms against Judah (b.c. 734). 2 Kings 16 mentions, among the incidents of the campaign, that Rezin ‘recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath.’ [This statement originated in a scribal error, the r in Aram (‘Syria ‘) having been accidentally substituted for the d of Edom, and Rezin’s name being added still later for the sake of completeness (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:17).) The two allies besieged Jerusalem, greatly to the alarm of the populace, and Isaiah strove in vain to allay the terror (Is 7-9). Ahaz implored aid from Tiglath-pileser, to whom he became tributary (2 Kings 16:8). On the approach of the Assyrians, Pekah was murdered by his own subjects. Damascus sustained a siege of more than a year’s duration, but was eventually taken (b.c. 732), and Rezin was slain (2 Kings 16:9). Rawlinson found an inscription on which this was recorded, but the stone has unfortunately disappeared. It is not quite certain who’ the son of Tabeel ‘(Isaiah 7:6) is. Winckler (AlUest. Untersuch., p. 74f.) fails to carry conviction in his attempt to identify this man with Rezin. More probably he was the tool whom the confederates proposed to seat on the throne of Judah.

2. The ‘children of Rezin’ are mentioned as a family of Nethinim (Ezra 2:48, Nehemiah 7:50). Like the Nethinim generally, they were very likely of foreign descent. In 1 Esdras 5:31 they are called ‘sons of Daisan,’ — another instance of the confusion of r and d. J. Taylor.

Rezon

According to the Heb. text of 1 Kings 11, Rezon, son of Eliada, was one of the military officers of that Hadadezer, king of the little realm of Zobah (cuneiform, Subiti), S. of Damascus and not far from the Sea of Tiberias, whom David overthrew (2 Samuel 8:3 ff.). For some unknown reason he deserted Hadadezer, gathered a band of freebooters, seized Damascus, and founded there the dynasty which created the most powerful of the Syrian kingdoms. He was a thorn in Solomon’s side, and his successors were bitter adversaries of Israel. Unfortunately, the text presents a suspicious appearance. Vv.^s-s" have evidently been interpolated between 22 and >">, and in the best MSS of the LXX the story, with some variations, follows v. 14. In either position it interrupts the course of the narrative, and the best solution of the difficulty is to regard it as a gloss, embodying a historical reminiscence. There is not sufllcient evidence for the view maintained by Thenius and Klostermann, that the name should be spelled Hezron and identified with Hezion (1 Kings 15:18).

J. Taylor.

Rhegi

Rhegi tm (now Beggio) was an old Greek colony near the south-western extremity of Italy, and close to the point from which there is the shortest passage to Sicily. Messana (modem Messina) on the opposite side is but 6 or 7 miles distant from Rhegium. The whirlpool of Charybdis and the rock of Scylla are in this neighbourhood, and were a terror to the ancient navigators with their small vessels. Rhegium was in consequence a harbour of importance, where favourable winds were awaited. The situation of the city exposed it to changes of government. In the 3rd cent. b.c. Rome entered into a special treaty with it. In NT times the population was mixed Graeco-Latin. St. Paul’s ship waited here one day for a favourable south wind to take her to Puteoli. Acts 28:13 describes how the ship had to tack to get from Syracuse to Rhegium, owing to the changing winds. A. Souter.

Rheims Version

See English Versions, 29.

Rhesa

A son of Zerubbabel (Luke 3:27).

RHODA, — The name of the maid-servant in the house of Mary, John Mark’s mother, when St. Peter came there on his release from prison by the angel (Acts 12:13).

A. J. Maclean.

Rhodes

Rhodes was one of the most important and successful cities in ancient Greece. It was founded in b.c. 408, at the N.E. corner of the island of the same name, which is 43 miles long and 20 miles wide at its widest. The situation was admirable, and the people were able to take advantage of it and to build up a splendid position in the world of commerce. It reached the summit of its success in the 2nd cent, b.c, after the settlement with Rome in 189 made it mistress of great part of Caria and Lycia. Rome’s trade interests were seriously interfered with by this powerful rival, and in b.c. 166 Rome declared the Carian and Lycian cities independent, and made Delos a tree port. Its conspicuous loyalty to Rome during the first Mithradatic War was rewarded by the recovery of part of its former Carian possessions. It took the side of Caesar in the civil war, although most of the East supported Pompey, and suffered successive misfortunes, which reduced it to a common provincial town, though it remained a free city in St. Paul’s time, and retained its fine harbours, walls, streets, and stores. St. Paul touched here on his way from Troaa to Csesarea (Acts 21:1), as it was a regular port of call on that route. Rhodes is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 15:23 as one of the free States to which the Romans sent letters in favour of the Jews. Ezekiel 27:15. according to the LXX, reads ‘sons of the Rhodians’: this is an error; the mention of them in Genesis 10:4 (LXX) and 1 Chronicles 1:7 (LXX) is probably correct. The famous Colossus was a statue of the sun-god at the harbour entrance, 105 feet high. It stood only from e.g. 280 to 224. A. Souteh.