Treasure, Treasury, Treasurer – Two

Treasure, Treasury, Treasurer

1. In OT ‘treasure’ and ‘treasury’ stand for various Heb. terms, but both words usually render ‘Dtsdr. This shows that ‘treasure’ and ‘treasury’ are not carefully distinguished in EV, or else that ‘StsUr itself may stand for either. As a matter of fact the truth lies with both alternatives. Strictly, a treasure is a store of wealth, while a treasury is a storehouse, a place where treasure is kept. Sometimes, however, ‘treasure’ occurs In AV where ‘treasury’ is meant, as Job 38:22 ‘Hast thou entered into the treasures (RV’ treasuries’) of the snow?’; and, on the other hand, ‘treasury’ is sometimes found where ‘treasure’ would be the more correct rendering, as Joshua 6:19, 24 and RV of Ezra 2:69. The indeterminateness of ‘dtsar is shown by its constant employment for’ treasure ‘and’ treasury ‘alike. The’ treasure (RV ‘store’) cities’ of Exodus 1:11 (cf. 1 Kings 9:19, 2 Chronicles 8:4) are cities in which provisions were stored up (cf. Gn

41).

2. In NT we find a like ambiguousness in the use of ‘treasure,’ and also of the Gr. thSsauros for which it stands. The treasures of the Magi (Matthew 2:11) and the treasure in heaven (Matthew 19:21) refer to precious stores; but it is out of his treasury rather than his treasure that the good man brings forth good things (Matthew 12:35), and the householder things new and old (13:52). In Acts 8:27 ‘treasure’ renders gaza, a word of Persian origin. In Matthew 27:6 ‘treasury’ represents korbanOs (the depository of the ‘corban,’ see Sacrifice and Offering, § 1 (a)), the sacred treasury into which the chief priests would not put Judas’ 30 pieces of silver. For the treasury of the Temple (gazophylakion) into which Jewish worshippers cast their offerings (Mark 12:41, 43, Luke 21:1) see Temple, § 11 (6). When Jesus is said to have spoken ‘in the treasury’ (John 8:20), the meaning probably is that He was teaching in the colonnade of the Temple where stood the treasure-boxes into which the offerings were cast.

Treasurer occurs in OT in Nehemiah 12. Ezra 1:8 7:21, Isaiah 22:15. Du 3:2, 3, representing a different term in each writer. The word is found in NT only in RV of Romans 16:23 as substitute for AV ‘chamberlain’ (Gr. oikonomos), but the Ethiopian eunuch is said to have had charge of all the treasure of queen Candace. J. C. Lambebt.

Tree

‘Tree’ is used as a poetic name for the Cross in Acts 5:30 10:39 13:29. 1 Peter 2:24; cf. Galatians 3. For sacred trees see Hian Place, 1; and Israel, ii. 1 (5); and, for the various trees of the Bible, the artt. under their respective names.

Trespass-offering

See Sacrifice, § 15.

Trial

See Temptation.

Tribes of Israel

The number of the tribes of Israel varied at different periods. The number 12 is an artificial one, as is seen from its application to the descendants of Ishmael (Genesis 17:20 25), of Nahor (Genesis 22:20–24), and of Esau (Genesis 36:15–19, 40–43) Simeon and Levi were ‘divided in Jacob and scattered In Israel’ (Genesis 49:7) when the tribe of Benjamin arose, so that at that time there would be not 12 but only 11 tribes. Reuben, likewise, in the period of the kings, was an insignificant remnant, and, though mentioned in 1 Ch 5 as still existing in 734, had apparently become disintegrated long before. As Stade (GVI i. 146) correctly remarks, several of the largest tribes — Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh, Gad — contained many minor tribes which surpassed in number, possessions, and political significance several of those counted In the twelve tribes.

The number of the tribes, according to JE’s genealogy (Gn 29-30), is not 12 but 13, and in the following order:

. 4

. 2

. 2

. 2

. 2

. 1 Leah tribes — Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah. Bilhah (Rachel) tribes — Dan, Naphtali Zilpah (Leah) tribes — Gad, Asher Leah tnbes — Issachar, Zebulun Rachel tribes — J oseph= (Manasseh, Ephraim) Benjamin (bom in Palestine), Genesis 35:18

13 To obtain the number 12 from this scheme it is necessary to omit Levi, or to count Manasseh and Ephraim as one.

Why the number twelve was chosen cannot be answered with certainty. Whether it is astronomical or mythological, i.e. connected with the 12 signs of the Zodiac and the 12 months in the year — in which case it would be traceable to Babylonia, as Gunkel suggests in his Genesis (p. 300), and Winckler holds (.Gesch. Israels, ii. p. 57, where he connects the ‘Zwblf Sohne’ (Jacob’s) with the’ Zwolf Monaten’), or whether it rests upon Solomon’s partition of the land into 12 divisions so that each might provision the royal household one month in the year (1 Kings 4:7), as Luther thinks (ZATW xxi. 34), or whether the true explanation has yet to be discovered, cannot be affirmed. The mythological explanation has to the present writer the greater probability in its favour.

TheinterpretationofthegenealogicalschemeofJE, which appeals to be most acceptable to scholars, may be briefly summarizedf ram Guthe, O F/, p. 49. Benjamin appeals as the last of the sons because this tribe came into ejcistence last of all, and in Palestine (Genesis 35:16–20)., . Joseph is younger than the others because it entered and settled in Canaan later than Simeon, Levi, and Judah, etc. Evidence of this is found in Jg !■"■ ^"-i and Genesis 34, which shows Joseph in

§osses3ion of the region of Shechem, formerly occupied by imeon and Levi. The order of arrangement, it would therefore seem, depended upon the author’s view of the time of a tribe’s respective settlement or origin in Canaan. Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher — the Canaanite tribes of the concuoines who were admitted to union with the other tribes — owe their position also to these principles. Excluding Benjamin, who was bom in Canaan, and the four tribes descended from the concubines, there remain only seven as extra-Canaanitish. The motheis, Leah and Rachel, represent different tribal groups at the head of which stand respectively Reuben and Joseph (1 Chronicles 5:1, 2). History, however, gives us no record of Reuben’s priority in leadership, but assigns that r61e to Joseph, so that the primacy of the Reuben tribe must go back to an earlier time and to the East Jordan. It is possible that the tribes which entered Canaan under Reuben s leadeiship, or during his supremacy, were classed under Leah, while those which followed under the lead of Joseph were classed under Rachel. The position of Issachar and Zebulun indicates that they were later in acquiring a foothold than the four earlier Leah tribes, yet earlier than Joseph. The position assigned to the Bilhah and Zilpah tribes , Guthe thinks, may be explained by their having come into closer relations to Joseph, and to Reuben or the last of the two Leah tribes respectively, and hence their mothers were given as handmaids to Rachel and Leah. "This is all suggestive, but no certainty is reached. Reuben’s position (in view of the inferior r61e of the tribe in historical times) remains as a problem to be solved, and the groupings, e.g. Asher with Gad as Zilpah tribes, despite their wide separation, Issachar and Zebulun with Judah as Leah tribes, are of doubtful import. James A. Cbaiq.

Tribute, Toll, Taxing

1. In OT the subject is obscure. The word most frequently rendered ‘tribute’ is mas, which denotes a body of forced labourers (2 S 20", 1 Kings 9:21 etc.; see RV), and then later ‘forced service’ — the feudal corvee. Solomon had a regular system of levying provisions for the maintenance of the royal establishment (1 Kings 4:7–19), and labourers for the execution of his vast building schemes (5:13 ff. 9:15). and also exacted toll from the caravans of merchants that passed through his kingdom (10:15). After the fall of the Jewish State, tribute was imposed on the land by its foreign masters (2 Kings 23:33. Ezra 4:13 etc.). In the last-mentioned passage (cf . v. 20 7:24) we read of ‘tribute, custom, or toll,’ but have no information as to the precise meanings of the terms and the distinctions between them. Cf. Trade and Commerce, § 3.

2. In NT ‘tribute’ represents 3 Gr. words. (1) phoros is properly a land tax; (2) kinsos (originally a property register), a capitation or poll tax. Both were direct Imperial taxes payable by the Jews as Roman subjects; the former in kind, the latter in Roman money. In NT, however, the distinction is not carefully observed (cf. Matthew 22:17, Luke 20:22). For the ‘tribute money’ of Matthew 22:19 see Money, § 7 (6). (3) didrachmon (Matthew 17:24, RV ‘the half -sheker) was the sura paid by every male Israelite to meet the cost of the daily services in the Temple. See Money, § 7 (d). Toll (tehs, AV’ custom ‘; telBnion’ place df toll, ‘A V ‘receipt of custom’ ) must be carefully distinguished from tribute (cf . Matthew 17. Romans 13:7). It was not a direct tax like (1) and (2), but an impost on the value of exported goods. For details see artt. CnsTOM(s), Publican. Taxing {apographs, RV ‘enrolment,’ Luke 2:2. Acts 5:37) denotes a registration with a view to taxation for Imperial purposes. See Qui- BiNius. J. C. Lambert.

Trinity

1. The doctrine approached.— It is sometimes asked why we are not given a definite statement that there are three Persons In the Godhead. One reason for the absence of any such categorical and dogmatic teaching is probably to be found In the fact that the earliest hearers of the gospel were Jews, and that any such pronouncement might (and probably would) have seemed a contradiction of their own great truth of the unity of the Godhead. Consequently, instead of giving an Intellectual statement of doctrine, which might have led to theological and philosophic discussion, and ended only in more intense opposition to Christianity, the Apostles preached Jesus of Nazareth as a personal Redeemer from sin, and urged on every one the acceptance of Him and His claims. Then, in due course, would come the inevitable process of thought and meditation upon this personal experience, and this would in turn lead to the inference that Jesus, from whom, and In whom, these experiences were being enjoyed, must be more than man, must be none other than Divine, ‘for who can forgive sins but God only?’ Through such a personal impression and Inference based on experience, a distinction In the Godhead would at once be realized. Then, in the course of their Christian life, and through fuller Instruction, would be added the personal knowledge and experience of the Holy Spirit, and once again a similar inference would in due course follow, making another distinction In their thought of the Godhead. The intellectual conception and expression of these distinctions probably concerned only comparatively few of the early believers, but nevertheless all of them had in their lives an experience of definite action and blessing which could only have been from above, and which no difficulty of intellectual correlation or of theological co-ordination with former teachings could Invalidate and destroy.

2. The doctrine derived. — The doctrine of the Trinity is an expansion of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and emerges out of the personal claim of our Lord. We believe this position can be made good from the NT. We take first the Gospels, and note that our Lord’s method of revealing Himself to His disciples was by means of personal Impression and influence. His character, teaching, and claim formed the centre and core of everything, and His one object was, as It were, to stamp Himself on His disciples, knowing that in the light of fuller experience His true nature and relations would become clear to them. We see the culmination of this impression and experience in the confession of the Apostle, ‘My Lord and my God.’ Then, as we turn to the Acts of the Apostles, we find St. Peter preaching to Jews, and emphasizing two associated truths: (1) the Sonship and Messiahship of Jesus, as proved by the Resurrection, and (2) the consequent relation of the hearers to Him as to a Saviour and Master. The emphasis Is laid on the personal experience of forgiveness and grace, without any attempt to state our Lord’s position in relation to God. Indeed, the references to Jesus Christ as the ‘Servant [wrongly rendered in AV’ Son ‘] of God’ in Acts 3 and V, seem to show that the Christian thought regarding our Lord was still immature, so far as there was any purely intellectual consideration of it. It is worthy of note that this phrase, which is doubtless the NT counterpart of Isaiah’s teaching on the ‘Servant of the Lord,’ is not found In the NT later than these earlier chapters of the Acts. Yet in the preaching of St. Peter the claim made for Jesus of Nazareth as the Source of healing (3:6, 16). the Prince-Leader of Life (3), the Head Stone of the corner (4:11), and the one and only Way of Salvation (4:12), was an unmistakable assumption of the position and power of Godhead.

In the same way the doctrine of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit arises directly out of our Lord’s revelation. Once grant a real personal distinction between the Father and the Son, and it is easy to believe it also of the Spirit as revealed by the Son. As long as Christ was present on earth there was no room and no need for the specific work of the Holy Spirit, but as Christ was departing from the world He revealed a doctrine which clearly associated the Holy Spirit with Himself and the Father in a new and unique way (John 14 15:26 16:7–15). Arising immediately out of this, and consonant with it, is the place given to the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Acts. From ch. 5, where lying against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying against God (S3- we see throughout the book the essential Deity of the Holy Spirit in the work attributed to Him of superintending and controlling the life of the Apostolic Church (2:4 8:29 10:19 13:2, 4 16:6, 7 20:28).

Then, as we pass to the Epistles, we find references to our Lord Jesus and to the Holy Spirit which imply unmistakably the functions of Godhead. In the opening salutations our Lord is associated with God as the Source of grace and peace (1 Thessalonians 1:1 f.: 1 Peter 1:2). and in the closing benedictions as the Divine Source of blessing (Romans 15, 2 Thessalonians 3:16, 18). In the doctrinal statements He is referred to in practical relation to us and to our spiritual life in terms that can be predicated of God only, and in the revelations concerning things to come He Is stated to be about to occupy a position which can refer to God only. In like manner, the correlation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in matters essentially Divine is clear (1 Corinthians 2:4–6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:2).

In all these assertions and implications of the Godhead of Jesus Christ, it is to be noted very carefully that St. Paul has not the faintest idea of contradicting his Jewish monotheism. Though he and otheis thus proclaimed the Godhead of Christ, it is of great moment to remember that Christianity was never accused of polytheism. The NT doctrine of God is essentially a form of monotheism, andstands in no relation to polytheism. There can be no doubt that, however and whenever the Trinitarian idea waa formulated, it arose in immediateconnexion with the monotheism of JudEea; and ttte Apostles, Jews though they were, in statingso unmistakably the Godhead of Jesus Christ, are never once conscious of teaching anything inconsistent with their most cherished ideas about the unity of God.

3 . The doctrine confirmed. -When we haveapproached the doctrine by means of the personal experience of redemption, we are prepared to give full consideration to the two lines of teaching found in the NT. (o) One line of teaching insists on the unity of the Godhead (1 Corinthians 8:4, James 2:19) and (5) the other line reveals dislincliana within the Godhead (Matthew 3 and 28:19. 2 Co 13:14). We see clearly that (1) the Father is God (Matthew 11, Eo 15:6. Ephesians 4:6) (2) the Son is God (John 1 20, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1, Colossians 2:9. Philippians 2:6 2 Peter 1:1) (3) the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5. 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11, Ephesians 2:22) (4) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another, sending and being sent, honouring and being honoured. The Father honours the Son, the Sou honours the Father, and the Holy Spirit honours the Son (John 15 16:13, 14 17 (s) Nevertheless, whatever relations of subordination there may be between the Persons in working out redemption, the three are alike regarded as God. The doctrine of the Trinity is the correlation, co-ordination, and synthesis of the teaching of these passages. In the Unity of the Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons working out redemption. God the Father is the Creator and Ruler of man and the Provider of redemption through His love (John 3:16). God the Son is the Redeemer, who became man for the purpose of our redemption. God the Holy Spirit is the ‘Ezecutive of the Godhead,’ who applies to each believing soul the benefits of redemption. The elements of the plan of redemption thus find their root, foundation, and spring in the nature of the Godhead ; and the obvious reason why these distinctions which we express by the terms ‘Person’ and ‘Trinity’ were not revealed earlier than NT times is that not until then was redemption accomplished.

4. The doctrine stated. — By the Trinity, therefore, we mean the specific and unique Christian idea of the Godhead. "The foundation of the Christian idea of the Godhead is that of the One Supreme Almighty Spirit whom we worship, to whom we pray, from whom we receive grace, and whom we serve. But the speciflc Christian thought of God is that of a Spirit, in the unity of whose being Is revealed a distinction of Persons whom we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the God from whom, through whom, and by whom all things come — the Father as the primal Source, the Son as the redemptive Mediator, and the Holy Spirit as the personal Applier of life and grace. The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and coequal.’

The term ‘Trinity’ dates from the second century, being found in Greek in Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 181): and the actual Latin word, from which we derive our English term, in Tertullian (a.d. 200). Its use is sometimes criticised because it is not found in the Bible, but this is no valid objection to it. Like other words, e.g. ‘Incarnation,’ it expresses in technical language the truth about the Godhead which ia found implicitly in the N’T. The real question is whether it is true, and whether it is fairly expressive of the Bible truth. It is intended to express and safeguard that real and essential unity of the Godhead which is at the root of the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The term ‘Person* is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheisin. Whilewe use the term to denote distinctions in the Godhead, we do not imply Idistinctiona which amount to separateness, but distinctions which are associated with essential mutual coinherence or inclusiveneas. We intend by the term ‘Person’ to express those real distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which are found amid the oneness of the Godhead, distinctions which are no mere temporary manifestations of Deity, but essential and permanent elements within the Divine unity.

6. The doctrine supported.— When all this is granted and so far settled, we may find a second line of teaching to support the foregoing in the revelation of God as Love. Following the suggestion of St. Augustine, most modern theologians have rightly seen in this a safe ground for our belief. It transcends, and perhaps renders unnecessary, all arguments drawn from human and natural analogies of the doctrine. ‘God is love’ means, as some one has well said, ‘God as the infinite home of all moral emotions, the fullest and most highly differentiated life.’ Love must imply relationships, and, as He is eternally perfect in Himself, He can realize Himself as Love only through relationships within His own Being. We may go so far as to say that this is the only way of obtaining a living thought about God. Belief in Theism postulates a self-existent God, and yet it is impossible to think of a God without relationships. These relationships must be eternal and prior to His temporal relationships to the universe of His own creation. He must have relationships eternally adequate, and worthy, and when once we realize that love must have an object in God as well as in ourselves, we have the germ of that distinction in the Godhead which is theologically known as the Trinity.

6. The doctrine anticipated. — At thisstage, and only here, we may seek another support for the doctrine. In the light of the facts of the NT we cannot refrain from asking whether there may not have been some adumbrations of it in the OT. As the doctrine arises directly out of the facts of the NT, we do not for an instant look for any full discovery of it in the OT. But if the doctrine be true, we might expect that Christian Jews, at any rate, would seek for some anticipation of it in the OT. We believe we find it there. |(a) The references to the ‘Angel of Jehovah’ prepare the way for the Christian doctrine of a distinction in the Godhead (Genesis 18 17:22 with 19:1, Joshua 6 with 6:1, Judges 13, Zee 13:7). (6) Ailusions to the ‘Spirit of Jehovah’ toTm another line of OT teaching. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit is an energy only, but in subsequent books an agent (Isaiah 40:13 48:16 59:19 63:10 f.). (c) The personiflcalion of Divine Wisdom is also to be observed, for the connexion between the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, the Logos of Jn l’-i8, and the ‘wisdom’ of 1 Corinthians 1:24 can hardly be accidental, (d) There are also other hints, such as the triplicity of the Divine Names (Numbers 6:24–27. Psalms 29:3–5. Isaiah 6:3). which may not be pressed, but can hardly be overlooked. Hints are all that were to be expected or desired until the fulness of time should have come. The function of Israel was to guard God’s transcendence and omnipresence; it was for Christianity to develop the doctrine of the Godhead into the fulness, depth, and richness that we find in the revelation of the Incarnate Son of God.

7. The doctrine justified.— (a) From the facts of Scripture. It emerges clearly from the claim of Christ ; it is an extension of the doctrine of the Incarnation. If the Incarnation was real, the Trinity is true. (6) From the facts of Christian experience. It is a simple fact that Christians of all periods of history claim to have personal direct fellowship with Christ. This claim must be accounted for. It is possible only by predicating Deity of our Lord, for such fellowship would be impossible with one who is not God. (c) From the facts of history. Compared with other religions, Christianity makes God a reality in a way in which no other system does. The doctrine of the Trinity has several positive theological and philosophical advantages over the Unitarian conception of God, but especially is this so in reference to the relation of God to the world. There are two conceivable relations of God to the world — as transcendent (in Mohammedanism), or as immanent (in Buddhism). The first alone means Deism, the second alone Pantheism. But the Christian idea is of God as at once transcendent and immanent. It is therefore the true protection of a living Theism, which otherwise oscillates uncertainly between these two extremes of Deism and Pantheism, either of which is false to it. It is only in Christianity that the Semitic and Aryan conceptions of God are united, blended, correlated, balanced, and preserved, (d) From reason. It is simple truth to say that, if Jesus be not God, Christians are idolaters, for they worship One who is not God. There is no other alternative. But when once the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity is regarded as arising out of Christ’s claim to Godhead as Divine Redeemer, reason soon finds its warrant for the doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity comes to us by revelation and not by nature, though it is soon seen to have points of contact with thought and reason.

The doctrine ‘started in the concrete/with the baptismal formula . . . emanatingfrom Jesus Christ. And throughout the history of its dogmatic formulation, we are confronted with this fact. It was regarded as a revelation by the men who shaped its intellectual expression; and it was only in the process ... of that expression that its congruity with human psychology came out; that psychology in fact being distinctly developed in the effort to give it utterance. . . . They did not accommodate Christian rehgion to their philosophy, but philosophy to their Christian religion.’ This doctrine appealed ‘iirst to unsophisticated men, far removed from Alexandria or Athens; yet the very-words in which it does so, turn out, upon analysis, to involve a view of personality which the world had not attained, but which, once stated, is seen to be profoundly, philosophically true’ (Illingworth, Personality, p. 212 f.). W. H. Gkiffith ‘Thoiuas.

Tripolis

An important town in northern Phoenicia, where Demetrius Soter landed when he made his successful attack against Antiochus v. (2 Mao 14’). It was divided into three parts, originating in colonies from Tyre, Sidon, and Arvad — hence the name. The modern TarSbuins is two miles inland, its fort occupying the site of the ancient city on the coast.

J. F. McCdrdy.

Troas

A city of Mysia on the N.W. coast of Asia Minor. It was in the Roman province Asia. It was founded by Antigonus, and re-founded in b.c. 300 by Lysimachus, who named it Alexandria Troas. For a time under the Seleucid kings of Syria, it gained its freedom, and began to strike its own coins (examples exist from B.C. 164 to 65). Its freedom continued under Pergamenian and afterwards, from b.c. 133, under Roman rule. Augustus made it a Roman colony, and it became one of the greatest cities of N.W. Asia. The Roman preference was partly explained by their belief in the early connexion between Troy and their own capital. This place was a regular port of call on coasting voyages between Macedonia and Asia (cf. Acts 16:8 20, 2 Corinthians 2:12). St. Paul, with Silas and Timothy, approached Troas from the Asian-Bithynian frontier near Dorylaeum or CotisBum (Acts 16:6–8). He did not preach in Mysia on the first visit, though the Western text at Acts 16:6 makes him do so.

A. SOUTER.

Trogyllium

According to the AV (Acts 20:15). which here follows the Western text, St. Paul’s ship, after touching at Samos, and before putting in at Miletus, ‘tarried at Trogyllium.’ This statement is no part of the NT text as now commonly read, but it is not impossible, and perhaps embodies a real tradition. Trogyllium is a promontory which projects from the mainland and overlaps the eastern extremity of Samos, so as to form a strait less than a mile wide. There is an anchorage near, still called ‘St. Paul’s Port." A. Souteh.

Trophimus

A Gentile Christian, a native of Ephesus (Acts 21:29). who, with Tychicus, also of the province Asia (20:4). and others, accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem. The Jews, seeing Trophimus with the Apostle in the city, hastily concluded that St. Paul had brought him into the inner court of the Temple, separated from the outer ‘Court of the Gentiles’ by a barrier on which were inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbidding any non-Jew to enter on pain of death. This occasioned the riot which led to St. Paul’s arrest. Some years later Trophimus was left at Miletus sick (2 Timothy 4:20).

A. J. Maclean.

Trow

‘To trow’ was originally ‘to trust,’ with which it is connected in origin; but it came to mean no more than ‘think or suppose.’ This is the meaning in Luke 17:9. its only occurrence in AV.

Trumpet

See Music, 4 (2) (e).

Trumpets, Feast of

The 1st day of Tishri (October), the 7th month of the sacred year, was signalized by a ‘memorial of blowing trumpets,’ to call both God and the people to remembrance of their reciprocal positions. It was a day of holy convocation, on which no servile work might be done. The trumpets blown were probably of a different kind from those used at the ordinary new-moon festivals. At the Feast of Trumpets special offerings were made: a burnt-offering of a bullock, a ram, and 7 lambs, and a sin-offering of a kid of the goats; these in addition to the ordinary daily and monthly offerings (cf. Numbers 29:1, 6. Leviticus 23:24, 25). This was one of the lunar festivals of the Jewish calendar, and was the most important of the new-moon celebrations.

A. W. F. Blunt.

Trust

See Faith.

Truth

1. In OT Cemeth, ‘emUnah).— Firmness or stability is the fundamental idea of the root, and to this radical thought most of the uses of the Heb. nouns may be traced. Often they signify truth in the common meaning of the word, the correspondence, viz., between speech and tact (Deuteronomy 13:14. Proverbs 12:17). At first the standards of veracity were low (Genesis 12:11 ff. 20:2 ff. 26:7 ff. 27:18 ff. etc.); but truthfulness in witness-bearing is a commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:16), and from the prophetic age onwards falsehood of every kind is recognized as a grave sin (Hosea 4:2. Psalms 9:12. Proverbs 12:22). See, further, Lie. Sometimes’ truth ‘denotes justice as administered by a ruler or a judge (Exodus 18:21. Proverbs 20:28), and, in partlcular, by the Messianic King (Psalms 45:4, Isaiah 42). Frequently it denotes f aittif ulness, especially^^the faithfulness of a man to God (2 Kings 20) and of God to men (Genesis 32:10). When God is described as a’ God of truth,’ His faithfulness to His promises may be especially in view (Psalms 31:5). But not far away is the sense of ‘living reality’ in distinction from the ‘lying vanities’ in which those trust to whom Jahweh is unlsnown (v. 6; cf. Deuteronomy 32:4). In some later canonical writings there appears a use of ‘truth’ or ‘the truth’ as equivalent to Divine revelation (Daniel 8 9:13), or as a synonym for the ‘wisdom’ in which the true philosophy of life consists (Proverbs 23:23). In the Apoer. books this use becomes frequent (1 Esdras 4; Wisdom 3:9, Sirach 4:28 etc.).

2. In NT (aletkeia). — The Gr. word (which is employed to LXX to render both ‘emeth and ‘emttnah) has the fundamental meaning of reality, as opposed to mere appearance or false pretence. From this the sense of veracity comes quite naturally; and veracity finds a high place among the NT virtues. The OT law forbade the bearing of false witness against one’s neighbour; the law of Christ enjoins truth-spealcing in all social intercourse (Ephesians 4:25), and further demands that this truth-spealsing shall be animated by love (v. 15; of. v. 25 ‘for we are members one of another’).

Special attention must be paid to some distinctive employments of the word, (a) In the Pauline writings there is a constant use of ‘the truth’ to describe God’s will as revealed — primarily to the reason and conscience of the natural man (Ro !"• ^s), but especially In the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 C!o Galatians 3:1 etc.). ‘The truth" thus becomes synonymous with ‘the gospel’ (Ephesians 1) ct. Galatians 2:5, 14 etc., where ‘the truth of the gospel’ evidently means the truth declared in the gospel). In the Pastoral Epistles the gospel as ‘the truth’ or ‘the word of truth’ appears to be passing into the sense of a settled body of Christian doctrine (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 2:15 etc.). It is to be noted that, though the above usages are most characteristic of the Pauline cycle of writings, they are occasionally to be found elsewhere, e.g. Hebrews 10, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:22, 2 Peter 1:12.

(6) In the Johannine books (with the exception of Rev.) aletheia is a leading and significant term in a sense that is quite distinctive (cf. ‘light’ and ‘life’). To Pilate’s question, ‘What Is truth?’ (John 18:38), Jesus gave no answer. But He had just declared that He came into the world to bear witness unto the truth (v.), and the Fourth Gospel might be described as an elaborate exposition of the nature of the truth as revealed by Jesus, and of the way in which He revealed It. In John ‘the truth’ stands for the absolute Divine reality as distinguished from all existence that is false or merely seeming (cf. 8:40 ff.; where Jesus contrasts His Father, from whom He had heard the truth, with ‘your father the devil,’ who ‘stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him ‘). Jesus came from the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), and truth came by Him (v. 17) because as the Word of God He was full of it (v. 14). The truth is incarnated and personalized in Jesus, and so He is Himself the Truth (14:6). The truth which resides in His own Person He imparts to His disciples (8:31 f.)) and on His departure He bestows the Spirit of truth to abide with them and be in them for ever (14:17). Hence the truth is in the Christian as the very groundwork and essence of his spiritual being (1 John 1:8 2:4, 2 John 1:2). . It is there both as a moral and as an Intellectual quality — standing midway, as it were, between ‘life’ and ‘light,’ two other ruling Johannine ideas with which it is closely associated. Primarily it is a moral power. It makes Christ’s disciples free (John 8:32) — free i.e., as the context shows, from the bondage of sin (YV.aaff.). It has a sanctifying force (John 17:17–19)) it ensures the keeping of the commandments (1 John 2:4) and the life of Christian love (3). And, while subjectively it is a moral influence, objectively it is a moral vocation — something not only to be known (John 8:32) and believed (vv. 45 f.), but requiring to be done (John 3:21, 1 John 1:6). From this moral quality of the truth, however, there springs a power of spiritual illumination. The truth that is lite passes into the truth that is light (John 3:21). Every one that is of the truth heareth Christ’s voice (18:37) it any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine (7:17) the Spirit of truth, when He is come, shall guide the disciples into all the truth (16:13). J. C. Lambert.

Tryph

Tryph fflNA.— Greeted along with Tryphosa by St. Paul in Romans 6:12, and described by him as labouring in the Lord. They were probably sisters or near relations, ‘for it was usual to designate members of the same family by derivatives of the same root.’ The common root makes their names signify ‘delicate,’ ‘luxurious’ — a meaning which contrasts with their active Christian toil. Inscriptions in a cemetery used chiefly for the Emperor’s servants, contain both names; if we identify them with these, then they would be among ‘the saints of Caesar’s household’ (Philippians 4:22).

A Tryphaena plays a prominent part In the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Chakles T. p. Griebson.

Tryphon

An officer of Alexander Balas, who, after the death of the latter, took advantage of the unpopularity of Demetrius to put forward Antiochus, the son of Balas, as a claimant to the throne (1 Maccabees 11:39). His real aim, however, was to gain the crown for himself, and this he accomplished after he had murdered in succession Jonathan the Maccabee (12:39–50) and Antiochus (IS’"-). His rapacity led Simon to appeal to Demetrius (13:34). The latter was organizing an expedition against Tryphon when he was himself made prisoner by Arsaces (14:1–3). In the end, Antiochus Sidetes, the brother of Demetrius, attacked Tryphon, besieged him in Dor, and pursued him when he escaped thence to Orthesia (1510-14. 37-3S) . Tryphon was finally shut up in Apamea, where he committed suicide (Strabo, p. 668; Jos. Ant. XIII. vii. 2; App. Syr. 68).

Tryphosa

See Tryph^na.

Tubal

A country and people in Asia Minor mentioned only in association with Meshech (wh. see).

J. F. McCUBDT.

Tubal-cad

Tubal-cad f.— In Genesis 4:22 ‘the faither of every forger of copper and iron’ (so read, with slight textual correction), i.e. the founder of the guild or profession of metal-workers. The name seems to be made up of Tubal (or the Tibareni, noted tor production of bronze articles (Ezekiel 27:13)) and Cain (‘smith’), as the ancestor of the Kenites or ‘Smiths.’ J. F. McCubdy.

Tubias, Tubieni

See Tob.

Tunic

See Dress, 2 (d).

Turban

See Dress, 5, Bonnet, Mitre.

Turpentine Tree

See Terebinth.

Turtle Dove

See Dove.

Tutor

See School.

Twelve

See Number, § 7.

Twelve Apostles, Gospel of

See Gospels [Apocb.], 10.

Twin Brothers

See Dioscuri.

Two

See Number, § 7.