Whtd – Word

Whtd

The winds in Heb. are designated by the four cardinal points of the compass. ‘South wind,’ e.g., may be either S., S.W., or S.E.; and so with the others. Cool winds come from the N., moist winds from the western sea, warm winds from the S., and dry winds, often laden with fine sand, from the eastern deserts. Warmth and moisture, therefore, depend much upon the direction of the winds. During the dry season, from May till October, the prevailing winds are from the N. and N.W.; they do much to temper the heat of summer (Song of Songs 4:16. Job 37:9). In Sept. and Oct., E. and S.E. winds are frequent; blowing from the deserts, their dry heat causes the furniture to crack, and makes life a burden (Hosea 13:15). Later, the winds from the S. prolong the warmth of summer (Luke 12) then the W. and S.W. winds bring the rain (1 Kings 18:44. Luke 12:54). East winds earlier in the year often work great destruction on vegetation (Ezekiel 17:10). Under their influence strong plants droop, and flowers quickly wither (Psalms 103:16).

Of the greatest value for all living things is the perpetual interchange of land and sea breezes. At sunrise a gentle air stirs from the sea, crosses the plain, and creeps up the mountains. At sunset the cooling air begins to slip down seaward again, while the upper strata move landward from the sea. The moisture thus carried ashore is precipitated in refreshing dew.

The ‘tempestuous wind’ (Acts 27:14). called Euroclydon or Euraquilo (wh. see), was the E.N.E. wind so prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean, called by sailors to-day ‘the Levanter.’ W. Ewing.

Window

See House, § 7.

Wine and Strong Drink

Taken together In this order, the two terms ‘wine’ and ‘strong drink’ are continually used by OT writers as an exhaustive classification of the fermented beverages then in use (Leviticus 10:9. 1 Samuel 1:15. Proverbs 20:1, and oft.). The all but universal usage in OT^in NT ‘strong drink’ is mentioned only Luke 1:15 — is to restrict ‘wine’ (yayin) to the beverage prepared from the juice of the grape, and to denote by ‘strong drink’ (shekar) every other sort of intoxicating liquor.

1. Before proceeding to describe the methods by which wine in particular was made in the period covered by the canonical writings, it will be advisable to examine briefly the more frequently used terms for wine and strong drink. This examination may begin with the term shekar, which in virtue of its root-meaning always denotes ‘intoxicating drink.’ In a former study of this subject (‘Wine and Strong Drink’ in EBi iv. col. 5309 f.), the present writer has given reasons for believing that among the early Semites a name similar to sKelcSr and the Babylonian shikaru was first given to the fermented juice of the date, and that from signifying date-wine the name passed to all other fermented liquors. At a later period, when the ancestors of the Hebrews became acquainted with the vine and its culture, the Indo-Germanic term represented by the Greek oinos (with the digamma, woinos) and the Latin vinum was borrowed, under the form ydyin, to denote the fermented juice of the grape. The older term shek&r then became restricted, as we have seen, to intoxicants other than grape wine.

Another important term, of uncertain etymology, ‘on which,’ in Driver’s words, ‘much has been written — not always wisely,’ is tlrSsh, in our EV sometimes rendered ‘wine,’ sometimes ‘new wine,’ but in Amer. RV consistently ‘new wine.’ Strictly speaking, llrBsh is the freshly expressed grape juice, before and during fermentatiour technically known as ‘must’ (from Lat. mustum). In this sense it is frequently named as a valued product of the soil with ‘fresh oil’ (Deuteronomy 7:13 11:14 etc.), — that is, the raw, unclarified oil as it flows from the oil-press, to which it exactly corresponds. In some OT passages, however, and notably Hosea 4:11. where tlrSsh is named with yayin and whoredom, as taking away the understanding (RV), it evidently denotes the product of fermentation. Hence it may be said that ilrBsh is applied not only to the ‘must’ in the wine-fat (see § 3), but to ‘new wine’ before it has fully matured and become yayin, or, as Driver suggests in his careful study of the OT occurrences (Joel and Amos, 79 f.), ‘to a light kind of wine such as we know, from the classical writers, that the ancients were in the habit of making by checking the fermentation of the grape juice before it had run its full course’ (see also the discussion in EBi iv. 5307 f.).

Of the rarer words for ‘wine’ mention may be made of chemer (Deuteronomy 32:14, and, in a cognate form, Ezra 6:9. Daniel 5:1 ff.). which denotes wine as the result of fermentation, from a root signifying ‘to ferment,’ and ‘asfs, a poetical synonym of tIrSsh, and like it used both of the fresh juice and of the fermented liquor (see Joel 1:5, Isaiah 49:26) in Amos 9:13 it is rendered’ sweet wine,’ which suggests the gleukos (EV ‘new wine’) of Acts 2. Reference may also be made to the poetical expression ‘the blood of the grape’ (Genesis 49:11. Deuteronomy 32:14) and to the later ‘fruit of the vine’ (Matthew 26:29 and||) of the Gospels and the Mishna.

2. The Promised Land was pre-eminently a ‘land of wine . . . and vineyards’ (2 Kings 18:32). as is attested by the widely scattered remains of the ancient presses. A normal winepress consisted of three parts, two rock-hewn troughs at different levels with a connecting channel between them. The upper trough or press-vat (catft— the ‘winefat’ of Isaiah 63:2, elsewhere generally ‘winepress’) had a larger superficial area, but was mucti shallower than the lower trough or wine-vat (.yeqeb, Isaiah 5:2. cf. RVm). The relative sizes may be seen from a typical press described by Robinson, of which the upper trough measured 8 feet square and was 15 inches deep, while the lower was 4 feet square and 3 feet deep. The distinction between the two is entirely obscured in EV, and is not always preserved in the original.

The grapes were brought from the adjoining vineyard in baskets, and were either spread out for a few days, with a view to increase the amount of sugar and diminish the amount of water in the grapes, or were at once thrown into the press-vat. There they were thoroughly trodden with the bare feet, the juice flowing through the conducting channel into the lower wine-vat. The next process consisted in piling the husks and stalks into a heap in the middle of the vat, and subjecting the mass to mechanical pressure by means of a wooden pressbeam, one end of which was fixed into a socket in the wall of the vat or of the adjacent rock, while the other end was weighted with stones.

While the above may be considered the normal construction of a Hebrew winepress, it is evident, both from the extant specimens and from the detailed references to wine-making in the Mishna, that the number of troughs or vats might be as high as four (see the press described and illustrated in PEFSl, 1899, 41 £f.), or as low as one. The object of a third vat was to allow the ‘must’ to settle and clarify in the second before running it off into the third. Where only one vat is found, it may have served either as a press-vat, in which case the ‘must’ was at once transferred to earthen jars (see next section), or as a wine- vat to receive the ‘must,’ the grapes having been pressed in a large wooden trough, such as the Egyptians used (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. i. 38S with illust.). This arrangement would obviously be required where a suitable rock surface was not available. In such a case, indeed, a rock-hewn trough of any sort was dispensed with, a vat for the wooden press being supplied by a large stone hollowed out for the purpose, an excellent specimen of which was found at Tell es-Safi, and is figured in Bliss and Macaiister’s Excavations, etc., p. 24 (see, for further details, the index of that work, under ‘Vats’).

3. Returning to the normal press-system, we find that the ‘must’ was usually left in the wine- vat to undergo the first or ‘tumultuous’ fermentation, after which it was drawn off (Haggai 2:16. lit. ‘baled out’), or, where the vat had a spout, simply run off, into large jars or into wine-skins (Matthew 9:17 and||) for the ‘after-fermentation.’ The modern Syrian wines are said to complete their first fermentation in from four to seven days, and to be ready for use at the end of two to four months. In the Mishna it is ordained that ‘new wine’ cannot be presented at the sanctuary for the drink-offering until it has stood for at least forty days in the fermenting jars.

When the fermentation had run its full course, the wine was racked off into smaller jars and skins, the latter for obvious reasons being preferred by travellers (Joshua 9:4, 13). At the same time, the liquor was strained (Matthew 23:24; cf. Isaiah 25:6 ‘wines on the lees well refined,’ i.e. strained) through a metal or eathenware strainer, or through a linen cloth. In the further course of maturing, in order to prevent the wine from thickening on the lees (Zephaniah 1:12 RVm), it was from time to time decanted from one vessel to another. The even tenor of Moabite history is compared to wine to which this process has not been applied (Jeremiah 48:11 f.). When sufficiently refined, the wine was poured into jars lined with pitch, which were carefully closed and sealed and stored in the wine cellars (1 Chronicles 27:27). The Lebanon (Hosea 14:7) and Helbon (Ezekiel 27:18). to the N.W. of Damascus, were two localities specially celebrated for their wines.

It may be stated at this point that no trace can be found, among the hundreds of references to the preparation and use of wine in the Mishna, of any means employed to preserve wine in the unfermented state. It is even improbable that with the means at their disposal the Jews could have so preserved it had they wished (cf. Professor Macaiister’s statement as to the ‘impossibility’ of unf eimented wine at this period, in Hastings’ DB ii. 34:5).

4. Of all the fermented liquors, other than wine, with which the Hebrews are likely to have been familiar, the oldest historically was almost certainly that made from dates (cf. § 1). These, according to Pliny, were steeped in water before being sent to the press, where they were probably treated as the olives were treated In the oil-press (see Oil). Date wine was greatly prized by the Babylonians, and is said by Herodotus to have been the principal article of Assyrian commerce.

In the Mishna there is frequent mention also of cider or ‘apple’ wine, made from the quince or whatever other fruit the ‘apple’ of the Hebrews may signify. The only wine, other than ‘the fruit of the vine,’ mentioned by name in OT is the ‘sweet wine’ of pomegranates(Ca S’ RVm). Like the dates, these fruits were first crushed in the oil-mill, after which the juice was allowed to ferment. In the Mishna, further, we find references to various fermented liquors imported from abroad, among them the beer for which Egypt was famed. A striking and unexpected witness to the extent to which the wines of the West were imported has recently been furnished by the handles of wine jars, especially of amphora from Rhodes, which have been found in such numbers in the cities excavated in Southern Palestine (see Bliss and Macalister, op. cit, 131 S., and more fully PEFSl, 1901).

6. The Hebrew wines were light, and in early times were probably taken neat. At all events, the first clear reference to diluting with water is contained in 2 Maccabees 15:39: ‘It is hurtful to drink wine or water alone,’ but ‘wine mingled with water is pleasant,’ and in NT times this may be taken as the habitual practice. The wine of Sharon, it is said, was mixed with two parts of water, being a lighter wine than most. With other wines, according to the Talmud, the proportion was one part of wine to three parts of water.

The ‘mingling’ or mixing of strong drink denounced by Isaiah (5:22) has reference to the ancient practice of adding aromatic herbs and spices to the wine in order to add to its flavour and strength. Such was the ‘spiced wine’ of Song of Songs 8:2. Our Saviour on the cross, it will be remembered, was offered ‘wine mingled with myrrh’ (Mark 15:23, cf. Matthew 27:34 RV).

6. The use of wine was universal among all classes (see Meals, § 6), with the exception of those who had taken a vow of abstinence, such as the Nazirites and Rechabites. The priests also had to abstain, but only when on duty in the sanctuary (Leviticus 10:9). I A libation of wine formed the necessary accompaniment of the daily burnt-offering and of numerous other offerings (cf. Sirach 50:15 RV: ‘He stretched out his hand to the cup, and poured of the blood of the grape ... at the foot of the altar’).

The attitude of the prophets and other teachers of Israel, including our Lord Himself, to the ordinary use of wine as a beverage is no doubt accurately reflected in the saying of Jesus ben-Sira: ‘wine drunk In measure and to satisfy is joy of heart and gladness of soul’ (Sirach 31:28 RV). At the same time, they were fully alive to the danger, and unsparingly denounced the sin, of excessive indulgence (see, e.g.. Isaiah 5 28:1–8. Hosea 4:11. Proverbs 20:1 23:29–32 etc.). In the altered social conditions of our own day, however, it must be admitted that the rule of conduct formulated by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 (cf. Romans 14:13–21) appeals to the individual conscience with greater urgency and insistence than ever before in the experience of Jew or Christian.

A. R. S. K&NNBDT.

Winefat, Winepress, Wine-vat

See Wine AND Strong Drink, § 2.

Wink

To ‘wink at," i. e. pass over, is used of God in Acts 17:30’ The times of this ignorance God winlced at,’ and Wisdom 11:23 ‘Thou . . . winkest at the sins of men." It is a good example of the colloquial language of the English Versions.

Winnow

See Aoriculture, § 3.

Wisdom

The great literary landmarks of the ‘wisdom’ teaching are the Books of Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs.Ecclesiastes, Sirach, and theWisdom of Solomon. This literature, in its present form at least, belongs to the latter half of the Persian period and to the Greek period of Jewish history. But behind this latest and finest product of the Hebrew mind there lay a long process of germination. In the pre-exilic history there are traces of the presence of the ‘wisdom’ element from early times. This primitive ‘wisdom’ was not regarded as an exclusively Israelitish possession, but was shared with other nations (1 Kings 4, Genesis 41:8, jg 5:29, jgr 10:7. ^zk 27:8). In Isra^ it was confined neither to rank (1 Kings 10:23, Deuteronomy 16:19, Job 32:9) nor to sex (2 Samuel 14:1 ff. 20:22) but it was particularly characteristic of ‘the elders’ (Deuteronomy 1:15, Job 12:12 32:7). and in course of time seems to have given rise to a special class of teachers known as ‘the Wise’ (Jeremiah 18:18).

Early ‘Wisdom’ was varied in character and of as wide a scope as the range of human activities. It thus included the most heterogeneous elements: e.g. mechanical skill (1 Kings 7:14). statecraft (5:12). financial and commercial ability (Ezekiel 28), political trickery (1 Kings 2:6), common sense and tact (2 Samuel 14 20:14–22). learning (1 Kings 3:16–28), military skill and administrative ability (Isaiah 10:13), piety (Deuteronomy 4:6), and the creative energy of God (Jeremiah 10:12). In short, any capacity possessed in an exceptional degree was recognized as ‘wisdom,’ and was regarded as the gift of God. But there was already manifest a marked tendency to magnify the ethical and religious elements of ‘wisdom,’ which later came to their full recognition.

In pre-exilic Israel, however, ‘wisdom’ played a relatively small part in religion. The vital, progressive religious spirit exhausted Itself in prophecy. Here was laid the foundation of all the later ‘wisdom." Not only did the prophets hand down the literary forms through which the sages expressed themselves, e.g. riddle (Judges 14:14–18), fable (9:8–15). parable (2 Samuel 12:1–6, Isaiah 5). proverb (1 Samuel 10:12. Jeremiah 31:29). essay (Isaiah 28:23–29). lyric, address, etc., but they also wrought out certain great ideas that were presupposed in all the later’ wisdom.’ These were: (a) monotheism, which. found free course in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah; (b) individualism, or the responsibility of the individual before God for his own sins and for the sins of no one else — the great message of Ezekiel; and (c) the insistence of God upon right character as the only passport to His favour — a truth proclaimed by all the great prophets. With the fall of Jerusalem, however, and the destruction of the Jewish State, the knell of prophecy was sounded; the responsibility for shaping the religious destiny of Israel now fell into the hands of the priests and sages.

The priest responded to the call first, but sought to heal the wounds of Israel lightly, by purification and elaboration of the ritual. The true heir of the prophet was the sage. He found himself confronted with a new world; it was his to Interpret it religiously. The old world- view of the prophet was no longer tenable. New problems were calling for solution and old problems becoming ever more pressing. The task of the sage was to adjust the truths left to him by the prophets to the new situation. It was his to find the place of religion in that situation and to make It the dominant element therein. The greatest sources of danger to true religion were:’(a) an orthodoxy which held the ancient traditions inviolable and refused to see the tacts of the present (6) the scepticism and discouragement arising out of the miseries of the time which seemed to deny the justice and goodness of God; and (c) the inroads of Greek civilization which seemed to threaten the whole fabric of Judaism. Indeed, the sages themselves did not wholly escape being influenced by these tendencies: witness the orthodoxy of the bulk of the Book of Proverbs, the scepticism of Ecclesiastes, and the Greek elements in the Wisdom of Solomon. To these conditions the sages, each in his own way, addressed their message.

The writers of Proverbs, for the most part, stand firmly upon the old paths; in the midst of mental and moral chaos and flux they insist upon adherence to the old standards of truth and goodness, and they promise success to all who heed their instruction. For them prosperity is the proof of piety. This is the old prophetic recipe for national success made operative in the lives of individuals. Through it the sages inform all the ordinary processes of common everyday hfe with religious meaning. Their philosophy of life is simple, but shallow. They fail to realize that the reward of piety is not in the market-place, but in the soul.

The weakness of this traditional position is exijosed by the Book of Job, which points out the fact that the righteous man is often the most sorely afflicted, and seeks to reconcile this fact with belief in the justice and goodness of God. But no solution of the age-long problem of suffering is provided: the sufferer is rather bidden to take refuge in nis faith in God’s goodness and wisdom, and to realize that, just a^ the mysteries of God’s visible universe elude his knowledge, so also is it futile for him to attempt to penetrate the greater mysteries of God’s providence. Let him be content with God Himself as his portion.

Song of Songs illiistrates the humanity of the sages. It concerns itself with the greatest of all human passions— love. Whether to be interpreted as a drama or as a collection of lyrics such as were sung at weddings in Syria^ it extols the nobility and loyalty of true love. In a penod when the licentious customs of the pagan world were finding eager acceptance in Judah, such a powerful and beautiful vindication of the character of unselfish love was urgently needed, and was calculated to play an important part in the preservation of true religion.

Ecclesiastes is the product of many minds, with more or less conflicting views. But they are all concerned with the problem of practical scepticism: Does God care for truth and goodness? Is there any religious meaning in the universe? "The heart of the book meets this question fairly and squarely. The iron has entered the author’s own soul. He desires to help those in the same situation with himself. He would give doubting, faltering souls a basis for faith. Recognizing and giving full weight to the many difficulties that beset the religious point of view and tend to drive men to despair, he holds fast to his belief in God’s loving care, and therefore counsels his fellows to put on a cheerful courage and perform their allotted tasks with joy. This is the only way to make life worth living, and worth living to the full.

Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are both products of the life and death struggle between Judaism and Greek thought. "The author of the former is hospitable to Greek social life, but rigid in his adherence to the old Hebrew ideals of morals and religion. He seeks to arouse loyalty to and enthusiasm for these in the hearts of the Jews, who are in constant danger of yielding to the seductive and powerful influences of Greece. ‘The same purpose animates the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, But he is more liberal in his attitude to foreign influences. He welcomes truth f romany direction, and therefore does not hesitatetoincorporateGreekelements in his fundamentally Hebraic view of life and duty. He thus enriches the conception of’ wisdom ‘from every source, and seeks to show that this Hebrewjdeal is immeasurably superior to the boasted Greek sophia.

Hebrew ‘wisdom’ by its very nature could have no fellowship with philosophy. ‘The aims and methods of the two were fundamentally different. In the words of Bishop Westcott, ‘the axioms of the one are the conclusions of the other." For philosophy, God Is the conclusion; for’ wisdom," He is the major premise. Philosophers have ever been seeking after God ‘If haply they might find him.’ The mind of the sage was saturated with the thought of God. Philosophy starts with the world as it is, and seeks to find room for God in it; ‘wisdom’ started with God and sought to explain the world in terms of God. ‘Wisdom, ‘furthermore. was practical and moral; philosophy was speculative and metaphysical. The interests of ‘wisdom’ were intensely human. They were concerned with living questions and concrete issues. The problems of the sage were surcharged with emotion; they were the outcome of troubled feelings and perturbed will; only in slight measure were they the product of the intellect. It is not surprising, therefore, that ‘wisdom’ presents no carefully developed system of thought. The heart knows no logic. ‘Wisdom’ cares little for a plan of the universe; it leaves all such matters to God. It seeks only to enable men to love and trust God and to walk in His ways.

The Hebrew conception of ‘wisdom’ developed along two lines. ‘Wisdom’ had its human and its Divine aspects. In so far as it was human, it devoted itself to the consideration of the great problems of life. It was identified with knowledge of the laws and principles, observance of which leads to the successful life. These were all summarized in the formula, ‘the fear of the Lord.’ Later in the history of the idea, this subjective experience was externalized and objectified and, under the growing influence of the priestly ritual, ‘wisdom’ came to be defined as observance of the Mosaic Law (Sirach 19:20–24 24:23).

On its Divine side, ‘wisdom’ was at first conceived of as an attribute of God which He generously shared with men. Then, as the conception of God grew broader and deeper, large areas of ‘wisdom’ were marked o£E as inaccessible to man, and known only to God (Job 28) . Still further, ‘wisdom’ was personified and represented as the companion of God in all His creative activities (Proverbs 8:22–31) and was, at last, imder the influence of Greek thought, personalized, or hypostatized, and made to function as an intermediary between man and God, carrying out His beneficent purposes towards the righteous (Wisdom 8 9:4, 9, 11 lO’-

Upon the whole, the ‘wisdom’ element must be considered the noblest expression of the Hebrew spirit. It was in large part the response of Judaism to the influx of Western civilization. It demonstrated irrefutably the vitality of the Hebrew religion. When the forms and institutions in which Hebrew idealism had clothed itself were shattered beyond restoration, ‘wisdom’ furnished new channels for the expression of the ideal, and kept the passion tor righteousness and truth burning. When Judaism was brought face to face with the Gentile world on every hand, ‘wisdom’ furnished it with a cosmopolitan message. Nationalistic, particularistic, transitory elements were discarded, and emphasis was laid upon the great fundamental concepts of religion adapted to the needs of all men everywhere. ‘Wisdom’ thus became of the greatest importance in the preparation for Christianity, the universal religion.

John Meklin Powis Smith.

Wisdom, Book of

See preceding art. and

APOCHTPHA, § 14.

Wise Men

See Magi; and, for ‘the Wise,’ Wisdom.

Wist

See Wit.

Wit

The vb. ‘to wit,’ which means ‘to know,’ Is used in AV in most of its parts. The present tense is / wot, thou wottest, he wot or wotteth, we wot; the past tense, / wist, he vyist, ye wist; the infinitive, ‘to wit.’ In 2 Corinthians 8:1 occurs the phrase do to wit. I.e. make to know — we do you to wit of the grace of God.’ The subst. ‘wit’ means in AV ‘knowledge’; it occurs only in Psalms 107:27 ‘at their wit’s end.’ ‘Witty.’jwhich is found in Proverbs 8:12. Judith 11:23. Wisdom 8:19, has the sense of ‘knowing,’ ‘skilful’; and ‘wittingly’ (Genesis 48:14) is ‘linowingly .’

Witch, Witchcraft

See Magic Divination AND Sorcery.

Withered Hand

See Medicine, p. 699«.

With

With (E)S in Judges 16:7 represents a term which probably means bow-strings of ‘green’ gut . The Eng. word means a supple twig from a willow (see also Cord).

Witness

This is the rendering of Heb. ‘Bdand ‘idah and of the Gr. martys, martyria, and martyred, and compounds of this root. The primitive idea of the Heb. root is to repeat, re-assert, and we find the word used in the following connexions: — (1) Witness meaning evidence, testimony, sign (of things): a heap of stones (Genesis 31:44), the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 31:26), Job’s disease (Job 16:8), the stone set up by Joshua at Shechem (Joshua 24:27). So in the NT the dust on the feet of the disciples was to be a witness against the Jews (Mark 6:11). (2) Witness signifying the person who witnesses or can testify or vouch for the parties in debate; e.g. God is witness between Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31)) so Job says,’ My witness is in heaven’ (Job 16:19, cf. also 1 Samuel 12:5 ff.; Jeremiah 29:23 42:5). In the NT God is called on by St. Paul to witness to his truth and the purity of his motives (Romans 1:9. 2 Corinthians 1:23 etc.). Akin to this meaning we have (3) Witness in a legal sense. Thus we find witnesses to an act of conveyancing (Jeremiah 32:10), to a betrothal (Ruth 4:9), while in all civil and criminal cases there were witnesses to give evidence, and references to false witnesses are frequent (cf. Proverbs 12:17 IQs-‘21:28 25:18 etc.). See also Justice (II.), 2; Oaths. In the NT the Apostles frequently appear as witnesses (.martyres) of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Luke 24:48, Acts 1 2:32 3:15 etc.). The heroes of the faith are called the’ cloud of witnesses’ (Hebrews 12:1), and Jesus Himself is ‘the faithful witness (martyr)’ in Revelation 1 3:14 (cf. 1 Ti 6:13). Cf. also artt. Ark, § 1; Tabernacle, §7 (a).

W. F. BOTD.

Witty

See Wit.

Wizard

See Magic Divxna’HOn and Sorcery.

Wolf

In AV ‘wolf’ is always tr. of ze’eb (cf. Arab, zeeh ■wolf’), Genesis 49:27, Isaiah 11:6 GS^, Jeremiah 5. Ezekiel 22:27. Habakkuk 1:8. Zephaniah 3:3. Cf . also proper name Zeeb, Judges 7:25. For ‘iyylm (tr. ‘wolves’ in Isaiah 13:22 RV) and tannlm see Jackal. The NT term is lykos (Matthew 7:15 148, Lk IC, John 147, Acts 218).

The wolf of Palestine is a variety of Canis lupus, somewhat lighter in colour and larger than that of N. Europe. It is seldom seen to-day, and never goes in packs, though commonly in couples; it commits its ravages at night, hence the expression ‘wolf of the evening’ (Jeremiah 6:6, Zephaniah 3:3)) it was one of the greatest terrors of the lonely shepherd (John 10:12) persecutors are compared to wolves In Matthew 10, Acts 20:29.

E. W. G. Masterman.

Woman

1. In OT CishshSh, ‘woman,’ ‘wife’; neqibSh [Leviticus 15:33, Numbers 31:15, Jeremiah 31:22, ‘female’) woman’s position is one of inferiority and subjection to man (Genesis 3:16) and yet, in keeping with the view that ideally she is his companion and ‘help meet’ (2:18–24), she never sinks into a mere drudge or plaything. In patriarchal times, Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel stand side by side with their husbands. In the era of the deliverance from Egypt, Miriam is ranked with Moses and Aaron (cf. Micah 6:4). In the days of the judges, Deborah is not only a prophetess (wh. see), as other women in Israel were, but is herself a judge (Judges 4:4). Under the monarchy, Jezebel in the Northern Kingdom and Athaliah in the Southern, afford illustrations of the political power and influence that a woman might wield. In religious matters, we find women attending the Feasts along with men (1 Samuel 1:1 ff. etc.), taking part with them in acts of sacrifice (Judges 13:20, 23 etc.), combined with them in the choral service of the Temple (Ezra 28 etc.). And though in the Deut. code woman’s position is one of complete subordination, her rights are recognized and safeguarded in a way that prepares the soil for the growth of those higher conceptions which find utterance in Malachi’s declaration that divorce is hateful to Jehovah (2:16), and in the picture of the virtuous wife with which the Book of Proverbs concludes (ch. 31). See, further, Family, Marriage.

2. In NT (.gyriS, ‘woman,’ ‘wife’; thUeia [Romans 1:26, 27). ‘female’; gynaikarion [dirain. fr. gyne, 2 Timothy 3:6), BV ‘silly women’).— Owing to the influence of Rabblnism, Jewish women had lost some of their earlier freedom (ct. with the scene at the well of Haran [Genesis 24:10 ff.) the surprise of the disciples by the well of Syehar when they found Jesus ‘speaking with a woman’ (John 4:27)). But Jesus wrought a wonderful change. He did this not only by His teaching about adultery (Matthew 5:27 f.) and marriage and divorce (vv. 31 f. 19:3 ff.), but still more by His personal attitude to women, whether good and pure like His own mother (there is nothing harsh or discourteous in the ‘Woman’ of John 2:4; cf. 19:26) and the sisters of Bethany, or sinful and outcast as some women of the Gospels were (Luke 7:37 ff. 8:2, John 4). The work of emancipation was continued in the Apostolic Church. Women formed an integral part of the earliest Christian community (Acts 1:14), shared in the gifts of Pentecost (2:1 ff.: cf. v. 17) engaged in tasks of unofllcial ministry (Romans 16:1 f.; Philippians 4:2 f.). and by and by appear (1 Tl 3:11) as holding the office of the deaconess (wh. see), and possibly (S’) that of the ‘widow’ (wh. see, and cf. Timothy [Epp. to], § 5). St. Paul’s conception of woman and of man’s relation to her is difficult (1 Corinthians 7), but may be explained partly by his expectation of the Parousia (w.^-"), and partly by the exigencies of an era of persecution (v.). In a later Pauline Epistle marriage becomes a type of the union between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22–33). And if by his injunction as to the silence of women in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34 ff.) the Apostle appears to limit the prophetic freedom of the first Christian days (Acts 2:4, 17). we must remember that he is writing to a Church set in the midst of a dissolute Greek city, where Christian women had special reasons for caution in the exercise of their new privileges. Elsewhere he announces the far-reaching principle that in Christ Jesus ‘there can be no male and female’ (Galatians 3:28).

J. C. Lambert.

Wonders

Wonders (Heb. rndphlth, Gr. ieras; usually in OT and always in NT associated with Heb. ‘Bth, Gr. sdmeion, Eng.’ sign’). — In OT the term ordinarily occurs with reference to the miracles at the time of the deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 7:3 etc.) — Jehovah’s ‘wonders in the land of Ham’ (Psalms 105:27). In NT it is used of the miracles wrought by Jesus (Acts 2:22 etc.), those demanded of Him by the people (John 4:48) those of the Apostles and the early Church (Acts 2:43 etc.); those which should be wrought by false Christs (Matthew 24:24 = Mark 13:22). It refers primarily to the astonishment produced by a miraculous event, and so it is significant that, as applied to the miracles of Jesus, it is always conjoined with some other term. His miracles were not mere prodigies exciting astonishment, but ‘signs and wonders,’ that appealed at the same time, through their evidential value, to the reason and spirit. And yet Jesus preferred the intuitive faith that is independent alike of wonders and of signs (John 4:48). See, further, Miracles, Sign.

J. C. Lambert.

Wood

See Forest, also Writing, 6.

Wool

Woollen stufifs were much used for clothes (Leviticus 13:47 ff.; Proverbs 31 etc.); mainly, however, for outer garments. For underwear, linen was preferred, as being cooler and cleaner. Wool, falling swiftly a prey to moths and larvae (Isaiah 51:8 etc.), was not used for wrapping the dead. A garment of mingled wool and linen might not be worn (Leviticus 19:19. Deuteronomy 22:11). Josephus says this was reserved exclusively for the priests (Anl. iv. viii. 11). Dyed wool is referred to (Hebrews 9:19, cf. Leviticus 14:4 f.), but its natural colour, white, makes it the criterion of whiteness and purity (Psalms 147:16. Isaiah 1:18. Daniel 7:9. Revelation 1:14). Wool was a valuable article of commerce (Ezekiel 27:18), and it figures in the tribute paid by king Mesha (2 Kings 3:4).

W. EWINQ.

Word

Apart from the personal use of ‘Word’ as a title of Christ (see Logos), its Biblical interpretation presents few difficulties. Both in the OT and in the NT the original terms employed may pass from the meaning ‘speech’ to signify ‘the subject matter of speech.’ In some passages there is uncertainty as to whether the tr. should be ‘word’ or ‘thing.’ For example, 1 Kings 11:41 RVm has ‘or words, or matters’ as alternatives to ‘the acts of Solomon.’ In Acts 8:21 ‘thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter’ probably means ‘in the matter in dispute,’ which was the coveted power of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit; but the RVm ‘word’ is preferred by some expositors, who think that the reference is to the word preached by the Apostles and its attendant blessings (cf. Mark 1:45. Luke 1:2). The EV retains ‘word’ in Matthew 18:16 and 2 Corinthians 13:1. although Deuteronomy 19 reads: ‘At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall every matter be established.’ J. G. Taskeb.