Chu – Christ

Chu

Chu iD , CmLDREN.— 1 . Value set on the possession of children. — Throughout the Bible a noteworthy characteristic is the importance and happiness assigned to the possession of children, and, correspondingly, the intense sorrow and disappointment of childless parents. Children were regarded as Divine gifts (Genesis 4:1 33:5). pledges of God’s favour, the heritage of the Lord (Psalms 127:3). It followed naturally that barrenness was looked upon as a reproach, i.e. a punishment inflicted by God, and involving, for the woman, disgrace in the eyes of the world. Thus, Sarah was despised by her more fortunate handmaid Hagar (Genesis 16:4) Rachel, in envy of Leah, cried, ‘Give me children or else I die’ (Genesis 30:1) Hannah’s rival taunted her to make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her womb (1 Samuel 1:6) Elisabeth rejoiced when the Lord took away her ‘reproach among men’ (Luke 1:25). ‘He maketh the barren woman to keep house and to be a joyful mother of children’ (Psalms 113:9). cries the Psalmist as the climax of his praise. The reward of a man who fears the Lord shall be a wife like a fruitful vine, and children like olive branches round about his table (Psalms 128:3). Our Lord refers to the joy of a woman at the birth of a man into the world (John 16:21). Not only is natural parental affection set forth in these and similar passages, but also a strong sense of the worldly advantages which accompanied the condition of parentage. A man who was a father, especially a father of sons, was a rich man; his position was dignified and influential; his possessions were secured to his family, and his name perpetuated. ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ was a blessing desired by every married couple-tfor the sake of the latter part of the blessing, the necessary accompaniment of fruitfulness— ‘replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion’; for fatherhood involved expansion of property and increase in importance and wealth.

2. The filial relationship.— The position of children was" one of complete subordination to their parents. Genesis 22 Jb 11. and the sacrifices to Molech of children by their parents (Leviticus 18:21 20:2–5. 2 Kings 23:10. Jeremiah 32:35) indicate that the father had powers of life and death over his children; these powers are limited in Deuteronomy 21:18–21. Reverence and obedience on the part of children towards their parents were strongly enjoined (Exodus 20:12. Leviticus 19:3. Deuteronomy 27:16. Proverbs 1:8 etc.). Any one smiting or cursing his father or mother is to be put to death (Exodus 21:15, 17). Any one who is disrespectful to his parents is accursed (Deuteronomy 17:16). Irreverence on the part of children towards an older person is visited by a signal instance of Divine judgment (2 Kings 2:23, 24). Several passages in the Book of Proverbs urge care, even to severity, in the upbringing of children (Proverbs 3:12 IS^* 15:5 22:6 29:15 etc.). The outcome of this dependence of children upon their parents, and of their subordination to them, was an intensely strong sense of the closeness of the filial bond , and a horror of any violation of it. A son who could bring himself to defy his father and break away from his home life was indeed no longer worthy to be called a son (Luke 15:19). The disobedience of Israel is bewailed in penitence by the prophet because it appears to him like the most heinous crime, the rebellion of children against a loving father: ‘Surely they are my people, children that will not err. ... In his love and in his pity he redeemed them, . . . and he bare them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled’ (Isaiah 63:8–10). in this connexion some of the sentences in our Lord’s charge to the Twelve must have fallen upon startled ears (Matthew 10:21, 35–38). Children were expected to follow in the footsteps of their parents and to resemble them. Hence such expressions as ‘Abraham’s children,’ which carried the notion of resemblance in character. Hence also the figurative use of the word ‘children’: ‘children of transgression’ ‘children of disobedience.’ Phrases like these are closely connected with others in which the words ‘children’ or ‘sons’ are used in a spiritual sense conveying the ideas of love and trust and obedience. St. Peter speaks of ‘Mark, my son.’ In touching anxiety for their spiritual welfare, St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, addresses them: ‘My little children’; and St. John, in his Epistles, is fond of the same expression.

3. The feeling for childhood. — Tenderness towards child life, appreciation of the simplicity, the helplessness, of children, affection of parents tor their children, and children for their parents: all these are features of the Bible which the most superficial reader cannot fail to observe. There are many touching and vivid examples of and relerences to parental love. All the sons and daughters of Jacob rose up to comfort him tor the loss of Joseph, but he refused to be comiorted (Genesis 37:35). ‘If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved’ (43:14), is his despairing cry when Benjamin also is taken from him — Benjamin, ‘a chUd of his old age, a little one . . . and his father loveth him’ (44:20). Hannah dedicated her little son to the service of the Lord in gratitude for his birth; and then year by year ‘made a little robe and brought it to him’ (1 Samuel 2:19). David fasted and lay all night upon the ground praying for the life of his sick child (2 Samuel 12:16). The brief account of the death of the Shunammite’s boy is a passage of restrained and pathetic beauty (2 Kings 4:18 ff.). Isaiah’s feeling for the weakness and helplessness of children is displayed in the mention of the words first articulated by his own son (Isaiah 8:4) ; and in his description of the time when the earth should be full of the knowledge of the Lord, and little children, still dependent for life and protection upon their mother’s care, should, without fear of harm on her part, be allowed to play among wild beasts and handle the asp and the adder (11:6–9). Zechariah dreams of the happy time when Jerusalem shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets (Zee 8:5). The beauty of a child’s humble simplicity is acknowledged by the Psalmist, who likens his own soul to a weaned child with its mother (Psalms 131:2) unconsciously anticipating the spirit of One, greater than he, who said that only those who became as little children should in any wise enter the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). and who gave thanks to His Father tor revealing the things of God to ‘babes’ (Matthew 11:25).

E. G. EOMANES.

Children

Children (SONS) OF GOD.— There are a few passages in the OT in which the term ‘sons of God’ is applied to angelic beings (Genesis 6:1–4. Job 1:6 2:1 38:7; cf. Daniel 3:25 RV). Once the judges of Israel are referred to as ‘gods,’ perhaps as appointed by God and vested with His authority (but the passage is very obscure; may the words be ironical?), and, in parallel phrase, as ‘sons of the Most High’ (Psalms 82:6. cf. John 10:34; also, Psalms 29:1. 89:6 RVm).

With these exceptions, the term, with the correlative one of ‘Father,’ designates the relation of men to God and of God to men, with varying fulness of meaning. It is obvious that the use of such a figure has wide possibilities. To call God ‘Father’ may imply little more than that He is creator and ruler of men (cf. ‘Zeus, father of gods and men’); or it may connote some phase of His providence towards a favoured individual or nation; or, again, it may assert that a father’s love at its highest is the truest symbol we can frame of God’s essential nature and God’s disposition towards all men. Similarly, men may conceivably be styled ‘children of God’ from mere dependence, from special privilege, from moral likeness, or finally from a full and willing response to the Divine Fatherhood in filial love, trust, and obedience. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Scripture tacts present a varying and progressive conception of God as Father and of men as His children.

I. In the OT. — The most characteristic use of the figure is in connexion with God’s providential dealings with His people Israel. That favoured nation as a whole is His ‘son,’ He their ‘Father’: it is because this tie is violated by Israel’s ingratitude and apostasy that the prophets rebuke and appeal, while here, too, lies the hope of final restoration. Thus Hosea declares that God loved Israel and called His ‘son’ out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1. cf. Exodus 4:22 ‘Israel is my son, my firstborn’); and, in spite of the Divine rejection of the Northern Kingdom(Hos 1:9 Lo-ammi, ‘not my people’), prophesies that It shall still be said to them ‘ye are the sons of the living God’ (1:10). So too Isaiah: ‘I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me . . . Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider’ (I’‘- ‘). In Deuteronomy the same figure is used (1 8:5 14:1, 2). and in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) receives striking development.. God is the’ Father’ of Israel, whom He begat by delivering them from Egypt, nourished in the wilderness and established (vv. 6, 10 18); the people are His ‘sons and daughters,’ His ‘children’ (vv.). Yet they are warned that this sonship has moral implications, and may be forfeited by neglect of them (v. 5 ‘they havejdealt corruptly with him, they are not his children’); and the hint is given of the bringing in of the Gentiles through a sonship based, not on national privilege but on faith and obedience(V.21, cf. Romans 10).

Thus the relation is not merely formal but ethical, and on both sides. The Divine Fatherhood towards Israel is manifested in protecting and redeeming love: it involves the Divine faithfulness, to which His people may make appeal in their extremity (Jeremiah 31:9, 18–20, Isaiah 43:6 63:16 64:8–12). The fact of Israel’s sonship carries with it the obligation of filial response: ‘a son honoureth his father ... if then I be a Father, where is mine honour?’ (Mai 1:6). But such response Is, of necessity, not only national, but also, and first, individual; and the way is opened for a conception of God as Father of every man (cf. Mai 2:10). and of all men as, at least potentially, ‘children of God.’

The Psalms have been left for separate reference. For if the religion of Israel had really attained to any clear conception of God as Father and of men as His children, it would most naturally find utterance in these compositions, in which we have at once the devoutest expression of the personal religious consciousness and the chosen vehicle of the worship of the congregation. But the dominating conception is of God as King and of man as His servant. True, the Divine care for man and the Divine help are set forth under a wealth of imagery: God is shield, rock, fortress, refuge, shepherd, light, salvation, but not Father. Twice only is the name used of Him, not as appellative but in simile, to describe His tender mercies. He is ‘a Father of the fatherless’ (Psalms 68) ‘Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him’ (lOS’s, cf. Isaiah 66:13). Once the term ‘thy children’ is applied to ‘Israel, even the pure in heart’ (Psalms 73:15, 1) and in several passages the term ‘son of God’ is used of the theocratic king, as representing ideal Israel (Psalms 2:7; see also Psalms 89, 2 Samuel 7:14. Hebrews 1:5).

It cannot, then, be said that in the OT we have a doctrine of men as ‘children of God,’ springing from, and developed under, a conception of God as essentially Father. Nor is it clear that later Judaism made advance towards this closer and more individual conviction of sonship.

Bousset affirms that ‘the behef comes to light, more and more frequently the nearer we approach to Jesus’ own time, that God is the Father of each individual believer’ ^Jesus, p. 113, Eng. edj. But against this may be set the judgment of Wendt: ‘In the later Judaism, down to the time of Jesus, there was by no means a development of the conception of God . . . inclining to a more prevalent use of the name of Father. The development proceeded rather in the way of enhancing to the utmost the idea of God’s transcendent greatness and judicial authority over men. According to the Pharisaic view, the moral relation of man toGod was one of legal subjection’ (Teachingof J esit8, L 190).

The relevant passages in the Apocrypha, at least, leave the gulf unbridged between OT and NT (Tobit 13:4. Wisdom 5:5 14:3. Sirach 23:1, 4 36:12 51:10. Ad. Esther 16). and nowhere does our Lord’s teaching appear in sharper contrast to current religious ideas than in relation to the Divine Fatherhood (.e.g. John 8:39–42).

II. In the NT. — The outstanding fact is that in the self-revelation of Jesus Christ, as well as in His teaching, the characteristic name for Gdd is ‘Father.’ He enters into full inheritance of the OT conception of the Divine power and transcendence, proclaims a Kingdom of God, and develops its meaning for His disciples; but the King is also Father, and the stress of Christ’s teaching on this side is not on the Kingship but on the Fatherhood of God. In what unique sense He knew God as ‘His own Father,’ Himself as ‘Son of God,’ we do not here inquire (see Jesus Christ), noting only how simply, in the deepest experiences of joy or trouble. His faith uttered itself in the name ‘Father’ (Matthew 11:25 26. Luke 23:46). But there was that in His religious consciousness which He could freely share with His disciples as ‘children of God’: the faint and halting analogy of the OT became through Him a clear and steadfast revelation of the Divine Fatherhood, and of sonship, in its fullest sense, as the possible and indeed normal relation of human to Divine.

1. The Synoptic Gospels. — The essential and universal Fatherhood of God appears in such sayings as that of Matthew 5:43–48. and, supremely, in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Even when, as generally, it is in discourse to thedisciples that the term ‘your Father’ is used, it still connotes what is in God, awaiting in man that obedient recognition which is sonship. It is the appeal of Christ to His disciples against hypocrisy, unforgivingness, lack of faith (Matthew 6); It stands as symbol of the Divine providence, forgiveness, redemption — in a word, of the Divine love (Luke 6 11, Mark 11:25), and hence it gives the ground and manner of all access to God, — ‘Whensoever ye pray, say, Father’ (Luke 11:2).

If with Jesus the Fatherhood of God lies in His disposition towards men, not in the mere fact that He created them, so the filial relationship is ethical. God is Father, men must become children. In the Synoptic Gospels the term implying generation — ‘child (children) of God’ — is not used, and the references to ‘sons of God’ are few, though sufficient to emphasize the moral conditions of sonship. Thus, the peacemakers ‘shall be called sons of God’ (Matthew 5:9) love to one’s enemies has for its motive ‘that ye may become sons of your Father which is in heaven’ (Matthew 5:45. cf. Luke 6). But since sonship is virtually identical with membership of the Kingdom of God, these direct references must be supplemented by the many sayings in which the conditions of entrance into the Kingdom are laid down: it is the righteous (and what the term means is set forth in the Sermon on the Mount) who ‘shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father’ (Matthew 13:43).

2. The Gospel(andl Ep.)of St. John.— In the Fourth Gospel (considered here rather than in its chronological sequence, for the sake of comparison with the Synoptics) certain elements in our Lord’s revelation of the Father receive new emphasis.

(a) The unique Sonship of Jesus is the prevailing theme (John 1:14, 18 20:31). Hence the Synoptic phrase ‘your Father’ all but disappears. What it implies is not absent, but is to be reached through a rich unfolding of, and fellowship with, the personal religious consciousness of Jesus Himself, under the terms ‘my Father’ and, especially, ‘the Father.’ Only once does He speak to the disciples of ‘your Father,’ when, after His resurrection. He links them with Himself as ‘brethren’ in the message, ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’ (John 20:17. cf. 14).

(6) The sonship of the disciples is to be attained through Jesus Christ: ‘No one cometh unto the Father but through me’ (John 14:6). What is exceptional in the Synoptics (Matthew 11:25. Luke 10:22) becomes the normal teaching of the Fourth Gospel: to see, know, believe, love, confess the Son, is the one way of access to the Father (Jn 14-17, 1 John 2:23). Moreover, the impulse of attraction to Christ is itself from the Father (John 6). and the Divine initiative, as well as the completeness of the break required with ‘the world’ and ‘the flesh’ (1 John 2:16. John 3). is described as being ‘born anew,’ ‘born of the Spirit,’ ‘born of God’ (John 3:3–8 1:13. 1 John 3:9). In 1 Jn. the moral fruits of this new birth are set forth — righteousness, incapability to sin, love, faith in the Son of God, victory over the world (1 John 2:29 3:9 4:7 5:1, 4).

These are the elements which combine in the conception of sonship in the Johannine writings: the actual phrase ‘children (not’ sons’) of God’ occurs John 1:12 11:52. 1 John 3:1, 2, 10 5:2.

3. The Epistles of St. Paul.— St. Paul speaks both of ‘children of God’ and of ‘sons of God.’ His doctrine comprises the mystical and the ethical elements already noted, while it is enriched and developed by additional features. In his speech at Athens (Acts 17:28) he for a moment adopts the Greek point of view, and regards all men as the ‘offspring’ of God. Apart from this, he — like the Fourth Gospel, but in his own way — connects sonship with faith in Christ: it is part of his doctrine of redemption, a status and privilege conferred by God upon men through faith in Christ, attested by the indwelling Spirit and His fruits. ‘Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3) ‘The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God’ (Romans 8:16) ‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of (3od’ (Romans 8:14). It is as ‘children of God’ that his converts have a moral mission to the world (Philippians 2:15).

The idea of sonship as a Divinely conferred status is expressed by St. Paul under the Roman custom of ‘adoption’ (wh. see), by which a stranger could be legally adopted as ‘son’ and endowed with all the privileges of the ‘child’ by birth CEph 1:5–14. cf. Romans 8:29). The figure suggests fresh points of analogy. To the Romans, St. Paul makes moral appeal on the ground that in exchange for the ‘spirit of bondage’ they had received the ‘spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father’ (Romans 8:15). In the passage Galatians 3 he likens the state of the faithful under the Law to that of ‘young children’ needing a ‘tutor’; ‘heirs,’ yet, because under guardians, differing nothing from ‘bondservants.’ The Law as ‘tutor’ has led them to Christ, in whom they are now ‘sons of God’; Christ has ‘redeemed’ them from the bondage of Law that they might ‘receive the adoption of sons,’ and, because they are sons, ‘God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ The spiritual sonship, open to all believers, should be no stumbling-block to Israel, though to them specially belonged ‘the adoption’ (Romans 9:4). It fulfils the typical distinction within Israel itself of ‘children of the flesh’ and ‘children of the promise’: by Divine election alone men become ‘children of God,’ ‘sons of the living God’ (Galatians 4. Romans 9).

St. Paul further conceives of sonship as looking forward for its full realization. We are ‘waiting for our adoption, to wit the redemption of our body’ (Romans 8:23). As Christ was Son of God, yet was by His resurrection ‘declared to be the Son of God with power’ (Romans 1:4). so will deliverance from the ‘bondage of corruption’ reveal the ‘sons of God,’ and all creation shall share in ‘the liberty of the glory of the children of God’ (Romans 8:18–25). This ultimate realization of sonship is ‘to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Romans 8:29. cf. 1 John 3:2). Finally, the greatness and the certainty of the future glory are set forth under the thought of the son as ‘heir’ (Romans 8:17. Galatians 4:1–7; cf. Ephesians 1:14–18).

4. Other NT writers. — The opening chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasize the greatness and finality of a revelation through the Son, who in stooping to redeem men is not ashamed to call them ‘brethren’; they are ‘children’ whose nature He shares, ‘sons’ who through Him are brought to glory (Hebrews 2:9–18). And at the close of the Epistle the readers are exhorted to regard suffering as the Divine chastening, which marks them out as ‘sons’ and comes from ‘the Father of spirits’ (12:4–13).

If the Ep. of St. James suggests a universal view of the Fatherhood of God in the phrases ‘the God and Father,’ ‘the Lord and Father,’ ‘the Father of lights’ (James 1:27 3:9 1:17). it also endorses the deeper spiritual sonship under the figure, ‘Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth’ (1:18). The same metaphor of spiritual birth is used by St. Peter. In 1 Peter 1:23 this birth, as in James, is through the ‘word’ of God; in 1:3 it is attributed to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is joined with the Pauline thought of an inheritance yet to be fully revealed. The name ‘Father’ appears as the distinctively Christian name for God — ‘if ye call on him as Father’ (1:17). But the idea of sonship is not developed: the thought does not occur in the enumeration of Christian privileges in 2:1–10. where the phrase ‘sons of the living God’ is absent from the reference to Hosea, though found in the corresponding reference by St. Paul (cf. 1 Peter 2:10 with Romans 9:25, 26).

Finally, in Revelation we meet with this figure of sonship, with emphasis on its ethical side, in the vision of the new heaven and the new earth: ‘He that overcometh shall inherit these things: and I will be his God, and he shall be my son’ (Revelation 21:7. cf. v. 8).

S. W. Geben.

Children, Song of the Three

See Apocrypha, p. 42’>.

Chileab

The second son of David by Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite (2 Samuel 3:3). In 1 Chronicles 3:1 he is called Daniel.

Chiliarch

(Revelation 19:18 RVm). See Band.

Chiliasm

A peculiar doctrine of the future, based upon a developed and literalized exposition of the eschatologioal pictures of the NT. It includes the doctrine of the Millennium (whence its name tr. Gr. chilioi), that is to say, the period of 1000 years between the resurrection of the saints and that of the rest of the dead, of the visible appearance of Christ to establish His Kingdom of risen saints and defeat an equally literal Antichrist, and of the Last Judgment.

The germ of developed Chiliasm is to be found in the teaching of the Apostles, and particularly in Rev. 20; but it seems to have had no great prominence in doctrinal development until the middle of the 2nd cent., when it spread from Asia Minor, particularly among the Jewish Ebionites. Justin Martyr believed in the earthly reign of Christ, but knew that some orthodox Christians did not. Papias describes the coming Kingdom with the extravagant imagery of the Jewish Apocalyptic. The Montanists were extreme chiliasts, but Origen opposed the doctrine. Augustine may be said to have given the death-blow to the chiliastic expectation in the early Church by his identification of the Church with the Kingdom of God on earth: and throughout the Middle Ages his view obtained.

A revival of chiliastic conceptions came with the Reformation, when attention was again concentrated on NT teaching. The fanatics among the reforming sects, particularly the Anabaptists at Mtlnster, expected the speedy establishment of Christ on earth, apparently taking some steps towards preparation therefor. The Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions, however, condemn Chiliasm, and the leading Reformers, while they expected the speedy coming of Christ, did not attempt to hteralize descriptions of this event. Throughout the 17th cent, the chiliastic views again appear — a fact doubtless due, as in the time of the early Church and of the Reformation, to persecution. The view, however, was never regarded as strictly orthodox, although advocated by prominent writers on both the Continent and in England.

In modern times Chiliasm has been championed by a number of prominent theologians, but particularly by sects like the Mormons, the Second Adventists, and, as pre-millenarians, by many professional evangelists. There is, however, no uniformity in these chiliastic views, except as to the belief in the coming of the Millennium (see Millennium), in which all share. The opinions as to the nature of the Kingdom also range from extremely sensuous views like those of certain of the early Church Fathers to the highly socialistic views of men lilte Oetinger. At the present time, outside of the circle of the pre-millenarians, chiUastic views have little influence, and the tendency is strong to substitute belief in social evolution, under the inspiration of Christianity, for the cataclysmic establishment of a literal kingdom by Jesus at His second Advent. Shaileh Mathews.

Chilion

Chilion and Mahlon were the two sons of Elimelech and Naomi (Ruth 1:1, 2). They married women of the Moabites — Mahlon marrsdng Ruth, and ChiUon Orpah (Ruth 4:10) — and after a sojourn of ten years in Moabite territory died there. Chilion means ‘wasting away.’ Mahlon means ‘sickly.’ Neither of these names occurs elsewhere in the Bible. The two names occur in varying order in Ruth 1:2 and 4:9. so that no conclusion can be drawn as to which was the elder.

Chilkiad

Chilkiad occurs in Ezekiel 27:23 at the close of the list of nations that traded with Tyre. The name has been thought to be the Aram, form of Charmande, a town on the Euphrates mentioned by Xenophon (.Anab. 1. 5. 10). George Smith identified Chilmad with the 126 modern KaXwOdha near Baghdad — but neither of these conjectures has much probability.

Chehham

Probably the son (ct. 1 Kings 2:7) of Barzillal the Gileadite, who returned with David from beyond Jordan to Jerusalem after the death of Absalom (2 Samuel 19:31 f.). See, further, Gehuth-chimham.

Chimney

See House, § 7.

Chinnereth

A city (Deuteronomy 3:17. Joshua 11:2 [in latter spelt Chinneroth] IQ^s) which gave its name to the Sea of Chlnnereth (Numbers 34:11, Joshua 12:3 13:27), the OT designation of the Sea of Galilee. i?he site of the town is uncertain, but it follows Rakkath (probably Tiberias), and may have been in the plain of Gennesaret (cf. 1 Kings 15:20).

CHIOS, — An island in the .fflgean Sea opposite the Ionian peninsula in Asia Minor. In the 5th cent. B.C. the inhabitants were the richest of all the Greeks. The city was distinguished in literature also, and claimed to be the birth-place of Homer. Up to the time of Vespasian it was, under the Roman Empire, a free State. The chief city was also named Chios. St. Paul passed it on his last voyage in the iEgeau Sea (Acts 20:15).

A. SOUTER.

Chislev

(AV Chisleu, Nehemiah 1:1, Zee 7:1). See Time.

Chislon

Chislon (‘strength’).- Father of Elidad, Benjamin’s representative for dividing the land (Numbers 34:21 P).

CHISLOTH -TABOR, Joshua 19:12. See Chesulloth.

Chithlish

Chithlish (Joshua 15:40. AV Kithlish),— A town in the Shephelah of Judah. The site is unknown.

Chittim

Chittim (1 Maccabees 1:1 8:5) for Kittim (wh. see).

Chiun

Amos 5 (see Rephan, Siccuth). As shown by the appositional phrase ‘your god-star,’ this name refers to the Assyr. Kaiwanu, the planet Saturn ( = Ninib, war-god), whose temple, Bit Ninib, in the province of Jerusalem is mentioned by the Egyptian governors of this city as early as b.c. 14S0. The translation of the word as an appellative (‘pedestal’) by some is due to the vocalization of the Massoretes, who are supposed to have considered it a common noun. However, it is far more probable that they, conscious of its reference, substituted for the original vowels those of the word shiqguts (‘abomination’) — an epithet often applied to strange gods. N. Kgeniq.

Chloe

Chloe (mentioned only in 1 Corinthians 1:11). St. Paul had been informed of the dissensions at Corinth prob. by some of her Christian slaves. Chloe herself may have been either a Christian or a heathen, and may have lived either at Corinth or at Ephesus. In favour of the latter is St. Paul’s usual tact, which would not suggest the invidious mention of his informants’ names, if they were members of the Corinthian Church.

Choba

Choba (Judith 4:4; Chobai 15. noticed with Damascus). — Perhaps the land of Hobah (wh. see).

Choir

(Nehemiah 12:8 RVm). See Praise.

Chola

An unknown locality mentioned in Judith 15:4.

Choler

Choler is used in Sirach 31:20 37:30 in the sense of a disease, ‘perhaps cholera, diarrhoea’ — Oxf. Eng. Diet (RV ‘colic’); and in Daniel 8:7 11:11 in the sense of bitter anger. Both meanings are old, and belonged indeed to the Lat. cholera as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Chorazin

A place referred to only in the denunciation by Christ (Matthew 11:21. Luke 10:13). It is with probability identified with Kerazeh, north of Tell Hum, where are remains of pillars, walls, etc., of basalt.

R. A. S. Macalister.

Christ

See Jesus Christ, and Messiah.