Fable – Familiar

Fable

For the definition of a fable, as distinct from parable, allegory, etc., see Trench, Parables, p. 2 ff. Its main feature is the introduction of beasts or plants as speaking and reasoning, and its object is moral instruction. As it moves on ground common to man and lower creatures, its teaching can never rise to a high spiritual level. Worldly prudence in some form is its usual note, or it attacks human folly and frailty, sometimes in a spirit of bitter cynicism. Hence it has only a small place in the Bible. See Parable.

1. In OT. — There are two fables in the OT, though the word is not used; it is perhaps significant that neither is in any sense a message from God. (1) Jotham’s fable of the trees choosing their king illustrates the folly of the men of Shechem (Judges 9:8). (2) Jehoash’s fable of the thistle and the cedar (2 Kings 14:9) is his rebuke of Amaziah’s presumption — a rebuke in itself full of haughty contempt, however well grounded. Ezekiel 17:3–10 is not a fable, but an allegory. In Baruch 3:23 ‘authors of fables’ occurs in the list of wise men of the earth who have not yet found Wisdom. Sirach 13:17 would seem to be a reference to jEsop’s fables; so Matthew 7:15. This type of literature was freely used by later Jewish teachers, and jEsop’s and other fables are frequently found in the Talmud.

2. In NT. — ‘Fable’ occurs in a different sense. It is used to translate the Gr. ‘myth,’ which has lost its better sense as an allegorical vehicle for truth, whether growing naturally or deliberately invented, as in Plato’s Republic, and has come to mean a deluding fiction of a more or less extravagant character. The ‘cunningly devised fables’ of 2 Peter 1:16 are apparently attempts to allegorize the Gospel history, and the belief in the Second Advent. The word occurs four times in the Pastoral Epp., with a more definite reference to a type of false teaching actually in vogue at Ephesus and in Crete. These fables are connected with ‘endless genealogies which minister questionings’ (1 Timothy 1:4) they are described as ‘profane and old wives’ fables’ (4:7). and contrasted with ‘sound doctrine’ (2 Timothy 4:4). They are ‘Jewish,’ ‘the commandments of men’ (Titus 1:14). and the ‘genealogies’ are connected with ‘fightings about law’ (3:9). The exact nature of the teaching referred to is disputed, but the following points are fairly established, (o) The references do not point to 2nd century Gnosticism, which was strongly anti- Jewish, but to an earlier and less developed form, such as is necessarily implied in the more elaborate systems. The heresies combated are no indication of the late date of these Epistles. (6) The heresy may be called Gnostic by anticipation, and apparently arose from a mixture of Oriental and Jewish elements (perhaps Essene). Its views on the sinfulness of matter led on the one hand to an extreme asceticism (1 Timothy 4:3). on the other to unbridled licence (Tit !"• (c) There is much evidence connecting this type of teaching with Asia Minor — Col., Tit., Rev., Ignatian Letters, and the career of Cerinthus. Ramsay points out that Phrygia was a favourable soil, the Jews there being particularly lax. (d) The fables may be specially the speculations about sons and emanations, orders of angels, and intermediary beings, which are characteristic of all forms of Gnosticism; the passages are so applied by 2nd cent. Fathers. But we are also reminded of the legendary and allegorical embellishments of the narratives of the OT, which were so popular with the Jewish Rabbis. Semi-Christian teachers may have borrowed their methods, and the word ‘myth’ would be specially applicable to the product.

C. W. Emmet. FACE is used freely of animals, as well as of men; also of the surface of the wilderness (Exodus 16:4). of the earth, of the waters or deep, of the sky. It is used of the front of a house (Ezekiel 41:14). of a porch (40:15 41:25). of a throne (Job 26:9). Covering the face in 2 Samuel 19:4 is a sign of mourning (cf. covering the head); it is also a mark of reverence (Exodus 3. 1 Kings 19:13. Isaiah 6:2). In Genesis 24 it indicates modesty. Otherwise it is used simply of blindfolding, literal (Mark 14). or metaphorical (Job 9:24). To fall on the face is the customary Eastern obeisance, whether to man or to God. Spitting in the face is the climax of contempt (Numbers 12:14. Deuteronomy 25:9. Matthew 26:67). The Oriental will say, ‘I spit in your face,’ while he actually spits on the ground. The face naturally expresses various emotions, — fear, sorrow, shame, or joy. The ‘fallen face’ (Gn #) is used of displeasure; ‘hardening the face’ of obstinate sin (Proverbs 21:29. Jeremiah 5:3). The face was ‘disfigured’ in fasting (Matthew 6:16). It may be the expression of favour, particularly of God to man (Numbers 6:25. Psalms 31:16). or conversely of man turning his face to God (Jeremiah 2 32:33) or of disfavour, as in the phrase ‘to set the face against’ (Psalms 34:16, Jeremiah 21:10. and often in Ezk.), or ‘to hide the face.’ [N.S. In Psalms 51:9 the phrase is used differently, meaning to forget or ignore, cf. Psalms 90:8). Closely related are the usages connected with ‘beholding the face.’ This meant to be admitted to the presence of a potentate, king, or god (Genesis 33:10 43:3, 5, 2 Kings 25:19. Esther 1:14 4:11, 16; cf . ‘angel (s) of the face or presence,’ Isaiah 63:9. Tobit 12:15. Revelation 8:2. and often in apocalyptic literature). So ‘to look upon the face’ is to accept (Psalms 84:9). ‘to turn away the face’ is to reject (Psalms 132:10, i K 2 RVm). To ‘behold the face’ of God may be used either literally of appearing before His presence in the sanctuary or elsewhere (Genesis 32:30 [Peniel is ‘the face of God’], Exodus 33:11, Psalms 42:2; the ‘shewbread’ is ‘the bread of the face or presence’), or with a more spiritual reference to the inward reality of communion which lies behind (Psalms 17:15) ; so ‘seeking the face’ of God (Psalms 24:6 27). On the other hand, in 2 Kings 14:8 ‘see face to face’ is used in a sinister sense of meeting in battle.

The Heb. word for ‘face’ is used very freely, both alone and in many prepositional phrases, as an idiomatic periphrasis, e.g. ‘honour the face of the old man’ (Leviticus 19:32). ‘grind the face of the poor’ (Isaiah 3:15), or the common phrase ‘before my face’ (Deuteronomy 8:20. Mark 1:2). or ‘before the face of Israel’ (Exodus 14:25). Many of these usages are disguised in our versions, not being in accordance with English idioms; the pronoun is substituted, or ‘presence,’ ‘countenance’ are used, ‘face’ being often indicated in AVm or RVm (Genesis 1:20. 1 Kings 2:16) so in the phrase ‘respect persons’ (Deuteronomy 1:17). On the other hand, ‘face’ is wrongly given for ‘eye’ in AV of 1 K 20. where ‘ashes on face’ should be ‘headband over eye’ ; in 2 Kings 9:30. Jeremiah 4:30. the reference is to painting the eye; in Genesis 24:47 RV substitutes ‘nose,’ in Ezekiel 38:18 ‘nostrils.’ C. W. Emmet.

Fair Havens

A harbour on the south coast of Crete, near Lasea, where St. Paul’s ship took shelter on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:8). It still retains its name. A. J. Maclean.

Faith

NonnloT believe, having in early Eng. ousted ‘belief’ (wh. see) from its ethical uses. By this severance of noun and vb. (so in Lat. fides — credere, French foi — croire) Eng. suffers in comparison with German (Glaube — glauben) and Greek (,pistis — pisteuH). But ‘faith’ has a noble pedigree; coming from the Latin fides, through Norman-French, it connotes the sense of personal honour and of the mutual loyalty attaching to the pledged word.

1. In OT. — This word, the normal NT expression for the religious bond, is found but twice in the OT (EV) — in Deuteronomy 32:20, signifjring steadfastness, fidelity; and in Habakkuk 2:4. where a slightly different noun from the same Heb. stem (contained in amen and denoting what is firm, reliable), may carry a meaning identical with the above — ‘the just shall live by his faithfulness’ (RVm). The original term has no other sense than ‘faithfulness’ or ‘truth’ elsewhere — so in Psalms 37:3 (RV) 96:13, Deuteronomy 32:4 (RV), Isaiah 11:5 etc.; the context in Hab., however, lends to it a pregnant emphasis, suggesting, besides the temper of steadfastness, its manifestation in steadfast adherence to Jehovah’s word; under the circumstances, passive fidelity becomes active faith — ‘the righteous’ Israel ‘shall live’ not by way of reward for his loyalty, but by virtue of holding fast to Jehovah’s living word (cf. l’^). If so, St. Paul has done no violence to the text in Romans 1:17. Galatians 3:11. The corresponding vb. (from the root amen: in active and passive, to rely on, and to have reliance or be reliable) occurs above 20 times with God, His character, word, or messengers, for object. More than half these examples (in Ex., Dt., Ps.) refer to faith or unbelief in the mission of Moses and Jehovah’s redemptive acts at the foundation of the national Covenant. The same vb. supplies two of Isaiah’s watchwords, in 7 and 28. The former sentence is an untranslatable epigram— ‘If you win not hold fast, you shall have no holdfast I’, ‘No fealty, no safety I’; the latter leads us into the heart of OT faith, the collective trust of Israel in Jehovah as her Rock of foundation and salvation, which, as Isaiah declared (in 8), must serve also for ‘a stone of stumbling and rock of offence’ to the unfaithful. This combination of passages is twice made in the NT (Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:6–8). since the new house of God built of Christian believers rests on the foundation laid in Zion, viz. the character and promise of the Immutable, to whom now as then faith securely binds His people. In Habakkuk 1:5 (cited Acts 13:41) Israel’s unbelief in threatened judgment, in Isaiah 3:1 (John 12:38. Romans 10:16) her

unbelief in the promised salvation, coming through Jehovah’s humiliated Servant, are charged upon her as a fatal blindness. Thus the cardinal import of faith Is marked at salient points of Israelite history, which NT interpreters seized with a sure instinct. At the head of the OT sayings on this subject stands Gn 15:6. the text on which St. Paul founded his doctrine of justification by faith (see Romans 4:9, 22. Galatians 3:6; also James 2:23) ; ‘and Abraham believed Jehovah, and he counted it to him for righteousness’ (JE) — a crucial passage in Jewish controversy. St. Paul recognized in Abraham the exemplar of personal religion, antedating the legal system — the faith of the man who stands in direct heartrelationship to God. Genesis 15:6 supplies the key to his character and historical position: his heart’s trustful response to Jehovah’s promise made Abraham all that he has become to Israel and humanity; and ‘the men of faith’ are his children (Galatians 3:6–8). Only here, however, and in Habakkuk 2:4, along with two or three passages in the Psalms (27 116 quoted 2 Corinthians 4:13. and possibly 119). does faith ipso nomine (or ‘believe’ ) assume the personal value which is of its essence in the NT. The difference in expression between the OT and NT in this respect discloses a deep-lying difference of religious experience. The national redemption of Israel (from Egypt) lay entirely on the plane of history, and was therefore to be ‘remembered’; whereas the death and rising of our Lord, while equally historical, belong to the spiritual and eternal, and are to be ‘believed.’ Under the Old Covenant the people formed the religious unit; the relations of the individual Israelite to Jehovah were mediated through the sacred institutions, and the Law demanded outward obedience rather than inner faith — hearing the voice of Jehovah, ‘keeping his statutes,’ ‘walking in his way’; so (In the language of Galatians 3:23) the age of faith was not yet. Besides this, the Israelite revelation was consciously detective and preparatory, ‘the law made nothing perfect’; when St. Paul would express to his fellow-countrymen in a word what was most precious to himself and them, he speaks not of ‘the faith’ but ‘the hope of Israel’ (Acts 28:20 etc.), and the writer of Hebrews 11 defines the faith of his OT heroes as ‘the assurance of things hoped for’; accordingly, Hebrew terms giving to faith the aspect of expectation ^trusting, waiting, looking for Jehovah — are much commoner than those containing the word ‘believe.’ Again, the fact that oppression and suffering entered so largely into the lite of OT believers has coloured their confessions in psalm and prophecy; instead of believing in Jehovah, they speak of cleamng to Him, taking refuge under His wings, making Him a shield, a tower, etc. In all this the liveliness of Eastern sentiment and imagination comes into play; and while faith seldom figures under the bare abstract term, It is to be recognized in manifold concrete action and in dress of varied hue. Under the Old Covenant, as under the New, faith ‘wrought by love’ (Deuteronomy 6:5, Ps II61 etc., Leviticus 19:18 etc.), while it inspired hope.

2. In NT. — The NT use of pishs, pisteuS, is based on that of common Greek, where persuasion is the radical idea of the word. From this sprang two principal notions, meeting in the NT conception: (a) the ethical notion of confidence, trust in a person, his word, promise, etc., and then mutual trust, or the expression thereof in troth or pledge — a usage with only a casual religious application in non-Biblical Greek ; and (6) the intellectual notion of conviction, belief (in distinction from knowledge), covering all the shades of meaning from practical assurance down to conjecture, but always connoting sincerity, a belief held in good faith. The use of ‘faith’ in Matthew 23 belongs to OT phraseology (see Deuteronomy 32:20, quoted above); also in Romans 3:3, Galatians 5:22. pistis is understood to mean good faith, fidelity (RV ‘faithfulness’), as often in classical Greek. In sense (6) pistis came into the language of theology, the gods being referred (e.g. by Plutarch as a religious philosopher) to the province of faith, since they are beyond the reach of senseperception and logical demonstration.

(1) In this way faith came to signify the religious faculty In the broadest sense, — a generalization foreign to the OT. Philo Judaeus, the philosopher of Judaism, thus employs the term; quoting Genesis 15:6. he takes Abraham for the embodiment of faith so understood, viewing It as the crown of human character, ‘the queen of the virtues’; tor faith is, with Philo, a steady intuition of Divine things, transcending sense and logic; it Is, In fact, the highest knowledge, the consummation of reason. This large Hellenistic meaning is conspicuous in Hebrews 11 etc., and appears In St. Paul (2 Corinthians 4:18 5:7 ‘by faith not by appearance’). There is nothing distinctively Christian about faith understood in the bare significance of ‘seeing the invisible’ — ‘the demons believe, and shudder’; the belief that contains no more is the ‘dead faith,’ which condemns Instead of justifying(Ja 2). As St. James and St. Paul both saw from different standpoints, Abraham, beyond the ‘belief that God is,’ recognized what God is and yielded Him a loyal trust, which carried the whole man with it and determined character and action; his faith included sense (o) of pisteud (which lies in the Heb. vb. ‘believe’) along with (6). In this combination lies the rich and powerful import of NT ‘believing’: it is a spiritual apprehension joined with personal affiance; the recognition of truth In, and the plighting of troth with, the Unseen; In this twofold sense, ‘with the heart (the entire inner self) man believeth unto righteousness’ (Romans 10:10). Those penetrated by the spirit of the OT could not use the word pistis in relation to God without attaching to It, besides the rational Idea of supersensible apprehension, the warmer consciousness of moroZ trust and fealty native to it already in human relationships.

(2) Contact with Jesus Christ gave to the word a greatly Increased use and heightened potence. ‘Believing’ meant to Christ’s disciples more than hitherto, since they had Him to believe in; and ‘believers,’ ‘they that had believed,’ became a standing name for the followers of Christ (Acts 2:44. Romans 10:4. 1 Corinthians 14:22. Mark 16:17). A special endowment of this power given to some in the Church seems to be intended by the ‘faith’ of 1 Corinthians 12:9 (cf. Matthew 17:19 f.: Luke 17:5 f.). Faith was our Lord’s chief and incessant demand from men; He preaches, He works ‘powers,’ to elicit and direct it — the ‘miracle-faith’ attracted by ‘signs and wonders’ being a stepping-stone to faith in the Person and doctrine of God’s Messenger. The bodily cures and spiritual blessings Jesus distributes are conditioned upon this one thing — ‘Only believe!’ ‘All things are possible to him that believeth.’ There was a faith In Jesus, real so far as it went but not sufficient for true discipleship, since It attached itself to His power and failed to recognize His character and spiritual aims (see John 2:23 ff. 4:48 6:14 ff. 7:31 8:30 ff. 11 12:11 ff. 14:11). which Jesus rejected and affronted; akin to this, in a more active sense. Is the faith that ‘calls’ Him ‘Lord’ and ‘removes mountains’ In His name, but does not In love do the Father’s will, which He must disown (Matthew 7:21 ff.; 1 Corinthians 13:2). Following the Baptist, Jesus sets out with the summons, ‘Repent, and believe the good news’ that ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’ (Mark 1:15) like Moses, He expects Israel to recognize His mission as from God, showing ‘signs’ to prove this (see John 2:11, 23 p etc.; cf. Acts 2:22. Hebrews 4:2). As His teaching advanced, it appeared that He required an unparalleled faith in Himself along with His message, that the Kingdom of God He speaks of centres in His Person, that in tact He is ‘the word’ of God He brings, He is the light and life whose coming He announces, ‘the bread from heaven’ that He has to give to a famished world (Jn eaa. 8:12 11:25 14 etc.). For those ‘who received him,’ who ‘believed on his name’ in this complete sense, faith acquired a scope undreamed of before; it signified the unique attachment which gathered round the Person of Jesus — a human trust, in its purity and intensity such as no other man had ever elicited, which grew up into and identified itself with its possessor’s belief in God, transforming the latter in doing so, and which drew the whole being of the believer into the will and life of his Master. When Thomas hails Jesus as ‘My Lord and my God I’ he ‘has believed’ ; this process is complete in the mind of the slowest disciple; the two faiths are now welded inseparably ; the Son is known through the Father, and the Father through the Son, and Thomas gives full affiance to both in one. As Jesus was exalted, God in the same degree became nearer to these men, and their faith in God became richer in contents and firmer in grasp. So sure and direct was the communion with the Father opened by Jesus to His brethren, that the word ‘faith,’ as commonly used, failed to express it: ‘Henceforth ye know (the Father), and have seen him,’ said Jesus (John 14:7) and St. John, using the vb. ‘believe’ more than any one, employs the noun ‘faith’ but once in Gospel and Epp. (1 John 5:4) — ‘knowing God, the Father,’ etc., is, for him, the Christian distinction. Their Lord’s departure, and the shock and trial of His death, were needful to perfect His disciples’ faith (John 16:7). removing its earthly supports and breaking its links with all materialistic Messianlsm. As Jesus ‘goes to the Father,’ they realize that He and the Father ‘are one’; their faith rests no longer, in any degree, on ‘a Christ after the flesh’ ; they are ready to receive, and to work in, the power of the Spirit whom He sends to them ‘from the Father.’ Jesus is henceforth identified with the spiritual and eternal order; to the faith which thus acknowledges Him He gives the benediction, ‘Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ (John 20:29; cf. 1 Peter 1:8). To define this specific faith a new grammatical construction appears in NT Greek: one does not simply beliefoe Jesus, or believe on Him, one believes into or unto Him, or His name (which contains the import of His person and offices) — so in Mt 18. and continually in Jn. (2:11, 23 S’s- 4 q2s. as 7 9 ii25t. i235f. 14 17 ctc; also in Paul)— which signifies so believing in Him as to ‘come to Him’ realizing what He is. By a variety of prepositional constructions, the Greek tongue, imperfectly followed in such refinements by our own, strives to represent the variety of attitude and bearing in which faith stands towards its Object. That the mission of Jesus Christ was an appeal for faith, with His own Person as its chief ground and matter, is strikingly stated in John 20:31 : ‘These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life in his name.’ Christian faith is the decisive action of the whole inner man — understanding, feeling, will; it is the trustful and self-surrendering acknowledgment of God in Christ.

(3) Further, Jesus called on the world to ‘believe the good news’ of His coming for redemption. This task, marked out by OT prophecy, and laid on Him at His birth (Luke 1:68–79 2:38) and baptism (John 1:29). from an early period of His ministry Jesus connected with His death (see John 2:19–22 3:14 f.: and later, Matthew 16:16–28 20:28, Lk 9:31 12. John 12). The words of Matthew 26:28. which must be vindicated as original, make it clear that Jesus regarded His death as the culmination of His mission; at the Last Supper He is ready to offer His ‘blood’ to seal ‘the new covenant’ under which ‘forgiveness of sins’ will be universally guaranteed (cf. Jeremiah 31). Having concentrated on Himself the faith of men, giving to faith thereby a new heart and energy, He finally fastens that faith upon His death; He marks this event for the future as the object of the specifically saving faith. By this path, the risen Lord explained, He had ‘entered into his glory’ and ‘received from the Father the promise of the Spirit,’ in the strength of which His servants are commissioned to ‘preach to all the nations repentance and remission of sins’ (Lk 24; cf. Acts 2:22–38). Taught by Him, the Apostles understood and proclaimed their Master’s death as the hinge of the relations between God and man that centre in Christ; believing in Him meant, above all, believing in that, and finding in the cross the means of deliverance from sin and the revelation of God’s saving purpose toward the race (Acts 3:18 f. 20:28. 1 Co li8-2», 2 Co 5:14–21. 1 p 3:18. Rev l<-6, etc.). Faith in the resurrection of Jesus was logically antecedent to faith in His sacrificial death; for His rising from the dead set His dying in its true light (Acts 4:10–12). revealing the shameful crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah as a glorious expiation for the guilt of mankind (Hebrews 2:9. Romans 4:25, 1 Peter 1:21). To ‘confess with one’s mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in one’s heart that God raised him from the dead,’ was therefore to fulfil the essential conditions of the Christian salvation (Romans 10:9). since the Lord’s resurrection, including His ascension which completes it, gives assurance of the peace with God won by His accepted sacrifice (Hebrews 7:25 9:11–14 10:19, 22) it vindicates His Divine Sonship and verifies His claims on human homage (Romans 1:4. Acts 2. 1 Peter 1:21) it guarantees ‘the redemption of the body,’ and the attainment, both for the individual and for the Church, of the glory of the Messianic Kingdom, the consummated salvation that is in Christ Jesus (1 Co 15. Romans 8:17–23. Eph li’-23, Acts 17:31, Revelation 1: etc.). In two words, the Christian faith is to ‘believe that Jesus died and rose again’ (1 Thessalonians 4:14) — that in dying He atoned for human sin, and in rising He abolished death. St. Paul was the chief exponent and defender of this ‘word of the cross,’ which is at the same time ‘the word of faith’ (Romans 10:8) its various aspects and issues appear under the terms Justification, Atonement, Pbopitia- TiON, Gkace, Law (in NT), etc. But St. Peter in his 1st Ep., St. John in his 1st Ep. and Rev., and the writer of Hebrews, each in his own fashion, combine with St. Paul to focus the redeeming work of Jesus in the cross. According to the whole tenor of the NT, the forgiving grace of God there meets mankind in its sin; and faith is the hand reached out to accept God’s gifts of mercy proffered from the cross of Christ. The faculty of faith, which we understood in its fundamental meaning as the spiritual sense, the consciousness of God, is in no wise narrowed or diverted when it fixes itself on ‘Jesus Christ, and him crucified’ ; for, as St. Paul insists, ‘God commendeth his own love to us in that Christ died for us," ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."’ The glory of God ‘shines into men’s hearts. His true character becomes for the first time apparent, and calls forth a full and satisfied faith, when beheld ‘in the face of Christ’ (Romans 5:8. 2 Corinthians 4:6 S"-").

G. G. FiNDLAT.

Faithless

Wherever this word occurs in AV, it means, not untrustworthy, but unbelieving, just as in the Merchant of Venice Shylock is called ‘a faithless Jew,’ simply because he was an unbeliever in Christ.

Falcon

RV tr. of ‘ayyah, Leviticus 11:14. Deuteronomy 14 (AV’ kite’). Job 28:7 (AV ‘vulture’). See Kite, VULTDEE.

Fall

The story of the Fall in Genesis 3 is the immediate sequel to the account of man’s creation with which the Jahwistic document opens (see Creation). It tells how the first man and woman, living in childlike innocence and happiness in the Garden of Eden, were tempted by the subtle serpent to doubt the goodness of their Creator, and aim at the possession of forbidden knowledge by tasting the fruit of the one tree of which they had been expressly charged not to eat. Their transgression was speedily followed by detection and punishment; on the serpent was laid the curse of perpetual enmity between it and mankind; the woman wa,s doomed to the pains of child-bearing: and the man to unremitting toil in the cultivation of the ground, which was cursed on account of his sin. Finally, lest the man should use his newly-acquired insight to secure the boon of immortality by partaking of the tree of lite, he was expelled Irom the garden, which appears to be conceived as still existing, though barred to human approach by the cherubim and the flaming sword.

It is right to point out that certain incongruities of representation BUEgeat that two slightly varying narratives have been combined in the source from which the passage is taken (J). The chief difficulty arises in connexion with the two trees on which the destiny of mankind is made to turn. In 2^ the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grow together in the midst of the garden; in 2*‘the second alone is made the test of man’s obedience. But ch.3 (down to V.22) knows of only one central tree, and that obviously (though it is never so named)the tree of knowledge. The tree of life plays no real part in the story except in 322- ; and its introduction there creates embarrassment; for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer’s silence regarding the prohibition is inexplicable, and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose that the Divine prerogative of immortality was placed within man’s reach during the period of his probation? The hypothesis of a twofold recension of the Paradise story, while relieving this difficulty, would be of interest as showing that the narrative had undergone a development in Hebrew literature; but it does not materially aid the exegesis of the passage. The main narrative, which is complete, is that which speaks of the tree of knowledge; the other, if it be present at all, is too fragmentary to throw light on the fundamental ideas embodied in the story.

That this profoundly suggestive narrative is a literal record of a historic occurrence is an opinion now generally abandoned even by conservative theologians; and the view which tends to prevail amongst modern expositors is that the imagery is derived from the store of mythological traditions common to the Semitic peoples. It is true that no complete Babylonian parallel has yet been discovered; the utmost that can be claimed is that particular elements or motives of the Biblical story seem to be reflected in some of the Babylonian legends, and still more in the religious symbolism displayed on the monuments (tree of life, serpent, cherubim, etc.). These coincidences are sufiSciently striking to suggest the inference that a mythical account of man’s original condition and his fall existed in Babylonia, and had obtained wide currency in the East. It is a reasonable conjecture that such a legend, ‘stripped of its primitive polytheism, and retaining only faint traces of what was probably its original mythological character, formed the material setting which was adapted by the [Biblical] narrator for the purpose of exhibiting, under a striking and vivid imaginative form, the deep spiritual truths which he was inspired to discern’ (Driver). These spiritual truths, in which the real significance of the narrative lies, we must endeav our very briefly to indicate.

(1) The story offers, on the face of it, an explanation of the outstanding ills that flesh is heir to: the hard, toilsome lot of the husbandman, the travail of the woman and her subjection to man, the universal fate of death. These evils, it is taught, are inconsistent with the ideal of human lite, and contrary to the intention of a good God. Man, as originally created, was exempt from them; and to the question. Whence came they? the answer is that they are the effect of a Divine curse to which the race is subject; though it is to be noted that no curse is pronounced on the first pair, but only on the serpent as the organ of temptation, and the ground which is cursed for man’s sake.

(2) The consequences of the curse are the penalty of a single sin, by which man incurred the just anger of God. The author’s conception of sin may be considered from two points of view. Formally, it is the transgression of a Divine commandment, involving distrust of the wisdom and goodness of the Almighty, and breaking the harmony which had subsisted between man and his Maker. The process by which these evil thoughts are insinuated into the mind of the woman is described with a masterly insight into the psychology of temptation which is unsurpassed in literature. But it is a mistake to suppose that the essence of the sin consists in the merely formal disobedience to a command arbitrarily imposed as a test of fidelity. There was a reason for the Divine injunction, and a reason for man’s transgression of it; and the reasons are unambiguously indicated. To eat of the tree would make man like God, knowing good and evil; and God does not wish man to be like Himself. The essence of the sin is therefore presumption, — an overstepping of the limits of creaturehood, and an encroachment on the prerogatives of Deity.

(3) What, then, is meant by the ‘knowledge of good and evil,’ which was acquired by eating of the tree? Does it mean simply an enlargement of experience such as the transition from childhood to maturity naturally brings with it, and of which the feeling of shame (3’) is the significant index? Oris it, as has generally been held, the experimental knowledge of moral distinctions, the awaking of the conscience, the faculty of discerning between right and wrong? It is very difficult to say which of these interpretations expresses the thought in the mind of the writer. It is in accordance with Hebrew idiom to hold that knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to knowledge in general ; though it is of course not certain that that is the sense in which the phrase is here used. On the other hand, there is nothing to show that it refers to the moral sense; and the fact that neither of the ways in which the newly acquired faculty manifests itself (the perception of sex, and insight into the mystic virtue of the tree of life, v.^^) is a distinctively ethical cognition, rather favours the opinion that the knowledge referred to is the power to discern the secret meanings of things and utilize them for human ends, regardless of the will and purpose of God — the knowledge, in short, which is the principle of a godless civilization. The idea may be that succinctly expressed by the writer of Ecclesiastes: ‘God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions’(Ec 729).

(4) One speciflo feature of the story remains to be considered, namely, the r8le assigned to the serpent, and his character. The identification of the serpent with the devil appears first in the Apocryphal literature (Wisdom 2:24) in the narrative itself he is simply the most subtle of the creatures that God has made (3:1), and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he is there regarded as the mouthpiece of the evil spirit. At the same time it is impossible to escape the impression that the serpent is conceived as a malevolent being, designedly insinuating suspicion of God into the minds of our first parents, and inciting them to an act which will frustrate the Divine purpose regarding mankind. There is thus a certain ambiguity in the representation of the serpent, which may have its source in some more primitive phase of the legend ; but which also points the way, under the influence of a deeper apprehension of the nature of moral evil than had been attained in the time of the writer, to that identification of the serpent with the Evil One which we find in the NT (Romans 16:20, Eev 12:9 20). In the same way, and with the same justification, the reflexion of later ages read into the curse on the serpent (v. 15) the promise of ultimate redemption from the power of evil through the coming of Christ. Strictly Interpreted, the words imply nothing more than a perpetual antagonism between the human race and the repulsive reptiles which excite its instinctive antipathy. It is only the general scope of the passage that can be thought to warrant the inference that the victory is to be on the side of humanity; and it is a still higher flight of religious inspiration to conceive of that victory as culminating in the triumph of Him whose mission it was to destroy the works of the devil. J. Skinnee.

Fallow-deer

This word occurs in the AV among the clean animals (Deuteronomy 14:5). and in the list of game furnished for^Solomon’s daily table (1 Kings 4:23). In each list ‘ayyal, zebl, and yachmUr occur in the same order. The first is correctly translated, in both AV and RV,’ hart’ (see Haet). The second is Incorrectly tr. In AV- ‘roebuck,’ and correctly in KV ‘gazelle’ (see Gazelle). The third is incorrectly tr. in AV ‘fallow-deer,’ and correctly in RV ‘roebuck’ (see Roe, Roebuck).

Familiar

The expression ‘familiar spirit’ was taken into the AV from the Geneva Version, as the trans, of Heb. ‘oWi. See Magic, etc. The word is also used as a subst. in Jeremiah 20:10’ All my familiars watched for my halting’ (RV ‘familiar friends,’ Heb. ‘men of my place’).