Forgiveness – Frankincense

Forgiveness

Like many other words employed to convey ideas connected with the relations of God and man, this covers a variety of thoughts. In both OT and NT we have evidences of a more elastic vocabulary than the EV would lead us to suppose. 1. The OT has at least three different words all tr. ‘forgiveness’ or ‘pardon,’ referring either to God’s actions with regard to men (cf. Exodus 34:7, Psalms 86:5. Nehemiah 9:17) or to forgiveness extended to men by each other (cf. Genesis 50:17. 1 Samuel 25:28). At a very early period of human, or at least of Jewish, history, some sense of the need of forgiveness by God seems to have been felt. This will be especially evident if the words of despairing complaint put into the mouth of Cain be tr. literally (see Driver, The Book of Genesis, on 4:13. cf. RVm). The power to forgive came to be looked on as inherent in God, who not only possessed the authority, but loved thus to exhibit His mercy (Daniel 9:9, Nehemiah 9:17. Jeremiah 36:3). In order, however, to obtain this gift, a corresponding condition of humiliation and repentance on man’s part had to be fulfilled (2 Chronicles 7:14. Psalms 86:5), and without a conscious determination of the transgressor to amend and turn towards his God, no hope of pardon was held out (Joshua 24:19. 2 Kings 24:4, Jeremiah 5:1, 7). On the other hand, as soon as men acknowledged their errors, and asked God to forgive, no limit was set to His love in this respect (1 Kings 8, Psalms 103:3; cf. Deuteronomy 30:1–10). Nor could this condition be regarded as unreasonable, for holiness, the essential characteristic of the Divine nature, demanded an answering correspondence on the part of man made in God’s image. Without this correspondence forgiveness was rendered impossible, and that, so to speak, automatically (cf. Leviticus 19:2. Joshua 24:19; see Numbers 14:18. Job 10:14. Nahum 1:3).

According to the Levitical code, when wrong was done between man and man, the first requisite in order to Divine pardon was restitution, which had to be followed up by a service of atonement (Leviticus 6:2–7). Even in the case of sins of ignorance, repentance and its outward expression in sacrifice had to precede forgiveness (Leviticus 4:13 ff.: Numbers 15:23 ff. etc.). Here the educative influence of the Law must have been powerful, inculcating as it did at once the transcendent holiness of God and the need of a similar holiness on the part of His people (Leviticus 11:44). Thus the Pauline saying, ‘The law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ’ (Galatians 3:24), is profoundly true, and the great priestly services of the Temple, with the solemn and ornate ritual, must have given glimpses of the approach by which men could feel their way and obtain the help indispensable for the needs adumbrated by the demands of the Mosaic institutions. The burden of the prophetic exhortations, ‘Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?’ (Ezekiel 33:11; cf. Isaiah 44:22, Jeremiah 35:15 18:11. Hosea 4:1. Joel 2:13 etc.), would be meaningless if the power to obey were withheld, or the way kept hidden. Indeed, these preachers of moral righteousness did not hesitate to emphasize the converse side of this truth in dwelling on the ‘repentance’ of God and His returning to His afiBicted but repentant people (Jonah 3:9, Mai 3:7 etc.). The resultant effect of this mutual approach was the restoration to Divine favour, of those who had been alienated, by the free act of forgiveness on the part of God (Psalms 85:4, Isaiah 65:7 59:20. Jeremiah 13:17, 24 etc.).

2. We are thus not surprised to learn that belief in the forgiveness of sins was a cardinal article of the Jewish faith in the time of Jesus (Mark 2:7 5:21. cf. Isaiah 43). Nor was the teaching of Jesus in any instance out of line with the national belief, for, according to His words, the source of all pardon was His Father (Mark 11:25 f., Matthew 6:14 f.; cf. His appeal on the cross, ‘Father, forgive them,’ Luke 23:34). It is true that ‘the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins’ (Mark 2:10 9:6 = Luke 5:24). but the form of the expression shows that Jesus was laying claim to a delegated authority (cf. Luke 7:48. where, as in the case of the palsied man, the words are declaratory rather than absolute; see Plummer, ICC, in loc). This is more clearly seen by a reference to NT epistolary literature, where again and again forgiveness and restoration are spoken of as mediated ‘in’ or ‘through’ Christ (Ephesians 4:32. Colossians 2:12 ff.: 1 p 5; cf. Ephesians 1:7, Revelation 1:5, 1 John 2:12 etc.). Here, as in OT, only more insistently dwelt on, the consciousness of guilt and of the need of personal holiness is the first step on the road to God’s forgiveness (1 John 1:9, cf. Psalms 32:5 51:3 etc.); and the open acknowledgment of these feelings is looked on as the natural outcome of their existence (Acts 19:18; cf. Romans 10:10. 1 John 1:9). The hopelessness which at times seemed to have settled down on Jesus, when confronted by Pharisaic opposition, was the result of the moral and spiritual blindness of the religious teachers to their real position (John 9).

3. Again, following along the line we have traced in the OT, only more definitely and specifically emphasized, the NT writers affirm the necessity for a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Matthew 5:48). It is in this region, perhaps, that the most striking development is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, men need never hope to experience God’s pardon for themselves. This, we are incfined to think, is the most striking feature in the ethical creations of Jesus’ teaching. By almost every method of instruction, from incidental postulate (Matthew 6:12 = Luke 11:4. Mark 11:25) to deliberate statement (Matthew 18:21 ff. 6:15. Mark 11. Luke 17:4) and elaborate parable (Matthew 18:23–35). He sought to attune the minds of His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (cf. Colossians 3:13, 1 John 4:11). Once more, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and mercy even of God are subjected. Whatever may be the precise meaning attaching to the words ‘an eternal sin’ (Mark 3:29). it is plain that some definite border-line is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of God’s love and those who are outside its scope (Matthew 12:32). See art. Sin, III. 1.

4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded only by St. John, of the risen Jesus to His assembled disciples (John 20:23). It is remarkable that this is the only place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr. ‘forgive’ (RV) occurs, and we must not forget that the incident of conferring the power of absolution on the body of believers, as they were gathered together, is peculiar to this writer. At the same time, it is instructive to remember that nowhere is St. John much concerned with a simple narrative of events as such; he seems to be engaged rather in choosing those facts which he can subordinate to his teaching purposes. The choice, then, of this circumstance must have been Intentional, as having a particular significance, and when the immediately preceding context is read, it is seen that the peculiar power transmitted is consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. On two other occasions somewhat similar powers were promised, once personally to St. Peter as the great representative of that complete faith in the Incarnation of which the Church is the guardian in the world (Matthew 16:19). and once to the Church in its corporate capacity as the final judge of the terms of fellowship tor each of its members (Matthew 18:18). In both these instances the words used by Jesus with regard to this spiritual power differ from those found in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, and the latter is seen to be more definite, profound, and far-reaching in its scope than the former. The abiding presence of the living Spirit in the Church is the sure guarantee that her powers in judging spiritual things are inherent in her (cf. 1 Co 2:12–15) as the Body of Christ. Henceforth she carries in her bosom the authority so emphatically claimed by her Lord, to declare the wondrous fact of Divine forgiveness(Ac 13:38) and to set forth the conditions upon which it ultimately rests (see Westcott, Gospd of St. John, in loc). Closely connected with the exercise of this Divinely given authority is the rite of Baptism, conditioned by repentance and issuing in ‘the remission of sins’ (Acts 2:38). It is the initial act in virtue of which the Church claims to rule, guide, and upbuild the life of her members. It is symbolic, as was John’s baptism, of a ‘death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness’ (Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3; cf. Romans 6:4. Colossians 2:12). It is more than symbolic, for by it, as by a visible channel, the living and active Spirit of God is conveyed to the soul, where the fruition of the promised forgiveness is seen in the fulness of the Christian life (Acts 2:38. ct. IW- " 19:5 f.).

5. On more than one occasion St. Paul speaks of the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death of Christ (‘through his blood’ Ephesians 1:7. cf. Colossians 1:14) and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the atoning work of Jesus by showing its harmony with all with which previous revelation had made us familiar, for ‘apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’ (9). The same writer, moreover, asserts that once this object has been accomplished, nothing further remains to be done, as ‘there is no more offering for sin’ (10) than that which the ‘blood of Jesus’ (lO") has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Crucified, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30). is for this writer the guarantee not only that ‘the Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted’ (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 f.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal of the life and death of Him whose first words from the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness of His tormentors. J. R. Willis.

Fornication

See Crimes and Punishments, §3.

Fortification and Siegecraft

At thedate of the Hebrew invasion of Canaan its inhabitants were found to be in possession of ‘cities great and fenced up to heaven’ (Deuteronomy 9:1; cf. Numbers 13:28. Joshua 14:12). most of them, as is now known, with a history of many centuries behind them. The inhabited places, then as always, were of two classes, walled and unwalled (Deuteronomy 3:5). the latter comprising the country villages, the former the very numerous ‘cities,’ which though small in area were ‘fenced,’ i.e. fortified (the modern term everywhere adopted by Amer. RV), ‘with high walls, gates, and bars.’ In this article it is proposed to indicate the nature of the walls by which these cities were fenced in OT times, and of the fortresses or ‘strong holds’ so frequently mentioned in Hebrew history, and finally, to describe the methods of attack and defence adopted by the Hebrews and their contemporaries.

1. The earliest fortification yet discovered in Palestine is that erected, it may be, as far back as B.C. 4000 by the neolithic cave-dwellers of Gezer. This consisted of a simple bank of earth, between six and seven feet in height, the inside face of which is vertical, the outside sloping, and both cased with random stones (.PEFSt, 1903, 113, with section plan 116; 1904, 200; for date see 190S, 29). A similar ‘earth rampart’ was found at Tell el-Hesy, the ancient Lachish.

The Semitic invaders, who appeared in Canaan about the middle of the third millennium, were able with their tools of bronze to carry the art of fortification far beyond this primitive stage. Their cities were planted for the most part on an outlying spur of a mountain range, or on a more or less isolated eminence or tell. In either case the steep rock-faces of nature’s building may be said to have been the city’s first line of defence. The walls, of crude brick or stone, with which art supplemented nature, followed the contours of the ridge, the rock itself being frequently cut away to form artificial scarps, on the top of which the city wall was built. Consequently the walls were not required to be of uniform height throughout the enceinte, being lowest where the rock scarp was steepest, and highest on that side of the city from which approach was easiest and attack most to be feared. In the latter case, as at Jerusalem, which was assailable only from the north, it was usual to strengthen the defences by a wide and deep trench. Where, on the other hand, the city was perched upon an elevated tell, as at Gezer, Lachish, and in the Shephelah generally, a trench was not required.

The recent excavations in Palestine have shown that the fortifications of Canaanite and Hebrew cities were built, like their houses, of sun-dried bricks, or of stone, or of both combined. When brick was the chief material it was usual to begin with one or more foundation courses of stone as a protection against damp. After the introduction of the battering-ram (§ 6) it was necessary to increase the resistance of brick walls by a revetment or facing of stone, or less frequently of Itiln-burnt bricks, more especially in the lower part of the wall. At Tell el-Hesy or Lachish the lower face of the north wall ‘had been preserved by a strengthening wall on the outside, consisting of large rough stones in a parallel line about three feet away, with the intervening space filled in with pebbles’ (Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, 29). At Tell es-Safi, again — perhaps the ancient Gath — the lower part of the city wall ‘shows external and Internal facings of rubble with a packing of earth and small field stones,’ while the upper part had been built of large mud bricks (Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine, 30 — to be cited in the sequel as BM. Exc. In this work will be found detailed descriptions, with plans and illustrations, of the walls of the various cities of Southern Palestine excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1898-1900).

The treatment of the stone used for fortifications and other masonry of importance varied considerably in the successive periods, gradually advancing from that of the imposing but primitive ‘cyclopean’ walls characteristic of the early architecture of the Levant, to the carefully dressed stones with drafted margins, laid in perfect courses, of the Herodian period. There was also a great variety in the size of the stones employed. Some of those still in situ in the wall of the Temple enclosure at Jerusalem are ‘over 30 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 3i feet high, weighing over 80 tons’ (Warren), and even these are exceeded by the colossal stones, over 60 feet In length, still to be seen in the temple wall at Baalbek.

2. The thickness of the walls varied from city to city, and even in the same city, being to a certain extent dependent on the required height at any given point. The outer wall of Gezer, of date cir. B.C. 1500, was 14 feet in thickness. At one period the north wall of Lachish was ‘at least 17 feet thick,’ while a thickness of 28 ft. is reached by a wall which is regarded as the oldest fortification of Megiddo. The foot of this wall, according to a well-known practice, was protected by a glacis of beaten earth.

To increase the strength of a wall, the earliest builders were content to add to its thickness by means of buttresses, which, by increasing the projection, gradually pass into towers. The latter were indispensable at the comers of walls (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:15. Zephaniah 1. both RVm; see the plans of the walls and towers of Tell Zakariya etc. In BM. Exc). Besides strengthening the wall, the projecting towers were of the first importance as enabling the defenders to command the portion of the walls, technically the ‘curtain,’ between them.

Col. Billerbeck, a recognized authority on ancient fortifications, has shown that the length of the curtain between the towers was determined by the effective range of the bows and slings of the period, which he estimates at 30 metres, say, 100 feet (Der FestungsbauimAltenOrient, 4f.). This estimate receives a striking confirmation from the earlier of the two walls of Gezer, of date air. B.C. 2900. This wall is provided with ‘long narrow towers, of small projection, at intervals of 90f eet,’ which is precisely the distance between the towers of Sargon’s city at Khorsabad. The most famous towers in later Hebrew history are the three ‘royal towers’ of Herod’s Jerusalem — Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne.

3. The height of the fortifications, as we have seen, varied with the nature of the site. The minimum height, according to Billerbeck (op. cit. 6), was about 30 feet, this being the maximum length of the ancient scaling-ladders. No Canaanite city wall, however, has yet been found intact, and we can only calculate roughly from the breadth what the height may have been in any particular case. The former, according to the authority just quoted, had for reasons of stability to be from one-third to two-thirds of the height. From the numerous representations of city walls on the Assyrian sculptures, and from other sources, we know that the walls were furnished with a breastwork or battlements, generally crenellated — probably the pinnacles of Isaiah 54:12 RV. The towers in particular were provided with projecting battlements supported on corbels springing from the wall.

When the site was strongly protected by nature, a single wall sufficed; otherwise it was necessary to have an outer wall, which was of less height than the main wall. This is the cMl frequently mentioned in OT, generally rendered rampart (1 Kings 21:23) or bulwark) la 26). At Tell Sandahannah — probably the ancient Mareshah — were found two walls of the same period, the outer being in some places 15 feet in advance of the inner (BM. Exc. 54). It was on a similar outer wall (cftsi) that the ‘wise woman of Abel of Beth-maacah’ held parley with Joab (2 Samuel 20:15; for the reading see Cent. Bible, in loc). Jerusalem, as is well known, was latterly ‘fenced’ on the N. and N.W. by three independent walls (see Jerusalem).

4. In addition to Its walls, every ancient city of Importance possessed a strongly fortified place, corresponding to the acropolis of Greek cities, which served as a refuge from, and a last defence against, the enemy when the city Itself had been stormed (cf. Judges 9:51). Such was the ‘strong tower’ of Thebez (Jg. loc. cit.), the castle in Tirzah (1 Kings 16:18 RV), and the tower of Jezreel (2 Kings 9:17). The most frequent designation in EV, however, is hold or strong hold, as the ‘strong hold’ of Zion (2 Samuel 5:7). the acropolis of the Jebusite city, which AV in v. 9 terms ‘the fort,’ and in 1 Chronicles 11 ‘the castle of Zion.’ In the later struggles with the Syrians and Romans, respectively, two Jerusalem forts played an important part: the citadel (RV) of 1 Maccabees 1:33 3:45 etc. (in the original the Acra, built by Antiochus iv.) ; and the cattle of Antonia, on the site of the earlier ‘castle’ of Neheraiah’s day (Nehemiah 2:8 7:2 RV), and Itself the ‘castle’ of Acts 21:34 22:24 etc.

Apart from these citadels there is frequent mention In OT of fortresses in the modern sense of the word, — that is, strong places specially designed to protect the frontier, and to command the roads and passes by which the country might be invaded. Such were most of the places built, i.e. fortified, by Solomon (1 Kings 9:15, 17 f.) ), the ‘strong holds’ fortified and provisioned by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:11). the ‘castles and towers’ built by Jotham (27:4). and many more. A smaller isolated fort was named ‘the tower of the watchmen’ (2 Kings 17:9 18:8). Among the more famous fortresses of later times may be named as types: the Idumaean fortress of Bethsura, conspicuous in the Maccabsean struggle; Jotapata, the fortress in Galilee associated with the name of the historian Josephus; Machaerus, said by Pliny to have been the strongest place in Palestine, next to Jerusalem ; and Masada, the scene of the Jews’ last stand against the Romans.

While there is Egyptian evidence for the existence of fortresses in Southern Palestine or the neighbourhood as early as B.C. 3600, and while a statue of Gudea (cir. B.C. 3000), with the tracing of an elaborate fortress, shows that the early Babylonians were expert fortress builders, the oldest actual remains of a Canaanite fortress are those discovered by Schumacher on the site of Megiddo in 1904, and dated by him between B.C. 2500 and 2000. Its most interesting feature is a fosse 8 ft. wide and from 6 to 10 ft. deep, with a counterscarp lined with stone. At the neighbouring Taanach Dr. SelUn laid bare several forts, among them the now famous ‘castle of Ishtar-Waslishur,’ in which was found ‘the first Palestinian library yet discovered,’ in the shape of a series of cuneiform tablets containing this prince’s correspondence with neighbouring chiefs.

It is impossible within the limits of this article to give details of those interestingbuildings. Thestudentis referred to Sellin’s Tell Ta’anek in vol. 50 (1904), and his Nachlese in vol . 52( 1906) ,of the Denkschriften of the Vienna Academy. An excellent r^um^, with plans and photographs, both of the Taanach and the Megiddo fortresses, is given by Father Vincent in hia Canaan d’aprks I’ exploration recente, pp. 47-65. More easily accessible to the ordinary student ia_ the detailed account, with measurements and plans, of the citadel of Tell Zakariya — peihaps the ancient Azekah fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:9. cf . 34:7) — given by Bliss and Macalister in their Excavations, etc., pp. 14-23, and plates 2-5.

6. No mention has as yet been made of an important element in the line of a city’s defences, namely, the gates. These were as few as possible, as being the weakest part of the defence, and for the same reason the strongest towers are found on either side of the gates (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:9). The most effective arrangement was to make the gateway a passage through a single gate-tower, which projected beyond both the outer and inner faces of the wall. In such cases two gates were provided, an outer and an inner, at either end of the passage, as was the case at Mahanaim, where David is found sitting ‘between the two gates’ (2 Samuel 18:24). Here we further learn that it was usual to have a stair leading up to an upper storey in the gate-tower (v. 33). the roof of which was apparently on a level with the top of the city wall (v. 24). In place of a straight passage-way through the tower, a passage bent at a right angle like the letter L increased the possibilities of defence. In most cases the base of the L would be on the inside, towards the city, but in one of the Taanach forts above referred to the outer gate is in the side of an outer tower, and it is the inner gate that is in line with the walls (see restored plan in Vincent, op. cit. 59). The average width of the numerous gateways laid bare by recent excavation is about nine feet.

The gate itself, called the ‘door of the gate’ in Nehemiah 6:1, consisted ordinarily of two parts or leaves (Isaiah 45:1) of wood. For greater security against fire these were often overlaid with bronze, the ‘gates of brass’ of Psalms 107:16. Isaiah 45:2. The leaves were hung on pivots which turned in sockets in the sill and lintel, and were fastened by bolts let into the former. A strong bar or bars of wood, bronze (1 Kings 4:13). or iron (Job 40:18) secured the whole gate, passing transversely into sockets in the gate-posts, as we learn from Samson’s exploit at Gaza (Judges 16:1–3). ‘To have the charge of the gate’ (2 Kings 7:17) was a military post of honour, as this passage shows. In war time, at least, a sentinel was posted on the roof of the gate-house or tower (2 Samuel 18:24, cf. 2 Kings 9:17).

6. It remains to deal briefly with the siegecraft of the Hebrews and their contemporaries. A ‘fenced’ or fortified place might be captured in three ways: (a) by assault or storm, (6) by a blockade, or (c) by a regular siege, (a) The first method was most likely to succeed in the case of places of moderate strength, or where treachery was at work (cf. Judges 1:23 ff.). The assault was directed against the weakest points of the enceinte, particularly the gates (cf. Isaiah 28:6). Before the Hebrews learned the use of the battering-ram, entrance to an enemy’s city or fortress was obtained by setting fire to the gates (Judges 9:49, 52). and by scaling the walls by means of scaling-ladders, under cover of a deadly shower of arrows and sling-stones. According to 1 Chronicles 11:6. Joab was the first to scale the walls of the Jebusite fortress of Zion, when David took it by assault. Although scaling-ladders are explicitly mentioned only in’l Maccabees 5:30 — a prior reference may be found in Proverbs 21:22 — they are familiar objects in the Egyptian representations of sieges from an early date, as well as in the later Assyrian representations, and may be assumed to have been used by the Hebrews from the first. In early times, as is plain from the accounts of the capture of Al (Joshua 8:10 ff.) and Shechem (Judges 9:42 ff.). a favourite stratagem was to entice the defenders from the city by a pretended flight, and then a force placed in ambush would make a dash for the gate.

(6) The second method was to completely surround the city, and, by preventing ingress and egress, to starve it into surrender. This was evidently the method adopted by Joab at the blockade of Rabbath-ammon, which was foiced to capitulate after the capture of the ‘water fort’ (for this rendering see Cent. Bible on 2 Samuel 12). ), by which the defenders’ main water-supply was cut off.

(c) In conducting a regular siege, which of course included both blockade and assault, the first step was to ‘cast up a bank’ (AV 2 Samuel 20. 2 Kings 19:32. Isaiah 37:33) or mount (AV Ezekiel 4:2 17:17 RV has ‘mount,’ Amer. RV ‘mound’ throughout). This was a mound of earth which was gradually advanced till it reached the walls, and was almost equal to them in height, and from which the besiegers could meet the besieged on more equal terms. The ‘mount’ is first met with in the account of Joab’s siege of Abel of Beth-maacah (2 Samuel 20:15 ff.). In EV Joab is represented as, at the same, time, ‘battering’ or, in RVm, ‘undermining’ the wall, but the text is here in some disorder. Battering-rams are first mentioned in Ezekiel, and are scarcely to be expected so early as the time of David. The Egyptians used a long pole, with a metal point shaped like a spear-head, which was not swung but worked by hand, and could only be effective, therefore, against walls of crude brick (see illustr. in Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, 1. 242).

The battering-engines (Ezekiel 26:9 RV; AV ‘engines of war ‘) of the Assyrians were called’ rams ‘by the Hebrews (Ezekiel 4:2 21:22). from their butting action, although they were vrithout the familiar ram’s head of the Roman aries. The Assyrian battering-ram ended either in a large spear-head, as with the Egyptians, or in a flat head shod with metal, and was worked under the shelter of large wooden towers mounted on four or six wheels, of which there are many representations in the Assyrian wall sculptures (see illustr. in Toy’s’ Ezekiel,’ SBOT, 102). These towers were sometimes of several storeys, in which archers were stationed, and were moved forward against the walls on the mounds above described.

When Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, his troops are said to have ‘built forts against it round about’ (2 Kings 25:1. cf. Ezekiel 4:2), but the original term is obscure, and is rather, probably, to be understood in the sense of a siege-wall or circumvallatio — the ‘bank’ of Luke 19 RV — for the purpose of making the blockade effective. On the other hand, the btilwarks of Deuteronomy 20:20. also Ecclesiastes 9:13. which had to be made of wood other than ‘trees for meat,’ properly denote wooden forts or other siege works (Isaiah 29:3 RV) built for the protection of the besiegers in their efforts to storm or undermine the walls.

7. The Assyrian sculptures give life-like pictures of the various operations of ancient siegecraft. Here we see the massive battering-rams detaching the stones or bricks from an angle of the wall, while the defenders, by means of a grappling-chain, are attempting to drag the ram from its covering tower. There the archers are pouring a heavy fire on the men upon the wall, from behind large rectangular shields or screens of wood or wickerwork, standing on the ground, with a small projecting cover. These are Intended by the ‘shield’ of 2 Kings 19:32, the ‘buckler’ of Ezekiel 26. and the ‘mantelet’ of Nahum 2:5. all named iii connexion with siege works. In another place the miners are busy undermining the wall with picks, protected by a curved screen of wickerwork supported by a pole (illustr. of both screens in Toy, op. cit. 149; cf. Wilkinson, op. cit. i. 243).

The monuments also show that the Assyrians had machines for casting large stones long before the Urrmenia, or siege-artillery, are said to have been invented in Sicily in B.C. 399. By the ‘artillery’ of 1 Samuel 20:40 AV is, of course, meant the ordinary bow and arrows; but Uzziah is credited by the Chronicler with having ‘made engines invented by cunning men to be on the towers and upon the battlements to shoot arrows and great stones withal’ (2 Chronicles 26:15). The Books of the Maccabees show that by the second century, at least, the Jews were not behind their neighbours in the use of the artillery (1 Maccabees 6 AV) of the period, ‘engines of war and instruments for casting fire and stones, and pieces to cast darts and slings.’ (A detailed description, with illustrations, of these catapvitce and bailisUB, as the Romans termed them, will be found in the art. ‘Tormentum’ in Smith’s Diet, of Or. and Bom. Antiq.) At the siege of Gezer (such is the best reading, 1 Maccabees 13:43) Simon is even said to have used effectively a piece of the most formidable siege-artillery then known, the helepolis (lit. ‘city-taker,’ RV ‘engine of siege ‘), which Titus also employed in the siege of Jerusalem (for description see’ Helepolis ‘in Smith, op. cit. ) . In this siege the Jews had 300 pieces for discharging arrows or rather bolts (.catapulUB), and 40 pieces for casting stones (.balHstw), according to Josephus, who gives a graphic account of the working of these formidable’ engines of war’ in his story of the siege of Jotapata (BJ iii. vii. 23.)

8. The aim of the besieged was by every artifice in their power to counteract the efforts of the besiegers to scale or to make a breach in the walls (Amos 4:3). and in particular to destroy their siege works and artillery. The battering-rams were rendered ineffective by letting down bags of chaff and other fenders from the battlements, or were thrown out of action by grapplingchains, or by having the head broken off by huge stones hurled from above. The mounds supporting the besiegers’ towers were undermined, and the towers themselves and the other engines set on fire (1 Maccabees 6; cf. the ‘fiery darts’ or arrows of Ephesians 6:16).

In addition to the efforts of the bowmen, slingers, and javelin-throwers, who manned the walls, boiling oil was poured on those attempting to place the scaling-ladders, or to pass the boarding-bridges from the towers to the battlements. Of all these and many other expedients the Jewish War of Josephus is a familiar repertoire. There, too, will be found the fullest account of the dire distress to which a city might be reduced by a prolonged siege (cf. 2 Kings 6:25 ff.). A. R. S. Kennedy.

Fortunatus

The name of an apparently young member of the household of Stephanas, and a Corinthian. With Stephanas and Achaicus he visited St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:17) he had probably been baptized by the Apostle himself (1:16). Lightfoot (Clement, i. 29, ii. 187) thinks that he may well have been alive forty years later, and that he may be the Fortunatus mentioned in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians (§ 65). The manner in which the name is there introduced suggests that it belongs to a Corinthian. A. J. Maclean.

Fortune

See Gad (tribe and god).

Foundation

Great importance was attached to the laying of the foundation. It was accompanied by human sacrifice, as may be seen in the Babylonian records; a possible trace occurs in the story of Hiel (1 Kings 16:34). Hence the stress on the size and splendour of the foundation, as in Solomon’s Temple (7:9). It is a natural metaphor for the ultimate basis on which a thing rests (Job 4:19. Ezekiel 13:14. Luke 6:48). Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps 89 97 RV). ‘The city that hath the foundations’ is the type of the real and eternal (Hebrews 11:10). The Apostles themselves are the foundation of the New Jerusalem, formed of all manner of precious stones (Rev 21). ‘The Apostolic Church is conditioned through the ages by the preaching and work of the Apostolate’ (Swete, ad loc. ; cf. Isaiah 28:16. Matthew 16:18. Ephesians 2:20). In 1 Corinthians 3:10 the metaphor is slightly different, the preaching of Jesus Christ being the one foundation (cf. Isaiah 19:10 RVm, where the word is used of the chief men of the State). In the frequent phrase ‘from the foundation of the world,’ the word is active, meaning ‘founding.’ ‘Foundations’ occurs similarly in a passive sense, the earth being more or less literally conceived of as a huge building resting on pillars etc. (Psalms 18:7, 15 24:2. Isaiah 24:18). In Psalms 11:3 75 82:5. Ezekiel 30:4. the idea is applied metaphorically to the ‘fundamental’ principles of law and justice on which the moral order rests. In 2 Chronicles 3:3, Isaiah 6:4 16:7. Jeremiah 50:15, RV should be followed. In 2 Chronicles 23:5 the ‘gate of the foundation’ is obscure; possibly we should read ‘the horse-gate.’ See also House, § 3. C. W. Emmet.

Fountain

A word applied to living springs of water as contrasted with cisterns (Leviticus 11:36) ; specifically of Beer-lahai-roi (Genesis 16:7), Elim (Numbers 33:9, RV here ‘springs’), Nephtoah (Joshua 15:9). and Jezreel (1 Samuel 29:1). The porous chalky limestone of Palestine abounds in good springs of water, which, owing to their importance in a country rainless half the year, were eagerly coveted (Judges 1:15). In many springs the flow of water has been directed and increased by enlarging to tunnels the fissures through which the water trickled; many of these tunnels are of considerable length. Specimens exist at ‘Urtas. Blttir, and other places near Jerusalem. R. A. S. Macalibter.

Fowl

The word ‘fowl’ is used in AV for any kind of bird. The two words ‘bird’ and ‘fowl’ are employed simply for the sake of variety or perhaps to distinguish two different Heb. or Gr. words occurring near one another. Thus Genesis 15:10 ‘the birds (Heb. tsippBr) divided he not,’ 15:11 ‘when the fowls (Heb.’ ayil) came down upon the carcases’; Jeremiah 12:9 ‘the birds round about’ (same Heb. as ‘fowls’ in Genesis 15:11). Psalms 8:8 ‘the fowl of the air’ (same Heb. as ‘birds’ in Genesis 16:10). See Bird.

Fowler

See Snares.

Fox

(1) sha m, see Jackal,. (2) aldpix (Gr.), Matthew 8:20. Luke 9:58 13:32. In the NT there is no doubt that the common fox and not the jackal is intended. It is noted in Rabbinical literature and in Palestinian folklore for its cunning and treachery. It burrows in the ground (Luke 9:58). The small Egyptian fox { Vulpes nilotica) is common in S. Palestine, while the Tawny fox ( V. ftavescens), a larger animal of lighter colour, occurs farther north. E. W. G. Masterman.

Frankincense

Frankincense (lebonah; Gr. libanos Matthew 2:11. Rev 18"). — Frankincense is in six passages (Isaiah 43:23 60 66:3, Jeremiah 6:20 17 41:5) mistranslated in AV ‘incense,’ but correctly in RV. It is a sweet-smelling gum, obtained as a milky exudation from various species of Boswellia, the frankincense tree, an ally of the terebinth. The gum was imported from S. Arabia (Isaiah 60:6. Jeremiah 6:20) it was a constituent of incense (Exodus 30:34) ; it is often associated with myrrh (Song of Songs 3:6 4:6. Matthew 2:11) it was offered with the shewbread (Leviticus 24:7). E. W. G. Masterman.