Fray – Fbovinoe

Fray

This obsolete Eng. verb is found in Zee 1" and 1 Maccabees 14:12 (‘every man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to fray them’); and ‘fray away’ occurs in Deuteronomy 28. Jeremiah 7:33. Sirach 22:20 (‘whoso casteth a stone at the birds frayeth them away’). It is a shortened form of ‘af ray,’ of which the ptcp. ‘afraid’ is still in use.

Free

In the use of this adj. in the Eng. Bible notice 1 Peter 2:16 " as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God, that is, free from the Law, yet servants (slaves) to the higher law of love to God. Psalms 88:5 ‘free among the dead,’ a difficult passage: the probable meaning of the Heb. is ‘separated from companionship’ or perhaps from Divine protection. Acts 22:28 ‘I was free born,’ that is, as a Roman citizen. 2 Thessalonians 3:1 ‘Pray for us that the word of the Lord may have free course’ (Gr. literally ‘May run,’ as AVm and RV): ‘free’ means ‘unhindered’ as in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, v. ii. 738, ‘For mine own part, I breathe free breath.’ Psalms 51:12 ‘uphold me with thy free spirit’ (RVm and Amer. RV ‘willing’) : the word means generous, noble, and the reference is to the man’s own spirit (RV ‘with a free spirit ‘).

Freely

The use to observe is when ‘freely’ means ‘gratuitously.’ as Numbers 11:5 ‘We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely’ (Vulg. gratis) ; Matthew 10:8 ‘freely ye received, freely give’ (Gr. dsrean, Rhem. ‘gratis’).

Freewill

See Predestination.

Fringes

In Numbers 15 the Hebrews are commanded to ‘make them fringes (Heb. tHtsUh) in the borders [but EVm’ tassels in the corners’] of their garments throughout their generations.’ The same ordinance, somewhat differently expressed, is found in the earlier legislation of Dt.: ‘Thou shall make thee fringes (lit., as RVm,’ twisted threads’) upon the four quarters (RV borders) of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself (Deuteronomy 22:12). The ‘vesture’ here referred to is the plaid-like upper garment of the Hebrews, as is evident from Exodus 22:27. where ‘vesture’ (RV ‘covering’) is defined as the simlah, the upper ‘garment’ (RV) in question, as described under Dhess, § 4 (o) .

The ‘fringes’ to be made for this garment, however, are not a continuous fringe round the four sides, like the fringes which are a characteristic feature of Assyrian dress, but, as RVm, tassels of twisted or plaited threads, and are to be fastened to the four comers of the simlah. It was further required ‘that they put upon the fringe of each border a cord of blue’ (Numbers 15:38 RV), the precise meaning of which is uncertain. It is usually taken to mean that each tassel was to be attached by means of this cord of blue, or rather of blue-purple, to a corner of the simlah.

That this ordinance was faithfully observed by the Jews of NT times is seen from the references to the tMsith or tassel of our Lord’s upper’garment, disguised in EV under the ‘hem’ (AV) of Matthew 9:20 14. and ■ border’ of Mk Luke 8:44. RV has ‘border’ throughout. These tassels are still worn by the Jews, attached to the tallith or prayer-shawl, and to the smaller tallith, in the shape of a chest-protector, now worn as an undergarment, but without the addition of the blue thread. (For the somewhat complicated method by which the tassels are made, the mode of attachment, and the mystical significance assigned to the threads and knots, see Hastings’ DB ii. 69»; for illustration see i. 627’.) In the passage in Nu. it is expressly said that the object of this ordinance was to furnish the Hebrews with a visible reminder of the obligation resting upon them, as J’"s chosen people, to walk in His law and to keep all His commandments. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the practice of wearing such tassels was unknown before the date of the Deuteronomic legislation. On the contrary, the representations of Asiatics on the walls of tombs and other Egyptian monuments show that tasselled garments are of early date in Western Asia (see plate ii 6 of Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyp. vol. i., where note that the tassels are of blue threads). Hence it is altogether probable that the object of the Hebrew legislation is ‘to make a deeply rooted custom serve a fitting religious purpose’ (G. B. Gray, ‘Numbers’ [ICC], 183 f.). A. R. S. Kennedy.

Frock

In the Greek text of Sirach 40:4 the poor man’s dress is said to be of unbleached linen, paraphrased in AV as ‘a linen’ and in RV as ‘a hempen frock.’ The Hebrew original has, ‘he that wraps himself in a mantle of hair’ (Smend), for which see Dress, § 4 (c). A. R. S. Kennedy.

Frontlets

See Ornaments, 2; Phylacteries.

Froward

‘Froward’ is a dialectic form of ‘fromward’; it is the opposite of ‘toward,’ as we say ‘to and fro’ for ‘to and from.’ Thus its meaning is perverse. The word is used chiefly in Proverbs. In NT it occurs only once, 1 Peter 2:18. where the Gr. means literally tortuous like the course of a river, and then is applied to conduct that is not straightforward . Frowardly is found in Isaiah 57:17 ‘and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.’ The Heb. is lit. ‘he walked turning away,’ as AVm. Frowardness occurs only in Pr. (2:14 6 10:32). Barlowe says ‘Moyses the most faythfull seruaunte of God was partely by their frowardnes debarred fro the plesaunte lande of behest.’

Fruit

See Food, § 4.

Frying-pan

See House, § 9.

Fuel

The principal ‘fuel [lit.’ food’] of fire’ (Is 9’- ") in use among the Hebrews was undoubtedly wood, either in its natural state or, among the wealthier classes, as charcoal (see Coal). The trees which furnished the main supply (cf . Isaiah 44:14 ff.) ) probably differed little from those so employed in Syria at the present day, for which see PEFSt., 1891, 118 S. Among other sources of supply were shrubs and undergrowth of all kinds, including the broom (Psalms 120:4 RVm) and the buck-thorn (58:9) ; also chaff and other refuse of the threshing-floor (Matthew 3:12) and withered herbage, the ‘grass’ of Matthew 6:30. The use of dried animal dung as fuel, which is universal in the modern East, was apparently not unknown to the Hebrews (cf. Ezekiel 4). See further, House. § 7.

Fuller, Fuller's Field

See Arts and Crafts, § 6. and Jerusalem, r. 4.

Fulness

See Pleroma.

Furlong

See Weights and Measures.

Furnace

EV tr. of kibshan (Genesis 19:28. Exodus 9:8 etc.), •^n (Psalms 12:6). kUr (Deuteronomy 4:20. i k 8 etc.), ‘aUUn (Daniel 3:6, 11 etc.), which stand for either a brick-kiln or a smelting furnace; and of tannwr, which is better rendered’ oven’ (see Bread).

Furniture

In the AV ‘furniture’ is used in the general sense of furnishings, just as Bunyan speaks of ‘soldiers and their furniture’ {Holy War, p. 112). 1. For the details of house furniture, see House, § 8. In this sense we read also of ‘the furniture of the tabernacle’ (Exodus 31:7, Numbers 3:8 RV, for AV ‘instruments,’ and elsewhere). For the less appropriate ‘furniture’ of the table of shewbread and of ‘the candlestick’ (Ex 31:8). RV has ‘vessels.’

2. The ‘camel’s furniture’ of Genesis 31 was a ‘camelpalankeen’ (jOxJ. Heb. Lex. p. 1124), ‘a crated frame, with cushions and carpets inside, and protected by an awning above, fastened to the camel’s saddle’ (Driver, Genesis, in loc), still used by women travellers in the East. A. R. S. Kennedy.

0

6AAL, son of Ebed (Judges 9:26 ff.), organized the rising against Abimelech by the discontented in Shechem. Zebul, Abimelech’s officer there, warned his master, who came with a strong force, and defeated the rebels under Gaal outside the city. Gaal and his brethren were driven out of Shechem, and terrible vengeance was taken upon the disaffected city. See Abimeleoh, 2. W. EwiNO.

Fas-dammim

See Ephes-dammim.

Feu

Feu ffiA. — The district called by Josephus ‘the Persea’ is referred to in NT as ‘beyond Jordan’ (Matthew 4:15 etc.). When Josephus says that it stretches from Machserus to Pella, and from Philadelphia (‘Amman) to the Jordan, he probably gives political boundaries, excluding Decapolis (BJ iii. iii. 3), since (iv. vii. 3, 6) Gadara is called the capital of the Peraea. The name seems to have covered the ancient’ Land of Gilead,’ what is now known as Jebel ‘Ajlun and el-Belkn,. It is perhaps the most picturesque and beautiful part of Palestine. Rough mountain heights rise from the midst of wooded slopes, while rich fields stretch between; anon romantic vales break down into mighty gorges, where the sound of running water makes music all the year. The olive and vine flourish, and good harvests reward the husbandman’s toil.

The removal of the Jews from the Persa by Judas (1 Maccabees 5:45) left it in Gentile hands. Later, the Jews resumed possession and control. Alexander Jannaeus held sway from the Dead Sea to the roots of Hermon. Persea was given as a tetrarchy to Pheroras, the brother of Herod {Ant. xv. x. 3, etc.), and later to Herod Antipas (xvii. viii. 1). From Peraea, Simon made his illstarred raid upon Jericho (xvii. x. 6). It was part of the jurisdiction of Felix (BJ ii. xii. 8). Manasseh was made governor after the disaster to Cestius (ii. XX. 4). Placidus effected its final subjugation to the Romans (rv. vii. 3, 6). It was attached by the Moslems to the province of Damascus. Subsequently it was under Kerak.

The Mishna recognizes the Persea — the land beyond Jordan — as a province of the land of Israel, ranking with Judaea and Galilee on the west. On the border of the Peraea probably Jesus was baptized. It was the scene of happy and profitable intercourse with His disciples (Matthew 19:1 etc.). It furnished the retreat from Jewish enmity, whence Hebrews 1 by the distress at Bethany (John 10:40 etc.). The most horrible story connected with the siege of Jerusalem is that of Mary, a native of the Peraea (BJ vi. iii. 4). In the Peraea to-day the Jew is represented only by the travelling tinsmith and the pedlar. Colonies of Circassians are turning the soil to good account, e.g. at Jerash. At es-Salt the natives pursue a profitable trade in raisins, while in the barrlyeh, the uncultivated parts, the nomads find good pasture for their flocks.

W. Ewinq.

Ferazim

Ferazim (Isaiah 28:21) prob.=Baal-perazim.

Feteb

SmOir, surnamed Peter, was ‘the coryphceus of the Apostle choir’ (Chrysostom). His father was named Jonah or John (Matthew 16:17, John 1:42 21:15–17 RV). He belonged to Bethsaida (John 1:44), probably the fisher-quarter of Capernaum (Bethsaida = ‘Fisherhome’). There he dwelt with his wife, his mother-in-law, and his brother Andrew (Mark 1:29–31 8:14, 15 = L]£ 4). He and Andrew were fishermen on the Lake of Galilee (Matthew 4:18 1:16) in partnership with Zebedee and his sons (Luke 5:7, 11, Matthew 4:21).

Simon first met with Jesus at Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1:28 RV), the scene of the Baptist’s ministry (vv. 35–42) He had repaired thither with other Galilseans to participate in the mighty revival which was in progress. Jesus was there; and Andrew, who was one of the Baptist’s disciples, having been directed by his master to Him as the him to Jesus. Jesus ‘looked upon him’ (RV) with ‘those eyes of far perception’; and the look mastered him and won his heart. He was a disciple from that hour. Jesus read his character, seeing what he was and foreseeing what the discipline of grace would make him; and Hebrews 8 him a surname prophetic of the moral and spiritual strength which would one day be his. ‘Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas.’ Cephas is the Aram. =Gr. Petros, and means ‘rock.’ He was not yet Peter, but only Simon, impulsive and vacillating; and Jesus gave him the new name ere he had earned it, that it might be an incentive to him, reminding him of his destiny and inciting him to achieve it. In after days, whenever he displayed any weakness, Jesus would pointedly address him by the old name, thus gently warning him that he should not fall from grace (cf. Luke 22:31, Mark 14:37, jn 21).

Presently the Lord began His ministry at Capernaum, and among His first acts was the calling of four of the men who had believed in Him to abandon their worldly employments and attach themselves to Him, following Him whithersoever He went (Matthew 4:18–22 I’s-^", Luke 5:1–11). Thus he began the formation of the Apostle-band. The four were James and John, Simon and Andrew. They were busy with their boats and nets, and He called them to become ‘fishers of men.’ It was the beginning of the second year of Jesus’ ministry ere He had chosen all the Twelve; and then He ordained them to their mission, arranging them in pairs for mutual assistance (Mark 6:7), and coupling Simon Peter and Andrew (Matthew 10:2).

The distinction of Peter lies less in the qualities of his mind than in those of his heart. He was impulsive, ‘ever ardent, ever leaping before his fellows’ (Chrysostom), and often speaking unadvisedly and incurring rebuke. This, however, was only the weakness of his strength, and it was the concomitant of a warm and generous affection. If John, says St. Augustine, was the disciple whom Jesus loved, Peter was the disciple who loved Jesus. This quality appeared on several remarkable occasions. (1) In the synagogue of Capernaum, after the feeding of the five thousand at Bethsaida, Jesus delivered His discourse on the Bread of Life, full of hard sayings designed to test the faith of His disciples by shattering their Jewish dream of a worldly Messiah, a temporal King of Israel, a restorer of the ancient monarchy (John 6). Many were offended, and ‘went back and walked no more with him.’ Even the Twelve were discomfited. ‘Would ye also go away7’ He asked; and it was Simon Peter, " the mouth of the Apostles’ (Chrysostom), who answered, assuring Him of their loyalty (vv. 66–69) (2) During the season of retirement at Caesarea Philippi in the last year of His ministry, Jesus, anxious to ascertain whether their faith in His Messiahship had stood the strain of disillusionment, whether they still regarded Him as the Messiah, though Hebrews 8 not the sort of Messiah they had expected, put to the Twelve the question: ‘Who do ye say that I am?’ Again it was Peter who answered promptly and firmly: ‘Thou art the Christ,’ filling the Lord’s heart with exultant rapture, and proving that he had indeed earned his new name Peter, the rock on which Jesus would build His Church, the first stone of that living temple. Presently Jesus told them of His approaching Passion, and again it was Peter who gave expression to the horror of the Twelve: ‘Be it far from thee. Lord; this shall never be unto thee.’ Even here it was love that spoke. The Sinaitic Palimpsest reads: ‘Then Simon Cephas, as though he pitied Him, said to Him, " Be it far from Thee’" (Matthew 16 =Lk 9:18–22). (3) A week later Jesus went up to the Mount with Peter, James, and John, and ‘was transfigured before them,’ communing with Moses and Elijah, who ‘appeared in glory’ (Matthew 17:1–8 9:2–8 9:28–36). Though awe-stricken, Peter spoke; ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah’ (Matthew 17:4 RV). It was a foolish and inconsiderate speech (Mark 9. Luke 9:33). yet it breathed a spirit of tender affection. His idea was: ‘Why return to the ungrateful multitude and the malignant rulers? Why go to Jerusalem and die? Stay here always in this holy fellowship.’ (4) When Jesus washed the disciples’ feet in the Upper Room, it was Peter who protested (John 13:6–9). . He could not bear that the blessed Lord should perform that menial office on him. (5) At the arrest in Gethsemane, it was Peter who, seeing Jesus in the grasp of the soldiers, drew his sword and cut oft the ear of Malchus (John 18:10, 11).

The blot on Peter’s life-story is his repeated denial of Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace (John 18:12–17; ct. Matthew 26:69–75 14 22). It was a terrible disloyalty, yet not without extenuations. (1) The situation was a trying one. It was dangerous just then to be associated with Jesus, and Peter’s excitable and impetuous nature was prone to panic. (2) It was his devotion to Jesus that exposed him to the temptation. He and John were the only two who rallied from the panic in Gethsemane (Matthew 26) and followed their captive Lord (John 18:15; cf. Matthew 26:58 14 =Lk 22). (3) If he sinned greatly, he sincerely repented (Matthew 26:75 =Mk 14 =.Lk 22). a look of that dear face sufficed to break his heart (Luke 22). (4) He was completely forgiven. On the day of the Resurrection Jesus appeared to him (Luke 24:34. 1 Corinthians 15). What happened during this interview is unrecorded, doubtless because it was too sacred to be divulged; but it would certainly be a scene of confession and forgiveness. The Lord had all the while had His faithless disciple in His thoughts, knowing his distress of mind (cf. Mark 16:7) and He had that solitary interview with him on purpose to reassure him.

At the subsequent appearance by the Lake of Galilee (John 21) Peter played a prominent part. On discovering that the stranger on the beach was Jesus, impatient to reach his Master, he sprang overboard and swam ashore (cf. his action in Matthew 14:28–31). And presently Jesus charged him to make good his protestation of love by diligent care of the flock for which He, the Good Shepherd , had died. ‘Be it the office of love to feed the Lord’s flock, if it was an evidence of fear to deny the Shepherd’ (Augustine). Jesus was not upbraiding Peter. On the contrary, Hebrews 9 to the company His forgiveness of the erring Apostle and His confidence in him for the future.

Peter figures conspicuously in the history of the Apostolic Church. He was recognized as the leader. It was on his motion that a successor was appointed to Judas between the Ascension and Pentecost (Ac l"-2«), his impetuosity appearing in this precipitate action (see Matthias); and it was he who acted as spokesman on the day of Pentecost (2:14 ff.). He wrought miracles in the name of Jesus (3. 5 Qs^-"); he fearlessly confessed Jesus, setting the rulers at naught (4:1–13) as head of the Church, he exposed and punished sin (5:1–11 8) tie suffered imprisonment and scourging (5 12:1–19).

The persecution consequent on the martyrdom of Stephen, by scattering the believers, inaugurated a fresh development of Christianity, involving a bitter controversy. The refugees preached wherever they went, and thus arose the question, on what terms the Gentiles should be received into the Church. Must they become Jews and observe the rites of the Mosaic Law? In this controversy Peter acted wisely and generously. Being deputed with John to examine into it, he approved Philip’s work among the hated Samaritans, and invoked the Holy Spirit upon his converts, and before returning to Jerusalem made a missionary tour among the villages of Samaria (Acts 8:1–25). His Jewish prejudice was thoroughly conquered by his vision at Joppa and the conversion of Cornelius and his company at Caesarea; and, when taken to task by the Judaistic party at Jerusalem for associating with uncircumcised Gentiles, he vindicated his action and gained the approval of the Church (10-11").

The controversy became acute when the Judaizers, taking alarm at the missionary activity of Paul and Barnabas, went to Antioch and insisted on the converts there being circumcised. The question was referred to a council of the Church at Jerusalem; and Peter spoke so well on behalf of Christian liberty that it was resolved, on the motion of James, the Lord’s brother, that the work of Paul and Barnabas should be approved, and that nothing should be required of the Gentiles beyond abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication (Acts 15:1–29; cf. Galatians 2:1–10). By and by Peter visited Antioch, and, though adhering to the decision at the outset, he was presently intimidated by certain Judaizers, and, together with Barnabas, separated himself from the Gentiles as unclean, and would not eat with them, incurring an indignant and apparently effective rebuke from Paul (Galatians 2:11–21).

There are copious traditions about Peter. Suffice it to mention that he is said to have gone to Rome [which is quite possible] and laboured there for 25 years [utterly impossible], and to have been crucified (cf. John 21:18, 19) In the last year of Nero’s reign (a.d. 68); being at his own request nailed to the cross head downwards, since he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. According to the ancient and credible testimony of Papias of Hierapolis, a hearer of St. John at Ephesus, our Second Gospel is based upon information derived from Peter. Mark had been Peter’s companion, and heard his teaching and took notes of it. From these he composed his Gospel. He wrote it, Jerome says, at the request of the brethren at Rome when he was there with Peter; and on hearing it Peter approved it and authorized its use by the Church. ,David Smith.

Fharfab

A river of Damascus mentioned with the Abanah (2 Kings 5:12) by Naaman as contrasting favourably with the Jordan. Its identification is by no means so certain as that of Abanah with the Barada. The most probable is that suggested by Thomson, namely, the ‘Awaj, a river rising east of Hermon. A wady near, but not tributary to, one of its sources is called the Wady Barbar, which may possibly be a reminiscence of the ancient name. The principal obstacle to this identification is the distance of the river from the city; but Naaman was perhaps thinking as much of the fertile plain of Damascus as of the city itself. Other identifications have been with either the river fiowing from ‘Ain Fijeh, or else one or other of the canals fed by the Barada. R. A. S. Macalistek.

Fbovinoe

This word, of unknown derivation, originally meant simply ‘a sphere of (magisterial) duty,’ and was applied, for example, to the duty of the prmtar urbanits, who was never permitted to leave Rome. With the extension of the Roman Empire, and the consequently much increased number of spheres of duty outside Rome and Italy, the word came gradually to have a territorial application also. It is in this derived sense that the word is taken here. It was part of the Roman policy throughout to be in no unnecessary hurry to acquire territory and the responsibility connected with it, and it was not till the year b.o. 227 — hundreds of years after the foundation of the Roman State — that the first province was taken over. In that year Sardinia and Corsica became one province. Western Sicily another, and each, after the details of government had been settled by special commissioners, was put under an additional prEStor elected for the purpose. Behind this step, as behind the annexation of most Roman provinces, there lay long years of warfare. Province after province was annexed, until in the time of Christ the Romans were in possession of the whole of Europe (except the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Russia), all Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the north-west of Africa. Most of this vast territory had been acquired during the Republic, but certain portions had not been annexed till the time of the first Emperor, Augustus. During the Republic the governors of these provinces were appointed by the Roman senate from among their own number, generally after a period of service as praetor or consul, as the case might be. They were unpaid, and had heavy expenses to bear. Few resisted the temptation to recoup themselves at the expense of the long-suffering provincials, and the vast sums acquired by an extortionate governor in his one year’s governorship may be estimated from the fact that Cicero, a just and honest man, acquired £18,000 during his tenure of the province Cilicia.

During the Empire the provinces were treated according to a notable settlement made between the Senate and the Emperor Augustus on January 1, B.C. 27. On that day it was arranged that those provinces which were peaceful and did not require the presence of an army should be under the control of the senate, who would appoint their governors; while the disturbed provinces that did require the presence of an army were to be under the Emperor himself, who was generalissimo of all the forces of the State. At the same time the Emperor retained financial interests even in senatorial provinces. The following thus became senatorial (or public) provinces: Asia (i.e. roughly the western third of Asia Minor), Africa (i.e. practically Tunis), Gallia Narbonensis, Hispania Bsetica, Achaia, Cyprus, Creta et Cyrenaioa, Macedonia, Sicilia, Bithynia, Illyricum, Sardinia et Corsica. The first two were senatorial provinces of the first rank, and were governed each by an ex-consul with the title of proconsul, and three legati under him. The others were senatorial provinces of the second rank, and were governed each by an expraetor, also with the title proconsul. All the rest of the Roman world outside Italy, namely, three-fourths of the whole, was made up of Imperial provinces, including the following: Egypt (where the Emperors, as successors of the Ptolemys, ruled as kings), Judaea, Syria-Cilicia- Phoenice, Galatia (established B.C. 25), Thracia, Pamphylia (established b.c. 25), Gallic tres (Aquitania, Lugudunensis, Belgica), Britannia (established a.d. 43). Every new province naturally came under the Emperor’s authority. He governed his more important provinces (e.g. Syria, Galatia) through a legatus pro prcetore in each — a man of consular or praetorian rank, who was paid a fixed salary in and after the time of Tiberius^ and his less important provinces through a procurator (e.g. Judaea) or prmfectus (e.g. Egypt). The period of senatorial governorships was one year, that of Imperial indefinite. Each province was governed according to a definite statute, which determined the administrative procedure and defined the privileges of individual cities in it. The inhabitants were disarmed and taxed. The oppressive and unjust rule of the Republic was exchanged for a much better during the Empire; and the provinces, at least during the first three centuries of our era, were prosperous and contented. A. Soutek.