Exodus, The Book Of (continued) – Ezekias

Exodus, The Book Of (continued)

All these attacks on the historical character of this book which originate only in the denial of the possibility of miracles, the Christian theologian can and must ignore. Such attacks do not stand on the ground of history but of dogma. Let us accordingly examine other objections. Thus, it is claimed that the number of men in Israel, which in Exodus 12:37 is said to have been 600,000, is too high, because not only the desert but Goshen also would not have been able to support two million people, and Israel had been too short a time in Egypt to grow into so populous a nation. Yet Israel, beginning with the time of the oppression, which, according to 2:23; 18 continued many years and hence began before the highest number in population had been reached, had claims for support from the Egyptian corn (grain) granaries; and the 430 years in 12:40 certainly cannot be reduced, as has been shown under (4) above. To this must be added that in Exodus 1:7,Exodus 1:9 f, 12,20 f the rapid numerical growth of Israel is represented as the result of a Divine blessing. Then, too, in the company of Jacob and his descendants, doubtless servants, male and female, came down to Egypt (compare the 318 servants of Abraham alone in Genesis 14:1–24). The figures in Exodus 12:37 P are further confirmed by Numbers 11:21 (according to critics from JE) and by the results of the two enumerations, Numbers 1:1–54 f (2:31; compare Exodus 38:26 (603, 550)) and Numbers 26:51 (601, 730). The attacks made also on the existence of the Tabernacle must be rejected as groundless. According to the Wellhauscn school the Tabernacle is only a copy of the temple of Solomon dated back into the Mosaic times; and the fact that there is only one central seat of the cults is regarded as a demand first made by the Deuteronomistic legislation in the 7th century. Against this latter claim militates not only the impossibility of placing De at this time (compare my work Are the Critics Right? 1-55), but also the legislation of the Book of the Covenant, which, in Exodus 23:17,Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:23,Exodus 34:14,Exodus 34:26 presupposes a sanctuary, and which even in the passages incorrectly analyzed by Wellhausen, Exodus 20:24 (compare again, Are the Critics Right ? 19, 48, 161 ff, 189 ff) speaks only of a single altar (compare also Exodus 21:14) and not of several existing at the same time. (The matter mentioned here is the building of an altar, according to a theophany, for temporary use.) Against the critical view we can quote the prophetic utterances of Amos, who condemns the cult in the Northern Kingdom (5:4 f), but teaches that God speaks out of Zion (1:2; compare probably also, 9:1); those of Isaiah (1:12; 2:2 ff; 4:5 f; 6; 8:18; 18:7; 30:29; 33:20; 14:32; 28:16); also the facts of history (compare especially the central sanctuary in Shiloh, 1 Samuel 1:1–4:22; Judges 21:19, which is placed on the same level with Zion in Jeremiah 7:12 ff; 26:6; Psalms 78:60–72). To this must be added such statements as 2 Samuel 7:6; Joshua 18:1; 1 Kings 3:4; 1 Kings 8:4; 1 Chronicles 16:39,1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 1:3. All these facts are not overthrown by certain exceptions to the rule (compare LEVITICUS). But the whole view leads to conclusions that in themselves cannot possibly be accepted. What a foolish fancy that would have been, which would have pictured the Tabernacle in the most insignificant details as to materials, amounts, numbers, colors, objects, which in Numbers 4:1–49 has determined with exact precision who was to carry the separate parts of the tent, while eg. for the service of the Tabernacle, so important for later times, only very general directions are given in Numbers 18:2,Numbers 18:4,Numbers 18:6; Numbers 8:22 ff. This complete picture would be entirely without a purpose and meaningless, since it would have no connection whatever with the tendency ascribed to it by the critics, but rather, in part, would contradict it. Compare my book, Are the Critics Right? 72 ff, 87 ff.

That particularly in the post-exilic period it would have been impossible to center the Day of Atonement on the covering of the ark of the covenant, since the restoration of this ark was not expected according to Jeremiah 3:16, has already been emphasized in DAY OF ATONEMENT. If God had really determined to give to His people a pledge of the constant presence of His grace, then there can be absolutely no reason for doubting the erection of the Tabernacle, since the necessary artistic ability and the possession of the materials needed for the structure are sufficiently given in the text (compare also Exodus 25:9,Exodus 25:40; Exodus 26:30; Exodus 27:8–31:2 ff; 35:30 ff through 12:35; 3:21,22; 11:2 f; Genesis 15:14; Exodus 33:4 ff). The examination of the separate passages in Ex, such as the relation of 20:24 (see above) to Deuteronomy, or the ordinances concerning the Passover and the firstborn (Exodus 12:1–51), and other laws in the different codices, goes beyond the purpose of this article (compare however under 3 above, at the close).

IV. Authorship.

1. Connection with Moses:

As the Book of Exodus is only a part of a large work (compare I, 3 above), the question as to authorship cannot be definitely decided at this place, but we must in substance restrict ourselves to those data which we find in the book itself. In several parts it is expressly claimed that Moses wrote them. He sang the hymn found in Exodus 15:1–27, after the passage of the Red Sea, and it breathes the enthusiasm of what the author has himself experienced. Exodus 15:13 ff do not speak against the unity of the hymn, but rather for it, since the perfects here found as prophetic perfects only give expression to the certainty that the Israelites will take possession of the land of promise. In the course of history the nations often acted quite differently from what is here stated and often antagonized Israel (compare Numbers 14:39–45; Numbers 20:18 ff; 21:4,21-35; 22:6; Joshua 6:1–12:24; also Exodus 13:17). In Exodus 15:13,Exodus 15:17 not only Zion is meant, but all Canaan; compare Leviticus 25:23; Numbers 35:34; Jeremiah 2:7; for har, "mountain," compare Deuteronomy 1:7,Deuteronomy 1:20 ("hill- country"); 3:25; Psalms 78:54,Psalms 78:55. According to Exodus 17:14 Moses writes in a book the promise of Yahweh to destroy Amalek from the face of the earth. It is absolutely impossible that only this statement should have been written without any connecting thought and without at least a full description of the situation as given in Exodus 17:8 ff. And as 17:14 linguistically at least can mean merely `to write a sheet,' as Numbers 5:23, it yet appears in the light of the connection of a comparison with related passages, such as Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25, much more natural to think of a book in this connection, in which already similar events had been recorded or could at any time be recorded.

The Ten Words (Exodus 20:1 ff) were written down by God Himself and then handed over to Moses; compare Exodus 24:12; Exodus 31:18; Exodus 34:1 ff,28 (Deuteronomy 10:2,Deuteronomy 10:4). The laws and judicial ordinances beginning with Exodus 21:1–36, according to 24:4, were also written down by Moses himself, and the same is true of the ordinances in 34:11 ff, according to 34:27. The proof that formerly had to be furnished, to the effect that the knowledge of the art of writing in the days of Moses was not an anachronism, need not trouble us now, since both in Egypt and Babylon much older written documents have been discovered. But already from the passages quoted we could conclude nothing else than that Moses understood how to make use of different forms of literature--the poetical, the historical and the legal--unless the different statements to this effect by decisive reasons could be shown to be incorrect. In Numbers 33:1–56, in the catalogue of stations, there is a portion ascribed to Moses that bears the express characteristics of the Priestly Code; and, finally Deuteronomy, with its hortatory, pastoral style, claims him as its author. Already in Exodus 17:14 there were reasons to believe that Moses had written not only this statement which is there expressly attributed to him. Thus it becomes a possibility, that in general only in the case of particularly important passages the fact that Moses penned these also was to be made prominent, if it can be shown as probable that he in reality wrote more, as we find in parallel cases in the writings of the prophets (compare Isaiah 8:1; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Ezekiel 43:11; Habakkuk 2:2). In addition, we notice in this connection that in the catalogue of stations mentioned above and ascribed to Moses (Numbers 33:1–56), the close relation of which to the portions attributed to P is certain, not only this part, but also the other words from JE in the present Bible text from Exodus 12:1–19:25 (see above) are regarded as self-evident as Mosaic (as is the case also later with the corresponding historical part), and this is an important witness in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the historical parts. But Exodus 25:31; Exodus 25:35–40 also claim, at least so far as contents are concerned, to be the product of the Mosaic period. The entire portable sanctuary is built with a view to he wanderings in the desert. Aaron and his sons are as yet the only representatives of the priesthood (27:21; 28:4,12,41-43; 29:4 ff, etc.). In view of the relationship which Numbers 33:1–56 shows with the Priestly Code (P), it is clear, if we accept the genuineness of this part, a matter that is in the highest degree probable, that this style was current in Moses' time, and that he had the mastery of it, even if other hands, too, have contributed to the final literary forms of these laws. In favor of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Book of Exodus we find a weighty reason in the unity and the literary construction of the work as shown above. This indeed does not preclude the use and adaptation of other sources of historical or legal statements, either from the author's own hands or from others, if such a view should perhaps be suggested or made imperative by the presence of many hard constructions, unconnected transitions, unexpected repetitions, etc. But even on the presupposition of the Mosaic authorship, a difference in style in the different kinds of matters discussed is not impossible, just as little as this is the case with peculiarities of language, since these could arise particularly in the course of vivid narration of the story (compare the anacolouths in Paul's writings). But still more a reason for accepting the Mosaic authorship of Exodus is found in the grand and deep conception and reproduction of all the events recorded, which presupposes a congenial prophetic personality; and finally, too, the natural and strong probability that Moses did not leave his people without such a Magna Charta for the future. This Mosaic authorship becomes almost a certainty, in case the Book of Deuteronomy is genuine, even if only in its essential parts. For Deuteronomy at every step presupposes not only P (compare Are the Critics Right? 171 ff), but also the history and the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 21:1–36; Exodus 34:11 ff) as recorded in Exodus.

2. Examination of Objections:

Against the Mosaic authorship of Exodus the use of the third person should no longer be urged, since Caesar and Xenophon also wrote their works in the third person, and the use of this provision is eminently adapted to the purpose and significance of Exodus for all future times. In Isaiah 20:1 ff Ezekiel 24:24, we have analogies of this in prophetic literature. The statement (Exodus 11:3) that Moses was so highly regarded by the Egyptians is entirely unobjectionable in the connection in which it is found. That the book was not written for the self-glorification of Moses appears clearly in 4:10-16; 6:12. In itself it is possible that some individual passages point to a later date, without thereby overthrowing the Mosaic authorship of the whole (compare also under (1)). In this case we are probably dealing with supplementary material. Exodus 16:35 declares that Israel received manna down to the time when the people came to the borders of Canaan. Whether it was given to them after this time, too, cannot be decided on the basis of this passage (compare however Joshua 5:12). If the entire Book of Exodus was composed by Moses, then Exodus 16:35 would be a proof that at least the final editing of the book had been undertaken only a short time before his death. This is suggested also by 16:34b, since at the time when the manna was first given the ark of the covenant did not yet exist; and the statement in 32:35 takes into consideration the later development as found in Numbers 13:1–33 f. In the same way Exodus 16:36 could be a later explanation, but is not necessarily so, if the `omer was not a fixed measure, of which nothing further is known, and which probably was not to be found in every Israelite household, but a customary measure, the average content of which is given in 16:36. If we take Exodus alone there is nothing that compels us to go later than the Mosaic period (concerning the father-in-law of Moses, see under II, 2, 1 (1:8-7:7) at the close). The question as to whether there are contradictions or differences between the different legal ordinances in Exodus and in later books cannot be investigated at this place, nor the question whether the connection of Exodus with other books in any way modifies the conclusion reached under (1).

LITERATURE.

Books that in some way cover the ground discussed in the article: Against the separation into different sources: Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, III ("Das Buch Exodus"); Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Moller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. In favor of the construction of Exodus 21:1–36 ff: Merx, Die Bucher Moses und Josua ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher," II, Series, number 3). For Exodus 21:1–36 ff in its relation to the Code of Hammurabi: A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; J. Jeremias, Moses und Hammurabi (with fuller literature); Histories of Israel by Kittel, Konig, Oettli, Kohler, Klostermann, Hengstenberg; Commentaries of Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack; Introductions to the Old Testament by Strack, Baudissin, Driver, Sellin. Against the Wellhausen hypothesis: Moller, Are the Critics Right? (with fuller literature); Orr (see above). Against the evolutionary theory: Orr (see above); Moller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (with fuller literature). Representatives of other schools: The Introductions of Kuenen and Cornill; the Commentaries of Holzinger and Baentsch; the Histories of Israel by Wellhausen and Stade.

Wilhelm Moller

Exorcism; Exorcist

ek'-sor-siz'-m, ek'-sor-sist (Exorkistes, from exorkizo, "to adjure" (Matthew 26:63)):

1. Definition:

One who expels demons by the use of magical formulas. In the strict etymological sense there is no exorcism in the Bible. The term "exorcists" is used once (Acts 19:13) in a way to discredit the professional exorcists familiarly known both among Jews and Gentiles.

2. Method of Expelling Demons in the New Testament:

The method of Jesus in dealing with demoniacs was not that of the exorcists. While it is said (Matthew 8:16) that He "cast out the spirits with a word," it is abundantly clear that the word in question was not ritualistic but authoritative. In Luke 4:35 we have a typical sentence uttered by our Lord in the performance of His cures: "Hold thy peace, and come out of him." In Mark 9:29 we have Christ's own emphasis upon the ethical element in dealing with these mysterious maladies: "This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer." In Matthew 12:28 Jesus gives His own explanation of the method and power used in His cures: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you."

In Luke 9:1 the terms "authority" and "power" are used in such a way as to show the belief of the evangelists that to cure demon-possession an actual power from God, together with the right to use it, was necessary. This group of passages gives the New Testament philosophy of this dread mystery and its cure. The demons are personal evil powers afflicting human life in their opposition to God. It is beyond man unaided to obtain deliverance from them. It is the function of Christ as the redeemer of mankind to deliver men from this as well as other ills due to sin. Miraculous cures of the same kind as those performed by Christ Himself were accomplished by His disciples in His name (Mark 16:17). The power attributed to "His name" supplies us with the opportunity for a most enlightening comparison and contrast.

3. Exorcism in Ethnic and Jewish Writings:

Exorcism among ancient and primitive peoples rests largely upon faith in the power of magical formulas, ordinarily compounded of the names of deities and pronounced in connection with exorcistic rites, upon the bodies of the afflicted. The words themselves are supposed to have power over the demons, and the mere recital of the correct list of names is supposed to be efficacious.

Attention should be called again to the incantation texts of the Babylonians and Assyrians (see, for translations and full exposition of texts, Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 146 ff). In this direction the absurdities and cruelties of superstition have carried men to extreme lengths. In the case of Josephus we are amazed to see how even in the case of an educated man the most abject superstition controls his views of such subjects. In Ant, VIII, v, in speaking of the wisdom of Solomon, he says that "God enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and sanitative to him." He also describes, in the same connection, a cure which he alleges to have seen, "in the presence of Vespasian and his sons," performed in accordance with methods of incantation ascribed to Solomon. A ring to which was attached a kind of root mentioned by Solomon was placed at the nostrils of the demoniac and the demon was drawn out through the nostrils. The proof that exorcism had actually taken place was given in the overturning of a basin placed nearby.

The absurdities of this narrative are more than equaled by the story of exorcism told in the Book of Tobit (see Lunge, Apocrypha, 151-53) where the liver and heart of a fish, miraculously caught, are burned upon the ashes of incense, and the resulting smoke drives away a demon. This whole story is well worthy of careful reading for the light it throws upon the unrestrained working of the imagination upon such matters.

In the rabbinical writers the very limit of diseased morbidness is reached in the long and repulsive details, which they give of methods used in exorcism (see Whitehouse, HDB, article "Demon," I, 592b; compare 593b; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 775-76).

4. Contrasts of New Testament and Popular Methods with Demons:

In most striking contrast with this stand the Biblical narratives. The very point of connection which we have noted is also the point of contrast. The mighty and efficacious word with which Jesus rebuked and controlled demons was no exorcistic formula spoken by rote, but His own living word of holy power. "In the name of Jesus" did not mean that the sacred name formally uttered possessed magical power to effectuate a cure. The ancient Semitic formula, "in the name of," given a deep ethical meaning in the Old Testament, had a still deeper meaning in the New Testament. The proper and helpful use of it meant a reliance upon the presence and living power of Christ from whom alone power to do any mighty work comes (John 15:5).

This fundamental difference between the ideas and methods of Jesus and His disciples and current conceptions and usages becomes the more striking when we remember that the lower range of ideas and practices actually prevailed among the people with whom the Lord and His followers were associated. The famous passage (Matthew 12:24 and parallel) in which the Pharisees attribute to demoniacal influence the cures wrought by Jesus upon the demonized, usually studied with reference to our Lord's word about the unforgivable sin, is also remarkable for the idea concerning demons which it expresses. The idea which evidently underlies the accusation against Jesus was that the natural way to obtain control over demons is by obtaining, through magic, power over the ruler of demons. In reply to this Jesus maintains that since the demons are evil they can be controlled only by opposition to them in the power of God.

It is most suggestive that we have in Acts 19:13 ff a clear exposition, in connection with exorcism, of just the point here insisted upon. According to this narrative a group of wandering professional Jewish exorcists, witnessing the cures accomplished by Paul, attempted to do the same by the ritualistic use of the name of Jesus. They failed ignominiously because, according to the narrative, they lacked faith in the living Christ by whose power such miracles of healing were wrought, although they were letter-perfect in the use of the formula. This narrative shows clearly what the New Testament understanding of the expression "in my name" implied in the way of faith and obedience.

Here as elsewhere, the chastened mental restraint under which the New Testament was composed, the high spiritual and ethical results of the intimacy of the disciples with Jesus, are clearly manifest.

Our Lord and His disciples dealt with the demoniacs as they dealt with all other sufferers from the malign, enslaving and wasting power of sin, with the tenderness of an illimitable sympathy, and the firmness and effectiveness of those to whom were granted in abundant measure the presence and power of God.

Louis Matthews Sweet

Expect; Expectation

eks-pekt', eks-pek-ta'-shun:

Of the three Greek words, translated in the New Testament by "expect," prosdokao, meaning to look forward toward what will probably occur, whether in hope or dread (Acts 3:5; Luke 3:15), is not as intense as ekdechomai (Hebrews 10:13), meaning to wait for that of the realization of which one is assured ("as the husbandman waits for the processes of Nature (James 5:7), and the patriarchs for the Divine promise," Westcott), or as vivid as the noun apokaradokia (Romans 8:19; Philippians 1:20, "earnest expectation"), which describes the stretching forth of the head toward an object that is anticipated (see Ellicott on Philippians 1:20). In the Old Testament "expectation" always means that which is expected, as Proverbs 10:28, "The expectation of the wicked shall perish."

H. E. Jacobs

Expectation, Messianic

mes-i-an'-ik.

See CHRISTS, FALSE; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; JESUS CHRIST; MESSIAH.

Expedient

eks-pe'-di-ent (sumphero):

The Greek word translated "expedient" (sumphero) means literally, "to bear or bring together"; with a personal reference, "to be well or profitable." In the New Testament it never means "profitable" or "convenient" as opposed to what is strictly right. It is translated "expedient" (John 11:50, "it is expedient for us," the Revised Version (British and American) "for you"; John 16:7, "It is expedient for you that I go away," i.e. "profitable," "for your good," 18:14; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23; 2 Corinthians 8:10; 2 Corinthians 12:1). In Matthew 19:10, instead of "not good to marry," the Revised Version (British and American) has "not expedient." The modern sense of "expediency" as "hastening" or "acceleration," is not found in the New Testament, any more than its bad sense of "mere convenience." "Nothing but the right can ever be expedient" (Whately).

W. L. Walker

Experience

eks-pe'-ri-ens:

This word is employed 3 times. In Genesis 30:27 the King James Version, Laban says, to Jacob, "I have learned by experience (the Revised Version (British and American) "divined") that Yahweh hath blessed me for thy sake." Here it translates the Hebrew nachash, "to observe diligently," as when one examines the entrails of a bird or animal for the purpose of divination. In Ecclesiastes 1:16, the writer says, "I have gotten me great wisdom ....; my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." Here the Hebrew (ra'ah) means "hath seen abundantly," and the idea seems to be that of a wide outlook combined with actual trial of the things discovered or known.

In Romans 5:4 the King James Version, the Greek word dokime (the American Standard Revised Version more correctly "approvedness"), means the proof or testing of a thing. We rejoice in tribulation because it works out or produces patience, while the latter develops an experience of God, i.e. it brings out as a proved fact His power and love toward us in our preservation in and deliverance from trial.

Thus it is seen the Bible use of the word is not different from the ordinary, which means "the sum of practical wisdom taught by the events and observations of life," or, to go a little farther, the personal and practical acquaintance with what is so taught. Hebrews 5:13 gives a good practical example. the King James Version says, "Every one that useth milk is unskillful (apeiros) in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe," while the Revised Version (British and American) renders "unskilful" by "without experience of." The thought is that he who fails to search out the deep things of the word of God is so lacking in the exercise of his spiritual senses as to be unable really to know truth from error.

James M. Gray

Experiment

eks-per'-i-ment (dokime, "approvedness," "tried character"):

"The experiment of this ministration" (2 Corinthians 9:13 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "the proving of you by his ministration"), i.e. the sincerity of their Christian profession was evidenced by their liberal contribution.

Expiation

eks-pi-a'-shun:

This word represents no Hebrew or Greek word not rendered also by "atonement." In Numbers 8:7 it is employed in the Revised Version (British and American) to translate chaTath and in Deuteronomy 32:43, kipper. This version also employs "expiate" in the margin of several passages, eg. Psalms 65:3; Psalms 79:9. Always its use in English Versions of the Bible is somewhat more narrow and specific than "atonement" and has especial reference to specific uncleanness or sin.

It will be sufficient to refer to ATONEMENT; SACRIFICE; PROPITIATION.

Exposure, To Wild Beasts

eks-po'-zhur.

See PUNISHMENTS.

Express

eks-pres':

In the King James Version of Hebrews 1:3 "express" has the meaning "exactly resembling the original," as the impress of a seal resembles the figure engraved upon the seal. Thus "express image" in the verse referred to is a good translation (Greek charakter, literally, "engraving" and hence, "impression"); the Revised Version (British and American) "the very image."

Exquisite

eks'-kwi-sit (akribes):

The Greek word means "accurate" "searched out," equivalent to exquisitus from which "exquisite" is derived. It also means in argument "close," "subtle." In Ecclesiasticus 18:29, we have, "They poured forth exquisite parables," the Revised Version (British and American) "apt proverbs," and 19:25, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)

"There is an exquisite subtleity, and the same is unjust."

Extinct

In Job 17:1, "My days are extinct" (za`akh (in Niphal)) and in Isaiah 43:17, "They are extinct" (da`akh), the word "extinct" should be recognized as a form of the participle, equivalent to "extinguished," so that in both passages an action, not merely a state, is indicated.

Extortion

eks-tor'-shun:

This particular word occurs twice in King James Version: Ezekiel 22:12 (`osheq), and Matthew 23:25 (harpage), and indicates that one who is an extortioner is guilty of snatching away from another by strife, greed and oppression that which does not lawfully belong to him. The element of covetousness and usury is involved in the meaning of this word; for it is greedily gotten gain. The publicans were considered as being specially guilty of this sin; this is clear from the Pharisee's deprecatory remark: "I am not .... an extortioner ..... as this publican" (Luke 18:11). Paul classes extortion (pleonexia, literally, "over-reaching") among a category of the grossest crimes known to humanity (1 Corinthians 5:10,1 Corinthians 5:11); indeed, so grievous is it that it closes the door of heaven in the face of the one guilty of it (1 Corinthians 6:10).

William Evans

Extreme; Extremity

eks-trem', eks-trem'-i-ti We have the adjective "extreme" in /APC 2Esdras 5:14, "extreme fear," the Revised Version (British and American) "trembling"; in /APC Wisdom 12:27, "extreme (terma) damnation," the Revised Version (British and American) "the last end of condemnation"; in /APC 2Macc 7:42, "extreme (huperballousas) tortures," the Revised Version (British and American) "exceeding barbarities"; in Ecclesiasticus 42:8 it is used as an adverb, "the extreme aged" (eschatogeros), the Revised Version (British and American) "of extreme old age." Extremity: pash; Septuagint paraptoma, occurs only in Job 35:15 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "arrogance," and akme in /APC 2Macc 1:7.

Eye

i (`ayin; ophthalmos):

(1) The physical organ of sight, "the lamp of the body" (Matthew 6:22), one of the chief channels of information for man. A cruel custom therefore sanctioned among heathen nations the putting out of the eyes of an enemy or a rival, because thus his power was most effectually shattered (Judges 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7; Jeremiah 39:7). Such blinding or putting out of the "right eye" was also considered a deep humiliation, as it robbed the victim of his beauty, and made him unfit to take his part in war (1 Samuel 11:2; Zechariah 11:17).

The eye, to be useful, was to be "single," i.e. not giving a double or uncertain vision (Matthew 6:22; Luke 11:34). Eyes may grow dim with sorrow and tears (Job 17:7), they may "waste away with griefs" (Psalms 6:7; Psalms 31:9; Psalms 88:9). They may "pour down" (Lamentations 3:49), "run down with water" (Lamentations 1:16; Lamentations 3:48). Eyes may "wink" in derision (Psalms 35:19; Proverbs 6:13; Proverbs 10:10; compare also Proverbs 16:30; Proverbs 30:17), and the harlot takes the lustling "with her eyelids" (Proverbs 6:25). To `lift up the eyes' (Genesis 13:10 et passim) means to look up or around for information and often for help; to `turn away the eye' or `hide the eyes' indicates carelessness and lack of sympathy (Proverbs 28:27); to `cast about the eyes,' so that they "are in the ends of the earth" (Proverbs 17:24) is synonymous with the silly curiosity of a fool, and with the lack of attention of him who is everywhere but at his work. In the execution of justice the "eye shall not pity," i.e. not be deflected from the dictates of the law by favorable or unfavorable impressions (Deuteronomy 19:13 et passim), nor spare (Ezekiel 5:11 et passim), and the lexicon talionis demanded "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Exodus 21:24; Deuteronomy 19:21).

(2) Figurative: The eye of the heart or mind, the organ of spiritual perception, which may be enlightened or opened (Psalms 119:18). This is done by the law of God (19:8) or by the spirit of God (Ephesians 1:18), or it may be "darkened" and "holden" (Luke 24:16; compare Matthew 13:13; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

(3) The eye as an index of the mind and disposition of man. The Bible speaks of the "good" margin, or "bountiful" eye, i.e. the kindly, disposition (Proverbs 22:9); of "proud", "haughty", "lofty eyes" (Psalms 18:27; Psalms 131:1; Proverbs 6:17); of the "lowly eyes" of the humble (Job 22:29 margin; compare also Luke 18:13); of "adulterous eyes", "eyes which play the harlot" (Ezekiel 6:9, in the sense of idolatrous inclinations; 2 Peter 2:14). Rage or anger is shown by the "sharpening" of the eyes (Job 16:9).

(4) The eyes of God, as well as the "seven eyes" of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6) and the `many eyes' of the four living creatures of the Apocalypse (Revelation 4:6; also Ezekiel 1:18; Ezekiel 10:12) are figurative expressions for the omniscience of God (compare Hebrews 4:13; Psalms 139:16) and of His watchfulness and loving care (Jeremiah 32:19). As the human eye may, with the slightest glance or motion, give an indication, a command, so God is able to "guide" or "counsel" His obedient child "with his eye" (Psalms 32:8).

(5) Three Hebrew expressions are translated by "apple of the eye":

(a) 'ishon, literally, "the little man," which probably means the "pupil of the eye," it being the part of the eye in which the close onlooker may see his image reflected en miniature. Several oriental languages have very similar expressions (Deuteronomy 32:10; Psalms 17:8; Proverbs 7:2).

(b) babhah, literally, "the gate of the eye" (Zechariah 2:8).

(c) bath-`ayin, literally, "the daughter of the eye" (Psalms 17:8; Lamentations 2:18).

All these three phrases seem to indicate the pupil rather than the "apple of the eye," and designate the most sensitive part of the eye, which we protect with the greatest care. Thus the Scriptures declare, for our great comfort, that God will protect and care for those that are His own.

To eye (`awan, "to watch closely," "to look maliciously at"): "Saul eyed David from that day and forward" (1 Samuel 18:9).

See ENVY; EVIL EYE.

H. L. E. Luering

Eyelid

i'-lid: Eyes and eyelids in Hebrew are sometimes used synonymously, as in the parallelism of Proverbs 4:25 (compare 6:4; 30:13):

"Let thine eyes look right on, And let thine eyelids look straight before thee."

(Compare Job 41:18; Psalms 11:4; Jeremiah 9:18.) The alluring power of the wanton woman is conceived of as centered in her eyes (Proverbs 6:25; Isaiah 3:16): "Neither let her take thee with her eyelids." Painting the eyelids was resorted to to intensify the beauty, antimony (which see) being used for darkening the lashes (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30; Ezekiel 23:40).

George B. Eager

Eyepaint

i'-pant.

See ANTIMONY; EYELID; KEREN-HAPPUCH.

Eyes, Blinding Of The

blind'-ing.

See EYE; PUNISHMENTS.

Eyes, Covering, Of The

kuv'-er-ing:

In Genesis 20:16, means forgetfulness of the past, a willingness to overlook the wrong to which Sarah had been exposed.

Eyes, Diseases Of The

di-zez'-is:

Blindness, defects of sight and diseases of the eye are frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, but usually in general terms. It is probable that in the period covered by the Bible, ophthalmia was as common in Palestine and Egypt as it is now. See BLINDNESS. The commonest of the diseases at present is the purulent conjunctivitis which is a highly infectious malady affecting people of all ages, but especially children, and whose germs are carried from eye to eye by the flies, which are allowed to walk freely over the diseased eyes. This is one of the most disgusting sights in a Palestine village, but I have been told by mothers that it is esteemed unlucky to drive off the flies. In this manner the disease is propagated. The number of persons in any Palestine village whose eyes are more or less blemished by disease is on this account phenomenally large.

Blindness incapacitated a man from serving in the priesthood (Leviticus 21:16,Leviticus 21:18); even a blemish of the eye was regarded as a disqualification (Leviticus 21:20).

The cases in the New Testament of persons blind from their birth (as John 9:1) were probably the results of this ophthalmia, but may have been due to congenital malformation. The interesting psychological record of the difficulty of interpreting the new visual sensations by the blind man healed by our Lord (Mark 8:22) indicates that it was probably not a case of congenital blindness, as the evangelist uses the word apokatestathe ("restored"), but he had been so long blind that he had lost the power of appreciating the sense-impressions. This condition has been often discussed as a psycho-physical problem since the days of Molyneux and Locke (Essay on the Human Understanding, II, 9, 8).

The blindness of Paul was probably a temporary paralysis of the retina from the shock of a dazzling light accentuated by the intense emotion which accompanied his vision on the road to Damascus. The "scales" mentioned in Acts 9:18 were not material, but his sight was restored as if (hosei) scales had fallen from his eyes. How far this left his eyes weak we do not know, but from his inability to recognize the high priest (Acts 23:5) and from his employing an amanuensis for transcribing his epistles (Romans 16:22), as well as from his writing in characters of large size (pelikos; Galatians 6:11), it is probable that his vision was defective, and this it has been conjectured was the "thorn in the flesh" of 2 Corinthians 12:7.

Senile blindness, the result either of cataract or retinal degeneration, is mentioned in the cases of Isaac (Genesis 27:1), Jacob (Genesis 48:10) and Eli (1 Samuel 4:15). The frequency of such senile dimness of sight made the case of Moses the more remarkable that at the age of 120 his eye was not dim (Deuteronomy 34:7).

Tobit's blindness, caused by the irritation of the sparrow's dung ( /APC Tobit 2:10), was a traumatic conjunctivitis which left an opacity. It is not said that the whiteness was itself sufficiently large to destroy vision. There was with it probably a considerable amount of conjunctival thickening, and it is possible that the remedy might have removed this. It certainly could not remove a cicatricial white spot of the nature of an albugo. The conjecture of a recent commentator that the gall, by coloring the spot, made the eye look as if sight was restored when it really was not, seems ludicrously inept. In any case the historical accuracy of the narrative is so problematical that explanation is unnecessary.

See BLINDNESS.

Alexander Macalister

Eyes, Tender

See BLINDNESS.

Eyesalve

i'-sav (kollourion; collyrium; Revelation 3:18):

A Phrygian powder mentioned by Galen, for which the medical school of Laodicea seems to have been famous (see Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia), but the figurative reference is to the restoring of spiritual vision.

Eyeservice

i'-sur-vis (ophthalmodouleia):

A term coined by Paul to express the conduct of slaves, who work only when they are watched, and whose motive, therefore, is not fidelity to duty, but either to avoid punishment or to gain reward from their masters (Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:22). "A vice which slavery everywhere creates and exhibits. Hence, the need for drivers and overseers" (Eadie).

Ezar

e'-zar.

See EZER.

Ezbai

ez'-ba-i, ez'-bi ('ezbay, "shining," "blooming"; Azobai):

One of David's "mighty men" (1 Chronicles 11:37; compare 2 Samuel 23:35 margin).

Ezbon

ez'-bon:

(1) ('etsbon; Peshitta, 'etsba`on; Septuagint Thasoban): A son of Gad (Genesis 46:16) = Ozni of Numbers 26:16 (see OZNI).

(2) ('etsbon; Septuagint Asebon): In 1 Chronicles 7:7 is said to be a grandson of Benjamin. Curtis (Ch., 148) holds that the genealogical table there is that of Zebulun and not Benjamin, and says that Ezbon suggests Ibzan (Judges 12:8–10), a minor judge of Bethlehem of Zebulun (Moore, Judges, 310).

Ezechias; Ezecias

ez-e-ki'-as, ez-e-si'-as.

See EZEKIAS (3).

Ezekias

ez-e-ki'-as (Ezekias):

(1) the King James Version Greek form of Hezekiah (thus, the Revised Version (British and American); Matthew 1:9,Matthew 1:10). A king of Judah.

(2) the King James Version Ezechiad ( /APC 1Esdras 9:14), called Jahzeiah in Ezra 10:15.

(3) the King James Version Ezecias ( /APC 1Esdras 9:43), called Hilkiah in Nehemiah 8:4.