Intercession Of Christ – Iru

Intercession Of Christ

The general conception of our Lord's mediatorial office is specially summed up in His intercession in which He appears in His high-priestly office, and also as interceding with the Father on behalf of that humanity whose cause He had espoused.

1. Christ's Intercession Viewed in Its Priestly Aspect:

The function of priesthood as developed under Judaism involved the position of mediation between man and God. The priest represented man, and on man's behalf approached God; thus he offered sacrifice, interceded and gave to the offerer whom he represented the benediction and expression of the Divine acceptance. (For the various forms of these offerings, see special articles.) As in sacrifice, so in the work of Christ, we find the proprietary rights of the offerer in the sacrifice. For man, Christ as one with man, and yet in His own personal right, offers Himself (see Romans 5:1–21; and compare Galatians 4:5 with Hebrews 2:11). There was also the transfer of guilt and its conditions, typically by laying the hand on the head of the animal, which then bore the sins of the offerer and was presented to God by the priest. The acknowledgment of sin and the surrender to God is completely fulfilled in Christ's offering of Himself, and His death (compare Leviticus 3:2,Leviticus 3:8,Leviticus 3:13; Leviticus 16:21; with Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21). our Lord's intercessory quality in the sacrifice of Himself is not only indicated by the imputation of guilt to Him as representing the sinner, but also in the victory of His life over death, which is then given to man in God's acceptance of His representative and substitute.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the intercessory character of our Lord's high-priestly office is transferred to the heavenly condition and work of Christ, where the relation of Christ's work to man's condition is regarded as being still continued in the heavenly place (see Hebrews 9:11–28). This entrance into heaven is once for all, and in the person of the high priest the way is open to the very presence of God. From one point of view (Hebrews 10:12) the priestly service of the Lord was concluded and gathered up into His kingly office (Hebrews 10:13,Hebrews 10:14–18). But from another point of view, we ourselves are bidden to enter into the Holiest Place; as if in union with Christ we too become a kingly priesthood (Hebrews 10:19–22; and compare 1 Peter 2:9).

It must not be forgotten, however, that this right of entrance into the most Holy Place is one that depends entirely upon our vital union with Christ, He appears in heaven for us and we with Him, and in this sense He fulfills the second duty of His high-priestly office as intercessor, with the added conception drawn from the legal advocacy of the Roman court. The term translated "Advocate" in 1 John 2:2 is parakletos, which in John 14:16 is translated "Comforter." The word is of familiar use in Greek for the legal advocate or patronus who appeared on behalf of his client. Thus, in the double sense of priestly and legal representative, our Lord is our intercessor in Heaven.

Of the modes in which Christ carries out His intercessory office, we can have no knowledge except so far as we may fairly deduce them from the phraseology and suggested ideas of Scripture. As high priest, it may surely be right for us to aid our weak faith by assuring ourselves that our Lord pleads for us, while at the same time we must be careful not to deprave our thought concerning the glorified Lord by the metaphors and analogies of earthly relationship.

The intercessory work of Christ may thus be represented: He represents man before God in His perfect nature, His exalted office and His completed work. The Scripture word for this is (Hebrews 9:24) "to appear before the face of God for us." There is also an active intercession. This is the office of our Lord as advocate or parakletos. That this conveys some relation to the aid which one who has broken the law receives from an advocate cannot be overlooked, and we find Christ's intercession in this aspect brought into connection with the texts which refer to justification and its allied ideas (see Romans 8:34; 1 John 2:1).

2. Christ's Intercessory Work from the Standpoint of Prayer:

In PRAYERS OF CHRIST (which see), the intercessory character of many of our Lord's prayers, and especially that of John 17:1–26, is considered. And it has been impossible for Christian thought to divest itself of the idea that the heavenly intercession of Christ is of the order of prayer. It is impossible for us to know; and even if Christ now prays to the Father, it can be in no way analogous to earthly prayers. The thought of some portion of Christendom distinctly combined prayer in the heavenly work of the Lord. There is danger in extreme views. Scriptural expressions must not be driven too far, and, on the other hand, they must not be emptied of all their contents. Modern Protestant teaching has, in its protest against a merely physical conception of our Lord's state and occupation in heaven, almost sublimed reality from His intercessory work. In Lutheran teaching the intercession of our Lord was said to be "vocal," "verbal" and "oral." It has been well remarked that such forms of prayer require flesh and blood, and naturally the teachers of the Reformed churches, for the most part, have contented themselves (as for example Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 593) with the declaration that "the intercession of Christ includes: (1) His appearing before God in our behalf, as the sacrifice for our sins, as our high priest, on the ground of whose work we receive the remission of our sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all needed good; (2) defense against the sentence of the law and the charges of Satan, who is the great accuser; (3) His offering Himself as our surety, not only that the demands of justice shall be shown to be satisfied, but that His people shall be obedient and faithful; (4) the oblation of the persons of the redeemed, sanctifying their prayers, and all their services, rendering them acceptable to God, through the savor of his own merits."

Even this expression of the elements which constitute the intercession of the Lord, cautious and spiritual as it is in its application to Christian thought and worship, must be carefully guarded from a too complete and materialistic use. Without this care, worship and devout thought may become degraded and fall into the mechanical forms by which our Lord's position of intercessor has been reduced to very little more than an imaginative and spectacular process which goes on in some heavenly place. It must not be forgotten that the metaphorical and symbolic origin of the ideas which constitute Christ's intercession is always in danger of dominating and materializing the spiritual reality of His intercessional office.

L. D. Bevan

Interest

in'-ter-est (neshekh, mashsha'; tokos): The Hebrew word neshekh is from a root which means "to bite"; thus interest is "something bitten off." The other word, mashsa', means "lending on interest." The Greek term is from the root tikto, "to produce" or "beget," hence, interest is something begotten or produced by money. The Hebrew words are usually translated "usury," but this meant the same as interest, all interest being reckoned as usury.

Long before Abraham's time money had been loaned at a fixed rate of interest in Babylonia and almost certainly in Egypt. The Code of Hammurabi gives regulations regarding the lending and borrowing of money, the usual interest being 20 percent. Sometimes it was only 11 2/3 and 13 1/3, as shown by contract tablets. In one case, if the loan was not paid in two months, 18 per cent interest would be charged. Corn (grain), dates, onions, etc., were loaned at interest. Thus Moses and Israel would be familiar with commercial loans and interest. In Israel there was no system of credit or commercial loans in Moses' time and after. A poor man borrowed because he was poor. The law of Moses (Exodus 22:25) forbade loaning at interest. There was to be no creditor and no taker of interest among them (Leviticus 25:36,Leviticus 25:37). De permits them to lend on interest to a foreigner (Deuteronomy 23:19,Deuteronomy 23:20), but not to a brother Israelite. That this was considered the proper thing in Israel for centuries is seen in Psalms 15:5, while Proverbs 28:8 implies that it was an unusual thing, interest being generally exacted and profit made. Ezekiel condemns it as a heinous sin (Ezekiel 18:8,Ezekiel 18:13,Ezekiel 18:17) and holds up the ideal of righteousness as not taking interest (22:12). Isaiah 24:2 implies that it was a business in that age, the lender and borrower being social types. Jeremiah implies that there was not always the best feeling between lenders and borrowers (15:10). According to Nehemiah 5:7,Nehemiah 5:10, rich Jews were lending to others and exacting heavy interest. Nehemiah condemns such conduct and forbids its continuance, citing himself as an example of lending without interest. The lenders restored 1 percent of that exacted.

In the New Testament, references to interest occur in the parable of the Pounds (Luke 19:23) and of the Talents (Matthew 25:27). Here the men were expected to put their master's money out at interest, and condemnation followed the failure to do so. Thus the principle of receiving interest is not condemned in the Old Testament, only it was not to be taken from a brother Israelite. In the New Testament it is distinctly encouraged.

See also USURY.

J. J. Reeve

Intermeddle

in-ter-med'-'-l (`arabh, "to mix up (self) with something," "mingle in," "share," "take interest in"): The word occurs only once (Proverbs 14:10) in a passage descriptive of "the ultimate solitude of each man's soul at all times." "The heart knoweth its own bitterness."

"Nor even the tenderest heart, and next our own, Knows half the reasons why we smile and sigh."

(Compare 1 Kings 8:38.) Something there is in every sorrow which no one else can share. "And a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy," not necessarily in an interfering or any offensive way, but simply does not share or take any interest in the other's joy.

For "intermeddleth with" (Proverbs 18:1 the King James Version), the Revised Version (British and American) gives "rageth against" (margin "quarrelleth with").

M. O. Evans

Intermediate, State

in-ter-me'-di-at.

See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Interpretation

in-tur-pre-ta'-shun:

1. General Principles:

Is a generic term and may refer to any work of literature. Referred specifically to the sacred Scriptures, the science of interpretation is generally known as hermeneutics, while the practical application of the principles of this science is exegesis. In nearly all cases, interpretation has in mind the thoughts of another, and then, further, these thoughts expressed in another language than that of the interpreter. In this sense it is used in Biblical research. A person has interpreted the thoughts of another when he has in his own mind a correct reproduction or photograph of the thought as it was conceived in the mind of the original writer or speaker. It is accordingly a purely reproductive process, involving no originality of thought on the part of the interpreter. If the latter adds anything of his own it is eisegesis and not exegesis. The moment the Bible student has in his own mind what was in the mind of the author or authors of the Biblical books when these were written, he has interpreted the thought of the Scriptures.

The interpretation of any specimen of literature will depend on the character of the work under consideration. A piece of poetry and a chapter of history will not be interpreted according to the same principles or rules. Particular rules that are legitimate in the explanation of a work of fiction would be entirely out of place in dealing with a record of facts. Accordingly, the rules of the correct interpretation of the Scriptures will depend upon the character of these writings themselves, and the principles which an interpreter will employ in his interpretation of the Scriptures will be in harmony with his ideas of what the Scriptures are as to origin, character, history, etc. In the nature of the case the dogmatical stand of the interpreter will materially influence his hermeneutics and exegesis. In the legitimate sense of the term, every interpreter of the Bible is "prejudiced," i.e. is guided by certain principles which he holds antecedently to his work of interpretation. If the modern advanced critic is right in maintaining that the Biblical books do not differ in kind or character from the religious books of other ancient peoples, such as the Indians or the Persians, then the same principles that he applies in the case of the Rig Veda or the Zend Avesta he will employ also in his exposition of the Scriptures. If, on the other hand, the Bible is for him a unique collection of writings, Divinely inspired and a revelation from the source of all truth, the Bible student will hesitate long before accepting contradictions, errors, mistakes, etc., in the Scriptures.

2. Special Principles:

The Scriptures are a Divine and human product combined. That the holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Spirit is the claim of the Scriptures themselves. Just where the line of demarcation is to be drawn between the human and the Divine factors in the production of the sacred Scriptures materially affects the principles of interpreting these writings (see INSPIRATION). That the human factor was sufficiently potent to shape the form of thought in the Scriptures is evident on all hands. Paul does not write as Peter does, nor John as James; the individuality of the writer of the different books appears not only in the style, choice of words, etc., but in the whole form of thought also. There are such things as a Pauline, a Johannine and a Petrine type of Christian thought, although there is only one body of Christian truth underlying all types. Insofar as the Bible is exactly like other books, it must be interpreted as we do other works of literature. The Scriptures are written in Hebrew and in Greek, and the principles of forms and of syntax that would apply to the explanation of other works written in these languages and under these circumstances must be applied to the Old Testament and New Testament also. Again, the Bible is written for men, and its thoughts are those of mankind and not of angels or creatures of a different or higher spiritual or intellectual character; and accordingly there is no specifically Biblical logic, or rhetoric, or grammar. The laws of thought and of the interpretation of thought in these matters pertain to the Bible as they do to other writings.

But in regard to the material contents of the Scriptures, matters are different and the principles of interpretation must be different. God is the author of the Scriptures which He has given through human agencies. Hence, the contents of the Scriptures, to a great extent, must be far above the ordinary concepts of the human mind. When John declares that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem it, the interpreter does not do justice to the writer if he finds in the word "God" only the general philosophical #conception of the Deity and not that God who is our Father through Christ; for it was the latter thought that was in the mind of the writer when he penned these words. Thus, too, it is a false interpretation to find in "Our Father" anything but this specifically Biblical conception of God, nor is it possible for anybody but a believing Christian to utter this prayer (Matthew 6:9) in the sense which Christ, who taught it to His disciples, intended.

Again, the example of Christ and His disciples in their treatment of the Old Testament teaches the principle that the ipse dixit of a Scriptural passage is to be interpreted as decisive as to its meaning. In the about 400 citations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament, there is not one in which the mere "It is written" is not regarded as settling its meaning. Whatever may be a Bible student's theory of inspiration, the teachings and the examples of interpretation found in the Scriptures are in perfect. harmony in this matter.

These latter facts, too, show that in the interpretation of the Scriptures principles must be applied that are not applicable in the explanation of other books. As God is the author of the Scriptures He may have had, and, as a matter of fact, in certain cases did have in mind more than the human agents through whom He spoke did themselves understand. The fact that, in the New Testament, persons like Aaron and David, institutions like the law, the sacrificial system, the priesthood and the like, are interpreted as typical of persons and things under the New Covenant shows that the true significance, e.g. of the Levitical system, can be found only when studied in the light of the New Testament fulfillment.

Again, the principle of parallelism, not for illustrative but for argumentative purposes, is a rule that can, in the nature of the case, be applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures alone and not elsewhere. As the Scriptures represent one body of truth, though in a kaleidoscopic variety of forms, a statement on a particular subject in one place can be accepted as in harmony with a statement on the same subject elsewhere. In short, in all of those characteristics in which the Scriptures are unlike other literary productions, the principles of interpretation of the Scriptures must also be unlike those employed in other cases.

3. Historical Data:

Owing chiefly to the dogmatical basis of hermeneutics as a science, there has been a great divergence of views in the history of the church as to the proper methods of interpretation. It is one of the characteristic and instructive features of the New Testament writers that they absolutely refrain from the allegorical method of interpretation current in those times, particularly in the writings of Philo. Not even Galatians 4:22, correctly understood, is an exception, since this, if an allegorical interpretation at all, is an argumentum ad hominem. The sober and grammatical method of interpretation in the New Testament writers stands out, too, in bold and creditable contrast to that of the early Christian exegetes, even of Origen. Only the Syrian fathers seemed to be an exception to the fantasies of the allegorical methods. The Middle Ages produced nothing new in this sphere; but the Reformation, with its formal principle that the Bible and the Bible alone is the rule of faith and life, made the correct grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures practically a matter of necessity. In modern times, not at all prolific in scientific discussions of hermeneutical principles and practices, the exegetical methods of different interpreters are chiefly controlled by their views as to the origin and character of the Scriptural books, particularly in regard to their inspiration.

LITERATURE.

Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, New York, 1884. Here the literature is fully given, as also in Weidner's Theological Encyclopedia, I, 266 ff.

G. H. Schodde

Interpretation Of Tongues

See TONGUES, INTERPRETATION OF.

Interrogation

in-ter-o-ga'-shun (eperotema): This word is not found at all in the King James Version, and once only in the American Standard Revised Version (1 Peter 3:21), where it replaces the word "answer" of the King James Version. This change according to Alford and Bengel is correct. "The interrogation of a good conscience" may refer to the question asked of a convert before baptism (compare Acts 8:37), or the appeal of the convert to God (compare 1 John 3:20–21). The opportunity to do this was given in baptism.

Intreat; Intreaty; (Entreat)

in-tret', in-tret'-i: The two forms are derived from the same verb. In 1611 the spelling was indifferently "intreat" or "entreat." In editions of the King James Version since 1760 "intreat" is used in the sense of "to beg"; "entreat" in the sense of "deal with." As examples of "intreat" see Exodus 8:8, "Intreat the Lord" (tsa`aq); Ruth 1:16, "Intreat me not to leave thee" (pagha`); 2 Corinthians 8:4, "praying us with much entreaty" paraklesis). In Genesis 25:21 "intreat" is used to indicate the success of a petition. For entreat see Genesis 12:16, "He entreated Abraham well"; Acts 27:3, "And Julius courteously entreated Paul" (philanthropos chresamenos, literally, "to use in a philanthropic way"); compare also James 3:17, where eupeithes, literally, "easily persuaded," is translated "easy to be entreated."

The Revised Version changes all passages of the King James Version where "intreat" is found to "entreat," with the exception of those mentioned below. The meaning of "entreat" is "to ask," "to beseech," "to supplicate": Job 19:17 reads "and my supplication to the children" (hannothi, the King James Version "though I entreated for the children," the Revised Version, margin "I make supplication"). Jeremiah 15:11 reads, "I will cause the enemy to make supplication" (hiphga'ti), instead, the King James Version "I will cause the enemy to entreat" (the Revised Version margin "I will intercede for thee with the enemy"). 1 Timothy 5:1 changes the King James Version "intreat" to "exhort." Philippians 4:3 renders the King James Version "entreat" by "beseech."

Russell Benjamin Miller

Inward Man

in'-werd: A Pauline term, nearly identical with the "hidden man of the heart" (1 Peter 3:4). The Greek original, 5 ho eso (also esothen) anthropos (Romans 7:22) is lexigraphically defined "the internal man," i.e. "soul," "conscience." It is the immaterial part of man--mind, spirit--in distinction from the "outward man" which "perishes" (2 Corinthians 4:16 the King James Version). As the seat of spiritual influences it is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit does His renewing and saving work (Ephesians 3:16). The term "inward man" cannot be used interchangeably with "the new man," for it may still be "corrupt," and subject to "vanity" and "alienated from the life of God." Briefly stated, it is mind, soul, spirit--God's image in man--man's higher nature, intellectual, moral, and spiritual.

Dwight M. Pratt

Inward Part

A symbolic expression in the Old Testament represented by three Hebrew words: chedher, "chamber," hence, inmost bowels or breast; tuchoth, "the reins"; qerebh, "midst," "middle," hence, heart. Once in the New Testament (esothen, "from within," Luke 11:39). The viscera (heart, liver, kidneys) were supposed by the ancients to be the seat of the mind, feelings, affections: the highest organs of the psyche, "the soul." The term includes the intellect ("wisdom in the inward parts," Job 38:36); the moral nature ("inward part is very wickedness," Psalms 5:9); the spiritual ("my law in their inward parts," Jeremiah 31:33). Its adverbial equivalent in Biblical use is "inwardly." INWARD MAN (which see) is identical in meaning.

Dwight M. Pratt

Iob

yob (yobh; the King James Version Job): Third son of Issachar (Genesis 46:13). In parallel passages (Numbers 26:24; 1 Chronicles 7:1) the name is Jashub (yashubh), which the versions in Ge also support as the correct form.

Iphdeiah

if-de'-ya (yiphdeyah, "Yah redeems"; the King James Version Iphedeiah): A descendant of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:25).

Iphtah

if'-ta (yiphtach; the King James Version Jiphtah): An unidentified town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Libnab, Ether and Ashan (Joshua 15:43).

Iphtah-El

if'-ta-el (yiphtach-'el; the King James Version Jiphtah-el): The valley of Iphtah-el lay on the North border of Zebulun (Joshua 19:14,Joshua 19:27). Northwest of the plain of el-Battauf stands a steep hill, connected only by a low saddle with the hills on the North. The name Tell Jefat suggests the Jotapata of Josephus (BJ, III, vi, i; vii, i, etc.), and the place answers well to his description. It probably corresponds to the ancient Iphtah-el. In that case the valley is most probably that which begins at Tell Jefat, passes round the South of Jebel Kaukab, and, as Wady 'Abellin, opens on the plain of Acre.

W. Ewing

Ir

ir (`ir): A descendant of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 7:12), called Iri in 1 Chronicles 7:7.

Ir-Ha-Heres

ir-ha-he'-rez (`ir haherec, according to the Massoretic Text, Aquila, Theodotion, Septuagint, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); according to some Hebrew manuscripts, Symmachus, and the Vulgate, `ir ha-cherec): A city of Egypt referred to in Isaiah 19:18. Jewish quarrels concerning the temple which Onias built in Egypt have most probably been responsible for the altering of the texts of some of the early manuscripts, and it is not now possible to determine absolutely which have been altered and which accord with the original. This difference in manuscripts gives rise to different opinions among authorities here to be noted. Most of the discussion of this name arises from this uncertainty and is hence rather profitless.

The starting-point of any proper discussion of Ir-ha-h is that the words are by Isaiah and that they are prophecy, predictive prophecy. They belong to that portion of the prophecies of Isaiah which by nearly all critics is allowed to the great prophet. Nothing but unfounded speculation or an unwillingness to admit that there is any predictive prophecy can call in question Isaiah's authorship of these words. Then the sense of the passage in which these words occur imperatively demands that they be accounted predictive prophecy. Isaiah plainly refers to the future, "shall be called"; and makes a definite statement concerning what shall take place in the future (19:18-24). The reality of predictive prophecy may be discussed by those so inclined, but that the intention of the author here was to utter predictive prophecy does not seem to be open to question. For the verification of this prediction by its fulfillment in history we shall inquire concerning:

(1) the times intended: "that day";

(2) the "five cities";

(3) "Ir-ha-heres."

1. The Times Intended: "That Day":

The prophet gives a fairly specific description of "that day." It was at least to begin when "there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Yahweh of hosts" (Isaiah 19:18), and "In that day shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahweh" (Isaiah 19:19). There was to be also some inroad made upon the heathenism of Egypt by the message of the Lord (Isaiah 19:21 f), and about that time a deliverer should arise in Egypt (Isaiah 19:20), and all this should take place before the power of the land of Assyria should pass away (Isaiah 19:23 f) .

2. The "Five Cities":

The first historical fulfillment of these words is found at the period when Onias built his imitation of the Temple of Jerusalem at the place called by the Greeks Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh), and the worship of Yahweh was set up at Elephantine, and the Jews were a great power at Alexandria and at Tahpanhes. While any of these latter three might have contained the "pillar," the "altar" would thus be either at Leontopolis or the other one of the "five cities" which cannot be named with much probability. The great deliverer would seem to be Alexander. Some think that the conversion of the Egyptians indicated in Isaiah 19:21,Isaiah 19:22 is furthered, though still not completed, in the Christian invasion of the 1st century, and again in the success of modern Christian missions in Egypt.

3. "Ir-ha-heres":

It will be seen that it does not follow from what has been said that Leontopolis was Ir-ha-h as some seem to think. It is not said by the prophet that the place where was the "altar" was called Ir-ha-h, even if it were certain that the altar was at Leontopolis. Nevertheless, Leontopolis may be Ir-ha-h. The problem is not in the first place the identification of the name, but the determination of which one of the "five cities" was destroyed. The expression "shall be called the city of destruction" seems clearly to indicate that Ir-ha-h is not a name at all, but merely a descriptive appellation of that city which should "be destroyed." It still remains to inquire whether or not this was an independent appellation, or whether, more probably, it bore some relation to the name of that city at the time at which the prophet wrote, a play upon the sound, or the significance of the name or both of these, either through resemblance or contrast. If Gesenius is right, as he seems to be, in the opinion that "in the idiom of Isa Ir-ha-h means simply `the city that shall be destroyed,' " then the original problem of finding which one of the cities was destroyed seems to be the whole problem. Still, in the highly-wrought language of Isaiah and according to the genius of the Hebrew tongue, there is probably a play upon words. It is here that the consideration of the name itself properly comes in and probably guides us rightly. Speculation, by Gesenius, Duhm, Cheyne and others, has proposed various different readings of this name, some of them requiring two or three changes in the text to bring it to its present state. Speculation can always propose readings. On was sometimes called "Heres" and meant "house of the sun," which would be both translated and transliterated into Hebrew ha-cherec and might have `ir ("city") prefixed. Naville, through his study of the great Harris papyrus, believed that the old Egyptian city which later was called Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh) was immediately connected with On and called "House of Ra," also "House of the Sun." Thus, this name might be both transliterated and translated into the Hebrew ha-cherec and have `ir prefixed. The difference between this expression and "Ir-ha-h" which Isaiah used is only the difference between "h" and "ch." So that Ir-ha-h is most probably a predictive prophecy concerning the disaster that was to overtake one of the "five cities," with a play upon the name of the city, and that city is either On, the later Heliopolis, or the ancient sacred city about 4 miles to the North of On, where Onias was to build his temple and which later became Leontopolis (Tellel-Yehudiyeh). No more positive identification of Ir-ha-h is yet possible.

M. G. Kyle

Ir-Nahash

ur-na'-hash, ir-na'-hash (`ir nachash): A town of Judah of which Tehinnah is called the "father," probably meaning "founder" (1 Chronicles 4:12). English Versions of the Bible margin suggests the translation "city of Nahash."

Ir-Shemesh

ur-she'-mesh, ir-she'-mesh (`ir shemesh, "city of the sun").

See BETH-SHEMESH; HERES.

Ira

i'-ra (`ira'; Eiras):

(1) A person referred to in 2 Samuel 20:26 as "priest" (so the Revised Version (British and American) correctly; the King James Version "a chief ruler," the American Standard Revised Version "chief minister") unto David. The translation of the Revised Version (British and American) is the only possible one; but, according to the text, Ira was "a Jairite," and thus of the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 32:41) and not eligible to the priesthood. On the basis of the Peshitta some would correct "Jairite" of 2 Samuel 20:26 into "Jattirite," referring to Jattir, a priestly city within the territory of Judah (Joshua 21:14). Others point to 2 Samuel 8:18 margin, "David's sons were priests," as an indication that in David's time some non-Levites were permitted to serve--in some sense--as priests.

(2) An "Ithrite," or (with a different pointing of the text) a "Jattirite," one of David's "thirty" (2 Samuel 23:38 parallel 1 Chronicles 11:40); possibly identical with (1).

(3) Another of David's "thirty," son of Ikkesh of Tekoa (2 Samuel 23:26; 1 Chronicles 11:28) and a captain of the temple guard (1 Chronicles 27:9).

F. K. Farr

Irad

i'-rad (`iradh; Septuagint Gaidad): Grandson of Cain and son of Enoch (Genesis 4:18).

Iram

i'-ram (`iram; Septuagint variously in Gen): A "chief" of Edom (Genesis 36:43 parallel 1 Chronicles 1:54).

Iri

i'-ri (`iri).

See IR; URIAS.

Irijah

i-ri'-ja (yir'iyayh, "Yah sees"): A captain at the gate of Benjamin in Jerusalem, who arrested Jeremiah the prophet on suspicion of intending to desert to the Chaldeans (Jeremiah 37:13,Jeremiah 37:14).

Iron (1)

i'-urn (barzel; sideros): It is generally believed that the art of separating iron from its ores and making it into useful forms was not known much earlier than 1000 BC, and that the making of brass (bronze) antedates it by many centuries, in spite of the frequent Biblical references where brass and iron occur together. This conjecture is based upon the fact that no specimen of worked iron has been found whose antiquity can be vouched for. The want of such instruments, however, can be attributed to the ease with which iron corrodes. Evidence that iron was used is found, for example, in the hieroglyphics of the tomb of Rameses III, where the blades of some of the weapons are painted blue while others are painted red, a distinction believed to be due to the fact that some were made of iron or steel and some of brass. No satisfactory proof has yet been presented that the marvelous sculpturing on the hard Egyptian granite was done with tempered bronze. It seems more likely that steel tools were used. After the discovery of iron, it was evidently a long time in replacing bronze. This was probably due to the difficulties in smelting it. An old mountaineer once described to the writer the process of iron smelting as it was carried on in Mt. Lebanon in past centuries. As a boy he had watched his father, who was a smelter, operate one of the last furnaces to be fired. For each firing, many cords of wood, especially green oak branches, were used, and several days of strenuous pumping at the eight bellows was necessary to supply the air blast. As a result a small lump of wrought iron was removed from the bottom of the furnace after cooling. The iron thus won was carried to Damascus where it was made into steel by workers who kept their methods secret. This process, which has not been worked now for years, was undoubtedly the same as was used by the ancients. It is not at all unlikely that the Lebanon iron, transformed into steel, was what was referred to as "northern iron" in Jeremiah 15:12 (the King James Version). In many districts the piles of slag from the ancient furnaces are still evident.

Aside from the limited supply of iron ore in Mt. Lebanon (compare Deuteronomy 8:9), probably no iron was found in Syria and Palestine. It was brought from Tarshish (Ezekiel 27:12) and Vedan and Jayan (Ezekiel 27:19), and probably Egypt (Deuteronomy 4:20).

The first mention of iron made in the Bible is in Genesis 4:22, where Tubal-Cain is mentioned as "the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron." It is likely that the Jews learned the art of metallurgy from the Phoenicians (2 Chronicles 2:14) (see CRAFTS). Iron was used in Biblical times much as it is today. For a description of a smith at work see Ecclesiasticus 38:28. Huge city gates, overlaid with strips of iron (Psalms 107:16; Isaiah 45:2), held in place by crude square-headed nails (1 Chronicles 22:3), are still a familiar sight in the larger cities of Palestine and Syria (Acts 12:10). Threshing instruments were made of iron (Amos 1:3); so also harrows (2 Samuel 12:31), axes (ib; 2 Kings 6:6; see Ax), branding irons (1 Timothy 4:2), and other tools (1 Kings 6:7). There were iron weapons (Numbers 35:16; Job 20:24), armor (2 Samuel 23:7), horns (1 Kings 22:11), fetters (Psalms 105:18), chariots (Joshua 17:16), yokes (Jeremiah 28:14), breastplates (Revelation 9:9), pens (chisels) (Job 19:24; Jeremiah 17:1), sheets or plates (Ezekiel 4:3), gods (Daniel 5:4), weights (1 Samuel 17:7), bedsteads (Deuteronomy 3:11). Iron was used extensively in building the temple.

See METALS.

Figurative: "The iron furnace" is used metaphorically for affliction, chastisement (Deuteronomy 4:20; Ezekiel 22:18–22). Iron is also employed figuratively to represent barrenness (Deuteronomy 28:23), slavery ("yoke of iron," Deuteronomy 28:48), strength ("bars of iron," Job 40:18), severity ("rod of iron," Psalms 2:9), captivity (Psalms 107:10), obstinacy ("iron sinew," Isaiah 48:4), fortitude ("iron pillar," Jeremiah 1:18), moral deterioration (Jeremiah 6:28), political strength (Daniel 2:33), destructive power ("iron teeth," Daniel 7:7); the certainty with which a real enemy will ever show his hatred is as the rust returning upon iron (Ecclesiasticus 12:10 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "brass"); great obstacles ("walls of iron," 2 Macc 11:9).

James A. Patch

Iron (2)

i'-ron (yir'on): One of the fenced cities in the territory of Naphtali, named with Migdal-el and En-hazor (Joshua 19:38). It is represented by the modern Yarun, a village with the ruins of a synagogue, at one time used as a monastery, fully 6 miles West of Qedes.

Irpeel

ur'-pe-el, ir'-pe-el (yirpe'el): An unidentified city in Benjamin (Joshua 18:27). It may possibly be represented by Rafat, a ruin to the North of el-Jib, the ancient Gibeon.

Irreverence

i-rev'-er-ens.

See CRIME, CRIMES.

Irrigation

ir-i-ga'-shun: No equivalent for this word is found in Biblical writings, although the use of irrigation for maintaining vegetable life is frequently implied (Ecclesiastes 2:5,Ecclesiastes 2:6; Isaiah 58:11). To one familiar with the methods of irrigation practiced in Palestine, Syria and Egypt, the passage, "where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs" (Deuteronomy 11:10), is easily explained. The water is brought in channels to the gardens, where it is distributed in turn to the different square plots bounded by banks of earth, or along the rows of growing vegetables planted on the sides of the trenches. In stony soil the breach in the canal leading to a particular plot is opened and closed with a hoe. Any obstruction in the trench is similarly removed, while in the soft, loamy soil of the coastal plain or in the Nile valley these operations can be done with the foot; a practice still commonly seen.

The remains of the great irrigation works of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians leave no doubt as to the extent to which they used water to redeem the deserts. In Palestine and Syria there was less need (Deuteronomy 10:7; Deuteronomy 11:11) for irrigation. Here there is an annual fall of from 30 to 40 inches, coming principally during the winter. This is sufficient for the main crops. The summer supply of vegetables, as well as the fruit and mulberry trees, requires irrigation. Hardly a drop of many mountain streams is allowed to reach the sea, but is used to water the gardens of the mountain terraces and plains. This supply is now being supplemented by the introduction of thousands of pumps and oil engines for raising the water of the wells sufficiently to run it through the irrigation canals. Where a spring is small, its supply is gathered into a birket, or cistern, and then drawn off through a large outlet into the trenches, sometimes several days being required to fill the cistern. In Ecclesiastes 2:6, Solomon is made to say, "I made me pools of water, to water therefrom the forest." This passage helps to explain the uses of the so-called Pools of Solomon, South of Jerusalem. In this same district are traces of the ancient terraces which were probably watered from these pools.

See AGRICULTURE; GARDEN.

James A. Patch

Iru

i'-roo (`iru): Eldest son of Caleb (1 Chronicles 4:15); probably to be read Ir, the syllable "-u" being the conjunction "and" belonging to the following word.