Law In The Old Testament (continued) – League

Law In The Old Testament (continued)

Prehistoric research has not yet been able to present to us a distinct picture of primitive men; and even if the results of anthropology were more certain than they can yet claim to be, what in this connection we are concerned in is the conceptions, not of early men everywhere, but of the early ancestors of the Hob race. However infantile their ideas may have been and probably were, there may well have been far more of elementary truth in them--in simple ideas Divinely implanted--than students of anthropology have any knowledge of. Sooner or later early men did make offerings to God; and as the Mosaic sacrificial system was certainly based upon the patriarchal, so we may fairly assume that the ideas underlying the latter were an outgrowth from those which underlay the sacrifice of the patriarch's own still earlier ancestors.

It is well observed by Dr. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, p. 315) that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel are called a minchah or present; and this idea of sacrifice as a gift to God most easily accounts for the facts with which we have to deal in the history of Old Testament sacrifice. When early men first made offerings to God, they probably did so in the spirit of young children who give gifts to older persons without knowing whether, or in what way, the gifts will be of any use to them. They simply give in affection what is of value in their own eyes. The one only thing of prime value to the earliest men must have been food; hence, offerings to God were everywhere in the first place offerings of food. But here a difficulty must soon have arisen, for men must have become convinced very soon that the Divine Being did not feed upon the food offered, at least in men's way of feeding. Ultimately, among the Israelites, the idea of His actual feeding became eliminated altogether (Psalms 50:13,Psalms 50:14), but in the meantime the difficulty seems to have been met by the assumption that the Divine Being consumed an inner essence of food; and this being supposed to be set free by fire, food offered in sacrifice came to be burnt in order to fit it to become the food of God. This certainly appears from Leviticus 3:11,Leviticus 3:16 (compare Leviticus 21:6,Leviticus 21:8,Leviticus 21:17,Leviticus 21:21).

Coming, however, to animal as distinguished from vegetable sacrifice, we do not find that its origin can be accounted for as at the first being an offering of food. We learn from Leviticus 17:10–14 that the essential part of animal sacrifice was the offering of the blood, and that blood was offered because blood was life. The idea that life can be given by giving blood lay at the root of a custom which must have been well-nigh universal in primitive times, that of blood covenanting (see H. Clay Trumbull, Blood Covenant). In this, two persons would give each to the other of his own blood, drawn from the living vein. Persons united in blood covenant were supposed, by the commingling of their blood, to become actual sharers of one life. To give to another of one's own blood was to give one's own life, i.e. one's own self, with all the dedication of love and service which that would imply. Now a similar idea would seem to have lain at the root of the primitive offering of blood to God: it was the offering of the life of the offerer.

In the very first blood offerings it is probable that the blood offered was the blood of the offerer, and that there was no infliction of death--only in this way the dedication of life. The dedicatory rite of circumcision may have been a survival of sacrifice in this its earliest form; so also what is narrated in 1 Kings 18:28. When, however, the blood offered had come to be the blood of a substitute, and that a substitute animal, the sacrifice would come (no doubt soon) to include the slaughter of the animal and further the consumption, in whole or in part, of its carcass by fire as an offering of food.

(2) The Levitical Ritual.

Whether the above theory be accepted or not, in so far as animal sacrifice became an offering of food, it would stand in line with vegetable sacrifice; but in both the excellence of the Levitical ritual stood in this, that while it was framed for a people whose conceptions were in a stage of transition, it was yet adaptable to higher conceptions, and fitted to become at length symbolical of purely spiritual truth. It was through the teaching, not only of prophets but of the Lcvitical ritual itself, and while it was still in full force, that the words of Psalms 50:13,Psalms 50:14 were uttered: "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High." The Levitical ritual, as respects animal sacrifice in particular, was so framed as, on the one hand, to keep alive the idea of sacrifice as the offering of life, not of death, of life's dedication, not its destruction, and therefore to make it a true type of Christ's living sacrifice. On the other hand, the rules of sacrifice guarded against abuses which, as a matter of fact, sprang up widely among the heathen. The rule, e.g. in Leviticus 1:2 and elsewhere, that "ye shall offer your oblation of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock," excluded human sacrifice. The rule that the first act in every sacrifice must be to slay the creature offered excluded the infliction of unnecessary suffering. The detailed rules as to the offering and disposal of the blood, and the varying modes of disposal of the carcass, kept alive the essential idea of all such sacrifice, and saved it from degenerating into a mere heaping up, as in Egypt, of altars with mere loads of food. The rules of the peace offering, clothing it always with a spiritual motive (see Leviticus 7:12,Leviticus 7:16), raised it to a level far above the sacrifice of that class among the surrounding heathen, guarding it against their licentious festivity (compare Hosea 2:11–13; Hosea 4:13,Hosea 4:14; Amos 2:8; Amos 5:21–23) and gross ideas as to the part of God in the feasting.

(3) The Law Truly a Torah.

In every one of its departments the Law proved itself to be indeed a torah directing God's people in the upward way; leading them on from the state of advancement, such as it was, to which they had already attained by Moses' time, to higher and higher standards, both of faith and of duty, till they were prepared for the gospel of Christ, who Himself said of the old Law, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18 the King James Version). Meanwhile we have, in the teaching of the prophets, not a counter influence, not a system rivaling the Law, but its unfolding, both inspired of God, both instruments in His progressive revelation. "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" were the words of Samuel, a faithful servant of the Law, and himself a frequent offerer of sacrifice. What the Law was to the heart of devout Israelites in the prophetic age is seen in the fervent words of Psalms 119:1–176.

IV. The Passing Away of the Law.

The great general principles of the Law were not transitory but abiding, and reappear under the gospel dispensation. Otherwise, however, i.e. in those particulars, whether ceremonial or civil, in which it was adapted to merely passing needs, the Law passed away when Christ came. It is not always realized that already before Christ came it had begun to pass away. The following are illustrations:

(1) The whole rationale of the Levitical worship consisted in its being based upon the covenant made at Sinai, and the symbol of the Covenant was the ark containing the tables of the Law and surmounted by the mercy-seat. Therefore one of its most significant acts was the sprinkling of the blood of sin offering within the veil upon the mercy-seat, or without the veil, but yet before the mercy-seat. But this most significant act could no longer be performed when, after the Babylonian captivity, there was no longer either ark or mercy-seat.

(2) The law that tithe should be paid to the Levites, a tithe only of it being paid by them to "Aaron the priest" (Numbers 18:1–32), was practicable so long as the priests were a small portion only of the whole Levitical body, as they appear in the history down to the middle period of the monarchy. But by the time of the exile they disappeared from history except as actual temple ministrants, and, after the return from the exile, even these were in number a mere handful compared with the priests (Ezra 2:36–42; Ezra 8:15–20,Ezra 8:24–30; Nehemiah 11:10–19). The attempt to revive the old law (Nehemiah 10:38,Nehemiah 10:39) was well-intentioned but impracticable: it was evidently soon abandoned (Nehemiah 13:10–13; Malachi 3:8–10). We learn from Josephus that tithes were regarded later as due to the priests, not to the Levites (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii, 8; ix, 2).

(3) That the Mosaic law as to divorce was to give place to one more stringent appears not only from our Lord's words in Matthew 19:7–9, but from Malachi 2:16.

(4) It is probable that some of the supplementary rules in Nu may have been designed for temporary use only, and may have passed away before the close of the Old Testament. It may have been so, e.g., with the law of Numbers 5:11–31, a law probably most useful in the circumstances of the Mosaic age, and perhaps itself an endorsement of a pre-Mosaic custom.

LITERATURE.

Driver, Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, with which should be read Moller, Are the Critics Right? and Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; A.B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament; J.B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages; Rule, Old Testament Institutions, Their Origin and Development; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament; Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique; Edouard Naville,

La decouverte de la loi sous le roi Josias; H. Clay Trumbull, The Blood Covenant; Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord (274 ff, on "blood-offering").

Ulric Z. Rule

Law, Judicial

joo-dish'-al: This was the form of Divine law which, under the dominion of God, as the Supreme Magistrate, directed the policy of the Jewish nation, and hence, was binding only on them, not on other peoples. The position of Yahweh, as the Supreme Ruler, was made legally binding by a formal election on the part of the national assembly (Exodus 19:3–8); and that there might be no question about the matter, after the death of Moses, Joshua, in accordance with instructions received by his great predecessor in the office of federal judge, in the public assembly caused the contract to be renewed in connection with most solemn exercises (Joshua 8:30–35). No legal contract was ever entered into with more formality and with a clearer understanding of the terms by the several parties than was the contract which made it binding on the Hebrews permanently to recognize Yahweh as the Supreme Ruler (Exodus 24:3–8). He was to be acknowledged as the Founder of the nation (Exodus 20:2); Sovereign, Ruler, and Judge (Exodus 20:2–6); and in these capacities was to be the object of love, reverential fear and worship, service, and absolute obedience. Flagrant disregard of their obligations to Him manifested in idolatry or blasphemy was regarded as high treason, and like high treason in all nations and history was punishable by death (Exodus 20:3–5,Exodus 20:7; Exodus 22:20; Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 17:2–5). The will of Yahweh in critical cases was to be ascertained through special means (Numbers 9:8; Judges 1:1,Jude 1:2; Revelation 19:18,Revelation 20:2,Revelation 20:7; 1 Samuel 10:22).

The ruling official recognized by the Hebrews as a nation was the chief magistrate, but he stood as Yahweh's vicegerent, and therefore combined various authorities in his person. We must distinguish the functions of the chief magistrate (1) under the republic, (2) under the constitutional monarchy, and (3) under the senatorial oligarchy after the Babylonian captivity. Moses was the first chief magistrate under the republic; after him, Joshua, and the other judges. Under the constitutional monarchy, it was the king whose government was limited, for he was to be elected by the people; must be a native Hebrew; must not keep a large cavalry; must not support a harem; must not multiply riches; must be a defender of the national religion; must be guided by law, not whim; must be gracious and condescending to the people (Deuteronomy 17:15–20). After the Babylonian captivity, the senatorial oligarchy combined ecclesiastical and state authority, later sharing it with the Roman government.

See also SANHEDRIN.

Frank E. Hirsch

Law, Roman

See ROMAN LAW.

Lawful

lo'-fool (usually mishpaT, "relating to judgment," or "a pronounced judgment" tsaddiq, "relating to that which is righteous" or "just"; exesti, eunomos, "that which is authorized according to law," or "a privilege according to legitimate custom" (compare Ezekiel 18:5,Ezekiel 18:19, Ezekiel 18:21,Ezekiel 18:27; Isaiah 49:24; Matthew 12:10; Acts 16:21; Acts 19:39)): Used of persons: of God, as being righteous both in the punishment of the wicked and the rewarding of the righteous (Psalms 145:17 Hebrew); of man, as being just and equitable in all his dealings with his fellow-man (Ezekiel 33:19). It is used of things when the same are in accord with a pronounced judgment or a declared will of God, and thus pleasing in His sight (Mark 3:4). When the course of individual conduct is according to God's law of righteousness, it is declared to be "lawful" (Ezekiel 33:19). The word is used in a forensic sense as declaring the legal status of a person conforming to law. The idea of straighthess, rigid adherence to God's law, whether religious, civil or ceremonial, cannot be excluded from the definition of the word "lawful."

Neither the King James Version nor the American Standard Revised Version is consistent in its translation of the Hebrew and Greek words translated "lawful." Ofttimes the words "just" and "righteous" are used. To arrive at the full and proper meaning of "lawful," therefore, it is necessary that we study the passages containing these synonymous terms. The written Law of God is the recognized standard by which things, actions and persons are to be judged as being lawful or unlawful.

William Evans

Lawgiver

lo'-giv-er (mechoqeq; nomothetes): There are two words, one Hebrew and one Greek, which are translated "lawgiver." The former occurs 7 times in the Old Testament, and in the King James Version in every case except Judges 5:14 is thus translated. In the Revised Version (British and American) it bears the translation "lawgiver" but twice (Deuteronomy 33:21; Isaiah 33:22), though in the other passages (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 21:18; Judges 5:14; Psalms 60:7; Psalms 108:8) this meaning is retained in the margin. The Greek word occurs in the New Testament but once (James 4:12), where it has a meaning that is almost the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 33:22. In both passages God is declared to be the "lawgiver," and in the New Testament passage is so called because He has the power to rule and judge, to save and destroy. Man is denied the authority to judge because he is not the lawgiver. God is the lawgiver, and therefore possesses the right to pronounce judgment (compare Isa, supra). The word, however, implies more than mere legislative function; it also connotes the idea of ruling. Isaiah makes this very plain, since he adds to the statement that God is our judge and lawgiver the further declaration that He is also king. This meaning adheres in the very history of the word. It is based upon the monarchical conception in which the legislative, judicial and administrative functions are all vested in one person. In James the two terms "lawgiver and judge" express the idea of God's absolute sovereignty. The verb nomothetein occurs in Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 8:6, but it does not extend beyond the meaning "to enact laws."

The Hebrew word is restricted to poetic passages, and except in Isaiah 33:22 is applied to a tribal or kingly ruler. Moses is pre-eminently the lawgiver in Jewish and Christian circles, but it should be noted that in the Scriptures of neither is he given this title. The primary meaning of the verb from which mechoqeq is derived is "to cut," "to carve," and a derived meaning is "to ordain." The meaning of the participle mechoqeq is based upon this last. It means

(1) the symbol which expresses the lawmaker's authority, that is, the commander's staff; and

(2) the person who possesses the authority (Deuteronomy 33:21).

It has the first of these meanings in Numbers 21:18; Psalms 60:7; Psalms 108:8, and probably in Genesis 49:10, though here it may have the second meaning. The parallelism, however, seems to require an impersonal object to correspond to scepter, and so the reading of the text (The Revised Version) is to be preferred to that of the margin (Skinner, at the place). In Deuteronomy 33:21; Judges 5:14; Isaiah 33:22, it means the person who wielded the symbol of authority, that is the prescriber of laws. In a primitive community this would be a military commander. In Genesis 49:10 the "ruler's staff" is the symbol of kingly authority (Driver), and this verse consequently implies the supremacy of Judah which came in with the Davidic kingdom. This word contains no reference to the Messiah. In Numbers 21:18 there is an allusion to the custom of formally and symbolically opening fountains under the superintendence and at the instruction of the leader of the tribe. Such a custom seems to have been in vogue till comparatively modern times. Gray cites Budde in the New World for March, 1895, and Muir's Mohamet and Islam, 343 f. In Judges 5:14 the word means "military commander," as the context shows. This is the meaning also in Deuteronomy 33:21, where it is affirmed that Gad obtained a position worthy of its warlike character. Targum, Vulgate, Peshitta, and some moderns have seen here a reference to the grave of Moses, but Nebo was in Reuben and not in Gad.

W. C. Morro

Lawless

lo'-les (anomos): While occurring but once in the King James Version (1 Timothy 1:9), is translated in various ways, e.g. "without law" (1 Corinthians 9:21); "unlawful" (2 Peter 2:8 the King James Version); "lawless" (1 Timothy 1:9); "transgressor" (Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37); "wicked" (Acts 2:23 the King James Version; 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the King James Version). When Paul claims to be "without law," he has reference to those things in the ceremonial law which might well be passed over, and not to the moral law. Paul was by no means an antinomian. Those are "lawless" who break the law of the Decalogue; hence, those who disobey the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," are lawless (1 Timothy 1:9). The civil law is also the law of God. Those breaking it are lawless, hence, called "transgressors." Those who are unjust in their dealings are also "lawless"; for this reason the hands of Pilate and those who with him unjustly condemned Jesus are called "wicked (unlawful) hands" (Acts 2:23 the King James Version). The most notable example of lawlessness is the Antichrist, that "wicked (lawless) one" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

William Evans

Lawyer

lo'-yer (nomikos, "according or pertaining to law," i.e. legal; as noun, "an expert in law," "about the law," "lawyer" (Matthew 22:35; Luke 7:30; Luke 10:25; Luke 11:45,Luke 11:46,Luke 11:52; Luke 14:3; Titus 3:13)): The work of the "lawyers," frequently spoken of as "scribes," also known as "doctors" of the law (Luke 2:46 margin), was first of all that of jurists. Their business was threefold:

(1) to study and interpret the law;

(2) to instruct the Hebrew youth in the law;

(3) to decide questions of the law. The first two they did as scholars and teachers, the last as advisers in some court.

By virtue of the first-named function, they gradually developed a large amount of common law, for no code can go into such detail as to eliminate the necessity of subsequent legislation, and this usually, to a great extent, takes the form of judicial decisions founded on the code rather than of separate enactment. And so it was among the Hebrews. The provisions of their code were for the most part quite general, thus affording much scope for casuistic interpretation. As a result of the industry with which this line of legal development had been pursued during the centuries immediately preceding our era, the Hebrew law had become a very complicated science; and since it was forbidden to record these judicial decisions, a protracted study was necessary in order to commit them to memory.

But since the law must have universal application, the views of the individual scribe could not be taken as a standard; hence, the several disciples of the law must frequently meet for discussion, and the opinion of the majority then prevailed. To these meetings the youth interested in the study would be invited, that they might memorize the formulas agreed upon and might clear up the points upon which they were uncertain by asking questions of the recognized doctors (Luke 2:46).

Such centers of legal lore, of course, would seldom be found in rural communities; the authorities would naturally gather in large centers of population, especially--until 70 AD--in Jerusalem. While the deliverances of these law schools were purely theoretical, yet they stood in close relation to the practical. Whenever doubt arose regarding the application of the law to a particular case, the question was referred to the nearest lawyer; by him to the nearest company of lawyers, perhaps to the Sanhedrin; and the resultant decision was henceforth authority. Thus the lawyers became law makers, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, which brought an end to the existence of the Sanhedrin, the rabbinical doctors were recognized as the absolute authority in such matters. Frequently a single lawyer of great rank, as for instance Hillel or Gamaliel I, might pronounce dicta of unquestioned recognition with as much authority as a supreme court in our day, though sometimes his opinions were received and corrected by the legal tribunal, especially the Sanhedrin. Of course, frequently, these tribunals were under the sway of such a man's influence, so that what he said upon his own authority would be ratified in the assembly of the doctors.

The second function of the lawyers was that of teachers. The renowned rabbis always sought to gather a company of pupils about them whose business it was to repeat the teachers' law formulas until they had "passed into their flesh and blood." For the purposes of such instruction as well as for the discussion of the teachers and the students, there were special schoolhouses, which are often mentioned in connection with the synagogues as places of special merit and privilege. In Jerusalem, these law schools were conducted in the temple--probably in the hall dedicated to this special purpose (Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:46; Luke 20:1; Luke 21:37; John 18:20). The students during the lectures sat on the floor, the teacher on a raised platform, hence, the expression "sitting at the feet of" (Acts 22:3; Luke 2:46). Finally, the lawyers were called upon to decide cases in court or to act as advisers of the court. Before the destruction of Jerusalem, technical knowledge of the law was not a condition of eligibility to the office of judge. Anyone who could command the confidence of his fellow-citizens might be elected to the position, and many of the rural courts undoubtedly were conducted, as among us, by men of sterling quality but of limited knowledge. Naturally such men would avail themselves of the legal advice of any "doctor" who might be within reach, especially inasmuch as the latter was obliged to give his services gratuitously. And in the more dignified courts of large municipalities; it was a standing custom to have a company of scholars present to discuss and decide any new law points that might arise. Of course, frequently, these men were elected to the office of judge, so that practically the entire system of jurisprudence was in their hands.

Frank E. Hirsch

Lay; Laying

la, la'-ing:

(1) sim, "to put," and the Greek equivalent, tithemi, are very frequently translated by "to lay." the Revised Version (British and American) very often changes the King James Version rendering of sim, but never that of tithemi: 1 Samuel 15:2, "how he set himself against him in the way" (the King James Version "he laid wait for him"); 2 Kings 11:16, "So they made way for her" (the King James Version "And they laid hands on her"); compare 2 Chronicles 23:15; Job 24:12, "God regardeth not the folly" (the King James Version "God layeth not folly"); Job 34:23, "For he needeth not further to consider a man" (the King James Version "For he will not lay upon man more"); Isaiah 28:17, "And I will make justice the line" (the King James Version "Judgment also will I lay to the line"); Job 17:3, "Give now a pledge" (the King James Version "Lay down now").

(2) nathan, literally, "to give," is very commonly translated by "to lay." the Revised Version (British and American) changes the translation of the King James Version in Ezekiel 4:5, "I have appointed"; Ezekiel 33:28 f, "I will make the land a desolation" (the King James Version "I will lay the land most desolate").

(3) "To lay" of the King James Version is frequently rendered differently in the Revised Version (British and American); Isaiah 54:11, "I will set thy stones" (the King James Version "lay thy stones"); Deuteronomy 29:22, "the sicknesses wherewith Yahweh hath made it sick" (the King James Version "sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon"). For other differences of the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version compare Deuteronomy 21:8; 2 Kings 9:25 m; 2 Kings 12:11; Ezra 8:31; Psalms 104:5 m; Isaiah 53:6; Jeremiah 5:26; Mark 7:8; Luke 19:44; James 1:21; 1 Peter 2:1. In most of these passages the change of the Revised Version (British and American) is due to the peculiar use of the word "to lay" in the King James Version. The following expressions are found very frequently: "to lay hands on," "to lay wait," "to lay up," "to lay aside," "to lay upon," "to lay down," etc.

"Laying of wait," the King James Version, is rendered "lying in wait" in Numbers 35:20 ff; Acts 9:24 reads: "But their plot became known" (the King James Version "But their laying await was known"). The "laying on of hands" is a very general expression.

See HANDS, IMPOSITION, LAYING ON OF.

A. L. Breslich

Lazarus

laz'-a-rus (Lazaros, an abridged form of the Hebrew name Eleazar, with a Greek termination): Means "God has helped." In Septuagint and Josephus are found the forms Eleazar, and Eleazaros. The name was common among the Jews, and is given to two men in the New Testament who have nothing to do with each other.

1. Lazarus of Bethany:

The home of the Lazarus mentioned in John 11:1 was Bethany. He was the brother of Martha and Mary (John 11:1,John 11:2; see also Luke 10:38–41). All three were especially beloved by Jesus (John 11:5), and at their home He more than once, and probably often, was entertained (Luke 10:38–41; John 11:1–57). As intimated by the number of condoling friends from the city, and perhaps from the costly ointment used by Mary, the family was probably well-to-do. In the absence of Jesus, Lazarus was taken sick, died, and was buried, but, after having lain in the grave four days, was brought back to life by the Saviour (John 11:3,John 11:14,John 11:17,John 11:43,John 11:44). As a result many Jews believed on Jesus, but others went and told the Pharisees, and a council was therefore called to hasten the decree of the Master's death (John 11:45–53). Later, six days before the Passover, at a feast in some home in Bethany where Martha served, Lazarus sat at table as one of the guests, when his sister Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (John 12:1–3). Many of the common people came thither, not only to see Jesus, but also the risen Lazarus, believed in Jesus, and were enthusiastic in witnessing for Him during the triumphal entry, and attracted others from the city to meet Him (John 12:9,John 12:11,John 12:17,John 12:18). For that reason the priests plotted to murder Lazarus (John 12:10). This is all that we really know about the man, for whether the Jews accomplished his death we are not informed, but it seems probable that, satiated with the death of Jesus, they left Lazarus unmolested. Nothing is told of his experiences between death and resurrection (compare Tennyson, "In Memoriam," xxxi), of his emotions upon coming out of the tomb, of his subsequent life (compare Browning, "A Letter to Karshish"), and not a word of revelation does he give as to the other world. His resurrection has been a favorite subject for various forms of Christian art, and according to an old tradition of Epiphanius he was 30 years old when he was raised from the dead, and lived 30 years thereafter.

As might be expected this miracle has been vigorously assailed by all schools of hostile critics. Ingenuity has been exhausted in inventing objections to it. But all told, they really amount only to three.

(1) The Silence of the Other Gospels.

There is here, no doubt, some difficulty. But the desire of the early Christians, as many scholars think, to screen the family from danger may have kept the story from becoming current in the oral tradition whence the Synoptics drew their materials, though Matthew was probably an eyewitness. But, in any case, the Synoptics do not pretend to give all the deeds of Jesus, and in the report by them we have few save those which were wrought in Galilee. Each of them has omitted elements of highest interest which others have preserved. Thus, Luke alone gives us the raising of the widow's son at Nain. John, knowing that the others had omitted this, tells us what he had himself witnessed, since all danger to the family had long ago passed away, as it was of especial interest to his story, and he had recorded no other case of resurrection. At any rate, the Gospel writers do not seem to regard a resurrection from the dead by the power of Jesus as so much more stupendous than other miracles, as they seem to modern scholars and to the Jews, and, moreover, the Synoptics do unconsciously attest this miracle by describing a sudden outburst of popular excitement in favor of Jesus which can be accounted for only by some extraordinary event.

(2) The Stupendous Character of the Miracle.

But to a philosophical believer in miracles this is no obstacle at all, for to omnipotence there are no such things as big miracles or little ones. Of course, Martha's statement as to the decomposition of the body was only her opinion of the probability in the case, and He, who sees the end from the beginning and who had intended to raise Lazarus, might well in His providence have watched over the body that it should not see corruption. When all is said, "He who has created the organic cell within inorganic matter is not incapable of reestablishing life within the inanimate substance."

(3) Its Non-use as an Accusation against Jesus.

The objection that John 11:47–53 is inconsistent with the fact that in accusing Jesus before Pilate no mention is made of this miracle by the enemies of Jesus has little weight. Who would expect them to make such a self-convicting acknowledgment? The dismay of the priests at the miracle and their silence about it are perfectly compatible and natural.

No one of the attempted explanations which deny the reality of the miracle can offer even a show of probability. That Lazarus was just recovering from a trance when Jesus arrived; that it was an imposture arranged by the family and sanctioned by Jesus in order to overwhelm His enemies; that it was a fiction or parable translated into a fact and made up largely of synoptic materials, an allegorical illustration of the words, "I am the resurrection, and the life," a myth--such explanations require more faith than to believe the fables of the Talmud They well illustrate the credulity of unbelief. The narrative holds together with perfect consistency, is distinguished by vivacity and dramatic movement, the people who take part in it are intensely real and natural, and the picture of the sisters perfectly agrees with the sketch of them in Luke. No morbid curiosity of the reader is satisfied. Invented stories are not like this. Even a Renan declares that it is a necessary link in the story of the final catastrophe.

The purpose of the miracle seems to have been:

(1) to show Himself as Lord of life and death just before He should be Himself condemned to die;

(2) to strengthen the faith of His disciples;

(3) to convert many Jews;

(4) to cause the priests to hasten their movements so as to be ready when His hour had come (Plummer, HDB, III, 87).

2. The Beggar:

In the parable in Luke 16:19–31, Lazarus is pictured as in abject poverty in this world, but highly rewarded and honored in the next. It is the only instance of a proper name used in a parable by Jesus. Some think that he was a well-known mendicant in Jerusalem, and have even attempted to define his disease. But this is no doubt simple invention, and, since "in Christ's kingdom of truth names indicate realities," this was probably given because of its significance, suggesting the beggar's faith in God and patient dependence upon Him. It was this faith and not his poverty which at last brought him into Abraham's bosom. Not one word does Lazarus speak in the parable, and this may also be suggestive of patient submission. He does not murmur at his hard lot, nor rail at the rich man, nor after death triumph over him. The parable is related to that of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:16–21). This latter draws the veil over the worldling at death; the other lifts it. It is also a counterpart of that of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–13), which shows how wealth may wisely be used to our advantage, while this parable shows what calamities result from failing to make such wise use of riches. The great lesson is that our condition in Hades depends upon our conduct here, and that this may produce a complete reversal of fortune and of popular judgments. Thus, Lazarus represents the pious indigent who stood at the opposite extreme from the proud, covetous, and luxury-loving Pharisee. The parable made a deep impression on the mind of the church, so that the term "lazar," no longer a proper name, has passed into many languages, as in lazar house, lazaretto, also lazzarone, applied to the mendicants of Italian towns. There was even an order, half-military, half-monastic, called the Knights of Lazarus, whose special duty it was to minister to lepers.

The rich man is often styled Dives, which is not strictly a proper name, but a Latin adjective meaning "rich," which occurs in this passage in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) But in English literature, as early as Chaucer, as seen in the "Sompnoure's Tale" and in "Piers Plowman," it appears in popular use as the name of the Rich Man in this parable. In later theological literature it has become almost universally current. The name Nineuis given him by Euthymius never came into general use, though the Sahidic version has the addition, "whose name was Ninue." His sin was not in being rich, for Abraham was among the wealthiest of his day, but in his worldly unbelief in the spiritual and eternal, revealing itself in ostentatious luxury and hard-hearted contempt of the poor. Says Augustine, "Seems he (Jesus) not to have been reading from that book where he found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich, for that book is the book of life?"

G. H. Trever

Leach

lech.

See HORSELEACH.

Lead

led (`ophereth): Lead was one of the first metals to be used in the free state, probably because it was so easily obtained from its ores. Lead was found in ancient times in Egypt and the Sinaitic peninsula. There is no lead found in Palestine proper, but in Northern Syria and Asia Minor it occurs in considerable quantities, usually associated with silver. These sources no doubt furnished an important supply in Bible times. It was also brought by the Phoenicians from Spain (Tarshish) (Ezekiel 27:12) and the British Isles.

Lead was used, as it still is, all along the Mediterranean shores for sinkers. Pieces of Egyptian fishnets probably dating from 1200 BC are now preserved in the British Museum, with their lead sinkers still attached. Since lead was the heaviest metal known to the ancients, gold excepted, it was generally used for fish-lines and sounding lines (compare Acts 27:28), especially in the dense waters of the Mediterranean. Moses mentioned the sinking qualities of lead in the sea in his simile of the sinking of Pharaoh's hosts "as lead in the mighty waters" (Exodus 15:10).

Lead was used by the ancients for binding stones together. In most of the ancient ruins of Syria the Arabs have dug holes at the seams between stones in walls and columns in order to remove the iron, bronze, or lead thus used. In the museum of the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut, there are several specimens of cast-lead sarcophagi dating from the time of Christ.

In Job 19:23,Job 19:14, lead is mentioned as used in the engraving of permanent records. Two inferences might he drawn from this passage: either that the letters were cut with a chisel (pen) and then the cutting was filled with lead, or that sheets of lead were used as tablets on which to grave the record with an iron tool. Lead is frequently referred to along with iron, brass, silver and tin (Numbers 31:22; Ezekiel 22:18,Ezekiel 22:20; Ezekiel 27:12). The use of lead for plumblines is implied in Amos 7:7,Amos 7:8; Zechariah 4:10; as a weight in Zechariah 5:7,Zechariah 5:8. That Old Testament writers understood the use of lead for purifying gold is shown by Jeremiah 6:29 and Ezekiel 22:18–22 (compare Malachi 3:2,Malachi 3:3).

See METALS; REFINER.

James A. Patch

Leaf; Leaves

lef, levz: Used in three different senses, with reference:

(1) To trees (`aleh, "a coming up"), Genesis 3:7; Genesis 8:11; Leviticus 26:36 (Tereph); Ezekiel 17:9; phullon. Figuratively

(a) of spiritual blessings (Ezekiel 47:12; compare Revelation 22:2) and prosperity (Psalms 1:3);

(b) of moral decay (Isaiah 64:6), and

(c) of a formal, empty profession (Matthew 21:19).

(2) To a book (deleth), Jeremiah 36:23 (margin "columns"; see 36:2); as the parchment was gradually unfolded the successive columns could be read.

(3) To doors (tsela`, "side," qela`,"a screen," "hanging"), 1 Kings 6:34. The door of the Holy Place consisted of two halves, but each half had two leaves (compare Ezekiel 41:24).

M. O. Evans

League

leg.

See CONFEDERACY.