Leviticus (continued) – Libnites

Leviticus (continued)

Our exposition of Leviticus 17:1 ff is, however, in another respect also of the greatest significance, for in 17:4-6,8 f the tent of meeting is presupposed as existing; in 17:5,8 also different kinds of sacrifices, and in verse 6 the priesthood; so that at once further ordinances concerning the tent of meeting, the sacrificial code, the priesthood, such as we find in Exodus 25:1–40; Exodus 35:1–35; Leviticus 1:1–7:38; Exodus 29:1–46; Leviticus 8:1–36; Leviticus 9:1–24; Leviticus 11:1 ff, were possible and necessary, and these very laws must probably originate in and date from the Mosaic period. This same conclusion is sustained by the following considerations. For what other source or time could be in harmony with such statements found very often in other parts of Leviticus also, as "into the camp" in 4:11 ff; 6:11; 13:46; 14:3,8 (unconscious contrast to later times); 14:33 ff,40,41,45,53; 16:26-28; 24:10-23; or "into the desert," in 16:10,21 f. In 6:15,18; 6:6 (compare also 27:2 ff), the words "according to thy estimation" are addressed personally to Moses. In 6:20 a calculation is based on the day on which Aaron was consecrated to the priesthood, while 6:22 is the first that has general coloring. Such hints, which, as it were, have only been accidentally scattered in the body of the laws, and which point to the situation of the lawgiver and of his times, are of especial value for the argument in favor of the Mosaic origin of these laws. Further, we everywhere find that Aaron and his sons are as yet the only incumbents of the priestly office (compare 1:5,7,8,11; 2:3; 3:13; 6:9,14,16, etc.). All the laws claim to have been given through Moses or Aaron or through both at Mt. Sinai (see I above). And who, in later times, if it was the purpose to magnify the priesthood of Aaron, would have thought of inventing the fact that on the Day of Atonement and on other occasions it was necessary for Aaron to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering for himself (Leviticus 16:1–34; Leviticus 8:1–10:20; Leviticus 6:19), or that Moses in his view of a certain cultural act had been mistaken (compare Leviticus 10:16 ff)? The law concerning the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25:1–55) presupposes that each tribe is confined in its own district and is not intermingled with the other tribes, a presupposition which was no longer possible after the occupation of Canaan, and is accordingly thinkable only in the Mosaic times. And now let us remember that this fact, when we recall (see II, above) that the unity of the book was proved, is a ground for claiming that the entire book dates from the Mosaic period. As far as Leviticus at least is concerned, there is nothing found in the book that calls for a later date. Leviticus 18:24 ff can be regarded as post-Mosaic only if we translate these verses thoughtlessly, as though the inhabitants of the country were here described as being expelled earlier. On the other hand, in 18:24, just as is the case with the parallel passage, 20:22 ff, the idea is, without any doubt, that Israel is not yet in the Holy Land. Accordingly the waw consecutives at this place are to be regarded not as indicating temporal but logical sequences. In the passage 18:27, we further find the archaic form ha'-el for ha'-elleh; compare in the Pentateuch Genesis 19:8,Genesis 19:25; Genesis 26:3,Genesis 26:4; Deuteronomy 4:42; Deuteronomy 7:22; Deuteronomy 19:11. Just as little does Leviticus 26:1–46 take us into the exilic period. Only dogmatical prejudices can take offense at prediction of the exile. Leviticus 26:1–46 cannot be regarded as a "prophecy after the event," for the reason, too, that the restoration of the people by God's pardon is here promised (compare 26:40 ff). And, too, the exile is not the only punishment with which Israel is threatened; and finally as far as Israel is concerned, by the side of the statements concerning their dwelling in one single country (26:34,38,41,44), it is also said that they are to be scattered among many nations and countries (compare 26:23,16,39).

(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin.

If to this we yet add the unity of the thought and of the external construction, looking at the whole matter, we do not see anything that would lead us to accept a post-Mosaic period for this book. Then, too, it is from the outset in itself only probable that Moses gave his people a body of cult-laws and did not leave this matter to chance. We need only think of the great role which among the oriental peoples was assigned to their religious cults. It is indeed nowhere said, in so many words, that Moses wrote even the laws of the Priestly Code. But the references made by Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code; the fact that Numbers 33:1–56, which also is credited to Moses, is characterized by the style of Priestly Code; further, that the author of Deuteronomy could write in the style of P (compare Deuteronomy 14:1–29 with Leviticus 11:1–47); and, per contra, that the author of Leviticus 26:1–46 had the mastery of the style peculiar to Deuteronomy (compare Deuteronomy 28:1–68)--all this makes it probable that Moses even wrote these things himself; at any rate, no reasons can be cited against this view. Very interesting in connection with the question of the unity of the Pentateuch are the close connecting links between Leviticus 18:24 Leviticus 20:22 , and JE. The question whether Moses in the composition of the book made use of his own notes or of those of others, cannot be decided; but this is an irrelevant matter. What the facts may be in reference to the development of other ordinances, which have taken different forms in the Books of the Covenant and in Priestly Code, or in Deuteronomy and in Priestly Code, and whether the existence of these differences in the cases of particular laws compels us to accept later additions, cannot be discussed at this place. Yet from the outset it is to be emphasized that already in the Mosaic period there could possibly have been reasons for changing some of these laws; especially was this so in the Book of Deuteronomy, just before the people entered the promised land (compare e.g. the laws concerning tithes, Deuteronomy 12:6,Deuteronomy 12:17; Deuteronomy 14:22 Deuteronomy 26:12 ; Leviticus 27:30 ff; Numbers 18:20 ff, or the laws concerning contributions for sacrifices, Deuteronomy 18:3; Leviticus 7:29 ff).

Then, too, the decision whether this development took place as early as the time of Moses or not is not to be made dependent on the possibility of our being able to explain the reasons for such changes. We lack both the daily practice in these cultural ordinances, as also the oral instruction which makes these ordinances intelligible. The manner in which in Leviticus 1:1–17 ff the different kinds of sacrifices are introduced sounds as though these were already known to the people and were practiced by them, except in the case of sin and guilt offerings. This is further in harmony with earlier narratives, which already report concerning sacrifices. It is possible that in this way we can also explain a certain relationship between the Jewish sacrificial ritual and that of Babylon (compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion). The ordinances in reference to the clean and the unclean may also have emanated from religious and ethical ideas which are older than Moses' times. In this matter the thought was decisive, that everything that was impure, everything that suggested death or decay or sin or displeasure to God, should be kept separated and apart from the religion of Yahweh. In all such cases it is not the newness of the laws but their adaptability to the character and spirit of the Yahweh-religion that is to be regarded as the decisive factor.

IV. The Significance.

1. Positive:

(1) The Law Contains God's Will.

The law contains God's will, although in transitory form. In the article EZEKIEL under II, 2, (3) we have referred to the fact that Leviticism is an important and necessary stage in the development of true religion, and that the entire Old Testament did not advance beyond this stage and was not intended to go beyond it. The leading prophets (Isaiah 40:1–31 , Jeremiah, Ezekiel), even in their visions of the future, cling to the temple, sacrifices, holy oblations, sacred seasons and persons. Christianity was the first to discard this external shell, after it had ripened the kernel that was concealed in this shell (compare worship in the spirit and in the truth, John 4:20–24). Down to this time, kernel and shell were inseparably united. This must not be forgotten, if we would appreciate the Book of Leviticus properly. It is true that this book to a large extent deals with laws and ordinances, to which we Christians should not and need not return (compare the voice from heaven to Peter, Acts 10:15, "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common," and Paul's opposition to all work-righteousness that was based on compliance with these external institutions, e.g. in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, as also his independent attitude over against the Jewish law in those cases where it could not be taken into consideration as the way to salvation; compare Acts 21:17 ff; Romans 14:1 ff; 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff). But these laws and ordinances were something more than merely external matters, since they contained the highest religious thoughts. We surely should not forget from the outset that Leviticus 19:1–37 contains also the word, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (19:18), a command which in 19:33 f is even made to cover the strangers too, and which by Jesus, next to the absolute love demanded for God, is designated as the chief commandment of the law (Matthew 22:39); and when in 19:17 f the hatred of the brother and desire for revenge on him are forbidden, we already seem to breathe atmosphere of Christianity. The entire Leviticus 19:1–37 is, in addition, as it were, a sermon on almost all of the commandments of the Decalogue, the abiding authority of which the Christian, after the example and interpretation of Jesus, will at once recognize. But as the Decalogue itself is found enclosed in the specifically Jewish national shell (compare Exodus 20:2, exodus out of Egypt; 20:8, Sabbath commandment; 20:12, promise of the holy land; 20:17, slaves), so, too, this is the case in Leviticus 19:1–37 (compare 19:3,6 ff,20-22,23-25,29,30,33 f). But how little the specifically Levitical ordinances, in the narrower sense of the term, exclude the spiritual factor, and how closely they are interwoven with the deepest of thoughts, can be seen from Leviticus 26:1–46, according to which all merely external sacrifices, into which formalism naturally the Levitical legal code could degenerate, do not protect from punishment, if the heart remains uncircumcised (26:30 f,41).

Above all, there are four leading thoughts which are emphasized forcibly, particularly by the legal system of Priestly Code. In reality all times, all places, all property, all persons are sacred to God. But as it is impossible that this ideal should be realized in view of the imperfections and guilt of man, it was decided that certain particular seasons and places, gifts and persons should be separated from others, and that in these this sacredness should be realized as far as possible, and that these representatives should by their mere existence continually remind the people of God's more comprehensive claims, and at the same time arouse and maintain the consciousness that their entire life was to be saturated by the thoughts of a holy God and His demands. From this point of view, none of the particular laws are worthless; and when they are once appreciated in this their central significance, we can understand that each law has its share in the eternal authority of the law (compare Matthew 5:17 f). Paul, too, who absolutely rejects the law as a way to salvation expresses no doubt that the law really contains the will of God (Romans 8:3 f); and he declares that it was the purpose of the sending of Jesus, that the demands made upon us by the law should be fulfilled; and in Romans 13:10 he tells us that love is the fulfillment of the law (compare 13:8); and according to Romans 7:12, it is certain that the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity.

But the ceremonial law, too, contains not only the demands of God's will. It prepares also for the understanding of the work, the person and the mission of Jesus. In Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45 f; 40:34 ff the indwelling of God in the tent of meeting is declared, which prophesied the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus (John 1:14); and then the indwelling of God through the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation (1 Peter 2:5; Ephesians 4:12) and in the individual (1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; John 14:23). Through the sacrificial system in Leviticus 1:1–7:38, and the ordinances of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1–34), we are enabled to understand the character of sin, of grace and of the forgiveness of sin (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. II). Let us remember to what extent Jesus and Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the other New Testament writings operate with Old Testament thoughts, particularly with those of Le (priest-hood, sacrifices, atonement, Passover, signification of blood, etc.), and Paul correctly says that the righteousness of God was prophesied, not only by the prophets, but also by the law (Romans 3:21).

(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ.

Finally, the ceremonial law too has the purpose to protect Israel from the errors of the heathen, a thought that is especially emphasized in the Law of Holiness (compare Leviticus 18:3,Leviticus 18:14 ff; 19:26 ff; 20:2 ff,22 ff; 26:1) and which is in harmony with the elementary stage of Israel's education in the Old Testament, when the people still stood in need of the "tutor .... unto Christ" (Galatians 3:23 Galatians 4:1). This already leads us over to the negative side, which Paul particularly emphasizes.

2. Negative:

The law is in itself holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Romans 7:12), but it has lost its power because the flesh of man is sinful (compare Romans 8:3); and thus it happens that the law is the occasion for sin and leads to a knowledge of sin and to an increase of sin (compare Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:20; Romans 7:13); and this shall be brought about according to the purposes of God in order that in upright hearts the desire for forgiveness should arise. It is true that nothing was so well adapted as were the details of the law, to bring to consciousness in the untutored mind that in which man yet came short of the Divine commands. And as far as the removal of the guilt was concerned, nothing was needed except the reference to this in order to make men feel their imperfections (compare Hebrews 7:1–10:39). God merely out of grace was for the time being contented with the blood of goats and of calves as a means for atonement; He was already counting on the forgiveness in Christ (Romans 3:25). All the sacrifices in Leviticus 1:1–7:38, e.g., did not make the ritual of the Day of Atonement superfluous (Leviticus 16:1–34); and in this case the very man who brought the sacrifice was also a sinful creature who must first secure the forgiveness of God for himself. Only Jesus, at once the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice, has achieved the perfect redemption. It accordingly remains a fact that the righteousness which avails before God can be secured only through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the deeds of the law (Romans and Galatians).

The law with its incomplete atonement and with its arousing of the consciousness of sin drives man to Jesus; and this is its negative significance. Jesus, however, who Himself has fulfilled the demands of the law, gives us through His spirit the power, that the law with its demands (1, (1) above) may no longer stand threateningly over against us, but is now written in our hearts. In this way the Old Testament law is fulfilled in its transitory form, and at the same time becomes superfluous, after its eternal contents have been recognized, maintained and surpassed.

LITERATURE.

Commentaries by Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack, Baentsch, Bertholet; especially for the Law of Holiness see Horst, Leviticus 17:1–26:46 and Ezk; Wurster, Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1884, 112 ff; Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz; Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 368 ff; Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur kirch. Wissenschaft und Leben, 1880, 617 ff; Intros to the Old Testament by Baudissin, Strack, Kuenen, Konig, Cornill, Driver, Sellin; Archaeology, by Benzinger, Nowack; History of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen; for kindred laws in Babylonia, compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babyl. Religion; against the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? (ibid., "Literature"), and article EZEKIEL in this Encyclopedia; Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilh. Vatke und die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese.

Wilhelm Moller

Levy

lev'-i.

See WAR.

Lewd; Lewdness

lud, lud'-nes (zimmah, mezimmah, nabhluth; poneros, rhadiourgema):

1. In the Old Testament:

There are three Hebrew words translated "lewd," "lewdness":

(1) Zimmah, meaning a "plan," a "purpose," so translated several times and then shading off into "evil plan"; translated also "heinous crime," "wicked purpose or device." It is the most frequent word for "lewdness": Ezekiel 16:27, "lewd way"; found in Judges 20:6; Ezekiel 16:27,Ezekiel 16:43,Ezekiel 16:58; Ezekiel 22:9,Ezekiel 22:11; Ezekiel 23:21,Ezekiel 23:27,Ezekiel 23:29,Ezekiel 23:35,Ezekiel 23:44–48,Ezekiel 23:49; Ezekiel 24:13; Hosea 6:9.

(2) Mezimmah means a "plan," generally "(evil) machination"; used only in Jeremiah 11:15, "lewdness."

(3) Nabhluth, meaning "disgrace" in reference to females. Found only in Hosea 2:10; the American Revised Version margin "shame."

2. In the New Testament:

The word translated "lewd," "lewdness" in the King James Version occurs only twice in the New Testament, and in each instance is more correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) by another word:

(1) Poneros, found in Acts 17:5, translated in the American Standard Revised Version "vile." The Greek word elsewhere is translated "bad," "evil," "grievous," "harmful," "malicious," "wicked." the King James Version "lewd" gives the wrong impression. The idea of unchastity is not present in the text or context.

(2) Rhadiourgema likewise occurs only once, namely, Acts 18:14, and is correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version "wicked villany." The thought of impurity or lewdness is foreign to the meaning in this connection.

William Edward Raffety

Libanus

lib'-a-nus.

See LEBANON.

Libation

li-ba'-shun.

See SACRIFICE.

Liberal; Liberality; Liberally

lib'-er-al, lib-er-al'-i-ti, lib'-er-al-i: The different forms of the word all refer to one who is generous, bountiful, willing and ready to give and to help. Both the Hebrew words of the Old Testament and the Greek words of the New Testament translated into the English word "liberal" have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In Proverbs 11:25, the liberal soul (nephesh berakhah) means a soul that carries a blessing. In Isaiah 32:5, the American Standard Revised Version has "bountiful" where the King James Version has "liberal," and in Isaiah 32:8 "noble" takes the place of "liberal" (nadhibh). The principal Greek words are haplotes literally, "simplicity," "sincerity," and charis, "grace," "favor." In 1 Corinthians 16:3, "bounty" substitutes "liberality." It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit.

G. H. Gerberding

Libertines

lib'-er-tinz, li-bur'-tinz (Libertinoi): These were among Stephen's opponents: "There arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen" (Acts 6:9).have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In Proverbs 11:25, the liberal soul (nephesh berakhah) means a soul that carries a blessing. In Isaiah 32:5, the American Standard Revised Version has "bountiful" where the King James Version has "liberal," and in Isaiah 32:8 "noble" takes the place of "liberal" (nadhibh). The principal Greek words are haplotes literally, "simplicity," "sincerity," and charis, "grace," "favor." In 1 Corinthians 16:3, "bounty" substitutes "liberality." It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit.

1. "Synagogue of the Libertines":

How many synagogues are denoted? The answer may aid in the interpretation of "Libertines":

(1) The words may be read as denoting one synagogue (Calvin). However

(a) the number of worshippers would be extremely large,

(b) the bond of union is not obvious,

(c) rabbinic tradition speaks of 480 synagogues in Jerusalem.

(2) The double ton ("of them") seems to denote two parties, the one consisting "of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of Libertines and Cyrenians and Alexandrians," the other "of them of Cilicia and Asia", (Winer, Wendt, Holtzmann). But the second ton is dependent on synagogue. "As Cyrenians and Alexandrians both belong to towns .... a change of designation would be necessary when the Jews of whole provinces came to be mentioned: this being the case, the article could not but be repeated, without any reference to the ton before" (Alford).

(3) There were three synagogues:

(a) that of the Libertines,

(b) that of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians and

(c) that "of them of Cilicia and Asia" (Alford). There is no grammatical reason for this division, but it is based on an interpretation of "Libertines." There were "Libertines," Africans and Asiatics.

(4) Each party had a separate synagogue (Schurer, Hausrath). The number of worshippers, their different origin and connections, and the number of synagogues in Jerusalem give weight to this view.

2. Interpretation of "Libertines":

(1) They are "freedmen," liberated slaves or their descendants. Against this it is held that the Greek equivalent (apeleutheroi) would have been used in this case. However, the Roman designation would be common all over the empire. In what sense were they "freedmen"? Various answers are given:

(a) they were freedmen from Jewish servitude (Lightfoot);

(b) they were Italian freedmen who had become proselytes;

(c) they were "the freedmen of the Romans" (Chrysostom), the descendants of Jewish freedmen at Rome who had been expelled by Tiberius. In 63 BC Pompey had taken prisoners of war to Rome. These, being liberated by those who had acquired them as slaves, formed a colony on the banks of the Tiber (Philo, Legat. ad Caium). Tacitus relates that the senate decreed (19 AD) that a number of Jewish Libertines should be transported to Sardinia, and that the rest should leave Italy, unless they renounced, before a certain day, their profane customs (Ann. ii, 85; see also Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 5). Many would naturally seek refuge in Jerusalem and build there a synagogue.

(2) They are an African community. There were two synagogues, one of which was Asiatic. In the other were men from two African towns (Cyrene and Alexandria), therefore the Libertines must have been African also, all forming an African synagogue. Various explanations are given:

(a) They were inhabitants of Libertum, a town in Africa proper: an "Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Libertinensis" sat in the Synod of Carthage (411 AD).

(b) Some emend the text; Wetstein and Blass, following the Armenian VS, conjecture Libustinon, "of the Libystines." Schulthess reads for "Libertines and Cyrenians" (Libertinon kai Kurenaion) "Libyans, those about Cyrene" (Libuon ton kata Kurenen) (compare Acts 2:10).

These emendations are conjectural; the manuscripts read "Libertines." It seems, therefore, that 2, (1) (c) above is the correct interpretation.

S. F. Hunter

Liberty

lib'-er-ti (deror, rachabh; eleutheria): The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus deror, Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin (John 8:34), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state. In a positive respect, it consists in the possession of holiness, with the will and ability to do what is right and good. Such liberty is possible only in a renewed condition of soul, and cannot exist apart from godliness. Even under the Old Testament godly men could boast of a measure of such liberty (Psalms 119:45, rachabh, "room," "breadth"), but it is the gospel of Christ which bestows it in its fullness, in giving a full and clear knowledge of God, discovering the way of forgiveness, supplying the highest motives to holiness and giving the Holy Spirit to destroy the power of sin and to quicken to righteousness. In implanting a new life in the soul, the gospel lifts the believer out of the sphere of external law, and gives him a sense of freedom in his new filial relation to God. Hence, the New Testament expressions about "the glorious liberty" of God's children (Romans 8:21 the King James Version; compare Galatians 2:4; Galatians 5:13, etc.), about liberty as resulting from the possession of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), about "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25). The instrument through which this liberty is imparted is "the truth" (John 8:32). Christians are earnestly warned not to presume upon, or abuse their liberty in Christ (Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16).

James Orr

Libnah

lib'-na (libhnah "whiteness," "transparency," "pavement" (compare Exodus 24:10 where libhnath, is translated "paved work" or a "compact foundation"); Lebna):

(1) A desert camp of the Israelites between Rimmon-perez and Rissah (Numbers 33:20,Numbers 33:21). Probably the same as Laban (Deuteronomy 1:1).

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

(2) A town in the Shephelah of Judah (Joshua 15:42). "Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: and Yahweh delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel. .... And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it" (Joshua 10:29–31; Joshua 12:15). It was one of the cities given to the "children of Aaron" (Joshua 21:13; 1 Chronicles 6:57). In the reign of Joram, Libnah joined the Edomites in a revolt against the king of Judah (2 Kings 8:22; 2 Chronicles 21:10). In the reign of Hezekiah, Libnah was besieged by Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:8; Isaiah 37:8). The wife of King Josiah was "Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah," she was the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (2 Kings 23:31; 2 Kings 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1).

The site of this important stronghold remains unknown. In the Eusebius, Onomasticon it is described, under the name Lobana or Lobna, as near Eleutheropolis (Beit Jebrin). All the indications point to a site in the Southwest of the Shephelah, not very far from Lachish. The Palestine Exploration Fund surveyors suggested (PEF, III, 259) the commanding site `Arak el Menshiyeh, or rather the white chalky mound 250 ft. high to the North of this village, and Stanley proposed Tell es Cafi. (Both these identifications are due to the interpretation of Libnah as meaning "whiteness.") In the PEFS (1897, Sh XX) Conder suggests a ruin called el Benawy, 10 miles Southeast of Lachish.

E. W. G. Masterman

Libni

lib'-ni (libhni):

(1) Son of Gershon (Exodus 6:17; Numbers 3:18; 1 Chronicles 6:17,1 Chronicles 6:20). Families who traced their descent from Libni are called Libnites (Numbers 3:21; Numbers 26:58).

(2) A son of Merari (1 Chronicles 6:29).

See LADAN.

Libnites

lib'-nits (ha-libhni).

See LIBNI.