Righteousness – Roboam

Righteousness

ri'-chus-nes (tsaddiq, adjective, "righteous," or occasionally "just" tsedheq, noun, occasionally = "riahteousness," occasionally = "justice"; dikaios, adjective, dikaiosune, noun, from dike, whose first meaning seems to have been "custom"; the general use suggested conformity to a standard: righteousness, "the state of him who is such as he ought to be" (Thayer)):

1. Double Aspect of Righteousness: Changing and Permanent

2. Social Customs and Righteousness

3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obligations of Power

4. Righteousness as Inner

5. Righteousness as Social

6. Righteousness as Expanding in Content with Growth in Ideals of Human Worth

LITERATURE

1. Double Aspect of Righteousness: Changing and Permanent:

In Christian thought the idea of righteousness contains both a permanent and a changing element. The fixed element is the will to do right; the changing factor is the conception of what may be right at different times and under different circumstances. Throughout the entire course of Christian revelation we discern the emphasis on the first factor. To be sure, in the days of later Pharisaism righteousness came to be so much a matter of externals that the inner intent was often lost sight of altogether (Matthew 23:23); but, on the whole and in the main, Christian thought in all ages has recognized as the central element in righteousness the intention to be and do right. This common spirit binds together the first worshippers of God and the latest. Present-day conceptions of what is right differ by vast distances from the conceptions of the earlier Hebrews, but the intentions of the first worshippers are as discernible as are those of the doers of righteousness in the present day.

2. Social Customs and Righteousness:

There seems but little reason to doubt that the content of the idea of righteousness was determined in the first instance by the customs of social groups. There are some, of course, who would have us believe that what we experience as inner moral sanction is nothing but the fear of consequences which come through disobeying the will of the social group, or the feeling of pleasure which results as we know we have acted in accordance with the social demands. At least some thinkers would have us believe that this is all there was in moral feeling in the beginning. If a social group was to survive it must lay upon its individual members the heaviest exactions. Back of the performance of religious rites was the fear of the group that the god of the group would be displeased if certain honors were not rendered to him. Merely to escape the penalties of an angry deity the group demanded ceremonial religious observances. From the basis of fear thus wrought into the individuals of the group have come all our loftier movements toward righteousness.

It is not necessary to deny the measure of truth there may be in this account. To point out its inadequacy, however, a better statement would be that from the beginning the social group utilized the native moral feeling of the individual for the defense of the group. The moral feeling, by which we mean a sense of the difference between right and wrong, would seem to be a part of the native furnishing of the mind. It is very likely that in the beginning this moral feeling was directed toward the performance of the rites which the group looked upon as important.

See ALMS.

As we read the earlier parts of the Old Testament we are struck by the fact that much of the early Hebrew morality was of this group kind. The righteous man was the man who performed the rites which had been handed down from the beginning (Deuteronomy 6:25). The meaning of some of these rites is lost in obscurity, but from a very early period the characteristic of Hebrew righteousness is that it moves in the direction of what we should call today the enlargement of humanity. There seemed to be at work, not merely the forces which make for the preservation of the group, not merely the desire to please the God of the Hebrews for the sake of the material favors which He might render the Hebrews, but the factors which make for the betterment of humanity as such. As we examine the laws of the Hebrews, even at so late a time as the completion of the formal Codes, we are indeed struck by traces of primitive survivals (Numbers 5:11–31). There are some injunctions whose purpose we cannot well understand. But, on the other hand, the vast mass of the legislation had to do with really human considerations. There are rules concerning Sanitation (Leviticus 13:1–59), both as it touches the life of the group and of the individual; laws whose mastery begets emphasis, not merely upon external consequences, but upon the inner result in the life of the individual (Psalms 51:3); and prohibitions which would indicate that morality, at least in its plainer decencies, had come to be valued on its own account. If we were to seek for some clue to the development of the moral life of the Hebrews we might well find it in this emphasis upon the growing demands of human life as such. A suggestive writer has pointed out that the apparently meaningless commandment, "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19), has back of it a real human purpose, that there are some things which in themselves are revolting apart from any external consequences (see also Leviticus 18:1–30).

3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obligations of Power:

An index of the growth of the moral life of the people is to be found in the changing conception of the character of God. We need not enter into the question as to just where on the moral plane the idea of the God of the Hebrews started, but from the very beginning we see clearly that the Hebrews believed in their God as one passionately devoted to the right (Genesis 18:25). It may well be that at the start the God of the Hebrews was largely a God of War, but it is to be noticed that His enmity was against the peoples who had little regard for the larger human considerations. It has often been pointed out that one proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures is to be found in their moral superiority to the Scriptures of the peoples around about the Hebrews. If the Hebrew writers used material which was common property of Chaldeans, Babylonians, and other peoples, they nevertheless used these materials with a moral difference. They breathed into them a moral life which forever separates them from the Scriptures of other peoples. The marvel also of Hebrew history is that in the midst of revoltingly immoral surroundings the Hebrews grew to such ideals of human worth. The source of these ideals is to be found in their thougth of God. Of course, in moral progress there is a reciprocal effect; the thought of God affects the thought of human life and the thought of human life affects the thought of God; but the Hebrews no sooner came to a fresh moral insight than they made their moral discovery a part of the character of God. From the beginning, we repeat, the God of the Hebrews was a God directed in His moral wrath against all manner of abominations, aberrations and abnormalities. The purpose of God, according to the Hebrews, was to make a people "separated" in the sense that they were to be free from anything which would detract from a full moral life (Leviticus 20:22).

We can trace the more important steps in the growth of the Hebrew ideal. First, there was an increasingly clear discernment that certain things are to be ruled out at once as immoral. The primitive decencies upon which individual and social life depended were discerned at an early period (compare passages in Leviticus cited above). Along with this it must be admitted there was a slower approach to some ideals which we today consider important, the ideals of the marriage relations for example (Deuteronomy 24:1,Deuteronomy 24:2). Then there was a growing sense of what constitutes moral obligation in the discharge of responsibilities upon the part of men toward their fellows (Isaiah 5:8,Isaiah 5:23). There was increasing realization also of what God, as a moral Being, is obligated to do. The hope of salvation of nations and individuals rests at once upon the righteousness of God.

By the time of Isaiah the righteousness of God has come to include the obligations of power (Isaiah 63:1). God will save His people, not merely because He has promised to save them, but because He must save them (Isaiah 42:6). The must is moral. If the people of Israel show themselves unworthy, God must punish them; but if a remnant, even a small remnant, show themselves faithful, God must show His favor toward them. Moral worth is not conceived of as something that is to be paid for by external rewards, but if God is moral He must not treat the righteous and the unrighteous alike. This conception of what God must do as an obligated Being influences profoundly the Hebrew interpretation of the entire course of history (Isaiah 10:20,Isaiah 10:21).

Upon this ideal of moral obligation there grows later the thought of the virtue of vicarious suffering (Isaiah 53). The sufferings of the good man and of God for those who do not in themselves deserve such sufferings (for them) are a mark of a still higher righteousness (see HOSEA). The movement of the Scriptures is all the way from the thought of a God who gives battle for the right to the thought of a God who receives in Himself the heaviest shocks of that battle that others may have opportunity for moral life.

These various lines of moral development come, of course, to their crown in the New Testament in the life and death of Christ as set before us in the Gospels and interpreted by the apostles. Jesus stated certain moral axioms so clearly that the world never will escape their power. He said some things once and for all, and He did some things once and for all; that is to say, in His life and death He set on high the righteousness of God as at once moral obligation and self-sacrificing love (John 3:16) and with such effectiveness that the world has not escaped and cannot escape this righteous influence (John 12:32). Moreover, the course of apostolic and subsequent history has shown that Christ put a winning and compelling power into the idea of righteousness that it would otherwise have lacked (Romans 8:31,Romans 8:32).

4. Righteousness as Inner:

The ideas at work throughout the course of Hebrew and Christian history are, of course, at work today. Christianity deepens the sense of obligation to do right. It makes the moral spirit essential. Then it utilizes every force working for the increase of human happiness to set on high the meaning of righteousness. Jesus spoke of Himself as "life," and declared that He came that men might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10). The keeping of the commandments plays, of course, a large part in the unfolding of the life of the righteous Christian, but the keeping of the commandments is not to be conceived of in artificial or mechanical fashion (Luke 10:25–37). With the passage of the centuries some commandments once conceived of as essential drop into the secondary place, and other commandments take the controlling position. In Christian development increasing place is given for certain swift insights of the moral spirit. We believe that some things are righteous because they at once appeal to us as righteous. Again, some other things seem righteous because their consequences are beneficial, both for society and for the individual. Whatever makes for the largest life is in the direction of righteousness. In interpreting life, however, we must remember the essentially Christian conception that man does not live through outer consequences alone. In all thought of consequences the chief place has to be given to inner consequences. By the surrender of outward happiness and outward success a man may attain inner success. The spirit of the cross is still the path to the highest righteousness.

5. Righteousness as Social:

The distinctive note in emphasis upon righteousness in our own day is the stress laid upon social service. This does not mean that Christianity is to lose sight of the worth of the individual in himself. We have come pretty clearly to see that the individual is the only moral end in himself. Righteousness is to have as its aim the upbuilding of individual lives. The commandments of the righteous life are not for the sake of society as a thing in itself. Society is nothing apart from the individuals that compose it; but we are coming to see that individuals have larger relationships than we had once imagined and greater responsibilities than we had dreamed of. The influence of the individual touches others at more points than we had formerly realized. We have at times condemned the system of things as being responsible for much human misery which we now see can be traced to the agency of individuals. The employer, the day-laborer, the professional man, the public servant, all these have large responsibilities for the life of those around. The unrighteous individual has a power of contaminating other individuals, and his deadliness we have just begun to understand. All this is receiving new emphasis in our present-day preaching of righteousness. While our social relations are not ends in themselves, they are mighty means for reaching individuals in large numbers. The Christian conception of redeemed humanity is not that of society as an organism existing on its own account, but that of individuals knit very closely together in their social relationships and touching one another for good in these relationships (1 Corinthians 1:2; Revelation 7:9,Revelation 7:10). If we were to try to point out the line in which the Christian doctrine of righteousness is to move more and more through the years, we should have to emphasize this element of obligation to society. This does not mean that a new gospel is to supersede the old or even place itself alongside the old. It does mean that the righteousness of God and the teaching of Christ and the cross, which are as ever the center of Christianity, are to find fresh force in the thought of the righteousness of the Christian as binding itself, not merely by commandments to do the will of God in society, but by the inner spirit to live the life of God out into society.

6. Righteousness as Expanding in Content with Growth in Ideals of Human Worth:

In all our thought of righteousness it must be borne in mind that there is nothing in Christian revelation which will tell us what righteousness calls for in every particular circumstance. The differences between earlier and later practical standards of conduct and the differences between differing standards in different circumstances have led to much confusion in the realm of Christian thinking. We can keep our bearing, however, by remembering the double element in righteousness which we mentioned in the beginning; on the one hand, the will to do right, and, on the other, the difficulty of determining in a particular circumstance just what the right is. The larger Christian conceptions always have an element of fluidity, or, rather, an element of expansiveness. For example, it is clearly a Christian obligation to treat all men with a spirit of good will or with a spirit of Christian love. But what does love call for in a particular case? We can only answer the question by saying that love seeks for whatever is best, both for him who receives and for him who gives. This may lead to one course of conduct in one situation and to quite a different course in another. We must, however, keep before us always the aim of the largest life for all persons whom we can reach. Christian righteousness today is even more insistent upon material things, such as sanitary arrangements, than was the Code of Moses. The obligation to use the latest knowledge for the hygienic welfare is just as binding now as then, but "the latest knowledge" is a changing term. Material progress, education, spiritual instruction, are all influences which really make for full life.

Not only is present-day righteousness social and growing; it is also concerned, to a large degree, with the thought of the world which now is. Righteousness has too often been conceived of merely as the means of preparing for the life of some future Kingdom of Heaven. Present-day emphasis has not ceased to think of the life beyond this, but the life beyond this can best be met and faced by those who have been in the full sense righteous in the life that now is. There is here no break in true Christian continuity. The seers who have understood Christianity best always have insisted that to the fullest degree the present world must be redeemed by the life-giving forces of Christianity. We still insist that all idea of earthly righteousness takes its start from heavenly righteousness, or, rather, that the righteousness of man is to be based upon his conception of the righteousness of God. Present-day thinking concerns itself largely with the idea of the Immanence of God. God is in this present world. This does not mean that there may not be other worlds, or are not other worlds, and that God is not also in those worlds; but the immediate revelation of God to us is in our present world. Our present world then must be the sphere in which the righteousness of God and of man is to be set forth. God is conscience, and God is love. The present sphere is to be used for the manifestation of His holy love. The chief channel through which that holy love is to manifest itself is the conscience and love of the Christian believer. But even these terms are not to be used in the abstract. There is an abstract conscientiousness which leads to barren living: the life gets out of touch with things that are real. There is an experience of love which exhausts itself in well-wishing. Both conscience and love are to be kept close to the earth by emphasis upon the actual realities of the world in which we live.

LITERATURE.

G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation; A. E. Garvie, Handbook of Christian Apologetics; Borden P. Bowne, Principles of Ethics; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God; W. N. Clarke, The Ideal of Jesus; H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus.

Francis J. McConnell

Rimmon (1)

rim'-on:

(1) The rock Rimmon (cela` rimmon; he petra Rhemmon): The place of refuge of the 600 surviving Benjamites of Gibeah (Jeba`) who "turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of Rimmon four months" (Judges 20:45,Revelation 21:11; Revelation 20:13). Robinson's identification (RB, I, 440) has been very generally accepted. He found a conical and very prominent hill some 6 miles North-Northeast of Jeba` upon which stands a village called Rummon. This site was known to Eusebius and Jerome (OS 146 6; 287 98), who describe it as 15 Roman miles from Jerusalem. Another view, which would locate the place of refuge of the Benjamites in the Mugharet el jai, a large cavern on the south of the Wady Suweinit, near Jeba`, is strongly advocated by Rawnsley and Birch (see PEF, III, 137-48). The latter connects this again with 1 Samuel 14:2, where Saul, accompanied by his 600, "abode in the uttermost part of Gibeah" under the pomegranate tree (Rimmon).

(2) (rimmon; Eremmon, or Rhemmoth): A city in the Negeb, near the border of Edom, ascribed to Judah (Joshua 15:32) and to Simeon (Joshua 19:7; 1 Chronicles 4:32, the King James Version "Remmon"). In Zechariah 14:10 it is mentioned as the extreme South of Judah--"from Geba to Rimmon, South of Jerusalem." In the earlier references Rimmon occurs in close association with `Ain (a spring), and in Nehemiah 11:29, what is apparently the same place, `Ain Rimmon, is called En-rimmon (which see).

(3) (rimmon (Joshua 19:13), rimmonah, in some Hebrew manuscripts dimah (see DIMNAH) (Joshua 21:35), and rimmono (1 Chronicles 6:77)): In the King James Version we have "Remmon-methoar" in Joshua 19:13, but the Revised Version (British and American) translates the latter as "which stretcheth." This was a city on the border of Zebulun (Joshua 19:13) allotted to the Levites (Joshua 21:35, "Dimnah"; 1 Chronicles 6:77). The site is now the little village of Rummaneh on a low ridge South of the western end of the marshy plain el Battauf in Galilee; there are many rock-cut tombs and cisterns. It is about 4 miles North of el Mesh-hed, usually considered to be the site of Gath-hepher. See PEF, I, 363, Sh VI.

E. W. G. Masterman

Rimmon (2)

(rimmon, "pomegranate"; see RIMMON-PEREZ):

(1) A Syrian god. Naaman the Syrian leper after being cured is troubled over the fact that he will still have to bow down in the house of the Syrian god, Rimmon, when his master goes into the house to worship leaning on his hand (2 Kings 5:18). Elisha answers him ambiguously: "Go in peace." Judging from Naaman's position and this incident, Rimmon must have been one of the leading gods of the Syrians worshipped in Damascus. He has been identified with Rammanu, the Assyrian god of wind, rain and storm. The name appears in the Syrian personal names HADADRIMMON and TABRIMMON (which see) and its meaning is dubious (ramamu, "to thunder" (?))

(2) A Benjamite of Beeroth, whose sons Baanah and Rechab assassinated Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 4:2,2 Samuel 4:5,2 Samuel 4:9).

Nathan Isaacs

Rimmon, Rock Of

See RIMMON, (1).

Rimmon-Perez

rim-mon-pe'-rez (rimmon perets; the King James Version Rimmon-parez): A desert camp of the Israelites (Numbers 33:19 f), unidentified. Gesenius translates rimmon as "pomegranate," the place deriving its name from the abundance of pomegranates. But Conder derives it from ramam, "to be high," and translates it "cloven height."

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

Rimmonah; Rimmono

rim-mo'-na, rimmo'-no.

See RIMMON, (3).

Ring

(Anglo-Saxon, Hring, "ring"): The word renders (the American Standard Revised Version) two Hebrew words (in the King James Version and the English Revised Version three) and two Greek words. Tabba`ath, the principal Hebrew word, is from Tabha`, "sink," either because the ring is something "cast" or molded, or, more probably, since the principal use of the ring was as a seal, because it "sank" into the wax or clay that received the impression. In Exodus, Tabba`ath, "ring," is a detail of furniture or equipment, as the rings of the ark through which the staves were thrust (Exodus 25:12, etc.), rings for curtains, in the high priest's ephod (Exodus 28:28; Exodus 39:21), etc. Its other use was perhaps the original, to describe the article of personal adornment worn on the finger, apparently in the Old Testament always a signet-ring, and as such an indispensable article of masculine attire. Such a ring Pharaoh gave Joseph as a symbol of authority (Genesis 41:42); and Ahasuerus gave Haman (Esther 3:10); with it the royal missive was sealed (Esther 3:12; Esther 8:8 twice,10). It was also a feminine ornament in Isaiah's list of the fashionable feminine paraphernalia, "the rings and the nose-jewels" (quite likely rings also) (Isaiah 3:21). Either as ornaments or for their intrinsic value, or both, rings were used as gifts for sacred purposes from both men and women: "brooches, and ear-rings, and signet-rings" (margin "nose-rings") (Exodus 35:22); "bracelets, rings (the American Standard Revised Version "signet-rings"), ear-rings" (Numbers 31:50 the King James Version). chotham, "signet," mentioned in Genesis 38:18,Genesis 38:25; Exodus 28:11,Exodus 28:21,Exodus 28:36; Exodus 39:6,Exodus 39:14,Exodus 39:30; Jeremiah 22:24; Haggai 2:23, etc., was probably usually a seal ring, but in Genesis 38:1–30 and elsewhere the seal may have been swung on wire, and suspended by a cord from the neck. It was not only an identification, but served as a stamp for signature. galil, "circle" (compare "Galilee," "Circle" of the Gentiles), rendered "ring" in Esther 1:6; Song of Songs 5:14, may rather mean "cylinder" or "rod" of metal. Earring (which see) in the King James Version is from totally different words: nezem, whose etymology is unknown, aghil, "round," or lachash, "amulet"; so the Revised Version (British and American). The "rings" of the wheels in Ezekiel 1:18 (the King James Version) are gabh, "curved," and mean "rims" (American Standard Revised Version), "felloes." Egyptians especially wore a great profusion of rings, principally of silver or gold, engraved with scarabaei, or other devices. In the New Testament the ring, daktulios, "finger-ring," is a token of means, position, standing: "put a ring on his hand" (Luke 15:22). Perhaps also it included the right to give orders in his father's name. To be chrusodaktulios, "golden-ringed," perhaps with more than one, indicated wealth and social rank: "a man with a gold ring" (James 2:2).

See also EARRING; SIGNET; SEAL.

Philip Wendell Crannell

Ringleader

ring'-led-er: In Acts 24:5 the translation of protostates, "one who stands first." Not an opprobrious word in the Greek.

Ringstreaked

ring'-strekt (the King James Version and the English Revised Version ringstraked): Genesis 30:35,Genesis 30:39,Genesis 30:40; Genesis 31:8 (twice),10,12 for `aqodh. In the context of Genesis 30:35, etc., `aqodh certainly denotes defective coloring of some sort, but the exact meaning of the word is uncertain. The translation "ringstreaked" ("marked with circular bands") comes from connecting the word with the Hebrew root `-q-d, "to bind" (Genesis 22:9), but this connection is dubious.

Rinnah

rin'-a (rinnah, "praise to God"; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Ana; Codex Alexandrinus Rhannon): A Judahite, according to Massoretic Text a son of Shimon (1 Chronicles 4:20). But the Septuagint makes him a son of Hanan (Codex Vaticanus Phana; Codex Alexandrinus Anan) by reading "ben" in the next name (Ben-hanan) as "son of."

Riot

ri'-ut: Properly, "unrestrained behavior" of any sort, but in modern English usually connoting mob action, although such phrases as a "riotous banquet" are still in common use. the King James Version uses the word in the first sense, and it is retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in Luke 15:13; Titus 1:6; 1 Peter 4:4 for asotos, asotia, "having no hope of safety," "profligate]." In Proverbs 23:20; Proverbs 28:7 the Revised Version (British and American) has preferred "gluttonous," "glutton," in Romans 13:13, "revelling," and in 2 Peter 2:13, "revel."

Burton Scott Easton

Riphath

ri'-fath (riphath): A son of Gomer, the eldest son of Japhet (Genesis 10:3; 1 Chronicles 1:6, where Massoretic Text and the Revised Version (British and American) read DIPHATH (which see)). Josephus (Ant., I, vi, 1) identifies the Ripheans with the Paphlagonians, through whose country on the Black Sea ran the river "Rhebas" (Pliny, NH, vi.4).

Rising

riz'-ing (se'eth, "a tumor," "swelling" (Leviticus 13:2,Leviticus 13:10, etc.)).

See LEPROSY.

Rissah

ris'-a (riccah, "dew"): A camp of the Israelites in the wilderness wanderings between Libnah and Kehelathah (Numbers 33:21 f).

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

Rithmah

rith'-ma (rithmah, "broom"): A desert camp of the Israelites (Numbers 33:18,Numbers 33:19). The name refers to the white desert broom.

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

River

riv'-er:

(1) The usual word is nahar (Aramaic nehar (Ezra 4:10, etc.)), used of the rivers of Eden (Genesis 2:10–14), often of the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18, etc.), of Abana and Pharpar (2 Kings 5:12), the river of Gozan (2 Kings 17:6), the river Chebar (Ezekiel 1:1), the rivers (canals?) of Babylon (Psalms 137:1), the rivers of Ethiopia (Isaiah 18:1; Zechariah 3:10). Compare nahr, the common Arabic word for "river."

(2) ye'or, according to BDB from Egyptian iotr, 'io'r, "watercourse," often of the Nile (Exodus 1:22, etc.). In Isaiah 19:6, for ye'ore matsor, the King James Version "brooks of defense," the Revised Version (British and American) has "streams of Egypt." In Isaiah 19:7,Isaiah 19:8, for ye'or, the King James Version "brooks," and Zechariah 10:11, the King James Version "river," the Revised Version (British and American) has "Nile." In Job 28:10, the King James Version "He cutteth out rivers among the rocks," the Revised Version (British and American) has "channels," the Revised Version margin "passages."

(3) There are nearly 100 references to nachal. In about half of these the King James Version has "brook" and in about half "river." the Revised Version (British and American) has more often "brook" or "valley." But the Revised Version (British and American) has river in "whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers" (Leviticus 11:9); "the river Jabbok" (Deuteronomy 2:37; Joshua 12:2); the stream issuing from the temple (Ezekiel 47:5–12). the Revised Version (British and American) has "brook of Egypt," i.e. el-`Arish (Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:47; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 24:7; 2 Chronicles 7:8; Amos 6:14, "of the Arabah"); "brook (the King James Version "river") of Kanah" (Joshua 16:8); "valley (the King James Version "river") of the Arnon" (Deuteronomy 2:24). English Versions of the Bible has "valley": of Gerar (Genesis 26:17), of Zered (Numbers 21:12), but "brook Zered" (Deuteronomy 2:13), of Eschol (Numbers 32:9), of Sorek (Judges 16:4), of Shittim (Joel 3:18). English Versions of the Bible has "brook": Besor (1 Samuel 30:10), Kidron (2 Samuel 15:23), Gaash, (2 Samuel 23:30), Cherith (1 Kings 17:3); also the feminine nachalah, "brook (the King James Version "river") of Egypt" (Ezekiel 47:19; Ezekiel 48:28). The torrent-valley (wady) is often meant.

(4) pelegh, with feminine pelaggah, the King James Version "river," is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "stream," except English Versions of the Bible "river of God" (Psalms 65:9); "streams of water" (Psalms 1:3; Proverbs 5:16; Isaiah 32:2; Lamentations 3:48); "streams of honey" (Job 20:17); "streams of oil" (Job 29:6).

(5) 'aphiq, the King James Version "river," except English Versions of the Bible "water brooks" (Psalms 42:1), is in the Revised Version (British and American) "watercourses" (Ezekiel 6:3; Ezekiel 31:12; Ezekiel 32:6; Ezekiel 34:13; Ezekiel 35:8; Ezekiel 36:4,Ezekiel 36:6), "water-brooks" (Song of Songs 5:12; Joel 1:20).

(6) yubhal, English Versions of the Bible "river" (Jeremiah 17:8). 'ubhal, and 'ubhal, English Versions of the Bible "river" (Daniel 8:2,Daniel 8:3,Daniel 8:6).

(7) potamos: of the Jordan (Mark 1:5); Euphrates (Revelation 9:14); "rivers of living water" (John 7:38); "river of water of life" (Revelation 22:1). So always in Greek for "river" in the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha (1 Esdras 4:23, etc.).

See BROOK; STREAM; VALLEY.

Alfred Ely Day

River Of Egypt

See BROOK OF EGYPT.

River, The (Great)

See EUPHRATES.

Rivers Of Eden

See EDEN (1).

Rizia

riz'-i-a (ritsya'): An Asherite (1 Chronicles 7:39).

Rizpah

riz'-pa (ritspah, "hot stone"; Josephus, Rhaispha): In 2 Samuel 3:7 the subject of a coarse slander. 2 Samuel 21:1–22 contains the pathetic story of Rizpah's faithful watch over the bodies of her dead sons Mephibosheth and Armoni (21:10,11). Did this story suggest Tennyson's "Rizpah"? A three years' famine had made David anxious, and in seeking a reason for the affliction he concluded that it lay in Saul's unavenged conduct to the Gibeonites (21:2). To appease Yahweh he gave up to the Gibeonites the two sons of Saul, Mephibosheth and Armoni, as well as Saul's 5 grandsons (whether by Michal or Merab; see MERAB). These seven were hanged at Gibeah. Rizpah watched 5 months over their exposed bodies, but meanwhile the famine did not abate. Word was brought to David of Rizpah's act (21:10,11), and it is possible that her action suggested to David his next step in expiation. At any rate, he remembered the uncared-for bones of Jonathan and Saul lying in ignominy at Jabesh-gilead, whither they had been carried by stealth after the Philistines had kept them hung in the streets of Beth-shan for some time. The bones were recovered and apparently mingled with the bones Rizpah had guarded, and they were together buried in the family grave at Zelah. We are told that then "God was entreated for the land" (21:14).

Henry Wallace

Road (Inroad)

rod the King James Version (1 Samuel 27:10; compare 1 Samuel 23:27).

See RAID.

Road (Way)

See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, II, 6; WAY.

Roast

See FOOD.

Robber; Robbery

rob'-er, rob'-er-i: "Robber" represents no particular Hebrew word in the Old Testament, but in the Apocrypha and the New Testament is always a translation of lestes (see THIEF). In the King James Version Job 5:5; Job 18:9, "robber" stands for the doubtful word tsammim, the Revised Version (British and American) "hungry" in JJonah 4:5 and "snare" in 18:9. The meaning is uncertain, and perhaps tseme'im, "thirsty," should be read in both places. Psalms 62:10, "Become not vain in robbery," means "put not your trust in riches dishonestly gained." RV's changes of the King James Version in Proverbs 21:7; Daniel 11:14; Nahum 3:1 are obvious. In Philippians 2:6 the King James Version reads "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." the English Revised Version has "a prize," while the English Revised Version margin and the American Standard Revised Version read "a thing to be grasped," the American Standard Revised Version rewording "counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped." The Greek here is harpagmos, a word derived from harpazo, "to ravish away," "carry off," "plunder" (compare "harpy"). Properly speaking, the termination -mos should give the derived noun an active sense, "the act of plundering," whence the King James Version's "robbery." The verse would then mean "who thought that being on an equality with God did not consist in grasping," and this translation gives good sense in the context and has some excellent scholarly support. But a passive significance is frequently found despite a -mos termination, giving to harpagmos the sense of "thing grasped," as in the Revised Version (British and American). Usually English commentators take "grasped" as meaning "clung to"--"did not think equality with God should be clung to tenaciously"--but "to cling to" seems unknown as a translation of harpazo. Hence, render "a thing to be grasped at"--did not seek equality with God by selfish methods but by humbling himself." It is to be noticed, naturally, that Paul is thinking of "equality with God" simply in the sense of "receiving explicit adoration from men" (Philippians 2:10,Philippians 2:11), and that the metaphysical relation of the Son to the Father is not at all in point.

See also GRASP.

Burton Scott Easton

Robbers Of Temples

(hierosuloi, "guilty of sacrilege"): A term used by the town clerk of Ephesus (Acts 19:37, the King James Version "robbers of churches"). As the temple of Diana (Artemas) had a great treasure-chamber, the offense might not be unknown among them; compare Romans 2:22.

In 2 Macc 4:42 the King James Version the epithet "church-robber" (the Revised Version (British and American) "author of the sacrilege") is applied to LYSIMACHUS (which see).

Robe

rob.

See DRESS, sec. 1, (3).

Roboam

ro-bo'-am (Rhoboam). the King James Version; Greek form of "Rehoboam" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (Matthew 1:7); successor of Solomon.