Trinity (continued) – Trust, Breach Of

Trinity (continued)

There is, of course, no question that in "modes of operation," as it is technically called--that is to say, in the functions ascribed to the several persons of the Trinity in the redemptive process, and, more broadly, in the entire dealing of God with the world--the principle of subordination is clearly expressed. The Father is first, the Son is second, and the Spirit is third, in the operations of God as revealed to us in general, and very especially in those operations by which redemption is accomplished. Whatever the Father does, He does through the Son (Romans 2:16; Romans 3:22; Romans 5:1,Romans 5:11,Romans 5:17,Romans 5:21; Ephesians 1:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Titus 3:5) by the Spirit. The Son is sent by the Father and does His Father's will (John 6:38); the Spirit is sent by the Son and does not speak from Himself, but only takes of Christ's and shows it unto His people (John 17:7); and we have our Lord's own word for it that `one that is sent is not greater than he that sent him' (John 13:16). In crisp decisiveness, our Lord even declares, indeed: `My Father is greater than I' (John 14:28); and Paul tells us that Christ is God's, even as we are Christ's (1 Corinthians 3:23), and that as Christ is "the head of every man," so God is "the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in "modes of subsistence," as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence. Question is raised in each case of apparent intimation of subordination in modes of subsistence, whether it may not, after all, be explicable as only another expression of subordination in modes of operation. It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity--a "Covenant" as it is technically called--by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, in which the Son, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself, enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate character. Question has even been raised whether the very designations of Father and Son may not be expressive of these new relations, and therefore without significance with respect to the eternal relations of the Persons so designated. This question must certainly be answered in the negative. Although, no doubt, in many of the instances in which the terms "Father" and "Son" occur, it would be possible to take them of merely economical relations, there ever remain some which are intractable to this treatment, and we may be sure that "Father" and "Son" are applied to their eternal and necessary relations. But these terms, as we have seen, do not appear to imply relations of first and second, superiority and subordination, in modes of subsistence; and the fact of the humiliation of the Son of God for His earthly work does introduce a factor into the interpretation of the passages which import His subordination to the Father, which throws doubt upon the inference from them of an eternal relation of subordination in the Trinity itself. It must at least be said that in the presence of the great New Testament doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work's sake and of the Two Natures in the constitution of His Person as incarnated, on the other, the difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually obtrudes itself, whether they do not rather find their full explanation in the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the Humiliation of Christ, and the Two Natures of His incarnated Person. Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament.

21. Witness of the Christian Consciousness:

The Trinity of the Persons of the Godhead, shown in the incarnation and the redemptive work of God the Son, and the descent and saving work of God the Spirit, is thus everywhere assumed in the New Testament, and comes to repeated fragmentary but none the less emphatic and illuminating expression in its pages. As the roots of its revelation are set in the threefold divine causality of the saving process, it naturally finds an echo also in the consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation. Every redeemed soul, knowing himself reconciled with God through His Son, and quickened into newness of life by His Spirit, turns alike to Father, Son and Spirit with the exclamation of reverent gratitude upon his lips, "My Lord and my God!" If he could not construct the doctrine of the Trinity out of his consciousness of salvation, yet the elements of his consciousness of salvation are interpreted to him and reduced to order only by the doctrine of the Trinity which he finds underlying and giving their significance and consistency to the teaching of the Scriptures as to the processes of salvation. By means of this doctrine he is able to think clearly and consequently of his threefold relation to the saving God, experienced by him as Fatherly love sending a Redeemer, as redeeming love executing redemption, as saving love applying redemption: all manifestations in distinct methods and by distinct agencies of the one seeking and saving love of God. Without the doctrine of the Trinity, his conscious Christian life would be thrown into confusion and left in disorganization if not, indeed, given an air of unreality; with the doctrine of the Trinity, order, significance and reality are brought to every element of it. Accordingly, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of redemption, historically, stand or fall together. A Unitarian theology is commonly associated with a Pelagian anthropology and a Socinian soteriology. It is a striking testimony which is borne by E. Koenig (Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, 1882, I, 125): "I have learned that many cast off the whole history of redemption for no other reason than because they have not attained to a conception of the Triune God." It is in this intimacy of relation between the doctrines of the Trinity and redemption that the ultimate reason lies why the Christian church could not rest until it had attained a definite and well-compacted doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing else could be accepted as an adequate foundation for the experience of the Christian salvation. Neither the Sabellian nor the Arian construction could meet and satisfy the data of the consciousness of salvation, any more than either could meet and satisfy the data of the Scriptural revelation. The data of the Scriptural revelation might, to be sure, have been left unsatisfied: men might have found a modus vivendi with neglected, or even with perverted Scriptural teaching. But perverted or neglected elements of Christian experience are more clamant in their demands for attention and correction. The dissatisfied Christian consciousness necessarily searched the Scriptures, on the emergence of every new attempt to state the doctrine of the nature and relations of God, to see whether these things were true, and never reached contentment until the Scriptural data were given their consistent formulation in a valid doctrine of the Trinity. Here too the heart of man was restless until it found its rest in the Triune God, the author, procurer and applier of salvation.

22. Formulation of the Doctrine:

The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian conception of God from the first origins of Christianity turned. The guiding principle in the formulation of the doctrine was supplied by the Baptismal Formula announced by Jesus (Matthew 28:19), from which was derived the ground-plan of the baptismal confessions and "rules of faith" which very soon began to be framed all over the church. It was by these two fundamental principia--the true Deity of Christ and the Baptismal Formula--that all attempts to formulate the Christian doctrine of God were tested, and by their molding power that the church at length found itself in possession of a form of statement which did full justice to the data of the redemptive revelation as reflected in the New Testament and the demands of the Christian heart under the experience of salvation.

In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. The influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. A reaction which, under the name of Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large. In the conflict between these two opposite tendencies the church gradually found its way, under the guidance of the Baptismal Formula elaborated into a "Rule of Faith," to a better and more well-balanced conception, until a real doctrine of the Trinity at length came to expression, particularly in the West, through the brilliant dialectic of Tertullian. It was thus ready at hand, when, in the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism, to which the Son was a creature, though exalted above all other creatures as their Creator and Lord; and the church was thus prepared to assert its settled faith in a Triune God, one in being, but in whose unity there subsisted three consubstantial Persons. Under the leadership of Athanasius this doctrine was proclaimed as the faith of the church at the Council of Nice in 325 AD, and by his strenuous labors and those of "the three great Cappadocians," the two Gregories and Basil, it gradually won its way to the actual acceptance of the entire church. It was at the hands of Augustine, however, a century later, that the doctrine thus become the church doctrine in fact as well as in theory, received its most complete elaboration and most carefully grounded statement. In the form which he gave it, and which is embodied in that "battle-hymn of the early church," the so-called Athanasian Creed, it has retained its place as the fit expression of the faith of the church as to the nature of its God until today. The language in which it is couched, even in this final declaration, still retains elements of speech which owe their origin to the modes of thought characteristic of the Logos-Christology of the 2nd century, fixed in the nomenclature of the church by the Nicene Creed of 325 AD, though carefully guarded there against the subordinationism inherent in the Logos-Christology, and made the vehicle rather of the Nicene doctrines of the eternal generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit, with the consequent subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as of operation. In the Athanasian Creed, however, the principle of the equalization of the three Persons, which was already the dominant motive of the Nicene Creed--the homoousia--is so strongly emphasized as practically to push out of sight, if not quite out of existence, these remanent suggestions of derivation and subordination. It has been found necessary, nevertheless, from time to time, vigorously to reassert the principle of equalization, over against a tendency unduly to emphasize the elements of subordinationism which still hold a place thus in the traditional language in which the church states its doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, it fell to Calvin, in the interests of the true Deity of Christ--the constant motive of the whole body of Trinitarian thought--to reassert and make good the attribute of self-existence (autotheotos) for the Son. Thus Calvin takes his place, alongside of Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine, as one of the chief contributors to the exact and vital statement of the Christian doctrine of the Triune God.

LITERATURE.

F. C. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit Gottea, 3 volumes, Tubingen, 1841-43; Dionysius Petavius, De Trinitate (vol II, of De Theologicis Dogmaticis, Paris, 1647); G. Bull, A Defence of the Nicene Creed (1685), 2 volumes, Oxford, 1851; G. S. Faber, The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 2 volumes, 1832; Augustine, On the Holy Trinity (Volume III of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1-228), New York, 1887; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, chapter xiii; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology and Index, I, New York, 1873, 442-82; H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatick(2), II, Kampen, 1908, 260-347 (gives excellent references to literature); S. Harris, God, Creator, and Lord of All, New York, 1896; R. Rocholl, Der christliche Gottesbegriff, Gottingen, 1900; W. F. Adeney, The Christian Conception of God, London, 1909, 215-46; J. Lebreton, Lea origines du dogme de la Trinite, Paris, 1910; J. C. K. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis(2), Nordlingen, 1857-60, I, 85-111; J. L. S. Lutz, Biblische Dogmatik, Pforzheim, 1817, 319-94; R. W. Landis, A Plea for the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, Philadelphia, 1832; E. H. Bickersteth, The Rock of Ages, etc., London, 1860, New York, 1861; E. Riggenbach, "Der trinitarische Taufbefehl, Matthew 28:19" (in Schlatter and Cremer, Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie, 1903, VII; also 1906, X); F. J. Hall, The Trinity, London and New York, 1910, 100-141; J. Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed, edition Chevallier and Sinker, Cambridge, 1899; J. Howe," Calm Discourse on the Trinity," in Works, edition Hunt, London, 1810-22; J. Owen, `Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity," and" Saint's Fellowship with the Trinity," in Works, Gould's edition, London, 1850-55; J. Edwards, Observations concerning the Scripture Economy of the Trinity, etc., New York, 1880, also An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity, New York, 1903; J. R. Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity Apologetically Considered, London and New York, 1907; A. F. W. Ingrain, The Love of the Trinity, New York, 1908.

(NOTE.--In this article the author has usually given his own renderings of original passages, and not those of any particular version--EDITORS.)

Benjamin B. Warfield

Tripolis

trip'-o-lis (Tripoils, "triple city"): Demetrius the son of Seleucus, having fled from Rome, collected "a mighty host and fleet," sailed into the haven of Tripoils, took the city, obtained possession of the country, and put to death his cousin, Antiochus V, along with his guardian Lysias (2 Macc 14:1 ff; Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 1). After a period of unsuccessful guerrilla warfare against Hyrcanus in Samaria, Antiochus Cyzicenus retired to Tripells (Ant., XII, x, 2). The city was founded by the Phoenicians and was a member of the Phoenician league. It was divided into 3 quarters by walls--hence, the name "triple city"--and these were occupied by settlers from Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus, respectively. The federal council of these states sat here. Its position on the Phoenician seacoast, with easy access to the interior, gave it many advantages from the commercial point of view. The Seleucid monarchs, the Romans, and Herod the Great did much to beautify the city; the last-named building a gymnasium (Josephus, BJ, I, xxi, 11). When attacked by the Arabs the inhabitants took ship and escaped. Later their places were taken by Jews and Persians. Captured by the Crusaders in 1109, it was taken by the Egyptians in 1289. The ancient city was surrounded on three sides by the sea. The site is now occupied by el-Mina, the harbor of the modern city, Tarabulus, which stands on the bank of Nahr Kadisha, about 2 miles away. The inhabitants number about 23,000. The town gives its name to a district under the vilayet of Beirut, which has always been famous for its fruitfulness.

W. Ewing

Triumph

tri'-umf (thriambeuo, "to lead in triumph"): The word is used by Paul to express an idea very familiar to antiquity, and to the churches at Corinth and Colosse: "But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:14); "Having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Colossians 2:15).

A triumph in Rome was a magnificent procession in honor of a victorious general, and the highest military distinction which he could obtain. It was granted by the senate only to one who had held the office of dictator, consul, or praetor, and after a decisive victory in the complete subjugation of a province. In a Roman triumph the victorious general entered the city in a chariot drawn by four horses. He was crowned with laurel, having a scepter in one hand and a branch of laurel in the other. He was preceded by the senate and magistrates, musicians, the spoils of his victory, and the captives in fetters; and followed by his army on foot, in marching order. The procession thus advanced along the Via Sacra to the Capitol, where a bull was sacrificed to Jupiter, and the laurel wreath deposited in the lap of the god. During the triumphal entry the priests burned incense, and hence, the reference of the apostle: "For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a savor from life unto life" (2 Corinthians 2:15,2 Corinthians 2:16). The incense that was to the victor the "savor" of his triumph would be to the wretched captives the "savor," or intimation, of a rapidly approaching death in the Roman arena or in the damp vaults of the Tullianum. Thus the "incense," or influence, of the apostolic gospel would be to the believer the assurance of redemption through Christ, and to the unbeliever the assurance of spiritual death.

After the suicide of Antony in Alexandria (30 BC) Augustus Caesar succeeded in getting Cleopatra into his power. She had hoped to subdue him by her charms, but without avail. Aware that she was doomed, she revolted against the thought of being led in triumph to Rome, and, as tradition states, took her own life by allowing an asp to bite her, saying, "I will not be led in triumph"; see Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, V, ii:

"He'll lead me, then, in triumph? ....

Thou, an Egyptian puppet, shalt be shown

In Rome as well as I: mechanic slaves,

With greasy aprons, rules, and hammers shall

Uplift us to the view. ....

Arthur Walwyn Evans

Troas

tro'-as (Troas): The chief city in the Northwest of Asia Minor, on the coast of Mysia in the Roman province of Asia. From here, according to Acts 16:8, Paul sailed. Here, also, according to Acts 20:5–12, Paul raised Eutychus from the dead. The name Troas was not confined to the town itself, but it was also applied to the surrounding district, or to that part of the coast which is now generally known as the Troad. In its early history it bore the name of Antigona Troas, which was given it by its founder Antigonus, but after 300 BC it was generally known to the classical writers as Alexander Troas, a name given to it by Lysimachus. For a time the Seleucid kings made their homes at Troas. Later, when the city became free, it struck its own coins, of which vast numbers are found; a common type is one upon which is stamped a grazing horse. In 133 BC Troas came into the possession of the Romans, and later, during the reign of Augustus, it was made a Roman colonia, independent of the Roman governor of the province of Asia. Its citizens were then exempt from poll and land tax. During Byzantine times Troas was the seat of a bishopric.

The ruins of Troas, now bearing the name of Eski Stambul, are extensive, giving evidence of the great size and importance of the ancient city. They have, however, long been used as a quarry, and the columns of the public buildings were taken to Constantinople for use in the construction of the mosque known as the Yeni Valideh Jami. The site is now mostly overgrown with oaks, but from the higher portions of the ruins there is an extensive view over the sea and the neighboring islands. It is only with difficulty that one may now trace the city walls and locate the square towers which flanked them at intervals. Within the walls are the remains of theater, the temple and the gymnasium, which was provided with baths. The port from which Paul sailed was constructed by means of a mole, with an outer and an inner basin. The most imposing of the ruins, however, is a large aqueduct which was built in the time of Trajan.

E. J. Banks

Trogyllium

tro-jil'-i-um, tro-gil'-i-um (Trogullion): According to Acts 20:15 the King James Version, the American Revised Version margin, the ship in which Paul sailed to Caesatea on his return from his 3rd missionary journey tarried at Trogyllium. Several of the early manuscripts omit the words, "tarried at Trogyllium" (Westcott and Hort omit as "Western" interpolation); yet, whether the words belonged to the text or not, Paul evidently passed the promontory, and probably stopped there. From the coast near Miletus the promontory projects into the sea toward the island of Samos; the strait separating the mainland from the island is scarcely a mile wide. It was in this strait which is now called Kutchuk Boghaz by the Turks that the battle of Mycale was fought in 479 BC. The promontory now bears the name of Santa Maria, and the place of anchorage is called Saint Paul's port.

E. J. Banks

Troop

troop.

See ARMY.

Trophimus

trof'-i-mus (Trophimos, literally, "a foster child" (Acts 20:4; Acts 21:29; 2 Timothy 4:20)): An Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion-in-travel of the apostle Paul.

1. An Ephesian:

In the first of the three passages in which Trophimus is mentioned, he and Tychicus are called Asianoi, that is, natives of the Roman province of Asia; and making it still more definite, in Acts 21:29, he is termed an "Ephesian." Trophimus was one of eight friends, who accompanied Paul at the close of his 3rd missionary journey, and traveled with him from Greece through Macedonia into Asia, and onward by sea until Jerusalem was reached (see TYCHICUS). Trophimus went with Paul all the way, for, in the second of the passages referred to, he is mentioned as being with Paul in Jerusalem immediately on the close of this journey.

2. Cause of Paul's Arrest:

He was the innocent cause of Paul being assaulted, in the courts of the temple by the Jewish mob, and then of his being arrested and imprisoned by the Romans. The occasion of this outrage was that the Jews supposed that Paul had "brought Greeks also into the temple, and .... defiled this holy place" (Acts 21:28). The modicum of fact lying at the root of this false accusation was that they had seen Paul and Trophimus in each other's company in the city. On this slender basis "they supposed" that Paul had brought Trophimus past the barrier or middle wall of partition (Ephesians 2:14; see PARTITION), beyond which no Gentile was allowed to penetrate on pain of death. They supposed that Trophimus who was neither a Jew nor a proselyte, but Gentile Christian, had been introduced into the temple itself by Paul--which would have been profanation. Hence, their fury against the apostle.

How strongly they insisted on the crime which Trophimus was falsely alleged to have committed on that occasion, is seen again in the way in which the orator Tertullus repeated the charge against Paul before the Roman governor Felix, who moreover assayed to profane the temple" (Acts 24:6).

3. At Miletus:

The third reference to Trophimus is in 2 Timothy 4:20, "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick." This final notice shows that he was again--several years after the date indicated in the previous passages--traveling with Paul on one of the missionary journeys which the apostle undertook after being liberated from his first imprisonment in Rome. It is exceedingly difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace the course of the different journeys which Paul now made, as there is no such narrative as is given in Ac for the former journeys, but merely incidental notices of his later travels, in the Pastoral Epistles. In this, the last of all his letters--2 Timothy--Paul indicates various places which he had visited, and also the names of friends who traveled with him on this the last of his apostolic journeys.

Among other places, he had visited Miletus, a city on the coast of the province of Asia; and there his old friend Trophimus had been laid down with illness, so severe that he could travel no farther, but Paul left him "at Miletus sick." It is to be noted that Miletus was not far from Ephesus, which was Trophimus' native city. There would be much intercourse between the two cities (see Acts 17:1–34, where Paul sends for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come to him at Miletus, which they did). Trophimus therefore, in his sickness, could easily reach Ephesus, or his friends from that city could quickly come to him at Miletus, and give him whatever attention and nursing he might require.

4. The Description of 2 Corinthians 8:18:

It has been conjectured that Trophimus is to be identified with the person mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:16–24. Paul there speaks in the highest terms of one of his companions--but without giving his name--whom he sent with Titus. Titus and this disciple were evidently those to whose care Paul entrusted the carrying of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians to its destination. The apostle says of this unnamed brother, not only that his praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, but also that he was chosen by the churches to travel with him, i.e. with Paul, with this grace, i.e. with the contribution of money collected in the Gentile churches for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Now it is certain that at the close of his 3rd missionary journey Paul carried these gifts to Jerusalem ("I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings," Acts 24:17); and some of the eight friends who accompanied him on the journey (Acts 20:4) were those who had been entrusted by the churches with the safe conveyance of the money. Speaking of these collections, Paul writes (1 Corinthians 16:3–4). "Whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me." These conditions were fulfilled, when Paul and his eight friends traveled from Greece to Jerusalem, carrying the money with them. There is therefore certainty that one of the eight is the brother referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:18, whose praise in the gospel was in all the churches, and whom the churches had appointed to travel with Paul for the purpose of carrying the money contribution, and whom Paul had "many times proved earnest in many things" (2 Corinthians 8:18,2 Corinthians 8:19,2 Corinthians 8:22). The eight were Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus, both from Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus, both "Asians," and lastly Luke.

There is certainly the possibility that the unnamed brother was Trophimus: if not Trophimus, then he was one of the other seven. Of these seven, by the process of elimination, the unnamed brother could only be one of those who traveled with Paul the whole distance as far as Jerusalem, for this was the work which "the brother" had been appointed by the churches to do. Now it is certain that Luke and Trophimus were with him on his arrival in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17,Acts 21:29). Therefore the brother whose praise in the gospel was in all the churches may very well have been Trophimus: if not Trophimus, then possibly Luke or Aristarchus. Gaius and Aristarchus are termed "Paul's companions in travel" (Acts 19:29); and Aristarchus was afterward with Paul in Palestine, and sailed with him to Rome. It is quite remarkable that the same word, sunekdemos, "companion in travel," is applied to the unnamed brother (2 Corinthians 8:19), and to Gaius and Aristarchus in Acts 19:29.

As the conditions do not seem to be satisfied in Sopater, Secundus or Timothy, the brother so highly commended must have been either Luke or Gaius or Aristarchus or Tychicus or Trophimus.

John Rutherfurd

Trough

trof.

See SHEEP TENDING; BREAD.

Trow

tro: An obsolete verb meaning "to believe"; compare "trust" and the German trauen. It occurs only in Luke 17:9, the King James Version "Doth he thank that servant. ...? I trow not," as a translation of ou doko, "I believe not." The words ou doko, however, are not part of the original text, but are a later gloss to supply an answer to the question, and hence, "I trow not" is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American).

Trucebkeaker

troos'-brak-er: The King James Version rendering in 2 Timothy 3:3 of aspondos, literally, "without a libation." As a libation always accompanied the making of a treaty in Greek lands, the lack implied that no treaty had been made, or, by a natural extension of meaning, could be made. Hence, the word came to mean "implacable" (Revised Version).

Trump; Trumpet

trump, trum'-pet, trum'pit.

See MUSIC.

Trumpets, Feast Of

1. Description:

In Leviticus 23:23–25 the first day (new moon) of the seventh month is set apart as a solemn rest, "a memorial of blowing of trumpets" (the Hebrew leaves "of trumpets" to be understood), signalized further by "a holy convocation," abstinence from work, and the presentation of "an offering made by fire." In Numbers 29:1–6 these directions are repeated, with a detailed specification of the nature of the offering. In addition to the usual daily burnt sacrifices and the special offerings for new moons, there are to be offered one bullock, one ram, and seven he-lambs, with proper meal offerings, together with a he-goat for a sin offering.

2. Significance:

The significance of the feast lay in the fact that it marked the beginning of the new year according to the older calendar. Originally the "revolution" of the year was reckoned in the fall (Exodus 23:16; Exodus 34:22), and the change to the spring never thoroughly displaced the older system. In fact the spring New Year never succeeded in becoming a specially recognized feast, and to Jewish ears "New Year's Day" (ro'sh ha-shanah) invariably signifies an autumnal festival. So the Mishna (Ro'sh ha-shanah, i.1): "There are four periods of commencement of years: On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for kings and for festivals; the 1st of Elul is a new year for the tithe of cattle. .... The 1st of Tishri is new year's (day) for the ordinary or civil year, for the computation of 7th years, and of the jubilees; also for the planting of trees, and for herbs. On the 1st of Shebat is the new year for trees."

3. Ritual:

The ritual for the day consequently needs little explanation. All new moons were heralded by trumpeting (Numbers 10:10), and so the custom was of course observed on this feast also. There is nothing in the language of either Leviticus 23:1–44 or Numbers 29:1–40 to require a prolongation of the music on this special new moon, but its special distinction was no doubt marked by special trumpeting at all times, and at a later period (see below) elaborate rules were laid down for this feature. The additional sacrifices simply involved an increase of those prescribed for new moons (Numbers 28:11–15), without changing their type. Perhaps Psalms 81:1–16 was especially written for this feast (compare 81:3).

4. Origin:

Mentions of a special observance of the 1st of Tishri are found also in Ezekiel 45:20 (reading, as is necessary, "first day of seventh month" here for "seventh day") and Nehemiah 8:1–12. In the former passage, the day is kept by offering a bullock as a sin offering and sprinkling its blood in a way that recalls the ritual of the Day of Atonement. In Nehemiah an assembly of the people was held to hear Ezra read the Law. The day was kept as a festival on which mourning was forbidden (Nehemiah 8:9). Apart from these references there is no mention of the feast elsewhere in the Old Testament, and, indeed, there is some reason to think that at one time the 10th, and not the 1st, of Tishri was regarded as the beginning of the year. For Ezekiel 40:1 specifically calls this day ro'sh hashanah, and Leviticus 25:9 specifies it as the opening of the Jubilee year (contrast the Mishna passage, above). Consequently scholars generally are inclined to assign Leviticus 23:23–25 and Numbers 29:1–6 to the latest part of the Pentateuch (Ps). This need not mean that the observance of the 1st (or 10th) of Tishri was late, but only that the final adoption of the day into Israel's official calendar, with a fixed ritual for all Israelites, was delayed. If the original New Year's Day fell on the 10th of Tishri, its displacement ten days earlier was certainly due to the adoption of the 10th for the Day of Atonement. An explanation of the date of the latter feast would be gained by this supposition.

5. Later History:

The instrument to be used in the trumpeting is not specified in the Bible, but Jewish tradition decided in favor of the horn and not the metal trumpet, permitting for synagogue use any kind of horn except a cow's, but for temple use only a straight (antelope's) horn and never a crooked (ram's) horn (Ro'-sh ha-shanah, iii. 2-4). According to iv. 1, when the new year began on a Sabbath the horns were blown only in the temple, but after its destruction they were blown in every synagogue. Every Israelite was obliged to come within hearing distance of the sound (iii.7). In the synagogue liturgy of iv.5-9 (which forms the basis of the modern Jewish practice), four sets of "benedictions" were read, and after each of the last three sets the horn blown nine times. Modern Judaism sees in the signals a call to self-examination and repentance, in view of the approaching Day of Atonement.

See TRUMPET, III, 2, (8).

Burton Scott Easton

Trust, Breach Of

The clearest reference to the crime designated by this modern expression is found in Leviticus 6:2–7, where the transgression is defined and the penalty set forth. Breach of covenant or contract and the removal of landmarks (Deuteronomy 19:14; Deuteronomy 27:17; Proverbs 22:28; Proverbs 23:10) may be included.