FABLE <fa’-b’-l > ([mu~qov, muthos ]): (1) Primitive man conceives of the objects around him as possessing his own characteristics. Consequently in his stories, beasts, trees, rocks, etc., think, talk and act exactly as if they were human beings. Of course, but little advance in knowledge was needed to put an end to this mode of thought, but the form of story-telling developed by it persisted and is found in the folk-tales of all nations. More particularly, the archaic form of story was used for the purpose of moral instruction, and when so used is termed the fable. Modern definitions distinguish it from the parable (a) by its use of characters of lower intelligence than man (although reasoning and speaking like men), and (b) by its lesson for this life only. But, while these distinctions serve some practical purpose in distinguishing (say) the fables of Aesop from the parables of Christ, they are of little value to the student of folk-lore.

For fable, parable, allegory, etc., are all evolutions from a common stock, and they tend to blend with each other. See ALLEGORY; PARABLE. (2) The Semitic mind is peculiarly prone to allegorical expression, and a modern Arabian storyteller will invent a fable or a parable as readily as he will talk. And we may be entirely certain that the very scanty appearance of fables in the Old Testament is due only to the character of its material and not at all to an absence of fables from the mouths of the Jews of old. Only two examples have reached us. In Judges 9:7 through 15 Jotham mocks the choice of AbimeItch as king with the fable of the trees that could find no tree that would accept the trouble of the kingship except the worthless bramble. And in 2 Kings 14:9 Jehoash ridicules the pretensions of Amaziah with the story of the thistle that wished to make a royal alliance with the cedar. Yet that the distinction between fable and allegory, etc., is artificial is seen in Isaiah 5:1,2, where the vineyard is assumed to possess a deliberate will to be perverse. (3) In the New Testament, “fable” is found in 1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16, as the translation of muthos (“myth”). The sense here differs entirely from that discussed above, and “fable” means a (religious) story that has no connection with reality — contrasted with the knowledge of an eyewitness in 2 Peter 1:16. The exact nature of these “fables” is of course something out of our knowledge, but the mention in connection with them of “endless genealogies” in 1 Timothy 1:4 points with high probability to some form of Gnostic speculation that interposed a chain of eons between God and the world. In some of the Gnostic systems that we know, these chains are described with a prolixity so interminable (the Pistis Sophia is the best example) as to justify well the phrase “old wives’ fables” in 1 Timothy 4:7. But that these passages have Gnostic reference need not tell against the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, as a fairly well developed “Gnosticism” is recognizable in a passage as early as Colossians 2, and as the description of the fables as Jewish in Titus 1:14 (compare 3:9) is against 2nd-century references. But for details the commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles must be consulted. It is worth noting that in 2 Timothy 4:4 the adoption of these fables is said to be the result of dabbling in the dubious. This manner of losing one’s hold on reality is, unfortunately, something not confined to the apostolic age. Burton Scott Easton FACE <fas > : In Hebrew the translation of three expressions: (1) [ µyniP; , panim ] (2) [ ˆyi[“ , `ayin ], literally, “eye” and (3) [ ta” , ‘aph ], literally, “nose,” “nostril,” already noted under the word COUNTENANCE , which see. The first and second of these words are used synonymously, even in metaphorical expressions, as, e.g. in the phrase “the face of the earth,” where panim is used ( Deuteronomy 6:15 et passim ) and `ayin ( Numbers 22:5 et passim ). The third expression preserves more clearly its original meaning. It is generally used in the phrases “to bow one’s self to the earth,” “to fall on one’s face,” where the nose actually touched the ground. Often “my face,” “thy face” is mere oriental circumlocution for the personal pronoun “I,” “me,” “thou,” “thee.” “In thy face” means “in thy presence;” and is often so translated. A very large number of idiomatic Hebrew expressions have been introduced into our language through the medium of the Bible translation. We notice the most important of these phrases. “To seek the face” is to seek an audience with a prince or with God, to seek favor ( Psalm 24:6; 27:8 bis; 105:4; Proverbs 7:15; Hosea 5:15; compare Proverbs 29:26, where the Revised Version (British and American) translates “Many seek the ruler’s favor,” literally, many seek the face (Hebrew pene ) of a ruler).

If God “hides his face” He withdraws His presence, His favor ( Deuteronomy 32:20; Job 34:29; Psalm 13:1; 30:7; 143:7; Isaiah 54:8; Jeremiah 33:5; Ezekiel 39:23,14; Micah 3:4).

Such withdrawal of the presence of God is to be understood as a consequence of man’s personal disobedience, not as a wrathful denial of God’s favor ( Isaiah 59:2). God is asked to “hide his face,” i.e. to disregard or overlook ( Psalm 51:9; compare 10:11). This is also the idea of the prayer: “Cast me not away from thy presence” (literally, “face,” Psalm 51:11), and of the promise: “The upright shall dwell in thy presence” (literally, “face,” <19E013> Psalm 140:13). If used of men, “to hide the face” expresses humility and reverence before an exalted presence ( Exodus 3:6; Isaiah 6:2); similarly Elijah “wrapped his face in his mantle” when God passed by ( 1 Kings 19:13). The “covering of the face” is a sign of mourning ( 2 Samuel 19:4 = Ezekiel 12:6,12); a “face covered with fatness” is synonymous with prosperity and arrogance ( Job 15:27); to have one’s face covered by another person is a sign of hopeless doom, as if one were already dead. This was done to Human, when judgment had been pronounced over him ( Nehemiah 7:8). “To turn away one’s face” is a sign of insulting indifference or contempt ( 2 Chronicles 29:6; Ezekiel 14:6; Sirach 4:4; compare Jeremiah 2:27; 18:17; 32:33); on the part of God an averted face is synonymous with rejection ( Psalm 13:1; 27:9; 88:14). “To harden the face” means to harden one’s self against any sort of appeal ( Proverbs 21:29; Isaiah 50:7; Jeremiah 5:3; compare Ezekiel 3:9). See also SPIT.

In this connection we also mention the phrase “to respect persons,” literally, to “recognize the face” (Leviticus19:15, or, slightly different in expression, Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19; Proverbs 24; 23; 28:21), in the sense of unjustly favoring a person, or requiting him with undue evil.

Compare also the Hebrew hadhar ( Exodus 23:3 the King James Version), “to countenance” (see under the word).

The “showbread” meant literally, “bread of the face,” “of the presence,” Hebrew lechem panim ; Greek artoi enopioi, artoi tes protheseos . H. L. E. Luering FACT Lit. “a deed.” The word occurs only in the heading of the chapter, 2 Kings 10 the King James Version, “Jehu excuseth the fact by the prophecy of Elijah,” and in 2 Macc 4:36, with reference to the murder of Onias, “certain of the Greeks that abhorred the fact (the deed) also” (summisoponerounton , literally, “hating wickedness together with (others),” the Revised Version (British and American) “the Greeks also joining with them in hatred of the wickedness.”

FADE <fad > ([ lben; , nabhel ]; [marai>nw, maraino ]): “To fade” is in the Old Testament the translation of nabhel , “to droop or wither,” figuratively, “to fade,” or “pass way” ( Psalm 18:45; Isaiah 1:30; 24:4; 28:1,4; 40:7,8); once it is the translation of balal “to well up,” “to overflow”; perhaps from nabhal ( Isaiah 64:6, “We all do fade as a leaf”); in the New Testament of maraino , “to come to wither or to fade away” (Jas 1:11, “So also shall the rich man fade away in his ways,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in his goings”); compare The Wisdom of Solomon 28, “Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they be withered” (maraino ); amarantinos (amaranth ), “unfading,” occurs in Peter 5:4, “the crown of glory that fadeth not away,” and amarantos ( Peter 1:4), “an inheritance .... that fadeth not away”; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 6:12, “Wisdom is glorious (the Revised Version (British and American) “radiant”), and fadeth not away.”

For “fade” ( Ezekiel 47:12), the Revised Version (British and American) has “wither”; for “fall” “falleth” “falling” ( Isaiah 34:4), “fade,” “fadeth,” “fading. W. L. Walker FAIL <fal > ([ hl;K; , kalah ], [ tr”K; , karath ]; [ejklei>pw, ekleipo ]): “Fail” is both intransitive, “to fall short,” “be wanting,” and trans, “to be wanting to.”

Of the many words translated “fail” in the Old Testament, kalah is the most frequent, meaning “to be consumed,” “ended” ( Job 11:20; 17:5; Psalm 69:3; 71:9, etc.; Proverbs 22:8; Isaiah 15:6, etc.; Jeremiah 14:6; Lamentations 2:11; 3:22; 4:17); it is the translation of karath , “to be cut off” ( 2 Samuel 3:29, of failure in succession; so 1 Kings 2:4, etc.); `adhar , “to marshal,” “to be missed” or “lacking” ( Isaiah 34:16 the King James Version; Isaiah 40:26 the King James Version; Isaiah 59:15 the King James Version; Zephaniah 3:5); of raphah , “to become faint” or “to make feeble” ( Deuteronomy 31:6,8; “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee,” Joshua 1:5; 1 Chronicles 28:20); of ‘-abhadh , “to perish,” “be lost” ( <19E204> Psalm 142:4, “Refuge hath failed me”; Ezekiel 12:22, “Every vision faileth”). Many other Hebrew words are translated “fail,” “faileth,” for the most part in single instances.

In the New Testament, ekleipo , “to leave out” or “off,” is thrice rendered “fail” ( Luke 16:9 “when it shall fail”; 22:32, “that thy faith fail not”; Hebrews 1:12, “Thy years shall not fail”); ekpipto , “to fall off or away” ( 1 Corinthians 13:8, “Charity (the Revised Version (British and American) “love”) never faileth”); katargeo , “to make useless” ( Corinthians 13:8 the King James Version, “Whether prophecies, they shall fail”); hustereo , “to be behind,” “to lack” ( Hebrews 12:15 the King James Version); apopsucho , “to swoon away,” “failing” ( Luke 21:26 the King James Version).

The Revised Version (British and American) has “fail,” in a new translation of Jeremiah 18:14, for “fall” ( Lamentations 1:14, margin “stumble”); “his hand fail” for “fallen in decay” (Leviticus25:35); “I will in no wise fail thee” for “I will never leave thee” ( Hebrews 13:5; compare Deuteronomy 31:6; Joshua 1:5); “failed to enter” for “entered not” ( Hebrews 4:6); “faileth” (American Standard Revised Version) for “ceaseth” ( Psalm 49:8), the English Revised Version “must be let alone for ever”; “failing” for “was darkened” ( Luke 23:45); for “fail” (Ezr 4:22), “be slack,” “be missing” ( Isaiah 34:16); “falleth short of” ( Hebrews 12:15, maqrgin, “falleth bacf from”); for “failed,” “was all spent” ( Genesis 47:15); “wholly” ( Joshua 3:16); “fail (in looking)” ( Lamentations 4:17); for “faileth,” “is lacking” ( Isaiah 40:26; 59:15); for “men’s hearts failing them” ( Luke 21:26), “men fainting,” margin “expiring.” W. L. Walker FAIN <fan > (advb.): Occurs twice in English Versions of the Bible, in the sense of “gladly”: (1) in Job 27:22 as the rendering of [ jr”B; , barach ], “to flee with haste” (from anything), “He would fain flee out of his hand,” literally, as in in of the King James Version, “in fleeing he would flee”; (2) in Luke 15:16, as the translation of [ejpiqume>w, epithumeo ], “to fix the mind or desire on,” “He would fain have filled his belly with the husks which the swine did eat.” the Revised Version (British and American) adds two instances: (1) Luke 13:31, “Herod would fain kill thee”; (2) Acts 26:28, “Thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. See ALMOST.

FAINT <fant > ([ tye[; , `ayeph ], [ tW[ , `uph ], [ t[“y; , ya`aph ], [ tl”[; , `alaph ], [ tf”[; , aTaph ], [ yW;D” , dawway ], [ [“gey; , yaghea `], [ ss”m; , macac ], [ Ëk”r; , rakhakh ], [ rg”P; , paghar ], [ hh;K; , kahah ]; [ejklu>w, ekluo ], [ejkkake>w, ekkakeo ], [ka>mnw, kamno ]): The Hebrew vocabulary for the depressing physical conditions and mental emotions which are rendered in the King James Version by the English words “faint,” “fainthess,” and other compounds of that stem, is, as will be seen above, wide and varied in derivation. The 11 Hebrew and 3 Greek words and their derivatives are used in 62 passages in the King James Version to express these conditions. `Ayeph is used to express the exhaustion from fatigue and hunger in the case of Esau ( Genesis 25:29,30). This and its variants come from a root which primarily means “to cover or conceal,” therefore “to be dark or obscure,” and so, figuratively, “to be faint or depressed.” Israel’s helpless state when harassed by Amalek ( Deuteronomy 25:18) and the plight of Gideon’s weary force when they sought in vain for help at Succoth ( Judges 8:4) are described by the same word. Isaiah also uses it to picture the disappointed and unsatisfied appetite of the thirsty man awakening from his dream of refreshment ( Isaiah 29:8). In 2 Samuel 16:14, `ayephim is probably a proper name of a place (Revised Version, margin). `Uph in 1 Samuel 14:28-31 describes the exhaustion of Saul’s host in pursuit of the Philistines after the battle of Michmash. The same word expresses the failure of David’s strength when in conflict with the same foes, which led to his imminent peril and to the consequent refusal of the commander of his army to allow him to take part personally in the combat ( 2 Samuel 21:15). Ya`-aph is used by Ziba when he brought refreshments to David’s men on the flight from Absalom ( 2 Samuel 16:2); see also its use in Isaiah 40:28. Cognate verbal forms occur in Isaiah 40:30,31; Jeremiah 2:24; 51:58,64; Habakkuk 2:13, as also in Judges 8:15, meaning in all cases the faintness or exhaustion of fatigue or weariness. `Alpah expresses the faintness from thirst in Amos 8:13, or from the heat of the sun ( Jonah 4:8), and figuratively, the despondency which was the result of the captivity ( Isaiah 51:20). Ezekiel uses it allegorically as describing the withering of the trees for grief at the death of the Assyrian kings ( Ezekiel 31:15). `ATaph is the weariness of the wanderers in the desert ( <19A705> Psalm 107:5), the faintness from hunger ( Lamentations 2:19), or the despondency of Jonah dispelled by his remembrance of God’s mercies ( Jonah 2:7). Dawway , from a root which signifies the sickness produced by exhaustion from loss of blood, is used in Isaiah 1:5 for the faintness of heart, the result of remorse for sin, and in Jeremiah 8:18 for the prophet’s sorrow for the sins of Israel. A cognate form expresses his sorrow on account of the judgments of God which were incurred as punishments for the national backsliding ( Lamentations 1:13,12; 5:17). Macac , literally, “dissolving or melting,” is applied to the contagious fear which the example of a cowardly soldier produces among his comrades ( Deuteronomy 20:8, the Revised Version (British and American) “melt”). In the remarkable passage in Isaiah 10:18, in which God pronounces the doom of Assyria when his purposes of chastisement on Israel have been fulfilled, the collapse of Assyria is said to be “as when a standard-bearer fainteth.” For this the Revised Version, margin substitutes “as when a sick man pineth away,” which is probably the correct rendering.

The word macac may mean either a sick man, or else something glittering and seen from afar, such as a standard, but the former sense is more intelligible and suggestive in the context. The rarely used verbal form cognate to macac is used on account of its assonance. Yaghea` (yagha` ), which is usually translated “grieved” or “tormented” or “fatigued,” is rendered as “fainted” in Jeremiah 45:3. This passage, “I fainted in my sighing” the King James Version, is in Hebrew the same as that which reads, “I am weary with my groaning” in Psalm 6:6, and is similarly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American). Rakhakh , like macac , primarily signifies “to melt” or “to become soft,” and is used in prophetic exhortations in which the people are encouraged not to be panic-stricken in the presence of enemies ( Deuteronomy 20:3, and also Jeremiah 51:46; Isaiah 7:4). Another related word, morekh , in the sense of despair and utter loss of courage, is used in expressing the consequences of God’s wrath against Israel (Leviticus26:36). In its literal sense it signifies “blandness,” as of the words of a hypocritical enemy ( Psalm 55:21). Paghar is the prostration of utter fatigue whereby one is unable to raise himself or to proceed on a journey, as were some of David’s little band ( 1 Samuel 30:10-21). A cognate word describes the prostration of amazement and incredulity with which Jacob heard of Joseph’s condition in Egypt ( Genesis 45:26). Kahah , the pining of earnest, longing desire, is translated “fainteth” in Psalm 84:2; 119:81; elsewhere it is rendered by words expressing wasting or languishing. The panic in Canaan due to famine is expressed ( Genesis 47:13) by the word lahah , which implies a state of frenzy.

The only records of actual fainting are (1) Daniel, in Daniel 8:27, where the word used is the Niphal of the verb hayah , literally, “became,” meaning that he became weak; (2) swooning is mentioned in Additions to Esther 15:7-15.

In the New Testament “faint” is used in the sense of physical exhaustion ( Matthew 9:36 the King James Version; Matthew 15:32; Mark 8:3), where it is part of the verb ekluo , “to relax.” Otherwise it is used figuratively of discouragement of spirit. The same verb is used in Galatians 6:9; Hebrews 12:3,5; but in Luke 18:1; <470401> Corinthians 4:1-16; Ephesians 3:13 it is part of the verb ekkakeo (according to some authorities egkakeo , pronounced enkakeo , meaning “to be faint-hearted” or “to be culpably negligent”). In Revelation 2:3 it is [kopia>w, kopiao ], literally, “to be tired.” Alexander Macalister FAIR <far > : The word translated in the King James Version from 9 Hebrew and 4 Greek expressions has nowhere in the Bible the modern sense of “blond,” “fair-skinned.” The translation of Isaiah 54:11, “fair colors,” refers to the cosmetic use of [ ËWP, pukh ], stibium, antimony powder, with which black margins were painted around the eyelids, so as to make the eyes appear large and dark. The stones of rebuilt Jerusalem, beautifully laid in their black mortar, are compared with such eyes. We can distinguish the following varieties of meaning: (1) Beautiful, attractive, [ bwOf , Tobh ], [ hp;y; , yaphah ], [ hp,y; , yapheh ]; Aramaic [ ryPiv” , shappir ]; Septuagint [kalo>v, kalos ]; in the New Testament [ajstei~ov, asteios ]. This latter word is in both places where it is found used of Moses ( Acts 7:20; Hebrews 11:23, the Revised Version (British and American) “goodly”), and means literally, town bred (as opposed to boorish), polite, polished in manners, urbane, then nice, pretty. (2) Pure, free of defilement, the Revised Version (British and American) “clean,” [ rwOhf; , Tahor ] (Zec 3:5). (3) “Fair speech,” plausible, persuasive ([ jq”l, , leqah ], Proverbs 7:21; [eu]lalov, eulalos ], Sirach 6:5; compare [eujlogi>a, eulogia ], Romans 16:18). (4) Making a fine display ([eujproswpei~n, euprosopein ], Galatians 6:12, “to make a fair show”). (5) Good (of weather) ([ bh;z; , zahabh ], “golden,” “clear,” Job 37:2,2, the Revised Version (British and American) “golden splendor”); [eujdi>a, eudia ] ( Matthew 16:2). H. L. E. Luering FAIR HAVENS <far ha’-v’-nz > ([ Kaloi< Lime>nev, Kaloi Limenes ]): A roadstead on the South coast of Crete, about 5 miles East of Cape Matala, the most southerly point of the island. The harbor is formed by a bay, open to the East, and sheltered on the Southwest by two small islands. Here Paul waited for a considerable time ( Acts 27:9); but while it afforded good anchorage and a shelter from North and Northwest winds, “the haven was not commodious to winter in” ( Acts 27:8,12). See CRETE.

FAIRS <farz > : Found only 5 times in the King James Version ( Ezekiel 27:12,14,16,19,27), apparently incorrect translation of [ ˆwIbZ;[i , `izzabhon ], according to modern Hebraists (though Gesenius gives “fair” as one of its meanings). The Septuagint translates the Hebrew of the above five passages by two different words, [ajgora>, agora ], “market-place” ( Ezekiel 27:12,14,16,19), and [misqo>v, misthos ], “hire,” “pay” ( Ezekiel 27:27,33). The King James Version follows the Wyclif version in Ezekiel 27:12 and the Geneva version throughout, although it properly translates “wares” in 27:33. the Revised Version (British and American) gives “wares” (which see) throughout.

FAITH <fath > :

In the Old Testament (the King James Version) the word occurs only twice: Deuteronomy 32:20 ([ ˆWmae , ‘emun ]); Habakkuk 2:4 ([ hn;Wma,] , ‘emunah ]). In the latter the Revised Version (British and American) places in the margin the alternative rendering, “faithfulness.” In the New Testament it is of very frequent occurrence, always representing [pi>stiv, pistis ], with one exception in the King James Version (not the Revised Version (British and American)), Hebrews 10:23, where it represents [ejlpi>v, elpis], “hope.”

1. ETYMOLOGY:

The history of the English word is rather interesting than important; use and contexts, alike for it and its Hebrew and Greek parallels, are the surest guides to meaning. But we may note that it occurs in the form “feyth,” in Havelok the Dane (13th century); that it is akin to fides and this again to the Sanskrit root bhidh, “to unite,” “to bind.” It is worth while to recall this primeval suggestion of the spiritual work of faith, as that which, on man’s side, unites him to God for salvation.

2. MEANING: A DIVERGENCY:

Studying the word “faith” in the light of use and contexts, we find a bifurcation of significance in the Bible. We may distinguish the two senses as the passive and the active; on the one side, “fidelity,” “trustworthiness”; and “faith,” “trust,” on the other. In Galatians 5:22, e.g. context makes it clear that “fidelity” is in view, as a quality congruous with the associated graces. (the Revised Version (British and American) accordingly renders pistis there by “faithfulness.”) Again, Romans 3:3 the King James Version, “the faith of God,” by the nature of the case, means His fidelity to promise. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, “faith,” as rendering pistis, means “reliance,” “trust.” To illustrate would be to quote many scores of passages. It may be enough here to call attention to the recorded use of the word by our Lord. Of about twenty passages in the Gospels where pistis occurs as coming from His lips, only one ( Matthew 23:23) presents it in the apparent sense of “fidelity.” All the others conspicuously demand the sense of “reliance,” “trust.” The same is true of the apostolic writings. In them, with rarest exceptions, the words “reliance,” “trust,” precisely fit the context as alternatives to “faith.”

3. FAITH IN THE SENSE OF CREED:

Another line of meaning is traceable in a very few passages, where pistis, “faith,” appears in the sense of “creed,” the truth, or body of truth, which is trusted, or which justifies trust. The most important of such places is the paragraph Jas 2:14-26, where an apparent contradiction to some great Pauline dicta perplexes many readers. The riddle is solved by observing that the writer uses “faith” in the sense of creed, orthodox “belief.” This is clear from Jas 2:19, where the “faith.” in question is illustrated: “Thou believest that God is one.” This is the credal confession of the orthodox Jew (the [shema`]; see Deuteronomy 6:4), taken as a passport to salvation. Briefly, James presses the futility of creed without life, Paul the necessity of reliance in order to receive “life and peace.”

4. A LEADING PASSAGE EXPLAINED:

It is important to notice that Hebrews 11:1 is no exception to the rule that “faith” normally means “reliance,” “trust.” There “Faith is the substance (or possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by New Testament writers, “the guaranty”) of things hoped for, the evidence (or “convincing proof”) of things not seen.” This is sometimes interpreted as if faith, in the writer’s view, were, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the phrase here, “faith is the evidence,” etc., is parallel in form to our familiar saying, “Knowledge is power.”

5. REMARKS:

A few detached remarks may be added: (a) The history of the use of the Greek pistis is instructive. In the Septuagint it normally, if not always, bears the “passive” sense “fidelity,” “good faith,” while in classical Greek it not rarely bears the active sense, “trust.” In the koine, the type of Greek universally common at the Christian era, it seems to have adopted the active meaning as the ruling one only just in time, so to speak, to provide it for the utterance of Him whose supreme message was “reliance,” and who passed that message on to His apostles. Through their lips and pens “faith,” in that sense, became the supreme watchword of Christianity. See JUSTIFICATION; UNION WITH CHRIST.

6. CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being, in its true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus “faith” is our side of union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits, pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory.

As a comment on our exposition of the ruling meaning of “faith” in Scripture, we may note that this precisely corresponds to its meaning in common life, where, for once that the word means anything else, it means “reliance” a hundred times. Such correspondence between religious terms (in Scripture) and the meaning of the same words in common life, will be found to be invariable. Handley Dunelm FAITHFUL; FAITHFULNESS <fath’-fool > , <fath’-fool-nes > :

Faithfulness is a quality or attribute applied in the Scripture to both God and man. This article is limited to the consideration of the Scripture teaching concerning the meaning of faithfulness in its application to God.

Faithfulness is one of the characteristics of God’s ethical nature. It denotes the firmness or constancy of God in His relations with men, especially with His people. It is, accordingly, one aspect of God’s truth and of His unchangeableness. God is true not only because He is really God in contrast to all that is not God, and because He realizes the idea of Godhead, but also because He is constant or faithful in keeping His promises, and therefore is worthy of trust (see TRUTH ). God, likewise, is unchangeable in His ethical nature. This unchangeableness the Scripture often connects with God’s goodness and mercy, and also with His constancy in reference to His covenant promises, and this is what the Old Testament means by the Faithfulness of God (see UNCHANGEABLENESS ).

1. FAITHFULFULNESS OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

In the Old Testament this attribute is ascribed to God in passages where the Hebrew words denoting faithfulness do not occur. It is implied in the covenant name Yahweh as unfolded in Exodus 3:13-15, which not only expresses God’s self-existence and unchangeableness, but, as the context indicates, puts God’s immutability in special relation to His gracious promises, thus denoting God’s unchangeable faithfulness which is emphasized in the Old Testament to awaken trust in God ( Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 36:5 (Hebrew 6); Isaiah 11:5; Hosea 12:6,9). (For fuller remarks on the name Yahweh in Exodus 3:13-15, see article UNCHANGEABLENESS .) It is, moreover, God’s faithfulness as well as His immutability which is implied in those passages where God is called a rock, as being the secure object of religious trust ( Deuteronomy 32:4,15; Psalm 18:2 (Hebrew 3); 42:9 (Hebrew 10); Isaiah 17:10, etc.). This same attribute is also implied where God reveals Himself to Moses and to Israel as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their fathers’ God ( Exodus 3:6,15,16). The truth concerning God here taught is not simply that He stood in a gracious relation to the Patriarchs, but that He is faithful to His gracious promise to their fathers, and that what He was to them He will continue to be to Moses and to Israel. This is the fundamental idea in the Old Testament concerning the faithfulness of God.

This can be seen also from the Hebrew words which are used to express this quality of God’s nature and activity. These words are ne’eman , the Niphal participle of the verb ‘aman used as an adjective — ”faithful” — and the nouns ‘emeth and ‘emunah — ”faithfulness.” The verbal stem ‘aman means “to be secure or firm.” In the Qal it denotes the firmness of that which supports something, being used in the participle of a nurse who carries a child ( Numbers 11:12; 2 Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 49:23). In the Niphal it denotes the firmness of that which is supported, for example, a child which is carried ( Isaiah 60:4); a well-founded house ( Samuel 2:35; 25:28); a wall which firmly holds a nail ( Isaiah 22:23,15); a kingdom firmly established ( 2 Samuel 7:16); persons secure in political station ( Isaiah 7:9); a heart which is faithful ( Nehemiah 9:8). Hence, in the Niphal the verb comes to have the meaning of being true in the sense of the agreement of words and assertions with reality; for example, of words and revelations ( Genesis 42:20; Hosea 5:9); and of persons ( Isaiah 8:2; Jeremiah 42:5). It has also the meaning of being faithful, being applied to men in Numbers 12:7; <19A106> Psalm 101:6; Nehemiah 13:13, etc. In this sense the term is applied to the covenantkeeping Yahweh to express the truth that He is firm or constant, that is, faithful in regard to His covenant promises, and will surely fulfill them ( Deuteronomy 7:9; Isaiah 49:7; and possibly Hosea 11:12 (Hebrew 12:1)).

A similar use is made of the nouns ‘emeth and ‘emunah . Apart from the instances where ‘emeth denotes the idea of truth or the correspondence of words and ideas with reality, and the instances where it denotes the agreement of acts and words with the inner disposition, that is, sincerity, it is also used to denote the idea of faithfulness as above defined. As regards the noun ‘emunah , apart from a few passages where it is doubtful whether it means truth or faithfulness, it usually denotes the latter idea. Both these nouns, then, are used to signify the idea of faithfulness, that is, constancy or firmness, especially in the fulfillment of all obligations. In this sense these words are not only applied to men, but also to God to express the idea that He is always faithful to His covenant promises. It is this attribute of God which the Psalmist declares ( Psalm 40:10 (Hebrew 11)), and the greatness of which he affirms by saying that God’s faithfulness reacheth to the clouds ( Psalm 36:5 (Hebrew 6)). It is this which he makes the object of praise ( Psalm 89:1,2 (Hebrew 2,3); Psalm 92:2 (Hebrew 3)); and which he says should be praised and reverenced by all men ( Psalm 89:5,8 (Hebrew 6,9)). And even this faithfulness is itself characterized by constancy, if we may so speak, for the Psalmist says that it endures to all generations ( <19A005> Psalm 100:5). Being thus a characteristic of God, it also characterizes His salvation, and becomes the basis of confidence that God will hear prayer ( <19E301> Psalm 143:1). It thus becomes the security of the religious man ( Psalm 91:4); and the source of God’s help to His people ( Psalm 31:5 (Hebrew 6)). Accordingly in the teaching of prophecy, the salvation of the covenant people rests upon no claim or merit of their own, but solely upon Yahweh’s mercy, grace and faithfulness. When Israel incurred God’s judgments, it might have appeared as if His promise was to fail, but, so far from this being true, as Yahweh, He is faithful to His word of promise which stands forever ( Isaiah 40:8). Even from eternity His counsels are characterized by faithfulness and truth ( Isaiah 25:1); and this is not because of Israel’s faithfulness, but it is for His own sake that Yahweh blotteth out their transgressions ( Isaiah 43:22-25; Micah 7:18-20). It is, moreover, this same characteristic of Yahweh which is asserted in many cases where the Hebrew words ‘emeth and ‘emunah are translated by the word “truth” in the King James Version. In Exodus 34:6 it is God’s faithfulness (‘emeth ) which is referred to, since it evidently signifies His constancy from generation to generation; and in Deuteronomy 32:4 it is also God’s faithfulness (‘emunah ) which is mentioned, since it is contrasted with the faithlessness of Israel. The same is true of ‘emeth in Micah 7:20; Psalm 31:5 (Hebrew 6)); 91:4; 146:6. This is also true of the numerous instances where God’s mercy and truth (‘emeth ) are combined, His mercy being the source of His gracious promises, and His truth the faithfulness with which He certainly fulfills them ( Psalm 25:10; 57:3 (Hebrew 4); 61:7 (Hebrew 8); 85:10 (Hebrew 11); 86:15). And since the covenantkeeping Yahweh is faithful, faithfulness comes also to be a characteristic of the New Covenant which is everlasting ( Psalm 89:28 (Hebrew 29)); compare also for a similar thought, Isaiah 54:8 ff; Jeremiah 31:35 ff; Hosea 2:19 f; Ezekiel 16:60 ff.

It is in this connection, moreover, that God’s faithfulness is closely related to His righteousness in the Old Testament. In the second half of the prophecy of Isaiah and in many of the psalms, righteousness is ascribed to God because He comes to help and save His people. Thus righteousness as a quality parallel with grace, mercy and faithfulness is ascribed to God ( Isaiah 41:10; 42:6; 45:13,19,21; 63:1). It appears in these places to widen out from its exclusively judicial or forensic association and to become a quality of God as Savior of His people. Accordingly this attribute of God is appealed to in the Psalms as the basis of hope for salvation and deliverance ( Psalm 31:1 (Hebrew 2); 35:24; 71:2; 143:11). Hence, this attribute is associated with God’s mercy and grace ( Psalm 36:5 (Hebrew 6); 36:9 (Hebrew 10); 89:14 (Hebrew 15)); also with His faithfulness (Zec 8:8; Psalm 36:6 (Hebrew 7)); Psalm 40:10 (Hebrew 11); 88:11,12 (Hebrew 12,13); 89:14 (Hebrew 15); 96:13; 119:137,142; 143:1). Accordingly the Old Testament conception of the righteousness of God has been practically identified with His covenant faithfulness, by such writers as Kautzsch, Riehm and Smend, Ritschl’s definition of it being very much the same. Moreover, Ritschl, following Diestel, denied that the idea of distributive and retributive justice is ascribed to God in the Old Testament. In regard to this latter point, it should be remarked in passing that this denial that the judicial or forensic idea of righteousness is ascribed to God in the Old Testament breaks down, not only in view of the fact that the Old Testament does ascribe this attribute to God in many ways, but also in view of the fact that in a number of passages the idea of retribution is specifically referred to the righteousness of God (see RIGHTEOUSNESS ; compare against Diestel and Ritschl, Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament).

That which concerns us, however, in regard to this close relation between righteousness and faithfulness is to observe that this should not be pressed to the extent of the identification of righteousness with covenant faithfulness in these passages in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah The idea seems to be that Israel has sinned and has no claim upon Yahweh, finding her only hope of deliverance in His mercy and faithfulness. But this very fact that Yahweh is merciful and faithful becomes, as it were, Israel’s claim, or rather the ground of Israel’s hope of deliverance from her enemies. Hence, in the recognition of this claim of His people, God is said to be righteous in manifesting His mercy and faithfulness, so that His righteousness, no less than His mercy and faithfulness, becomes the ground of His people’s hope. Righteousness is thus closely related in these cases to faithfulness, but it is not identified with it, nor has it in all cases lost entirely its forensic tone. This seems to be, in general, the meaning of righteousness in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah, with which may also be compared Micah 6:9; Zec 8:8.

The emphasis which this attribute of God has in the Old Testament is determined by the fact that throughout the whole of the Old Testament the covenant relation of Yahweh to His people is founded solely in God’s grace, and not on any merit of theirs. If this covenant relation had been based on any claim of Israel, faithfulness on God’s part might have been taken for granted. But since Yahweh’s covenant relation with Israel and His promises of salvation spring solely from, and depend wholly upon, the grace of God, that which gave firm assurance that the past experience of God’s grace would continue in the future was this immutable faithfulness of Yahweh. By it the experience of the fathers was given a religious value for Israel from generation to generation. And even as the faithfulness of God bridged over the past and the present, so also it constituted the connecting link between the present and the future, becoming thus the firm basis of Israel’s hope; compare Psalm 89 which sets forth the faithfulness of God in its greatness, its firmness as the basis of the covenant and the ground it affords of hope for future help from Yahweh, and for hope that His covenant shall endure forever. When God’s people departed from Him all the more emphasis was put upon His faithfulness, so that the only hope of His wayward people lay not only in His grace and mercy but also in His faithfulness, which stands in marked contrast with the faithlessness and inconstancy of His people. This is probably the meaning of the difficult verse Hosea 11:12 (Hebrew 12:1).

2. FAITHFULNESS OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

In the New Testament teaching concerning the faithfulness of God the same idea of faithfulness to His gracious promises is emphasized and held up as the object of a confident trust in God. This idea is usually expressed by the adjective pistos, and once by the noun pistis , which more frequently has the active sense of faith or trust.

An attempt has been made by Wendt (SK, 1883, 511 f; Teaching of Jesus, English translation, I, 259 f) to interpret the words aletheia and alethes in many instances, especially in the Johannine writings, as denoting faithfulness and rectitude, after the analogy of the Septuagint rendering eleos kai aletheia for the Hebrew phrase “mercy and truth,” in which truth is equivalent to faithfulness. But the most that could be inferred from the fact that the Septuagint uses the word aletheia to translate the Hebrew word ‘emeth , and in about one-half the cases where ‘emunah occurs, would be that those Greek words might have been prepared for such a use in the New Testament. But while it is true that there is one usage of these words in John’s writings in an ethical sense apparently based on the Old Testament use of ‘emeth and ‘emunah , the Greek words do not have this meaning when employed to denote a characteristic of God. Neither is the adjective alethinos so used. See TRUTH.

In the Epistles of Paul the word aletheia occurs quite frequently to denote the truth revealed by God to man through reason and conscience, and to denote the doctrinal content of the gospel. In two passages, however, the words alethes and aletheia seem to signify the faithfulness of God ( Romans 3:4,7; 15:8). In the former passage Paul is contrasting the faithfulness of God with the faithlessness of men, the word alethes , 3:4, and aletheia , 3:7, apparently denoting the same Divine characteristic as the word pistis , 3:3. In the latter passage ( Romans 15:8), the vindication of God’s covenant faithfulness, through the realization of His promises to the fathers, is declared to have been the purpose of the ministry of Jesus Christ to the Jews.

This faithfulness of God to His covenant promises is frequently emphasized by Paul, the words he employs being the noun pistis (once) and the adjective: pistos. The noun pistis is used once by Paul in this sense ( Romans 3:3 ff). In this place Paul is arguing that the unbelief of the Jews cannot make void God’s faithfulness. Both Jew and Gentile, the apostle had said, are on the same footing as regards justification.

Nevertheless the Jews had one great advantage in that they were the people to whom the revelation of God’s gracious promises had been committed. These promises will certainly be fulfilled, notwithstanding the fact that some of the Jews were unfaithful, because the fulfillment of these promises depends not on human conduct but on the faithfulness of God, which cannot be made void by human faithlessness and unbelief. And to the supposition that man’s faithlessness could make of none effect God’s faithfulness, Paul replies `let God be faithful (alethes) and every man a liar’ ( Romans 3:4), by which Paul means to say that in the fulfillment of God’s promises, in spite of the fact that men are faithless, the faithfulness of God will be abundantly vindicated, even though thereby every man should be proven untrue and faithless. And not only so, but human faithlessness will give an opportunity for a manifestation of the faithfulness (aletheia) of God, abounding to His glory ( Romans 3:7). God’s faithfulness here is His unchangeable constancy and fidelity to His covenant promises; and it is this fidelity to His promises, or the fact that God’s gracious gifts and election are without any change of mind on His part, which gave to Paul the assurance that all Israel should finally be saved ( Romans 11:25-29). Moreover this covenant faithfulness of God is grounded in His very nature, so that Paul’s hope of eternal life rests on the fact that God who cannot lie promised it before the world began ( Titus 1:2); and the certainty that God will abide faithful notwithstanding human faithlessness rests on the fact that God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13). It is because God is faithful that His promises in Christ are yea and amen ( 2 Corinthians 1:18,20). This attribute of God, moreover, is the basis of Paul’s confident assurance that God will preserve the Christian in temptation ( 1 Corinthians 10:13); and establish him and preserve him from evil ( 2 Thessalonians 3:3). And since God is faithful and His gracious promises trustworthy, this characteristic attaches to the “faithful sayings” in the Pastoral Epistles which sum up the gospel, making them worthy of trust and acceptance ( 1 Timothy 1:15; 4:9; Titus 3:8).

This faithfulness of God in the sense of fidelity to His promises is set forth as the object of sure trust and hope by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was the basis of Sarah’s faith that she would bear a child when she was past age ( Hebrews 11:11); and it is because God is faithful to His promise in Christ that we can draw nigh to Him with full assurance of faith, holding fast without wavering the profession of hope ( Hebrews 10:23).

John also ascribes this attribute to God. Since one of the most precious of God’s promises through Christ is the pardon of sin through the “blood of Jesus Christ,” John says that God’s faithfulness, as well as His righteousness, is manifested in the forgiveness of sin ( 1 John 1:9).

The faithfulness of God is viewed from a slightly different point by Peter when he tells his readers that those who suffer as Christians and in accordance with God’s will should “commit their soul’s in well-doing unto a faithful Creator” ( 1 Peter 4:19). The quality of faithfulness, which in the Scripture is more frequently ascribed to God in His relation to man as gracious Savior, and as the ground of hope in His gracious promises, is here applied by Peter to God in His relation to man as his Creator, and is made the ground of comfort under persecution and suffering. The omission of the article before the words “faithful Creator” makes emphatic that this is a characteristic of God as Creator, and the position of the words in the sentence throws great emphasis on this attribute of God as the basis of comfort under suffering. It is as if Peter would say to suffering Christians, “You suffer not by chance but in accordance with God’s will; He, the almighty Creator, made you, and since your suffering is in accordance with His will, you ought to trust yourselves to Him who as your Creator is faithful.” It is, of course, Christians who are to derive this comfort, but the faithfulness of God is extended here to cover all His relations to His people, and to pledge all His attributes in their behalf.

This attribute is also ascribed to Christ in the New Testament. Where Jesus is called a faithful high priest, the idea expressed is His fidelity to His obligations to God and to His saving work ( Hebrews 2:17; 3:2,6). But when in the Book of Revelation Jesus Christ is called the “faithful witness” or absolutely the “Faithful and True,” it is clear that the quality of faithfulness, in the most absolute sense in which it is characteristic of God in contrast with human changeableness, is ascribed to Christ ( Revelation 1:5; 3:14; 19:11). This is especially clear in the last-named passage. The heavens themselves open to disclose the glorified Christ, and He appears not only as a victorious warrior whose name is faithful and true, but also as the one in whom these attributes have their highest realization, and of whom they are so characteristic as to become the name of the exalted Lord. This clearly implies the Deity of Jesus.

In summing up the Scripture teaching concerning God’s faithfulness, three things are noteworthy. In the first place, this characteristic of God is usually connected with His gracious promises of salvation, and is one of those attributes which make God the firm and secure object of religious trust. As is the case with all the Scripture teaching concerning God, it is the religious value of His faithfulness which is made prominent. In the second place, the so-called moral attributes, of which this is one, are essential in order to constitute God the object of religion, along with the so-called incommunicable attributes such as Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Unchangeableness. Take away either class of attributes from God, and He ceases to be God, the object of religious veneration and trust. And in the third place, while these moral attributes, to which faithfulness belongs, have been called “communicable,” to distinguish them from the “incommunicable” attributes which distinguish God from all that is finite, it should never be forgotten that, according to the Scripture, God is faithful in such an absolute sense as to contrast Him with men who are faithful only in a relative sense, and who appear as changeable and faithless in comparison with the faithfulness of God. See RIGHTEOUSNESS; TRUTH; UNCHANGEABLENESS.

LITERATURE.

Besides the Commentaries on the appropriate passages, see Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation, 95, 112 f 505:

Dillmann, Handbuch der alttest. Theol., 268-76, 269-70; Schlatter, Der Glaube im New Testament, 21-22, 259-60. In the works on New Testament theology this subject is treated under the sections on the truthfulness of God.

On the relation of God’s truth and faithfulness, see Wendt, Der Gebrauch der Worter, [ajlh>qeia, ajlhqh>v und ajlhqino>v im New Testament, SK, 1883, 511 f; Stanton, article “Truth,” in HDB, IV, 816 f; and the abovementioned work of Schlatter. On the relation of the faithfulness to the righteousness of God, see Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit vorzuglich im Altes Testament,” Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1860, 173 f; Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate des Stammes qdx , im Altes Testament Sprachgebrauch ; Riehm, Altes Testament Theol., 271 f; Smend, Alttest.

Religionsgeschichte, 363 f; Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation; Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Altes Testament; and the abovementioned Old Testament Theologies of Dillmann and Oehler. Gaspar Wistar Hodge FAITHFUL SAYINGS <sa’-inz > ([pistogov, pistos he logos ]): “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation” (the King James Version). These words form a striking formula which is found — with slight variations — only in the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8. A similar expression occurs in Revelation (21:5 and 22:6 the King James Version), “These sayings are faithful and true.”

THE FIVE “SAYINGS.”

Paul’s faithful sayings are thus five in number, and “were no doubt rehearsed constantly in the assemblies, till they became well-known watchwords in the various churches scattered over the Mediterraneanwashed provinces of the Roman empire” (Ellicott, New Testament Commentary on 1 Timothy 1:15).

1. THE FIRST “SAYING”:

The first of the faithful sayings speaks of the pre-existence of Christ, of His coming into the world, and the purpose why He came is distinctly stated — to save the lost, irrespective of race or nationality, sinners who, apart from Christ, are without God and without hope.

2. THE SECOND “SAYING”:

The second of the faithful sayings refers to the work of being a minister of the gospel, a work then so full of danger and always full of difficulty. The office in question is honorable and Christlike, and, in those early days, it meant stern and ceaseless work, grave and constant danger. This faithful saying would act as a call to young men to offer themselves for the work of proclaiming the gospel to the world, and of witnessing for Christ.

3. THE THIRD “SAYING”:

The third saying is that godliness has an influence that is world-wide; it consists, not merely in holiness and in that fellowship and communion with God which is the very life of the soul; it is also an active force which springs from “the love of Christ constraining us,” and manifests itself in love toward all our fellow-men, for they are God’s creatures. Godliness transfigures every rank and condition of life. It has the promise of the life that now is: to those who seek the kingdom of God first, all other things will be added. And it has the promise of the life that is to come, the rich prospect of eternal blessedness with Christ. Compare with this saying the remarkable words in Titus 1:2, “in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal.” Godliness gives all gladness here, and future glory too. This is a faithful saying.

4. THE FOURTH “SAYING”:

The fourth of the faithful sayings speaks of the Christian believer’s union with Christ, and of the blessedness of that union. The Christian is “dead with Christ,” he “suffers with Christ.” But the union with Christ is eternal, “We shall also live with him; .... we shall also reign with him” in life that is fadeless, endless and full of glory. Surely then, no one will draw back, for “if we deny him,” “if we believe not,” “he also will deny us,” for “he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself.”

5. THE FIFTH “SAYING”:

The fifth and last of the faithful sayings speaks of our former unconverted state, “for we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures. But .... the kindness and love of God .... toward man appeared, not by works which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us.” Blessedness is now the Christian’s lot, and this is the result not of our works: we owe it all to the tender love of God, to His Divine pity, to His redeeming grace. Yes, this is a faithful saying. John Rutherfurd FAITHLESS <fath’-les > : The translation of [a]pistov, apistos ], “without faith,” having the sense of “unbelieving,” “disbelieving.” Jesus upbraids the people, “O faithless and perverse generation!” ( Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41); He says to Thomas, “Be not faithless, but believing” ( John 20:27); the Revised Version (British and American) adds, “If we are faithless,” instead of “believe not” ( 2 Timothy 2:13); compare Corinthians 7:12-15; 10:27; 14:22,24, etc.; Titus 1:15. In Luke 12:46 apistos has the sense of “unfaithful,” so the Revised Version (British and American); perhaps also Revelation 21:8, “unbelieving.”

FALCON <fo’-k’-n > , <fol’-k’-n > , <fal’-kun > : The Hebrews did not know the word.

Their bird corresponding to our falcon, in all probability, was one of the smaller kestrels covered by the word nets , which seemed to cover all lesser birds of prey that we include in the hawk family. That some of our many divisions of species were known to them is indicated by the phrase “after its kind.” The word occurs in the Revised Version (British and American) in Job 28:7, to translation ‘ayyah , Greek [gu>y, gups ] (compare Leviticus11:14; Deuteronomy 14:13): “That path no bird of prey knoweth, Neither hath the falcon’s eye seen it.” This substitutes “falcon” for “vulture” in the King James Version. The change weakens the force of the lines. All ornithologists know that eagles, vultures and the large hawks have such range of vision that they at once descend from heights at which we cannot see them to take prey on earth or food placed to tempt them. The falcons and sparrow hawks are small members of the family, some of which feed on little birds, some on insects.

They are not celebrated for greater range of vision than other birds of the same location and feeding habits. The strength of these lines lay in the fact that if the path to the mine were so well concealed that the piercing eye of the vulture failed to find it, then it was perfectly hidden indeed. Gene Stratton-Porter FALL <fol > (vb.): The idea of falling is most frequently expressed in Hebrew by [ lp”n; , naphal ], but also by many other words; in Greek by [pi>ptw, pipto ], and its compounds. The uses of the word in Scripture are very varied. There is the literal falling by descent; the falling of the countenance in sorrow, shame, anger, etc. ( Genesis 4:5,6); the falling in battle ( Genesis 14:10; Numbers 14:3, etc.); the falling into trouble, etc. ( Proverbs 24:16,17); prostration in supplication and reverence ( Genesis 17:3; Numbers 14:5, etc.); falling of the Spirit of Yahweh ( Ezekiel 11:5; compare 3:24; 8:1); of apostasy ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Hebrews 6:6; Jude 1:24), etc. the Revised Version (British and American) frequently changes “fall” of the King James Version into other words or phrases, as “stumble” (Leviticus26:37; Psalm 64:8; 2 Peter 1:10, etc.), “fade” ( Isaiah 33:4), etc.; in Acts 27, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “be cast ashore on rocky ground” for “have fallen upon rocks” ( Acts 27:29), “perish” for “fall” ( Acts 27:34), “lighting upon” for “falling into” ( Acts 27:41). W. L. Walker FALL, THE <fol > :

The question concerning the origin, the age and the written record of the history of the Fall in Genesis 3 need not be discussed here. For in the first place, science can never reach to the oldest origins and the ultimate destinies of humanity, and historical and critical inquiry will never be able to prove either the veracity or the unveracity of this history. And in the second place, exactly as it now lies before us, this history has already formed for centuries a portion of holy Scripture, an indispensable element in the organism of the revelation of salvation, and as such has been accepted in faith by the Hebrew congregation (Jewish people), by Christ, by the apostles, and by the whole Christian church. 1. Meaning of Genesis 3: That Genesis 3 gives us an account of the fall of man, of the loss of his primitive innocence and of the misery, particularly death, to which he has since been subjected, cannot reasonably be denied. The opinion of the Ophites, Kant, Schiller, Hegel, etc., that Genesis 3 relates the awakening of man to self-consciousness and personality (see ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE APOCRYPHA ), and therefore does not tell us of a fall, but a marked progression, is disputed by the name which the forbidden tree bears, as indicating to man not merely a tree of knowledge in the ordinary way, but quite specially a tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3 is not in the least meant to relate to us how man obtained the idea of his nakedness and sexual passions, and from a state of childlike innocence changed in this respect to manlike maturity (Eerdman’s De Beteekenis van het Paradijsverhaal, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1905, 485- 511). For according to Genesis, man was created full-grown, received a wife immediately as helpmeet, and at the same time saw himself allotted the task of multiplying and replenishing the earth. Moreover, the idea that sexual desire is something sinful and deserves punishment was entirely foreign to ancient Israel.

Finally, the interpretation of Wellhausen (Geschichte Israels, 1878, 344) cannot be accepted, that man in Genesis 3 should obtain “die intellektuelle Welterkenntniss, die metaphysische Erkenntniss der Dinge in ihrem Zusammenhange, ihrem Werth oder Unwerth, ihrem Nutzen oder Schaden” (“the intellectual knowledge of the world, the metaphysical knowledge of things in their connection, their worth or unworth, their utility or hurtfulness”). For in the first place, according to Genesis, this was man’s peculiar province from the beginning; he received indeed the vocation to subdue the earth, to keep and till the ground, to give the animals their names. And in the second place, the acquiring of this knowledge among the Israelites, who esteemed practical wisdom so highly, is difficult to represent as a fall, or as a punishment deserved for disobedience.

There is no other explanation possible of Genesis 3 than that it is the narration of a fall, which consists in the transgression of an explicit command of God, thus bearing a moral significance, and therefore followed by repentance, shame, fear and punishment. The context of the chapter places this interpretation beyond all doubt, for before his fall man is represented as a creature made after God’s image and receiving paradise as a dwelling-place, and after the fall he is sent into a rough world, is condemned to a life of labor and sorrow, and increases more and more in sin until the judgment of the Flood. 2. Genesis 3 in the Old and the New Testaments: It is indeed remarkable how very seldom the Old Testament refers to this history of the Fall. This is not a sufficient reason for pronouncing it of later origin, for the same peculiarity presents itself at the time when, according to all criticism, it was recorded in literature. Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs never quote it; at the most, allusions may be found to it in Hosea 6:7 and Ecclesiastes 7:29; and even Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament very seldom appeal to Genesis 3 ( John 8:44; Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14).

But it may be considered that the Prophets, Psalms and Proverbs only mention special facts of the past by way of exception, that the apostles even hardly ever quote the words and deeds of Jesus, and that all lived at a time when revelation itself was still proceeding and did not lie before them as a complete whole. With us it is quite a different matter; we are in a certain sense outside revelation, make it a subject of our study and meditation, try to discover the unity which holds all its parts together, and devote our special interest to Adam as a figure and counterpart of Christ.

The creation and fall of man occupy therefore a much broader place in the province of our thoughts than they did among the writers of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

Nevertheless, the Fall is the silent hypothesis of the whole Biblical doctrine of sin and redemption; it does not rest only on a few vague passages, but forms an indispensable element in the revelation of salvation. The whole contemplation of man and humanity, of Nature and history, of ethical and physical evil, of redemption and the way in which to obtain it, is connected in Scripture with a Fall, such as Genesis 3 relates to us. Sin, for example, is common to all men ( 1 Kings 8:46; Psalm 14:3; 130:3; 143:2), and to every man from his conception ( Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; Psalm 51:7). It arouses God’s anger and deserves all kinds of punishment, not only of an ethical but of a physical nature ( Genesis 3:14-19; 4:14; 6:7,13; 11:8; Leviticus26:14 f; Deuteronomy 28:15; Psalm 90:7, etc.); the whole of Scripture proceeds from the thought that sin and death are connected in the closest degree, as are also obedience and life. In the new heaven and new earth all suffering ceases with sin ( Revelation 21:4). Therefore redemption is possible only in the way of forgiveness ( Psalm 32:1; Isaiah 43:25, etc.), and circumcision of the heart ( Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:16; Jeremiah 4:4), and this includes, further, life, joy, peace, salvation. When Paul in Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22 indicates Adam as the origin of sin and death, and Christ as the source of righteousness and life, he develops no ideas which are contrary to the organism of revelation or which might be neglected without loss; he merely combines and formulates the data which are explicitly or silently contained in it. 3. The Fall and the Theory of Evolution: Tradition does little toward the confirmation and elucidation of the Biblical narrative of the Fall. The study of mythology is still too little advanced to determine the ideal or historical value which may be contained in the legend of a Golden Age, in many people’s obsequious honoring of the serpent, in the equally widespread belief in a tree of life. The Babylonian representation also (a seal on which a man and woman, seated, are figured as plucking fruit from a tree, while a serpent curls up behind the woman as if whispering in her ear), which G. Smith, Lenormant and Friedrich Delitzsch compare with the Paradise narrative, shows no similarity on nearer view (A. Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des alten Orients2, Leipzig, 1906, 203). Indirectly, however, a very powerful witness for the fall of man is furnished by the whole empirical condition of the world and humanity. For a world, such as we know it, full of unrighteousness and sorrow, cannot be explained without the acceptance of such a fact. He who holds fast to the witness of Scripture and conscience to sin as sin (as [ajnomi>a, anomia ]) cannot deduce it from creation, but must accept the conclusion that it began with a transgression of God’s command and thus with a deed of the will. Pythagoras, Plato, Kant, Schelling, Baader have all understood and acknowledged this with more or less clearness. He who denies the Fall must explain sin as a necessity which has its origin in the Creation, in the nature of things, and therefore in God Himself; he justifies man but accuses God, misrepresents the character of sin and makes it everlasting and indefeasible. For if there has not been a fall into sin, there is no redemption of sin possible; sin then loses its merely ethical significance, becomes a trait of the nature of man, and is inexterminable.

This comes out, in later years, in the many endeavors to unite the Fall with the doctrine of evolution (compare Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin2, 1905; A. S. Peake, Christianity: Its Nature and Its Truth, 1908; W.

E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, 1909; Francis J. Hall, Evolution and the Fall, 1910). All these endeavors lead to setting on one side the objective standard of sin, which is the law of God, and determining the nature and importance of sin subjectively by the feeling of guilt, which in its turn again depends on the knowledge of and the love for the moral ideal, and itself forms an important factor in moral progress. It is true that the strength of all these endeavors is drawn from theory of the descent of man from the animal. But as to this theory, it is worthy of notice: (1) that it is up to the present day a hypothesis, and is proved by no single observation, whether direct or indirect; (2) that the fossils of prehistoric men, found in Germany, Belgium, France and elsewhere have demonstrated the low degree of culture in which these men have lived, but in no sense their dissimilarity with mankind of today (W. Branca, Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, Leipzig, 1910); (3) that the uncivilized and prehistoric man may be as little identified with the first man as the unjustly so-called nature-people and children under age; (4) that the oldest history of the human race, which has become known through the discoveries at Babylon in the last century, was not that of a state of barbarism, but of high and rich culture (D. Gath Whitley, “What was the Primitive Condition of Man?” Princeton Theol. Review, October, 1906; J. Orr, God’s Image in Man, 1906); (5) that the acceptance of theory of descent as a universal and unlimited rule leads to the denial of the unity of the human race, in a physical and also in an intellectual, moral and religious sense. For it may be possible, even in the school of Darwin, to maintain the unity of the human race so long a time as tradition exercises its influence on the habit of mind; but theory itself undermines its foundation and marks it as an arbitrary opinion.

From the standpoint of evolution, there is not only no reason to hold to the “of one blood” of Acts 17:26 the King James Version, but there has never even been a first man; the transition from animal to man was so slow and successive, that the essential distinction fails to be seen. And with the effacing of this boundary, the unity of the moral ideal, of religion, of the laws of thought and of truth, fails also; theory of evolution expels the absolute everywhere and leads necessarily to psychologism, relativism, pragmatism and even to pluralism, which is literally polytheism in a religious sense. The unity of the human race, on the other hand, as it is taught in holy Scripture, is not an indifferent physical question, but an important intellectual, moral and religious one; it is a “postulate” of the whole history of civilization, and expressly or silently accepted by nearly all historians. And conscience bears witness to it, in so far as all men show the work of the moral law written in their hearts, and their thoughts accuse or excuse one another ( Romans 2:15); it shows back to the Fall as an “Urthatsache der Geschichte.” 4. The Character of the Fall: What the condition and history of the human race could hardly lead us to imagine, holy Scripture relates to us as a tragic fact in its first pages. The first man was created by God after His own image, not therefore in brutish unconsciousness or childlike naivete, but in a state of bodily and spiritual maturity, with understanding and reason, with knowledge and speech, with knowledge especially of God and His law. Then was given to him moreover a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This command was not contained in the moral law as such; it was not a natural but a positive commandment; it rested entirely and only on God’s will and must be obeyed exclusively for this reason. It placed before man the choice, whether he would be faithful and obedient to God’s word and would leave to Him alone the decision as to what is good or evil, or whether he would reserve to himself the right arbitrarily to decide what is good or evil. Thus the question was: Shall theonomy or autonomy be the way to happiness? On this account also the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It did not bear this name in the sense that man might obtain from it the empirical knowledge of good and evil, for by his transgression he in truth lost the empirical knowledge of good. But the tree was so named, because man, by eating of it and so transgressing God’s commandment, arrogated to himself “die Fahigkeit zur selbstandigen Wahl der Mittel, durch die man sein Gluck schaffen will”: “the capacity of independent choice of the means by which he would attain his happiness” (Koberle, Sunde und Gnade im relig. Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christenrum, 1905, 64). Theonomy, as obedience to God from free love, includes as such the idea and the possibility of autonomy, therefore that of antinomy also.

But it is the free act and therefore the guilt of man that has changed the possibility into reality. For the mind, there remains here an insoluble problem, as much in the question, why God allowed this Fall to take place, as in the other, how man, created in the likeness of God, could and did fall.

There is a great deal of truth in the often-expressed thought, that we can give no account of the origin of sin, because it is not logical, and does not result as a conclusion drawn from two premises. But facts are brutal. What seems logically impossible often exists in reality. The laws of moral life are different from those of thought and from those also of mechanical nature.

The narrative in Genesis 3, in any case, is psychologically faithful in the highest degree. For the same way as it appears there in the first man, it repeatedly takes place among ourselves (Jas 1:14,15). Furthermore we ought to allow God to justify Himself. The course of revelation discovers to faith how, through all the ages, He holds sin in its entire development in His own almighty hands, and works through grace for a consummation in which, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, He will gather together in one all things in Christ ( Ephesians 1:10). (J. Orr, Sin as a Problem of Today, London, 1910.) Herman Bavinck FALLING STARS See ASTRONOMY.

FALLOW <fal’-o > ([ µm”D; , damam ]): Damam is translated only once in the sense of “fallow” ( Exodus 23:11). The law required that the Israelites allow their ground to lie fallow one year in, seven. the King James Version is ( Deuteronomy 14:5) [ rni , nir ], and is translated “fallow” in its more obsolete sense of “tilled ground” in the King James Version ( Jeremiah 4:3; Hosea 10:12).

FALSE, CHRISTS <fols > . See CHRISTS, FALSE.

FALSEHOOD <fols’-hood > . See LYING.

FALSE PROPHETS See PROPHESYINGS, FALSE.

FALSE SWEARING, WITNESS See OATH; PERJURY; CRIMES.

FAME <fam > ([ µve , shem ], [ [m”ve , shema `]; [ajkoh>, akoe ], [fh>mh, pheme ]): “Fame” has the twofold meaning, (1) of report or rumor, (2) of renown or reputation (in the Old Testament it is not always easy to distinguish the two senses). “Fame,” shema` , “fame,” “rumor,” “reports” ( Numbers 14:15; Job 28:22, the Revised Version (British and American) “rumor”) probably means “report”; but in 1 Kings 10:1; 2 Chronicles 9:1; Isaiah 66:19, it is most probably “renown,” or “reputation”; shemu`ah ( Kings 10:7; 2 Chronicles 9:6) may have either meaning; shoma` ( Joshua 6:27; 9:9; Nehemiah 9:4) seems to mean “fame” in the sense of reputation; but in Jeremiah 6:24 (as the American Standard Revised Version) “report”; shem , “name,” has the sense of reputation ( 1 Kings 4:31; 1 Chronicles 14:17; 22:5; Zephaniah 3:19, the Revised Version (British and American) “name”); qol , “voice,” is report ( Genesis 45:16, the American Standard Revised Version “report”). In the New Testament akoe , “hearing,” is “report,” so the Revised Version (British and American) ( Matthew 4:24; 14:1; Mark 1:28); pheme , “word,” “rumor,” is report, fame in this sense ( Matthew 9:26; Luke 4:14); echos, “a sound,” “noise” ( Luke 4:37, the Revised Version (British and American) “rumor”), and logos, “word” ( Luke 5:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “report”) have the same meaning; diaphemizo, “to say throughout,” “to report publicly” ( Matthew 9:31, “they .... spread abroad his fame”), seems to imply fame in the sense of reputation.

In 1 Macc 3:26, we have “fame” in the sense of reputation, “His fame (onoma, the Revised Version (British and American) “name”) came near even to the king”; so 3:41, “heard the fame of them.”

ERV has “fame” for “report” (shema` ), Jeremiah 50:43. W. L. Walker FAMILIAR <fa-mil’-yar > : Is found as an adjective qualifying “friend” and “spirit.” (1) Used, in a number of Old Testament passages, of spirits which were supposed to come at the call of one who had power over them. [ bwOa , ‘obh ], literally, something “hollow”; compare [ bwOa , ‘obh ], “bottle” ( Job 32:19 the King James Version); because the voice of the spirit might have been supposed to come from the one possessed, as from a bottle, or because of the hollow sound which characterized the utterance, as out of the ground ( Isaiah 29:4); or, as some have conjectured, akin to [ bWa , ‘ubh ], “return” ([nekro>mantiv, nekromantis ]). Probably called “familiar” because it was regarded as a servant (famulus), belonging to the family (familiaris), who might be summoned to do the commands of the one possessing it. The practice of consulting familiar spirits was forbidden by the Mosaic law (Leviticus19:31; 20:6,27; Deuteronomy 18:11). King Saul put this away early in his reign, but consulted the witch of Endor, who “had a familiar spirit” ( 1 Samuel 28:3,7,8,9; 1 Chronicles 10:13).

King Manasseh fell into the same sin ( 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chronicles 33:6); but Josiah put those who dealt with familiar spirits out of the land ( 2 Kings 23:24).

It seems probable, however, that the practice prevailed more or less among the people till the exile ( Isaiah 8:19; 19:3). See “Divination by the ‘Ob” in The Expositor T, IX, 157; ASTROLOGY, 1; COMMUNION WITH DEMONS . (2) “Familiars,” “familiar friend,” from [ [d”y; , yadha` ], “to know,” hence, “acquaintance,” one intimately attached ( Job 19:14); but more frequently of ‘enosh shalom , “man of (my or thy) peace,” that is, one to whom the salutation of peace is given ( Psalm 41:9; Jeremiah 20:10; 38:22; also in Obadiah 1:7, rendered “the men that were at peace with thee”). Edward Bagby Pollard FAMILY <fam’-i-li > ([ hj;P;v]mi , mishpachah ], [ tyiB” , bayith ]; [patria>, patria ]):

1. THE FOUNDATION:

The Bible is the world’s great teacher of monogamy — the union for life of one man and one woman in marriage as the basis of the family. Whatever may be said about the time of the writing of the books of the Bible, or of parts of them, the testimony of the whole is incontrovertibly to the point that marriage springs from the choice of one man and one woman of each other for a permanent family relation. Over and through the whole of the Bible this ideal is dominant. There may be instances shown here and there of violation of this rule. But such cases are to be regarded as contrary to the underlying principle of marriage — known even at the time of their occurrence to be antagonistic to the principle.

There may be times when moral principle is violated in high places and perhaps over wide reaches in society. The Bible shows that there were such times in the history of man. But it is undeniable that its tone toward such lapses of men and of society is not one of condonation but one of regret and disapproval. The disasters consequent are faithfully set forth. The feeling that finds expression in its whole history is that in such cases there had been violation of the ideal of right in the sex relation. The ideal of monogamic relation is put in the forefront of the history of man.

2. MONOGAMY, THE IDEAL RELATION:

The race is introduced synthetically as a species in the incoming of life. “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” ( Genesis 1:27). But with the first particularization of the relation of the sexes to each other the great charter of monogamy was laid down so clearly that Jesus was content to quote it, when with His limitless ethical scrutiny He explained the marriage relation. “And the man said (when the woman was brought to him), This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” ( Genesis 2:23,14). It is well to pause and look at the grammatical number of the nouns: “a man,” “his wife.” The words of the charter hold the sexes to monogamy. The subsequent words make marriage life-lasting. “They twain shall be one flesh.” A dualism becomes an individualism. So said Christ: “Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh” ( Matthew 19:6 the King James Version). Nothing but death separates a man from his own flesh. Nothing but life-monogamy can find place in the language of this charter.

There is much in the setting of this charter in the account given in Genesis that is suggestive of the fine sentiment which we know has always gone along with love and marriage. That this account should have held the place in history that it has had adds testimony to the fine perception of sentiment and the strong grasp on principle out of which it came.

3. EQUALITY OF THE SEXES:

Eve, “the mother of all living,” comes out as distinctly as Adam on the canvas in the portraiture of the first pair. She is the feminine representative — ‘ishshah — of the race, as Adam is the masculine — ‘ish ( Genesis 2:23). The personality of Eve is as complete as that of Adam. She is a rational and accountable creature, as Adam is. In primitive intellectual and moral transactions she has share on equality with Adam, and is equally involved in their results. Different physical consequences fall on her for “transgression,” because she is “woman,” “the mother of all living” ( Genesis 3:16). But Adam does not escape retribution for sin, and it may be questioned whether its burden did not fall hardest on him ( Genesis 3:18,19), for motherhood has its joy as well as its pain, in the companionship of new-born child-life; but the wrestler for subsistence from a reluctant earth must bear his hardship alone. It cannot but be that much of the primitive conjugal love survived the fall.

4. POLYGAMY:

According to the record, monogamy seems long to have survived the departure from Eden. It is not till many generations after that event that we find a case of polygamy — that of Lamech ( Genesis 4:19-24). Lamech is said to have had “two wives.” The special mention of “two” seems to show that man had not yet wandered far away from monogamy. The indications seem to be that as the race multiplied and went out over the face of the earth they forgot the original kinship and exhibited all manner of barbarities in social relations. Lamech was a polygamist, but he was also a quarrelsome homicide: “I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me” ( Genesis 4:23). If such acts and dispositions as are disclosed in the case of Lamech become common, it will certainly not be a long while before the only apt description of the condition of society must be that upon which we come in Genesis 6:5: “And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Out of such condition will come war and slavery, and polygamy — and come they did. It is a straight road from Genesis 6:5 to “The Koran, tribute or the sword,” and the polygamy of Mohammedans.

5. THE COMMANDMENTS AND THE FAMILY (5TH COMMANDMENT):

The commandments ( Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16) are a succinct summary of the supreme moral relations and duties of man. The first four pertain to our relationship to God. The six following concern human relations. Of these six, three have considerations of the family involved in them. Commandments do not come to people ignorant of the subjects to which they relate. A commandment to cover an unknown moral relation is an absurdity. The text of the Fifth Commandment is, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” This refers to the relation of children to parents.

This commandment could scarcely have arisen when polygamy was a common practice, certainly never from promiscuity. The equality of father and mother is stamped on its face. That idea never could have had strength and solemnity enough, except in a prevailing condition of monogamy, to entitle the command in which it appeared to rank with the important subjects covered by the other commands. Before the gaze of the children to whom this commandment came, the family stood in monogamic honor — the mother a head of the family as well as the father. There is no question about the position of the mother in this commandment. She stands out as clear as Sinai itself. There is no cloud on her majesty. Such honor as goes to the father goes to the mother. She is no chattel, no property, no inferior being, but the mother; no subordinate to the father, but his equal in rank and entitled to equal reverence with him. The commandment would not and could not have so pictured the mother had she been one of the inmates of a harem.

6. THE COMMANDMENTS AND THE FAMILY (7TH COMMANDMENT):

The Seventh Commandment ( Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18) gives the family. It secures the home. It says that whatever children are born to the race shall be born in a home and of the home — shall be familyborn.

The terms adultery and fornication have now become synonymous.

Under the influence of polygamous practices a distinction was made in respect to unlawful sex union as to whether one or both of the parties thereto were married or not, or whether one or both were single. Such distinction will not hold in morals. All or any sex union out of marriage is barred by the family idea. Outside of that all sex union is sin.

While it is true that in the laws of Israel sex sin outside the family relation was treated as a subject by itself, yet when we remember how early in life marriage came in those ancient days, and that betrothal in childhood was deemed as sacred as marriage itself, we see that even then the sweep of the commandment was well-nigh universal and over what a broad range it protected the family. The family is the primal eldest institution of man — the greatest and the holiest. Over this institution this commandment stands sentry. It prevents men from breaking up in complete individual isolation, from reverting to solitary savagery. Think to what a child is born outside of the family relation! Then think of all children being so born, and you have the picture of a low plane of animalism from which all trace of the moral responsibility of fatherhood has disappeared, and where even motherhood will be reduced to simple care during the short period of helpless infancy, to such care as belongs to animal instinct. Put up now the idea that marriage shall be universal and that the children born in marriage shall belong genuinely to it, and you have a new heaven and a new earth ia the sex relations of the race of man.

7. THE COMMANDMENTS AND THE FAMILY (10TH COMMANDMENT):

The Tenth Commandment seems almost out of place on the list of the commandments. All the others enjoin specific acts. This tenth seems to be a foregleam of the Savior’s method — going to the thoughts and intents of the heart. It is an attempt at regulation in man. It goes beyond outward acts and deals with the spirit. Its purpose seems not regulation of man in society but in himself. So far as it has outward relation it seems to apply primarily to the rights of property. We have at common law the expression, “rights of persons; and rights of things,” i.e. to property. But the list of things enumerated in the commandment comprises the things most common to family life: house, servants, animals. One is forbidden not only to take but even to desire such things. They are necessary to family life. In this list of things belonging to a neighbor that a man is forbidden to desire occurs the term “wife.” To first thought it may seem strange that she should be listed with property in house and chattels. But it may not be very singular. One of woman’s greatest blessings to man is helpfulness. Eve, the mother of all living, came as a helpmeet for Adam. Sarah is mistress of domestic operations. A wife quick of thought, accurate in judgment and deft of hand is usually the key to a man’s material prosperity. As such help a man’s desire might stray to his neighbor’s wife as well as to his cattle. Even on this lower plane she is still a constituent element of the family. Here the thought of sex is scarcely discernible. Covetousness unlimited in the accumulation of property is what comes under ban. To treat of that matter would lead too far astray. See COVETOUSNESS.

It is well to remember in taking leave of the commandments that half of those pertaining to human relations hold the family plainly in view. This is as it should be. The race is divided equally between male and female, and their relations to each other, we might expect, would call for half of the directions devoted to the whole.

8. PRIMITIVE MONOGAMIC IDEAL:

The laws against adultery and incest (Leviticus20 and the like) may seem barbarously severe. Be it so; that fact would show they were carried along by a people tremendously in earnest about the integrity of the family.

Beneath pioneer severity is usually a solemn principle. That the children of Israel had a tough grasp on the primitive monogamic ideal is not only apparent in all their history, but it comes out clear in what they held as history before their own began. Mr. Gladstone said the tenth chapter of Genesis is the best document of ancient ethnography known to man. But it is made up on family lines. It is a record of the settlement of heads of families as they went forth on the face of the earth. The common statement for the sons of Noah as they filed out over the lands of which they took possession is, `these are the sons of .... after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.’ Mr. Gladstone called attention to the fact that modern philology verifies this classification of the nations which rests on outgrowth from families.

9. REFORMS OF EZRA AND NEHEMIAH:

Turning now to a very distant point in history — the return of the Jews from captivity in Babylon — we find in Ezra and Nehemiah the most critical regard for genealogy. The effort to establish “pure blood” was fairly a fanaticism and might even be charged with injustice. Yet this effort was ratified by the people — sufferers in degraded name though many of them must have been. This could never have been done had not the monogamic family idea rested in their hearts as just and right. Nehemiah (13:26) unsparingly condemned the mighty Solomon for his polygamy, and Israel upproved the censure.

10. THE NEW TESTAMENT When we come to the times of the New Testament, contemporaneous polygamy in Jewish society was dead. Wherever New Testament influences have gone, contemporaneous polygamy has ceased to be.

There has been in the United States by Mormonism a belated attempt to revive that crime against the family. But it has had its bad day, and, if it lives at all, it is under the ban of social sentiment and is a crime by law.

Consecutive polygamy still exists in nations that are called Christian by the permission of divorce laws. But the tide of Christian sentiment is setting strongly against it, and it takes no special clearness of vision to see that it must go to extinction along with polygamy contemporaneous.

Jesus reaffirmed the original charter of the monogamic family ( Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:2-12). It is to be noticed that He affirmed the indissolubility of the family not only against the parties thereto but against the power of society. See DIVORCE.

11. THE TEACHING OF JESUS:

At first sight it seems a little strange that Jesus said so little about the family. But as we reflect on the nature of His mission we shall catch the explanation of His silence. He said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill” ( Matthew 5:17), that is, to fill out, to expound and expand. He also said, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost” ( Matthew 18:11 the King James Version), and, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” ( Matthew 9:13), that is, to rectify what was wrong. To what was right He gave the right of way — let it go on in its own course. When the law was right, He said, not one jot or tittle of it should fail ( Matthew 5:18).

With regard to the family, He held the old charter written in the heart of man, before it was burned in brick or committed to manuscript, was right.

It was comprehensive, would and ought to stand. So He stood by that, and that sufficed His purpose. Christ did not try to regulate the family so much as to regulate the persons who entered into family life. This may explain why we have no utterance from Him in regard to the conduct and duties of children toward parents. Still stood the ancient statute, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” He came not to destroy but to fulfill that. That still indicated the right relation of children to parents. If a child had asked about his relation to his parents, Christ would doubtless have referred him to that commandment, as He did other inquirers about duties to the commandments that cover so large a part of the ethical realm.

12. THE TEACHING OF PAUL:

Paul, who particularizes so much in explanation of duties in all relations, scarcely gets beyond the old commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” when he says, “Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord.” It has always been well-pleasing in the Lord.

To be sure there was new inspiration to obedience from the new revelation of duty which came to them in Christ, but the duty was enforced by the Fifth Commandment, and that was copied from the deeper revelation in the heart of man.

13. MODERN DANGERS:

In modern society the two great foes of the family are Divorce and Migration. Families no longer live a continuous life together. We have less family life than the old pastoral nomads. They had to keep together for several generations in order to protect their lives and their flocks and herds. So arose the clan, the tribe and the nation. Family influence can be detected through them. Modern Industries are very much localized. We should easily think that families would be under their controlling influence.

But they are not; the industries are localized, the workers are becoming rovers. When trouble comes in an industry, a workman’s first resort is to try somewhere else. Cheapness of transportation gives him the opportunity he desires. So with a satchel he goes hunting, much as a barbarian roams the forest for game, alone. He may take his family or leave it behind. He may be separated from his family for months or years — possibly abandon it forever. A very common cause of divorce is abandonment of family by its male head.

In fact, those engaged in a great deal of legitimate industry are looking out for a better place quite as much as to develop the capacities of business in their own locations. The signs over places of business are few that carry the same name in town or city for a generation. Moving is perhaps more the order of the day than movement. The families are few that can be found in the same place for a quarter of a century. The wealthy cannot stay in the same house six months at a time. They have a house in the city for the winter and one in the country for the summer, and then forsake both and fly over the sea, perhaps to remain for years — traveling. How can family ties survive under such migratory life? Society supersedes the family.

Even education is subject to this malign influence. At their most impressive age, when they need family influence most around them, children are sent away to prepare for or to enter upon higher courses of education. This fits them for something else than life in the family from which they sprang and they rarely return to it. We may not be able to check this drift, but we ought to see its tendency to degrade the estimate of the value of the family.

LITERATURE.

Wolsey, Divorce, Scribners; Publications of the National Divorce Reform League; Reports State and National, ad rem; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, chapter in; Caverno, Divorce, Midland Publishing Co., Madison, Wis.; The Ten Words, Pilgrim Press, Boston. C. Caverno FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

FAMINE <fam’-in > ([ b[;r; , ra`abh ]; [limo>v, limos ]):

The common Old Testament word for “famine” is ra`abh ; re`abhon also occurs ( Genesis 42:19,33; Psalm 37:19), and kaphan ( Job 5:22; 30:3), all meaning “hunger” and “famine”; in the New Testament the word is limos , meaning primarily “failure,” “want of food.”

1. NATURAL CAUSES:

In early times, especially in lands dependent on their own productions, famines were not infrequent. They were generally caused by local irregularities of the rainfall, by destructive hail storms ( Exodus 9:23,11,32), by ravages of insects ( Exodus 10:15; Joel 1:4) and by enemies ( Deuteronomy 28:51); in a city a famine might be caused by a siege ( 2 Kings 6:25); pestilence often followed in its wake, and the suffering was great.

2. FAMINES MENTIONED:

Famines are recorded in the time of Abraham ( Genesis 12:10, etc.), of Isaac ( Genesis 26:1), of Jacob, when Joseph was in Egypt — seven years of famine even in Egypt after seven of plenty ( Genesis 41:54), which also affected Canaan ( Genesis 42:1), and, indeed, “was over all the face of the earth” ( Genesis 41:56); in the time of the Judges ( Ruth 1:1), of David, for three years ( 2 Samuel 21:1), of Ahab and Elijah ( 1 Kings 17:1; 18:2; Ecclesiasticus 48:2,3), of Elisha ( 2 Kings 4:38), during the siege of Samaria ( 2 Kings 6:25), the seven years foretold by Elisha ( 2 Kings 8:1), in the reign of Zedekiah in Jerusalem when besieged by Nebuchadnezzar ( 2 Kings 25:3; Jeremiah 52:6; compare 14:1), its great severity is referred to ( Lamentations 5:10; Baruch 2:25); a “dearth” is also mentioned after the return from Captivity ( Nehemiah 5:3); when the city was besieged by Antiochus Eupator (1 Macc 6:54), after the death of Judas (1 Macc 9:24), when Jerusalem was besieged by Simon (1 Macc 13:49), in the time of Claudius ( Acts 11:28, in his reign there were frequent famines, one of which in 45 AD severely affected Palestine; Josephus, Ant, XX, v); Christ predicted “famines .... in divers places” as characterizing the end of the age ( Matthew 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11); in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus a terrible famine raged, the consequences of which to the people have never been surpassed.

3. DIVINE RELATIONS:

Famines are frequently said to be sent as punishments sometimes threatened as such (Leviticus26:19 f; Deuteronomy 28:49-51; <120801> Kings 8:1; <19A516> Psalm 105:16; Isaiah 14:30; 51:19; Jeremiah 14:12,15; 18:21, etc.; Ezekiel 5:16, etc.; Amos 8:11; 2 Esdras 15:5,49; 16:19; Tobit 4:13; Ecclesiasticus 39:29; 40:9).

The righteous or godly should be preserved by God in time of famine ( Job 5:20, “In famine he will redeem thee from death”; Psalm 33:19, “to keep them alive in famine”; 37:19, “In the days of famine they shall be satisfied”); this was a special mark of the Divine favor and power.

4. FIGURATIVE USES:

A famine is used by Amos to indicate the absence of Divine communications as a punishment that should come on the people, a “famine .... of hearing the words of Yahweh” (8:11; compare 1 Samuel 3:1; 28:6; 2 Chronicles 15:3; Ezekiel 7:26; Micah 3:6); by Zephaniah of the destruction of heathen deities (2:11).

The Revised Version (British and American) has “dearth” for “famine” ( Job 5:22); “famine” for “dearth” ( Genesis 41:54b; 2 Chronicles 6:28; Acts 7:11; 11:28); for “hunger” ( Jeremiah 38:9; Ezekiel 34:29; Revelation 6:8); “famines” for “famines and pestilences” ( Matthew 24:7), “famines and troubles” ( Mark 13:8), revised texts. W. L. Walker FAMISH <fam’-ish > [ b[er; , ra`ebh ], [ hz;r; , razah ]): “To famish” as a transitive verb is the translation of ra`ebh , “to hunger” ( Genesis 41:55): “All the land of Egypt was famished”; of ra`abh , “hunger” ( Isaiah 5:13), “Their honorable men are famished,” margin “Hebrew their glory are men of famine”; of razah , “to make lean,” “famish” ( Zephaniah 2:11), “For he will famish all the gods of the earth”; it is intransitive as the translation of ra`ebh ( Proverbs 10:3), “Yahweh will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish.”

FAN, FANNER <fan’-er > : The word “fan” occurs 3 times only in the American Standard Revised Version ( Jeremiah 15:7; Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17). In Isaiah 30:24 mizreh is translated “fork,” which is a much better translation if the instrument referred to was shaped like the winnowing fork used by the Syrian farmer today and still so called. In Isaiah 41:16; Jeremiah 4:11; 15:7, the verb zarah is rendered “winnow” in the American Standard Revised Version. In Jeremiah 51:2, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “strangers” for “fanners.”

FANCY <fan’-si > ([fanta>zw, phantazo ], “to cause to appear,” “show”): In Ecclesiasticus 34:5, “And the heart fancieth, as a woman’s in travail” (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 6:16; Hebrews 12:21).

FAR; FARTHER <far > , <far’-ther > : “Far” (adj.), distant, remote; (advb.) widely removed, is most frequently in the Old Testament the translation of [ qwOjr; , rachoq ], and in the New Testament of [makra>n, makran ], but also of other Hebrew and Greek words. The word chalilah , an exclamation of abhorrence or aversion Septuagint me genoito ; see FORBID ), is rendered “far from me,” “far from thee,” etc. ( Genesis 18:25; 1 Samuel 2:30; 20:9; 22:15; 2 Samuel 20:20; 23:17; Job 34:10). Besides its literal sense, distance in a spiritual sense is expressed by “far,” as “Salvation is far from the wicked” ( <19B9155> Psalm 119:155; compare Proverbs 15:29), “far from righteousness” ( Isaiah 46:12), “not far from the kingdom of God” ( Mark 12:34), etc. For “far” the Revised Version (British and American) has “aloof” in Job 30:10; in several places the word in the King James Version is omitted ( Judges 9:17; Psalm 27:9; Isaiah 19:6; 26:15; Mark 13:34); “a far country” is changed to “another” ( Matthew 21:33; 25:14; Mark 13:34), etc. For “God forbid” the Revised Version (British and American) has “far be it,” “far be it from me” ( Galatians 6:14; in the American Standard Revised Version, Genesis 44:7,17; 1 Samuel 12:23; Job 27:5, etc.).

The comparative “farther” occurs only once in the Old Testament ( Ecclesiastes 8:17), and thrice in the New Testament ( Matthew 26:39; Mark 1:19; 10:1), and in each case is replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by another word or phrase. The Revised Version (British and American), on the other hand, has “its farthest height” for “the height of his border” ( Isaiah 37:24), and “his farthest lodgingplace” for “the lodgings of his borders” ( 2 Kings 19:23). W. L. Walker FAR HOUSE The marginal explanation in the Revised Version (British and American) of Beth-merhak ([ qj;r]M, tyBe , beth ha-merchaq ], “house of distance”), which is given in the text of 2 Samuel 15:17 instead of “a place that was far off.” See BETH-MERHAK.

FARE <far > : Occurs twice in the Old Testament as the translation of two Hebrew words, [ µwOlv; , shalom ], “peace,” “prosperity,” “completeness” ( Samuel 17:18), found in the section on David’s family history omitted by the Septuagint translators, and [ rk;c; , sakhar ], “hire,” “reward,” Septuagint [nau~olon, naulon ], “passage-money,” “fare” ( Jonah 1:3).

In Hebrew both words are substantives; in English the former is a verb meaning “to go,” or “get on as to circumstances” (Century Dict.), the latter, a substantive meaning the price which Jonah paid for a sea-voyage to Tarshish.

In Apocrypha the English verb “fare” helps in the translation of three Greek words, [kako>w, kakoo ], “fare evil” (the Revised Version (British and American) “fare ill”), Sirach 3:26; [ejlatto>w, elattoo ], “fare worse” (the Revised Version (British and American) “suffer loss”), 32:24; [rJw>nnumi, rhonnumi ], “be strong,” “prosper,” in 2 pers. (singular) imperat. ([e]rrwso, err(h)oso ]) or plural ([e]rrwsqe, err(h)osthe ]) as a farewell salutation, or at the close of a letter, or to describe the welfare (usually physical or social) of a friend (2 Macc 9:20; 11:21,28, etc.).

Compare Acts 15:29; 23:30 margin.

In the New Testament the English verb “fare,” in addition to its occurrence in the word “farewell” (which see), occurs only once ( Luke 16:19), where it is said that the rich man “fared sumptuously every day” (the Revised Version, margin “living in mirth and splendor every day”).

The Greek is [eujfrai>nomai, euphrainomai ], “be merry,” and occurs times in the New Testament, 10 in a good sense ( Luke 15:23,14,29,32, all referring to the merry-making over the return of the lost son; Acts 2:26, translation of Hebrew [ jm”c; , samach ], “be glad”; Romans 15:10, translation of Hebrew [ hn;r; , ranah ], “to sing”; 2 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 4:27, translation of Hebrew [ hn;r; , ranah ], “to sing”; Revelation 12:12; 18:20); 4 in a bad, or less favorable, sense ( Luke 12:19; 16:19; Acts 7:41; Revelation 11:10). The Greek word is variously translated in the New Testament, “be merry,” “make merry,” “be glad,” “rejoice,” “make glad,” and only once “fare” ( Luke 16:19). In the last passage it means the general physical and material welfare of the rich man (so the Geneva (1560), the Bishops’ and Rhemish Bibles, the Revised Version (British and American) (1881), and not simply partaking of rich food so Vulgate, Wyclif, Coverdale, Cranmer, Geneva (1557) and the King James Version). Luther translates Luke 16:19, “lebte alle Tage herrlich und in Freuden”; Weizsacker, “genoss sein Leben alle Tage in Glanze”; Ostervald, “se traitoit bien et magnifiquement”; Oltremare, “faisait brillante chere”; Segond, “menait joyeuse et brillante vie”; Weymouth, “enjoyed a splendid banquet every day,” all of which virtually agree with the view taken by us as to meaning of “fare.” The [lamprw~v, lampros ], “sumptuously,” shows that the rich man’s manner of living was “brilliant,” “magnificent.” the Revised Version (British and American) has “fare” for “do” ( Acts 15:36), “fared” for “did” ( 2 Samuel 11:7), “hath fared” for “was” ( Genesis 30:29). Charles B. Williams FAREWELL <far-wel’ > ([cai>rw, chairo ]), Fare ye, or thou, well: Originally a wish at parting for those faring forth (traveling): (1) As a parting wish at the close of a letter it represents the Greek [ejrjrJwso, err(h)oso ], “Be strong,” imperative of [rJw>nnumi, rhonnumi ], “to make strong” ( Acts 15:29; 23:30 the King James Version; see the Revised Version, margin; 2 Macc 11:21); once [cai>rete, chairete ] (imperative of [cai>rw, chairo ]), “Rejoice!” ( 2 Corinthians 13:11, the Revised Version, margin “Rejoice: be perfected”). (2) As equivalent to our saying “good-bye,” it represents the Greek [ajpota>ssomai, apotassomai ], “to separate one’s self,” “to take leave,” “to bid farewell” ( Luke 9:61, “to bid farewell to them that are at my house”; Acts 18:21, “bade them farewell,” the Revised Version (British and American) “taking his leave of them”). See FARE; GREETING.

W. L. Walker FARM <farm > : Matthew 22:5 is the only passage where [ajgro>v, agros ], has been rendered “farm.” In the many other passages where the same word occurs it is rendered “field” or “piece of ground.” Farms such as the Occidental is accustomed to see, namely, isolated dwellings with their groups of outbuildings, surrounded by walls or hedges and overlooking the planted fields, were probably unknown in Palestine. For protection against wild beasts and Arab marauders everyone lived in a village and went out to his fields, located perhaps miles away, only as occasion required. James A. Patch FARTHING <far’-thing > : The rendering of two words in the Greek of the New Testament, [ajssa>rion, assarion ], and [kodra>nthv, kodrantes ], Latin quadrans . The assarion was the tenth part of the denarius, and hence in value about one penny or two centuries The quadrans was the fourth part of the Roman as , and worth only about three mills, or less than the English farthing, and is the only term rendered farthing by the American Standard Revised Version. It occurs in Matthew 5:26 and Mark 12:42, while assarion , which occurs in Matthew 10:29 and Luke 12:6, is rendered “penny” by the American Standard Revised Version.

FASHION <fash’-un > ([ fP;v]mi , mishpaT ]; [sch~ma, schema ], the make, pattern, shape, manner or appearance of a thing (from Latin faction-em, “a making,” through Old French fatson, fachon)): In the Old Testament the noun “fashion” represents 3 Hebrew words: (1) MishpaT = literally, “judgment,” hence, judicial sentence, right, custom, manner; usually translated “judgment” (very frequent), but also a few times “sentence,” “cause,” “charge,” and more frequently “manner” (nearly 40 times in the King James Version). In 3 passages it is translated “fashion,” in the sense of style, shape, make, in each case of a building or part of a building ( Exodus 26:30; 1 Kings 6:38; Ezekiel 42:11). (2) Tekhunah = literally, “arrangement,” “adjustment” (compare [takhan], “to set right,” “adjust,” from kun, hekhin , “to set up,” “establish”); Ezekiel 43:11, “the form of the house, and the fashion thereof.” A cognate word in the preceding verse is translated “pattern” (the Revised Version, margin “sum”). (3) Demuth = “resemblance” (from damah , “to be similar”), generally translated “likeness” in English Versions of the Bible, but “fashion” in Kings 16:10, where it means pattern or model. The verb “to fashion” stands for (a) yatsar , “to form,” “fashion” ( Psalm 33:15; 139:16 the King James Version; Isaiah 22:11 the King James Version; Isaiah 44:12; 45:9); (b) `asah , “to work,” “make,” “form” ( Job 10:8); (c) kun , “to set up,” “establish,” “prepare” ( Job 31:15; <19B973> Psalm 119:73; Ezekiel 16:7); (d) tsur , “to bind up together,” “compress” ( Exodus 32:4, of Aaron fashioning the golden calf out of the golden rings).

In the New Testament, the noun represents 5 Greek words: (1) Of these, the most interesting is schema, “figure,” “shape,” “fashion” (from [scei~n, schein ], aorist of [e]cein, echein ], “to have,” compare Latin habitus, from habeo, “I have”). Schema denotes a transient, external semblance or fashion, and so it may be distinguished from its synonym [morfh>, morphe ], which denotes the essential intrinsic form of a thing, expressing its real nature. (See Lightfoot, Detached Note on Philippians 2; Trench, New Testament Syn., 252 ff; Gifford, Incarnation,22 ff. The distinction is rejected by Meyer, on Romans 12:2, and by others.) In the New Testament, the noun schema occurs but twice: 1 Corinthians 7:31, “The fashion of this world passeth away,” where there seems to be an allusion to theatrical scenes, which are in their very nature transitory (compare 2 Macc 4:13); and Philippians 2:8, “being found in fashion as a man,” i.e. having the outward figure and bearing of a man, such marks of human nature as strike the senses (contrast morphe Theou, “form of God,” Philippians 2:6, and morphe doulou , “form of servant,” 2:7, which describe Christ’s real inner nature). The word schema is found in compound verbs in the following passages: Romans 12:2, “Be not fashioned (sunschematizesthe) according to this world: but be ye transformed (metamorphousthe) by the renewing of your mind” (so the Revised Version (British and American)), paraphrased by Sanday and Headlam, “Do not adopt the external and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your inmost nature” (Comm. in the place cited.); Corinthians 11:13 f, metaschematizomai, the King James Version “transformed,” better the Revised Version (British and American) “fashioned,” the reference being to “the fictitious, illusory transformation whereby evil assumes the mask of good” (Lightfoot, Commentary on Phil, 131); 1 Peter 1:14, “not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts,” paraphrased by Lightfoot, “not falling in with the capricious guidance of the passions” (same place) . In Philippians 3:21, the adjective summorphos is translated “fashioned” in the King James Version, but better “conformed” as in Revised Version (British and American). (2) [ Ei+dov, Eioos, eidos ], literally, “thing seen,” “external appearance,” “shape,” is translated “fashion” in Luke 9:29, of the glorified appearance of the transfigured Christ. (3) [ Pro>swpon, prosopon ], literally, “face,” hence, look, appearance, Jas 1:11, “The grace of the fashion of it perisheth.” (4) [ Tu>pov, tupos ], type, model, translated “fashion” in Acts 7:44 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “figure”), the Greek word being taken from the Septuagint of the quoted passage, Exodus 25:40. The same phrase, kata ton tupon , in the parallel passage, Hebrews 8:5, is translated “according to the pattern.” (5) In one instance the phrase “on this fashion,” “in this manner,” represents the Greek adverb [ou]twv, houtos ], “thus” ( Mark 2:12). D. Miall Edwards FAST; FASTING <fast > , <fast’-ing > ([ µWx , tsum ]; [ hN;[I vp,b, , `innah nephesh ], “afflict soul or self,” i.e. practice self-denial; [nhstei>a, nesteia ], [nhsteu>ein, nesteuein ]): It is necessary to get rid of some modern notions associated with fasting before we can form a correct idea of its origin and significance in the ancient world. For instance, in the case of many ailments the dieting of the patient is an essential part of the remedy. But we may readily assume that originally fasting was not based on the salutary influence which it exercised on the health of the subject. Considerations of therapeutics played no part in the institution. The theory that fasting, like many other ancient customs, had a religious origin, is in favor with scholars, but we must not assume a religious origin for all practices which in process of time came to be associated with religion.

Many customs, purely secular in their origin, have gradually obtained a religious significance, just as purely religious customs have been dissociated from religion. It is also possible and, in the light of some usages, probable, that different motives operated in the association of fasting, as of some other customs, with religion. Scholars have been too ready to assume that the original significance of fasting was the same in all countries and among all nations. Robertson Smith in his Religion of the Semites advanced and defended theory that fasting was merely a mode of preparation for the tribal meal in which sacrifice originated, and came to be considered at a later stage as part of the sacrificial act. This hypothesis apparently accounts for the otherwise strange fact that both fasting and feasting are religious acts, but it does not give a satisfactory explanation of the constant association of fasting with the “wearing of sackcloth,” the “putting of ashes on the head,” and other similar customs. It is obvious that very different motives operated in the institution of fasting and of feasting religious observances.

It is a matter of common observation and experience that great distress causes loss of appetite and therefore occasions abstinence from food.

Hannah, who was greatly distressed on account of her childlessness, “wept, and did not eat” ( 1 Samuel 1:7). Violent anger produces the same effect ( 1 Samuel 20:34). According to 1 Kings 21:4, Ahab, “heavy and displeased” on account of Naboth’s refusal to part with his estate, sulked and “would eat no bread.” Fasting, originally the natural expression of grief, became the customary mode of proving to others the inner emotion of sorrow. David demonstrated his grief at Abner’s death ( 2 Samuel 3:35) by fasting, just as the Psalmist indicated his sympathy with his adversaries’ sorry plight in the same way ( Psalm 35:13). In such passages as Ezr 10:6; Nehemiah 4:3, it is not clear whether fasting is used in its religious significance or simply as a natural expression of sorrow (compare also Luke 5:33 and see below). This view explains the association of fasting with the mourning customs of antiquity (compare 1 Samuel 31:13; 2 Samuel 1:12). As fasting was a perfectly natural and human expression and evidence of the subject’s grief, it readily claimed a place among those religious customs whose main object was the pacification of the anger of God, or the excital of His compassion. Any and every act that would manifest the distressful state of the suppliant would appeal to the Deity and move Him to pity. The interesting incident recorded in 2 Samuel 12:16-23 suggests the twofold significance of fasting as a religious act or a mode of appealing to the Deity and as a funeral custom. David defends his fasting before and not after the child’s death on the ground that while the child was alive David’s prayer might be answered. His fasting was intended to make his petition effectual (compare also 1 Kings 21:27; Ezr 8:21; Nehemiah 4:16). Occasionally fasting was proclaimed on a national scale, e.g. in case of war ( Judges 20:26; 2 Chronicles 20:3) or of pestilence ( Joel 1:13 f). Fasting having thus become a recognized mode of seeking Divine favor and protection, it was natural that it should be associated with confession of sin, as indisputable evidence of penitence or sorrow for sin.

Fasting might be partial, i.e. abstinence from certain kinds of food, or total, i.e. abstinence from all food as well as from washing, anointing, sleeping. It might be of shorter or longer duration, e.g. for one day, from sunrise to sunset ( Judges 20:26; 1 Samuel 14:24; 2 Samuel 1:12; 3:35). In 1 Samuel 31:13 allusion is made to a seven days’ fast, while Daniel abstained from “pleasant bread,” flesh, wine and anointing for three weeks ( Daniel 10:3). Moses ( Exodus 34:28) and Elijah ( 1 Kings 19:8) fasted for 40 days. It is probable that these last three references presuppose a totally different conception of the significance of fasting. It is obvious that dreams made a deep impression on primitive man. They were communications from the departed members of the family. At a later stage they were looked upon as revelations from God. During sleep there is total abstinence from food. It was easy to draw the inference that fasting might fit the person to receive these communications from the world of spirits ( Daniel 10:2). The close connection between fasting and insight — intellectual and spiritual — between simple living and high thinking is universally recognized. See further under ABSTINENCE; FEASTS AND FASTS.

LITERATURE.

Nowack, Hebadische Archaologie; Benzinger, Hebadische Archaologie; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites. T. Lewis FASTS AND FEASTS See FEASTS AND FASTS.

FAT ([ bl,je , chelebh ], [ bl,j, , chelebh ]): The layer of subcutaneous fat and the compact suet surrounding the viscera and imbedded in the entrails, which, like the blood, was forbidden as food in the Mosaic code (Leviticus3:17).

It was to be sacrificed to God by being burnt upon the altar (Leviticus3:16; 30). This had to be done on the very day on which a beast had been slaughtered, to remove temptation from the Israelite to use it otherwise ( Exodus 23:18). The law was probably a sanitary restriction, for, at an early date, leprosy, scrofula and disfiguring cutaneous diseases were thought to be caused by the use of fat as food. It was, moreover, an important pedagogical provision teaching the idea of self-denial, and the maxim that the richest and best meat of the edible animal belonged to Yahweh. See also FATLING; FOWL, FATTED.

The expression “fat” is often used in figurative senses, e.g. abundant, exuberant, lusty, fertile, robust, outwardly successful ( Deuteronomy 32:15; Psalm 92:14 the King James Version; <19B970> Psalm 119:70; Proverbs 11:25; 13:4, etc.). H. L. E. Luering FAT (VAT) WINE, WINE PRESS, II.

FATHER <fa’-ther > (Anglo-Saxon, Foeder; German, Vater; Hebrew [ ba; , ‘abh ], etymology uncertain, found in many cognate languages; Greek [path>r, pater ], from root pa, “nourisher,” “protector,” “upholder”):

1. IMMEDIATE MALE ANCESTOR:

Immediate male ancestor. The father in the Hebrew family, as in the Roman, had supreme rights over his children, could dispose of his daughter in marriage (Genesis 29), arrange his son’s marriage (Genesis 24), sell his children ( Exodus 21:7), but not his daughter to a stranger ( Nehemiah 5:5), had power of life and death, as in the case of Isaac (Genesis 22), Jephthah’s daughter ( Judges 11:34 ff), the sacrificing of his children to Molech (Leviticus18:21; 20:3-5), etc. Respect, reverence and affection for fathers (and equally for mothers) is most tenderly, explicitly and sternly prescribed from the earliest times ( Exodus 20:12; Leviticus19:3; Deuteronomy 5:16; Micah 7:6; Ezekiel 22:7, etc.). A symmetrical and beautiful picture of the duties and character of the ideal human father may be built up from the Old Testament, with added and enlarged touches from the New Testament. He loves ( Genesis 37:4); commands ( Genesis 50:16; Proverbs 6:20); instructs ( Proverbs 1:8, etc.); guides, encourages, warns ( Jeremiah 3:4; Thessalonians 2:11); trains ( Hosea 11:3); rebukes ( Genesis 34:30); restrains (Eli, by contrast, 1 Samuel 3:13); punishes ( Deuteronomy 21:18); chastens ( Proverbs 3:12; Deuteronomy 8:5); nourishes ( Isaiah 1:2); delights in his son ( Proverbs 3:12), and in his son’s wisdom ( Proverbs 10:1); is deeply pained by his folly ( Proverbs 17:25); he is considerate of his children’s needs and requests ( Matthew 7:10); considerate of their burdens, or sins ( Malachi 3:17, “As a man spareth his own son”); tenderly familiar ( Luke 11:7, “with me in bed”); considerately self-restrained ( Ephesians 6:4, “Provoke not your children to wrath”); having in view the highest ends (ibid., “Nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord”); pitiful ( <19A313> Psalm 103:13, “as a father pitieth his children”); the last human friend (but one) to desert the child ( Psalm 27:10: “When (a thing to the psalmist incredible) my father and my mother forsake me, then Yahweh will take me up”).

2. ANCESTORS, IMMEDIATE OR REMOTE: (a) Ancestor, immediate or remote: Genesis 28:13, “Abraham thy father” (grandfather); 1 Kings 22:50, “Jehoshaphat .... David his father”; Jeremiah 35:6, “Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father”; Daniel 5:11, “Nebuchadnezzar thy father” (personal or official ancestor); Genesis 15:15, “Go to thy fathers in peace” (and so (in the plural) in over 500 passages). The expressions “slept with his fathers,” “go down to his fathers,” “buried with his fathers,” “gathered to his fathers,” are self-explanatory euphemisms. (b) The founders of the (Hebrew) race, specifically the patriarchs:’ Romans 9:5, “whose are the fathers,” considered here also as in a sense the religious ancestors of all believers. (c) Progenitors of clans, i.e. (Revised Version (British and American)) “fathers’ houses”: Exodus 6:14; 1 Chronicles 27:1, etc. (d) Gods as progenitors of men: Jeremiah 2:27, “Who say to a stock, thou art my father.”

3. FIGURATIVE AND DERIVED USES: (a) A spiritual ancestor, one who has infused his own spirit into others, whether good, as Abraham, the father of the faithful, Romans 4:11; or bad, as John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil.” (b) Indicating closest resemblance, kinship, affinity: Job 17:14, “If I have said to corruption, Thou art my father.” (c) A source: Ephesians 1:17, “Father of glory”; Job 38:28, “Hath the rain a father?” (d) Creator: Jas 1:17, “the Father of lights.” (e) The inventor or originator of an art or mode of life: Genesis 4:20, “father of such as dwell in tents” (a hint here of hereditary occupations? Probably not). (f) One who exhibits the fatherly characteristics: Psalm 68:5, “a father of the fatherless.” (g) One who occupies a position of counsel, care, or control (frequently applied by sultans to their prime ministers): Genesis 45:8, “a father to Pharaoh”; Judges 17:10, “Be unto me a father and a priest.” (h) A revered or honored superior: 2 Kings 5:13, “My father, if the prophet had bid thee”; but especially applied to prophets: 2 Kings 2:12, “My father, my father!” also to elderly and venerable men: John 2:13, “I write unto you, fathers”; hence also, with perhaps an outlook on (2) (a), deceased early Christians: 2 Peter 3:4, “from the day that the fathers fell asleep.” An ecclesiastical title, condemned (in principle) by our Lord: Matthew 23:9, “Call no man your father on the earth”; but applied, under the power of the Spirit, to members of the Sanhedrin (probably) by Stephen: Acts 7:2; and by Paul: 22:1, but the latter, perhaps also the former, may simply refer to the elderly among his hearers. Christ’s condemnation is clearly of the praiseseeking or obsequious spirit, rather than of a particular custom. “Father,” used by Mary of Joseph, in relation to Jesus, equals “putative father,” a necessary reserve at a time when the virgin birth could not yet be proclaimed ( Luke 2:49). But note Jesus’ answer: “my Father’s house.” Philip Wendell Crannell FATHER, GOD THE In the Christian religion God is conceived of as “Father,” “Our Father .... in heaven” ( Matthew 6:9,14,26, etc.), “the God and Father of the Lord Jesus” ( 2 Corinthians 11:31, etc.). The tenderness of relation and wealth of love and grace embraced in this profound designation are peculiar to Christ’s gospel. Pagan religions also could speak of God as “Father” (Zeus Pater), and in the general sense of Creator God has a universal fatherly relation to the world ( Acts 17:24-28). In the Old Testament God was revealed as Father to the chosen nation ( Exodus 4:22), and to the special representative of the nation, the king ( Samuel 7:14), while fatherly love is declared to be the image of His pity for those who fear Him ( <19A313> Psalm 103:13). In the gospel of Jesus alone is this Fatherhood revealed to be of the very essence of the Godhead, and to have respect to the individual. Here, however, there is need for great discrimination. To reach the heart of the truth of the Divine Fatherhood it is necessary to begin, not with man, but with the Godhead itself, in whose eternal depths is found the spring of that Fatherly love that reveals itself in time. It is first of all in relation to the eternal Son — before all time — that the meaning of Fatherhood in God is made clear ( John 1:18). In “God the Father” we have a name pointing to that relation which the first Person in the adorable Trinity sustains to “Son” and “Holy Spirit” — also Divine ( Matthew 28:19). From this eternal fountain-head flow the relations of God as Father (1) to the world by creation; (2) to believers by grace. Man as created was designed by affinity of nature for sonship to God. The realization of this — his true creaturedestiny — was frustrated by sin, and can now only be restored by redemption. Hence, the place of sonship in the gospel, as an unspeakable privilege ( 1 John 3:1), obtained by grace, through regeneration ( John 1:12,13), and adoption ( Romans 8:14,19). In this relation of nearness and privilege to the Father in the kingdom of His Son ( Colossians 1:13), believers are “sons of God” in a sense true of no others. It is a relation, not of nature, but of grace.

Fatherhood is now the determinative fact in God’s relation to them ( Ephesians 3:14 ff). It is an error, nevertheless, to speak of fatherhood as if the whole character of God was therein sufficiently expressed. God is Father, but equally fundamental is His relation to His world as its Moral Ruler and Judge. From eternity to eternity the holy God must pronounce Himself against sin ( Romans 1:18); and His fatherly grace cannot avert judgment where the heart remains hard and impenitent ( Romans 2:1-9). For the fuller discussion of these points see GOD; CHILDREN OF GOD; TRINITY . James Orr FATHER-IN-LAW <fa’-ther-in-lo > . See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

FATHERLESS <fa’-ther-les > ([ µwOty; , yathom ]; [ojrfano>v, orphanos ]): The fatherless are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, generally in association with the widow and the stranger, as typical instances of the unprotected and necessitous, who are, specially subject to oppression, and also to God’s special protection. Great philanthropic regard is bestowed on this class throughout. In early legislation there is a special clause to guard them against affliction ( Exodus 22:22-24). They have a still more prominent place in the Deuteronomic legislation, which gives instructions that a charitable fund be formed out of the tithe, once every three years, for the relief of the destitute ( Deuteronomy 14:28,29; 26:12-14), and that gleanings be left in the cornfield, the olive garden, and the vineyard for the benefit of this class ( Deuteronomy 24:19-22; compare Leviticus19:9 f; 23:22, where, however, the “fatherless” are not specially mentioned). The Deuteronomist declares that God is on their side ( Deuteronomy 10:18), and strongly condemns those who would oppress them ( Deuteronomy 24:17; 27:19). The prophets and psalmists are equally emphatic in pleading for mercy and justice to the fatherless, and in declaring that God is their special guardian ( Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 7:6 f; 22:3; Hosea 14:3; Zec 7:10; Psalm 10:14; 68:5; 82:3; 146:9; compare Proverbs 23:10).

Oppressing the fatherless is frequently mentioned as a typical act of cruelty and injustice (compare Job 6:27; 22:9; 24:3,1; 29:12 f; 31:16,17,21; Psalm 94:6; Isaiah 1:23; 10:2; Jeremiah 5:28; Ezekiel 22:7; Malachi 3:5). Here we have instances of the prophetic passion for righteousness and compassion for the helpless, inspired by a profound sense of the value of human life. Passages in the Apocrypha reflect the same spirit (2 Esdras 2:20; Ecclesiasticus 4:10).

In the New Testament the word “fatherless” occurs but once, where James declares, in the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, that true religious ritual consists in visitation of the fatherless and widows and in moral purity (Jas 1:27). Here the word for “fatherless” is orphanos (“bereft,” “orphaned”), which is the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament yathom . In the New Testament the Greek word is found besides only in John 14:18, where it means destitute of a teacher or guide (compare Lamentations 5:3). D. Miall Edwards FATHERS’ BROTHER See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

FATHER’S HOUSE, FATHERS’ HOUSE ([ ba; tyBe , beth ‘abh ], [ twOba; tyBe , beth ‘abhoth ]): Father’s house in the Old Testament is (1) a dwelling, the family home ( Genesis 12:1; 31:14,30; 38:11; 1 Samuel 18:2); (2) a family or household ( Genesis 41:51; 46:31; Exodus 12:3, the Revised Version (British and American) “fathers’ houses”); (3) the group of households, of several of which the “family’ or “clan” was constituted, aggregations of which formed the “tribe,” generally “fathers’ houses” ( Numbers 1:18,20 ff; 17:2; Ezr 2:59; Nehemiah 10:34, etc.); (4) the “family” (clan), mishpachah , “fathers’ houses” ( Exodus 6:14 f; Numbers 3:20 ff); (5) the tribe, “fathers’ house,” “houses” ( Numbers 7:2; 17:1-3, etc.).

In the New Testament “father’s house” ([oi+kov tou~ patro>v, oikos tou patros ]) occurs in the sense of dwelling, house ( Luke 16:27; compare 16:4). our Lord also uses the phrase (1) of the earthly temple-dwelling of God at Jerusalem ( John 2:16, “Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise”; compare Psalm 11:4; Isaiah 63:15); (2) of heaven as the abode of God and His children ( John 14:2, “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” the Revised Version, margin “abiding places,” oikia “house,” “dwelling,” also household, family; compare Psalm 33:13; Isaiah 63:15; Matthew 6:9). The phrase occurs also ( Acts 7:20) of Moses, “nourished .... in his father’s house” (oikos ).

Revised Version has “father’s hquse” for “principal household” ( Chronicles 24:6), “heads of the fathers’ houses” for “chief fathers” ( Numbers 31:26; 32:28; 36:1; 1 Chronicles 9:34, etc.); “one prince of a father’s house,” for “each of” ( Joshua 22:14); “the heads of the fathers’ (houses)” for “the chief of the fathers,” and “the fathers’ houses of the chief,” for “the principal fathers” ( 1 Chronicles 24:31). W. L. Walker FATHOM <fath’-um > ([ojrguia>, orguia ]): The literal meaning is the length of the outstretched arms, and it was regarded as equal to 4 cubits, or about 6 feet. ( Acts 27:28). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

FATLING, FATTED See CALF.

FATNESS <fat’-nes > ([ ˆv,D, , deshen ]; [pio>hv, piotes ]):

1. LITERAL:

The translation of deshen ( Judges 9:9, “But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness?”; Job 36:16 (of food)), “full of fatness”; of chelebh , “fat,” “the best part,” “the marrow” ( Job 15:27; Psalm 73:7; Isaiah 34:6,7); of mishman, “fathess,” “fertility” ( Genesis 27:28, “the fatness of the earth”; Isaiah 17:4, “the fatness of his flesh”); of shemen, “fatness,” “oil” ( <19A924> Psalm 109:24); of piotes , “fat,” “fatness” ( Romans 11:17, “partaker .... of the root of the fatness of the olive tree”).

2. FIGURATIVE: “Fatness” is used figuratively for the richness of God’s goodness; as such it is the translation of deshen (“They shall be abundantly satisfied (margin “Hebrew watered”) with the fatness of thy house” ( Psalm 36:8); “Thy paths drop fatness” ( Psalm 65:11; compare Isaiah 55:2; Jeremiah 31:14). “With fatness” is supplied, Deuteronomy 32:15 the King James Version, “covered with fatness”; the Revised Version (British and American) has “become sleek”; for “The yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing” ( Isaiah 10:27) the American Standard Revised Version has “by reason of fatness,” margin “Hebrew oil”; the English Revised Version as the King James Version, with margin as the American Standard Revised Version; the text is believed to be corrupt; Septuagint has “from your shoulders.” W. L. Walker FAUCHION <fo’-shun > . See SCIMITAR.

FAULT <folt > ([ af;j; , chaTa’ ]; [aijti>a, aitia ], [me>mfomai, memphomai ]): Implies defect, of less moral weight than crime or sin. It is the translation of chaTa’ , “error,” “failure,” “sin” ( Exodus 5:16); of cheT ’, same meaning ( Genesis 41:9, “I do remember my faults this day”); of `awon , “perversity,” “iniquity” ( 2 Samuel 3:8; Psalm 59:4); of rish`ah , “wrongness,” “wickedness” ( Deuteronomy 25:2, the Revised Version (British and American) “wickedness”); of shechath (Aramaic) “corruption” ( Daniel 6:4 twice); me’umah , “anything” ( 1 Samuel 29:3, “no fault in him,” literally, “not anything”); of aitia , “cause,” “case,” “guilt,” ( John 18:38; 19:4,6; Pilate of Jesus, “I find no fault in him,” the Revised Version (British and American) “no crime”; the same word is rendered “accusation,” i.e. `legal cause for prosecution,’ Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; compare Acts 25:18,27); of aition , same meaning ( Luke 23:4,14; 23:22, aition thanatou “cause of death”); of hettema , “a worse condition,” “defect” ( 1 Corinthians 6:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “a defect,” margin “a loss to you”); of paraptoma , “a falling aside” ( Galatians 6:1, “If a man be overtaken in fault,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in any trespass,” margin “by”; Jas 5:16, “Confess your faults one to another,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Confess therefore your sins one to another”); hamartano , “to miss,” “err,” “sin,” is translated “your faults” ( 1 Peter 2:20 the Revised Version (British and American), “when ye sin”); memphomai , “to blame,” is translated “to find fault” ( Mark 7:2 omitted the Revised Version (British and American); Romans 9:19; Hebrews 8:8); elegcho , “to convict,” “to tell one’s fault” ( Matthew 18:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “show him his fault”); amomos , “without blemish,” “spotless,” is translated “without fault” ( Revelation 14:5, the Revised Version (British and American) “without blemish,” “faultless”; Jude 1:24, “able to present you faultless,” the Revised Version (British and American) “without blemish”); amemptos , “blameless,” “without reproach” ( Hebrews 8:7, “for if that first covenant had been faultless”). “Faulty” is the translation of ‘ashem , “guilty” ( 2 Samuel 14:13, “as one which is faulty,” the Revised Version (British and American) “guilty”); of ‘asham , “to be or become guilty” ( Hosea 10:2, Revised Version “guilty”). W. L. Walker FAVOR <fa’-ver > ([ ˆje , chen ], [ ˆwOxr; , ratson ], with other Hebrew words; [ca>riv, charis ]): Means generally good will, acceptance, and the benefits flowing from these; in older usage it meant also the countenance, hence, appearance. Alternating in English Versions of the Bible with “grace,” it is used chiefly of man, but sometimes also of God ( Genesis 18:3; 30:27; 39:21; Exodus 3:21; 2 Samuel 15:25, “in the eyes of Yahweh,” etc.). It is used perhaps in the sense of “countenance” in Proverbs 31:30, “Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain” (the King James Version), where for “favor” the Revised Version (British and American) has “grace”; the reference is to external appearance. “Favored” is used in the sense of “appearance” in the phrase “well-favored” ( Genesis 29:17; 39:6; 41:2,4).; conversely, “ill-favored” ( Genesis 41:3,4). For “favor” the Revised Version (British and American) has “have pity on” ( <19A912> Psalm 109:12), “good will” ( Proverbs 14:9), “peace” (Song of Solomon of Solomon 8:10); the English Revised Version “grace” ( Ruth 2:13), the American Standard Revised Version “kindness” ( Nehemiah 2:17; Daniel 1:9), etc. In the American Standard Revised Version “the acceptable year of the Lord” ( Isaiah 61:2) is changed Into “the year of Yahweh’s favor”; “Do I now persuade men” ( Galatians 1:10) into, “Am I now seeking the favor of men,” and there are other the Revised Version (British and American) changes. W. L. Walker FAWN <fon > . See DEER.

FEAR <fer > ([ ha;r]yi , yir’ah ], [ arey; , yare’ ]; [fo>bov, phobos ], [fobe>w, phobeo ]):

TERMS, ETC.: “Fear” is the translation of many words in the Old Testament; the chief are: yir’ah , “fear,” “terror,” “reverence,” “awe,” most often “the fear of God,” “fear of Yahweh” ( Genesis 20:11; 2 Chronicles 19:9, etc.); also of “fear” generally ( Job 22:4; Isaiah 7:25; Ezekiel 30:13, etc.); yare’ , “to be afraid,” “to fear,” “to reverence” ( Genesis 15:1; Leviticus19:3,14; Deuteronomy 6:2, etc.); pachadh , “fear,” “terror,” “dread” ( Genesis 31:42,53; Deuteronomy 11:25; 1 Samuel 11:7 the King James Version; Job 4:14; Isaiah 2:10 the King James Version, etc.). “Fearful” (timid) is the translation of yare’ ( Deuteronomy 20:8; Judges 7:3); “to be feared,” yare’ ( Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 28:58; compare <19D004> Psalm 130:4); in Isaiah 35:4, it is the translation of mahar , “hasty,” “them that are of a fearful heart,” margin “Hebrew hasty”; perhaps, ready to flee (for fear). “Fearfully” ( <19D914> Psalm 139:14): yare’ , “I am fearfully (and) wonderfully made,” so the Revised Version (British and American); “and” is not in the text, so that “fearfully” may be equivalent to “extremely,” to an awesome degree; compare Psalm 65:5, “by terrible things .... in righteousness”; 66:3, “How terrible are thy works (yare’ “fearful “); the Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) have “Thou art fearfully wonderful.” “Fearfulness” occurs In Psalm 55:5 (yir’ah ); Isaiah 21:4 (pallatsuth ), the Revised Version (British and American) “horror”; Isaiah 33:14 (re`adhah , “trembling”), “Fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Trembling hath seized the godless ones.”

In the New Testament the chief words are phobos , “fear,” “terror,” “affright” ( Matthew 14:26; 28:4,8; Luke 21:26; 1 John 4:18, etc.), and phobeo , “to put in fear” (both used of ordinary fear) ( Matthew 1:20; 10:26; 28:5; 2 Corinthians 12:20, etc.); of the fear of God, the noun ( Romans 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1), the verb ( Luke 18:4; 23:40, etc.); deilia , “timidity,” “fear,” occurs in Timothy 1:7, “God hath not given us the spirit of fear,” the Revised Version (British and American) “a spirit of fearfulness”; ekphobos , “frightened out (of one’s senses),” “greatly terrified” ( Hebrews 12:21; compare Deuteronomy 9:19; The Wisdom of Solomon 17:9 the King James Version); apo tes eulabeias is translated ( Hebrews 5:7) “(of Christ) who was heard in that he feared,” the Revised Version (British and American) “having been heard for his godly fear”; so all the Greek commentators; eulabeia , properly, “caution,” “circumspection,” is used in the New Testament for godly fear ( Hebrews 12:28, the Revised Version (British and American) “reverence and awe,” margin as the King James Version); compare eulabes ( Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 8:2); eulabeomai , “to act with caution” ( Acts 23:10). Deilos, “fearful,” “timid,” occurs in Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:40; Revelation 21:8, “Their part shall be .... the second death”; phoberos , “fearful,” “terrible” ( Hebrews 10:27,31); phobetron , “something fearful,” “a terrible sign or portent” ( Luke 21:11, Revised Version (British and American) “terrors”).

Fear is a natural and, in its purpose, beneficent feeling, arising in the presence or anticipation of danger, and moving to its avoidance; it is also awakened in the presence of superiors and of striking manifestations of power, etc., taking the form of awe or reverence. Fear has been said to be the source of religion, but religion can never have originated from fear alone, since men are impelled to draw nigh with expectation to the object of worship. “Fear” is certainly a prominent element in Old Testament religion; the “fear of God” or of Yahweh, “the fear of the Lord,” is indeed synonymous with religion itself ( Psalm 34:11; Proverbs 1:7; Isaiah 11:2,3; Jeremiah 2:19; Ecclesiastes 12:13, “the whole duty of man,” the Revised Version, margin “the duty of all men”). But although the element of dread, or of “fear” in its lower sense, is not always absent and is sometimes prominent in the earlier stages especially, though not exclusively ( Exodus 23:27, ‘emah ; 1 Samuel 11:7; 2 Chronicles 20:29; <19B9120> Psalm 119:120; Isaiah 2:10,19,21), it is more the feeling of reverent regard for their God, tempered with awe and fear of the punishment of disobedience. As such it is a sentiment commanded and to be cherished toward Yahweh ( Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 6:13; Joshua 4:24; 1 Samuel 12:24; Job 6:14; Psalm 33:8; 34:9; Proverbs 23:17; Ecclesiastes 5:7, etc.). It is an essential element in the worship and service of Yahweh (2 Kings 17 often; Psalm 2:11, etc.); it is a Divine qualification of the Messiah ( Isaiah 11:2,3). This “fear of Yahweh” is manifested in keeping God’s commandments, walking in His ways, doing His will, avoiding sin, etc. ( Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 2 Samuel 23:3; Psalm 34:4,9 parallel Proverbs 8:13; 16:6). It is the true wisdom ( Job 28:28; Psalm 25:14; Proverbs 1:7; 15:33); it gives life ( Proverbs 10:27, etc.), blessedness ( <19C801> Psalm 128:1,4), sufficiency ( Psalm 34:9), Divine friendship ( Psalm 25:14), protection ( Psalm 34:7), deliverance ( Psalm 85:9), forgiveness ( <19D004> Psalm 130:4). In Psalm 90:11 the King James Version has “According to thy fear so is thy wrath,” the Revised Version (British and American) “and thy wrath according to the fear that is due unto thee”; the meaning probably is “thy wrath is in proportion to thy fear.”

The “fear of the Lord” is a frequent phrase in Apocrypha, and is highly exalted, e.g. Ecclesiasticus 1:11-30; the idea of it became gradually more and more elevated; in 2:15,16 it is joined with the love of God. “Fear” is the natural consequence of sin ( Genesis 3:10; 4:13,14; Proverbs 28:1); it comes as a punishment ( Deuteronomy 28:25,28).

The fear of man and of evils are dangers to be avoided, from which the fear of God delivers ( Numbers 14:9; 21:34; Psalm 23:4; 31:14, etc.). “Fear” sometimes stands for the object of fear ( Proverbs 10:24; Isaiah 66:4); for the object of worship ( Genesis 31:42,53, “the God of Abraham, and the Fear of isaac,” pachadh ).

In the New Testament dread, or fear of God in the lower sense, is removed; He is revealed as the loving and forgiving Father, who gives to men the spirit of sonship ( Romans 8:15; 2 Timothy 1:7; 1 John 4:18); we are invited even to come “with boldness unto the throne of grace,” with confidence, assurance (parrhesia), which, however, may have its literal meaning of free “utterance” ( Hebrews 4:16; 10:19); but there remains a filial fear and sense of awe and of the greatness of the issues involved ( Romans 11:20; Ephesians 5:21, the Revised Version (British and American) “of Christ”; 1 Timothy 5:20; Hebrews 4:1); all other fears should be dismissed ( Matthew 8:26; 10:26-28,31; Luke 12:32); in Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5, “fear” is used in the sense of “stand in awe of,” so perhaps Luke 23:40; to “fear God” is sometimes used in the New Testament as equivalent to religion ( Luke 18:4; Acts 10:2,35; 13:16,26, used of proselytes); in Hebrews 10:27, it is said that if Christ be willfully rejected, nothing remains but “a fearful looking for (the Revised Version (British and American) “expectation”) of judgment,” and 10:31, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” in which places “fearful” means “terrible,” something well to be feared. the Revised Version (British and American) gives frequently a more literal rendering of the words translated “fear.” W. L. Walker FEASTS, AND FAST <fests > ([ d[ewOm , mo`edh ], “an appointed day” or “an assembling,” [ gj” , chagh ], from [ gg”j; , chaghagh ], “to dance” or possibly “to make a pilgrimage”; [ µwOx , tsom ], “fast,” [ tyni[\T” , ta`anith ], “a day of affliction”):

THE NATURE OF THE HEBREW FESTIVALS:

The Hebrews had an abundance of holidays, some based, according to their tradition, on agriculture and the natural changes of times and seasons, some on historical events connected with the national or religious life of Israel, and still others simply on immemorial custom. in most instances two or more of these bases coexist, and the emphasis on the natural, the agricultural, the national, or the religious phase will vary with different writers, different context, or different times. Any classification of these feasts and fasts on the basis of original significance must therefore be imperfect.

We should rather classify them as preexilic and post-exilic, because the period of the Babylonian captivity marks a complete change, not only in the kinds of festivals instituted from time to time, but also in the manner of celebrating the old.

I. PRE-EXILIC.

The pre-exilic list includes the three pilgrimage festivals, the Passover week, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, together with the Eighth Day of Assembly at the conclusion of the last of these feasts, and New Year and Atonement Days, the weekly Sabbath and the New Moon. 1. Observances Common to All: The preexilic festivals were “holy convocations” (Leviticus23; Numbers 28). Special sacrifices were offered on them in addition to the daily offerings. These sacrifices, however, varied according to the character of the festival (Numbers 28; 29). On all of them trumpets (chatsotseroth ) were blown while the burnt offerings and the peace-offerings were being sacrificed ( Numbers 10:10). They were all likened to the weekly Sabbath as days of rest, on which there must be complete suspension of all ordinary work (Leviticus16:29; 23:7,8,21,24,25,28,35,36). 2. Significance of the Festivals: The three pilgrimage festivals were known by that name because on them the Israelites gathered at Jerusalem to give thanks for their doubly joyful character. They were of agricultural significance as well as commemorative of national events. Thus, the Passover is connected with the barley harvest; at the same time it is the zeman cheruth , recalling the Exodus from Egypt ( Exodus 12:6; Leviticus23:5,8; Numbers 28:16-25; Deuteronomy 16:1-8).

Pentecost has an agricultural phase as chagh habikkurim , the celebration of the wheat harvest; it has a religious phase as zeman mattan Thorah in the Jewish liturgy, based on the rabbinical calculation which makes it the day of the giving of the Law, and this religious side has so completely overshadowed the agricultural that among modern Jews the Pentecost has become “confirmation day” ( Exodus 34:26; Leviticus23:10-14; Numbers 28:26-31).

The Feast of Tabernacles is at once the general harvest festival, chagh he- ’aciph , and the anniversary of the beginnings of the wanderings in the wilderness ( Exodus 23:16; Leviticus23:33 ff; Deuteronomy 16:13-15). The Eighth Day of Assembly immediately following the last day of Tabernacles (Leviticus23:36; Numbers 29:35 ff; John 7:37) and closing the long cycle of Tishri festivals seems to have been merely a final day of rejoicing before the pilgrims returned to their homes.

New Year (Leviticus23:23-25; Numbers 29:1-6) and the Day of Atonement (Leviticus16:1 ff; 23:26-32; Numbers 29:7-11) marked the turning of the year; primarily, perhaps, in the natural phenomena of Palestine, but also in the inner life of the nation and the individual. Hence, the religious significance of these days as days of judgment, penitence and forgiveness soon overshadowed any other significance they may have had.

The temple ritual for these days, which is minutely described in the Old Testament and in the Talmud, was the most elaborate and impressive of the year. At the same time Atonement Day was socially an important day of rejoicing.

In addition to these annual festivals the pre-exilic Hebrews celebrated the Sabbath ( Numbers 28:9,10; Leviticus23:1-3) and the New Moon ( Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15). By analogy to the weekly Sabbath, every seventh year was a Sabbath Year ( Exodus 23:11; Leviticus25:1-7; Deuteronomy 15:1), and every cycle of seven Sabbath years was closed with a Jubilee Year (Leviticus25:8-18) somewhat after the analogy of the seven weeks counted before Pentecost.

For further details of all of these preexilic festivals see the separate articles.

II. POST-EXILIC.

In post-exilic times important historical events were made the basis for the institution of new fasts and feasts. When the first temple was destroyed and the people were carried into captivity, “the sacrifice of the body and one’s own fat and blood” were substituted for that of animals (see Talmud, Berakhoth 17a). With such a view of their importance, fasts of all sorts were as a matter of course rapidly multiplied. (Note that the Day of Atonement was the only pre-exilic fast.) Of these post-exilic fasts and feasts, the Feast of Dedication (1 Macc 4:52-59; John 10:22; Mishna, Ta`anith 2 10; Mo`edh QaTon 3 9; Josephus, Ant, XII, vii; Apion, II, xxxix) and the Feast of Purim ( Nehemiah 3:7; 9:24 ff; 2 Macc 15:36); and the fasts of the fourth (Zec 8:19; Jeremiah 39; 52; Mishna, Ta`anith 6), the fifth (Zec 7:3,1; 8:19; Ta`anith 4 6), the seventh (Zec 7:5; 8:19; Jeremiah 41:1 ff; 2 Kings 25:25; Cedher `Olam Rabba’ 26; Meghillath Ta`anith c. 12), the tenth months (Zec 8:19; 2 Kings 25), and the Fast of Esther ( Nehemiah 4:16 f; 9:31) have been preserved by Jewish tradition to this day. (The Feast of Dedication, the Feast of Purim and the Fast of Esther are described in separate articles.) Significance: The fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months are based on historical incidents connected with one or more national calamities. In several instances the rabbis have by close figuring been able to connect with the dates of the fasts as well as the feasts other important national events than those for which the days were primarily instituted. Not less than four incidents are connected with the fasts of the fourth month (17th of Tammuz): (a) on this day the Israelites made the golden calf; (b) Moses broke the tables of law; (c) the daily sacrifices ceased for want of cattle when the city was closely besieged prior to the destruction of Jerusalem; and (d) on this day Jerusalem was stormed by Nebuchadnezzar. The fast of the fifth month (9th day of ‘Abh) receives its significance from the fact that the First Temple was destroyed upon this day by Nebuchadnezzar, and the Second Temple on the same day of the year by Titus. In addition it is said that on this day Yahweh decreed that those who left Egypt should not enter the land of promise; the day is also the anniversary of the capture of the city of Bether by the Emperor Hadrian. The fast of the seventh month (the 3rd day of Tishri) commemorates the murder of Gedaliah at Mizpah. That of the tenth month (10th day of Tebheth) commemorates the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

Other fasts and feasts no doubt were instituted on similar occasions and received a local or temporary observance, for example, the Feast of Acra (1 Macc 13:50-52; compare 1:33), to celebrate the recapture of Acra (“the citadel”) on the 23rd of ‘Iyar 141 BC, and the Feast of Nicanor, in celebration of the victory over Nicanor on the 13th day of ‘Adhar 160 BC (1 Macc 7:49).

Several other festivals are mentioned in the Talmud and other post-Biblical writings which may have been of even greater antiquity. The Feast of Woodcarrying (Midsummer Day: Nehemiah 10:34; Josephus, BJ, II, vii, 6; Meghillath Ta`anith c.v, p. 32, Mishna, Ta`anith 4 8a), for example, is referred to as the greatest day of rejoicing of the Hebrews, ranking with Atonement Day. It was principally a picnic day to which a religious touch was given by making it the woodgatherers’ festival for the Temple. A New Year for trees is mentioned in the Talmud (Ro’sh ha-Shdnah 1 1). The pious, according both to the Jewish tradition and the New Testament, observed many private or semi-public fasts, such as the Mondays, Thursdays and following Monday after Nisan and Tishri (the festival months: Luke 18:12; Matthew 9:14; 6:16; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; Acts 10:30; Meghillah 31a; Ta`anith 12a; Bdbha’ Qama’ 8 2). The day before Passover was a fast day for the firstborn (Copherim 21 3).

In post-Biblical times the Jews outside of Palestine doubled each of the following days: the opening and closing day of Passover and Tabernacles and Pentecost, because of the capheq, or doubt as to the proper day to be observed, growing out of the delays in the transmission of the official decree of the Sanhedhrin in each season. Differences in hours of sunrise and sunset between Palestine and other countries may have had something to do at least with the perpetuation of the custom. New Year’s Day seems to have been doubled from time immemorial, the forty-eight hours counting as one “long day.”

Many new modes of observance appear in post-exilic times in connection with the old established festivals, especially in the high festival season of Tishri. Thus the cimchath beth ha-sho’ebhah, “water drawing festival,” was celebrated during the week of Tabernacles with popular games and dances in which even the elders took part, and the streets were so brilliantly illuminated with torches that scarcely an eye was closed in Jerusalem during that week (Talmud, Chullin).

The last day of Tabernacles was known in Talmudic times as yom chibbuT `arabhoth , from the custom of beating willow branches, a custom clearly antedating the various symbolical explanations offered for it. Its festivities were connected with the dismantling of the booth. In later times the day was known as hosha`na’ rabba’ , from the liturgical passages beginning with the word hosha`na’ , recited throughout the feast and “gathered” on that day. The day after Tabernacles has been made cimchath Torah, the Feast of the Law, from the custom of ending on that day the cycle of fiftytwo weekly portions read in the synagogues.

In general it may be said that although the actual observance has changed from time to time to meet new conditions, the synagogal calendar of today is made up of the same festivals as those observed in New Testament times. Ella Davis Isaacs FEASTS, SEASONS FOR Regulated by the sun and moon. See ASTRONOMY, I, 5.

FEATHERS <feth’-erz > ([ hx;nO, notsah ]; Latin penna ): “Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings (the Revised Version (British and American) “pinions”) and feathers (the American Standard Revised Version “plumage”) unto the ostrich?” ( Job 39:13 the King James Version); “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be thy shield and buckler” ( Psalm 91:4 the King James Version). In the Revised Version (British and American) this is again changed to pinions. in Daniel 4:33 the word “feathers” is left. The wonderful plumage of birds was noted and prized in those days, just as now. Old ostriches were too tough and rank of flesh for food. They were pursued for their feathers, which were used for the headdressing and shield ornaments of desert princes. No one doubts that the ships of Solomon introduced peacocks because of their wonderful feathers. Those of the eagle were held in superstitious reverence as late as the days of Pliny, who was ten years old at the time of the crucifixion of Christ. Pliny wrote that the eagle was so powerful that if its feathers be laid in a box with those of other birds, the eagle feathers would “devour and consume all the rest.” Gene Stratton-Porter FEEBLE KNEES <fe’-b’-l nez > : The expression. is found in three places (one being a free quotation of another): Job 4:4, “Thou hast made firm the feeble ([ [r”K; , kara` ], “bending,” “bowing”) knees,” and Hebrews 12:12, “Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied (the King James Version “feeble”) knees.” The Greek word used here ([paralelume>na, paralelumena ], “paralyzed,” “motionless”) implies the loss of junction, interrupted articulation, the cutting off of vital strength; compare Greek [cwlo>v, cholos ], “lame,” and see Delitzsch in his Commentary on Heb, in the place cited Such an affection of the knees may be due to different causes. It is, e.g., a very frequent symptom of the disease known in the Orient as beriberi, when the muscles of the lower leg shrink to such a degree as to render voluntary locomotion impossible. It always disables its victim, and is therefore often expressive of general debility, e.g. in <19A924> Psalm 109:24, where such weakness is described as the outcome of protracted fasting in Ezekiel 7:17 and 21:7, “All knees shall be weak as water,” the expression indicates a complete relaxation of the muscles. Fear effected the same condition in Belshazzar’s case, when he saw the writing on the wall ( Daniel 5:6), “The joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another” (compare Nahum 2:10).

The “sore boil .... in the knees, and in the legs,” a disease announced in Deuteronomy 28:35 as a punishment upon Israel for disobedience, cannot now be fully determined. Driver (in his commentary on the passage) thinks of elephantiasis, which is possible but not probable on account of the additional statement, “whereof thou canst not be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the crown of thy head” which would be unexplained, as elephantiasis rarely presents a form in which the whole body is sympathetically affected. I rather think of some form of bubonic plague, which causes very high fever all over the body. In Deuteronomy 28:27 in the enumeration of plagues mention is made of the “boil of Egypt,” and some commentators have explained this as “bubonic plague.” There is, however, no doubt that the “boil or botch of Egypt” is identical with the disease known to modern medicine as bouton du Nil, Biskra button, Bagdad or Aleppo sore. H. L. E. Luering FEEBLE-MINDED <fe’-b’-l-min’-ded > ([ojligo>yucov, oligopsuchos ]): Only in Thessalonians 5:14 the King James Version, in the sense of “fainthearted,” as in the Revised Version (British and American). In Septuagint it is used as the equivalent of koshel , the tottering or feeble-kneed in Isaiah 35:3; 54:6; oligopsuchia occurs in Septuagint twice ( Exodus 6:9; Psalm 54:7), for “anguish of spirit” and “trouble.” The term refers to weakness of will and vacillation of purpose rather than to idiocy or morbid imbecility.

FEELING <fel’-ing > : The following varieties of meaning are to be noted: (1) “To touch,” “handle,” “grope after” ([ vv”m; , mashash ] ( Genesis 27:12,22; Exodus 10:21; [ vWm , mush ], Genesis 27:21; Judges 16:26; [yhlafa>w, pselaphao ], Acts 17:27). (2) “To know,” “understand,” “experience” ([ ˆyBi , bin ], Psalm 58:9; [ [d”y; , yadha` ], Proverbs 23:35; [ginw>skw, ginosko ], Mark 5:29). (3) “To have a fellow feeling,” “to place one’s self into the position of another,” especially while suffering, “to have compassion” ([sumpaqei~n, sumpathein ], Hebrews 4:15; compare 10:34; which is to be carefully distinguished from the similar verb [sumpa>scein, sumpaschein ], which means “to share in the same suffering with another,” Romans 8:17; Corinthians 12:26). See Delitzsch, Commentary on Hebrews 4:15. (4) “To feel harm,” “pain,” “grief,” “to be sensitive” ([pa>scein, paschein ], with the roots path - and penth -, Acts 28:5); or with the negation: “to have ceased to feel,” “to be apathetic,” “past feeling,” “callous,” [ajphlghkw>v, apelgekos], perfect participle of [ajpalge>w, apalgeo ] ( Ephesians 4:19) which describes the condition of the sinner, who by hardening his heart against moral influences is left without a sense of his high vocation, without an idea of the awfulness of sin, without reverence to God, without an appreciation of the salvation offered by Him, and without fear of His judgment. H. L. E. Luering FEET, WASHING OF See FOOT; WASHING OF FEET.

FEIGN <fan > ([ ad;B; , badha ], [ rk”n; , nakhar ]; [plasto>v, plastos ]): Occurs (1) in the sense of “to devise,” “invent” as the translation of badha’ , “to form,” “to fashion” ( Nehemiah 6:8, “Thou feignest them out of thine own heart”; compare 1 Kings 12:33, English Versions of the Bible “devised of his own heart”); of plastos , “formed,” “molded” ( 2 Peter 2:3, “with reigned words make merchandise of you”); (2) in the sense of “pretense,” nakhar , “to be foreign,” “strange” ( Kings 14:5, “feign herself to be another woman,” 14:6; compare Genesis 42:7; Proverbs 26:24); ‘abhal , “to mourn,” “to act as a mourner” ( 2 Samuel 14:2); halal , “to make a show,” Hithpael, “to be mad,” “to feign madness” (of David, 1 Samuel 21:13; compare Jeremiah 25:16; 50:38); hupokrinomai , “to give judgment, or act, under a mask” ( Luke 20:20, “who feigned themselves to be righteous”); (3) in the sense of “deceit” “fraud,” “insincerity,” mirmah , “prayer, that goeth not out of feigned lips” ( Psalm 17:1); sheqer , “falsehood,” “a lie,” “Judah hath not returned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly” ( Jeremiah 3:10; compare 2 Esdras 8:28); kahash , “to lie,” “to feign, or flatter” ( 2 Samuel 12:45; Psalm 18:44; 66:3; 81:15), where the text of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), “shall submit themselves,” is rendered the margin (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), “yield feigned obedience, Hebrew lie .” the Revised Version (British and American) has “feign” for “make” ( 2 Samuel 13:5), and “feigned” for “made” ( 2 Samuel 13:6). W. L. Walker FELIX; ANTONIUS <fe’-liks > , <an-to’-ni-us > ([ Fh~lix, Phelix ], from Latin felix , “happy”): A Roman procurator of Judea, appointed in succession to Cumanus by the emperor Claudius. The event which led to the introduction of Felix into the narrative of Acts was the riot at Jerusalem ( Acts 21:27). There Paul, being attacked at the instigation of the Asiatic Jews for alleged false teaching and profanation of the temple, was rescued with difficulty by Lysias the chief captain. But Lysias, finding that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that therefore the secret plots against the life of his captive might entail serious consequences upon himself, and finding also that Paul was charged on religious rather than on political grounds, sent him on to Felix at Caesarea for trial ( Acts 21:31 through 23:34). On his arrival, Paul was presented to Felix and was then detained for five days in the judgment hall of Herod, till his accusers should also reach Caesarea ( Acts 23:33-35).

The trial was begun, but after hearing the evidence of Tertullus (see TERTULLUS) and the speech of Paul in his own defense, Felix deferred judgment ( Acts 24:1-22). The excuse he gave for delay was the nonappearance of Lysias, but his real reason was in order to obtain bribes for the release of Paul. He therefore treated his prisoner at first with leniency, and pretended along with Drusilla to take interest in his teaching. But these attempts to induce Paul to purchase his freedom failed ignominiously; Paul sought favor of neither Felix nor Drusilla, and made the frequent interviews which he had with them an opportunity for preaching to them concerning righteousness and temperance and the final judgment. The case dragged on for two years till Felix, upon his retirement, “desiring to gain favor with the Jews .... left Paul in bonds” ( Acts 24:27). According to the Bezan text, the continued imprisonment of Paul was due to the desire of Felix to please Drusilla.

Felix was the brother of Pallas, who was the infamous favorite of Claudius, and who, according to Tacitus (Annals 13: 14), fell into disgrace in 55 AD.

Tacitus implies that Felix was joint procurator of Judea, along with Cumanus, before being appointed to the sole command, but Josephus is silent as to this. Both Tacitus and Josephus refer to his succeeding Cumanus, Josephus stating that it was at the instigation of Jonathan the high priest. There is some doubt as to the chronology of Felix’ tenure of office. Harnack and Blass, following Eusebius and Jerome, place his accession in 51 AD, and the imprisonment of Paul in 54-56 AD; but most modern commentators incline to the dates 52 AD and 56-58 AD. These latter interpret the statement of Paul, “Thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation” ( Acts 24:10), as referring to some judicial office, not necessarily that of co-procurator (see Tacitus), previously held by Felix in the time of Cumanus, and argue that this earlier connection of Felix with Judea supplied a reason for the advocacy by Jonathan of Felix’ claims to the procuratorship on the deposition of Gumanus. The testimony of Acts as to the evil character of Felix is fully corroborated by the writings of Josephus (BJ, II, xiii). Although he suppressed the robbers and murderers who infested Judea, and among them the “Egyptian” to whom Lysias refers ( Acts 21:38), yet “he himself was more hurtful than them all.” When occasion offered, he did not hesitate to employ the sicarii (see ASSASSINS ) for his own ends. Trading upon the influence of his brother at court, his cruelty and rapacity knew no bounds, and during his rule revolts became continuous, and marked a distinct stage in that seditious movement which culminated in the outbreak of 70 AD (so Schurer). His leaving Paul in bonds was but a final instance of one who sacrificed duty and justice for the sake of his Own unscrupulous selfishness. For more detailed information as to dates, etc., compare Knowling (Expos Greek Test., II, 477 ff). C. M. Kerr FELLOES <fel’-oz > ( 1 Kings 7:33). See WHEEL.

FELLOW <fel’-o > ([ rbej; , chabher ], [ [“re , rea` ]; [eJtai~rov, hetairos ]): Meant originally a “partner,” from fe, “property,” and lag, “to lay,” then “a companion,” “an equal,” “a person or individual,” “a worthless person.” (1) As “companion” it is the translation of chabher , “associate,” “companion,” “friend” (also chabbar , Job 41:6 (Hebrew 40:30), where we have the original sense of partnership, translated “bands” the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version “companions”); Psalm 45:7, “God hath anointed thee .... above thy fellows”; of habhrah ( Ecclesiastes 4:10; Daniel 7:20); of rea` , “companion,” “friend,” “another” ( Exodus 2:13; Judges 7:13,14,22); re`ah (or ra`yah ), “a female friend” ( Judges 11:37, “I and my fellows,” the Revised Version (British and American) “companions”; here the King James Version applies “fellow” to a female; compare Baruch 6:43, “She reproacheth her fellow,” he plesion ); in Judges 11:38, “companions” is the translation of `amith , “fellowship”; `amith (Zec 13:7, “the man that is my fellow,” literally, “the man of my fellowship”); hetairos , “companion” ( Matthew 11:16); metochos , “partner”; (compare Luke 5:7; Hebrews 1:9, quoted from Psalm 45:7, Septuagint for chabher ). (2) As an individual or person “fellow” is the translation of ‘ish , “a man,” “an individual”: “make this fellow return” ( 1 Samuel 29:4 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “the man”); in the same verse “fellow” is supplied instead of “he”; “fellow” in 1611 meant simply “a man,” and it is difficult to say in what passages the ideas of “worthless,” etc., are meant to be implied; probably, however, in Judges 18:25, where the Hebrew is simply ‘enosh , “man,” and the text is almost the only deviation from the rendering “man,” “men,” “lest angry (margin, Revised Version “bitter of soul”) fellows fall upon you”; also Acts 17:5, aner , “a man,” “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort,” the Revised Version (British and American) “vile fellows”; compare 2 Samuel 6:20, “vain (req ) fellows” (supplied); 1 Macc 10:61, “contain pestilent fellows” (aner ); Ecclesiasticus 8:15, “a bold fellow” (tolmeros ), the Revised Version (British and American) “a rash man”; in several places of the Old Testament “fellow” represents zeh , “this,” and in these instances there seems to be something of worthlessness or contempt implied ( 1 Samuel 21:15 bis; 25:21; 1 Kings 22:27; 2 Kings 9:11, and, as before, Samuel 29:4 the Revised Version (British and American)); in the New Testament also “fellow” often represents houtos , “this,” and in most of these cases the King James Version seems to intend something depreciatory to be understood; the Revised Version (British and American) gives simply “man” ( Matthew 12:24; 26:61,71; Luke 22:59; 23:2; John 9:29; Acts 18:13); so Ecclesiasticus 13:23, “If the poor man speaks, they say, What fellow is this?” the Revised Version (British and American) “who is this?” 1 Macc 4:5, “These fellows flee from us,” the Revised Version (British and American) “these men.” the Revised Version (British and American) has “fellows” for “persons” ( Judges 9:4), for “men” ( Judges 11:3); “base fellows” for “men the children of Belial” ( Deuteronomy 13:13), margin, “sons of worthlessness”; the American Standard Revised Version “worthless fellow” for “son of Belial” ( Samuel 25:17,25), “base fellows” for “sons of Belial” ( Judges 19:22; 20:13, etc.); the Revised Version (British and American) has also “companions” for “fellows” ( Judges 11:37, as above; Ezekiel 37:19; Daniel 2:13), “each man his fellow” for “one another” ( 2 Kings 3:23); “fellow by” for “neighbor in” ( 1 Kings 20:35).

Fellow-citizen, Fellow-disciple, Fellow-heirs, Yokefellow, etc. In composition, “fellow” always means partner or companion. W. L. Walker FELLOWSHIP <fel’-o-ship > . See COMMUNION.

FEMALE <fe’-mal > : Two Hebrew words are thus translated: (1) [ hb;qen] , neqebhah ], which is merely a physiological description of the sexual characteristic (from [ bq”n; , naqabh ], “to perforate”), and which corresponds to [ rk;z; , zakhar ], “male” (see under the word). (2) [ hV;ai , ‘ishshah ], with the irregular plural [ µyvin; , nashim ] (only Genesis 7:2, in all other places “wife,” “woman”), the feminine form of [ vyai , ‘ish ], “man.”

The Greek word is [qh~luv, thelus ], literally, “the nursing one,” “the one giving suck” (from [qhla>zw, thelazo ], “to suckle”).

Israelitic law seems frequently guilty of unjust partiality in favor of the male sex, but we have to consider that most of these legal and religious disabilities of women can be explained from the social conditions prevailing at the time of legislation. They are therefore found also in contemporaneous Gentile religions. Though traces of this prejudice against the weaker sex are found in the New Testament, the religious discrimination between the sexes has practically ceased, as is evident from Galatians 3:28: “There can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus”; compare also 1 Peter 3:7. H. L. E. Luering FENCE <fens > ([ rx”B; , batsar ], [ rx;b]mi , mibhtsar ]): Commonly used in the King James Version in the description of fortified places, as the translation of batsar , “to cut off,” “to separate,” “to fortify” (and forms) ( Deuteronomy 3:5; 9:1; 28:52, etc.); mibhtsar , “fenced city,” is a fortified place ( Numbers 32:17,36; Joshua 10:20; 19:35, etc.); matsor , “fenced cities,” means “bulwark,” “citadel” ( 2 Chronicles 8:5); metsurah , “fortification” ( 2 Chronicles 11:23; 12:4; 14:6; 21:3); for “fenced” the American Standard Revised Version substitutes “fortified” in all these instances; in Daniel 11:15, mibhtsar is “a well-fortified city,” margin “the fortified cities,” the English Revised Version “well-fenced”; “fence” is also the translation of gadher , “a wall” or “fence” ( Job 19:8 the American Standard Revised Version, “walled up” (gadhar ); Psalm 62:3); `azaq , “to loosen” (the ground) as with a mattock ( Isaiah 5:2, where the King James Version has “fenced” it (the vineyard), the American Standard Revised Version “digged it,” the English Revised Version “made a trench about it,” it” margin “digged it” sukh , “to interweave” or “interlace” ( Job 10:11, the Revised Version (British and American) “clothed”); male’ , “to be or become full” ( 2 Samuel 23:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “armed,” margin “Hebrew filled”).

ERV has “fence” for “wall” ( Numbers 22:24; Isaiah 5:5; Hosea 2:6; the American Standard Revised Version retains “wall”), for “hedge” ( Ecclesiastes 10:8; Ezekiel 13:5; 22:30; the American Standard Revised Version “wall”); “fenced” for “walled” ( Numbers 13:28; Deuteronomy 1:28; the American Standard Revised Version “fortified”); compare for “strong” Joshua 19:29; Nehemiah 9:25; <19A810> Psalm 108:10 (margin Joshua 19:29, “the city of Mibzar-zor, that is, the fortress of Tyre,” the English Revised Version ,”fenced”), for “hedged” ( Lamentations 3:7, American Revised Version, “walled”); compare for “defenced,” the English Revised Version “fenced,” the American Standard Revised Version “fortified” ( Isaiah 36:1; 37:26, etc.); “fences” for “hedges” ( Psalm 80:12, the American Standard Revised Version “walls”); in Jeremiah 49:3, the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version have “fences.” See also HEDGE.

W. L. Walker FENCED CITIES See FORTIFICATION.

FERRET <fer’-et > ([ hq;n;a\ , ‘anaqah ], the Revised Version (British and American) GECKO ): Occurs only in Leviticus11:30 the King James Version, in the list of animals which are unclean “among the creeping things that creep upon the earth.” the Revised Version (British and American) has “gecko” with the marginal note, “Words of uncertain meaning, but probably denoting four kinds of lizards.” The list of animals in Leviticus11:29,30 includes (1) choledh , English Versions of the Bible “weasel”; (2) `akhbar , English Versions of the Bible “mouse”; (3) tsabh , the King James Version “tortoise,” the Revised Version (British and American) “great lizard”; (4) ‘anaqkah , the King James Version “ferret,” the Revised Version (British and American) “gecko”; (5) koach the King James Version “chameleon,” the Revised Version (British and American) “land crocodile”; (6) leTa’ah , English Versions of the Bible “lizard”; (7) chomeT , the King James Version “snail,” the Revised Version (British and American) “sand lizard”; (8) tinshemeth , the King James Version “mole,” the Revised Version (British and American) “chameleon.”

It will be noted that while Revised Version makes the first two mammals and the remaining six reptiles, the King James Version makes not only (1) and (2) but also (4) and (8) mammals, and (7) a mollusk. So far as this general classification is concerned the King James Version follows the Septuagint, except in the case of (7). It must be borne in mind that all these words except (2) and (8) occur only in this passage, while (2) and (8) occur each in only a few passages where the context throws but uncertain light upon the meaning. Under these circumstances we ought to be content with the rendering of the Septuagint, unless from philology or tradition we can show good reason for differing. For ‘anaqah , Septuagint has [muga>jlh, mugale ], which occurs in Herodotus and Aristotle and may be a shrew mouse or a field mouse. Just as the next word, koach , is found in other passages (see CHAMELEON ) with the meaning of “strength,” so ‘anaqah occurs in several places signifying “moaning” or “sighing” ( Psalm 12:5; 79:11; 102:20; Malachi 2:13). It seems to be from the root, ‘anaq , “to choke,” “to be in anguish” (compare `anaq , “a collar”; chanaq , “to choke”; Arabic `unq , “neck”; Arabic khanaq , “to strangle”; Greek [ajna>gkh, anagke ]; Latin angustus; German enge, Nacken; English “anxious,” “neck”). Some creature seems to be meant which utters a low cry or squeak, and neither “ferret” (the King James Version) nor “gecko” (Revised Version (British and American)) seems to have a better claim than the older Septuagint rendering of [muga>lh, mugale ] = “shrew mouse” or “field mouse.” Alfred Ely Day FERRY-BOAT <fer’-i-bot > ( 2 Samuel 19:18). See SHIPS AND BOATS.

FERVENT <fur’-vent > ([ ql”D; , dalaq ]; [ejktenh>v, ektenes ], [ze>w, zeo ]): “Fervent” (from Latin fervere, “to boil”) does not occur in the King James Version of the Old Testament, but the Revised Version (British and American) gives it as the translation of dalaq , “to burn” ( Proverbs 26:23), instead of “burning,” “fervent lips and a wicked heart.” In the New Testament it is the translation of ektenes , “stretched out,” hence, intent, earnest ( 1 Peter 4:8, “being fervent in your love among yourselves”); of zeo , “to boil,” “to be hot” ( Romans 12:11, “fervent in spirit,” Acts 18:25); of zelos , “zeal,” “fervor” ( 2 Corinthians 7:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “zeal”), in Jas 5:16 the King James Version has: “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” where the Greek is: polu ischuei deesis dikaiou energoumene , which the Revised Version (British and American) renders, “The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working.” “Fervently” is the translation of agonizomai , “to strive or struggle” (agonize), Colossians 4:12 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “Epaphras .... striving for you in his prayers”; of ektenos , literally, in an outstretched manner ( 1 Peter 1:22, the Revised Version (British and American) “Love one another from the heart fervently”; compare 1 Peter 4:8, “fervent in your love among yourselves”). Christian love too often lacks this fervency, but Christ’s love for us was “stretched out” to the uttermost.

The Revised Version (British and American) has “fervently” for “earnestly” (Jas 5:17, margin “with prayer”). W. L. Walker FESTIVAL <fes’-ti-val > . See FEASTS AND FASTS.

FESTUS; PORCIUS <fes’-tus > , <por’-shi-us > [ Po>rkiov Fh~stov, Porkios Phestos ]): The Roman governor or procurator who succeeded Felix in the province of Judea ( Acts 24:27), and was thus brought into prominence in the dispute between Paul and the Sanhedrin which continued after the retirement of Felix (Acts 25; 26). Upon the arrival of Festus in Jerusalem, the official capital of his province, the Jews besought of him to send Paul from Caesarea to Jerusalem to appear before them, intending to kill him on the way ( Acts 25:3). Festus at first refused their request, and upon his return to Caesarea proceeded himself to examine Paul ( Acts 25:6). But on finding that the evidence was conflicting, and reflecting that, as the accused was apparently charged on religious rather than on political grounds, the Sanhedrin was a more suitable court for his case than a Roman tribunal, he asked Paul if he were agreeable to make the journey to Jerusalem ( Acts 25:7-9). But Paul, who knew well the nefarious use that the Jews would make of the pleasure which Festus was willing to grant them, made his appeal unto Caesar ( Acts 25:10,11). To this request of a Roman citizen accused on a capital charge (compare Acts 25:16), Festus had perforce to give his consent ( Acts 25:12). But the manner of his consent indicated his pique at the apparent distrust shown by Paul. By the words “unto Caesar shalt thou go,” Festus implied that the case must now be proceeded with to the end: otherwise, had it been left in his own hands, it might have been quashed at an earlier stage (compare also Acts 26:32). Meantime King Agrippa and Bernice had arrived in Caesarea, and to these Festus gave a brief explanation of the circumstances ( Acts 25:13-21). The previous audiences of Festus with Paul and his accusers had, however, served only to confuse him as to the exact nature of the charge. Paul was therefore summoned before the regal court, in order both that Agrippa might hear him, and that the governor might obtain more definite information for insertion in the report he was required to send along with the prisoner to Rome ( Acts 25:22-27). The audience which followed was brought to an abrupt conclusion by the interruption of Paul’s speech ( Acts 26:1-23) by Festus: “Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad” ( Acts 26:24). Yet the meeting was sufficient to convince both Agrippa and Festus that “this man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds” ( Acts 26:31). While Festus displayed a certain contempt for what he regarded as the empty delusions of a harmless maniac, his conduct throughout the whole proceeding was marked by a strict impartiality; and his straightforward dealing with Paul formed a marked contrast to the dilatoriness of Felix. The praise bestowed upon the latter by Tertullus ( Acts 24:2) might with better reason have been bestowed on Festus, in that he freed the country from many robbers (Sicarii: Josephus, Ant, XX, viii-x; BJ, II, xiv, 1); but his procuratorship was too short to undo the harm wrought by his predecessor. The exact date of his accession to office is uncertain, and has been variously placed at 55-61 AD (compare Knowling in Expositor’s Greek Testament, II, 488-89; see also FELIX). C.M. Kerr FETCH <fech > ([ jq”l; , laqach ]): Has generally the meaning of “to bring”; it is commonly the translation of Hebrew laqach , “to take” or “lay hold of,” Hoph. “to be brought, seized or snatched away” ( Genesis 18:4, etc.; 27:9, etc.; 42:16; 1 Samuel 4:3; 1 Kings 17:10, etc.); twice of nasa’ , “to lift up” ( 2 Chronicles 12:11, the American Standard Revised Version “bare”; Job 36:3); of bo’ , “to come in” ( 2 Chronicles 1:17; Nehemiah 8:15); of `alah , “to cause to come up” ( 1 Samuel 6:21; 7:1); of yatsa’ , “to cause to come out” ( Numbers 20:10, the American Standard Revised Version “bring forth”; Jeremiah 26:23), and of a number of other words.

In the New Testament it is the translation of exago , “to lead out” ( Acts 16:37, “Let them come themselves and fetch us out,” the Revised Version (British and American) “bring”); “to fetch a compass” is the translation of cabhabh ( Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:3, the Revised Version (British and American) “turn,” “turned about”; 2 Samuel 5:23, the Revised Version (British and American) “make a circuit”; 2 Kings 3:9, the Revised Version (British and American) “made a circuit”); of perierchomai (aor. 2, perielthon ), “to go about,” “to wander up and down” (of a ship driven about; Acts 28:13, the Revised Version (British and American) “made a circuit,” margin “some ancient authorities read cast loose”).

The Revised Version (British and American) has “fetch” for “bring” ( Kings 3:24), for “call for” ( Acts 10:5; 11:13); “fetched” for “called for” ( Nehemiah 5:10), for “took out” ( Jeremiah 37:17); “fetched” for “took” ( 2 Chronicles 8:18). W. L. Walker FETTER <fet’-er > : Found only in the plural in both Old Testament and New Testament; fetters of iron ( <19A518> Psalm 105:18; 149:8; so probably Mark 5:4; Luke 8:29) or brass ( Judges 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7) were frequently used for securing prisoners. See CHAIN.

Figurative: of trouble ( Job 36:8).

FEVER <fe’-ver > ([ tj”D”q” , qaddachath ], [ tq,L,D” , dalleqeth ]; [pureto>v, puretos ], derived from a root signifying “to burn”): A generic term, applied to all diseases characterized by high temperature of body. Several forms of febrile disease are among the commonest of all maladies in Palestine today, as they were also in the period covered by the Bible history. Of these the most prevalent is ague or intermittent malarial fever, which is common in all parts but especially in low-lying districts or places where there are pools or marshes in which mosquitoes breed, these insects being the commonest carriers of the malaria bacillus. These fevers are generally more severe in late summer and autumn, when the mosquitoes are most numerous, and when there is a liability to chill, owing to the sudden drop of temperature at sunset. During the day one uses as light clothing as possible, but immediately after sunset the air becomes chilly and damp, and the physiological resistance to the influence of the parasite is remarkably diminished. On this account travelers in Palestine at this season should be particular to avoid exposure to these evening damps, and to use mosquito curtains invariably at night. In most tropical countries now houses are rendered mosquito-proof by close wire netting, and thereby the risk of infection is much diminished. In Palestine the marshes of the north about Banias and the Water of Merom, the Shephelah, and the Jordan valley are the most fever-stricken regions of the country. The word qaddachath is translated burning ague in Leviticus26:16 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “fever”), and is coupled with dalleqeth , translated inflammation in Deuteronomy 28:22. Septuagint renders the former word puretos , and the latter rhigos in this passage, a collocation which is interesting as Galen uses these words together rhigopuretos in his description of a fever identical with that common in Palestine. In Leviticusthe word in Septuagint is ikteros which literally means jaundice, a disease otherwise not mentioned in the Bible. In Palestine as in other malarious countries the condition of jaundice or yellowing of the skin frequently accompanies repeated and protracted attacks of fever which cause organic disease of the liver. On this account Hippocrates describes all fevers as due to a perverted secretion of bile.

These fevers begin with severe shivering fits, hence, the name rhigos which is used by Hippocrates. This is followed by a period of burning dry heat, ending in a period of profuse perspiration. Such attacks may take place daily, a few hours of interval with normal temperature separating the end of one fit from the onset of the next. The commonest type however is that called tertian, in which a whole day separates one fit from the next. In some of the severe fevers which are rife in the Jordan valley the temperature never falls to the normal, and while there is a short remission between the attacks with a body heat a little above the normal, there is no intermission. Rarer febrile conditions which have been met with in Palestine, such as the Malta fever, present the same characteristics and may continue for months. Cases also of genuine blackwater fever have been recorded by several authorities. It is probable that in former days these fevers were even worse than they are now, as ancient medicine knew of no certain remedy for them. At present they generally yield at once to treatment by quinine, and in my own experience I believe that the administration of this remedy in large and repeated doses is the most effectual treatment.

Other febrile diseases are rife in certain districts in Palestine, and probably existed in Bible times. Typhoid is common in some crowded towns and villages, and considering how little protected the wells are from contamination, the wonder is that it is not much more prevalent. It is probable also that typhus then, as now, was present as an occasional epidemic in the more crowded cities, but even the physicians of Greece and Rome did not differentiate these diseases. All these fevers seem also to have existed in Egypt to much the same extent as in Palestine. The Papyrus Ebers speaks of “a fever of the gods” (46) and another called “a burning of the heart” (102). Its causation is attributed to the influence of the “god of fever,” and the evil sequelae of the disease as it affects the heart, stomach, eyes and other organs are described in terms which remind us of the minatory passages in Leviticus26 and Deuteronomy 28. The conditions there mentioned, such as consuming the eyes and causing sorrow of heart or pining away of the soul, graphically describe the state frequently seen affecting those in the Shephelah villages who have suffered from frequent returns of fever, and who in consequence have developed serious local affections of the liver, spleen and other organs. Before the introduction of quinine, cases of this kind must have been much more commonly met with than they are now. It is probable that this state is that called shachepheth , or consumption, in these passages.

Another form of fever, charchur , the “extreme burning” of the King James Version or “fiery heat” of the Revised Version (British and American), is coupled with the other forms of fever in Deuteronomy 28:22. This is called in Septuagint erethismos or irritation, and may have been a feverish condition with a reddened skin, possibly erysipelas or else one of the eruptive fevers. At present outbreaks of scarlatina, measles and erysipelas are of fairly frequent occurrence and are often very severe.

In the New Testament fever is mentioned eight times. The disease which affected Simon’s wife’s mother is called a “great fever” ( Luke 4:38), and that which nearly proved fatal to the nobleman’s son in the same district was also a fever ( John 4:52). Cases of the kind are common all round the Sea of Galilee at the present day. Alexander Macalister FIELD <feld > . See AGRICULTURE.

FIERY HEAT <fi’-er-i > , <fir’-i het > : In Deuteronomy 28:22, where the King James Version has “an extreme burning.” See FEVER.

FIERY SERPENT See SERPENT.

FIG, FIG-TREE <fig’-tre > ([ hn;aeT] , te’enah ], plural [ µyniaeT] , te’enim ], specially “figs”; [ µyGiP” , paggim ], “green figs” only in Song of Solomon of Solomon 2:13; [sukh~, suke ], “fig-tree,” [su~kon, sukon ], “fig”):

1. FIG-TREES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

The earliest Old Testament reference to the fig is to the leaves, which Adam and Eve converted into aprons ( Genesis 3:7). The promised land was described ( Deuteronomy 8:8) as “a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates,” etc. The spies who visited it brought, besides the cluster of grapes, pomegranates and figs ( Numbers 13:23). The Israelites complained that the wilderness was “no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates” ( Numbers 20:5).

When Egypt was plagued, the fig-trees were smitten ( <19A533> Psalm 105:33); a similar punishment was threatened to unfaithful Israel ( Jeremiah 5:17; Hosea 2:12; Amos 4:9). It is only necessary to ride a few miles among the mountain villages of Palestine, with their extensive fig gardens, to realize what a long-lasting injury would be the destruction of these slowgrowing trees. Years of patient labor — such as that briefly hinted at in Luke 13:7 — must pass before a newly planted group of fig-trees can bear profitably. Plenitude of fruitful vines and fig-trees, specially individual ownership, thus came to be emblematical of long-continued peace and prosperity. In the days of Solomon “Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree” ( 1 Kings 4:25). Compare also 2 Kings 18:31; Isaiah 36:16; Micah 4:4; Zec 3:10; 1 Macc 14:12. Only a triumphal faith in Yahweh could rejoice in Him “though the fig-tree shall hot flourish” ( Habakkuk 3:17).

2. NATURAL HISTORY OF THE FIG-TREE:

The Ficus carica, which produces the common fig, is a tree belonging to the Natural Order. Urticaceae, the nettle family, which includes also the banyan, the India rubber fig-tree, the sycamore fig and other useful plants.

Fig-trees are cultivated all over the Holy Land, especially in the mountain regions. Wild fig-trees — usually rather shrubs than trees — occur also everywhere; they are usually barren and are described by the fellahin as “male” trees; it is generally supposed that their presence is beneficial to the cultivated variety. The immature flowers harbor small insects which convey pollen to the female flowers and by their irritating presence stimulate the growth of the fruit. Artificial fertilization has been understood since ancient times, and there may be a reference to it in Amos 7:14.

Fig-trees are usually of medium height, 10 or 15 ft. for full-grown trees, yet individual specimens sometimes attain as much as 25 ft. The summer foliage is thick and surpasses other trees of its size in its cool and dense shade. In the summer owners of such trees may be seen everywhere sitting in their shadow ( John 1:48). Such references as Mac 4:4; Zec 3:10, etc., probably are to this custom rather than to the not uncommon one of having a fig-tree overhanging a dwelling.

3. FIGS:

The fruit of the fig-tree is peculiar. The floral axis, instead of expanding outward, as with most flowers, closes, as the flower develops, upon the small internal flowers, leaving finally but a small opening at the apex; the axis itself becomes succulent and fruit-like. The male flowers lie around the opening, the female flowers deeper in; fertilization is brought about by the presence of small hymenopterous insects.

There are many varieties of figs in Palestine differing in sweetness, in color and consistence; some are good and some are bad (compare Jeremiah 24:1,8; 29:17). In Palestine and other warm climates the fig yields two crops annually — an earlier one, ripe about June, growing from the “old wood,” i.e. from the midsummer sprouts of the previous year, and a second, more important one, ripe about August, which grows upon the “new wood,” i.e. upon the spring shoots. By December, fig-trees in the mountainous regions of Palestine have shed all their leaves, and they remain bare until about the end of March, when they commence putting forth their tender leaf buds ( Matthew 24:32; Mark 13:28,32; Luke 21:29-33), and at the same time, in the leaf axils, appear the tiny figs. They belong to the early signs of spring: “The voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land; The fig-tree ripeneth her green figs” (paggim) — Song of Solomon 2:12,13.

4. EARLY FIGS:

These tiny figs develop along with the leaves up to a certain point — to about the size of a small cherry — and then the great majority of them fall to the ground, carried down with every gust of wind. These are the “unripe figs” (olunthos ) — translated, more appropriately in the King James Version, as “untimely figs” — of Revelation 6:13. Compare also Isaiah 34:4 the King James Version — in the Revised Version (British and American) “leaf” has been supplied instead of “fig.” These immature figs are known to the fellahin as taksh, by whom they are eaten as they fall; they may even sometimes be seen exposed for sale in the markets in Jerusalem. In the case of many trees the whole of this first crop may thus abort, so that by May no figs at all are to be found on the tree, but with the best varieties of fig-trees a certain proportion of the early crop of figs remains on the tree, and this fruit reaches ripe perfection about June. Such fruit is known in Arabic as dafur, or “early figs,” and in Hebrew as bikkurah , “the first-ripe” ( Isaiah 28:4; Jeremiah 24:2; Hosea 9:10). They are now, as of old, esteemed for their delicate flavor ( Micah 7:1, etc.).

5. THE CURSING OF THE BARREN FIG-TREE:

The miracle of our Lord ( Matthew 21:18-20; Mark 11:12,13,10,21) which occurred in the Passover season, about April, will be understood (as far as the natural phenomena are concerned) by the account given above of the fruiting of the fig-tree, as repeatedly observed by the present writer in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. When the young leaves are newly appearing, in April, every fig-tree which is going to bear fruit at all will have some taksh (“immature figs”) upon it, even though “the time of figs” ( Mark 11:13 the King James Version), i.e. of ordinary edible figs — either early or late crop — ”was not yet.” This taksh is not only eaten today, but it is sure evidence, even when it falls, that the tree bearing it is not barren. This acted parable must be compared with Luke 13:6,9; now the time of judgment was surely coming, the fate of the fruitless Jewish nation was forcibly foretold.

6. DRIED FIGS:

While fresh figs have always been an important article of diet in their season ( Nehemiah 13:15) the dried form is even more used. They are today dried in the sun and threaded on strings (like long necklaces) for convenience of carriage. A “cake of figs” (debhelah , literally, “pressed together”) is mentioned ( 1 Samuel 30:12); Abigail gave 200 such cakes of figs to David ( 1 Samuel 25:18); the people of North Israel sent, with other things, “cakes of figs” as a present to the newly-crowned David ( 1 Chronicles 12:40). Such masses of figs are much used today — they can be cut into slices with a knife like cheese. Such a mass was used externally for Hezekiah’s “boil” ( Isaiah 38:21; 2 Kings 20:7); it was a remedy familiar to early medical writers. E. W. G. Masterman FIGHT See WAR; GAMES.

FIGURE <fig’-ur > , <fig’-yur > ([ lm,s, , lm,se , cemel, cemel ]; [tu>pov, tupos ]): The translation of cemel , or cemel , “a likeness or image”; perhaps a transposition of tselem , the usual word for likeness; it is elsewhere translated “idol” and “image” ( Deuteronomy 4:16, “the similitude of any figure,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in the form of any figure”); of tabhnith , “form or likeness” ( Isaiah 44:13, “shapeth it (the idol) .... after the figure of a man”; compare Deuteronomy 4:16); of miqla`ath , “carving,” “carved work” ( 1 Kings 6:29: “And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers, within and without,” only here and in Kings 6:32; 7:31 where the word is translated “carving” and “graying”); in the New Testament “figure” is the translation of tupos , primarily “a mark,” “print,” “impression,” “something made by blows,” hence, “figure,” “statue,” tropically “form,” “manner”; a person bearing the form or figure of another, having a certain resemblance, preceding another to come, model, exemplar ( Acts 7:43), “the figures (images) which ye made to worship them”; Romans 5:14, “who is the figure (Revised Version, “a figure”) of him that was to come,” that is, the first Adam was a type of the second Adam, Christ; of antitupon , that which corresponds to a type or model ( Hebrews 9:24 the King James Version, “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself”); the meaning is simply the correspondence, or likeness (of the tabernacle to heaven), therefore the Revised Version (British and American) renders “like in pattern to the true” ( 1 Peter 3:21, “the like figure whereunto (even) baptism doth also now save us,” i.e. baptism is the antitype of the ark “wherein .... eight souls were saved (or brought safely) through water,” Revised Version “which also after a true likeness (m “in the antitype”) doth now save you even baptism”); of parabole , “a placing alongside”, a “comparison,” “similitude,” hence, image, figure, type ( Hebrews 9:9, “which was a figure for the time then present,” the American Standard Revised Version “which is a figure for the time present,” the English Revised Version “parable” and “(now) present,” namely, the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies was a type of Christ’s entrance into heaven; 11:19, “from whence (from the dead) also he received him in a figure,” i.e. Abraham received Isaac back from the dead as it were, in the likeness of a resurrection, he not being actually dead, the American Standard Revised Version “from whence he did also in a figure receive him back,” the English Revised Version “in a parable”); metaschematizo , “to change the form or appearance,” “to transfer figuratively” ( 1 Corinthians 4:6,”These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos”; the Geneva version reads “I have figuratively described in my own person”). Paul is “substituting himself and Apollos for the teachers most in repute at Corinth that he might thus avoid personality.” “Figure” is supplied in Ecclesiasticus 49:9, with en ombro , “He made mention of the enemies under the figure of the rain,” the Revised Version (British and American) “He remembered the enemies in storm,” margin “(Greek) rain.”

The Revised Version (British and American) has “a figure” margin “an interpretation,” for “the interpretation” ( Proverbs 1:6; the word is melitsah , only here and Habakkuk 2:6, meaning properly what is involved and needs interpretation; in Habakkuk 2:6 it is translated “taunting proverb,” the Revised Version, margin “riddle”); “figured stone” for “image of stone” (Leviticus26:1); “figured stones” for “pictures” ( Numbers 33:52). W. L. Walker FILE <fil > : Found only in 1 Samuel 13:21, but the text here is obscure. The Hebrew (petsirah phim ) signifies “bluntness of edge,” and is so rendered in the Revised Version, margin. See TOOLS.

FILLET <fil’-et > ([ fWj , chuT ], [ qvuj; , chashuq ]): (1) Chut , from a root not used, meaning probably “to sew,” therefore a string or a measuring rod or cord, and so a line, tape, thread, fillet. Jeremiah 52:21 translated “line” (the King James Version “fillet”), measuring 12 cubits long, encircling brass pillars standing 18 cubits high, part of the temple treasure plundered by the Chaldeans; and many other things “that were in the house of Yahweh, did the Chaldeans break in pieces.” Translated “thread,” used by Rahab, in Joshua 2:18, and “cord,” “three fold .... is not quickly broken,” in Ecclesiastes 4:12. (2) Chashuq , from a root meaning “to join” and therefore something joined or attached, and so a rail or rod between pillars, i.e. a fillet. The hangings of the court of the tabernacle were supported by brass pillars set in brass sockets, “The hooks of the pillars and their fillets shall be of silver” ( Exodus 27:10,11). The embroidered screen for the door of the Tent was supported by five pillars socketed in brass: “And he overlaid their capitals and their fillets with gold” ( Exodus 36:38). The pillars for the court and the gate of the court had fillets of silver ( Exodus 38:10 ff).

The verb is used in Exodus 27:17; 38:17, “All the pillars of the court were filleted with silver.” William Edward Raffety FILTH; FILTHINESS; FILTHY <filth > , <fil’-thi-nes > , <fil’-thi > ([ ha;wOx , tso’ah ], [ ha;m]fu , Tum’ah ]; [rJupo>w, rhupoo ]): The word once translated “filth” in the Old Testament is tso’ah , “excrement” or “dung,” elsewhere translated “dung” ( Isaiah 4:4, used figuratively of evil doings, sin, “the filth of the daughters of Zion”; compare Proverbs 30:12); in the New Testament we have perikatharma “cleansings” “sweepings,” offscourings ( 1 Corinthians 4:13, “We are made as the filth of the world,” the Revised Version, margin “or refuse”); rhupos , “filth,” “dirt,” Septuagint for tso’ah in Isaiah 4:4 ( 1 Peter 3:21, “the filth of the flesh”). “Filthiness” is the translation of tum’ah , “uncleanness” (ritual, Leviticus5:3; 7:20, etc.), used figuratively of moral impurity, translated “filthiness” (Ezr 6:21; Lamentations 1:9; Ezekiel 22:15; 24:11,13 bis; 36:25); niddah , “impurity” ( 2 Chronicles 29:5); figuratively (Ezr 9:11); the Revised Version (British and American) has “uncleanness,” but “filthiness” for uncleanness at close of verse (niddah ); nechosheth , “brass,” figuratively (for “impurity” or “impudence”) ( Ezekiel 16:36); aischrotes , primarily “ugliness,” tropical for unbecomingness, indecency (only Ephesians 5:4, “nor filthiness, nor foolish talking”; Alford has “obscenity,” Weymouth, “shameful”); akathartes , “uncleanness” ( Revelation 17:4 the King James Version), corrected text, ta akatharta , “the unclean things,” so the Revised Version (British and American). “Filthy” is the translation of ‘alach , “to be turbid,” to become foul or corrupt in a moral sense ( Job 15:16 the King James Version; Psalm 14:3; 53:3); `iddim , plural of `iddah , from `adhadh , “to number or compute (monthly courses)”; Isaiah 64:6, “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” the Revised Version (British and American) “as a polluted garment”; compare Ezekiel 36:17; aischros , “ugly,” tropical for unbecoming, shameful ( Titus 1:11, “for filthy lucre’s sake”; compare 1:7); shameful discourse aischrologia ( Colossians 3:8 the King James Version); rhupoo , “filthy,” in a moral sense polluted ( Revelation 22:11, “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still,” the Revised Version (British and American) “let him be made filthy still” (corrected text), margin “yet more”; Alford, “Let the filthy (morally polluted) pollute himself still” (in the constant middle sense of passive verbs when the act depends on the man’s self)).

In Apocrypha we have (Ecclesiasticus 22:1): “A slothful man is compared to a filthy (ardaloo ) stone,” the Revised Version (British and American) “a stone that is defiled,” 22:2 “A slothful man is compared to the filth (bolbiton ) of a dunghill”; 27:4 “So the filth (skubalon ) of a man in his talk (the Revised Version (British and American) “of man in his reasoning”) remaineth.” See UNCLEANNESS.

W. L. Walker FIN See FISH.

FINE <fin > (adj., from Latin finire, “to finish”): Indicates superior quality. Only in a few instances does “fine” represent a separate word: (1) Tobh , “good,” qualifies gold ( 2 Chronicles 3:5,8, “fine gold”; compare Genesis 2:12, “good”); fine gold ( Lamentations 4:1, the King James Version “most fine gold,” the Revised Version (British and American) “most pure gold,” literally, “good fine gold”), copper (Ezr 8:27, the Revised Version (British and American) “fine bright brass”); Tabh , Aramaic ( Daniel 2:32, “fine gold”). (2) paz , “refined” ( Song of Solomon 5:11, “the most fine gold”). (3) chelebh , “fatness,” “the best of any kind”; compare Genesis 45:18; Deuteronomy 32:14, etc. ( Psalm 81:16, “the finest of the wheat,” the Revised Version, margin Hebrew “fat of wheat”). (4) sariq , “fine combed” ( Isaiah 19:9, “fine flax,” the Revised Version (British and American) “combed flax”).

In other places it expresses a quality of the substantive: kethem , “fine gold” ( Job 31:24; Daniel 10:5, the Revised Version (British and American) “pure gold”); paz , used as a noun for refined gold ( Job 28:17; Psalm 19:10; Proverbs 8:19; Isaiah 13:12; Lamentations 4:2); charuts , “fine gold” ( Proverbs 3:14; compare Psalm 68:13, “yellow gold”); coleth , “flour,” rendered “fine flour,” rolled or crushed small (Leviticus2:1,4,5,7, etc.); semidalis , “the finest wheaten flour” ( Revelation 18:13); qemach coleth , “fine meal” ( Genesis 18:6); cadhin , “linen garment” (Septuagint sindon , Proverbs 31:24 the King James Version; Isaiah 3:23); shesh , “white,” “fine linen” ( Genesis 41:42; Exodus 25:4, etc.); in Proverbs 31:22 the King James Version has “silk”; sheshi ( Ezekiel 16:13, “fine flour”); ‘eTun , “what is twisted or spun,” “yarn” ( Proverbs 7:16 the King James Version, “fine linen of Egypt” the Revised Version (British and American) “yarn of Egypt”); buts , “fine white cloth,” “cotton or linen,” “fine linen” ( Chronicles 4:21; Ezekiel 27:16, etc.; 2 Chronicles 5:12, King James Version “white,” the Revised Version (British and American) “fine”); bussos , “byssus,” “linen” from buts Septuagint for which, 2 Chronicles 2:14; 3:14), deemed very fine and precious, worn only by the rich ( Luke 16:19; Revelation 18:12); bussinos , “byssine” made of fine linen, Septuagint for buts ( 1 Chronicles 5:27) ( Revelation 18:16, “clothed in fine linen,” the Revised Version (British and American) “arrayed,” Revelation 19:8,14); sindon , “fine linen” ( Mark 5:46, “He bought fine linen,” the Revised Version (British and American) “a linen cloth”; compare Mark 14:51,52; Matthew 27:59; Luke 23:53); it was used for wrapping the body at night, also for wrapping round dead bodies; sindon is Septuagint for cadhin ( Judges 14:12,13; Proverbs 31:24); chalkolibanon ( Revelation 1:15; 2:18, the King James Version “fine brass”).

The meaning of this word has been much discussed; chalkos is “brass” in Greek (with many compounds), and libanos is the Septuagint for lebhonah , “frankincense,” which word was probably derived from the root labhan , “to burn”; this would give glowing brass, “as if they burned in a furnace”; in Daniel 10:6 it is nehosheth qalal , the King James Version “polished brass,” the Revised Version (British and American) “burnished” (qalal is “to glow”). Plumptre deemed it a hybrid word composed of the Greek chalkos , “brass,” and the Hebrew labhan , “white,” a technical word, such as might be familiar to the Ephesians; the Revised Version (British and American) has “burnished brass”; Weymouth, “silver-bronze when it is white-hot in a furnace”; the whiteness being expressed by the second half of the Greek word. See Thayer’s Lexicon (s.v.).

In Apocrypha we have “fine linen,” bussinos (1 Esdras 3:6), “fine bread”; the adjective katharos , separate (Judith 10:5, the Revised Version, margin “pure bread”); “fine flour” (Ecclesiasticus 35:2; 38:11); semidalis (Bel and the Dragon verse 3; 2 Macc 1:8, the Revised Version (British and American) “meal offering”). W. L. Walker FINER; FINING <fin’-er > , <fin’-ing > ( Proverbs 25:4 the King James Version). See REFINER.

FINES <finz > . See PUNISHMENTS.

FINGER <fin’-ger > (Hebrew and Aramaic [ [B”x]a, , ‘etsba `]; [da>ktulov, daktulos ]): The fingers are to the Oriental essential in conversation; their language is frequently very eloquent and expressive. They often show what the mouth does not dare to utter, especially grave insult and scorn. The scandalous person is thus described in Proverbs 6:13 as “teaching” or “making signs with his fingers.” Such insulting gestures (compare e.g. the gesture of Shimei in throwing dust or stones at David, 2 Samuel 16:6) are even now not infrequent in Palestine. The same habit is alluded to in Isaiah 58:9 by the expression, “putting forth of fingers. “ The fingers were decorated with rings of precious metal, which, with other jewelry worn ostentatiously on the body, often formed the only possession of the wearer, and were therefore carefully guarded. In the same way the law of Yahweh was to be kept: “Bind them (my commandments) upon thy fingers; write them upon the tablet of thy heart” ( Proverbs 7:3).

Figurative: In 1 Kings 12:10 and 2 Chronicles 10:10 Rehoboam gives the remarkable answer to his dissatisfied people, which is, at the same time, an excellent example of the use of figurative language in the Orient: “My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins,” a figure explained in the next verse: “Whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” The Hebrew word used here for little finger is [ ˆf,qo , qoTen ], literally, “pettiness,” “unimportant thing.”

The “finger of God,” like the “hand of God,” is synonymous with power, omnipotence, sometimes with the additional meaning of the infallible evidence of Divine authorship visible in all His works ( Psalm 8:3; Luke 11:20), especially in His law ( Exodus 8:19; 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10; compare Exodus 32:15,16).

The finger or digit as a linear measure is mentioned in Jeremiah 52:21 (Greek daktulos ; Josephus, Ant, VIII, in, 4). It is equal to one fingerbreadth, 1/4 of a hand-breadth (palm) = 18,6 millimeters or .73 inches. H. L. E. Luering FINGER <fin’-ger > ([ [B”x]a, , ‘etsba `]): The smallest of the Hebrew linear measures. It was equal to the breadth of the finger, or about 3/4 inches, four of which made a palm ( Jeremiah 52:21). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

FINISH <fin’-ish > ([ hl;K; , kalah ]; [tele>w, teleo ], with other Hebrew and Greek words): The proper sense of “finish” is to end or complete; so for “finish,” “finished,” in the King James Version, there is sometimes met with in the Revised Version (British and American) the change to “complete” ( Luke 14:28; 2 Corinthians 8:6), “accomplish” ( John 4:34; 5:36; 17:4), “made an end of doing” ( 2 Chronicles 4:11; compare 24:14), etc.

In Jas 1:15, for “sin, when it is finished,” the Revised Version (British and American) reads “sin when it is full-grown,” corresponding to “conceived” of the previous clause. On the other hand, the Revised Version (British and American) has frequently “finished” for other words, as “ended” ( Genesis 2:2; Deuteronomy 31:30), “accomplished” ( John 19:28), “filled up,” “fulfilled” ( Revelation 15:1,8), etc. The grandest Scriptural example of the word is the cry upon the cross, “It is finished” (Tetelestai , John 19:30). W. L. Walker FINISHER <fin’-ish-er > ([teleiwth>v, teleiotes ]): This word is applied to Jesus ( Hebrews 12:2), and comes from teleioo , “to complete,” “to make perfect”; hence, it means finisher in the sense of completing; the King James Version “the author and finisher of our faith,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the author (margin “captain”) and perfecter of our faith”; but “our” is supplied, and in the connection in which the passage stands — after the examples which have been adduced of the power of faith — most probably the best rendering is “the Leader (or Captain) and Perfecter of the Faith,” that is of the faith which has been illustrated by those mentioned in Hebrews 11, who are as “a great cloud of witnesses” to the power of faith; but above all “looking to Jesus, our Leader” in whom it was perfected, as is shown in what follows: “who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,” etc. “In His human nature He exhibited Faith in its highest form, from first to last, and placing Himself as it were at the head of the great army of heroes of Faith, He carried Faith, the source of their strength, to its most complete perfection and to its loftiest triumph” (Westcott). W. L. Walker FIR; FIR-TREE <fur > , (the Revised Version, margin “cypress”; [ vwOrB] , berosh ], Samuel 6:5; 1 Kings 5:8,10, etc.; ([ µytiwrB] , berothem ] (plural only), an Aramaic form, Song of Solomon 1:17):

1. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:

This tree was one of the chief trees of Lebanon ( Isaiah 60:13); one of usefulness ( Isaiah 41:19; 55:13); associated with the cedar ( 2 Kings 19:23; <19A417> Psalm 104:17; Isaiah 14:8; Zec 11:2); its boughs were wide and great ( Ezekiel 31:8); it was evergreen ( Hosea 14:8); it could supply boards and timber for doors ( 1 Kings 6:15,24); beams for roofing the temple ( 2 Chronicles 3:5); planks for shipbuilding ( Ezekiel 27:5). In 2 Samuel 6:5 we read: “David and all the house of Israel played before Yahweh with all manner of instruments made of firwood,” etc. It is practically certain that the reading in the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 13:8 is more correct: “David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs,” etc. This view is supported by the Septuagint translation ([ejn pa>sh| duna>mei, en pase dunamei ]). There is therefore no necessity to suppose that berosh was a wood used for musical instruments.

2. THE IDENTITY OF “BEROSH”:

The identity of berosh is uncertain. It was a name applied either to several of the Coniferae in common or to one or more outstanding species. If the latter is the case we can only seek for the most suited to Old Testament requirements. The Aleppo pine, Pinus Halepensis , is a fine tree which flourishes in the Lebanon, but its wood is not of special excellence and durability. A better tree (or couple of trees) is the sherbin of the Syrians; this name includes two distinct varieties in the suborder Cypressineae, the fine tall juniper, Juniperis excelsa and the cypress, Cypressus sempervirens.

They both still occur in considerable numbers in the Lebanon and Anti- Lebanon; they are magnificent trees and produce excellent wood — resinous, fragrant, durable. If these trees were not classed locally, as now, under one name, then the cypress is of the two more probably the berosh .

The coffins of Egyptian mummies were made of cypress; a compact variety of this cypress is cultivated all over the Turkish empire by the Moslems as an ornament in cemeteries. From early times the cypress has been connected with mourning.

In the Apocrypha there are two definite references to the cypress ([kupa>rissov, kuparissos ]). In Sirach 24:13, Wisdom says: “I was exalted like a cedar in Libanus, And as a cypress tree on the mountains of Hermon.” And in Sirach 50:10 the high priest Simon is said to be “As an olive tree budding forth fruits, And as a cypress growing high among the clouds.” These passages, especially the former, certainly favor the idea that berosh was the cypress; the name may, however, have included allied trees. E. W. G. Masterman FIRE <fir > ([ vae , ‘esh ]; [pu~r, pur ]): These are the common words for fire, occurring very frequently. ‘Ur , “light” ( Isaiah 24:15 the King James Version; compare the Revised Version (British and American); 31:9, and see FIRES ), nur (Aramaic) ( Daniel 3:22 ff) are found a few times, also ‘eshshah ( Jeremiah 6:29), and be`erah ( Exodus 22:6), once each. Acts 28:2,3 has pura , “pyre,” and Mark 14:54; Luke 22:56, phos , “light,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in the light (of the fire).” “To set on fire,” yatsath ( 2 Samuel 14:31), lahat ( Deuteronomy 32:22, etc.), phlogizo (Jas 3:6).

Fire was regarded by primitive peoples as supernatural in origin and specially Divine. Molech, the fire-god, and other deities were worshipped by certain Canaanitish and other tribes with human sacrifices ( Deuteronomy 12:31; 2 Kings 17:31; <19A637> Psalm 106:37), and, although this was specially forbidden to the Israelites (Leviticus18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10), they too often lapsed into the practice ( 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 20:26,31). See MOLECH; IDOLATRY.

1. LITERAL USAGE:

Fire in the Old Testament is specially associated with the Divine presence, e.g. in the making of the Covenant with Abraham ( Genesis 15:17), in the burning bush. ( Exodus 3:2-4), in the pillar of fire ( Exodus 13:21), on Sinai ( Exodus 19:18), in the flame on the altar ( Judges 13:20). Yahweh was “the God that answereth by fire” ( 1 Kings 18:24,38). In the Law, therefore, sacrifices and offerings (including incense) were to be made by fire ( Exodus 12:8,9,10; Leviticus1). Fire from Yahweh signified the acceptance of certain special and separate sacrifices ( Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chronicles 21:26). In Leviticus9:24 the sacrificial fire “came forth from before Yahweh.” The altar-fire was to be kept continually burning (Leviticus6:12,13); offering by “strange fire” (other than the sacred altar-fire) was punished by “fire from before Yahweh” (Leviticus10:1,2). Fire came from heaven also at the consecration of Solomon’s Temple ( 2 Chronicles 7:1).

According to 2 Macc 1:19-22, at the time of the Captivity priests hid the sacred fire in a well, and Nehemiah found it again, in a miraculous way, for the second Temple. Later, Maccabeus is said to have restored the fire by “striking stones and taking fire out of them” (10:3).

Fire was a frequent instrument of the Divine primitive wrath ( Genesis 19:24; Exodus 9:23 (lightning); Numbers 11:1; 16:35, etc.; <19A404> Psalm 104:4, the American Standard Revised Version “Who maketh .... flames of fire his ministers”). Fire shall yet dissolve the world ( 2 Peter 3:12). It was frequently used by the Israelites as a means of destruction of idolatrous objects and the cities of their enemies ( Deuteronomy 7:5,25; 12:3; 13:16; Joshua 6:24; Jgs, frequently); sometimes also of punishment (Leviticus20:14; 21:9; Joshua 7:25; 2 Macc 7:5).

The domestic use of fire was, as among other peoples, for heating, cooking, lighting, etc., but according to the Law no fire could be kindled on the Sabbath day ( Exodus 35:3). It was employed also for melting ( Exodus 32:24), and refining ( Numbers 31:23; 3:2,3, etc.). For the sacrificial fire wood was used as fuel ( Genesis 22:3,1; Leviticus6:12); for ordinary purposes, also charcoal ( Proverbs 25:22; Isaiah 6:6, the Revised Version, margin “or hot stone”; Habakkuk 3:5, the Revised Version (British and American) “fiery bolts,” margin “or burning coals”; John 21:9, “a fire of coals” the Revised Version, margin “Gr, a fire of charcoal”; Romans 12:20); branches ( Numbers 15:32; 1 Kings 17:12); thorns ( Psalm 58:9; 118:12; Ecclesiastes 7:6; Isaiah 33:12); grass and other herbage ( Matthew 6:30; Luke 12:28).

2. FIGURATIVE USE:

Fire was an emblem (1) of Yahweh in His glory ( Daniel 7:9); (2) in His holiness ( Isaiah 6:4); (3) in His jealousy for His sole worship ( Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29; Psalm 79:5; perhaps also Isaiah 33:14); (4) of His protection of His people ( 2 Kings 6:17; Zec 2:5); (5) of His righteous judgment and purification (Zec 13:9; Malachi 3:2,3; 1 Corinthians 3:13,15); (6) of His wrath against sin and punishment of the wicked ( Deuteronomy 9:3; Psalm 18:8; 89:46; Isaiah 5:24; 30:33, “a Topheth is prepared of old”; Matthew 3:10-12; 5:22, the Revised Version (British and American) “the hell of fire,” margin “Greek, Gehenna of fire”; see Isaiah 30:33; Jeremiah 7:31; Matthew 13:40,42; 25:41, “eternal fire”; Mark 9:45-49; see Isaiah 66:24; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; Hebrews 10:27; Jude 1:7); (7) of the word of God in its power ( Jeremiah 5:14; 23:29); (8) of Divine truth ( Psalm 39:3; Jeremiah 20:9; Luke 12:49); (9) of that which guides men ( Isaiah 50:10,11); (10) of the Holy Spirit ( Acts 2:3); (11) of the glorified Christ ( Revelation 1:14); (12) of kindness in its melting power ( Romans 12:20); (13) of trial and suffering ( Psalm 66:12; Isaiah 43:2; 1 Peter 17; 4:12); (14) of evil ( Proverbs 6:27; 16:27; Isaiah 9:18; 65:5); lust or desire ( Hosea 7:6; Sirach 23:16; 1 Corinthians 7:9); greed ( Proverbs 30:16); (15) of the tongue in its evil aspects (Jas 3:5,6); (16) of heaven in its purity and glory ( Revelation 15:2; see also 21:22,23). W. L. Walker FIRE BAPTISM See BAPTISM OF FIRE; MOLECH.

FIRE, LAKE OF See LAKE OF FIRE.

FIRE, STRANGE See FIRE.

FIRE, UNQUENCHABLE See UNQUENCHABLE FIRE.

FIREBRAND <fir’-brand > ([ dWa , ‘udh ], used for a burning stick taken out of the fire):

In Judges 15:4,5 describing the “brands” (margin “torches”) which Samson tied to the foxes’ tails, the word is lappidh (“lamp”; see Judges 7:16,20 the Revised Version (British and American), “torches”). Other words are ziqqim , “sparks,” “flames” (fiery darts; Proverbs 26:18), and ziqoth ( Isaiah 50:11); ‘udh is used figuratively of angry men ( Isaiah 7:4), and of those mercifully rescued from destruction ( Amos 4:11; Zec 3:2; the Revised Version (British and American) “brand”). the Revised Version (British and American) gives “firebrand” as translation of moqedh (the King James Version “hearth”) in <19A203> Psalm 102:3, “My bones are burned as a firebrand” (margin “as a hearth”). See BRAND.

W. L. Walker FIREPAN <fir’-pan > ([ hT;j]m” , machtah ], “firepan,” “censer,” “snuffdish,” from [ ht;j; , chathah ], “to snatch up”): A vessel for carrying coals. Brazen firepans were part of the furnishings of the altar of burnt offerings ( Exodus 27:3; 38:3, and in Numbers 4:14, where the King James Version wrongly reads “censers,” the context indicating a vessel belonging to the brazen altar).

The same word is translated “snuffdishes” in Exodus 25:38; 37:23; Numbers 4:9, where it refers to golden firepans which belonged to the golden candlestick or lamp stand, and were used to receive the burnt ends of the wicks. In 1 Kings 7:50 and 2 Chronicles 4:22, although the King James Version reads “censers,” the context points to the firepans belonging to the candlestick; as also in 2 Kings 25:15 and Jeremiah 52:19, translated “firepans” in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American). A similar firepan designated by the same Hebrew word but translated “censer” was used to carry the burning coals upon which the incense was thrown and burned (Leviticus10:1; 16:12; Numbers 16:6,17 ff). See CENSER.

The firepan or censer of the Hebrews was doubtless similar to the censer of the Egyptians, pictures of which have been found. It consisted of a pan or pot for the coals, which was held by a straight or slightly curved long handle. The style of censer used in recent centuries, swung by three chains, came into use about the 12th century AD. George Rice Hovey FIRES <firz > : In Isaiah 24:15 the King James Version translates [ µyriau , ‘urim ] (“lights,” especially Urim in the phrase “Urim and Thummim”) “fires.” The Revised Version (British and American), understanding the word to mean the region of light, translates “east,” which satisfies the context far better, and is adopted by many modern scholars. In Ezekiel 39:9,10 the Revised Version (British and American) has “fires”; in 39:9 “make fires” is a translation of a verb of different root; in 39:10 “fires” translates the common singular noun for fire.

FIRKIN <fur’-kin > ([metrhth>v, metretes ]): The liquid measure used in John 2:6 to indicate the capacity of the water-pots mentioned in the narrative of the miracle of turning the water into wine. It is regarded as equivalent to the Hebrew bath , and thus contained about nine gallons. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

FIRMAMENT <fur’-ma-ment > . See ASTRONOMY. III, 3.

FIRST <furst > ([ dj;a, , ‘echadh ], [ ˆwOvari , ri’shon ]; [prw~ton, proton ], [to< prw~ton, to proton ], [prw~tov, protos ]): Of these words, which are those most frequently used for “first,” ri’shon is from rosh , “the head, and is used for the highest, chief, etc.; also of time, the beginning, e.g. Genesis 8:13, in the first month”; in Isaiah 44:6; 48:12, it is used of Yahweh as Eternal and solely Supreme — the First and the Last (compare 41:4).

Special usages are in connection with “firstborn,” “first-fruit,” etc.; proton is used of that which is first in order; but also of that which is first or chief in importance, etc. ( Matthew 6:33; Jas 3:17). In 1 Timothy 1:15, Paul says Jesus came “to save sinners; of whom I am chief,” literally, “first”; the same word is used by Jesus of the “first” of the commandments ( Mark 12:29); where we read in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “I delivered unto you first of all,” it is en protois (“in the foremost place”); “The first and the last” is applied to Christ as Eternal and Supreme ( Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13); protos is “the first day” ( Matthew 26:17; Mark 16:9); in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19; Acts 20:7, it is mia (“one”). W. L. Walker FIRST-BEGOTTEN <furst-be-got’-’-n > ([prwto>tokov, prototokos ]): This Greek word is translated in two passages in the King James Version by “first-begotten” ( Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 1:5), but in all other places in the King James Version, and always in the Revised Version (British and American), by “firstborn.” It is used in its natural literal sense of Jesus Christ as Mary’s firstborn ( Luke 2:7; Matthew 1:25 the King James Version); it also bears the literal sense of Jesus Christ as Mary’s firstborn ( Luke 2:7; Matthew 1:25 the King James Version); it also bears the literal sense of the firstborn of the firstborn of men and animals ( Hebrews 11:28). It is not used in the New Testament or Septuagint of an only child, which is expressed by monogenes (see below).

Metaphorically, it is used of Jesus Christ to express at once His relation to man and the universe and His difference from them, as both He and they are related to God. The laws and customs of all nations show that to be “firstborn” means, not only priority in time, but a certain superiority in privilege and authority. Israel is Yahweh’s firstborn among the nations ( Exodus 4:22; compare Jeremiah 31:9). The Messianic King is God’s firstborn Septuagint prototokos ), “the highest of the kings of the earth” ( Psalm 89:27). Philo applies the word to the Logos as the archetypal and governing idea of creation. Similarly Christ, as “the firstborn of all creation” ( Colossians 1:15), is not only prior to it in time, but above it in power and authority. “All things have been created through him, and unto him” ( Colossians 1:16). He is “sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primo-geniture” (Lightfoot). It denotes His status and character and not His origin; the context does not admit the idea that He is a part of the created universe. So in His incarnation He is brought into the world as “firstborn,” and God summons all His angels to worship Him ( Hebrews 1:6). In His resurrection He is “firstborn from the dead” ( Colossians 1:18) or “of the dead” ( Revelation 1:5), the origin and prince of life. And finally He is “firstborn among many brethren” in the consummation of God’s purpose of grace, when all the elect are gathered home. Not only is He their Lord, but also their pattern, God’s ideal Son and men are “foreordained to be conformed to (his) image” ( Romans 8:29). Therefore the saints themselves, as growing in His likeness, and as possessing all the privileges of eldest sons, including the kingdom and the priesthood, may be called the “church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” ( Hebrews 12:23). See also BEGOTTEN, and Lightfoot on Colossians 1:15.

T. Rees FIRSTBORN; FIRSTLING <furst’-born > , <furst’-ling > ([ rwOkB] , bekhor ]; [prwto>tokov, prototokos ]): The Hebrew word denotes the firstborn of human beings as well as of animals ( Exodus 11:5), while a word from the same root denotes first-fruits ( Exodus 23:16). All the data point to the conclusion that among the ancestors of the Hebrews the sacrifice of the firstborn was practiced, just as the firstlings of the flocks and the first-fruits of the produce of the earth were devoted to the deity. The narrative of the Moabite war records the sacrifice of the heir to the throne by Mesha, to Chemosh, the national god ( 2 Kings 3:27). The barbarous custom must have become extinct at an early period in the religion of Israel ( Genesis 22:12). It was probably due to the influence of surrounding nations that the cruel practice was revived toward the close of the monarchical period ( 2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20; 23:37; Micah 6:7). Jeremiah denies that the offering of human beings could have been an instruction from Yahweh (7:31; 19:5). The prophetic conception of God had rendered such a doctrine inconceivable. Clear evidence of the spiritualization and humanizati0n of religion among the Israelites is furnished in the replacement, at an early stage, of the actual sacrifice of the firstborn by their dedication to the service of Yahweh. At a later stage the Levites were substituted for the firstborn. Just as the firstlings of unclean animals were redeemed with money ( Exodus 13:13; 34:20), for the dedication of the firstborn was substituted the consecration of the Levites to the service of the sanctuary ( Numbers 3:11-13,15). On the 30th day after birth the firstborn was brought to the priest by the father, who paid five shekels for the child’s redemption from service in the temple (compare Luke 2:27; Mishna Bekhoroth viii.8). For that service the Levites were accepted in place of the redeemed firstborn ( Numbers 3:45). See note. According to Exodus 22:29-31 the firstborn were to be given to Yahweh. (The firstborn of clean animals, if free from spot or blemish, were to be sacrificed after eight days, Numbers 18:16 ff.) This allusion to the sacrifice of the firstborn as part of the religion of Yahweh has been variously explained. Some scholars suspect the text, but in all probability the verse means no more than similar references to the fact that the firstborn belonged to Yahweh ( Exodus 13:2; 34:19). The modifying clause, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, has been omitted.

The firstborn possessed definite privileges which were denied to other members of the family. The Law forbade the disinheriting of the firstborn ( Deuteronomy 21:15-17). Such legislation, in polygamous times, was necessary to prevent a favorite wife from exercising undue influence over her husband in distributing his property, as in the case of Jacob ( Genesis 25:23). The oldest son’s share was twice as large as that of any other son.

When Elisha prayed for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, he simply wished to be considered the firstborn, i.e. the successor, of the dying prophet. Israel was Yahweh’s firstborn ( Exodus 4:22; compare Jeremiah 31:9 (Ephraim)). Israel, as compared with other nations, was entitled to special privileges. She occupied a unique position in virtue of the special relationship between Yahweh and the nation. In three passages ( Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:6), Jesus Christ is the firstborn — among many brethren ( Romans 8:29); of every creature ( Colossians 1:16). This application of the term to Jesus Christ may be traced back to Psalm 89:27 where the Davidic ruler, or perhaps the nation, is alluded to as the firstborn of Yahweh. See CHILD; CIRCUMCISION; FIRST-BEGOTTEN; PLAGUES OF EGYPT. NOTE — The custom of redeeming the firstborn son is preserved among the Jews to this day. After thirty days the father invites the “Kohen,” i.e. a supposed descendant of Aaron, to the house. The child is brought and shown to the “Kohen,” and the father declares the mother of the child to be an Israelite. If she is a “Kohen,” redemption is not necessary. The “Kohen” asks the father which he prefers, his child or the five shekels; the father answers that he prefers his son, and pays to the “Kohen” a sum equivalent to five shekels. After receiving the redemption-money, the “Kohen” puts his hands on the child’s head and pronounces the Aaronite blessing ( Numbers 6:22-27). T. Lewis FIRST-FRUITS <furst’-froots > ([ tyviare , re’shith ], [ µyriWKBi , bikkurim ]; [ajparch>, aparche ]. Septuagint translates re’shith by aparche , but for bikkurim it uses the word protogennemata ; compare Philo 22 33): In acknowledgment of the fact that the land and all its products were the gift of Yahweh to Israel, and in thankfulness for His bounty, all the first-fruits were offered to Him. These were offered in their natural state (e.g. cereals, tree fruits, grapes), or after preparation (e.g. musk, oil, flour, dough), after which the Israelite was at liberty to use the rest ( Exodus 23:19; Numbers 15:20; 18:12; Deuteronomy 26:2; Nehemiah 10:35,37). No absolute distinction can be made between re’shith and bikkurim , but re’shith seems generally to mean what is prepared by human labor, and bikkurim the direct product of Nature. The phrase “the first of the first-fruits” ( Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Ezekiel 44:30), Hebrew re’shith bikkure , Greek aparchai ton protogennematon , is not quite clear. It may mean the first-ripe or the choicest of the first-fruits. The re’shith offerings were individual, except that a re’shith of dough was to be offered as a heave offering ( Numbers 15:17-21). The priest waved a re’shith of corn before the Lord on the morrow after the Sabbath in the week of unleavened bread (Leviticus23:9-11). These offerings all fell to the priest ( Numbers 18:12). Bikkurim refers specially to things sown ( Exodus 23:16; Leviticus2:14). At the Feast of Weeks, seven weeks after the offering of the sheaf, bikkurim of corn in the ear, parched with fire and bruised, were brought to the House of the Lord as a meal offering ( Exodus 34:22-26; Leviticus2:14-16). The bikkurim also fell to the priest, except a portion which was burned as a memorial (Leviticus2:8- 10,16). The beautiful ceremony of the offering of the re’shith in the House of God is described in Deuteronomy 26:1-11, and is enlarged upon in the Talmud (Bikkurim 3 2). According to the Talmud (Terumoth 4 3) a sixtieth part of the first-fruits in a prepared form was the minimum that could be offered; the more generous brought a fortieth part, and even a thirtieth. The fruits of newly planted trees were not to be gathered during the first three years; the fruits of the fourth year were consecrated to Yahweh, and from the fifth year the fruits belonged to the owner of the trees (Leviticus19:23-25). According to Mishna, `Orlah i.10, even the shells of nuts and pomegranates could not be used during the first three years as coloring matter or for the lighting of fires. It is held by some scholars that the institution of the tithe (see TITHE) is a later development from the first-fruits.

Figurative: In the Old Testament, in Jeremiah 2:3, Israel is called “the re’shith of his increase.” In the New Testament aparche is applied figuratively to the first convert or converts in a particular place ( Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:15); to the Christians of that age (Jas 1:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, WHm), and to the 144,000 in heaven ( Revelation 14:4); to Christ, as the first who rose from the dead ( Corinthians 15:20,23); also to the blessings which we receive now through the Spirit, the earnest of greater blessings to come ( Romans 8:23). Paul Levertoff FIRSTLING See FIRSTBORN.

FISH ([ gD; , dagh ], [ hg;D; , daghah ], [ gaD; , da’gh ]; [ijcqu>v, ichthus ], [ijcqu>dion, ichthudion ], [ojya>rion, opsarion ]):

1. NATURAL HISTORY:

Fishes abound in the inland waters of Palestine as well as the Mediterranean. They are often mentioned or indirectly referred to both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, but it is remarkable that no particular kind is distinguished by name. In Leviticus11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9 f, “whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters” is declared clean, while all that “have not fins and scales” are forbidden. This excluded not only reptiles and amphibians, but also, among fishes, siluroids and eels, sharks, rays and lampreys. For our knowledge of the inland fishes of Palestine we are mainly indebted to Tristram, NHB and Fauna and Flora of Palestine; Lortet, Poissons et reptiles du Lac de Tiberiade; and Russegger, Reisen in Europa, Asien, Afrika, 1835-1841. The most remarkable feature of the fish fauna of the Jordan valley is its relationship to that of the Nile and of East Central Africa. Two Nile fishes, Chromis nilotica Hasselquist, and Clarias macracanthus Gunth., are found in the Jordan valley, and a number of other species found only in the Jordan valley belong to genera (Chromis and Hemichromis) which are otherwise exclusively African. This seems to indicate that at some time, probably in the early Tertiary, there was some connection between the Palestinian and African river systems. No fish can live in the Dead Sea, and many perish through being carried down by the swift currents of the Jordan and other streams. There are, however, several kinds of small fish which live in salt springs on the borders of the Dead Sea, springs which are as salt as the Dead Sea but which, according to Lortet, lack the magnesium chloride which is a constituent of the Dead Sea water and is fatal to the fish.

Capoeta damascina Cuv. and Val., one of the commonest fishes of Syria and Palestine, has been taken by the writer in large numbers in the Arnon and other streams flowing into the Dead Sea. This is surprising in view of the fact that the Dead Sea seems to form an effective barrier between the fishes of the different streams flowing into it. The indiscriminate mention of fishes without reference to the different kinds is well illustrated by the numerous passages in which “the fishes of the sea, the birds of the heavens, and the beasts of the field,” or some equivalent expression, is used to denote all living creatures, e.g. Genesis 1:26; 9:2; Numbers 11:22; Deuteronomy 4:18; 1 Kings 4:33; Job 12:8; Psalm 8:8; Ezekiel 38:20; Hosea 4:3; Zephaniah 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:39.

2. JONAH’S FISH:

An unusually large shark might fulfill the conditions of Jonah’s fish (dagh, daghah; but Matthew 12:40, [kh~tov, ketos ], “whale” or “sea monster”).

The whale that is found in the Mediterranean (Balaena australis) has a narrow throat and could not swallow a man. No natural explanation is possible of Jonah’s remaining alive and conscious for three days in the creature’s belly. Those who consider the book historical must regard the whole event as miraculous. For those who consider it to be a story with a purpose, no explanation is required.

3. FISHING:

The present inhabitants of Moab and Edom make no use of the fish that swarm in the Arnon, the Hisa and other streams, but fishing is an important industry in Galilee and Western Palestine. Now, as formerly, spear hooks and nets are employed. The fish-spear ( Job 41:7) is little used. Most of the Old Testament references to nets have to do with the taking of birds and beasts and not of fishes, and, while in Habakkuk 1:15 cherem is rendered “net” and mikhmereth “drag,” it is hot clear that these and the other words rendered “net” refer to particular kinds of nets. In the New Testament, however, [sagh>nh, sagene ] ( Matthew 13:47), is clearly the dragnet, and [ajmfi>blhstron, amphiblestron ] ( Matthew 4:18), is clearly the casting net. The word most often used is [di>ktuon, diktuon ].

Though this word is from dikein , “to throw,” or “to cast,” the context in several places (e.g. Luke 5:4; John 21:11) suggests that a dragnet is meant. The dragnet may be several hundred feet long. The upper edge is buoyed and the lower edge is weighted. It is let down from a boat in a line parallel to the shore and is then pulled in by ropes attached to the two ends, several men and boys usually pulling at each end. The use of the casting net requires much skill. It forms a circle of from 10 to 20 feet in diameter with numerous small leaden weights at the circumference. It is lifted by the center and carefully gathered over the right arm. When well thrown it goes to some distance, at the same time spreading out into a wide circle. A cord may be attached to the center, but this is not always the case.

When lifted again by the center, the leads come together, dragging over the bottom, and sometimes a large number of fish may be enclosed. The novice has only to try, to realize the dexterity of the practiced fishermen.

Figurative: The fact that so many of our Lord’s disciples were fishermen lends a profound interest to their profession. Christ tells Simon and Andrew ( Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17) that He will make them fishers of men. The Kingdom of Heaven ( Matthew 13:47) is likened unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they cast away. Tristram (NHB) says that he has seen the fishermen go through their net and throw out into the sea those that were too small for the market or were considered unclean. In Jeremiah 16:16, we read: “Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith Yahweh, and they shall fish them up; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks.” In the vision of Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 47:9 f), the multitude of fish and the nets spread from En-gedi to En-eglaim are marks of the marvelous change wrought in the Dead Sea by the stream issuing from the temple. The same sign, i.e. of the spreading of nets ( Ezekiel 26:5,14), marks the desolation of Tyre. It is a piece of broiled fish that the risen Lord eats with the Eleven in Jerusalem ( Luke 24:42), and by the Sea of Galilee ( John 21:13) He gives the disciples bread and fish. Alfred Ely Day FISHER; FISHERMAN <fish’-er > <fish’-er-man > ([ gY;D” , dayyagh ], [ gW;D” , dawwagh ]; [aJlieu>v, halieus ]; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek haleeus ): Although but few references to fishermen are made in the Bible, these men and their calling are brought into prominence by Jesus’ call to certain Galilee fishermen to become His disciples ( Matthew 4:18,19; Mark 1:16,17). Fishermen, then as now, formed a distinct class. The strenuousness of the work ( Luke 5:2) ruled out the weak and indolent.

They were crude in manner, rough in speech and in their treatment of others ( Luke 9:49,54; John 18:10). James and John before they became tempered by Jesus’ influence were nicknamed the “sons of thunder” ( Mark 3:17). The fishermen’s exposure to all kinds of weather made them hardy and fearless. They were accustomed to bear with patience many trying circumstances. They often toiled for hours without success, and yet were always ready to try once more ( Luke 5:5; John 21:3). Such men, when impelled by the same spirit as filled their Master, became indeed “fishers of men” ( Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17).

One of the striking instances of the fulfillment of prophecy is the use by the Syrian fishermen today of the site of ancient Tyre as a place for the spreading of their nets ( Ezekiel 26:5,14).

Figurative: Fish were largely used as food ( Habakkuk 1:16), hence, the lamentation of the fishermen, who provided for all, typified general desolation ( Isaiah 19:8). On the other hand, abundance of fish and many fishermen indicated general abundance ( Ezekiel 47:10). Our modern expression, “treated like a dog,” had its counterpart in the language of the Old Testament writers, when they portrayed the punished people of Judah as being treated like fish. Yahweh would send many fishers to fish them up and put sticks or hooks through their cheeks as a fisherman strings his fish ( Jeremiah 16:16; Job 41:2). Such treatment of the people of Judah is depicted on some of the Assyrian monuments. James A. Patch FISHER’S COAT <kot > : This expression is found in John 21:7 where the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version have “coat.” John here, after representing Peter as “naked” ([gumno>v, gumnos ]), pictures him as girding on his “coat” ([ejpendu>thv, ependutes ]), literally, “upper garment,” and not at all specifically a “fisher’s coat.” See DRESS; UPPER GARMENT etc.

FISH GATE See JERUSALEM.

FISHHOOK <fish’-hook > ([ hg;WD rySi , cir dughah ], [ hK;j” , chakkah ]): The word “fishhooks” occurs but twice in the American Standard Revised Version ( Job 41:1; Amos 4:2). In other passages the word hook or “angle” is applied to this instrument for fishing ( Isaiah 19:8; Job 41:2). The ancient Egyptian noblemen used to amuse themselves by fishing from their private fishpools with hook and line. The Egyptian monuments show that the hook was quite commonly used for catching fish. The hook is still used in Bible lands, although not as commonly as nets. It is called a cinnarat, probably from the same root as tsinnah, the plural of which is translated hooks in Amos 4:2. In Matthew 17:27, [a]gkistron, agkistron ] (literally, “fishhook”), is rendered “hook.” James A. Patch FISHING <fish’-ing > ([aJlieu>w, halieuo ]): Several methods of securing fish are resorted to at the present day along the seashores of Palestine. Two of these, dynamiting and poisoning with the juice of cyclamen bulbs or other poisonous plants, can be passed over as havi ng no bearing on ancient methods. (1) WITH HOOKS:

Some fishing is done with hooks and lines, either on poles when fishing from shore, or on trawls in deep-sea fishing. The fishhooks now used are of European origin, but bronze fishhooks of a very early date have been discovered. That fishing with hooks was known in Jesus’ time is indicated by the Master’s command to Peter ( Matthew 17:27). See FISHHOOK. (2) WITH SPEARS: Job 41:7 probably refers to an instrument much like the barbed spear still used along the Syrian coast. It is used at night by torchlight. (3) WITH NETS:

In the most familiar Bible stories of fisherman life a net was used. Today most of the fishing is done in the same way. These nets are homemade.

Frequently one sees the fishermen or members of their families making nets or repairing old ones during the stormy days when fishing is impossible.

Nets are used in three ways: (a) A circular net, with small meshes and leaded around the edge, is cast from the shore into the shallow water in such a manner that the leaded edge forms the base of a cone, the apex being formed by the fisherman holding the center of the net in his hand. The cone thus formed encloses such fish as cannot escape the quick throw of the fisher. (b) A long net or seine of one or two fathoms depth, leaded on one edge and provided with floats on the other, is payed out from boats in such a way as to surround a school of fish. Long ropes fastened to the two ends are carried ashore many yards apart, and from five to ten men on each rope gradually draw in the net. The fish are then landed from the shallow water with small nets or by hand. This method is commonly practiced on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. (c) In deeper waters a net similar to that described above, but four or five fathoms deep, is cast from boats and the ends slowly brought together so as to form a circle. Men then dive down and bring one portion of the weighted edge over under the rest, so as to form a bottom. The compass of the net is then narrowed, and the fish are emptied from the net into the boat. Sometimes the net with the fish enclosed is towed into shallow water before drawing. The above method is probably the one the disciples used ( Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:2-10; John 21:3-11). Portions of nets with leads and floats, of early Egyptian origin, may be seen in the British Museum. See NET.

The fishermen today usually work with their garments girdled up about their waists. Frequently they wear only a loose outer garment which is wet much of the time. This garment can be quickly removed by pulling it over the head, When occasion requires the fisherman to jump into the sea. If methods have not changed, Peter had probably just climbed back into the boat after adjusting the net for drawing when he learned that it was Jesus who stood on the shore. He was literally naked and pulled on his coat before he went ashore ( John 21:7). James A. Patch FISHPOOLS <fish’-pools > : This is a mistranslation. The Hebrew [ twOkreB] , berekhoth ] ( Song of Solomon 7:4) simply means “pools” (Revised Version); “fish” is quite unwarrantably introduced in the King James Version. In Isaiah 19:10, again, instead of “all that make sluices and ponds for fish” (the King James Version), we should certainly read, with the Revised Version (British and American), “All they that work for hire shall be grieved in soul.”

FIT, FITLY <fit’-li > : The word “fit” (adjective and verb) occurs a few times, representing nearly as many Hebrew and Greek words. the Revised Version (British and American) frequently alters, as in Leviticus16:21 (`itti , “timely,” “opportune,” “ready”), where for “fit” it reads “in readiness,” margin “appointed.” In 1 Chronicles 7:11 the Revised Version (British and American) has “that were able”; in Isaiah 44:13, “shapeth”; in Proverbs 24:27, “ready,” etc. “Fitly” in Proverbs 25:11 is in the Revised Version, margin “in due season”; in Song of Solomon 5:12, “fitly set” is in the Revised Version, margin “sitting by full streams.” In the New Testament “fit” is the translation of euthetos, “well placed” ( Luke 9:62; 14:35), of kathekon , “suitable” ( Acts 22:22), and of katartizo , “to make quite ready” ( Romans 9:22, “vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction”). W. L. Walker FITCHES <fich’-iz > (the English word “fitch” is the same as “vetch”): (1) [ jx”q, , qetsach ] ( Isaiah 28:25,27; the Revised Version, margin has “black cummin” (Nigella sativa )). This is the “nutmeg flower,” an annual herb (Natural Order, Ranunculaceae ), the black seeds of which are sprinkled over some kinds of bread in Palestin. They were used as a condiment by the ancient Greeks and Romans. These seeds have a warm aromatic flavor and are carminative in their properties, assisting digestion.

They, like all such plants which readily yield their seed, are still beaten out with rods. The contrast between the stouter staff for the “fitches” and the lighter rod for the cummin is all the more noticeable when the great similarity of the two seeds is noticed. (2) [ µymiS]Ku , kuccemim ] (pl.) ( Ezekiel 4:9) the Revised Version (British and American) “spelt” (which see). E. W. G. Masterman FIVE <fiv > ([ vmej; , chamesh ]; [pe>nte, pente ]). See NUMBER.

FLAG Two Hebrew words: (1) [ tWs , cuph ] ( Exodus 2:3,1, “flags”; Isaiah 19:6, “flags”; Jonah 2:5, “weeds”). This is apparently a general name which includes both the fresh-water weeds growing along a river bank and “seaweeds.”

The Red Sea was known as Yam cuph . (2) [ Wja; , ‘achu ] ( Genesis 41:2,18, the King James Version “meadow,” the Revised Version (British and American) “reed-grass”; Job 8:11, “Can the rush grow up without mire? Can the flag (margin “reed-grass”) grow without water?”). Some such general term as “sedges” or “fens” would better meet the requirements.

FLAGON <flag’-un > : The translation of [ hv;yvia\ , ‘ashishah ], in the King James Version in 2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3; Song of Solomon 2:5; Hosea 3:1. In all, these passages the Revised Version (British and American) reads “cake of raisins” or “raisins.” It was probably a pressed raisin cake. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) read “flagons,” in Isaiah 22:24 as a rendering of [ µylib;n] , nebhalim ], which is elsewhere ( 1 Samuel 1:24; 10:3; 2 Samuel 16:1, etc.) rendered “bottles,” the Revised Version, margin “skins.” These were the bags or bottles made of the whole skin of a kid, goat or other animal. the Revised Version (British and American) has “flagons” in Exodus 25:29 and 37:16 as translation of [ twOv;q] , qeshawoth ], a golden jug or jar used in the tabernacle from which the drink offerings were poured out. The same word is translated “cups” in Numbers 4:7. George Rice Hovey FLAKE <flak > ([ lP;m” , mappal ], a word of uncertain meaning): It is used in the sense of “refuse (husks) of the wheat” in Amos 8:6. With regard to the body we find it used in Job 41:23 in the description of leviathan (the crocodile): “The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm upon him; they cannot be moved.” Baethgen in Kautzsch’s translation of the Old Testament translates “Wampen,” i.e. the collops or lateral folds of flesh and armored skin. A better translation would perhaps be: “the horny epidermic scales” of the body, differentiated from the bony dermal scutes of the back (Hebrew “channels of shields,” “courses of scales”), which are mentioned in Job 41:15 margin. H. L. E. Luering FLAME <flam > ([ bh”l” , lahabh ], and other forms from same root; [flo>x, phlox ]): In Judges 13:20 bis; Job 41:21; Isaiah 29:6; Joel 2:5, the word is lahabh . Various other words are translated “flame”; mas’eth , “a lifting or rising up” ( Judges 20:38,40 the King James Version), the Revised Version (British and American) “cloud” (of smoke); kalil , “completeness” ( Judges 20:40b King James Version margin, “a holocaust, or offering wholly consumed by fire”; compare Leviticus6:15); shalhebheth ( Job 15:30; Song of Solomon 8:6; the American Standard Revised Version “a very flame of Yahweh,” margin “or, a most vehement flame”; Ezekiel 20:47, the Revised Version (British and American) “the flaming flame”); shabhibh ( Job 18:5; the Revised Version, margin); shebhibh , Aramaic ( Daniel 3:22; 7:9). In <19A404> Psalm 104:4 the American Standard Revised Version has “maketh .... flames of fire his ministers”; the Revised Version (British and American) “flame” for “snare” ( Proverbs 29:8).

Figuratively: “Flame” is used to denote excitement ( Proverbs 29:8 the Revised Version (British and American)), shame, astonishment, “faces of flame” ( Isaiah 13:8); in Revelation 1:14, the glorified Christ is described as having eyes “as a flame of fire,” signifying their searching purity (compare 2:18; 19:12). Flame is also a symbol of God’s wrath ( Psalm 83:14; Isaiah 5:24; 10:17). See also FIRE.

W. L. Walker FLAT NOSE ([ µruj; , charum ]; Septuagint [kolobo>rin, koloborin ]): Used only in Leviticus21:18 as the name of a deformity which disqualified a member of a priestly family for serving the altar. The root of the word signifies “to cut off” or “to cut flat,” and in the Revised Version, margin “slit nose” is substituted. The condition indicated is most probably the depressed, flattened nose which so often accompanies harelip, especially in its double form. A mere snub-nose can scarcely be regarded as a blemish of sufficient importance to unfit a priest for the service of “offering the bread of God”; but harelip, like blindness or the other congenital malformations or deformities enumerated in this passage, might well render a son of Aaron unfit or unsuitable for public religious duty. Alexander Macalister FLAX <flaks > [ tv,P, , pesheth ], also [ hT;v]Pi , pishtah ]; [li>non, linon ] ( Matthew 12:20)): The above Hebrew words are applied (1) to the plant: “The flax was in bloom” (the King James Version “bolled”; Exodus 9:31); (2) the “stalks of flax,” literally, “flax of the tree,” put on the roof to dry ( Joshua 2:6); (3) to the fine fibers used for lighting: the King James Version “tow,” “flax,” the Revised Version (British and American). “A dimly burning wick will he not quench” ( Isaiah 42:3); “They are quenched as a wick” ( Isaiah 43:17). The thought is perhaps of a scarcely lighted wick just kindled with difficulty from a spark. (4) In Isaiah 19:9 mention is made of “combed flax,” i.e. flax hackled ready for spinning (compare Hosea 2:5,9; Proverbs 31:13). The reference in Judges 15:14 is to flax twisted into cords. (5) In Judges 16:9; Isaiah 1:31, mention is made of [ tr,[on] , ne`oreth ], “tow,” literally, something “shaken off” — as the root implies — from flax. (6) The plural form pishtim is used in many passages for linen, or linen garments, e.g. Leviticus13:47,48,52,59; Deuteronomy 22:11; Jeremiah 13:1 (“linen girdle”); Ezekiel 44:17 f. Linen was in the earliest historic times a favorite material for clothes. The Jewish priestly garments were of pure linen. Egyptian mummies were swathed in linen.

Several other Hebrew words were used for linen garments. See LINEN.

Flax is the product of Linum usitatissimum, a herbaceous plant which has been cultivated from the dawn of history. It is perennial and grows to a height of 2 to 3 ft.; it has blue flowers and very fibrous stalks. The tough fibers of the latter, after the decay and removal of the softer woody and gummy material, make up the crude “flax.” Linseed, linseed oil and oilcake are useful products of the same plant. E. W. G. Masterman FLAYING <fla’-ing > . See PUNISHMENTS.

FLEA <fle > ([ v[r]P” , par`osh ]; compare Arabic barghut , “flea,” and barghash , “mosquito” ( 1 Samuel 24:14; 26:20); [ µyNiKi , kinnim ] ( Exodus 8:16), “lice,” the Revised Version, margin “sandflies” or “fleas”; Septuagint [skni>fev, skniphes ], probably best rendered “gnat”; see GNAT; LICE): In 1 Samuel 24 Saul seeks David in the wilderness of Engedi, and David, after cutting off the skirt of Saul’s robe in the cave, calls out to him, “After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea” (24:14). Again in 1 Samuel 26:20 Saul seeks David in the wilderness of Ziph, and David after taking the spear and cruse from beside Saul while he slept, cries out to him, “.... the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains.” The flea is here used as a symbol of David’s insignificance, coupled perhaps, in the second passage, with a thought of the difficulty that Saul had in laying hands on him. In Encyclopedia Biblica Cheyne finds fault with a similar interpretation given in DB on the ground that it is absurd that David should refer to hunting “a single flea,” and proposes to change par`osh ‘echadh “a flea,” to pere’ midhbar , “wild ass of the desert.” The writer will only say that no observant resident of Palestine would consider the textual alteration to be called for.

Linnaeus recognized two species of flea, Pulex irritans , the common parasite of man, and Pulex (Sarcopsylla) penetrans, the tropical and subtropical jigger flea. More than a hundred species are now listed, and the recent discovery that certain fleas are instrumental in the transmission of the plague has given a new impetus to the study of these tiny pests. A flea that is often commoner in houses than Pulex irritans is the “dog and cat flea,” variously known as Pulex serraticeps , Pulex canis , Pulex felis or Ctenocephalus canis . Alfred Ely Day FLEE <fle > . See FLY.

FLEECE <fles > . See GIDEON; SHEEP; WOOL.

FLESH [ rc;B; , basar ], [ raev] , she’er ]):

1. ETYMOLOGY:

Used in all senses of the word, the latter, however, most frequently in the sense of kin, family, relationship (compare [ hr;a\v” , sha’arah ], “kins- woman,” Leviticus18:17): Leviticus18:6; 25:49; Proverbs 11:17; Jeremiah 51:35, and probably Psalm 73:26. In all other places she’er means “flesh” = body ( Proverbs 5:11) or = food ( Psalm 78:20,27; Micah 3:2,3). [ hj;b]fi , Tibhchah ], is “(slaughtered) flesh for food,” “butcher’s meat” ( 1 Samuel 25:11). The word [ rP;v]a, , ‘eshpar ], found only in two parallel passages ( 2 Samuel 6:19 = 1 Chronicles 16:3), is of very uncertain meaning. The English versions translate it with “a good piece (portion) of flesh,” the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) with “a piece of roast meat,” others with “a portion of flesh” and “a measure of wine.” It probably means simply “a measured portion.” [ µjul” , µWjl” , lachum ], literally, “eaten,” then food (compare [ µj,l, , lechem ], “bread”), has been rarely specialized as flesh or meat (compare Arabic lachm, “meat,” “flesh,” so in Zephaniah 1:17, where it stands in parallelism with “blood”). The Greek terms are [sa>rx, sarx ], and [kre>av, kreas ], the latter always meaning “butcher’s meat” ( Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:13).

We can distinguish the following varieties of meaning in Biblical language:

2. ORDINARY SENSE:

In a physical sense, the chief substance of the animal body, whether used for food and sacrifice, or not; also the flesh of man ( Genesis 2:21; Exodus 21:10 m; Isaiah 31:3; Ezekiel 23:20; 1 Corinthians 15:39; Revelation 19:18,21).

3. THE BODY:

The whole body. This meaning is the extension of the preceding (pars pro toto). This is indicated by the Septuagint, where basar is often translated by the plural [aiJ sa>rkev, hai sarkes ] ( Genesis 40:19; Numbers 12:12; Job 33:25), and occasionally by [sw~ma, soma ], i.e. “body” (Leviticus15:2; 1 Kings 21:27). This meaning is also very clear in passages like the following: Exodus 4:7; Leviticus17:14; Numbers 8:7; 2 Kings 4:34; Proverbs 5:11, where basar and she’er are combined; and Proverbs 14:30; Ecclesiastes 12:12.

4. THE TERM “ALL FLESH”:

Flesh, as the common term for living things, animals and men, especially the latter ( Genesis 6:13,17,19; Numbers 16:22; Jeremiah 12:12; Mark 13:20); often in the phrase “all flesh” ( Psalm 65:2; Isaiah 40:5,6; Jeremiah 25:31; Ezekiel 20:48; Joel 2:28; Luke 3:6).

5. AS OPPOSED TO THE SPIRIT:

Flesh as opposed to the spirit, both of which were comprised in the preceding meaning ( Genesis 6:3; Psalm 16:9; Luke 24:39, where “flesh and bones” are combined; John 6:63). Thus we find in John 1:14, “The Word became flesh”; 1 Timothy 3:16, “He who was manifested in the flesh”; 1 John 4:2, and all passages where the incarnation of Christ is spoken of. The word in this sense approaches the meaning of “earthly life,” as in Philippians 1:22,24, “to live in the flesh,” “to abide in the flesh”; compare Philem 1:16 and perhaps 2 Corinthians 5:16. Under this meaning we may enumerate expressions such as “arm of flesh” ( 2 Chronicles 32:8; Jeremiah 17:5), “eyes of flesh” ( Job 10:4), etc. Frequently the distinction is made to emphasize the weakness or inferiority of the flesh, as opposed to the superiority of the spirit ( Isaiah 31:3; Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38; Romans 6:19). In this connection we mention also the expression “flesh and blood,” a phrase borrowed from rabbinical writings and phraseology (see also Sirach 14:18, “the generation of flesh and blood,” and 17:31, “man whose desire is flesh and blood” the King James Version). The expression does not convey, as some have supposed, the idea of inherent sinfulness of the flesh (a doctrine borrowed by Gnostic teachers from oriental sources), but merely the idea of ignorance and frailty in comparison with the possibilities of spiritual nature. The capabilities of our earthly constitution do not suffice to reveal unto us heavenly truths; these must always come to us from above. So Peter’s first recognition of the Divine sonship of Jesus did not proceed from a logical conviction based upon outward facts acting upon his mind, but was based upon a revelation from God vouchsafed to his inner consciousness. Christ says therefore to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven” ( Matthew 16:17). Similarly the kingdom of God, being a realm of perfect spiritual submission to God, cannot be inherited by flesh and blood ( 1 Corinthians 15:50), nor was the richly endowed mind a competent tribunal to which Paul could refer his heaven-wrought conviction of his great salvation and the high calling to be a witness and apostle of Christ, so he did well that he “conferred not with flesh and blood” ( Galatians 1:16). That “flesh and blood” does not imply a sense of inherent sinfulness is moreover shown in all passages where Christ is declared a partaker of such nature ( Ephesians 6:12; Hebrews 2:14, where, however, we find in the original text the inverted phrase “blood and flesh”).

6. APPLIED TO THE CARNAL NATURE:

Flesh in the sense of carnal nature ([sa>rkikov, sarkikos ], “carnal”; the King James Version uses sarkinos in Romans 7:14). Human nature, being inferior to the spiritual, is to be in subjection to it. If man refuses to be under this higher law, and as a free agent permits the lower nature to gain an ascendancy over the spirit, the “flesh” becomes a revolting force ( Genesis 6:3,12; John 1:13; Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 3:1,3; Colossians 2:18; 1 John 2:16). Thus, the fleshly or carnal mind, i.e. a mind in subjection to carnal nature, is opposed to the Divine spirit, who alone is a sufficient corrective, Christ having secured for us the power of overcoming ( Romans 8:3), if we manifest a deep desire and an earnest endeavor to overcome ( Galatians 5:17,18).

7. IN THE SENSE OF RELATIONSHIP:

Flesh in the sense of relationship, tribal connection, kith and kin. For examples, see what has been said above on Hebrew she’er . The following passages are a few of those in which basar is used: Genesis 2:24; 37:27; Job 2:5; compare the New Testament passages: Matthew 19:5,6; Romans 1:3; 9:3,5,8. The expressions “bone” and “flesh” are found in combination ( Genesis 2:23; 29:14; Judges 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:1; 19:12,13; Ephesians 5:31, the latter in some manuscripts only).

8. OTHER MEANINGS:

Some other subdivisions of meanings might be added, for example where “flesh” takes almost the place of “person,” as in Colossians 2:1: “as many as have not seen my face in the flesh,” i.e. have not known me personally, or 2:5, “absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit,” etc. H. L. E. Luering FLESH AND BLOOD See FLESH, 5.

FLESH-HOOK <flesh’-hook > ([ glez]m” , mazlegh ], and plural [ twOgl;z]mi , mizlaghoth ]): One of the implements used around the sacrificial altar. According to Divine direction given to Moses ( Exodus 27:3; 38:3), it was to be made of brass, but later David felt impelled by “the Spirit” or “in his spirit” to determine that for use in the magnificent Temple of Solomon it should be made of gold ( 1 Chronicles 28:17). But Huram made it, with other altar articles, of “bright brass” ( 2 Chronicles 4:16). In Samuel’s time, it was made with three hook-shaped tines, and was used in taking out the priests’ share of the meat offering ( 1 Samuel 2:13,14). With the other altar utensils, it was in the special charge of the Kohathites ( Numbers 4:14).

The hooks mentioned in Ezekiel 40:43 were altogether different and for another purpose. See HOOK.

Leonard W. Doolan FLESH-POT <flesh’-pot > ([ rc;B;h” rysi , cir ha-basar ], “pot of the flesh”): One of the six kinds of cooking utensils spoken of as pots or pans or caldrons or basins. Probably usually made of bronze or earthenware. The only mention of flesh-pots, specifically so named, is in Exodus 16:3. See FOOD.

FLIES <fliz > . See FLY.

FLINT <flint > ([ vymiL;j” , challamish ] ( Deuteronomy 8:15; 32:13; Job 28:9; <19B408> Psalm 114:8), [ rxo , tsor ] ( Exodus 4:25; Ezekiel 3:9), [ rxe , tser ] ( Isaiah 5:28), [ rWx , tsur ] ( Job 22:24; Psalm 89:43), [ µyrixu , tsurim ] ( Joshua 5:2 f); (ko>clax, = [ka>clhx, kechlex ] “pebble”), [kochlax ] (1 Macc 10:73)): The word challamish signifies a hard stone, though not certainly flint, and is used as a figure for hardness in Isaiah 50:7, “Therefore have I set my face like a flint.” A similar use of [tsor] is found in Ezekiel 3:9, “As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead,” and Isaiah 5:28, “Their horses’ hoofs shall be accounted as flint”; and of tsela` in Jeremiah 5:3, “They have made their faces harder than a rock.” The same three words are used of the rock from which Moses drew water in the wilderness: challamish ( Deuteronomy 8:15; <19B408> Psalm 114:8); tsur ( Exodus 17:6; Deuteronomy 8:15; Psalm 78:20; Isaiah 48:21); cela` ( Numbers 20:8; Nehemiah 9:15; Psalm 78:16). Tsur and cela` are used oftener than challamish for great rocks and cliffs, but tsur is used also for flint knives in Exodus 4:25, “Then Zipporah took a flint (the King James Version “sharp stone”), and cut off the foreskin of her son,” and in Joshua 5:2 f, “Yahweh said unto Joshua, Make thee knives of flint (the King James Version “sharp knives”), and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.” Surgical implements of flint were used by the ancient Egyptians, and numerous flint chippings with occasional flint implements are found associated with the remains of early man in Syria and Palestine. Flint and the allied mineral, chert, are found in great abundance in the limestone rocks of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. See ROCK.

Alfred Ely Day FLOAT (FLOTE) <flot > . See RAFT; SHIPS AND BOATS FLOCK See CATTLE.

FLOOD <flud > : In the King James Version not less than 13 words are rendered “flood,” though in the Revised Version (British and American) we find in some passages “river,” “stream,” “tempest,” etc. The word is used for: the deluge of Noah, [ lWBm” , mabbul ] ( Genesis 6:17 ff); [kataklusmo>v, kataklusmos ] ( Matthew 24:38,39; Luke 17:27); the waters of the Red Sea, [ lz”n; , nazal ] ( Exodus 15:8); the Euphrates, nahar, “Your fathers dwelt of old time on the other side of the flood”. (the Revised Version (British and American) “beyond the River” Joshua 24:2): the Nile, [ rwOay] , ye’or ], “the flood (the Revised Version (British and American) “River”) of Egypt” ( Amos 8:8); the Jordan, [ rh;n; , nahar ], “They went through the flood (the Revised Version (British and American) “river”) on foot” ( Psalm 66:6); torrent, [ µr,z, , zerem ], “as a flood (the Revised Version (British and American) “tempest”) of mighty waters” ( Isaiah 28:2); [potamo>v, potamos ], “The rain descended and the floods came” ( Matthew 7:25); [plhmmu>ra, plemmura ], “When a flood arose, the stream brake against that house” ( Luke 6:48).

Figurative: [ lj”n” , nachal ], “The floods of ungodly men (the Revised Version (British and American) “ungodliness,” the Revised Version, margin “Hebrew Belial”) made me afraid” ( 2 Samuel 22:5; Psalm 18:4); also [ rao , ‘or ] ( Amos 8:8 (the King James Version)); [ tl,Bovi , shibboleth ] ( Psalm 69:2); [ tf,v, , sheTeph ] ( Daniel 11:22 (the King James Version)); [ tf,ve , sheTeph ] ( Psalm 32:6 (the King James Version)); [potamofo>rhtov, potamophoretos ] ( Revelation 12:15 (the King James Version)). See DELUGE OF NOAH.

Alfred Ely Day FLOOR <flor > . See HOUSE; THRESHING-FLOOR FLOTE (FLOAT) See RAFT; SHIPS AND BOATS.

FLOUR <flour > . See BREAD; FOOD.

FLOURISH <flur’-ish > ([ jr”P; , parach ], [ 6Wx , tsuts ]; [ajnaqa>llw, anathallo ]): The translation of parach , “to break forth” ( Psalm 72:7; 92:12,13; Proverbs 14:11; Isaiah 66:14; Song of Solomon 6:11; 7:12; the Revised Version (British and American) “budded”); of tsuts “to bloom” ( Psalm 72:16, 90:6; 92:7; 103:15; 132:18); ra`anan , “green,” “fresh,” is translated “flourishing” in Psalm 92:14, the Revised Version (British and American) “green,” and ra`anan , Aramaic in Daniel 4:4; nubh, “to sprout” (Zec 9:17, the King James Version “cheerful”).

In an interesting passage ( Ecclesiastes 12:5 the King James Version), the Hiphil future of na’ats , meaning properly “to pierce or strike,” hence, to slight or reject, is translated “flourish”; it is said of the old man “The almond tree shall flourish,” the Revised Version (British and American) “blossom” (so Ewald, Delitzsch, etc.); na’ats has nowhere else this meaning; it is frequently rendered “contemn;” “despise,” etc. Other renderings are, “shall cause loathing” (Gesenius, Knobel, etc.), “shall be despised,” i.e. the hoary head; “The almond tree shall shake off its flowers,” the silvery hairs falling like the fading white flowers of the almond tree; by others it is taken to indicate “sleeplessness,” the name of the almond tree (shaqedh ) meaning the watcher or early riser (compare Jeremiah 1:11, “a rod of an almond-tree,” literally, “a wakeful (or early) tree”), the almond being the first of the trees to wake from the sleep of winter. See ALMOND. “Flourish” appears once only in the New Testament, in the King James Version, as translation of anathallo , “to put forth anew,” or “to make put forth anew” ( Philippians 4:10): “Your care for me hath flourished again,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Ye have revived your thought for me.” W. L. Walker FLOWERS <flou’-erz > (BLOOM, BLOSSOM , etc.): (1) [ l[ob]Gi , gibh`ol ], literally, “a small cup,” hence, calyx or corolla of a flower ( Exodus 9:31, “The flax was in bloom”). (2) [ 6ne , nets ] ( Genesis 40:10, [ hX;ni , nitstsah ], “a flower” or “blossom”; Job 15:33; Isaiah 18:5). These words are used of the early berries of the vine or olive. (3) [ ˆX;ni , nitstsan ], “a flower”; plural only, [ µyniX;ni , nitstsanim ] ( Song of Solomon 2:12, “The flowers appear on the earth”). (4) [ jr”P, , perach ], root to “burst forth” expresses an early stage of flowering; “blossom” ( Isaiah 5:24; 18:5); “flower” (Nahum 1:4, “The flower of Lebanon languisheth”). Used of artificial flowers in candlesticks ( Exodus 25:31 ff). (5) [ 6yxi , tsits ], “flower” ( Isaiah 40:6); plural [ µyXixi , tsitstsim ], flowers as architectural ornaments ( 1 Kings 6:18); [ hx;yxi , tsitsah ], “the fading flower of his glorious beauty” ( Isaiah 28:1,4; also Numbers 17:8; Job 14:2, etc.). (6) [a]nqov, anthos ], in Septuagint equivalent of all the Hebrew words (Jas 1:10,11; 1 Peter 1:24).

The beauty of the profusion of flowers which cover Palestine every spring receives but scant reference in the Old Testament; Song of Solomon 2:12 is perhaps the only clear reference. It is noticeable that the native of Syria thinks little of flowers unless it be for their perfume. our Lord’s reference to the flowers (“lilies”) is well known ( Matthew 6:28; Luke 12:27). For details of the flowers of modern Palestine, see BOTANY . The aptness of the expression “flower of the field” for a type of the evanescence of human life ( Job 14:2; <19A315> Psalm 103:15; Isaiah 40:6; Jas 1:10) is the more impressive in a land like Palestine where the annual display of wild flowers, so glorious for a few short weeks, is followed by such desolation. The fresh and brilliant colors fade into masses of withered leaves (not uncommonly cleared by burning), and then even these are blown, away, so that but bare, cracked and baked earth remains for long months where once all was beauty, color and life. E.W.G. Masterman FLUE; NET <floo > (King James Version, margin Habakkuk 1:15). See FISH; FISHING.

FLUTE <floot > . See MUSIC.

FLUX <fluks > . See BLOODY FLUX; DYSENTERY.

FLY; FLIES <fli > <fliz > [ bro[; , `arobh ] ( Exodus 8:21 ff; Psalm 78:45; 105:31; Septuagint [kuno>muia, kunomuia ]; “dog-fly”), [ bWbz] , zebhubh ] ( Ecclesiastes 10:1; Isaiah 7:18; Septuagint [mui~ai, muiai ], “flies”); compare [ bWnz] l[“B” , ba`al-zebhubh ], “Baal-zebub” ( 2 Kings 1:2 ff), and [beelzebou>l, beelzeboul ], “Beelzebul,” or [beelzebou>b, beelzeboub ], “Beelzebub” ( Matthew 10:25; 12:24,27; Luke 11:15,18,19); compare Arabic dhubab , “fly” or “bee”; (Note: dh for Arabic dhal , pronounced like d or z or like th in “the”): The references in Psalms as well as in Exodus are to the plague of flies, and the word `arobh is rendered “swarm of flies” throughout, except in Psalm 78:45; 105:31 the King James Version, where we find “divers sorts of flies” (compare Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) omne genus muscarum). In Exodus 8:21 we read, “I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are”; in Exodus 8:24, .... “the land was corrupted by reason of the swarms of flies”; in Psalm 78:45, “He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them.” There has been much speculation as to what the insects were, but all the texts cited, including even Psalm 78:45, may apply perfectly well to the common house fly (Musca domestica). Some species of blue-bottle fly (Calliphora) might also suit.

The other word, zebhubh , occurs in Ecclesiastes 10:1, “Dead flies cause the oil of the perfumer to send forth an evil odor; so doth a little folly outweigh wisdom and honor”; and Isaiah 7:18, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that Yahweh will hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria:” The house fly would fit perfectly the reference in each, but that in Isaiah would seem to suggest rather one of the horse flies (Tabanidae ) or gad flies (Oestridae ). Whatever fly may be meant, it is used as a symbol for the military power of Egypt, as the bee for that of Assyria.

Owing to deficiencies in public and private hygiene, and also for other reasons, house flies and others are unusually abundant in Palestine and Egypt and are agents in the transmission of cholera, typhoid fever, ophthalmia and anthrax. Glossina morsitans, the tsetse fly, which is fatal to many domestic animals, and Glossina palpalis which transmits the sleeping sickness, are abundant in tropical Africa, but do not reach Egypt proper. See PLAGUES.

Alfred Ely Day FLY (Verb; [ tW[ , `uph ] [peta>omai, petaomai ], or, contracted, ptaomai ): Used in preference to “flee” when great speed is to be indicated. “To fly” is used: (1) Literally, of birds, `uph ( Genesis 1:20; Psalm 55:6); da’ah ( Deuteronomy 28:49), of sparks ( Job 5:7); of the arrow ( Psalm 91:5); of the seraphim ( Isaiah 6:2,6); of an angel ( Daniel 9:21, ya`aph , “to be caused to fly”); of swift action or movement ( Psalm 18:10; Jeremiah 48:40); of people ( Isaiah 11:14); of a fleet ( Isaiah 60:8; 1 Samuel 15:19, `it ; 14:32, `asah , “to do,” etc.). (2) Figuratively, of a dream ( Job 20:8); of man’s transitory life ( Psalm 90:10); of riches ( Proverbs 23:5); of national glory ( Hosea 9:11).

For “fly” the Revised Version (British and American) has “soar” ( Job 39:26) “fly down” ( Isaiah 11:14); for “flying” ( Isaiah 31:5) the American Standard Revised Version has “hovering.” W. L. Walker FOAL <fol > . See COLT.

FOAM <fom > ([ tx,q, , qetseph ] ( Hosea 10:7); [ajfro>v, aphros ] ( Luke 9:39), [ajfri>zw, aphrizo ] ( Mark 9:18,20), [ejpafri>zw, epaphrizo ] ( Jude 1:13)): Qetseph from qatsaph , “to break to pieces,” or “to break forth into anger,” “to be angry,” occurs often in the sense of “wrath” or “anger” (e.g. Numbers 1:53; Psalm 38:1, etc.), and in this passage has been rendered “twigs” or “chips,” “As for Samaria, her king is cut off, as foam (the Revised Version, margin “twigs”) upon the water” ( Hosea 10:7). The other references are from the New Testament. In Jude, evildoers or false teachers are compared to the “wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.” In Mark and Luke the references are to the boy with a dumb spirit who foamed at the mouth. Alfred Ely Day FODDER <fod’-er > . See PROVENDER.

FOLD; FOLDING <fold > <fold’-ing > (verb; [ qb”j; , chabhaq ], [ Ëb”s; , sabhakh ]; [eJli>ssw, helisso ]): The verb occurs only 3 times in the King James Version, and in each instance represents a different word; we have chabhaq “to clasp” ( Ecclesiastes 4:5), “The fool foldeth his hands together” (compare Proverbs 6:10); cabhak, “to interweave” ( Nahum 1:10, “folded together as thorns,” the English Revised Version “like tangled thorns” the American Standard Revised Version “entangled like thorns”; see ENTANGLED ); helisso “to roll or fold up” ( Hebrews 1:12, quoted from <19A226> Psalm 102:26 (Septuagint), the Revised Version (British and American) “As a mantle shalt thou roll them up”). Folding occurs as translation of galil , “turning” or “rolling” ( 1 Kings 6:34 bis, folding leaves of door). See also HOUSE.

W. L. Walker FOLK <fok > : The translation of [ µ[“ , `am ], [ µ[; , `am ] “a people or nation” ( Genesis 33:15, “some of the folk that are with me”; Proverbs 30:26, “The conies are but a feeble folk”); of [ µaol] , le’om ], with the same meaning ( Jeremiah 51:58, “the folk in the fire,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the nations for the fire”); “sick folk” is the translation of [a]rjrJwstov, arrhostos ], “not strong” ( Mark 6:5); of [tw~n ajsqenou>ntwn, ton asthenounton ], participle of [ajsqene>w, astheneo ], “to be without strength,” “weak,” “sick” ( John 5:3, the Revised Version (British and American) “them that were sick”); “sick folks,” of [ajsqenei~v, astheneis ] plural of [ajsqenh>v, asthenes ], “without strength,” the Revised Version (British and American) “sick folk” ( Acts 5:16). W. L. Walker FOLLOW <fol’-o > ([ rj”a” , ‘achar ], [ td”r; , radhaph ]; [ajkolouqe>w, akoloutheo ], [diw>kw, dioko ]) : Frequently the translation of ‘achar , “after,” e.g. Numbers 14:24, “hath followed me fully,” literally, “fulfilled after me” ( Numbers 32:11,12; Deuteronomy 1:36; Amos 7:15); radhaph is “to pursue,” and is often so translated; it is translated “follow” ( Psalm 23:6; Isaiah 5:11, etc.); “follow after” ( Genesis 44:4; Exodus 14:4); reghel , “foot,” is several times translated “follow” (literally, “at the foot of”; Exodus 11:8; Judges 8:5, etc.); halakh ‘achar , “to go after” ( Deuteronomy 4:3; 1Kings 14:8, etc.); yalakh ‘achar , “to go on after” ( Genesis 24:5; Judges 2:19, etc.); dabheq , “to cause to cleave to” is “follow hard after” ( 1 Samuel 14:22; Psalm 63:8, etc.).

In the New Testament, in addition to akoloutheo ( Matthew 4:20,22,25, etc.) various words and phrases are rendered “follow,” e.g. Deute opiso mou , “Come after me” ( Matthew 4:19, “Follow me,” the Revised Version (British and American) “Come ye after me”); dioko , “to pursue” ( Luke 17:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “follow after,” etc.); mimeomai , “to imitate” ( Hebrews 13:7, “whose faith follow,” the Revised Version (British and American) “imitate their faith; 2 These 3:7,9; 3 John 1:11); compounds of akoloutheo with ex , para sun , etc. ( 2 Peter 1:16; Mark 16:20; Acts 16:17; Mark 5:37, etc.).

English Revised Version, “Follow after faithfulness” makes an important change in Psalm 37:3, where the King James Version has “and verily thou shalt be fed”; but the American Standard Revised Version has “feed on his faithfulness,” margin “feed securely or verily thou shalt be fed.” For “attained” ( 1 Timothy 4:6) the Revised Version (British and American) gives “followed until now.” W. L. Walker FOLLOWER <fol’-o-er > ([mimhth>v , mimetes ]): “Followers” is in the King James Version the translation of mimetes , “to imitate” (in the New Testament in the good sense of becoming imitators, or following an example), rendered by the Revised Version (British and American) “imitators” ( Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14; Hebrews 6:12); summimetai , “joint imitators” ( Philippians 3:17); in 1 Peter 3:13, the King James Version “followers of that which is good,” the word, according to a better text, is zelotis , the Revised Version (British and American) “if ye be zealous of that which is good.”

FOLLY <fol’-i > . See FOOL.

FOOD <food > :

In a previous article (see BREAD ) it has been shown that in the Bible “bread” usually stands for food in general and how this came to be so. In a complementary article on MEALS the methods of preparing and serving food will be dealt with. This article is devoted specifically to the foodstuffs of the Orient, more especially to articles of food in use among the Hebrews in Bible times. These are divisible into two main classes.

I. VEGETABLE FOODS. 1. Primitive Habits: Orientals in general are vegetarians, rather than flesh eaters. There is some reason to believe that primitive man was a vegetarian (see Genesis 2:16; 3:2,6). It would seem, indeed, from a comparison of Genesis 1:29 f with 9:3 f that Divine permission to eat the flesh of animals was first given to Noah after the Deluge, and then only on condition of drawing off the blood in a prescribed way (compare the kosher (kasher ) meat of the Jews of today). 2. Cereals: The chief place among the foodstuffs of Orientals must be accorded to the cereals, included in the American Standard Revised Version under the generic term “grain,” in the King James Version and the English Revised Version “corn.” The two most important of these in the nearer East are wheat (chiTTah ) and barley (se`orim ). The most primitive way of using the wheat as food was to pluck the fresh ears (Leviticus23:14; 2 Kings 4:42), remove the husks by rubbing in the hands ( Deuteronomy 23:25; Matthew 12:1), and eat the grains raw. A common practice in all lands and periods, observed by the fellaheen of Syria today, has been to parch or roast the ears and eat the grain not ground. This is the parched corn (the American Standard Revised Version “‘grain”) so often mentioned in the Old Testament, which with bread and vinegar (sour wine) constituted the meal of the reapers to which Boaz invited Ruth ( Ruth 2:14).

Later it became customary to grind the wheat into flour (kemach ), and, by bolting it with a fine sieve, to obtain the “fine flour” (coleth ) of our English Versions of the Bible, which, of course, was then made into “bread” (which see), either without leaven (matstsah ) or with (lechem chamets Leviticus7:13).

Meal, both of wheat and of barley, was prepared in very early times by means of the primitive rubbing-stones, which excavations at Lachish, Gezer and elsewhere show survived the introduction of the hand-mill (see MILL; Compare PEFS, 1902, 326). Barley (se`orim) has always furnished the principal food of the poorer classes, and, like wheat, has been made into bread ( Judges 7:13; John 6:9,13). Less frequently millet ( Ezekiel 4:9) and spelt (kuccemeth ; see FITCHES ) were so used. (For details of baking, bread-making, etc., see BREAD . III, 1,2,3.) 3. Leguminous Plants: Vegetable foods of the pulse family (leguminosae) are represented in the Old Testament chiefly by lentils and beans. The pulse of Daniel 1:12 (zero`im ) denotes edible “herbs” in general (Revised Version margin, compare Isaiah 61:11, “things that are sown”). The lentils (`adhashim ) were and are considered very toothsome and nutritious. It was of “red lentils” that Jacob brewed his fateful pottage ( Genesis 25:29,34), a stew, probably, in which the lentils were flavored with onions and other ingredients, as we find it done in Syria today. Lentils, beans, cereals, etc., were sometimes ground and mixed and made into bread ( Ezekiel 4:9). I found them at Gaza roasted also, and eaten with oil and salt, like parched corn.

The children of Israel, when in the wilderness, are said to have looked back wistfully on the “cucumbers .... melons .... leeks .... onions, and the garlic” of Egypt ( Numbers 11:5). All these things we find later were grown in Palestine. In addition, at least four varieties of the bean, the chickpea, various species of chickory and endive, the bitter herbs of the Passover ritual ( Exodus 12:8), mustard ( Matthew 13:31) and many other things available for food, are mentioned in the Mishna, our richest source of information on this subject. Cucumbers (qishshu’im ) were then, as now, much used. The oriental variety is much less fibrous and more succulent. and digestible than ours, and supplies the thirsty traveler often with a fine substitute for water where water is scarce or bad. The poor in such cities as Cairo, Beirut and Damascus live largely on bread and cucumbers or melons. The cucumbers are eaten raw, with or without salt, between meals, but also often stuffed and cooked and eaten at meal time. Onions (betsalim ), garlic (shummim ) and leeks (chatsir ) are still much used in Palestine as in Egypt. They are usually eaten raw with bread, though also used for flavoring in cooking, and, like cucumbers, pickled and eaten as a relish with meat (ZDPV, IX, 14). Men in utter extremity sometimes “plucked saltwort” (malluah ) and ate the leaves, either raw or boiled, and made “the roots of the broom” their food ( Job 30:4). 4. Food of Trees: In Leviticus19:23 f it is implied that, when Israel came into the land to possess it, they should “plant all manner of trees for food.” They doubtless found such trees in the goodly land in abundance, but in the natural course of things needed to plant more. Many olive trees remain fruitful to extreme old age, as for example those shown the tourist in the garden of Gethsemane, but many more require replanting. Then the olive after planting requires ten or fifteen years to fruit, and trees of a quicker growth, like the fig, are planted beside them and depended on for fruit in the meantime. It is significant that Jotham in his parable makes the olive the first choice of the trees to be their king ( Judges 9:9), and the olive tree to respond, “Should I leave my fatness, which God and man honor in me, and go to wave to and fro over the trees?” (American Revised Version margin). The berries of the olive (zayith ) were doubtless eaten, then as now, though nowhere in Scripture is it expressly so stated. The chief use of the berries, now as ever, is in furnishing “oil” (which see), but they are eaten in the fresh state, as also after being soaked in brine, by rich and poor alike, and are shipped in great quantities. Olive trees are still more or less abundant in Palestine, especially around Bethlehem and Hebron, on the borders of the rich plains of Esdraelon, Phoenicia, Sharon and Philistia, in the vale of Shechem, the plain of Moreh, and in the trans-Jordanic regions of Gilead and Bashan. They are esteemed as among the best possessions of the towns, and the culture of them is being revived around Jerusalem, in the Jordan valley and elsewhere throughout the land. They are beautiful to behold in all stages of their growth, but especially in spring. Then they bear an amazing wealth of blossoms, which in the breeze fall in showers like snowflakes, a fact that gives point to Job’s words, “He shall cast off his flower as the olive-tree” ( Job 15:33). The mode of gathering the fruit is still about what it was in ancient times (compare Exodus 27:20).

Next in rank to the olive, according to Jotham’s order, though first as an article of food, is the fig (in the Old Testament te’enah , in the New Testament suke), whose “sweetness” is praised in the parable ( Judges 9:11). It is the principal shade and fruit tree of Palestine, growing in all parts, in many spontaneously, and is the emblem of peace and prosperity ( Deuteronomy 8:8; Judges 9:10; 1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4; Zec 3:10; 1 Macc 14:12). The best fig and olive orchards are carefully plowed, first in the spring when the buds are swelling, sometimes again when the second crop is sprouting, and again after the first rains in the autumn. The “first-ripe fig” (bikkurah , Isaiah 28:4; Jeremiah 24:2), i.e. the early fig which grows on last year’s wood, was and is esteemed as a great delicacy, and is often eaten while it is young and green. The late fig (te’enim ) is the kind dried in the sun and put up in quantities for use out of season. Among the Greeks and the Romans, as well as among the Hebrews, dried figs were most extensively used. When pressed in a mold they formed the “cakes of figs” (debhelah ) mentioned in the Old Testament ( 1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Chronicles 12:40), doubtless about such as are found today in Syria and Smyrna, put up for home use and for shipment. It was such a fig-cake that was presented as a poultice (the King James Version “plaster”) for Hezekiah’s boil ( Isaiah 38:21; compare Kings 20:7). As the fruit-buds of the fig appear before the leaves, a tree full of leaves and without fruit would be counted “barren” ( Mark 11:12 f; compare Isaiah 28:4; Jeremiah 24:2; Hosea 9:10; Nahum 3:12; Matthew 21:19; Luke 13:7).

Grapes (‘anabhim ), often called “the fruit of the vine” ( Matthew 26:29), have always been a much-prized article of food in the Orient. They are closely associated in the Bible with the fig (compare “every man under his vine and under his fig-tree,” 1 Kings 4:25). Like the olive, the fig, and the date-palm, grapes are indigenous to Syria, the soil and climate being most favorable to their growth and perfection. Southern Palestine especially yields a rich abundance of choice grapes, somewhat as in patriarchal times ( Genesis 49:11,12). J. T. Haddad, a native Syrian, for many years in the employment of the Turkish government, tells of a variety in the famous valley of Eshcol near Hebron, a bunch from which has been known to weigh twenty-eight pounds (compare Numbers 13:23). Of the grapevine there is nothing wasted; the young leaves are used as a green vegetable, and the old are fed to sheep and goats. The branches cut off in pruning, as well as the dead trunk, are used to make charcoal, or for firewood. The failure of such a fruit was naturally regarded as a judgment from Yahweh ( <19A533> Psalm 105:33; Jeremiah 5:17; Hosea 2:12; Joel 1:7). Grapes, like figs, were both enjoyed in their natural state, and by exposure to the sun dried into raisins (tsimmuqim ), the “dried grapes” of Numbers 6:3. In this form they were especially well suited to the use of travelers and soldiers ( 1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Chronicles 12:40). The meaning of the word rendered “raisin-cake,” the American Standard Revised Version “a cake of raisins” ( 2 Samuel 6:19 and elsewhere), is uncertain. In Bible times the bulk of the grape product of the land went to the making of wine (which see). Some doubt if the Hebrews knew grapesyrup, but the fact that the Aramaic dibs, corresponding to Hebrew debhash , is used to denote both the natural and artificial honey (grape- syrup), seems to indicate that they knew the latter (compare Genesis 43:11; Ezekiel 27:17; and see HONEY ).

Less prominent was the fruit of the mulberry figtree (or sycomore) (shiqmah ), of the date-palm (tamar ), the dates of which, according to the Mishna, were both eaten as they came from the tree, and dried in clusters and pressed into cakes for transport; the pomegranate (tappuach ), the “apple” of the King James Version (see APPLE ), or quinch, according to others; the husks ( Luke 15:16), i.e. the pods of the carob tree [kera>tion, keration ]), are treated elsewhere. Certain nuts were favorite articles of food — pistachio nuts (boTnim ), almonds (sheqedhim ) and walnuts (‘eghoz ); and certain spices and vegetables were much used for seasoning: cummin (kammon ), anise, dill (the King James Version) (qetsach ), mint ([hJdu>osmon, heduosmon ]) and mustard ([si>napi, sinapi ]), which see. Salt (melach ), of course, played an important part, then as now, in the cooking and in the life of the Orientals. To “eat the salt” of a person was synonymous with eating his bread (Ezr 4:14), and a “covenant of salt” was held inviolable ( Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5).

II. ANIMAL FOOD.

Anciently, even more than now in the East, flesh food was much less used than among western peoples. In the first place, in Israel and among other Semitic peoples, it was confined by law to the use of such animals and birds as were regarded as “clean” (see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS ), or speaking according to the categories of Leviticus11:2,3; Deuteronomy 14:4-20, domestic animals and game (see Driver on Deuteronomy 14:4-20). Then the poverty of the peasantry from time immemorial has tended to limit the use of meat to special occasions, such as family festivals (chaggim ), the entertainment of an honored guest ( Genesis 18:7; Samuel 12:4), and the sacrificial meal at the local sanctuary.

The goat (`ez , etc.), especially the “kid of the goats” (Leviticus4:23,18 the King James Version), was more prized for food by the ancient Hebrews than by modern Orientals, by whom goats are kept chiefly for their milk — most of which they supply (compare Proverbs 27:27). For this reason they are still among the most valued possessions of rich and poor (compare Genesis 30:33; 32:14 with 1 Samuel 25:2). A kid, as less valuable than a lamb, was naturally the readier victim when meat was required (compare Luke 15:29).

The sheep of Palestine, as of Egypt, are mainly of the fat-tailed species (Ovis aries), the tail of which was forbidden as ordinary food and had to be offered with certain other portions of the fat ( Exodus 29:22; Leviticus3:9). To kill a lamb in honor of a gue st is one of the highest acts of Bedouin hospitality. As a rule only the lambs are killed for meat, and they only in honor of some guest or festive occasion (compare Samuel 25:18; 1 Kings 1:19). Likewise the “calves of the herd” supplied the daintiest food of the kind, though the flesh of the neat cattle, male and female, was eaten. The “fatted calf” of Luke 15:23 will be recalled, as also the “fatlings” and the “stalled” (stall-fed) ox of the Old Testament ( Proverbs 15:17). Asharp contrast suggestive of the growth of luxury in Israel is seen by a comparison of 2 Samuel 17:28 f with 1 Kings 4:22 f. The food furnished David and his hardy followers at Mahanaim was “wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of the herd,” while the daily provision for Solomon’s table was “thirty measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and a hundred sheep, besides harts, and gazelles, and roebucks, and fatted fowl.” Nehemiah’s daily portion is given as “one ox and six choice sheep” ( Nehemiah 5:18).

Milk of large and small animals was a staple article of food ( Deuteronomy 32:14; Proverbs 27:27). It was usually kept in skins, as among the Syrian peasants it is today ( Judges 4:19). We find a generic term often used (chem’ah ) which covers also cream, clabber and cheese ( Proverbs 30:33). The proper designation of cheese is gebhinah ( Job 10:10), but chalabh also is used both for ordinary milk and for a cheese made directly from sweet milk (compare 1 Samuel 17:18, charitse hechalabh, and our “cottage cheese”). See MILK.

Honey (debhash , nopheth ha-tsuphim ), so often mentioned with milk, is ordinary bees’ honey (see HONEY ). The expression “honey” in the combination debhash wechalabh, for which Palestine was praised, most likely means debhash temarim, i.e. “date-juice.” It was much prized and relished ( Psalm 19:10; Proverbs 16:24), and seems to have been a favorite food for children ( Isaiah 7:15).

Of game seven species are mentioned ( Deuteronomy 14:5). The gazelle and the hart were the typical animals of the chase, much prized for their flesh ( Deuteronomy 12:15), and doubtless supplied the venison of Esau’s “savory meat” ( Genesis 25:28; 27:4).

Of fish as food little is said in the Old Testament (see Numbers 11:5; Jeremiah 16:16; Ezekiel 47:10; Ecclesiastes 9:12). No particular species is named, although thirty-six species are said to be found in the waters of the Jordan valley alone. But we may be sure that the fish which the Hebrews enjoyed in Egypt “for nought” ( Numbers 11:5) had their successors in Canaan (Kennedy). Trade in cured fish was carried on by Tyrian merchants with Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s day ( Nehemiah 13:16), and there must have been a fish market at or near the fish gate ( Nehemiah 3:3). The Sea of Galilee in later times was the center of a great fish industry, as is made clear by the Gospels and by Josephus In the market of Tiberias today fresh fish are sold in great quantities, and a thriving trade in salt fish is carried on. The “small fishes” of our Lord’s two great miracles of feeding were doubtless of this kind, as at all times they have been a favorite form of provision for a journey in hot countries.

As to the exact price of food in ancient times little is known. From <120701> Kings 7:1,16 we learn that one ce’ah of fine flour, and two of barley, sold for a shekel (compare Matthew 10:29). For birds allowed as food see Deuteronomy 14:11 and articles on CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS .

Pigeons and turtle doves find a place in the ritual of various sacrifices, and so are to be reckoned as “clean” for ordinary uses as well. The species of domestic fowl found there today seem to have been introduced during the Persian period (compare 2 Esdras 1:30; Matthew 23:37; 26:34, etc.). It is thought that the fatted fowl of Solomon’s table ( 1 Kings 4:23) were geese (see Mish). Fatted goose is a favorite food with Jews today, as it was with the ancient Egyptians.

Of game birds used for food (see Nehemiah 5:18) the partridge and the quail are prominent, and the humble sparrow comes in for his share of mention ( Matthew 10:29; Luke 12:6). Then, as now, the eggs of domestic fowls and of all “clean” birds were favorite articles of food ( Deuteronomy 22:6; Isaiah 10:14; Luke 11:12).

Edible insects (Leviticus11:22 f) are usually classed with animal foods. In general they are of the locust family (see LOCUST ). They formed part of the food of John the Baptist ( Matthew 3:4, etc.), were regarded by the Assyrians as delicacies, and are a favorite food of the Arabs today. They are prepared and served in various ways, the one most common being to remove the head, legs and wings, to drop it in meal, and then fry it in oil or butter. It then tastes a little like fried frogs’ legs. In the diet of the Baptist, locusts were associated with wild honey (see HONEY ).

As to condiments (see separate articles on SALT; CORIANDER, etc.) it needs only to be said here that the caperberry ( Ecclesiastes 12:5 margin) was eaten before meals as an appetizer and, strictly speaking, was not a condiment. Mustard was valued for the leaves, not for the seed ( Matthew 13:31). Pepper, though not mentioned in Scripture, is mentioned margin the Mishna as among the condiments. Before it came into use, spicy seeds like cummin, the coriander, etc., played a more important role than since.

The abhorrence of the Hebrews for all food prepared or handled by the heathen (see ABOMINATION ) is to be attributed primarily to the intimate association in early times between flesh food and sacrifices to the gods.

This finds conspicuous illustration in the case of Daniel ( Daniel 1:8), Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 5:27), Josephus (Vita, III), and their compatriots (see also Acts 15:20,29; 1 Corinthians 8:1-10; 10:19,28). As to sources of food supply and traffic in food stuffs, for primitive usages see Genesis 18:7; 27:9; 1 Kings 21:2. As to articles and customs of commerce adopted when men became dwellers in cities, see Jeremiah 37:21, where bakers were numerous enough in Jerusalem to give their name to a street or bazaar, where doubtless, as today, they baked and sold bread to the public (compare Mishna,passim). Extensive trade in “victuals” in Nehemiah’s day is attested by Nehemiah 13:15 f, and by specific mention of the “fish gate” (3:3) and the “sheep gate” (3:1), so named evidently because of their nearby markets. In John’s Gospel ( John 4:8; 13:29) we have incidental evidence that the disciples were accustomed to buy food as they journeyed through the land. In Jerusalem, cheese was clearly to be bought in the cheesemakers’ valley (Tyropoeon), oil of the oil merchants ( Matthew 25:9), and so on; and Corinth, we may be sure, was not the only city of Paul’s day that had a provision market (“shambles,” 1 Corinthians 10:25 the Revised Version (British and American)).

LITERATURE.

Mishna B.M. 1:1,2 and passim; Josephus, Vita and BJ; Robinson’s Researches, II, 416, etc.; and Biblical Dictionaries, articles on “Food,” etc. George B. Eager FOOL; FOLLY <fool > [ lb;n; , nabhal ], [ lywia,] , ‘ewil ], [ lysiK] , kecil ], [ lk;s; , cakhal ] and forms; [a]frwn, aphron ], [ajfrosu>nh, aphrosune ], [mwro>v, moros ]):

I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. General: Taking the words generally, apart from the Wisdom literature, we find nabhal frequently translated “fool” and nebhalah , “folly”; nabhal , however, denotes a wicked person, an evil character, “shamelessly immoral,” equivalent to “a son of Belial” (Cheyne), rather than a merely “foolish” person, and nebhalah , “wickedness,” “shameless impropriety,” rather than simple folly. We have almost a definition of nabhal in Isaiah 32:6: “For the fool will speak folly, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice profaneness, and to utter error against Yahweh, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.” Abigail described her husband, Nabhal, as “a son of Belial” (the Revised Version (British and American) “worthless fellow”), “for as his name is, so is he” ( 1 Samuel 25:25), and what we read of him bears out this character.

Other occurrences of the words support the above meaning; they are generally associated with some form of wickedness, frequently with base and unnatural lewdness ( Genesis 34:7; Deuteronomy 22:21; Joshua 7:15; Judges 19:23,14; 20:6,10; 2 Samuel 13:12). When in Psalm 14:1; 53:1 it is said, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” it is followed by the statement, “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,” showing that more than “folly” is implied. In Isaiah 32:5,6 the King James Version nabhal is translated “vile person” and nebhalah “villany,” the Revised Version (British and American) “fool” and “folly,” Jeremiah 29:23; halal, implying loud boasting is in the King James Version translated “foolish,” but it means, rather, “arrogant,” which the Revised Version (British and American) adopts ( Psalm 5:5; 73:3; 75:4, margin “fools”); cakhal, “a fool,” also occurs ( Genesis 31:28; 1 Samuel 13:13, etc.) for which word see (4) below; also ya’al “to be empty,” “to be or become foolish” ( Numbers 12:11; Isaiah 19:13; Jeremiah 5:4; 50:36). 2. The Wisdom Literature: In the Chokhmah or Wisdom literature, which, within the Bible, is contained in Job, Proverbs (especially), Ecclesiastes, Canticles, some Psalms and certain portions of the prophetic writings, “fool” and “folly” are frequent and distinctive words. Their significance is best seen in contrast with “Wisdom.” This was the outcome of careful observation and long pondering on actual life in the light of religion and the Divine revelation.

Wisdom had its seat in God and was imparted to those who “feared” Him (“The fear of Yahweh is the beginning (chief part) of knowledge” Proverbs 1:7). Such wisdom was the essence of life, and to be without it was to walk in the way of death and destruction. The fool was he who was thoughtless, careless, conceited, self-sufficient, indifferent to God and His Will, or who might even oppose and scoff at religion and wise instruction. See WISDOM . Various words are used to designate “the fool” and his “folly.” (1) nabhal ( Job 2:10; 30:8; Psalm 53:1; Proverbs 17:7-21); [nebhalah] ( Job 42:8; Isaiah 9:17) (see above). (2) ‘ewil , one of the commonest, the idea conveyed by which is that of one who is hasty, impatient, self-sufficient ( Proverbs 12:15; 15:5; 16:22); despising advice and instruction ( Proverbs 1:7; 14:9; 24:7); ready to speak and act without thinking ( Proverbs 10:14; 12:16; 20:3); quick to get angry, quarrel and cause strife ( Proverbs 11:29; 14:17 ‘iwweleth; 29:9); unrestrained in his anger ( Job 5:2; Proverbs 17:12); silly, stupid even with brute stupidity ( Proverbs 7:22; 26:11; 27:22; compare Isaiah 19:11; Jeremiah 4:22); he is associated with “transgression” ( <19A717> Psalm 107:17; Proverbs 13:15; 17:18,19), with “sin” ( Proverbs 24:9), with the “scoffer” (same place) ; ‘iwweleth, “foolishness” occurs ( Psalm 38:5; 69:5; Proverbs 13:16; “folly,” 14:8,24,29, etc.). (3) kecil is the word most frequent in Proverbs. It is probably from a root meaning “thickness,” “sluggishness,” suggesting a slow, self-confident person, but it is used with a wide reference. Self-confidence appears ( Proverbs 14:16; 28:26); ignorance ( Ecclesiastes 2:14); hate of instruction ( Proverbs 1:22; 18:2); thoughtlessness ( Proverbs 10:23; 17:24); self-exposure ( Proverbs 14:33; 15:2; 18:7; 29:11; Ecclesiastes 5:1; 10:12); anger and contention ( Proverbs 18:6; 19:1; Ecclesiastes 7:9); rage ( Proverbs 14:16; 17:12); indolence and improvidence ( Ecclesiastes 4:5; Proverbs 21:20); silly merriment ( Ecclesiastes 7:4,5,6); brutishness ( Proverbs 26:11; compare Psalm 49:10; 92:6); it is associated with slander ( Proverbs 10:18), with evil ( Proverbs 13:19). (4) cakhal , cekhel , cikhluth , also occur. These are probably from a root meaning “to be stopped up” (Cheyne), and are generally taken as denoting thickheadedness; but they are used in a stronger sense than mere foolishness (compare 1 Samuel 26:21; 2 Samuel 24:10, etc.). These words do not occur in Prov, but in Ecclesiastes 2:12; 7:25; cikhluth is associated with “madness” (“Wickedness is folly, and .... foolishness is madness”). (5) pethi , “simple,” is only once translated “foolish” ( Proverbs 9:6 the King James Version). (6) ba`ar , ‘brutish,” is translated “foolish” ( Psalm 73:22 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “brutish”). (7) taphel , “insipid,” “untempered,” is translated “foolish” ( Lamentations 2:14); tiphlah, “insipidity” ( Job 1:22, “foolishly,” the English Revised Version, “with foolishness”; 24:12, “folly”; Jeremiah 23:13, “folly,” the King James Version margin”unsavoury, or, an absurd thing”). (8) toholah ( Job 4:18: “Behold, he putteth no trust in his servants; and his angels he chargeth with folly” (Delitzsch, “imperfection,” others, “error”), the King James Version margin”nor in his angels in whom he put light”).

II. IN THE APOCRYPHA.

In the continuation of the Wisdom literature in The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclus, “fool” frequently occurs with a signification similar to that in Proverbs; in The Wisdom of Solomon we have aphron (12:24; 15:5, etc.), in Ecclesiasticus, moros (18:18; 19:11, etc.; 20:13; 21:16, etc.).

III. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In the New Testament we have various words translated “fool,” “foolish,” “folly,” etc., in the ordinary acceptation of these terms; aphron , “mindless,” “witless” ( Luke 11:40; 12:20; 1 Corinthians 15:36); aphrosune , “want of mind or wisdom” ( 2 Corinthians 11:1; Mark 7:22); anoia, “want of understanding” ( 2 Timothy 3:9); moraino, “to make dull,” “foolish” ( Romans 1:22; 1 Corinthians 1:20); moros, “dull,” “stupid” ( Matthew 7:26; 23:17; 25:2; 1 Corinthians 1:25,27); moria , “foolishness” ( 1 Corinthians 1:18, etc.); morologia , “foolish talk” ( Ephesians 5:4).

In Matthew 5:22 our Lord says: “Whosoever shall say (to his brother), Thou fool (more), shall be in danger of the hell of fire (the Gehenna of fire).” Two explanations of this word are possible: (1) that it is not the vocative of the Greek moros — a word which was applied by Jesus Himself to the Pharisees ( Matthew 23:17,19), but represents the Hebrew morah , “rebel” applied in Numbers 20:10 by Moses to the people, “ye rebels” (for which he was believed to be excluded from the promised land; compare 20:12; hence, we have in the Revised Version, margin “or moreh , a Hebrew expression of condemnation”); or (2) that, as our Lord spake in the Aramaic it is the Greek translation of a word representing the Hebrew nabhal , “vile, or worthless fellow,” atheist, etc. ( Psalm 14:1; 53:1). W. L. Walker FOOLERY <fool’-er-i > : The plural “fooleries” occurs Ecclesiasticus 22:13 King James Version: “Talk not much with a fool .... and thou shalt never be defiled with his fooleries.” The Greek word is [ejntinagmo>v, entinagmos ], “a striking or throwing in,” “an attack,” from entinasso , “to strike into,” “cast at,” etc. (1 Macc 2:36; 2 Macc 4:41; 11:11). the Revised Version (British and American) renders “Thou shalt not be defiled in his onslaught,” margin “defiled: in his onslaught turn.” The meaning is most probably “with what he throws out,” i.e. his foolish or vile speeches, as if it were slaver.

FOOT <foot > ([ lg,r, , reghel ], [ lsor]q” , qarcol ] (only twice in parallel passages: 2 Samuel 22:37 = Psalm 18:36, where it probably means ankle); [pou>v, pous ]): The dusty roads of Palestine and other eastern lands make a much greater care of the feet necessary than we are accustomed to bestow upon them. The absence of socks or stockings, the use of sandals and low shoes rather than boots and, to an even greater degree, the frequent habit of walking barefoot make it necessary to wash the feet repeatedly every day. This is always done when entering the house, especially the better upper rooms which are usually carpeted. It is a common dictate of good manners to perform this duty to a visitor, either personally or through a servant; at least water for washing has to be presented ( Genesis 18:4; Luke 7:44). This has therefore become almost synonymous with the bestowal of hospitality ( 1 Timothy 5:10). At an early date this service was considered one of the lowest tasks of servants ( 1 Samuel 25:41), probably because the youngest and least trained servants were charged with the task, or because of the idea of defilement connected with the foot.

It was, for the same reason, if rendered voluntarily, a service which betokened complete devotion. Jesus taught the greatest lesson of humility by performing this humble service to His disciples ( John 13:4-15). The undoing of the latchets or leather thongs of the sandals ( Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27) seems to refer to the same menial duty.

Often the feet and shoes were dusted on the highway, as is being done in the Orient to this day, but if it were done in an ostentatious manner in the presence of a person or a community who had refused hospitality to a stranger, it was understood in the same sense in which the cutting in two of the tablecloth was considered in the days of knighthood: it meant rejection and separation ( Matthew 10:14; Acts 13:51).

The roads of the desert were not only dusty but rough, and the wanderer was almost sure to ruin his ill-made shoes and wound his weary feet. A special providence of God protected the children of Israel from this experience during the long journey through the wilderness. “Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years” ( Deuteronomy 8:4; 29:5).

In the house shoes and sandals were never worn; even the most delicate would put on shoes only when going out ( Deuteronomy 28:56). The shoes were left outside of the house or in a vestibule. This was especially done in the house of God and at the time of prayer, for whenever or wherever that might be, the law was: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” ( Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15; Acts 7:33). This custom still prevails among the Moslems of our day. Probably it was the idea of defilement through contact with the common ground which gave rise to its moral application by the Preacher, “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God” ( Ecclesiastes 5:1 (Hebrew 4:17)).

Nakedness of the feet in public, especially among the wealthier classes, who used to wear shoes or sandals, was a token of mourning ( Ezekiel 24:17 and probably also Jeremiah 2:25 and Isaiah 20:2-4). A peculiar ceremony is referred to in Deuteronomy 25:9,10, whereby a brother-in-law, who refused to perform his duty under the Levirate law, was publicly put to shame. “And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” See also Ruth 4:7,8.

Numerous are the phrases in which the word “foot” or “feet” is used in Biblical language. “To cover the feet” ( 1 Samuel 24:3) is synonymous with obeying a call of Nature. “To speak with the feet” is expressive of the eloquence of abusive and obscene gesticulation among oriental people, where hands, eyes and feet are able to express much without the use of words ( Proverbs 6:13). “To sit at the feet,” means to occupy the place of a learner ( Deuteronomy 33:3; Luke 10:39; Acts 22:3).

Vanquished enemies had to submit to being trodden upon by the conqueror (a ceremony often represented on Egyptian monuments; Joshua 10:24; Psalm 8:6; 110:1; compare Isaiah 49:23). James warns against an undue humiliation of those who join us in the service of God, even though they be poor or mean-looking, by bidding them to take a lowly place at the feet of the richer members of the congregation (Jas 2:3). We read of dying Jacob that “he gathered up his feet into the bed,” for he had evidently used his bed as a couch, on which he had been seated while delivering his charge to his several sons ( Genesis 49:33). “Foot” or “feet” is sometimes used euphemistically for the genitals ( Deuteronomy 28:57; Ezekiel 16:25). In Deuteronomy 11:10 an interesting reference is made to some Egyptian mode of irrigating the fields, `the watering with the foot,’ which mode would be unnecessary in the promised land of Canaan which “drinketh water of the rain of heaven.” It is, however, uncertain whether this refers to the water-wheels worked by a treadmill arrangement or whether reference is made to the many tributary channels, which, according to representations on the Egyptian monuments, intersected the gardens and fields and which could be stopped or opened by placing or removing a piece of sod at the mouth of the channel. This was usually done with the foot. Frequently we find references to the foot in expressions connected with journeyings and pilgrimages, which formed so large a part in the experiences of Israel, e.g. Psalm 91:12, “lest thou dash thy foot against a stone”; 94:18, “My foot slippeth”; 121:3, “He will not suffer thy foot to be moved,” and many more. Often the reference is to the “walk,” i.e. the moral conduct of life ( Psalm 73:2; Job 23:11; 31:5).

Figurative: In the metaphorical language of Isaiah 52:7 “the feet” are synonymous with “the coming.” H. L. E. Luering FOOTMAN <foot’-man > . See WAR.

FOOTSTOOL <foot’-stool > ([ cb,K, , kebhes ]; [uJpopo>dion, hupopodion ], “trodden on”):

The 15 Scripture references to this term may be classified as literal or figurative. Of the former are the two passages: 2 Chronicles 9:18 and Jas 2:3. In these the footstool was a sort of step or support for the feet placed before the throne or any pretentious seat.

Of figurative uses, there are the following groups: (1) Of the earth: Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:35; Acts 7:49. (2) Of the ark: 1 Chronicles 28:2. (3) Of the Temple: Psalm 99:5; 132:7; Lamentations 2:1; compare Isaiah 60:13. (4) Of heathen enemies subdued by the Messianic King: <19B001> Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:44 the King James Version; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Hebrews 1:13; 10:13. Thus the uses of this term are mainly metaphorical and symbolic of subjection, either to God as universal Lord or to God’s Son as King by redemptive right. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:25-27, in which all things, including death, are represented as subject to Christ and placed beneath His feet. Leonard W. Doolan FOR <for > ([ yKi , ki ] (conjunction), [ l] , le ], from [ la, , ‘el ] (preposition), and various other words. In the New Testament also the words are various, chiefly [ga>r, gar ,] [kai< ga>r, kai gar ], [o[ti, hoti ] (conjunctions); [ajnti>, and ] [ajpo>, apo ] [eijv, eis ] [dia>, dia ] (accusative), [ejpi>, epi ] (dative and accusative), [peri>, peri ] (genitive), [pro>v, pros ] (genitive and accusative), [uJpe>r, huper ] (genitive) (prepositions)): the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version give in many cases more literal or more accurate renderings than those in the King James Version.

In the New Testament the most important preps. from a doctrinal point of view are and , “face to face,” “over against,” “instead,” “on behalf of,” peri , “around,” “about,” “concerning,” huper , “over,” “on behalf of.” The first has been claimed as stating the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice as contrasted with huper and peri , more frequently used of it. But, although and in the New Testament often means “instead of,” “answering to,” it does not necessarily imply substitution. On the other hand, in classical Greek huper is sometimes used in that sense (see Trench, Synonyms). “Here as always the root idea of the preposition, the root idea of the case, and the context must all be considered” (Robertson, Grammar, 124). Anti is found in this connection only in Matthew 20:28, and Mark 10:45. In Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24, we have peri , also in Hebrews 10:6,8,18,26; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Luke 22:19,20 has huper , which is the word commonly used by Paul, as in Romans 5:6,8; 8:32; 14:15; 1 Corinthians 15:3, etc., also by John in his Gospel, 6:51; 10:11, etc., and 1 John 3:16; also Hebrews 2:9; 10:12; 1 Peter 2:21; 3:18; 4:1; in Romans 8:3 it is peri . W. L. Walker FORAY <for’-a > ( 2 Samuel 3:22). See WAR.

FORBEAR <for-bar’ > ([ lD”j; , chadhal ]; [ajne>comai, anechomai ]): In the Old Testament chadhal , “to leave off,” is the word most frequently translated “forbear” ( Exodus 23:5, etc.); damam , “to be silent,” chasakh , “to keep back,” mashakh, “to draw or stretch out,” occur once each; the Revised Version (British and American) renders Ezekiel 24:17 (damam ), “Sigh, but not aloud,” margin “Hebrew be silent,”; Proverbs 24:11 (chasakh ), “See that thou hold back,” margin “or forbear thou not to deliver,” the King James Version “if thou forbear to deliver”; Nehemiah 9:30 (mashakh), “bear” instead of “forbear”; ‘aph literally, “breathing,” the “nose,” hence, from violent breathing, “anger” (‘erekh , “long,” understood), and kul “to hold,” are translated “forbearing” ( Proverbs 25:15; Jeremiah 20:9, respectively).

In the New Testament we have anechomai , “to hold self back or up,” “with longsuffering, forbearing one another” ( Ephesians 4:2,; Colossians 3:13); aniemi “to send back,” the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) “forbear threatening’ ( Ephesians 6:9); pheidomai , “to spare,” “but I forbear” ( Corinthians 12:6); meergazesthai, “not to work,” “to forbear working” ( 1 Corinthians 9:6); stego , “to cover,” “conceal”: “when I could no longer forbear” ( 1 Thessalonians 3:1,5). W. L.Walker FORBEARANCE <for-bar’-ans > ([ajnoch>, anoche ]): “Forbearance” (anoche , “a holding back”) is ascribed to God ( Romans 2:4, “the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering”; 3:25 the Revised Version (British and American), “the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God,” the King James Version “remission” (margin “passing over”) of sins, that are past, through the forbearance of God”); in Philippians 4:5, to epieikes is translated by the Revised Version (British and American) “forbearance,” margin “gentleness”; it is a Christian grace in likeness to God. “Forbearing” (The King James Version, margin) is substituted by the Revised Version (British and American) for “patient” (anexikakos , “holding up under evil”) in 2 Timothy 2:24. W. L. Walker FORBID <for-bid’ > ([ al;K; , kala ]; [kwlu>w, koluo ]): Occurs very seldom in the Old Testament except as the rendering of chalilah (see below); it is once the translation of kala’ , “to restrain” ( Numbers 11:28, “Joshua .... said My lord Moses forbid them”); twice of tsawah , “to command” ( Deuteronomy 2:37, “and wheresoever Yahweh our God forbade us”; 4:23, “Yahweh thy God hath forbidden thee,” literally, “commanded”); once of lo’, “not,” the Revised Version (British and American) “commanded not to be done” (Leviticus5:17). In the phrases, “Yahweh forbid” ( 1 Samuel 24:6; 26:11; 1 Kings 21:13), “God forbid” ( Genesis 44:7; Joshua 22:29; 24:16; 1 Samuel 12:23; Job 27:5, etc.), “My God forbid it me” ( 1 Chronicles 11:19), the word is chalilah , denoting profanation, or abhorrence (rendered, Genesis 18:25 the King James Version, “that be far from thee”); the English Revised Version leaves the expressions unchanged; the American Standard Revised Version substitutes “far be it from me,” “thee,” etc., except in 1 Samuel 14:45; 20:2, where it is, “Far from it.”

In the New Testament koluo , “to cut short,” “restrain” is the word commonly translated “forbid” ( Matthew 19:14, “forbid them not,” etc.); in Luke 6:29, the Revised Version (British and American) has “withhold not”; diakoluo , with a similar meaning, occurs in Matthew 3:14, “John forbade him,” the Revised Version (British and American) “would have hindered him”; akolutos , “uncut off” ( Acts 28:31), is translated “none forbidding him.” The phrase “God forbid” (me genoito , “let it not be,” Luke 20:16; Romans 3:4, etc.) is retained by the Revised Version (British and American), with margin “Be it not so,” except in Galatians 6:14, where the text has “Far be it from me”; me genoito is one of the renderings of chalilah in Septuagint. “God forbid” also appears in Apocrypha (1 Macc 2:21, the Revised Version (British and American) “Heaven forbid,” margin, Greek “may he be propitious,” Macc 9:10, the Revised Version (British and American) “Let it not be”). W. L. Walker FORCES <for’-sis > ([ lyij” , chayil ]): (1) The word is used as a military term, equivalent to army, in 2 Kings 25:23,16 (where the King James Version reads “armies”); 2 Chronicles 17:2; Jeremiah 40:7, etc. See ARMY. (2) In Isaiah 60:5,11, it is rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) by “wealth,” and in Obadiah verse 11, by “substance.”

Two other Hebrew words are also translated “forces” in the King James Version, ma’amatstsim ( Job 36:19), and ma`oz ( Daniel 11:38), the latter being rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) “fortresses.”

FORD <ford > ([ rb;[\m” , ma`abhar ] ( Genesis 32:22; “pass” (of Michmash), 1 Samuel 13:23; “stroke” (the Revised Version, margin “passing”), Isaiah 30:32); [ hr;B;[]m” , ma`barah ] ( Joshua 2:7; Judges 3:28; 12:5,6; Isaiah 16:2; “pass” (of Michmash), 1 Samuel 14:4; “passages” (the Revised Version, margin “fords”), Jeremiah 51:32); [ hr;b;[\ , `abharah ] ( 2 Samuel 15:28; 17:16; “ferry-boat” (the Revised Version, margin “convoy”), 2 Samuel 19:18); from [ rb”[; , `abhar ], “to pass over”; compare Arabic `abar , “to pass over” and ma`bar , “a ford”): In the journeyings of the children of Israel, in addition to the miraculous passages of the Red Sea and the Jordan, they had other streams to pass over, especially the Zered (Chisa’ ) and the Arnon (Maujib ) ( Numbers 21:12,13; Deuteronomy 2:24). The Jabbok (Zarqa ) is frequently referred to, particularly in connection with Jacob ( Genesis 32:22). The most frequent references are to the Jordan which, in time of flood, was impassable ( Joshua 3:15). The lower Jordan is about 100 ft. wide, and from 5 to 12 ft. deep, so that in the absence of bridges, the places where it was possible to ford were of great importance. The passage of the Jordan is referred to in connection with Jacob ( Genesis 32:10), Gideon ( Judges 8:4), the children of Ammon ( Judges 10:9), Abner and his men ( 2 Samuel 2:29), David ( 2 Samuel 10:17; 17:22), Absalom ( 2 Samuel 17:24), and others. Jesus undoubtedly crossed the Jordan, and John is thought to have baptized at the ford of the Jordan near Jericho. The fords of the Jordan are specifically mentioned in Joshua 2:7 in connection with the pursuit of the spies who were hidden in Rahab’s house, and in 2 Samuel 15:28; 17:16 in connection with the flight of David. In the last two passages we have abharah , the same word which, in the account of David’s return ( 2 Samuel 19:18), is rendered “ferryboat” (the Revised Version, margin “convoy”). See JORDAN.

Alfred Ely Day FORECAST <for-kast’ > ; (vb.) ([ bv”j; , chashabh ]): To forecast is both to plan or scheme beforehand and to consider or see beforehand. It is in the first sense that it is used in Daniel 11:24,25 (the King James Version) as the translation of chashabh , “to think,” “meditate,” “devise,” “plot,” “He shall forecast his devices (The King James Version, margin “Hebrew think his thoughts”) against the strongholds”; “They shall forecast devices against him,” the Revised Version (British and American) “devise his devices”; compare Nahum 1:9, “What do ye devise against Yahweh?” In the second sense, the word occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 17:11 the Revised Version (British and American), “Wickedness .... always forecasteth the worst lot” (proeilephen ), margin “Most authorities read hath added” (proseilephen ). W. L. Walker FOREFATHER <for’-fa-ther > : (1) [ ˆcari ba; , ‘abh ri’shon ], “first father,” “chief father,” hence, “early ancestor”: “turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers” ( Jeremiah 11:10). (2) [pro>gonov, progonos ], “born before,” “ancestor”: “whom I serve from my forefathers” ( 2 Timothy 1:3). It is translated “parents” (including grandparents) in 1 Timothy 5:4: “and to requite their parents.”

FOREFRONT <for’-frunt > ([ µyniP; , panim ]): For “forefront,” “front” is now generally used, since “back-front” has gone out of use. “Forefront” is the translation of panim , “face” ( 2 Kings 16:14; Ezekiel 40:19 bis; 47:1); of mul panim , “over against the face” ( Exodus 26:9; Leviticus8:9, “And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate”; for “upon his forefront” the Revised Version (British and American) has “in front; 2 Samuel 11:15, “in the forefront of the hottest battle”); of ro’sh, “head” ( 2 Chronicles 20:27); of shen, “tooth” ( 1 Samuel 14:5, “The forefront (The King James Version, margin “Hebrew tooth”) of the one was situated northward over against Michmash,” the Revised Version (British and American) “The one crag rose up on the north in front of Michmash”); in 1 Macc 4:57 margin it is the translation of prosopon, “face”: “They decked the forefront of the temple with crowns of gold.”

The Revised Version (British and American) has “forefront” for “face” ( Ezekiel 40:15), “in the forefront of” for “over against” ( Joshua 22:11). W. L. Walker FOREGO <for-go’ > . See FORGO.

FOREHEAD <for’-ed > ([ jx”me , metsach ]; [me>twpon, metopon ]): (1) In a literal sense the word is used frequently in the Scriptures. Aaron and after him every high priest was to wear on the forehead the golden frontlet having the engraved motto, “Holy to Yahweh” ( Exodus 28:36,38). The condition of the forehead was an important criterion in the diagnosis of leprosy by the priest (Leviticus13:42,43; 2 Chronicles 26:20). It was in the forehead that brave young David smote Goliath with the stone from his sling ( 1 Samuel 17:49). The faulty translation of the King James Version in Ezekiel 16:12 has been corrected in the Revised Version (British and American), reference being had in the passage to a nose-ring, not to an ornament of the forehead. While the cutting or tattooing of the body was strictly forbidden to the Israelite on account of the heathen associations of the custom (Leviticus19:28), we find frequent mention made of markings on the forehead, which were especially used to designate slaves (see Philo, De Monarchia, I) or devotees of a godhead (Lucian, De Syria Dea, 59). In 3 Macc 2:29 we read that Ptolemy IV Philopator branded some Jews with the sign of an ivy leaf, marking them as devotees of Bacchus-Dionysos. Possibly we may compare herewith the translation of Isaiah 44:5 (Revised Version margin): “And another shall write on his hand, Unto Yahweh” (or Yahweh’s slave). Very clear is the passage Ezekiel 9:4,6 (and perhaps Job 31:35), where the word used for “mark” is taw, the name of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet which in its earliest form has the shape of an upright plus sign (Baal Lebanon Inscr; 11th century BC) or of a lying (St Andrew’s) cross X (Moabite Inscr, 9th century BC), the simplest sign in the old Israelite alphabet, and at the same time the character which in the Greek alphabet represents the X, the initial of Christ. In the New Testament we find a clear echo of the above-mentioned Old Testament passage, the marking of the foreheads of the righteous ( Revelation 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4). The godless followers of the beast are marked on the (right) hand and on the forehead ( Revelation 13:16; 14:9; 20:4), and the apocalyptic woman dressed in scarlet and purple has her name written on her forehead ( Revelation 17:5). (2) In a metaphorical sense the expression, “a harlot’s forehead,” is used ( Jeremiah 3:3) to describe the shameless apostasy and faithlessness of Israel. Ezekiel speaks of the stiff-necked obstinacy and the persistent unwillingness of Israel to hear the message of Yahweh: “All the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart” ( Jeremiah 3:7), and God makes his prophet’s “forehead hard .... as an adamant harder than flint,” whereby an unflinching loyalty to God and a complete disregard of opposition is meant ( Jeremiah 3:8,9). Compare the phrase: “to harden the face,” under the word FACE. H. L. E. Luering FOREIGN DIVINITIES <for’-in di-vin’-i-tiz > ( Acts 17:18 margin). See GOD(s), STRANGE.

FOREIGNER <for’-in-er > “ The translation of [ yrik]n; , nokhri ], “unknown,” “foreign,” frequently rendered “stranger” ( Deuteronomy 15:3; Obadiah 1:11); of [ bv;wOT, toshabh ], “a settler,” “an alien resident” ( Exodus 12:45; the Revised Version (British and American) “sojourner”; compare Leviticus 25:47; Psalm 39:12); of paroikos, “dwelling near,” “sojourner” ( Ephesians 2:19, the Revised Version (British and American) sojourners”).

Revised Version has “foreigner” for “stranger” ( Deuteronomy 17:15; 23:20; 29:22; Ruth 2:10; 2 Samuel 15:19), for “alien” ( Deuteronomy 14:21); “the hand of a foreigner” for “a stranger’s hand” ( Leviticus 22:25). See ALIEN; STRANGER AND SOJOURNER.

FOREKNOW; FOREKNOWLEDGE <for-no’ > , <for-nol’-ej > :

1. MEANING OF THE TERM:

The word “foreknowledge” has two meanings. It is a term used in theology to denote the prescience or foresight of God, that is, His knowledge of the entire course of events which are future from the human point of view; and it is also used in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) to translate the Greek words proginoskein and prognosis in the New Testament, in which instances the word “fore-knowledge” approaches closely the idea of fore-ordination.

2. FORE-KNOWLEDGE AS PRESCIENCE:

In the sense of prescience foreknowledge is an aspect of God’s omniscience (see OMNISCIENCE ). God’s knowledge, according to the Scripture, is perfect, that is, it is omniscience. It is true that the Scripture makes use of anthropomorphic forms of expression as regards the way in which God obtains knowledge ( Genesis 3:8), and sometimes even represents Him as if He did not know certain things ( Genesis 11:5; Genesis 18:21); nevertheless the constant representation of the Scripture is that God knows everything. This perfect knowledge of God, moreover, is not merely a knowledge which is practically unlimited for all religious purposes, but is omniscience in the strictest sense of the term. In the historical books of the Old Testament the omniscience of God is a constant underlying presupposition when it is said that God watches men’s actions, knows their acts and words, and discloses to them the future; while in the Psalms, Prophets and Wisdom literature, this Divine attribute becomes an object of reflection, and finds doctrinal expression. It cannot, however, be said that this attribute of God appears only late in the history of special revelation; it is a characteristic of the Biblical idea of God from the very first, and it is only its didactic expression which comes out with especial clearness in the later books. God’s knowledge, then, is represented as perfect. Since He is free from all limits of space, His omniscience is frequently connected with His omnipresence. This is the thought which underlies the anthropomorphic expressions where God is represented as seeing, beholding and having eyes. God’s eyes go to and fro throughout the whole earth ( 2 Chronicles 16:9), and are every place beholding the evil and the good ( Proverbs 15:3). Even Shed is naked and open to God’s sight ( Proverbs 15:11; Job 26:6). The night and darkness are light to Him, and darkness and light for God are both alike ( <19D912> Psalm 139:12). All animals and fowls are His, and so are known by Him ( Psalm 50:11), and as their Creator God knows all the hosts of the heavenly bodies ( <19E704> Psalm 147:4; Isaiah 40:26). He knows also the heart of man and its thoughts ( 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; Psalm 7:9 (Hebrew 10); 94:11; 139:2; Jeremiah 11:20; 17:9,10; 20:12; Ezekiel 11:5). Furthermore, God knows man entirely in all his ways ( <19D901> Psalm 139:1-5; Proverbs 5:21). He looks from heaven and sees all men ( Psalm 11:4; 14:2; 33:13,14,15). Evil and sin are also known to God ( Genesis 3:11; 6:5,9,13; 2 Samuel 7:20; Psalm 69:5 (Hebrew 6); Jeremiah 16:17; 18:23). In a word, God knows with absolute accuracy all about man ( Job 11:11; 34:21; Psalm 33:15; Proverbs 5:21; Hosea 5:3; Jeremiah 11:20; 12:3; 17:9 f; 18:23).

This perfect knowledge finds its classic expression in Psalm 139.

God is also, according to the Old Testament, free from all limitations of time, so that His consciousness is not in the midst of the stream of the succeeding moments of time, as is the case with the human consciousness.

God is not only without beginning or end of days, but with Him a thousand years are as one day. Hence, God knows in one eternal intuition that which for the human consciousness is past, present and future. In a strict sense, therefore, there can be no foreknowledge or prescience with God, and the distinction in God’s knowledge made by theologians, as knowledge of reminiscence, vision and prescience, is after all an anthropomorphism.

Nevertheless this is the only way in which we can conceive of the Divine omniscience in its relation to time, and consequently the Scripture represents the matter as if God’s knowledge of future events were a foreknowledge or prescience, and God is represented as knowing the past, present and future.

It is God’s knowledge of events which from the human point of view are future that constitutes His foreknowledge in the sense of prescience. God is represented as having a knowledge of the entire course of events before they take place. Such a knowledge belongs to the Scriptural idea of God from the very outset of special revelation. He knows beforehand what Abraham will do, and what will happen to him; He knows beforehand that Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, and that Moses will deliver Israel ( Genesis 15:13 ff; Exodus 3:19; 7:4; 11:1 ff). The entire history of the patriarchal period of revelation exhibits plainly the foreknowledge of God in this sense. In prophecy this aspect of the Divine knowledge is made the subject of explicit assertion, and its religious significance is brought out. Nothing future is hidden from Yahweh ( Isaiah 41:22 ff; 42:9; 43:9- 13; 44:6-8; 46:10; Daniel 2:22; Amos 3:7), and this foreknowledge embraces the entire course of man’s life ( Psalm 31:15 (Hebrew 16); 39:5 (Hebrew 6); 139:4-6,16; Job 14:5). These passages from Isaiah show that it is from the occurrence of events in accordance with Yahweh’s prediction that the Prophet will prove his foreknowledge; and that in contrast with the worshippers of idols which are taken by surprise, Israel is warned of the future by the omniscient Yahweh.

In the New Testament likewise, God’s omniscience is explicitly affirmed.

Jesus taught that God knows the hidden secrets of man’s heart ( Luke 16:15); and this is also the teaching of the apostles ( Acts 1:24; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 2:10; 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 2:23).

In a word, according to the author of the Epistle to the He, everything is open to God, so that He is literally omniscient ( Hebrews 4:13). And as in the Old Testament, so also in the New Testament, foreknowledge in the sense of prescience is ascribed to God. Jesus asserts a foreknowledge by God of that which is hidden from the Son ( Mark 13:32), and James asserts that all God’s works are foreknown by Him ( Acts 15:18).

Moreover, the many references in the New Testament to the fulfillment of prophecy all imply that the New Testament writers ascribed foreknowledge, in this sense of foresight, to God.

Denials of the Divine foreknowledge, in this sense of prescience, have been occasioned, not by exegetical considerations, but by the supposed conflict of this truth with human freedom. It was supposed that in order to be free, an event must be uncertain and contingent as regards the fact of its futurition, and that too in the most absolute sense, that is, from the Divine as well as the human point of view. Hence, the Socinians and some Arminians denied the foreknowledge of God. It was supposed either that God voluntarily determines not to foresee the free volitions of man, or else that since God’s omniscience is simply the knowledge of all that is knowable, it does not embrace the free acts of man which are by their nature uncertain and so unknowable. And upon this view of freedom, this denial of God’s foreknowledge was logically necessary. If the certainty of events with respect to the fact of their futurition is inconsistent with freedom, then human freedom does conflict with God’s foreknowledge, since God cannot know future events as certainly future unless they actually are so. Since, therefore, the Divine foreknowledge is quite as inconsistent with this view of freedom as is the Divine foreordination, the view of those who regard God as a mere onlooker on the course of future events which are supposed to be entirely independent of His purpose and control, does not help matters in the least. If God foreknows future events as certain, then they must be certain, and if so, then the certainty of their actually occurring must depend either upon God’s decree and providential control, or else upon a fate independent of God. It was to escape these supposed difficulties that the doctrine known as scientia media was propounded. It was supposed that God has a knowledge of events as conditionally future, that is, events neither merely possible nor certainly future, but suspended upon conditions undetermined by God. But this hypothesis is of no help and is not true. Besides being contrary to the Scripture in its idea that many events lie outside the decree of God, and that God must wait upon man in His government of the world, there is really no such class of events as this theory asserts. If God foreknows that the conditions on which they are suspended will be fulfilled, then these events belong to the class of events which are certainly future; whereas if God does not know whether or not the conditions will be fulfilled by man, then His foreknowledge is denied, and these events in question belong to the class of those merely possible. Nor do the Scripture passages to which appeal is made, such as Genesis 11:6; Exodus 3:19; Deuteronomy 7:3,4; 1 Samuel 23:10-13; 2 Samuel 12:8, etc., afford a basis for this doctrine. The Scripture of course recognizes that God has put all things in relations of mutual dependence, and speaks of what can or cannot happen under such and such conditions; but none of these passages assert or imply that the events are suspended upon conditions which are either unknown or undetermined by God.

3. FOREKNOWLEDGE BASED ON FOREORDINATION:

God’s foreknowledge, according to the Scripture teaching, is based upon His plan or eternal purpose, which embraces everything that comes to pass.

God is never represented as a mere onlooker seeing the future course of events, but having no part in it. That God has such a plan is the teaching of the entire Scripture. It is implied in the Old Testament conception of God as an Omnipotent Person governing all things in accordance with His will.

This idea is involved in the names of God in the patriarchal revelation, ‘El , ‘Elohim , ‘El Shadday , and in the prophetic name Yahweh of Hosts. This latter name teaches not only God’s infinite power and glory, but also makes Him known as interposing in accordance with His sovereign will and purpose in the affairs of this world, and as having also the spiritual powers of the heavenly world at His disposal for the execution of His eternal purpose. Hence, this idea of God comes to signify the omnipotent Ruler of the universe ( Psalm 24:10; Isaiah 6:3; 51:5; 54:5; Jeremiah 10:16; Amos 9:5; compare Oehler, Theol. of the Old Testament, English translation, II, 280).

Not only in this conception of God as omnipotent and sovereign Ruler is the thought of His eternal plan evolved; it is explicitly asserted throughout the whole Old Testament. The purpose of God as determining human history in the Book of Genesis lies clearly upon the surface of the narrative, as, for example, in the history of Abraham and of Joseph. And where there is no abstract statement of this truth, it is evident that the writer regards every event as but the unfolding of the purpose of God. In the Psalms, Prophets, and Wisdom literature, this truth finds explicit and reiterated assertion. Yahweh has an eternal purpose ( Psalm 33:11), and this purpose will certainly come to pass ( Isaiah 14:27; 43:13). This purpose includes all events and renders certain their occurrence ( Isaiah 14:24; 40:10; 46:9,10; Zec 1:6). In the Wisdom literature the ethical character of this plan is dwelt upon, as well as its all-embracing character, and the certainty of its fulfillment ( Proverbs 16:4,33; 19:21; 20:24; Job 28:23). The providential control wherewith Yahweh executes this plan includes the heart of man ( Proverbs 21:1).

The New Testament likewise regards all history as but the unfolding of God’s eternal purpose ( Acts 4:28), which includes man’s salvation ( Ephesians 1:4,5; 2 Timothy 1:9), the provision of Christ as Savior ( 1 Peter 1:20), and the good works of the Christian ( Ephesians 2:10). See PREDESTINATION.

Now while the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament do not write in an abstract or philosophical manner nor enter into metaphysical explanations of the relation between God’s foreknowledge and foreordination, it is perfectly evident that they had a clear conception upon this subject. Although anthropomorphisms are used in regard to the manner in which God knows, He is never conceived as if He obtained His knowledge of the future as a mere onlooker gazing down the course of events in time. The idea that the omnipotent Creator and sovereign Ruler of the universe should govern the world and form His plan as contingent and dependent upon a mere foresight of events outside His purpose and control is not only contrary to the entire Scriptural idea of God’s sovereignty and omnipotence, but is also contrary to the Scriptural idea of God’s foreknowledge which is always conceived as dependent upon His sovereign purpose. According to the Scriptural conception, God foreknows because He has foreordained all things, and because in His providence He will certainly bring all to pass. His foreknowledge is not a dependent one which must wait upon events, but is simply the knowledge which God has of His own eternal purpose. Dillmann has called this “a productive foreknowledge” (Handbuch d. attest. Theol., 251). This is not exactly correct. The Old Testament does not conceive God’s foreknowledge as “producing” or causing events. But when Dillmann says that in the Old Testament there is no hint of an “idle foreknowledge” on God’s part, he is giving expression to the truth that in the Old Testament God’s foreknowledge is based upon His foreordination and providential control of all things. The Divine foreknowledge, therefore, depends upon the Divine purpose which has determined the world plan ( Amos 3:7), and all its details ( Job 28:26,27). Before man is born God knows him and chooses him for his work ( Jeremiah 1:5; Job 23:13,14), and God’s thorough knowledge of man in Psalm 139 is made to rest upon the fact that God has determined man’s lot beforehand ( <19D914> Psalm 139:14-16).

The same thing is true of the New Testament teaching on this subject. The Divine foreknowledge is simply God’s knowledge of His own eternal purpose. This is especially clear in those cases where God’s eternal purpose of redemption through Christ is represented as a mystery which is known by God and which can be known by man only when it pleases God to reveal it ( Ephesians 1:9; 3:4,9).

4. FOREKNOWLEDGE AS EQUIVALENT TO FOREORDINATION:

While, therefore, the foreknowledge of God in the sense of prescience is asserted in the New Testament, this is not the meaning of the term when used to translate the Greek words proginoskein and prognosis . These words which are translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by the word “foreknowledge,” and once by the word “foreordain” ( 1 Peter 1:20 the King James Version), mean much more than mere intellectual foresight or prescience. Both the verb and the noun approach the idea of foreordination and are closely connected with that idea in the passages where these words occur. Thus, in Peter’s speeches in Acts the predestination which finds expression in 1 Peter 4:28 is practically identified with the term prognosis in 2:23. Everything which happened to Jesus took place in accordance with “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” so that nothing happened except that which God had foreordained. In this verse the term foreknowledge is an expansion of the idea of God’s “counsel” or plan, regarding it as an intelligent prearrangement, the idea of foreknowledge being assimilated to that of foreordination. The same idea is found in 1 Peter 1:20. Here the apostle speaks of Christ as a lamb “foreordained” by God before the foundation of the world. The Greek verb proegnosmenou , meaning literally, “foreknown” (as in the Revised Version (British and American)) is translated “foreordained” in the King James Version. It is evidently God’s foreordination of Jesus as Savior which Peter has in mind. Also in Peter 1:2 those to whom the apostle is writing are characterized as “elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis ) of God,” where the election is based on the “foreknowledge.” By the prognosis or foreknowledge, however, far more is meant than prescience. It has the idea of a purpose which determines the course of the Divine procedure. If it meant simply prevision of faith or love or any quality in the objects of the election, Peter would not only flatly contradict Paul ( Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:3,4; 2 Timothy 1:9); but also such a rendering would conflict with the context of this passage, because the objects of election are chosen “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of .... Christ,” so that their new obedience and relation to Christ are determined by their election by God, which election springs from a “foreknowledge” which therefore cannot mean a mere prescience.

In view of the fact that there was a classical use of the simple verb ginoskein in the sense of “resolve,” and more especially of the fact that this word is used in the New Testament to denote an affectionate or loving regard or approbation in accordance with a common use of the Hebrew yadha` ( Matthew 7:23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; Timothy 2:19), there is nothing arbitrary in giving it this sense when compounded with the preposition pro when the context clearly demands it, as it does in the above passage (compare Johnstone, Commentary on Peter in the place cited.: per contra Meyer on passages in Acts and Romans).

The word prognosis is, however, discriminated from “predestination.” It is that loving regard in God from which the Divine election springs, which election Peter evidently regarded as sovereign, since sanctification is only a confirmation of it ( 2 Peter 1:10), and stumbling and disobedience are referred to `appointment to unbelief’ ( 1 Peter 2:8). Here, then, we have a pregnant use of foreknowledge in which it is assimilated to the idea of purpose, and denotes a sovereign and loving regard.

The word prognosis is also found in this sense in the writings of Paul, in cases where it is manifestly impossible to regard it as a mere intellectual foresight, not only because of Paul’s doctrine that election is absolutely sovereign ( Ephesians 1:3,4; Romans 9:11; 2 Timothy 1:9), but also because of the contexts in which the term occurs.

In Romans 8:29,30 the word “foreknow” occurs in immediate connection with God’s predestination of the objects of salvation. Those whom God foreknew, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His son. Now the foreknowledge in this case cannot mean a mere prescience or foresight of faith (Meyer, Godet) or love (Weiss) in the subjects of salvation, which faith or love is supposed to determine the Divine predestination. This would not only contradict Paul’s view of the absolutely sovereign and gracious character of election, but is diametrically opposed to the context of this passage. These verses form a part of the encouragement which Paul offers his readers for their troubles, including their own inward weakness. The apostle tells them that they may be sure that all things work together for good to them that love God; and these are defined as being those whom God has called in accordance with His purpose. Their love to God is evidently their love as Christians, and is the result of a calling which itself follows from an eternal purpose, so that their Christian love is simply the means by which they may know that they have been the subjects of this calll. They have not come within the sphere of God’s love by their own choice, but have been “called” into this relationship by God, and that in accordance with an eternal purpose on His part.

What follows, therefore, must have as its motive simply to unfold and ground this assurance of salvation by tracing it all back to the “foreknowledge” of God. To regard this foreknowledge as contingent upon anything in man would thus be in flat contradiction with the entire context of the passage as well as its motive. The word “foreknowledge” here evidently has the pregnant sense which we found it to have in Peter.

Hence, those whom God predestinates, calls, justifies and glorifies are just those whom He has looked upon with His sovereign love. To assign any other meaning to “foreknowledge” here would be out of accord with the usage of the term elsewhere in the New Testament when it is put in connection with predestination, and would contradict the purpose for which Paul introduces the passage, that is, to assure his readers that their ultimate salvation depends, not on their weakness, but on God’s sovereign love and grace and power.

It is equally impossible to give the word prognosis any other sense in the other passage where Paul uses it. In Romans 11:2, speaking of the Jews, Paul says that “God did not cast off his people which he foreknew."

It is quite impossible to regard this as meaning that God had a foresight or mere prevision of some quality in Israel which determined His choice of them, not only because it is the teaching of the entire Scripture that God’s choice of Israel was sovereign and gracious, and not only because of the actual history of Israel, but also because of the context. Paul says that it would be absurd to suppose that God had cast off His people because He foreknew them, His foreknowledge of them being adduced as a ground for His not casting them off. Hence, the argument would have no force if anything in Israel, foreseen by God, were supposed to ground an assurance that He had not cast them off, because the context is full of the hardness of heart and unbelief of Israel. The foreknowledge here has evidently the same sense as in the former passage.

Foreknowledge, therefore, in the New Testament is more than mere prescience. It is practically identical with the Divine decree in two instances, and in the other places where the term occurs it denotes the sovereign loving regard out of which springs God’s predestination or election of men to salvation. See OMNISCIENCE; PREDESTINATION.

LITERATURE.

Besides the Commentaries on the appropriate passages, especially those on Isaiah, see Dillmann, Handbuch d. alttest. Theol., 249-52; H. Schultz, Alttest. Theol., 417, 421; H Cremer, Die christliche Lehre volume den Eigenschaften Gottes, Beltrage zur Forderung christl. Theol., I, 93-101; Stewart, article "Foreknowledge,” HDB, II, 51-53. Considerable Biblical as well as historical material will be found in works on systematic theology, such as Bohl, Dogmatik, 54-59; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatik2 I, 182-95. For a history of the discussion of the problem of foreknowledge and freedom see J. Muller, Die christl. Lehre volume der Sunde, III, 2, 2. See also literature under OMNISCIENCE.

On the relation of foreknowledge and foreordination, and the meaning of prognosis, see K. Muller, Die gottliche Zuvorsehung und Erwahlung, 37 f, 81 f; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus2, 268 f; Urchristentum, 289; Gcnnrich, Studien zur Paulinischen Heilsordnung, S. K., 1898, 377 f; and on the meaning of [proginw>skein, proginoskein ] in Romans 8:29 see especially pp. 382-95; also Cremer, Bibl.-theol. Worterb., 263-65; Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol., II, 109; B. Weiss, Bio. Theol. of New Testament, English translation, I, 205 f; II, 6; H. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch d. neutest. Theol., II, 165 f; B.B. Warfield, article “Predestination,” HDB, IV, 52-57. See also discussions of the meaning of [proginw>skein, proginoskein ] in the Commentaries on 1 Peter and Romans, especially Fritzsche on Romans 8:29, and Johnstone on 1 Peter 1:2. See also literature under PREDESTINATION.

Caspar Wistar Hodge FOREORDAIN; FORORDINATION <for-or-dan’ > , <for-or-di-na’-shun > : The word “foreordain” is uniformly used in the Revised Version (British and American) to render the Greek [proori>zw, proorizo ], in the passages where this verb occurs ( Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29,30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 15,11). In the passages in Romans and Ephesians it takes the place of the King James Version word “predestinate,” a return to the usage of the older English versions The word has simply the sense of determining beforehand. It is thus kindred in meaning with a number of other New Testament words expressing the idea of Divine purpose, as “foreknow” (in pregnant sense, Acts 2:23; Romans 8:29, etc.); “determine” ( Acts 17:26); “appoint” ( 1 Peter 2:8). Foreordination, in the widest sense, is coextensive with the sphere of God’s universal providence, being but another name for that Divine plan, purpose or counsel which embraces all things, great and small ( Matthew 10:29,30), that happen in Nature, or fall out in human life. Man’s free actions are not regarded in Scripture as excluded from it ( Acts 2:28). Foreordination, at the same time, is not to be conceived of as in any way overriding, or doing violence to, human freedom. Man acts freely, as Nature acts necessarily, but it is God who appoints the time, place and circumstances of the free act, permits its happening, and overrules it and its issues for the furthering of His own wise and holy ends. See PROVIDENCE. Foreordination in the sphere of grace has respect to the choice, calling and blessing of those who, through faith, are made partakers of eternal life ( Romans 8:29,30; Ephesians 1:5,11). In this, its soteriological aspect, the subject is considered in special articles. See CHOOSE; ELECTION; PREDESTINATION.

James Orr FOREPART <for’-part > : The translation of [ µyniP; , panim ], “face” ( Exodus 28:27; 39:20; 1 Kings 6:20, the Revised Version (British and American) “within”; Ezekiel 42:7, the Revised Version (British and American) “before”), and of [prw>ra, prora ], the forward part of a ship, the prow ( Acts 27:41, “the forepart stuck fast,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the foreship struck”).

ARV has “its forepart into” for “with his face towards” ( Joel 2:20 margin “with its forepart”); “in the forepart thereof” for “before it” ( Exodus 28:25; 39:18).

FORERUNNER <for-run’-er > ([pro>dromov, prodromos ]): This word occurs but once in the Bible: “Whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us” ( Hebrews 6:20). The word signifies one who comes in advance to a place where the rest are to follow, or one who is sent on before as a scout to take observations. In this sense Christ is our forerunner for He has gone into heaven to prepare a place for His people into which He will eventually lead them. The idea of a forerunner is peculiar to the Christian dispensation.

The Old Testament Levitical economy knew nothing of such. The high priest was a representative, not a forerunner: where he led, namely, into the Holy of Holies, the people could not follow. He was not the pioneer of the people; Christ is. Christ goes nowhere but where His people may follow.

He is the file-leader (compare Hebrews 12:2, “the author .... of faith”).

He goeth before His people to prepare the way for them, to open the gates of heaven by His atoning blood and priestly intercession. The believer is led into full fellowship with God through Jesus Christ. See also JOHN THE BAPTIST; RUNNER.

William Evans FORESAIL <for’sal > , <for’-s’-l > ( Acts 27:40). See SHIPS AND BOATS.

FORESHIP <for’-ship > (Acts 9,7:30). See FORE-PART; SHIPS AND BOATS.

FORESKIN <for’-skin > ([ hl;r][; , `orlah ]; [ajkrobusti>a, akrobustia ], often euphemistically translated “uncircumcision”): (1) In the literal sense the word is frequently mentioned owing to the rite of circumcision in vogue in Israel since the days of Abraham ( Genesis 17:9-14) and among several other peoples of antiquity and modern times.

The act of circumcision is represented in the temple of Khonsu, a medical deity, at Karnak. Among the Jews of antiquity circumcision had to be performed by means of a flint or stone knife ( Exodus 4:25; Joshua 5:2,3) on the eighth day after birth ( Genesis 17:12; 21:4; Leviticus12:3; Luke 2:21; Philippians 3:5), even if this day was the Sabbath ( John 7:23).

Very early we find the practice one of which the descendants of Abraham became proud ( Genesis 34:14), so that we see the uncircumcised despised and scorned ( 1 Samuel 17:26), and in the time of oppression under King Antiochus Epiphanes many Israelites suffered martyrdom rather than give up the distinctive sign of their people (1 Macc 1:48,60,61; 2 Macc 6:10). Among the Arabs and all Mohammedans the custom of circumcision prevails from pre-Islamic times, for it is nowhere ordered in the Koran, and the appellation “uncircumcised” ghalaf )is considered the greatest possible insult.

A peculiar martial custom is mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:25,27 (compare 2 Samuel 3:14), where Saul is represented as asking “a hundred foreskins of the Philistines” as a dowry from David for the hand of Michal.

This does not seem to have been an exceptional booty in war, especially if it meant that no very careful operation was expected to be performed, but the act became practically equivalent to extermination. We find in Egyptian history at the time of Ramses III, that an invasion into Egypt had been made by several Libyan tribes (see Diimichen, Histor. Inschr., I, plates IVI, and II, plates 47 ff). The Egyptian army sent against the invaders defeated them and returned with a large number of karnatha which is a transcription into hieroglyphics of the Semitic word, [ twOnr]q” , qarenoth ], the word being used euphemistically as is proven by the accompanying determinative sign of a phallus. See Chabas, Etudes sur l’antiquite historique d’apres lee sources egyptienne,, etc., 234; Bondi, Hebr.-Phoen.

Lehnworte im Egyptischen, Leipzig, 1886, 72-74. (2) Metaphorically the word is used in a variety of ways: (a) In the sense of “unlawful,” “forbidden as food,” “taboo.” The fruit of newly planted trees was not to be eaten (Leviticus19:23-25). (b) In the sense of “obstinacy,” “opposition to God’s law.” The rite of circumcision meant submission under the law. While an outward form could not be identical with an inward attitude toward God, the use of the word “circumcision” was soon extended to that of purity and obedience of the heart ( Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; and Colossians 2:11, where this circumcision is called a “circumcision not made with hands, .... the circumcision of Christ”). The uselessness of outward circumcision, which does not include obedience and purity, is shown by Paul ( Romans 2:25; 1 Corinthians 7:18; compare Acts 7:51). (c) In the sense of “Gentiles,” “non-Israelites” ( Galatians 2:7; Ephesians 2:11; Colossians 3:11). See CIRCUMCISION; CONCISION.

H. L. E. Luering FOREST <for’-est > : (1) [ vr,jo , choresh ] (compare proper name Harosheth ), 2 Chronicles 27:4. In 1 Samuel 23:15 ff translated “wood”; in Isaiah 17:9, “wood”; in Ezekiel 31:3, “forest-like shade.” Applied to any thick growth of vegetation but not necessarily so extensive as (3) . (2) [ sDer]P” , pardec ]: Nehemiah 2:8, margin “park”; Ecclesiastes 2:5, the King James Version “orchards,” the Revised Version (British and American) “parks”; Song of Solomon 4:13, English Versions of the Bible “orchard,” the Revised Version, margin “paradise.” A word of Persian origin signifying probably an enclosure. See PARADISE. (3) [ r[“y” , ya`ar ] from root meaning “rugged”; compare Arabic wa`ar, “a rugged, stony region.” It is sometimes rendered “forest” and sometimes (but less often in the Revised Version (British and American)) “wood.” It is used of certain definite wooded tracts: “the forest in Arabia” ( Isaiah 21:13, margin “thickets”); “the forest of Carmel” ( 2 Kings 19:23 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “of his fruitful field”); “the forest of Hereth” ( 1 Samuel 22:5); “the forest of Lebanon” ( 1 Kings 7:2 f; 10:17-21; 2 Chronicles 9:16-20); “the forest of Ephraim,” East of the Jordan ( 2 Samuel 18:6,8,17). The word ya`ar appears also in well-known Kiriath-jearim, “the city of forests,” and Mr. Jearim ( Joshua 15:10). Among numerous other references the following may be cited: Deuteronomy 19:5; Joshua 17:15,18; Chronicles 16:33; 2 Kings 2:24; Psalm 80:13; 83:14; 96:12; 132:6; Ecclesiastes 2:6; Song of Solomon 2:3; 1 Samuel 7:2; 14:25,26; Jeremiah 4:29; 46:23; Ezekiel 34:29; Micah 3:12; 7:14. (4) [ Ëb”s] , cebhakh ], from root meaning “to interweave.” A “thicket” ( Genesis 22:13; Jeremiah 4:7); “thicket of trees” ( Psalm 74:5); “thickets of the forest” ( Isaiah 9:18; 10:34). (5) [ µybi[; , ‘adbhim ], “thicket” ( Jeremiah 4:29).

From many references it is evident that Palestine had in Old Testament times much more extensive forests and woodlands than today. For a discussion of the subject see BOTANY . E. W. G. Masterman FOREST OF EPHRAIM See EPHRAIM.

FORETELL; FORETOLD <for-tel’ > , <for-told’ > : The King James Version occurrences of these words in the New Testament represent as many Greek terms, and are in each case rendered differently in Revised Version: (1) Mark 13:23 ([proei~pon, proeipon ]), the Revised Version (British and American) “told beforehand”; (2) Acts 3:24 ([prokatagge>llw, prokataggello ]), the Revised Version (British and American) simply “told”; (3) 2 Corinthians 13:2 ([prole>gw, prolego ]), the Revised Version (British and American) “said beforehand,” margin “plainly”; compare 1 Thessalonians 3:4. The foretelling of future events is claimed in the Old Testament as a prerogative of Yahweh ( Isaiah 41:22,23; 42:9, etc.; compare Deuteronomy 18:22). See PROPHECY.

FORFEIT <for’-fit > ([ µr”j; , charam ]): “Forfeit” (from forisfacere, “to act beyond”) implies loss through transgression or non-observance of some law or rule. The word occurs only once as the translation of charam , “to shut in,” frequently to devote or consecrate a person or thing to God beyond redemption (compare Leviticus27:28,29; Micah 4:13; Ezr 10:8, “That whosoever came not within three days, .... all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the assembly of the captivity,” King James Version margin, the American Revised Version, margin and the Revised Version (British and American) “devoted”; compare 1 Esdras 9:4, “Their cattle should be seized to the use of the temple” (anieroo , “to consecrate,” “devote”); 6:32, “all his goods seized for the king” (ta huparchonia autou einai (eis) basilika )).

The Revised Version (British and American) has “forfeited” (qadhesh , “consecrated,’; “devoted”) for “defiled” ( Deuteronomy 22:9), margin “Hebrew consecrated”; “forfeit his life” for “lose his own soul” (psuche ) ( Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36); “lose or forfeit his own self” for “lose himself or be cast away” ( Luke 9:25, heauton de apolesas e zemiotheis ; zemioo is the Septuagint for `anash , “to be mulcted,” or “fined,” Exodus 21:22; Deuteronomy 22:19; Proverbs 17:26 m; 19:19; 21:11; 22:3); Weymouth renders Luke 9:25, “to have lost or forfeited his own self” (or “had to pay his own self — his own existence — as a fine”); in the other instances of zemioo ( 1 Corinthians 3:15; Philippians 3:8), the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) render “suffer loss,” “suffered .... loss”; Corinthians 7:9 the King James Version, “receive damage.” W. L. Walker FORGE; FORGER <forj > , <for’-jer > ([ lp”f; , Taphal ]): “Forgers of lies” occurs in Job’s reply to his comforters (13:4; compare 14:17); the word is the translation of Taphal , “to patch,” “lay on,” “besmear,” hence, to impute, overcharge, etc.; in <19B969> Psalm 119:69, “forged” occurs with a similar meaning: “The proud have forged a lie against me” (compare Sirach 51:2). “Forger,” in the sense of “one who forges, makes, anything,” is the Revised Version (British and American) rendering of laTas “to smite,” or “hammer,” in Genesis 4:22 King James Version: “Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron,” the Revised Version (British and American) “the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron,” margin “an instructor of every artificer of copper and iron.” W. L. Walker FORGET; FORGETFUL <for-get’ > , <for-get’-ful > ([ jk”v; , shakhach ]; [ejpilanqa>nomai, epilanthanomai ]): “Forget” is to fail to hold in mind, and the forgetfulness may be either innocent or blameworthy. In the Old Testament the word is most frequently used as translation of shakhach in a blameworthy sense: to forget the covenant, the law, Yahweh their God ( Deuteronomy 4:9,23,11; 6:12; Judges 3:7; 1 Samuel 12:9; Psalm 44:20, etc.).

In an innocent or neutral, sometimes good, sense it is used in Genesis 27:45; Deuteronomy 24:19; Job 9:27; 11:16; 24:20; <19A204> Psalm 102:4, etc. It is also used of God forgetting or not seeming to care ( Psalm 9:12; 10:11,12; 13:1; 42:9; 77:9; Isaiah 49:15, etc.). To “forget” sometimes means to forsake ( Psalm 45:10; 74:19, etc.).

In the New Testament epilanthanomai is used of simple forgetting ( Matthew 16:5; Mark 8:14, etc.; in Luke 12:6 the sense of care is implied); Philippians 3:13, “forgetting the things which are behind,” has the force of leaving behind. “Forgetful” in Jas 1:25 is epilesmone , the Revised Version (British and American) “a hearer that forgetteth.” “Forgetfulness” Psalm 88:12, “the land of forgetfulness,” is a synonym for Sheol , where all forget and are forgotten. the Revised Version (British and American) has “forget not” for “be ignorant of” ( 2 Peter 3:8; similarly 3:5). W. L. Walker FORGIVENESS <for-giv’-nes > ([ rp”K; , kaphar ], [ ac;n; , nasa’ ], [ jl”s; , calach ]; [ajpolu>ein, apoluein ] [cari>zesqai, charizesthai ], [a]fesiv, aphesis ] [pa>resiv, paresis ]):

1. ETYMOLOGY:

Of the seven words, three Hebrew and four Greek, which are used to express the idea of forgiveness, the last two occur in this sense only once each. Apoluein ( Luke 6:37) is used because of the analogy of sin to debt, and denotes the release from it. It has the meaning “forgiveness” in Macc 12:45 also, in which passage the word for sin is expressed. In Romans 3:25 Paul uses paresis instead of the usual aphesis . The former means “putting aside,” “disregarding,” “pretermission”; the latter, “putting away” completely and unreservedly (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, section xxxiii). It does not mean forgiveness in the complete sense, and in the King James Version is incorrectly translated “remission.”

Nor does it mean that God had temporarily suspended punishment which at some later date He might inflict (Sanday on Romans 3:25). It was apparent that God had treated sins as though He had forgiven them, though in fact such an attitude on the part of God was without such a foundation as was later supplied by an adequate atonement, and so the apostle avoids saying that God forgave them. This passing over of sins had the tendency of destroying man’s conception of God’s righteousness, and in order to avert this Christ was set forth as a propitiation and God’s disregard of sin (paresis ) became a real forgiveness (aphesis ); compare Acts 14:16; 17:30. Charizesthai is not found outside of the writings of Luke and Paul, and in the sense “to forgive sins” is peculiarly Pauline ( Corinthians 2:7; 12:13; Ephesians 3:2; Colossians 2:13; 3:13). It expresses, as no other of these words does, his conception of the graciousness of God’s pardon. Kaphar ( Deuteronomy 21:8; Psalm 78:38; Jeremiah 18:23) and calah ( Numbers 30:5,8,12; 1 Kings 8:30,34,36,39,50, etc.) are used only of Divine forgiveness, while nasa’ is used in this sense ( Exodus 32:32; Numbers 14:19; Joshua 24:19; Psalm 25:18; 32:1,5; 99:8; Isaiah 2:9), and also of human forgiveness ( Genesis 50:17; Exodus 10:17; 1 Samuel 25:28).

Remission ( Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43; Hebrews 9:22; 10:18) and blotting out ( Psalm 51:1,9; Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 18:23; Acts 3:19) are synonyms of forgiveness, and to understand it fully such words as save, justify, reconcile and atonement should also be considered.

2. PAGAN AND JEWISH IDEAS:

Forgiveness was not a pagan virtue. The large-souled man might disregard offenses in cases where he considered them beneath his notice, but to forgive was weak-spirited (F. W. Robertson on 1 Corinthians 4:12).

Even in the Old Testament, man’s forgiveness of his fellow-man is infrequently mentioned. In every case the one asking forgiveness is in a position of subserviency, and is petitioning for that to which he has no just right ( Genesis 50:17; Exodus 10:17; 1 Samuel 15:25; 25:28).

The Imprecatory Psalms attest the fact that forgiveness of enemies was not esteemed as a virtue by Israel. They could appeal to the law which enjoined upon them to seek neither the peace nor the prosperity of their avowed enemies ( Deuteronomy 23:6; compare Ezr 9:12). Jesus gave the popular summing-up of the law and not its exact words when he said, “Ye have heard that it was said .... hate thine enemy” ( Matthew 5:43), and this certainly does represent their attitude and their understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures.

3. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST:

Christ taught that forgiveness is a duty. No limit can be set to the extent of forgiveness ( Luke 17:4) and it must be granted without reserve. Jesus will not admit that there is any wrong so gross nor so often repeated that it is beyond forgiveness. To Him an unforgiving spirit is one of the most heinous of sins (Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, 376 ff). This is the offense which God will not forgive ( Matthew 18:34,35). It is the very essence of the unpardonable sin ( Mark 3:22-30). It was the one blemish of the elder son which marred an otherwise irreproachable life ( Luke 15:28-30). This natural, pagan spirit of implacability Jesus sought to displace by a generous, forgiving spirit. It is so far the essence of His teaching that in popular language “a Christian spirit” is not inappropriately understood to be synonymous with a forgiving disposition. His answer to Peter that one should forgive not merely seven times in a day, but seventy times seven ( Matthew 18:21,22), not only shows that He thought of no limit to one’s forgiveness, but that the principle could not be reduced to a definite formula.

4. CONDITIONS OF FORGIVENESS:

Jesus recognized that there are conditions to be fulfilled before forgiveness can be granted. Forgiveness is part of a mutual relationship; the other part is the repentance of the offender. God does not forgive without repentance, nor is it required of man. The effect of forgiveness is to restore to its former state the relationship which was broken by sin. Such a restoration requires the cooperation of both parties. There must be both a granting and an acceptance of the forgiveness. Sincere, deep-felt sorrow for the wrong which works repentance ( 2 Corinthians 7:10) is the condition of mind which insures the acceptance of the forgiveness. Hence, Jesus commands forgiveness when the offender turns again, saying, “I repent” ( Luke 17:3,1). It was this state of mind which led the father joyfully to welcome the Prodigal before he even gave utterance to his newly formed purpose ( Luke 15:21).

5. THE OFFENDED PARTY:

It is not to be supposed, however, that failure to repent upon the part of the offender releases the offended from all obligation to extend forgiveness.

Without the repentance of the one who has wronged him he can have a forgiving state of mind. This Jesus requires, as is implied by, “if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts” ( Matthew 18:35). It is also implied by the past tense in the Lord’s Prayer: “as we also have forgiven our debtors” ( Matthew 6:12). It is this forgiving spirit which conditions God’s forgiveness of our sins ( Mark 11:25; Matthew 6:14,15). In such a case the unforgiving spirit is essentially unrepentance ( Matthew 18:23-35). “Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most Divine?”

The offended is to go even farther and is to seek to bring the wrongdoer to repentance. This is the purpose of the rebuking commanded in Luke 17:3. More explicitly Jesus says, “If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone” ( Matthew 18:15-17). He is to carry his pursuit to the point of making every reasonable effort to win the wrongdoer, and only when he has exhausted every effort may he abandon it. The object is the gaining of his brother. Only when this is evidently unattainable is all effort to cease.

The power of binding and loosing, which means forbidding and allowing, was granted to Peter ( Matthew 16:19) and to the Christian community ( Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). It clearly implies the possession of the power to forgive sins. In the case of Peter’s power it was exercised when he used the keys of the kingdom of heaven ( Matthew 16:19). This consisted in the proclamation of the gospel and especially of the conditions upon which men might enter into relationship with God ( Acts 2:38; 10:34 ff). It was not limited to Peter only, but was shared by the other apostles ( Matthew 16:19; 18:18). Christ left no fixed rules the observance or non-observance of which would determine whether one is or is not in the kingdom of God. He gave to His disciples principles, and in the application of these principles to the problems of life there had to be the exercise of discriminating judgment. The exercise of this judgment was left to the Christian community ( 2 Corinthians 2:10). It is limited by the principles which are the basis of the kingdom, but within these principles the voice of the community is supreme. The forgiveness here implied is not the pronouncing of absolution for the sins of individuals, but the determination of courses of conduct and worship which will be acceptable.

In doing this its decisions will be ratified in heaven (Westcott on John 20:23).

That there is a close analogy between human and Divine forgiveness is clearly implied ( Matthew 5:23,14; 6:12; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37; Colossians 1:14; 3:13). God”s forgiveness is conditional upon man’s forgiveness of the wrongs done him, not because God forgives grudgingly but because forgiveness alone indicates that disposition of mind which will humbly accept the Divine pardon.

6. DIVINE AND HUMAN FORGIVENESS:

Repentance is a necessary ingredient of the fully developed forgiveness.

There is no essential difference between the human and the Divine pardon, though the latter is necessarily more complete. It results in the complete removal of all estrangement and alienation between God and man. It restores completely the relationship which existed prior to the sin. The total removal of the sin as a result of the Divine forgiveness is variously expressed in the Scriptures: “Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back” ( Isaiah 38:17); “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea” ( Micah 7:19); “I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more” ( Jeremiah 31:34); “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions” ( Isaiah 43:25); “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” ( <19A312> Psalm 103:12).

Ideally this same result is attained in human forgiveness, but actually the memory of the sin remains with both parties as a barrier between them, and even when there is a complete restoration of amity the former state of alienation cannot entirely be removed from memory. When God forgives, however, He restores man to the condition of former favor. Release from punishment is involved, though Divine forgiveness is more than this. In most cases the consequences, which in some instances are spoken of as punishment, are not removed, but they lose all penal character and become disciplinary. Nor does the forgiveness remove from human mind the consciousness of sin and the guilt which that involved, but it does remove the mistrust which was the ground of the alienation. Mistrust is changed into trust, and this produces peace of mind ( Psalm 32:5-7; Romans 5:1); consciousness of the Divine love and mercy ( <19A302> Psalm 103:2 ff); removes fear of punishment ( 2 Samuel 12:13); and awakens love to God.

7. FORGIVENESS AND JUSTIFICATION:

Paul rarely uses the term “forgiveness,” but in its place prefers justification.

They are to his understanding practically synonymous (Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, 418). He preferred the latter, however, because it was better fitted to express the idea of secure, present and permanent acceptance in the sight of God. It connoted both a complete and a permanent state of grace. In popular thought forgiveness is not so comprehensive, but in the Biblical sense it means no less than this. It removes all of the guilt and cause of alienation from the past; it assures a state of grace for the present; and promises Divine mercy and aid for the future. Its fullness cannot adequately be conveyed by any one term or formula.

Divine, like human, forgiveness is always contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions. It must be preceded by repentance and a firmly fixed intention not to repeat the offense. In addition to this, one was required to conform to certain legal or formal acts before the assurance of pardon was his.

These acts were expressive of the sinner’s state of mind. They consisted of certain acts of sacrifice in the pre-Christian times and of baptism during the ministry of John the Baptist ( Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) and under Christ ( Acts 2:38; 22:16). These acts are never regarded as in any sense a quid pro quo in return for which the benefit of forgiveness is granted. It is an act of pure grace on God’s part, and these acts are required as expressions of the man’s attitude toward God. The state of mind required in order to obtain the gift of forgiveness is that to which the Prodigal Son came ( Luke 15:17-19), and that of the sinner who went to his house justified rather than the Pharisee (18:9-14), because he realized that forgiveness was to him an act of pure favor.

There was real and actual forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament times as well as since Christ. Certain passages have been construed to teach that the Law provided only for a passing over or rolling back of sins, and that there was not then an actual forgiveness.

8. OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING:

The sacrifices prescribed by the Law were not adequate atonements, so that there was constant necessity of yearly remembrance of sin ( Hebrews 10:3; compare Leviticus16:21). The atonement of Christ is, however, of permanent adequacy, and became retroactive in the sense that it unified in Christ the Divine arrangement for saving mankind in all ages ( Hebrews 11:40). “The passing over of the sins done aforetime” ( Romans 3:25) does not imply a partial or apparent forgiveness, but means that they were forgiven, though seemingly without adequate recognition on the part of God of their heinous character. In view of God’s righteous character men might naturally have expected punishment, but instead the offenders were spared (compare Acts 14:16; 17:30). No expression in the Old Testament suggests any inadequacy of the forgiveness extended to Israel, but on the other hand many passages may be quoted to show how rich and full it was deemed to be (Psalm 103; Micah 7:19; Isaiah 38:17, Jeremiah 31:34).

9. LIMITATIONS OF FORGIVENESS:

Two passages seem to limit God’s forgiveness. They are Christ’s discussion of the unpardonable sin ( Matthew 12:31,32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10), and the one which mentions the sin unto death ( John 5:16; compare Hebrews 6:4-6). In the former passage there is mentioned a sin which has no forgiveness, and in the latter, one on behalf of which the apostle cannot enjoin prayer that it be forgiven, though he does not prohibit it. In both cases the sin is excluded from the customary forgiveness which is extended to sins of all other classes.

The act of the Pharisees which led Jesus to speak of the unpardonable sin was the attributing of a good deed wrought by Him through the Spirit of God ( Matthew 12:28) to Beelzebub. No one could do such a thing unless his moral nature was completely warped. To such a person the fundamental distinctions between good and evil were obliterated. No ordinary appeal could reach him, for to him good seemed evil and evil seemed good. The possibility of winning him back is practically gone; hence, he is beyond the hope of forgiveness, not because God has set an arbitrary line of sinfulness, beyond which His grace of forgiveness will not reach, but because the man has put himself beyond the possibility of attaining to that state of mind which is the essential condition of Divine forgiveness. It is practically certain that John did not have any particular sinful act in mind when he spoke of the sin which is unto death. See BLASPHEMY.

There is no possible way of determining what specific sin, if any, he refers to. Probably the same principle applies in this case as in that of the unpardonable sin. God’s forgiveness is limited solely by the condition that man must accept it in the proper spirit.

There are some passages which seem to imply that forgiveness was the principal Messianic task. This is suggested by the name given to the Messiah during His earthly career ( Matthew 1:21), and by the fact that He was the Savior. The remission of sins was the preparation for the advent of the Messiah ( Luke 1:77), and repentance and remission of sins were the prerequisites to a state of preparation for the kingdom.

10. CHRIST’S POWER TO FORGIVE SINS:

It is not surprising, therefore, that we find Jesus laying claim to the power to forgive sins. This provoked a bitter controversy with the Jews, for it was axiomatic with them that no one could forgive sins but God only ( Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; 7:49). This Jesus did not question, but He would have them infer from His power to forgive sins that He was the possessor of Divine power. Jesus asserted His possession of this power on two occasions only, though it has been insufficiently inferred from John 5:14; 8:11 that He was accustomed to pronounce absolution upon all of those He healed. On one of these occasions He not merely asserted that He possessed the power, but demonstrated it by showing Himself to be the possessor of the Divine gift of healing. The impostor might claim some such intangible power as the authority to forgive sins, but he would never assert the possession of such easily disproved power as the ability to heal the sick. But Jesus claimed both, and based His claim to be the possessor of the former on the demonstration that He possessed the latter. God would not support an impostor, hence, his aid in healing the paralytic proved that Jesus could forgive sins. The multitude accepted this logic and “glorified God, who had given such authority unto men” ( Matthew 9:2-9; compare Mark 2:3-12; Luke 5:18-26).

On the other occasion when His possession of this power was under discussion ( Luke 7:36-50), He offered no other proof than the forgiven woman’s deep gratitude and love. One expression that He uses, however, has raised some discussion as to the relative order in time of her love and forgiveness ( Luke 7:47). Did she love because she was forgiven, or vice versa? Manifestly the forgiveness precedes the love, in spite of the fact that Luke 7:47 seems to assert the opposite, for this is the bearing of the parable of the Two Debtors (7:41-43), and the latter part of 7:47 has the same implication. It is clear that she had previously repented and had been accepted, and the anointing of Jesus was an outpouring of her gratitude.

The phrase of 7:47, “for she loved much,” is proof of the greatness of her sin rather than a reason why she was forgiven. In both cases where Jesus forgave sins, He did so because the state of mind of the person forgiven showed worthiness of the blessing. To this as a condition of forgiveness there is no exception. Christ’s prayer on the cross ( Luke 23:34) would not avail to secure the pardon of His murderers without their repentance.

11. THE NEED OF AN ATONEMENT:

Though forgiveness is on God’s part an act of pure grace prompted by His love and mercy, and though He forgives freely all those who comply with the condition of repentance and abandonment of sin, yet this does not dispense with the necessity of an atonement. The parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken to teach the freedom of God’s forgiveness and acceptance of returning sinners, and the duty of men to assume the same attitude toward them. This much it teaches, but it fails to set forth entirely God’s attitude toward sin. With reference to the sinner God is love and mercy, but with reference to sin He is righteous, and this element of God’s nature is no less essential to Him than His love, and must be considered in any effort to set forth completely the doctrine of God’s forgiveness of sinners.

The atonement of Christ and the many atonements of the Law were manifestations of this phase of God’s nature.