ha (he’-ah): In Job 39:25, the Revised Version (British and American) "Aha," of the battle-horse.

See AH, AHA.





ha-je-hu-di’-ja (ha-yehudhiyah): Named in the genealogical list (1Ch 4:18). Possibly a proper name (Revised Version, margin), but probably "the Jewess" (Revised Version (British and American)). May be so given in order to distinguish from the Egyptian named in this verse. The King James Version translates "Jehudijah."


ha-a-hash’-ta-ri (ha’-achashtari, possibly a corruption of ha’-ashchuri): A descendant of Judah (1Ch 4:6). The name is probably corrupt. If the emendation suggested above is accepted, it means the Ashurites, and is a description of the preceding names.


ha-ba’-ya, (cha-bhayah, chobhayah): A post-exilic priestly family which was unable to establish its pedigree. "Habaiah" is the form in Ezr 2:61; in the parallel passage (Ne 7:63), the King James Version has "Habaiah," and the Revised Version (British and American) "Hobaiah"; in the parallel passage in 1 Esdras 5:38, the form is Obdia, Codex Vaticanus, Obbeia.


ha-bak’-uk, hab’-a-kuk:


1. Name

2. Life


1. Interpretation of Habakkuk 1 and 2

2. Contents

3. Style

4. Integrity


1. Date

2. Occasion


1. Universal Supremacy of Yahweh

2. Faithfulness the Guarantee of Permanency


I. The Author. 1. Name:

Habakkuk (chabhaqquq) means "embrace," or "ardent embrace." Some of the ancient rabbis, connecting the name with 2Ki 4:16, "Thou shalt embrace a son," imagined that the prophet was the son of the Shunammite woman. The Septuagint form of the name, Hambakoum; Theodotion Hambakouk, presupposes the Hebrew chabbaquq. A similar word occurs in Assyrian as the name of a garden plant.

2. Life:

Practically nothing is known of Habakkuk. The book bearing his name throws little light upon his life, and the rest of the Old Testament is silent concerning him; but numerous legends have grown up around his name. The identification of the prophet with the son of the Shunammite woman is one. Another, connecting Isa 21:6 with Hab 2:1, makes Habakkuk the watchman set by Isaiah to watch for the fall of Babylon. One of the recensions of the Septuagint text of Bel and the Dragon declares that the story was taken "from the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi." This must refer to an unknown apocryphal book ascribed to our prophet. What authority there may be for calling his father Jesus we do not know. The claim that he was of the tribe of Levi may be based upon the presence of the musical note at the end of the third chapter. According to the Lives of the Prophets, ascribed, though perhaps erroneously, to Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus during the latter part of the 4th century AD, he belonged to Bethtsohar, of the tribe of Simeon. A very interesting story is found in Bel and the Dragon (33-39), according to which Habakkuk, while on his way to the field with a bowl of pottage, was taken by an angel, carried to Babylon and placed in the lions den, where Daniel ate the pottage, when Habakkuk was returned to his own place. According to the Lives, Habakkuk died two years before the return of the exiles from Babylon. All these legends have little or no historical value.

II. The Book.

1. Interpretation of Habakkuk 1 and 2:

It is necessary to consider the interpretation of Hab 1 and 2 before giving the contents of the book, as a statement of the contents of these chapters will be determined by their interpretation. The different interpretations advocated may be grouped under three heads: (1) According to the first view: Hab 1:2-4: The corruption of Judah; the oppression of the righteous Jews by the wicked Jews, which calls for the Divine manifestation in judgment against the oppressors. 1:5-11: Yahweh announces that He is about to send the Chaldeans to execute judgment. 1:12-17: The prophet is perplexed. He cannot understand how a righteous God can use these barbarians to execute judgment upon a people more righteous than they. He considers even the wicked among the Jews better than the Chaldeans. 2:1-4: Yahweh solves the perplexing problem by announcing that the exaltation of the Chaldeans will be but temporary; in the end they will meet their doom, while the righteous will live. 2:5-20: Woes against the Chaldeans.

(2) The second view finds it necessary to change the present arrangement of Hab 1:5-11; in their present position, they will not fit into the interpretation. For this reason Wellhausen and others omit these verses as a later addition; on the other hand, Giesebrecht would place them before 1:2, as the opening verses of the prophecy. The transposition would require a few other minor changes, so as to make the verses a suitable beginning and establish a smooth transition from 1:11 to 1:2. Omitting the troublesome verses, the following outline of the two chapters may be given: 1:2-4: The oppression of the righteous Jews by the wicked Chaldeans. 1:12-17: Appeal to Yahweh on behalf of the Jews against their oppressors. 2:1-4: Yahweh promises deliverance (see above). 2:5-20: Woes against the Chaldeans.

(3) The third view also finds it necessary to alter the present order of verses. Again Hab 1:5-11, in the present position, interferes with theory; therefore, these verses are given a more suitable place after 2:4. According to this interpretation the outline is as follows: 1:2-4: Oppression of the righteous Jews by the wicked Assyrians (Budde) or Egyptians (G. A. Smith). 1:12-17: Appeal to Yahweh on behalf of the oppressed against the oppressor. 2:1-4: Yahweh promises deliverance (see above). 1:5-11: The Chaldeans will be the instrument to execute judgment upon the oppressors and to bring deliverance to the Jews. 2:5-20: Woes against the Assyrians or Egyptians.

A full discussion of these views is not possible in this article (see Eiselen, Minor Prophets, 466-68). It may be sufficient to say that on the whole the first interpretation, which requires no omission or transposition, seems to satisfy most completely the facts in the case.

2. Contents:

The contents of Hab 1 and 2 are indicated in the preceding paragraph. Hab 3 contains a lyrical passage called in the title "Prayer." The petitioner speaks for himself and the community. He remembers the mighty works of Yahweh for His people; the thought of them causes him to tremble; nevertheless, he calls for a repetition of the ancient manifestations (3:2). In majestic pictures the poet describes the wonderful appearances of Yahweh in the past (3:3-11) for His chosen people (3:12-15). The remembrance of these manifestations fills the Psalmist with fear and trembling, but also with joy and confidence in the God of his salvation (3:16-19).

3. Style:

Only the Hebrew student can get an adequate idea of the literary excellence of the Book of Habakkuk. "The literary power of Habakkuk," says Driver, "is considerable. Though his book is a brief one, it is full of force; his descriptions are graphic and powerful; thought and expression are alike poetic; he is still a master of the old classical style, terse, parallelistic, pregnant; there is no trace of the often prosaic diffusiveness which manifests itself in the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And if Hab 3 be his, he is, moreover, a lyric poet of high order; the grand imagery and the rhythmic flow of this ode will bear comparison with some of the finest productions of the Hebrew muse."

4. Integrity:

More than half of the book, including Hab 1:5-11; 2:9-20, and chapter 3 entire, has been denied to the prophet Habakkuk. If the prophecy is rightly interpreted (see above), no valid reason for rejecting 1:5-11 can be found. Hab 2:9-20 are denied to Habakkuk chiefly on two grounds:

(1) The "woes" are said to be in part, at least, unsuitable, if supposed to be addressed to the Chaldean king. This difficulty vanishes when it is borne in mind that the king is not addressed as an individual, but as representing the policy of the nation, as a personification of the nation.

(2) Some parts, especially 2:12-14, "consist largely of citations and reminiscences of other passages, including some late ones" (compare 2:12 with Mic 3:10; Hab 2:13 with Jer 51:58; Hab 2:14 with Isa 11:9; Hav 2:16b with Jer 25:15,16; Hab 2:18-20 with Isa 44:9 ff; 46:6,7; Jer 10:1-16).

Aside from the fact that the argument from literary parallels is always precarious, in this case the resemblances are few in number and of such general character that they do not necessarily presuppose literary dependence. Habakkuk 3 is denied to the prophet even more persistently, but the arguments are by no means conclusive. The fact that the chapter belongs to the psalm literature does not prove a late date unless it is assumed, without good reasons, that no psalms originated in the preexilic period. Nor do the historical allusions, which are altogether vague, the style, the relation to other writers, and the character of the religious ideas expressed, point necessarily to a late date. The only doubtful verses are 2:16 ff, which seem to allude to a calamity other than the invasion of the Chaldeans; and Driver says, not without reason, "Had the poet been writing under the pressure of a hostile invasion, the invasion itself would naturally have been expected to form a prominent feature in this picture." Hence, while it may be impossible to prove that Habakkuk is the author of the prayer, it is equally impossible to prove the contrary; and while there are a few indications which seem to point to a situation different from that of Habakkuk, they are by no means definite enough to exclude the possibility of Habakkuk’s authorship.

III. The Time.

1. Date:

The question of date is closely bound up with that of interpretation. Budde, on theory that the oppressors, threatened with destruction, are the Assyrians (see above, 3), dates the prophecy 621 to 615 BC. Granting that the Assyrians are in the mind of the prophet, the date suggested by Betteridge (AJT, 1903, 674 ff), circa 701 BC, is to be preferred; but if the Assyrians are not the oppressors, then with the Assyrians fall the dates proposed by Budde and Betteridge. If the prophecy is directed against Egypt, we are shut up to a very definite period, between 608 and 604 BC, for the Egyptian supremacy in Judah continued during these years only. If the Egyptians are not the oppressors, another date will have to be sought. If the Chaldeans are the oppressors of Judah, the prophecy must be assigned to a date subsequent to the battle of Carchemish in 605-604, for only after the defeat of the Egyptians could the Chaldeans carry out a policy of world conquest; and it was some years after that event that the Chaldeans first came into direct contact with Judah. But on this theory, Hab 1:2-4,12 ff; 2:8 ff, presupposes the lapse of a considerable period of conquest, the subduing of many nations, the cruel oppression of Judah for some length of time; therefore, Nowack is undoubtedly correct, on this theory, in bringing the prophecy down to a period subsequent to the first exile in 597, or, as he says, "in round numbers about 590 BC."

A different date must be sought if Hab 1:2-4 is interpreted as referring to the oppression of Jews by Jews, and 1:5 ff, as a threat that Yahweh will raise up the Chaldeans, already known as a nation thirsting for blood, to punish the wickedness of Judah. These verses would seem to indicate (1) that the Chaldeans had not yet come into direct contact with Judah, and (2) that they had already given exhibitions of the cruel character of their warfare. Nebuchadnezzar advanced against Judah about 600 BC; but the years since the fall of Nineveh, in 607-606, and the battle of Carchemish, in 605-604, had given abundant opportunity to the Chaldeans to reveal their true character, and to the prophet and his contemporaries to become acquainted with this cruel successor of Nineveh. On this theory, therefore, the prophetic activity of Habakkuk must be assigned to shortly before 600 BC.

2. Occasion:

If Habakkuk prophesied about 600 BC, he lived under King Jehoiakim. The pious and well-meaning Josiah had been slain in an attempt to stop the advance of Egypt against Assyria. With his death the brief era of reform came to an end. After a reign of three months Jehoahaz was deposed by Pharaoh-necoh, who placed Jehoiakim on the throne. The latter was selfish, tyrannical and godless. In a short time the deplorable conditions of Manasseh’s reign returned. It was this situation that caused the prophet’s first perplexity: "O Yahweh, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear? I cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save" (Hab 1:2).

IV. Its Teaching.

In the Book of Hab a new type of prophecy appears. The prophets were primarily preachers and teachers of religion and ethics. They addressed themselves to their fellow-countrymen in an attempt to win them back to Yahweh and a righteous life. Not so Habakkuk. He addresses himself to Yahweh, questioning the justice or even the reality of the Divine Providence. He makes complaint to God and expostulates with Him. The prophet Habakkuk, therefore, is a forerunner of the author of the Book of Job. "As a whole, his book is the fruit of religious reflection. It exhibits the communings and questionings of his soul—representative, no doubt, of many other pious spirits of the time—with God; and records the answers which the Spirit of God taught him for his own sake and for the sake of tried souls in every age.

Habakkuk has been called the prophet of faith. He possessed a strong, living faith in Yahweh; but he, like many other pious souls, was troubled and perplexed by the apparent inequalities of life. He found it difficult to reconcile these with his lofty conception of Yahweh. Nevertheless, he does not sulk. Boldly he presents his perplexities to Yahweh, who points the way to a solution, and the prophet comes forth from his trouble with a faith stronger and more intense than ever. It is in connection with his attempts to solve the perplexing problems raised by the unpunished sins of his countrymen and the unlimited success of the Chaldeans that Habakkuk gives utterance to two sublime truths:

1. The Universal Supremacy of Yahweh:

Yahweh is interested not only in Israel. Though Habakkuk, like the other prophets, believes in a special Divine Providence over Israel, he is equally convinced that Yahweh’s rule embraces the whole earth; the destinies of all the nations are in His hand. The Chaldeans are punished not merely for their sins against Judah, but for the oppression of other nations as well. Being the only God, He cannot permit the worship of other deities. Temporarily the Chaldeans may worship idols, or make might their god, they may "sacrifice unto their net," and burn incense "unto their drag," because by them "their portion is fat and their food plenteous"; but Yahweh is from everlasting, the Holy One, and He will attest His supremacy by utterly destroying the boastful conqueror with his idols.

2. Faithfulness the Guarantee of Permanency:

The second important truth is expressed in Hab 2:4: "The righteous shall live by his faith" (the American Revised Version, margin "faithfulness"). Faithfulness assures permanency. The thought expressed by the prophet is not identical with that expressed by the apostle who quotes the words (Ga 3:11); nevertheless, the former also gives expression to a truth of profound significance. "Faithfulness" is with the prophet an external thing; it signifies integrity, fidelity, steadfastness under all provocations; but this implies, in a real sense, the New Testament conception of faith as an active principle of right conduct. A living faith determines conduct; religion and ethics go hand in hand, and especially in the hour of adversity a belief in Yahweh and unflinching reliance upon Him are the strongest preservers of fidelity and integrity. Faith without works is dead; faith expresses itself in life. Habakkuk places chief emphasis upon the expressions of faith, and he does so rightly; but in doing this he also calls attention, by implication at least, to the motive power behind the external manifestations. As an expression of living faith, 3:17-19 is not surpassed in the Old Testament.


Commentaries on the Minor Prophets by Ewald, Pusey, Keil, Orelli, G. A. Smith (Expositor’s Bible), Driver (New Century Bible), Eiselen; A. B. Davidson, Commentary on "Nah," "Hab," "Zeph" (Cambridge Bible); A. F. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets; F. C. Eiselen, Prophecy and the Prophets; F. W. Farrar, Minor Prophets ("Men of the Bible"); Driver, LOT; HDB, article "Habakkuk"; EB, article "Habakkuk."

Frederick Carl Eiselen




(chabhatstsinyah. Thus in the King James Version, but more correctly as in the Revised Version (British and American) HABAZZINIAH, hab-a-zi-ni’-a (Jer 35,3)): The grandfather of Jaazaniah, who was the leader of the Rechabites who were tested by Jeremiah as to their obedience to their ancestor’s command with reference to wine. Their loyalty to the commands of Jonadab was effectively used by Jeremiah in an appeal to the people of Judah to obey the words of Yahweh.


hab’-er-jun, ha-bur’-jun, the King James Version (tachara’): In the Revised Version (British and American), Ex 28:32; 39:23, etc., "coat of mail"; in Job 41:26, "pointed shaft," margin "coat of mail."



hab-i-ta’-shun: Properly a place of sojourn or dwelling. The term in the King James Version representing some 16 Hebrew words (moshabh, ma‘-on, mishkan, naweh, etc.), and 5 Greek words, is variously changed in certain passages in the Revised Version (British and American), as Ge 49:5, "swords"; Le 13:46 "dwelling"; Job 5:24; Jer 25:30 b, 37, "fold"; Ps 89:14; 97:2, etc., "foundation"; Ps 132:5, "tabernacle"; Lu 16:9, "tabernacles," etc. Conversely, "habitation" appears in the Revised Version (British and American) for the King James Version "dwelling place" in 2Ch 30:27; Ps 79:7, "house"; Ps 83:12; 2Co 5:2, "tabernacle," Ac 7:46, etc.


James Orr


ha’-bor (chabhor; Habor, Habior; Isidor of Charax, Aburas (Abouras), Zosias, Aboras):

1. Its Position and Course:

Is described in 2Ki 17:6; 18:11 (compare 1Ch 5:26) as "the river of Gozan." It is the Arabic Khabur, and flows in a southerly direction from several sources in the mountains of Karaj Dagh (Mons Masius), which, in the 37th parallel, flanks the valley of the Tigris on the West. The river ultimately joins the Euphrates after receiving its chief tributary, the Jaghjagha Su (Mygdonius), at Circesium (Kirkisiyeh).

2. Etymologies of Habor:

The meaning of its name is doubtful, but Delitzsch has suggested a Sumerian etymology, namely, habur, "the fish-waterway," or it may be connected with "mother Hubur’" a descriptive title of Tiamat (see MERODACH; RAHAB).

3. Historical References:

Layard found several interesting Assyrian remains in the district, including man-headed bulls bearing the name of Muses-Ninip, possibly an Assyrian governor. Tiglath-pileser I (circa 1120 BC) boasts of having killed 10 mighty elephants in Haran and on the banks of the Habor; and Assur-nacir-apli (circa 880 BC), after conquering Harsit (Harrit, Harmis), subjugated the tract around piate sa nar Habur, "the mouths of the Habor." According to 2Ki and 1 Chronicles, Shalmaneser IV and Sargon transported the exiled Israelites thither. Philological considerations exclude the identification of the Chebar of Eze 13, etc., with the Habor.

T. G. Pinches


hak-a-li’-a (chakhalyah, meaning doubtful, perhaps "wait for Yahweh"; the King James Version Hachaliah): Father of Nehemiah (Ne 11; 10:1).


ha-ki’-la, hak’-i-la, (chakhilah): A hill in the wilderness of Judah, associated with the wanderings of David. It is stated (1Sa 23:19) to be "on the South of the desert" (or Jeshimon), and (1Sa 26:1) to be "before (on the front (i.e. edge) of) the desert." It was near Ziph and Maon. The only plausible hypothesis is that it is represented by the ridge Dhahret el-Kolah in the wilderness of Ziph, toward the desert of En-gedi (PEF, III, 313, Sh XXI).


hak-mo’-ni, hak’-mo-ni, or probably (chakhmoni, "wise"): The same word is rendered "Hachmoni," a proper name, in 1Ch 27:32 and "a Hachmonite" in 1Ch 11:11. The form of the Hebrew word suggests that the latter translation should be adopted in both passages, and that it describes the warrior in one case, and the companion or tutor of David’s sons in the other, as a member of a certain family—a Hachmonite of which nothing further is known. 2Sa 23:8, "Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite," bears the marks of a corrupt text, and should be parallel with 1Ch 11:11 so far as the name goes, reading "Jashobeam the Hachmonite." So Klostermann, Driver, Wellhausen, Budde, etc.

George Rice Hovey



(1) (chadhadh, "sharpness"): One of the twelve sons of Ishmael (Ge 25:15, where the King James Version, following a mistake in Hebrew text, has "Hadar"; but "Hadad" is found in parallel passage 1Ch 1:30; the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Hadad" in both places).

(2) (hadhadh): A king of Edom, son of Bedad (Ge 36:35,36 parallel 1Ch 1:46,47), "who smote Midian in the field of Moab," and whose "city was Avith."

(3) Another king of Edom, written "Hadar" in Ge 36:39 by a copyist’s mistake, but "Hadad" in the parallel passage 1Ch 1:50,51. His city was Pau or Palestine.

(4) A member of the royal family of Edom in David’s time, who as a child escaped Joab’s slaughter of the Edomites, and fled to Egypt. On David’s death he returned to Edom, where he made trouble for Solomon by stirring up the Edomites against the rule of Israel (1Ki 11:14-22,25).

(5) The supreme god of Syria, whose name is found in Scripture in the names of Syrian kings, Benhadad, Hadadezer. The god Hadad (= perhaps, "maker of loud noise") is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, and called on the monolith of Shalmaneser "the god of Aleppo." In the Assyrian inscriptions he is identified with the air-god Rammon or Rimmon. The union of the two names in Zec 12:11 suggests this identity, though the reference is uncertain, some regarding Hadadrimmon as the name of a place, others as the name of the god—"Hadad (is) Rimmon." The name "Hadad" is found in various other forms: Adad, Dadu, and Dadda. See A. H. Sayce in HDB under the word "Hadad."

George Rice Hovey


had-ad-e’-zer (hadhadh‘ezer; so 2Sa 8; 1Ki 11:23, but hadhar‘ezer, 2Sa 10; 1Ch 18): Mentioned in connection with David’s wars of conquest (2Sa 8:3 ff; 2Sa 10:1-19; 1Ch 18:3 ); was king of Zobah in Syria. The exact position and size of this Syrian principality are uncertain, but it seems to have extended in David’s time southward toward Ammon and eastward to the Euphrates. When the Ammonites had put themselves in the wrong with David by the insult done to his ambassadors (2Sa 10:1-5) they summoned to their aid against the incensed king of Israel the Syrians of various adjoining principalities, among them the Syrians of Zobah under Hadadezer, the son of Rehob. The strategy of Joab, who set the force under command of Abishai his brother in array against the Ammonites, and himself attacked the Syrian allies, won for Israel a decisive victory. Not content with this result, Hadadezer gathered together another Syrian force, summoning this time also "the Syrians that were beyond the River" (2Sa 10:16), with Shobach the captain of his host at their head. On this occasion David himself took command of the Israelite forces and again defeated them near Helam, Shobach being left dead on the field. Hadadezer and his Syrian vassals, finding resistance hopeless, "made peace with Israel and served them" (2Sa 10:19). For the name Hadador Hadarezer, see BENHADAD.


Winckler, Geschichte Israels, I, 137 ff; McCurdy, HPM, 204; Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, 731.

T. Nicol.


ha-dad-rim’-on, had-ad-rim’-on (hadhadh rimmon): A name which occurs, along with Megiddon, in Zec 12:11. It was long thought that this was a place in the plain of Megiddo, and that the mourning referred to was that for Josiah, slain in battle with Pharaoh-necoh (2Ki 23:29). This last, however, was certainly at Jerusalem. Jerome (Comm. on Zec) identifies Hadadrimmon with Maximianopolis, a village near Jezreel, probably Legio, the ancient Megiddo. Possibly, however, the form "Hadadrimmon" has arisen through the combination of two divine names; and the weeping may be that for Tammuz (Eze 8:14), with whom the old Semitic deity had become confused in the popular mind.

W. Ewing


ha’-dar (Ge 36:39).

See HADAD (3).





ha-da’-sha, had’-a-sha (chadhashah, "new"): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Zenan and Migdal-gad (Jos 15:37). According to the Mishna (‘Erubhin, v. 6), it was the smallest town in Judah. It is not identified.


ha-das’-a (hadhaqqah, "myrtle"): The Hebrew name (Es 2:7) formerly borne by ESTHER (which see).


ha-dat’-a (chadhattah, "new"):



ha’-dez (Haides, haides, "not to be seen"): Hades, Greek originally Haidou, in genitive, "the house of Hades," then, as nominative, designation of the abode of the dead itself. The word occurs in the New Testament in Mt 11:23 (parallel Lu 10:15); Mt 16:18; Lu 16:23; Ac 2:27,31; Re 1:18; 6:8; 20:13 f. It is also found in Textus Receptus of the New Testament 1Co 15:55, but here the correct reading (Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, the Revised Version (British and American)) is probably Thanate, "O Death," instead of Haide, "O Hades." the King James Version renders "Hades" by "hell" in all instances except 1Co 15:55, where it puts "grave" (margin "hell") in dependence on Ho 13:14. the Revised Version (British and American) everywhere has "Hades."

1. In Old Testament: Sheol:

In the Septuagint Hades is the standing equivalent for Sheol, but also translates other terms associated with death and the state after it. The Greek conception of Hades was that of a locality receiving into itself all the dead, but divided into two regions, one a place of torment, the other of blessedness. This conception should not be rashly transferred to the New Testament, for the latter stands not under the influence of Greek pagan belief, but gives a teaching and reflects a belief which model their idea of Hades upon the Old Testament through the Septuagint. The Old Testament Sheol, while formally resembling the Greek Hades in that it is the common receptacle of all the dead, differs from it, on the one hand, by the absence of a clearly defined division into two parts, and, on the other hand, by the emphasis placed on its association with death and the grave as abnormal facts following in the wake of sin. The Old Testament thus concentrates the partial light it throws on the state after death on the negative, undesirable side of the prospect apart from redemption. When in the progress of Old Testament revelation the state after death begins to assume more definite features, and becomes more sharply differentiated in dependence on the religious and moral issue of the present life this is not accomplished in the canonical writings (otherwise in the apocalyptic literature) by dividing Sheol into two compartments, but by holding forth to the righteous the promise of deliverance from Sheol, so that the latter becomes more definitely outlined as a place of evil and punishment.

2. In the New Testament: Hades:

The New Testament passages mark a distinct stage in this process, and there is, accordingly, a true basis in Scripture for the identification in a certain aspect of Sheol—Hades—with hell as reflected in the King James Version. The theory according to which Hades is still in the New Testament the undifferentiated provisional abode of all the dead until the day of judgment, with the possibility of ultimate salvation even for those of its inmates who have not been saved in this life, is neither in harmony with the above development nor borne out by the facts of New Testament usage. That dead believers abide in a local Hades cannot be proven from 1Th 4:16; 1Co 15:23, for these passages refer to the grave and the body, not to a gathering-place of the dead. On the other hand Lu 23:43; 2Co 5:6-8; Php 1:23; Re 6:9; 7:9 ff; 15:2 ff teach that the abode of believers immediately after death is with Christ and God.

3. Ac 2:27,31:

It is, of course, a different matter, when Hades, as not infrequently already the Old Testament Sheol, designates not the place of the dead but the state of death or disembodied existence. In this sense even the soul of Jesus was in Hades according’ to Peter’s statement (Ac 2:27,31—on the basis of Ps 16:10). Here the abstract sense is determined by the parallel expression, "to see corruption" None the less from a comparatively early date this passage has been quoted in support of the doctrine of a local descent of Christ into Hades.

4. Re 20:13; 6:8; 1:18:

The same abstract meaning is indicated for Re 20:13. Death and Hades are here represented as delivering up the dead on the eve of the final judgment. If this is more than a poetic duplication of terms, Hades will stand for the personified state of death, Death for the personified cause of this state. The personification appears plainly from 20:14: "Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire." In the number of these "dead" delivered up by Hades, believers are included, because, even on the chiliastic interpretation of 20:4-6, not all the saints share in the first resurrection, but only those "beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God," i.e. the martyrs. A similar personifying combination of Death and Hades occurs in Re 6:8 ("a pale horse: and he that sat upon him his name was Death; and Hades followed with him"). In Re 1:18, on the other hand, Death and Hades are represented as prisons from which Christ, in virtue of His own resurrection, has the power to deliver, a representation which again implies that in some, not necessarily local, sense believers also are kept in Hades.

5. Lu 16:23:

In distinction from these passages when the abstract meaning prevails and the local conception is in abeyance, the remaining references are more or less locally conceived. Of these Lu 16:23 is the only one which might seem to teach that recipients of salvation enter after death into Hades as a place of abode. It has been held that Hades is here the comprehensive designation of the locality where the dead reside, and is divided into two regions, "the bosom of Abraham" and the place of torment, a representation for which Jewish parallels can be quoted, aside from its resemblance to the Greek bisection of Hades. Against this view, however, it may be urged, that if "the bosom of Abraham" were conceived as one of the two divisions of Hades, the other division would have been named with equal concreteness in connection with Dives. In point of fact, the distinction is not between "the bosom of Abraham" and another place, as both included in Hades, but between "the bosom of Abraham" and Hades as antithetical and exclusive. The very form of the description of the experience of Dives: "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments," leads us to associate Hades as such with pain and punishment. The passage, therefore, does not prove that the saved are after death in Hades. In further estimating its bearing upon the problem of the local conditions of the disembodied life after death, the parabolic character of the representation must be taken into account. The parable is certainly not intended to give us topographical information about the realm of the dead, although it presupposes that there is a distinct place of abode for the righteous and wicked respectively.

6. Mt 11:23:

The two other passages where Hades occurs in the teaching of our Lord (Mt 11:23 parallel Lu 10:15; and Mt 16:18) make a metaphorical use of the conception, which, however, is based on the local sense. In the former utterance it is predicted of Capernaum that it shall in punishment for its unbelief "go down unto Hades." As in the Old Testament Sheol is a figure for the greatest depths known (De 32:22; Isa 7:11; 57:9; Job 11:8; 26:6), this seems to be a figure for the extreme of humiliation to which that city was to be reduced in the course of history. It is true, 11:24, with its mention of the day of judgment, might seem to favor an eschatological reference to the ultimate doom of the unbelieving inhabitants, but the usual restriction of Hades to the punishment of the intermediate state (see below) is against this.

7. Mt 16:18:

In the other passage, Mt 16:18, Jesus declares that the gates of Hades shall not katischuein the church He intends to build. The verb katischuein may be rendered, "to overpower" or "to surpass." If the former be adopted, the figure implied is that of Hades as a stronghold of the power of evil or death from which warriors stream forth to assail the church as the realm of life. On the other rendering there is no reference to any conflict between Hades and the church, the point of comparison being merely the strength of the church, the gates of Hades, i.e. the realm of death, serving in common parlance as a figure of the greatest conceivable strength, because they never allow to escape what has once entered through them.

The above survey of the passages tends to show that Hades, where it is locally conceived, is not a provisional receptacle for all the dead, but plainly associated with the punishment of the wicked. Where it comes under consideration for the righteous there is nothing to indicate a local sense. On 1Pe 3:19; 4:6 (where, however, the word "Hades" does not occur), see articles ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; SPIRITS IN PRISON.

8. Not a Final State:

The element of truth in theory of the provisional character of Hades lies in this, that the New Testament never employs it in connection with the final state of punishment, as subsequent to the last judgment. For this GEHENNA (which see) and other terms are used. Dives is represented as being in Hades immediately after his death and while his brethren are still in this present life. Whether the implied differentiation between stages of punishment, depending obviously on the difference between the disembodied and reembodied state of the lost, also carries with itself a distinction between two places of punishment, in other words whether Hades and Gehenna are locally distinct, the evidence is scarcely sufficient to determine. The New Testament places the emphasis on the eschatological developments at the end, and leaves many things connected with the intermediate state in darkness.

Geerhardus Vos


ha’-did (chadhidh): A city in Benjamin (Ne 11:33 f) named with Lod and Ono (Ezr 2:33; Ne 7:37), probably identical with Adida Septuagint Hadida) of 1 Macc 12:38; 13:13, "over against the plain," which was fortified by Simon Maccabeus. It is represented by the modern el-Chaditheh, about 3 miles Northeast of Lydda.


had’-li, had’-la-i (chadhlay, "resting"): An Ephraimite (2Ch 28:12), father of Amasa, who was one of the heads of the tribe in the time of Pekah, king of Israel.


ha-do’-ram (hadhoram):

(1) Son of Joktan and apparently 6th in descent from Noah (Ge 10:27 parallel 1Ch 1:21).

(2) Son of Tou, king of Hamath, sent by his father with presents to King David (1Ch 18:10). In 2Sa 8:9,10, written probably incorrectly "Joram," "son of Toi."

(3) Rehoboam’s superintendent of the forced labor department (2Ch 10:18), called Adoram 1Ki 12:18, a contraction of ADONIRAM (which see). He was sent by Rehoboam as messenger to Israel at the time of the revolt of the ten tribes and was stoned to death by them.

George Rice Hovey


ha’-drak, had’-rak (chadhrakh): "The land of Hadrach" is mentioned only once in Scripture (Zec 9:1), and there it is grouped with Damascus, Hamath, Tyre and Sidon. It may be safely identified with the "Hatarikka" of the Assyrian inscriptions, against which Assur-dan III made expeditions in his 1st (772 BC), 8th and 18th years. It also appears in inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. They place it in the North of Lebanon.


ha’-gab (chaghabh, "locust"): Ancestor of some of the Nethinim who returned from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. The name occurs second after Hagabah in Ezr 2:46, but is omitted entirely from the parallel list of Ne 7:48.


ha-ga’-ba, hag’-a-ba (chaghabha’): Same as the following (Ne 7:48).


ha-ga’-ba, hag’-a-ba (chaghabhah, "locust"): Like Hagab, an ancestor of some of the Nethinim who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:45); spelled Hagaba in the parallel passage (Ne 7:48).


ha’-gar (haghar, "emigration," "flight"; Hagar, Agar): An Egyptian woman, the handmaid or slave of Sarai; a present, perhaps, from Pharaoh when Abram dissembled to him in Egypt (Ge 12:16). Mention is made of her in two passages (Ge 16; 21:8-21).

1. The Scornful Handmaid and Her Flight:

In the first narrative (Ge 16) it is related that Sarai, despairing at her age of having children, gave Hagar to Abram as a concubine. As Hagar was not an ordinary household slave but the peculiar property of her mistress (compare Ge 29:24,29), any offspring which she might bear to Abram would be reckoned as Sarai’s (compare Ge 30:3-9). In the prospect of becoming a mother, Hagar, forgetting her position, seems to have assumed an insolent bearing toward her childless mistress. Sarai felt keenly the contempt shown her by her handmaid, and in angry tones brought her conduct before Abram. Now that her plan was not working out smoothly, she unfairly blamed her husband for what originated with herself, and appealed to Heaven to redress her grievance. Abram refused to interfere in the domestic quarrel, and renouncing his rights over his concubine, and her claims on him, put her entirely at Sarai’s disposal. Under the harsh treatment of her mistress Hagar’s life became intolerable, and she fled into the wilderness, turning her steps naturally toward Egypt, her native land.

2. Her Vision and Return:

But the angel of Yahweh (who is here introduced for the first time as the medium of theophany) appeared to her as she was resting by a spring and commanded her to return and submit herself to her mistress, promising her an innumerable seed through her unborn son, concerning whom he uttered a striking prediction (see ISHMAEL). To the angel (who is now said to be Yahweh Himself) Hagar gave the name "Thou art a God of seeing" (the Revised Version (British and American) "that seeth"), for she said, "Have I even here (in the desert where God, whose manifestations were supposed to be confined to particular places, might not be expected to reveal Himself) looked after him that seeth me?"—the meaning being that while God saw her, it was only while the all-seeing God in the person of His angel was departing that she became conscious of His presence. The spring where the angel met with her was called in Hebrew tradition Be’er-lachay-ro’i, "the well of the living one who seeth me" (Revised Version, margin).

Obedient to the heavenly vision Hagar returned, as the narrative implies, to her mistress and gave birth to Ishmael, Abram being then eighty-six years old.

The idea in 30:13 is not very clearly expressed. The word translated "here" generally means "hither," and there is no explanation of the "living one" in the name of the well. It has therefore been proposed to emend the Hebrew text and read "Have I even seen God, and lived after my seeing?"—an allusion to the belief that no one could "see God and live" (compare Ge 32:30; Ex 33:20). But there are difficulties in the way of accepting this emendation. The name of God, "a God of seeing," would require to be interpreted in an objective sense as "a God who is seen," and the consequent name of the well, "He that seeth me liveth," would make God, not Hagar, as in 30:13, the speaker.

3. Her Harsh Expulsion and Divine Help:

The other narrative (Ge 21:8-21) relates what occurred in connection with the weaning of Isaac. The presence and conduct of Ishmael during the family feast held on the occasion roused the anger and jealousy of Sarah who, fearing that Ishmael would share the inheritance with Isaac, peremptorily demanded the expulsion of the slave-mother and her son. But the instincts of Abraham’s fatherly heart recoiled from such a cruel course, and it was only after the revelation was made to him that the ejection of Hagar and her son would be in the line of the Divine purpose—for Isaac was his real seed, while Ishmael would be made a nation too—that he was led to forego his natural feelings and accede to Sarah’s demand. So next morning the bondwoman and her son were sent forth with the bare provision of bread and a skin of water into the wilderness of Beersheba. When the water was spent, Hagar, unable to bear the sight of her boy dying from thirst, laid him under a shrub and withdrew the distance of a bowshot to weep out her sorrow. But the angel of God, calling to her out of heaven, comforted her with the assurance that God had heard the voice of the lad and that there was a great future before him. Then her eyes were opened to discover a well of water from which she filled the skin and gave her son to drink. With God’s blessing the lad grew up amid the desert’s hardships, distinguished for his skill with the bow. He made his home in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him out of her own country.

4. Practical Lessons from the History:

The life and experience of Hagar teach, among other truths, the temptations incident to a new position; the foolishness of hasty action in times of trial and difficulty; the care exercised over the lonely by the all-seeing God; the Divine purpose in the life of everyone, however obscure and friendless; how God works out His gracious purposes by seemingly harsh methods; and the strength, comfort and encouragement that ever accompany the hardest experiences of His children.

5. Critical Points in the Documents:

Genesis 16 belongs to the Jahwist, J, (except 16:1a, 3,15 f which are from P), and 21:8-21 to East. From the nature of the variations in the narratives many critics hold that we have here two different accounts of the same incident. But the narratives as they stand seem to be quite distinct, the one referring to Hagar’s flight before the birth of Ishmael, and the other to her expulsion at the weaning of Isaac. It is said, however, that Elohist (E) represents Ishmael as a child "playing" (The Revised Veersion, margin, Septuagint paizonta) with Isaac at the weaning festival, and young enough to be carried by his mother and "cast" under a shrub; while according to the Priestly Code, the Priestly Code (P), (Ge 16:16; 21:5), as a child was weaned at the age of two or three years, he would be a lad of sixteen at that time. The argument for the double narrative here does not seem conclusive. The word metsacheq (16:9) does not necessarily mean "playing" when used absolutely; it is so used in Ge 19:14, evidently in the sense of "mocking" or "jesting," and Delitzsch gives it that meaning there. Then as to 19:14, the Massoretic Text does not state that the child was put on her shoulder, although the Septuagint does; nor does "cast" (19:15) so "clearly imply" that Ishmael was an infant carried by his mother (compare Mt 15:30). It may be added that the words yeledh and na‘ar, translated "child" and "lad" respectively, determine nothing as to age, as they are each used elsewhere in both senses.

6. Allegorical Use of the Story by Paul:

In Ga 4:21 ff Paul makes an allegorical use of this episode in the history of Ishmael and Isaac to support his argument for the transitory character of the Jewish ritual and the final triumph of Christian freedom over all Judaizing tendencies. In elaborating his reference, the apostle institutes a series of contrasts. Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the old covenant which was given from Mt. Sinai; and as Ishmael was Abraham’s son after the flesh, so the Judaizing Christians, who wish to remain in bondage to the law, are Hagar’s children. On the other hand, Sarah, the freewoman, represents the new covenant instituted by Christ; and as Isaac was born to Abraham in virtue of the promise, so the Christians who have freed themselves entirely from the law of carnal ordinances and live by faith are Sarah’s children. Thus Hagar corresponds to "the Jerusalem that now is," that is, the Jewish state which is in spiritual bondage with her children; while Sarah represents "the Jerusalem that is above," "our mother" (Revised Version (British and American)), the mother of us Christians, that free spiritual city to which Christians even now belong (Php 3:20). By this allegory the apostle would warn the Galatian Christians of the danger which beset them from their Judaizing brethren, of their subjection to the covenant of works and their ultimate expulsion from the household of faith.

To us Paul’s reference does not appeal with the same force as it would do to those to whom he was writing. The incident taken by itself, indeed, does not contain any suggestion of such a hidden meaning. Yet the history of the Hebrew nation is but typical of the history of the church in all ages, and the apostle’s familiarity with rabbinical modes of interpretation may have led him to adopt this method of confirming the truth which he had already proved from the law itself.

For a discussion of the text and interpretation of Ga 4:25 a, "Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia," and an account of Philo’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah, see Lightfoot’s notes at the end of chapter iv in his Commentary on Gal.

James Crichton

HAGARENES; HAGARITES ha’-gar-enz, ha’-gar-its.



ha’-ger-it (haghri).






hag’-a-i, hag’-a-i (chaggay, an adjective formed from chagh, "feast"):

1. Name:

The word "Haggai" may mean "festal," the prophet having been born perhaps on a festival day; compare the Roman name "Festus." Hebrew proper names were sometimes formed in this manner, e.g. Barzillai, "a man of iron," from barzel, "iron." Haggai may, however, be a shortened form of Haggiah (1Ch 6:30), meaning "festival of Yahweh," as Mattenai is an abbreviation of Mattaniah (Ezr 10:33,16). In Greek Haggaios, in Latin, Aggaeus or Aggeus, sometimes Haggaeus. Haggai is the 10th in the order of the Twelve Prophets.

2. Personal History:

Little is really known of his personal history. But we do know that he lived soon after the captivity, being the first of the prophets of the Restoration. From Hag 2:3 of his prophecies it is inferred by many that he had seen the first temple, which, as we know, was destroyed in 586 BC. If so, he must have prophesied when a comparatively old man, for we know the exact date of his prophecies, 520 BC. According to Ezr 5:1; 6:14, he was a contemporary of Zechariah, and was associated with him in the work of rebuilding the temple; besides, in the Greek and Latin and Syriac VSS, his name stands with Zechariah’s at the head of certain psalms, e.g. Ps 111 (112), in the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) alone; Psalms 125; 126, in the Peshitta alone; Ps 137, in the Septuagint alone; Psalms 146; 147; 148, in Septuagint and Peshitta; and Ps 145, in Septuagint, Peshitta and Vulgate; perhaps these psalms were introduced into the temple-service on their recommendation. He was a prophet of great faith (compare 2:1-5); it is possible that he was a priest also (compare 2:10-19). Like Malachi he bears the name of "Yahweh’s messenger" (Heg 1:13; compare Mal 3:1). According to Jewish tradition, he was a member of the Great Synagogue.

3. Work:

Haggai’s work was intensely practical and important. Yahweh employed him to awaken the conscience and stimulate the enthusiasm of his compatriots in the rebuilding of the temple. "No prophet ever appeared at a more critical juncture in the history of the people, and, it may be added, no prophet was more successful" (Marcus Dods). Zechariah assisted him (compare Hag 1:1; Zec 1:1).

4. Period and Circumstances:

Haggai’s prophecies, like Ezekiel’s, are dated "in the second year of Darius" (Hag 1:1; 2:10), i.e. 520 BC. The Jews, 42,360 strong (Ezr 2:64), had returned from Babylon 16 years before (536 BC), under the leadership of Zerubbabel, the civil head of the community, and Joshua, the ecclesiastical. The generous edict of Cyrus had made return possible (compare Ezr 1:1-4). The new colonists had settled in Jerusalem and in the neighboring towns of Bethlehem, Bethel, Anathoth, Gibeon, Kiriath-jearim, and others adjacent (Ezr 2:20 ). Eager to reestablish the public worship of the sanctuary, they set about at once to erect the altar of burnt offering upon its old site (Ezr 3:2,3; compare Hag 2:14). Plans were also made for the immediate rebuilding of the temple, and the foundation stone was actually laid in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the return (Ezr 3:8-10), but the work was suddenly interrupted by the jealous, half-caste, semi-pagan Samaritans, descendants of the foreign colonists introduced into Samaria in 722 BC (compare 2Ki 17:24-41), whose offer to cooperate had been refused (Ezr 4:1-5,24). For 16 years thereafter nothing was done toward rearing the superstructure (Ezr 4:5,24; 5:16); indeed, the Jews became indifferent, and began to build for themselves "ceiled houses" (Hag 1:4). (W. H. Kosters has attempted to show that there was no return under Cyrus, and that Haggai and Zechariah, who never allude to any return, but rather look upon the return as still in the future (compare Zec 2:6,7), preached to the Jews who remained in Jerusalem, never having been carried by Nebuchadnezzar into captivity in 586 BC. But this theory is opposed by too many converging lines of Scriptural statement to warrant serious credence.) With the accession of Darius Hystaspes (i.e. Darius, the son of Hystaspes), the tide turned. Darius was a true successor to Cyrus, and favored religious freedom. Through the influence of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the people were roused from their lethargy, and the work of rebuilding was resumed with energy in 520 BC (Hag 1:14,15). The foundations were relaid (Hag 2:18). Four years later, in the 6th year of Darius, the whole structure was completed and dedicated (Ezr 6:15). Meanwhile important events were taking place in the Persian empire. On the death (of Cambyses in 522 BC, the throne had been seized by a usurper, the so-called Pseudo-Smerdis. who held it, however, for some 7 months only. He was murdered by Darius, and the latter was elevated to the throne. But this gave other ambitious pretenders cause to rebel, and many provinces revolted, among them Susiana, Media, Assyria, Armenia, Parthia, and others (compare the famous Behistun inscription). Altogether Darius fought 19 battles in putting down his rivals, and did not succeed in vanquishing all of his foes till the year after Haggai prophesied. This accounts for the prophet’s repeated allusions to Yahweh’s "shaking" the nations (2:6,7,21,22). Haggai seems to regard the "shaking" of the nations as the precursor of the Messianic age. It was, therefore, important from the prophet’s point of view, that Yahweh’s temple should be made ready for the Messiah’s advent, that it might become the religious center of the world (compare Isa 2:2-4). The exact date of Haggai’s preaching was from September to December, 520 BC.

5. Analysis:

Haggai’s prophecies are dated and therefore easily analyzed. They are composed of four distinct discourses, all four being delivered within 4 months’ time in the year 520 BC:

(1) Hag 1, delivered on the 1st day of the 6th month (September), in which the prophet reproaches the people for their indifference to the work of rebuilding the temple, and warns them to consider their ways; assuring them that their procrastination was not due to want of means (1:4), and that God on account of their apathy was withholding the produce of the field (1:10). The effect of this appeal was that 24 days later, all the people, including Zerubbabel and Joshua, began the work of reconstruction (1:14,15).

(2) Hag 2:1-9, delivered on the 21st day of the 7th month (October), which was about one month after the work had been resumed, and containing a note of encouragement to those who felt that the new structure was destined to be so much inferior to Solomon’s temple. The prophet, on the contrary, assures them that the latter glory of the new house shall eclipse that of Solomon’s magnificent temple, for soon a great "shaking" on Yahweh’s part among the nations will usher in the Messianic age, and the precious things of all nations will flow in to beautify it (compare Heb 12:26-28).

(3) Hag 2:10-19, delivered on the 24th day of the 9th month (December) which was exactly 3 months after the building had been resumed, and containing, like the first discourse, a rebuke to the people because of their indifference and inertia. The discourse is couched in the form of a parable (2:11-14), by means of which the prophet explains why the prayers of the people go unanswered. It is because they have so long postponed the completion of the temple; a taint of guilt vitiates everything they do, and blasting and mildew and hail, and consequently unfruitful seasons, are the result. On the other hand, if they will but press forward with the work, Yahweh will again bless them, and fruitful seasons will follow their revived zeal (2:19; compare Zec 8:9-12).

(4) Hag 2:20-23, delivered on the 24th day of the 9th month, the very same day as that on which the discourse in 2:10-19 was delivered. The sequence is immediate. For when Yahweh "shakes" the nations, He will establish Zerubbabel, the representative of the Davidic dynasty and the object of patriotic hopes. When the heathen powers are overthrown, Zerubbabel will stand unshaken as Yahweh’s honored and trusted vicegerent, and as the precious signet on Yahweh’s hand (compare Jer 22:24; So 8:6).

6. Message:

The most striking feature in Haggai’s message is its repeated claim of Divine origin: 5 times in the 38 verses of his prophecies, he tells us that "the word of Yahweh came" unto him (Hag 1:1,3; 2:1,10,20); 4 t, also, he used the formula, "Thus saith Yahweh of hosts" (1:2,5,7; 2:11); 5 times "saith Yahweh of hosts" (1:9; 2:6,7,9,23); and 4 times simply "saith Yahweh" (1:13; 2:4,14,17). Altogether he uses the exalted phrase "Yahweh of hosts" 14 t, besides 19 repetitions of the single but ineffable name "Yahweh." The most striking sentence in all his prophecies is probably that found in 1:13, "Then spake Haggai, Yahweh’s messenger in Yahweh’s message unto the people." His single purpose, as we have above seen, was to encourage the building of the temple. This he seems to have regarded as essential to the purity of Israel’s religion. His key-exhortation is "Consider your ways" (1:5:7; compare 2:15,18). His prophecies reflect the conditions of his age. He points to judgments as a proof of the Divine displeasure (1:9,10; 2:15-19). Unlike the earlier prophets, he does not denounce idolatry; but like his contemporary, Zechariah, and his successor, Malachi, he does lay stress on the external side of religion. Chief interest centers in the somewhat unusual parable contained in Hag 2:10-19, which teaches that holiness is not contagious, but that evil is. "The faint aroma of sanctity coming from their altar and sacrifices was too feeble to pervade the secular atmosphere of their life" (A. B. Davidson, Exile and Restoration, 82). Haggai argues that Israel’s sacrifices for 16 years had been unclean in God’s sight, and had brought them no blessing, because they had left the temple in ruins; and, that while a healthy man cannot give his health to another by touching him, a sick man may easily spread contagion among all those about him. The thought is suggestive. Haggai may or may not have been a priest, "but in so short a prophecy this elaborate allusion to ritual is very significant." Another very striking thought in Haggai’s book is his reference to Zerubbabel as Yahweh’s "servant" and "signet," whom Yahweh has "chosen" (2:23). Wellhausen regards these words as an equivalent to making Zerubbabel the Messiah; but it is enough to think that the prophet is attempting only to restore him to the honorable position from which his grandfather, Jehoiachin, in Jer 22:24, had been degraded. Thus would the prophet link Zerubbabel, the political hope of the post-exilic congregation, to the royal line of Judah. Isaiah speaks of Cyrus in similar terms without any Messianic implication (Isa 44:28; 45:1). On the other hand, the implicit Messianic import of Hag 2:7,8 is recognized on all sides.

7. Style:

Haggai’s style is suited to the contents of his prophecies. While he is less poetical than his predecessors, yet parallelism is not altogether wanting in his sentence (Hag 2:8). Compared with the greater books of prophecy, his brief message has been declared "plain and unadorned," "tame and prosaic"; yet it must be acknowledged that he is not wanting in pathos when he reproves, or in force when he exhorts. Though he labors under a poverty of terms, and frequently repeats the same formulas, yet he was profoundly in earnest, and became the most successful in his purpose of all his class. He was especially fond of interrogation. At best we have only a summary, probably, of what he actually preached.

8. Criticism:

The critical questions involved in Haggai’s case are not serious: Hag 2:5 a, for example, is wanting in the Septuagint; to 2:14 the Septuagint adds from Am 5:10; 5:17 is very similar to, and seems dependent on, Am 4:9; 1:7 b and 13, are rejected by some as later interpolations; while Klostermann and Marti hold that the book as a whole was not written by Haggai at all, but rather about his prophetic activity, a perfectly gratuitous assumption without any substantial proof in its favor.


Driver, New Century Bible, "The Minor Prophets," II, 1906; LOT, 1909; G. A. Smith, Expositor’s Bible, "The Twelve Prophets," II, 1898; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, II, 1878; M. Dods, "Handbooks for Bible Classes," Hag, Zec, Mal; J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten ubersetzt u. erklart, 1898; W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten ubersetzt u. erklart, 1905; K. Marti, Dodekapropheton erklart, 1904; H. G. Mitchell, ICC, 1912.

George L. Robinson





hag’-i (chaggi, "festive"): The second son of Gad (Ge 46:16; Nu 26:15). The latter refers to his descendants as Haggites, of whom nothing else is known.


ha-gi’-a (chaggiyah, "feast of Yah"): Named in 1Ch 6:30 as among the descendants of Levi.





hag’-ith (chaggith, "festal"): According to 2Sa 3:4; 1Ki 1:5,11; 2:13; 1Ch 3:2, the fifth wife of David and the mother of his fourth son, Adonijah. The latter was born in Hebron while David’s capital was there (2Sa 3:4,5).








hag’-ri (haghri, "wanderer"; the King James Version Haggeri): The father of Mibhar, one of the "mighty men" who rallied round David during his foreign wars. Mentioned only in 1Ch 11:38, whose parallel passage, 2Sa 23:36, gives, instead, the name "Bani the Gadite."


hag’-rits (haghri’im): An Arab tribe, or confederation of tribes (1Ch 5:10,19,20 the King James Version "Hagarites"; 1Ch 27:31 the King James Version "Hagerite"; Ps 83:6 "Hagarenes"), against which the Reubenites fought in the days of Saul. In Ge 25:12-18 are recorded the descendants, "generations," of Ishmael, "whom Hagar the Egyptian Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham." Two, and possibly three, of these tribes, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah (25:15), appear to be identical with the 3 tribes whom the Reubenites and the other Israelite tribes East of the Jordan conquered and dispossessed (1Ch 5). The correspondence of names in Ge and 1Ch leaves little doubt that "Hagrite" is a generic term roughly synonymous with "Ishmaelite," designating the irregular and shifting line of desert tribes stretching along the East and South of Palestine. Those "East of Gilead," "Jetur, Naphish and Nodah," were overcome by Reuben: "The Hagrites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with them. .... And they took away their cattle .... they dwelt in their stead until the captivity" (1Ch 5:20-22).

These along with other Arab tribes are mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC). Jetur gave his name to the Itureans of Roman times, who were famed soldiers dwelling in Anti-Libanus. Compare Curtis, Commentary on Chronicles; Skinner, "Gen," ICC, in the place cited.

Edward Mack


ha’-i (ha-‘ay, "the heap"): Ge 12:8; 13:3 the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) AI (which see).

HAIL (1)

hal (baradh; chalaza):

1. Its Occurrence:

Hail usually falls in the spring or summer during severe thunder storms. Hailstones are made up of alternate layers of ice and snow, and sometimes reach considerable size, causing great damage by their fall. Upward currents of air carry up raindrops already formed to the colder regions above, where they freeze, and as they again pass through layers of cloud, their bulk increases until, too heavy to be carried by the current, they fall to the ground. Hailstorms, like thunder storms, occur in narrow belts a few miles in breadth and are of short duration. Almost without exception they occur in the daytime. If they take place before the time of harvest they do great damage to grain and fruit, and in extreme cases have injured property and endangered life.

2. In Syria:

Hailstorms, while by no means common in Syria and Palestine, are not unusual and are of great severity. They occasionally take place in Egypt. Within a few years hailstones of unusual size fell in Port Said, breaking thousands of windows.

3. Biblical Instances:

(1) The plague of hail (Ex 9:23-24; Ps 78:47), which was a local storm, as they usually are, falling on the Egyptians and not striking the children of Israel in Goshen. It was of great severity. "There was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation" (Ex 9:24). It took place in January, for the barley "was in the ear, and the flax was in bloom" (Ex 9:31), and caused great damage.

(2) After the battle with the Amorites at Gibeon, "Yahweh cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more who died with the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword" (Jos 10:11).

4. As Punishment:

Hail is often spoken of as a means of punishing the wicked: "As a tempest of hail .... will he cast down" (Isa 28:2); "The hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies" (Isa 28:17); and as symbols of God’s anger: "I will rain .... great hailstones, fire, and brimstone" (Eze 38:22); "There shall be .... great hailstones in wrath to consume it" (Eze 13:13; compare Isa 30:30; Hag 2:17; Re 8:7; 11:19; 16:21).

5. God’s Power:

Yahweh’s power and wisdom are shown in controlling the hail: "Hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail?" (Job 38:22); "Fire and hail, snow and vapor .... fulfilling his word" (Ps 148:8).

Alfred H. Joy

HAIL (2)

hal: Interjection, found only in the Gospels as the translation of chaire, chairete, imp. of chairo, "to rejoice," is used as a greeting or salutation. The word "Hail" is Old English and was formerly an adjective, used with the verb to be, meaning "well," "sound," "hale," e.g. "Hale be thou." Wycliff has "heil" without the verb, followed by other English VSS, except that the Geneva has "God save thee," in Mt 26:49; 28:9. The word occurs in Mt 26:49; 27:29; 28:9, "all hail"; Mr 15:18; Lu 1:28; Joh 19:3.



har (se‘ar, sa‘ar, Aramaic se‘ar, and their derivatives; thrix, gen. case trichos, kome):

1. Hair Fashions:

Hair was worn in different fashions by the Orientals of Biblical times, and not always in the same way among the same people in different epochs. We know this clearly from Egyptian literature and monuments, as well as from the writings of Greek authors (especially Herodotus), that the dwellers on the Nile had their heads shaved in early youth, leaving but a side lock until maturity was attained, when this mark of childhood was taken away. Priests and warriors kept their heads closely shaved; nothing but the exigencies of arduous warfare were allowed to interfere with this custom. On the other hand, the Hebrew people, like their Babylonian neighbors (Herod. i.195), affected long and well-cared-for, bushy curls of hair as emblems of manly beauty. Proofs thereof are not infrequent in the Scriptures and elsewhere. Samson’s (Jud 16:13,19) and Absalom’s (2Sa 14:26) long luxuriant hair is specially mentioned, and the Shulammite sings of the locks of her beloved which are "bushy (the Revised Version, margin "curling"), and black as a raven" (So 5:11). Josephus (Ant., VIII, vii, 3 (185)) reports that Solomon’s body-guard was distinguished by youthful beauty and "luxuriant heads of hair." In the history of Samson we read of "the seven locks of his head" (Jud 16:19). It is likely that the expression signifies the plaits of hair which are even now often worn by the young Bedouin warrior of the desert.

2. Hair in Idol Worship:

It is well known that among the surrounding heathen nations the hair of childhood or youth was often shaved and consecrated at idolatrous shrines (compare Herod. ii.65 for Egypt). Frequently this custom marked an initiatory rite into the service of a divinity (e.g. that of Orotal (Bacchus) in Arabia, Herod. iii.8). It was therefore an abomination of the Gentiles in the eyes of the Jew, which is referred to in Le 19:27; Jer 9:26; 25:23; 49:32. The Syriac version of the latter passage renders, "Ye shall not let your hair grow long" (i.e. in order to cut it as a religious rite in honor of an idol). It is, however, probable that among the Jews, as now among many classes of Mohammedans, the periodical cropping of the hair, when it had become too cumbersome, was connected with some small festivity, when the weight of the hair was ascertained, and its weight in silver was given in charity to the poor. At least, the weighing of Absalom’s hair (2Sa 14:26) may be referred to some such custom, which is not unparalleled in other countries. The use of balances in connection with the shaving-off of the hair in Eze 5:1 is certainly out of the common. See illustration, "Votive Offering," on p. 1302.

3. The Nazirite Vow:

We may also compare the shaving of the head of the Nazirite to these heathen practices, though the resemblance is merely superficial. The man who made a vow to God was responsible to Him with his whole body and being. Not even a hair was to be injured willfully during the whole period of the vow, for all belonged to God. The conclusion of the Nazirite vow was marked by sacrifices and the shaving of the head at the door of the sanctuary (Nu 6:1-21), indicative of a new beginning of life. The long untouched hair was therefore considered as the emblem of personal devotion (or devotedness) to the God of all strength. Thus it was an easy step to the thought that in the hair was the seat of strength of a Samson (Jud 16:17,20). God has numbered the very hairs of the head (Mt 10:30; Lu 12:7), which to human beings conveys the idea of the innumerableness (Ps 40:12; 69:4). What God can number, He can also protect, so that not even a hair of the head might "fall to the earth" or "perish." These phrases express complete safety (1Sa 14:45; 2Sa 14:11; 1Ki 1:52; Lu 21:18; Ac 27:34).

4. Later Fashions:

In New Testament times, especially in the Diaspora, the Jews frequently adopted the fashion of the Romans in cropping the hair closely (1Co 11:14); still the fear of being tainted by the idolatrous practice of the heathen, which is specially forbidden in Le 21:5, was so great that the side locks remained untouched and were permitted to grow ad libitum. This is still the custom among the Jews of Eastern Europe and the Orient.

See also HEAD.

5. Woman’s Hair:

If Hebrew men paid much attention to their hair, it was even more so among Hebrew women. Long black tresses were the pride of the Jewish maiden and matron (So 7:5; Joh 11:2; 1Co 11:5,6,15), but many of the expressions used in connection with the "coiffures" of women do not convey to us more than a vague idea. The "locks" of the King James Version in So 4:1,3; 6:7; Isa 47:2 (tsemmah) probably do not refer to the hair, but should be translated (as does the Revised Version (British and American), which follows the Septuagint) by "veil." dallah (So 7:5), signifies the slender threads which represent the unfinished web in the loom (compare Isa 38:12), and thence the flowing hair of women (the Revised Version (British and American) "hair"). rehaTim (the Revised Version (British and American) "tresses"), in the same verse of the So of Songs means literally the "gutters" at which the flocks were watered (compare Ge 30:38,41), and thus the long plaits of the maiden with which the lover toys and in which he is held captive. The braiding or dressing of woman’s hair is expressed in 2Ki 9:30 and Judith 10:3. In New Testament times Christian women are warned against following the fashionable world in elaborate hairdressing (1Ti 2:9; 1Pe 3:3).

6. Barbers:

The care of the hair, especially the periodical cutting of the same, early necessitated the trade of the barber. The Hebrew word gallabh is found in Eze 5:1, and the plural form of the same word occurs in an inscription at Citium (Cyprus) (CIS, 1586), where the persons thus described clearly belonged to the priests or servants of a temple.


7. Ointments:

Numerous were the cosmetics and ointments applied to the hair (Ec 9:8; Mt 6:17; perhaps Ru 3:3), but some, reserved for sacramental purposes, were prohibited for profane use (Ex 30:32; Ps 133:2). Such distinction we find also in Egypt, where the walls of temple laboratories were inscribed with extensive recipes of such holy oils, while the medical papyri (see especially Papyrus Ebers, plates 64-67) contain numerous ointments for the hair, the composition of some of which is ascribed to a renowned queen of antiquity. Even Greek and Roman medical authors have transmitted to us the knowledge of some such prescriptions compounded, it is said, by Queen Cleopatra VI of Egypt, the frivolous friend of Caesar and Antony (see my dissertation, Die uber die medicinischen Kenntnisse der alten Aegypter berichtenden Papyri, ere, Leipzig, 1888, 121-32). We know from Josephus (Ant., XVI, viii, 1 (233)), that Herod the Great, in his old age, dyed his hair black, a custom, however, which does not appear to be specifically Jewish, as hair-dyes as well as means for bleaching the hair were well known in Greece and Rome. It is certain that the passage Mt 5:36 would not have been spoken, had this been a common custom in the days of the Lord. A special luxury is mentioned by Josephus (Ant., VIII, vii, 3 (185)), who states that the young men who formed the body-guard of King Solomon were in the habit, on festive occasions, of sprinkling their long hair with gold-dust (psegma chrusou).

For the Jews the anointing of the head was synonymous with joy and prosperity (compare Ps 23:5; 92:10; Heb 1:9; compare also "oil of joy," Isa 61:3, and "oil of gladness," Ps 45:7). It was also, like the washing of feet, a token of hospitality (Ps 23:5; Lu 7:46).

On the contrary, it was the custom in times of personal or national affliction and mourning to wear the hair unanointed and disheveled, or to cover the head with dust and ashes (2Sa 14:2; Jos 7:6; Job 2:12), or to tear the hair or to cut it off (Ezr 9:3; Ne 13:25; Jer 7:29).

8. Symbolical Use of Word:

We have referred to the thickness of hair which supplied the Hebrew with a suitable expression for the conception "innumerable." Hair is also expressive of minuteness; thus the 700 left-handed men of Benjamin were able to "sling stones at a hairbreadth, and not miss" (Jud 20:16). Gray hairs and the hoary white of old age were highly honored by the Jews (Pr 16:31; 20:29; APC 2Macc 6:23). Besides expressing old age (Isa 46:4), they stand for wisdom (The Wisdom of Solomon 4:9 (10)). Sometimes white hair is the emblem of a glorious, if not Divine, presence (Da 7:9; APC 2Macc 15:13; Re 1:14). Calamity befalling the gray-headed was doubly terrible (Ge 42:38; 44:29). The "hair of the flesh" is said to "stand up" (Job 4:15; APC Sirach 27:14) when sudden terror or fear takes hold of a person. The symbolical language of Isa 7:20 uses the "hair of the feet" (see FEET) and "the beard" as synonymous with "the humble" and the "mighty of the people."

Camel’s hair (Mt 3:4; Mr 1:6) is mentioned in connection with the description of John the Baptist’s raiment. It represents, according to Jerome, a rough shirt worn under the coat or wrapper, though a rather soft fabric is produced in Arabia from the finer wool of the camel.

Goat’s hair was the material of a cloth used for wearing apparel and for a more or less waterproof covering of tents and bundles. It is the black tent-cloth of Kedar’ (So 1:5; Ex 26:7; 36:14). In New Testament times it was the special product of Paul’s native province, Cilicia, whence its name cilicium, and its manufacture formed the apostle’s own trade (Ac 18:3). It is also mentioned as a material for stuffing pillows (1Sa 19:13).

See also WEAVING.

H. L. E. Luering




hak’-a-tan (ha-qaTan, "the little one"): The father of Johanan, who returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezr 8:12 = Akatan, APC 1Esdras 8:38).


hak’-oz (haqqots, or ha-qots, "the nimble"):

(1) A priest and chief of the 7th course of Aaron’s sons selected by David (1Ch 24:10). According to Ezr 2:61; Ne 3:4,21; 7:63, his descendants returned with Zerubbabel from the captivity. But the King James Version considers the name in Ezra and Nehemiah as having the article prefixed, hence renders "Koz."

(2) One of Judah’s descendants (1Ch 4:8).


ha-ku’-fa (chaqupha’ "incitement"). A family name of some of the Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon (Ezr 2:51; Ne 7:53).


ha’-la (chalach; Halae, Hallae, Chaach, for Chalach, Chala; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Hala):

1. Many Identifications:

Mentioned in 2Ki 17:6; 18:11; 1Ch 5:26, as one of the places to which the kings of Assyria sent the exiled Israelites (see GOZAN; HABOR). Various identifications have been proposed, all of them except the last more or less improbable for philological reasons:

(1) the Assyrian Kalach (Nimrud, the Calah of Ge 10:11);

(2) the Assyrian Hilakku (Cilicia);

(3) Chalkitis in Mesopotamia (Ptol. v.18, 4), adjoining Gauzanitis (Gozan)—a good position otherwise;

(4) the Calachene of Strabo, in the North of Assyria. Equally unsuitable, also, is

(5) the Chalonitis of Pliny and Strabo, Northeast of Assyria, notwithstanding that this was apparently called Halah by the Syrians. An attractive identification was

(6) with the river Balikh (by change of "H" into "B")—compare Septuagint "in Halae and in Habor, rivers of Gozan"—but even this has to be abandoned in favor of

(7) the Assyrian Halahhu, which (except the doubling and the case-ending) is the same, letter for letter.

2. The Most Probable of Them:

It is mentioned in the W. Asia Inscr, II, plural 53, l. 35, between Arrapha (Arrapachitis) and Racappu (Reseph). According to the tablet K. 123, where it is called mat Halahhi, "the land of Halahhu," it apparently included the towns Se-bise, Se-irrisi, Lu-ammu(ti?), and Se-Akkulani, apparently four grain-producing centers for the Assyrian government. The first quotation implies that Halah was near or in Gauzanitis, and had a chief town of the same name. Of the 8 personal names in K. 123, 5 are Assyrian, the remainder being Syrian rather than Israelite.

T. G. Pinches


ha’-lak (ha-har he-chalaq): A mountain that marked the southern limit of the conquests of Joshua (Jos 11:17; 12:7). It is spoken of as the "mount Halak (literally, "the bare" or "smooth mountain") that goeth up to Seir." The latter passage locates it on the West of the Arabah. The southern boundary of the land is defined by the ascent of Akrabbim (Nu 34:4; Jos 15:3). This may with some certainty be identified with the pass known today as naqb es-Safa, "pass of the smooth rock," through which runs the road from the South to Hebron. To the Southwest opens Wady Maderah, a continuation of Waddy el-Fiqrah, in which there rises a conspicuous hill, Jebel Maderah, composed of limestone, answering well the description of a bare or smooth mountain. It is a striking feature of the landscape viewed from all sides, and may well be the mount here referred to.

See also HOR, MOUNT.

W. Ewing





hal, hal’-ing (OE halen): "To pull" or drag, the King James Version translation of suro, "to draw or drag" (Ac 8:3, "haling men and women," the American Standard Revised Version "dragging"), and of katasuro, "to drag down" or "force along" (Lu 12:58, "lest he hale thee to the judge," the American Standard Revised Version "lest haply he drag thee unto the judge"). A more frequent modern form is "haul."





hal’-hul (chalchul): A city in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:58), "Halhul, Beth-zur and Gedor." It is without doubt the modern Chalchul, a village on a hill, surrounded by fine fields and vineyards, some 4 miles North of Hebron and less than a mile to the East of the modern carriage road. It is conspicuous from a considerable distance on account of its ancient mosque, Wely Nebi Yulnas, the "shrine of the Prophet Jonah"—a tradition going back at least to the 14th century. The mosque, which has a minaret or tower, is built upon a rock platform artificially leveled. In the 14th century it was stated by Isaac Chilo (a Jewish pilgrim) that the tomb of Gad the Seer (1Sa 22:5; 2Sa 24:11 f) was situated in this town. Beth-zur (Belt Sur) and Gedor (Jedur) are both near. In Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 6) we read of an Alurus (where the Idumeans assembled), and in Jerome (OS 119 7) of a village Alula near Hebron, which both probably refer to the same place (PEF, III, 305; Sh XXI).

E. W. G. Masterman


ha’-li (chali): A town named with Helkath, Beten and Achshaph on the border of Asher (Jos 19:25). No certain identification is possible; but it may be represented by the modern Khirbet ‘Alia, circa 13 miles Northeast of Acre.


hal-i-kar-nas’-us (Halikarnassos): The largest and strongest city of the ancient country of Caria in Asia Minor, situated on the shore of a bay, 15 miles from the island of Cos. Its site was beautiful; its climate temperate and even; the soil of the surrounding country was unusually fertile and noted for its abundance of fig, orange, lemon, olive and almond trees. When the ancient country fell into the possession of the Persians, the kings of Caria were still permitted to rule. One of the rulers was the famous queen Artemisia who fought at the battle of Salamis. The most famous of the kings, however, was Maussollos (Mausolus), who ruled from 373 to 353 BC, and the tomb in which he was buried was long considered one of the wonders of the ancient world. Pliny describes the tomb as a circular structure, 140 ft. high, 411 ft. in circumference, and surrounded by 36 columns; it was covered with a pyramidal dome. The ancient writer Vitruvius, in his description of the city, says that the agora was along the shore; back of it was the mausoleum, and still farther away was the temple of Mars. To the right of the agora were the temples of Venus and Mercury, and to the left was the palace of Maussollos. Alexander the Great destroyed the city only after a long siege, but he was unable to take the acropolis. The city never quite recovered, yet it was later distinguished as the supposed birthplace of Herodotus and Dionysius. That a number of Jews lived there is evident from the fact, according to 1 Macc 15:23, that in the year 139 BC, a letter was written by the Roman Senate in their behalf. In the 1st century BC, a decree was issued granting to the Jews in Halicarnassus liberty to worship "according to the Jewish laws, and to make their proseuche at the sea-side, according to the customs of their forefathers" (Josephus, Ant, XIV, x, 23).

The modern town of Budrun, which represents the ancient Halicarnassus and covers a part of its site, stands a little to the West of the castle of Peter. This castle was erected by the Knights of Rhodes in 1404 AD, partly from the ruins of the mausoleum. Lord Redcliffe, who explored the ruins in 1846, sent many of the sculptured slabs from the castle to the British Museum where they may now be seen. Sir C. Newton conducted excavations there in 1857-58, adding other sculptures to the collection in the British Museum. He discovered the foundation of the Ionic temple of Aphrodite, and the greenstone foundation of the mausoleum upon which modern Turkish houses had been built. He also opened several tombs which were outside the ancient city. The city walls, built by Maussollos about 360 BC, and defining the borders of the ancient city, are still preserved; but the ancient harbor which was protected by a mole, has now disappeared. The ruins may best be reached by boat from the island of Cos.

E. J. Banks


hol (Lu 22:55 the King James Version).





ha-lal’, hal’-el: In the fifth book of the Psalms (107-50) there are several groups of Hallelujah Psalms: 104-106; 111-113; 115-117; 135; 146-150. In the worship of the synagogue Psalms 135-136 and 146-150 were used in the daily morning service. Psalms 113-118 were called the "Egyp Hallel," and were sung at the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles and Dedication. At the Passover, Psalms 113 and 114 (according to the school of Shammai only Ps 113) were sung before the feast, and Psalms 115-118 after drinking the last cup. The song used by our Lord and the disciples on the night of the betrayal (Mt 26:30), just before the departure for the Mount of Olives, probably included Psalms 115-118.

John Richard Sampey


hal-e-loo’-ya (halela-yah, "praise ye Yah"; allelouia): The word is not a compound, like many of the Hebrew words which are composed of the abbreviated form of "Yahweh" and some other word, but has become a compound word in the Greek and other languages. Even if the Jews perhaps had become accustomed to use it as a compound, it is never written as such in the text. In some Psalms, Hallelujah is an integral part of the song (Ps 135:3), while in others it simply serves as a liturgical interjection found either at the beginning (Ps 111) or at the close (Ps 104) of the psalms or both (Ps 146). The Hallelujah Psalms are found in three groups: 104-106; 111-113; 146-150. In the first group, Hallelujah is found at the close of the psalm as a lit. interjection (106:1 is an integral part of the psalm). In the second group, Hallelujah is found at the beginning (113:9 is an integral part of the psalm depending on the adjective "joyful"). In the third group, Hallelujah is found both at the close and at the beginning of the psalms. In all other cases, (Pss 115; 116; 117) Hallelujah seems to be an integral part of the psalms. These three groups were probably taken from an older collection of psalms like the group Psalms 120-134. In the New Testament Hallelujah is found as part of the song of the heavenly host (Re 19:1 ). The word is preserved as a liturgical interjection by the Christian church generally.

A. L. Breslich


ha-lo’-hesh (ha-lochesh, "the whisperer," "the slanderer"): A post-exilic chief whose son Shallum assisted in repairing the walls of Jerusalem (Ne 3:12, the King James Version "Halohesh"). He was also one of the leaders who signed the national covenant (Ne 10:24 (Hebrew 25)).


hal’-o, hal’-od, hal’-o-ed ("to render or treat as holy," Anglo-Saxon halgian, from halig, "holy"): It translates several forms of qadhash, "set apart," "devote," "consecrate," frequently rendered in the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American), the American Standard Revised Version "consecrate," "dedicate," "holy," and especially "sanctify," closely synonymous, "hallow" perhaps containing more of the thought of reverence, sacredness, holiness. It embraces the idea of marked separateness. It is applied to persons, as the priest (Le 22:2,3); to places or buildings, as the middle of the temple court (1Ki 8:64); the tabernacle (Ex 40:9); to things, like the portion of the sacrifice set apart for the priests (Nu 18:8); to times and seasons, as the Sabbath (Jer 17:22; Eze 20:20) and the Jubilee year (Le 25:10); to God Himself (Le 22:32). Its underlying idea of the separateness of holy nature or holy use works out into several often overlapping senses: (1) To set apart, dedicate, offer, reserve, for the worship or service of God: Ex 28:38, "The holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts"; also Le 22:3; Nu 18:29, etc.; 2Ki 12:4, "All the money the hallowed things" (the King James Version "dedicated"), etc. (2) To make holy, by selecting, setting apart, claiming, or acknowledging as His own: Ge 2:3, "God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it" (the King James Version "sanctified"); but Ex 20:11 (King James Version, the English Revised Version, the American Standard Revised Version), "hallowed." So of the temple (1Ki 9:7); of the firstborn, spared in Egypt (Nu 3:13). (3) To dedicate or consecrate by formal ceremonial, with the accompanying idea of cleansing from sin and uncleanness: Ex 29:1, "This is the thing that thou shalt do unto them (Aaron and his sons) to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest’s office." The whole chapter is devoted to the elaborate ceremonial, consisting of ablutions, endowment in priestly robes and paraphernalia, anointing with oil, the offering of a bullock for a sin offering, and of a ram, the placing of the blood of another ram upon the right ear, right thumb, right great toe of each, the wave offering, the anointing of the holy garments, and the eating of the consecrated food, all this lasting seven days, and indicating the completeness with which they were set apart, the deep necessity of purification, and the solemnity and sacredness of the office. The tabernacle and its furniture were similarly "hallowed" by a simpler ceremony, using the anointing oil. (4) To render ritually fit for religious service, worship, or use: Le 16:19, "Hallow it (the altar with the sprinkled blood) from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel"; Nu 6:11, "The priest shall .... make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day." (5) To hold sacred, reverence, keep holy: Jer 17:22, "But hallow ye the Sabbath day," by keeping it distinct and separate, especially (Jer 17:24,27) by refraining from unnecessary work, from burden-bearing, travel, or traffic (Ne 13:16). See Ex 20:8-11 (the Sabbath Commandment). (6) To revere, hold in awe, and reverence as holy and "separated from sinners" in majesty, power, sacredness: Le 22:32, "And ye shall not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel." Qadhash is elsewhere translated "sanctify" in this connection, meaning "to be manifested in awe-producing majesty, power, or grace": Eze 38:23, "And I will .... sanctify myself, and I will make myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am Yahweh"; compare Eze 28:22,23, etc.

In the New Testament "hallow" occurs only in the "Lord’s Prayer," there rendering hagiazo, the Septuagint word for qadhash: Mt 6:9; Lu 11:2, "Hallowed be thy name." Hagiazo is quite frequent in the New Testament, and is always (American Standard Revised Version) rendered "sanctify," except here, and in Re 22:11, "He that is holy, let him be made holy still." To "hallow the name" includes not only the inward attitude and outward action of profound reverence and active praise, but also that personal godliness, loving obedience and aggressive Christlikeness, which reveal the presence of God in the life, which is His true earthly glory.

Philip Wendell Crannell


holt (tsala‘, "to limp"; cholos, "lame," "crippled"): the American Standard Revised Version in Ge 32:31 prefers "limped"; in Mic 4:6,7; Ze 3:19, "is (or was) lame"; in Lu 14:21, the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version have "lame." In 1Ki 18:21 a different word (pacach) is used in English Versions of the Bible of moral indecision: "How long halt ye between two opinions?" the American Standard Revised Version renders, "How long go ye limping between the two sides?"

HAM (1)

ham (cham; Cham):

1. The Youngest Son of Noah:

The youngest son of Noah, from whom sprang the western and southwestern nations known to the Hebrews. His name first occurs in Ge 5:32, where, as in 6:10 and elsewhere, it occupies the second place. In Ge 9:18 Ham is described as "the father of Canaan," to prepare the reader for 9:25-27, where Noah, cursing Ham for having told Shem and Japheth of his nakedness, refers to him as Canaan. On account of this, it has been suggested that "Canaan" stood originally in all the passages where the three brothers are spoken of, and that this was later changed to "Ham," except in the verses containing the curse. It seems more likely, however, that the name "Canaan" is inserted prophetically, as Noah would not desire to curse his son, but only one branch of that son’s descendants, who were later the principal adversaries of the Hebrews.

2. Ham as a Nationality:

The name given, in Ps 105:23,17; 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former.

3. Meaning of the Word:

That Ham is connected with the native name of Egypt, Kem, or, in full pa ta’ en Kem, "the land of Egypt," in Bashmurian Coptic Kheme, is unlikely, as this form is probably of a much later date than the composition of Gen, and, moreover, as the Arabic shows, the guttural is not a true kh, but the hard breathing h, which are both represented by the Hebrew cheth.

4. The Nations Descending from Ham:

Of the nationalities regarded as descending from Ham, none can be described as really black. First on the list, as being the darkest, is Cush or Ethiopia (Ge 10:6), after which comes Mitsrayim, or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last. The sons or descendants of each of these are then taken in turn, and it is noteworthy that some of them, like the Ethiopians and the Canaanites, spoke Semitic, and not Hamitic, languages—Seba (if connected with the Sabeans), Havilah (Yemen), and Sheba, whose queen visited Solomon. Professor Sayce, moreover, has pointed out that Caphtor is the original home of the Phoenicians, who spoke a Semitic language. The explanation of this probably is that other tongues were forced upon these nationalities in consequence of their migrations, or because they fell under the dominion of nationalities alien to them. The non-Sem Babylonians, described as descendants of Nimrod (Merodach), as is welI known, spoke Sumerian, and adopted Semitic Babylonian only on account of mingling with the Semites whom they found there. Another explanation is that the nationalities described as Hamitic—a parallel to those of the Semitic section—were so called because they fell under Egyptian dominion. This would make the original Hamitic race to have been Egyptian and account for Ham as a (poetical) designation of that nationality. Professor F. L. Griffith has pointed out that the Egyptian Priapic god of Panopolis (Akhmim), sometimes called Menu, but also apparently known as Khem, may have been identified with the ancestor of the Hamitic race—he was worshipped from the coast of the Red Sea to Coptos, and must have been well known to Egypt’s eastern neighbors. He regards the characteristics of Menu as being in accord with the shamelessness of Ham as recorded in Ge 9:20 ff.


T. G. Pinches

HAM (2)


(1) A place East of the Jordan named between Ashteroth-karnaim and Shaveh-kiriathaim, in which Chedorlaomer smote the Zu-zim (Ge 14:5). No name resembling this has been recovered. Septuagint reads bahem "with them," instead of beham, "in Ham." Some have thought that "Ham" may be a corruption from "Ammon"; or that it may be the ancient name of Rabbath-ammon itself.

(2) A poetical appellation of Egypt: "the land of Ham" (Ps 105:23, etc.) is the land of Jacob’s sojourning, i.e. Egypt; "the tents of Ham" (Ps 78:51) are the dwellings of the Egyptians. It may be derived from the native name of Egypt, Kemi, or Khemi.


W. Ewing


ha’-man (haman; Haman): A Persian noble and vizier of the empire under Xerxes. He was the enemy of Mordecai, the cousin of Esther. Mordecai, being a Jew, was unable to prostrate himself before the great official and to render to him the adoration which was due to him in accordance with Persian custom. Haman’s wrath was so inflamed that one man’s life seemed too mean a sacrifice, and he resolved that Mordecai’s nation should perish with him. This was the cause of Haman’s downfall and death. A ridiculous notion, which, though widely accepted, has no better foundation than a rabbinic suggestion or guess, represents him as a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek, who was slain by Samuel. But the language of Scripture (1Sa 15:33) indicates that when Agag fell, he was the last of his house. Besides, why should his descendants, if any existed, be called Agagites and not Amalekites? Saul’s posterity are in no case termed Saulites, but Benjamites or Israelites. But the basis of this theory has been swept away by recent discovery. Agag was a territory adjacent to that of Media. In an inscription found at Khorsabad, Sargon, the father of Sennacherib, says: "Thirty-four districts of Media I conquered and I added them to the domain of Assyria: I imposed upon them an annual tribute of horses. The country of Agazi (Agag) .... I ravaged, I wasted, I burned." It may be added that the name of Haman is not Hebrew, neither is that of Hammedatha his father. "The name of Haman," writes M. Oppert, the distinguished Assyriologist, "as well as that of his father, belongs to the Medo-Persian."

John Urquhart


ha’-math (chamath; Hemath, Haimath; Swete also has Hemath): The word signifies a defense or citadel, and such designation was very suitable for this chief royal city of the Hittites, situated between their northern and southern capitals, Carchemish and Kadesh, on a gigantic mound beside the Orontes. In Am 6:2 it is named Great Hamath, but not necessarily to distinguish it from other places of the same name.

1. Early History:

The Hamathite is mentioned in Ge 10:18 among the sons of Canaan, but in historic times the population, as the personal names testify, seems to have been for the most part Semitic. The ideal boundary of Israel reached the territory, but not the city of Hamath (Nu 34:8; Jos 13:5; Eze 47:13-21). David entered into friendly relations with Toi, its king (2Sa 8:9 ), and Solomon erected store cities in the land of Hamath (2Ch 8:4). In the days of Ahab we meet with it on the cuneiform inscriptions, under the name mat hamatti, and its king Irhuleni was a party to the alliance of the Hittites with Ben-hadad of Damascus and Ahab of Israel against Shalmaneser II; but this was broken up by the battle of Qarqar in 854 BC, and Hamath became subject to Assyria. Jeroboam II attacked, partially destroyed, and held it for a short time (2Ki 14:28; Am 6:2). In 730 BC, its king Eniilu paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser, but he divided its lands among his generals, and transported 1,223 of its inhabitants to Sura on the Tigris. In 720, Sargon "rooted out the land of Hamath and dyed the skin of Ilubi’idi (or Jau-bi’idi) its king, like wool" and colonized the country with 4,300 Assyrians, among whom was Deioces the Mede. A few

years later Sennacherib also claims to have taken it (2Ki 18:34; 19:13). In Isa 11:11, mention is made of Israelites in captivity at Hamath, and Hamathites were among the colonists settled in Samaria (2Ki 17:24) by Esarhaddon in 675 BC. Their special object of worship was Ashima, which, notwithstanding various conjectures, has not been identified.

2. Later History:

The Hamathite country is mentioned in 1 Macc 12:25 in connection with the movements of Demetrius and Jonathan. The Seleucids renamed it Epiphaneia (Josephus, Ant, I, vi, 2), and by this name it was known to the Greeks and the Romans, even appearing as Paphunya in Midrash Ber Rab chapter 37. Locally, however, the ancient name never disappeared, and since the Moslem conquest it has been known as Hama. Saladin’s family ruled it for a century and a half, but after the death of Abul-fida in 1331 it sank into decay.

3. Modern Condition:

The position of Hama in a fruitful plain to the East of the Nusairiyeh Mountains, on the most frequented highway between Mesopotamia and Egypt, and on the new railway, gives it again, as in ancient times, a singular significance, and it is once more rising in importance. The modern town is built in four quarters around the ancient citadel-mound, and it has a population of at least 80,000. It is now noted for its gigantic irrigating wheels. Here, too, the Hittite inscriptions were first found and designated Hamathite.

4. Entering in of Hamath:

In connection with the northern boundary of Israel, "the entering in of Hamath" is frequently mentioned (Nu 13:21; 1Ki 8:65, etc., the American Standard Revised Version "entrance"). It has been sought in the Orontes valley, between Antioch and Seleucia, and also at Wady Nahr el-Barid, leading down from Homs to the Mediterranean to the North of Tripoli. But from the point of view of Palestine, it must mean some part of the great valley of Coele-Syria (Biqa’a). It seems that instead of translating, we should read here a place-name—"Libo of Hamath"—and the presence of the ancient site of Libo (modern Leboue) 14 miles North-Northeast of Baalbek, at the head-waters of the Orontes, commanding the strategical point where the plain broadens out to the North and to the South, confirms us in this conjecture.

W. M. Christie


ha’-math-zo’-ba (chamath tsobhah; Baisoba) :Mentioned only in 2Ch 8:3. Apart from Great Hamath no site answering to this name is known. It does not seem to be implied that Solomon took possession of Hamath itself, but rather that he "confirmed" his dominion over parts of the kingdom of Zobah, which on its fall may have been annexed by Hamath. The Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus suggests a reading—Bethzobah—omitting all reference to Hamath. On the other hand, the geographical distinctions between Zobah and Hamath having passed away long before Chronicles was written, the double name may have been used to indicate generally the extent of Solomon’s conquests, as also to avoid confusion with the Zobah in the Hauran (2Sa 23:36).

W. M. Christie


ham’-ath (chammath, "hot spring"):

(1) "The father of the house of Rechab" (1Ch 2:55).

(2) One of the fenced cities of Naphtali, named with Zer, Rakkath and Chinnereth (Jos 19:35). It is doubtless identical with Emmaus mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XVIII, ii, 3; BJ, IV, i, 3) as near Tiberias, on the shore of the lake of Gennesareth. It is represented by the modern el-Chammam, nearly 2 miles South of Tiberias. It was, of course, much nearer the ancient Tiberias, which lay South of the present city. The hot baths here, "useful for healing," in the time of Josephus, have maintained their reputation. In recent years, indeed, there has been a marked increase in the number of sick persons from all parts who visit the baths. The waters are esteemed specially valuable for rheumatism and skin troubles. In the large public bath the water has a temperature of over 140 degree Fahr. Parts of the ancient fortification still cling to the mountain side above the baths; and the remains of an aqueduct which brought fresh water from sources in the Southwest may be traced along the face of the slopes. Hammath is identical with Hammon (1Ch 6:76); and probably also with Hammoth-dor (Jos 21:32).

W. Ewing


ha-me’-a, ham’-e-a (ha-me’ah (Ne 3:1); the King James Version Meah): The origin of the name is obscure; in the margin the meaning is given "Tower of the hundred"; it has been suggested that it may have been 100 cubits high or had 100 steps. It was the most important point on the walls of Jerusalem in going West from the Sheep Gate, and is mentioned along with the T. of HANANEL (which see) (Ne 3:1), and was therefore near the Northeast corner, and probably stood where the Baris and Antonia afterward were, near the Northwest corner of the charam where are today the Turkish barracks.


E. W. G. Masterman


ham-e-da’-tha (hammedhatha’): The father of Haman (Es 3:1). He is generally termed the "Agagite"; the name is of Persian etymology, signifying "given by the moon."


ham’-e-lek (ha-melekh, "the king"): Wrongly translated as a proper name in the King James Version. It should be rendered "the king," as in the American Standard Revised Version (Jer 36:26; 38:6).


ham’-er: The Hebrew maqqebheth, occurs in Jud 4:21, where it refers to the mallet (probably wooden) used to drive tent-pins into the ground. The same word occurs in 1Ki 6:7; Isa 44:12; Jer 10:4 as applied to a workman’s hammer. paTTish (compare Arabic, fatis), occurs in Isa 41:7; Jer 23:29; 50:23. It was probably a blacksmith’s hammer or heavy hammer used for breaking rock. There is doubt about the rendering of Jud 5:26, where the word, halmuth, occurs. From the context, the instrument mentioned was probably not a hammer. In Ps 74:6, kelaph, is better translated "axes," not "hammers."


James A. Patch


ha-mif’-kad (sha‘ar ha-miphqadh, "Gate of the Muster"): One of the gates of Jerusalem (Ne 3:31) not mentioned elsewhere; probably situated near the Northeast corner of the Temple area.


ha-mol’-e-keth (hamolekheth, "the queen"; Septuagint Malecheth; the King James Version Hammoleketh): The daughter of Machir and sister of Gilead (1Ch 7:18).


ham’-on (chammon, "glowing"):

(1) A place on the seaward frontier of Asher, named with Rehob and Kanah (Jos 19:28), to be sought, therefore, not far from Tyre. The most probable identification so far suggested is with Umm el’Amud, "mother of the column" (or ‘Awamid, "columns"), at the mouth of Wady Chamul, on the shore, about 10 miles South of Tyre. An inscription found by Renan shows that the place was associated with the worship of Ba‘al Chamman (CIS, I, 8).

(2) A city in Naphtali, given to the Gershonite Levites (1Ch 6:76). It is identical with Hammath (Jos 19:35), and probably also with Hammoth-dor (Jos 21:32).

W. Ewing


ham-oth-dor’ (chammoth do’r; Emathdor, as also several corrupt forms): A fenced, Levitical city of Naphtali (Jos 19:35; 21:32); also named Hammen (1Ch 6:61 Hebrew). Probably the hammatu of the Karnak lists, and the hamatam of WAI, II, 53; certainly the Emmaus of Josephus, Ant, XVIII, ii, 3; BJ, IV, i, 3; Hamata of ‘Erubhin v. 5; Meghillah 2b, and the modern el-Hammam, 1 1/2 miles South of Tiberias. The name signifies "hot springs," and these, 4 in number, still exist. They have a temperature of 144 degree F., are salt and bitter in taste and sulfurous in smell. Considered invaluable for rheumatism, they are crowded in June and July. This health-giving reputation is of ancient date. It is mentioned in Josephus, BJ, IV, i, 3; and a coin of Tiberias of the reign of Trajan depicts Hygeia sitting on a rock beside the springs, feeding the serpent of Aesculapius. Being used for pleasure also, they were permitted to the Jew on the Sabbath, whereas had they been used only medicinally, they would have been forbidden (Babylonian Talmud, Shab 109a; compare Mt 12:10).

W. M. Christie


ham’-u-el (chammu’el, "wrath of God"): A son of Mishma, a Simeonite, of the family of Shaul (1Ch 4:26).



1. Etymology of His Name, with Reference to Amraphel; His Dynasty

2. The Years Following His Accession

3. Military Operations and Further Pious Works. Inauguration of His Image

4. The Capture of Rim-Sin

5. Various Works, and an Expedition to Mesopotamia

6. His Final Years

7. No Record of His Expedition to Palestine

8. The Period When It May Have Taken Place

9. Hammurabi’s Greatness as a Ruler

1. Etymology of His Name with Reference to Amraphel; His Dynasty:

The name of the celebrated warrior, builder, and lawgiver, who ruled over Babylonia about 2000 BC. In accordance with the suggestion of the late Professor Eb. Schrader, he is almost universally identified with the AMRAPHEL of Ge 14:1, etc. (which see). Hammurabi was apparently not of Babylonian origin, the so-called "Dynasty of Babylon," to which he belonged, having probably come from the West. The commonest form of the name is as above, but Hamu(m)-rabi (with mimmation) is also found. The reading with initial "b" in the second element is confirmed by the Babylonian rendering of the name as Kimta-rapastum, "my family is widespread," or the like, showing that rabi was regarded as coming from rabu, "to be great." A late letter-tablet, however (see PSBA, May, 1901, p. 191), gives the form Ammurapi, showing that the initial is not really "kh", and that the "b" of the second element had changed to "p" (compare Tiglath-pil-eser for Tukulti-abil-esar, etc.). Amraphel (for Amrapel, Amrabel, Amrabe) would therefore seem to be due to Assyrian influence, but the final "l" is difficult to explain. Professor F. Hommel has pointed out, that the Babylonian rendering, "my family is widespread," is simply due to the scribes, the first element being the name of the Arabic deity ‘Am, making ‘Ammu-rabi, "Am is great." Admitting this, it would seem to be certain that Hammurabi’s dynasty was that designated Arabian by Berosus. Its founder was apparently Sumu- abi, and Hammurabi was the fifth in descent from him. Hammurabi’s father, Sin- mubalit, and his grandfather, Abil-Sin, are the only rulers of the dynasty which have Babylonian names, all the others being apparently Arabic.

2. The Years Following His Accession:

Concerning Hammurabi’s early life nothing is recorded, but since he reigned at least 43 years, he must have been young when he came to the throne. His accession was apparently marked by some improvement in the administration of the laws, wherein, as the date-list says, he "established righteousness." After this, the earlier years of his reign were devoted to such peaceful pursuits as constructing the shrines and images of the gods, and in his 6th year he built the wall of the city of Laz. In his 7th year he took Unug (Erech) and Isin—two of the principal cities of Babylonia, implying that the Dynasty of Babylon had not held sway in all the states.

3. Military Operations and Further Pious Works. Inauguration of His Image:

While interesting himself in the all-important work of digging canals, he found time to turn his attention to the land of Yamutbalu (8th year), and in his 10th he possibly conquered, or received the homage of, the city and people (or the army) of Malgia or Malga. Next year the city Rabiku was taken by a certain Ibik-Iskur, and also, seemingly, a place called Salibu. The inauguration of the throne of Zer-panitum, and the setting up, seemingly, of some kind of royal monument, followed, and was succeeded by other religious duties—indeed, work of this nature would seem to have occupied him every year until his 21st, when he built the fortress or fortification of the city Bazu. His 22nd year is described as that of his own image as king of righteousness; and the question naturally arises, whether this was the date when he erected the great stele found at Susa in Elam, inscribed with his Code of Laws, which is now in the Louvre. Next year he seems to have fortified the city of Sippar, where, it is supposed, this monument was originally erected.

4. The Capture of Rim-Sin:

Pious works again occupied him until his 30th year, when the army of Elam is referred to, possibly indicating warlike operations, which paved the way for the great campaign of his 31st year, when, "with the help of Anu and Enlil," he captured Yamut-balu and King Rim-Sin, the well-known ruler of Larsa. In his 32nd year he destroyed the army of Asnunna or Esnunnak.

5. Various Works, and an Expedition to Mesopotamia:

After these victories, Hammurabi would seem to have been at peace, and in his 33rd year he dug the canal Hammurabi-nuhus-nisi, "Hammurabi the abundance of the people," bringing to the fields of his subjects fertility, "according to the wish of Enlila." The restoration of the great temple at Erech came next, and was followed by the erection of a fortress, "high like a mountain," on the banks of the Tigris. He also built the fortification of Rabiku on the bank of the Tigris, implying preparations for hostilities, and it was possibly on account of this that the next year he made supplication to Tasmetum, the spouse of Nebo. The year following (his 37th), "by the command of Anu and Enlila," the fortifications of Maur and Malka were destroyed, after which the country enjoyed a twelve-month of peace. In all probability, however, this was to prepare for the expedition of his 39th year, when he subjugated Turukku, Kagmu and Subartu, a part of Mesopotamia. The length of this year-date implies that the expedition was regarded as being of importance.

6. His Final Years:

Untroubled by foreign affairs, the chief work of Hammurabi during his 40th year was the digging of the canal Tisit-Enlila, at Sippar, following this up by the restoration of the temple E-mete-ursag and a splendid temple-tower dedicated to Zagaga and Istar. The defenses of his country were apparently his last thought, for his 43rd year, which seemingly terminated his reign and his life, was devoted to strengthening the fortifications of Sippar, a work recorded at greater length in several cylinder-inscriptions found on the site.

7. No Record of an Expedition to Palestine:

Unfortunately none of the documents referring to his reign makes mention of his attack, in company with the armies of Chedorlaomer, Tidal and Arioch, upon the rebel-kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. This naturally throws doubt on the identification of Hammurabi with the Amraphel of Ge 14:1 ff. It must be remembered, however, that we do not possess a complete history either of his life or his rule. That he was a contemporary of Arioch seems undoubted, and if this be the case, Chedorlaomer and Tidal were contemporaries too. Various reasons might be adduced for the absence of references to the campaign in question—his pride may have precluded him from having a year named after an expedition—no matter how satisfactory it may have been—carried out for another power—his suzerain; or the allied armies may have suffered so severely from attacks similar to that delivered by Abraham, that the campaign became an altogether unsuitable one to date by.

8. The Period When It May Have Taken Place:

If Eri-Aku was, as Thureau-Dangin has suggested, the brother of Rim-Sin, king of Larsa (Elassar), he must have preceded him on the throne, and, in that case, the expedition against the kings of the Plain took place before Hammurabi’s 30th year, when he claims to have defeated Rim-Sin. As the date of Rim-Sin’s accession is doubtful, the date of Eri-Aku’s (Arioch’s) death is equally so, but it possibly took place about 5 years before Rim-Sin’s defeat. The expedition in question must therefore have been undertaken during the first 25 years of Hammurabi’s reign. As Amraphel is called king of Shinar (Babylonia), the period preceding Hammurabi’s accession ought probably to be excluded.

9. Hammurabi’s Greatness as a Ruler:

Of all the kings of early Babylonia so far known, Hammurabi would seem to have been one of the greatest, and the country made good progress under his rule. His conflicts with Elam suggest that Babylonia had become strong enough to resist that warlike state, and his title of adda or "father" of Martu (= Amurru, the Amorites) and of Yamutbalu on the East implies not only that he maintained the country’s influence, but also that, during his reign, it was no longer subject to Elam. Rim-Sin and the state of Larsa, however, were not conquered until the time of Samsu-iluna, Hammurabi’s son. It is noteworthy that his Code of Laws (see 3, above) not only determined legal rights and responsibilities, but also fixed the rates of wages, thus obviating many difficulties.


T. G. Pinches




1. Discovery of the Code

2. Editions of the Code

3. Description of the Stone

4. History of the Stone

5. Origin and Later History of the Code


1. The Principles of Legal Process

2. Theft, Burglary, Robbery

3. Laws concerning Vassalage

4. Immovables

5. Trader and Agent

6. Taverns

7. Deposits

8. Family

9. Concerning Wounding, etc.

10. Building of Houses and Ships

11. Hiring in General, etc.

12. Slaves


1. Hammurabi and Moses

2. The Code and Other Legal Systems


I. Historical.

1. Discovery of the Code:

When Professor Meissner published, in 1898, some fragments of cuneiform tablets from the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (668-628 BC), he also then suggested that these pieces were parts of a copy of an old Book of Law from the time of the so-called First Babylonian Dynasty, one of the kings of which was Hammurabi (more exactly Hammurapi, circa 2100 BC). A few years later this suggestion was fully established. In December, 1901, and January, 1902, a French expedition under the leadership of M. J. de Morgan, the chief aim of which was the exploration of the old royal city Susa, found there a diorite stone, 2,25 meters high and almost 2 meters in circumference. This stone had a relief (see below) and 44 columns of ancient Babylonian cuneiform writing graven upon it. Professor V. Scheil, O.P., the Assyriological member of the expedition, recognized at once that this stele contains the collection of laws of King Hammurabi, and published this characteristic discovery as early as 1902 in the official report of the expedition: Delegation en Perse (Tome IV, Paris).

2. Editions of the Code:

At the same time Scheil gave the first translation of the text. Since then the text has several times been published, translated and commented upon; compare especially: H. Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (= Der alte Orient, IV, Leipzig; 1st edition, 1903; 4th edition, 1906); H. Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Umschrift und Ubersetzung, Leipzig, 1904; D.H. Muller, Die Gesetze Hammurabis und die Mosaische Gesetzgebung, Vienna, 1903; R.F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, Chicago, 1904; C.H.W. Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, Letters, Edinburgh, 1904, 44 ff; T.G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, London, 1908, 487; A. Ungnad, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament, Tubingen, 1909, I, 140 ff; A. Ungnad, Keilschrifttexte der Gesetze Hammurapis, Leipzig, 1909; J. Kohler, F. Peiser and A. Ungnad, Hammurabis Gesetz, 5 volumes, Leipzig, 1904-11.

3. Description of the Stone:

The stone has the form of a column the cross-section of which is approximately an ellipse. The upper part of the face has a relief (see illustration). We see the king in supplicating attitude standing before the sun-god who sits upon a throne and is characterized by sun rays which stream out from his shoulders. As the king traced back the derivation of the Code to an inspiration of this god, we may suppose that the relief represents the moment when the king received the laws from the mouth of the god. Lower on the face of the stone are 16 columns of text, which read from top to bottom; 7 other columns were erased some time later than Hammurabi in order to make room for a new inscription. The reverse side contains 28 columns of text.

4. History of the Stone:

The stone was set up by the king, toward the end of his reign of 43 years, in the temple Esagila at Babylon, the capital of his dominion (circa 2100 BC). It was probably stolen from there by the Elamitic king Shutruk-Nakhunte, in the 12th century BC, at the time of the plundering of Babylon, and set up as a trophy of war in the Elamitic capital Susa. The same king had, it would seem, the 7 columns from the face side erased in order to engrave there an account of his own deeds, but through some unknown circumstance this latter was not accomplished. After the discovery of the stele it was brought to Paris where it now forms one of the most important possessions of the Louvre.

5. Origin and Later History of the Code:

If, however, Hammurabi was not the first legislator of Babylonia, still he was, as far as we can see, the first one who used the language of the people, i.e. the Semitic idiom. We know that nearly 1,000 years earlier a king, Urukagina, promulgated laws in Babylonia which have been lost; an ancestor of Hammurabi, Sumulael, appears also to have given laws. As we are able to recognize from the actual practice of Babylonian social life, the legislation of Hammurabi signifies nothing essentially new. Even before his time laws after the same principles were administered. His service lies before all in that he gathered together the extant laws and set them up in the Semitic language. The laws were promulgated already in the 2nd year of his reign, but the stele known to us was set up in the temple at Babylon about 30 years later. Moreover, the laws were set up in more than one copy, for in Susa fragments of another copy were found. How long the laws were in actual use it is impossible to determine. In any case, as late as the time of Ashurbanipal (see above), they used to be copied; indeed we even possess copies in neo-Babylonian characters which are later than the 7th century BC. Fortunately the duplicates contain several passages which are destroyed on the large stele in consequence of the erasure of the seven columns. Thus we are able, in spite of the gaps in the large stele, almost completely to determine the contents of the Code.

II. The Contents of the Code.

The laws themselves are preceded by an introduction which was added later, after the law had already been published about 30 years. The introduction states in the first place that already in the primeval age, when Marduk the god of Babylon was elected king of the gods, Hammurabi was predestined by the gods "to cause justice to radiate over the land, to surrender sinners and evildoers to destruction, and to take care that the strong should not oppress the weak." Hammurabi’s Code is, indeed, conceived from this standpoint.

Farther on, the king lauds his services to the principal cities of Babylonia, their temples and cults. He appears as a true server of the gods, as a protector of his people and a gracious prince to those who at first would not acknowledge his supremacy. To be sure, this introduction is not entirely free from presumption; for the king describes himself as "god of the kings" and "sun-god of Babylon "! The hopes of a Saviour, which heathen antiquity also knew, he regards as realized in his own person.

The Code itself may be divided into 12 divisions. It manifests, in no way, a very definite logical system; the sequence is often interrupted, and one recognizes that it is not so much a systematic and exhaustive work as a collection of the legal standards accumulated in the course of time. Much that we would expect to find in a Code is not even mentioned.

1. The Principles of Legal Process:

The first five paragraphs treat of some principles of legal process. In the first place false accusation is considered. The unprovable charge of sorcery is dealt with in an especially interesting manner (section symbol 2). The accused in this case has to submit to an ordeal at the hands of the River-god; nevertheless nothing is said concerning the details of this ordeal. If he is convicted by the god as guilty, the accuser receives his house; in the opposite case, the accuser is condemned to death and the accused receives his house. The law also proceeds rigorously against false witnesses: in a process in which life is at stake, conscious perjury is punished with death (section symbol 3). Finally the king strives also for an uncorrupt body of judges; a judge who has not carried out the judgment of the court correctly has not only to pay twelve times the sum at issue, but he is also dismissed with disgrace from his office.

2. Theft, Burglary, Robbery:

The next sections (section symbol, section symbol 6-25) occupy themselves with serious theft, burglary, robbery and other crimes of a like nature. Theft from palace or temple, or the receiving and concealing of stolen property, is punished with death or a heavy fine according to the nature of what is stolen (section symbol, section symbol 6, 8). As it was a custom in Babylonia to effect every purchase in the presence of witnesses or with a written deed of sale, one understands the regulation that, in certain cases in which witnesses were not forthcoming, or a deed could not be shown, theft was assumed: the guilty person suffered death (section symbol 7). A careful procedure is prescribed for the case in which lost goods are found in the hands of another: he who, in the investigation, cannot prove his legitimate right, suffers death, just as a deceiver who tries to enrich himself through making a false accusation (section symbol, section symbol 9 ff). Kidnapping of a free child or carrying away and concealing a slave from the palace is punished with death (section symbol, section symbol 14 ff). As slavery had the greatest economic significance in Babylonia, detailed regulations concerning the seizing of runaway slaves and similar matters were given (section symbol, section symbol 17 ff). Burglary, as also robbery, is punished with death (section symbol, section symbol 21 ff). If a robber is not caught, the persons or corporations responsible for the safety of the land had to make compensation (section symbol, section symbol 22 ff). Whoever attempts to enrich himself from a building in conflagration is thrown into the fire (section symbol 25).

3. Laws concerning Vassalage:

The next paragraphs (section symbol, section symbol 26-41) control vassalage, particularly in reference to rights and duties of a military kind, concerning which we are not yet quite clear. Here also Hammurabi’s care for those of a meaner position is exhibited, since he issues rigid regulations against misuse of the power of office and punishes certain offenses of this kind even with death (section symbol 34). The crown had, in every case, authority in reference to estates in fee which a vassal could not sell, exchange or transmit to his wife or daughters (section symbol, section symbol 36 ff, 41); as a rule the sons took over the estates after the death of the father together with the accompanying rights and duties. The same was the case if, in the service of the king, the father had been lost sight of (section symbol, section symbol 28 f). The estates in fee of what we may call "lay-priestesses" (concerning whom we shall have to speak later) take a special position (section symbol 40).

4. Immovables:

A longer section (section symbol, section symbol 41 ff) is given to immovables (field, garden, house); for the economic life of the ancient Babylonians depended first of all upon the cultivation of grain and date-palms; the legal relations of the land tenants are exactly explained (section symbol, section symbol 42 ff): neglect of his work does not liberate the tenant from his duties to his overlord. On the other hand, in cases of losses through the weather, he is so far released from his duties that of the rent not yet paid he has to pay only an amount corresponding to the quantity of the product of his tenancy (section symbol, section symbol 45 f). Also the landowner with liabilities, who suffers through failure of crops and inundation, enjoys far-reaching protection (section 48), and his business relations generally are adequately regulated (section symbol, section symbol 49 ff). As the regular irrigation of the fields was the chief condition for profitable husbandry in a land lacking rain, strong laws are made in reference to this: damage resulting from neglect has to be compensated for; indeed, whoever had not the means to do this could be sold with his family into slavery (section symbol, section symbol 53 ff). Special regulations protect the landowner from unlicensed grazing on his fields of crops (section symbol, section symbol 57 f).

The regulations concerning horticulture (section symbol, section symbol 59-66) are similar; here also the relation of the proprietor to the gardener who had to plant or to cultivate the garden is carefully considered; the same is true with respect to the business liabilities of the owner. These regulations concerning horticulture are not entirely preserved upon the stele, but, through the above-mentioned duplicates, we can restore them completely.

Our knowledge concerning the legal relations between house-owners and tenants (section symbol, section symbol 67 ff) is less, because the parts dealing with these on the stele are entirely lost and can only be partially restored from duplicates. Reference is once more made to vassalage (section 71). The relations between neighbors are also regulated, but we cannot ascertain how in detail (section symbol, section symbol 72 ff). Concerning the precise rights of tenants and landlords we are also but slightly informed (section 78).

On account of the gaps, we are not able to determine how far the regulations concerning immovables extended. In the gaps there seem to have been still other laws concerning business liabilities. The number of missing paragraphs can only approximately be determined, so that our further enumeration of the paragraphs cannot be regarded as absolutely correct.

5. Trader and Agent:

The text begins again with the treatment of the legal relations between the trader and his agents (section symbol, section symbol 100-107); these agents are a kind of officials for the trader whose business they look after. While the Code discusses their responsibilities and duties to their masters, it also protects them from unjust and deceitful ones.

6. Taverns:

The taverns of Babylonia (sections 108-11) seem very often to have been the resort of criminals. As a rule they were in the hands of proprietresses who were made responsible for what took place on their premises (section 109). Priestesses were forbidden to visit these houses under penalty of being burned (section 110).

7. Deposits:

The next division (sections 112-26) deals especially with deposits, although some of its regulations are only indirectly therewith connected. Deceptive messengers are to be punished (section 112). The debtor is protected from violent encroachments of the creditor (section 113). Detailed regulations are given concerning imprisonment for debt (sections 114 ff). The creditor must guard himself from mistreating a person imprisoned for debt, in his house; if a child of the debtor dies through the fault of the creditor, the jus talionis is resorted to: a child of the creditor is killed (section 116). The members of a family imprisoned for debt have to be released after three years (section 117). If anyone desires to give something to another to be saved for him, he must do it in the presence of witnesses or draw up a statement of the transaction; otherwise later claims cannot be substantiated (sections 122 ff). Whoever accepts the objects is responsible for them (section 125), but is also protected from unjustified claims of his client (section 126).

8. Family:

The sections occupied with the rights of the family are very extensive (sections 127-95). Matrimony rests upon a contract (section 128) and presupposes the persistent fidelity of the wife (sections 129 ff), while the husband is not bound, in this respect, by regulations of any kind. An unfaithful wife may be thrown into the water, but the partner of her sin may also, under certain circumstances, suffer the penalty of death. Long unpreventable absence of the husband justifies the wife to marry again only when she lacks the means of support (sections 133 ff). On the part of the husband, there are no hindrances to divorce, so long as he settles any matters with his wife concerning her property, provides for the upbringing of the children and, in certain cases, gives a divorce-sum as compensation (sections 137 ff). Disorderly conduct of the wife is sufficient for the annulling of the marriage; in this case the husband may reduce the wife to the state of a slave (section 141). The wife may only annul the marriage if her husband grossly neglects his duties toward her (section 142). If a wife desires the annulling of the marriage for any other reason, she is drowned (section 143).

As a rule, polygamy is not allowed. If a barren wife gives to her husband a slave girl who bears children to him, then he may not marry another wife (section 144); otherwise he might do so (section 145). The slave given to the husband is bound to show due deference to her mistress; if she does not do this she loses her privileged position, but she may not be sold if she has borne a child to the husband (sections 146 f). Incurable disease of the wife is a ground for the marriage of another wife (sections 148 f).

Gifts of the husband to the wife may not be touched by the children at the death of the husband, but nevertheless property has to remain in the family (section 150). Debts contracted before the marriage by one side or the other are not binding for the other, if an agreement has been made to that effect (section 151 f).

Rigid laws are made against abuses in sexual life. The wife who kills her husband for the sake of a lover is impaled upon a stake (section 153). Incest is punished, according to the circumstances, with exile or death (sections 154 ff).

Breach of promise by the man without sufficient reason entails to him the loss of all presents made for the betrothed. If the father of the betrothed annuls the engagement, he must give back to the man twice the value of the presents (sections 159 ff); especially the sum paid for the wife to her father (Bab terhatu).

Matters concerning inheritance are carefully dealt with (sections 162 ff). The dowry of a wife belongs, after her death, to her children (section 162). Presents made during the lifetime are not reckoned in the dividing of the inheritance (section 165), apart from the outlay which a father has to make in the case of each of his sons, the chief portion of which is the money for a wife (section 166). Children borne from different mothers share the paternal inheritance equally (section 167).

Disinheritance of a child is permitted only in the case of serious offenses after a previous warning (sections 168 f). Illegitimate children borne from slaves have part in the inheritance only if the father has expressly acknowledged them as his children (section 170); otherwise, at the death of the father, they are released (section 171).

The chief wife, whose future needs had not been secured during the lifetime of her husband, receives from the property of the deceased husband a portion equal to that received by each child, but she has only the use of it (section 172). A widow may marry again, but then she loses all claim on the property of her first husband, in favor of his children (sections 172, 177); the children of both her marriages share her own property equally (sections 173 f).

The children from free women married to slaves are free (section 175). The master of the slave has only a claim to half of the property of the slave which he has acquired during such a marriage (sections 176 f).

Unmarried daughters mostly became priestesses or entered a religious foundation (Babylonian, malgu); they also received, very often, a sort of dowry, which, however, remained under the control of their brothers and which, on the death of the former, fell to the brothers and sisters, if their fathers had not expressly given them a free hand in this matter (sections 178 f). In cases where the father did not give such a dowry, the daughter received, from the property left, a share equal to that of the others, but only for use; those dedicated to a goddess obtained only a third of such an amount (section 180 f). The lay-priestesses of the god Marduk of Babylon enjoyed special privileges in that they had full control over any property thus acquired (section 182).

As a rule, adopted children could not be dismissed again (sections 185 ff). Parents who had given their child to a master, who had adopted it and taught it handwork, could not claim it again (sections 188 f). Gross insubordination of certain adopted children of a lower class is severely punished by the cutting off of the tongue (section 192) or the tearing out of an eye (section 193). Deceitful wet-nurses are also severely punished (section 194). The last paragraph of this section (section 195) states the punishment for children who strike their father as the cutting off of the hand.

9. Concerning Wounding, etc.:

The next division (sections 196-227) occupies itself with wounding of all kinds, in the first place with the jus talionis: an eye for an eye, a bone for a bone, a tooth for a tooth. Persons lower in the social grade usually accepted money instead (sections 196 ff). A box on the ears inflicted by a free man upon a free man cost the former 60 shekels (section 203); in the case of one half-free, 10 shekels (section 204); but if a slave so strikes a free man, his ear is to be cut off (section 205). Unintentional wounding of the body, which proves to be fatal, is covered by a fine (sections 207 f). Anyone who strikes a pregnant free woman, so as to cause a miscarriage and the death of the woman, is punished by having his daughter killed (section 210); in the case of a half-free woman or a slave, a money compensation was sufficient (sections 212 ff). The surgeon is responsible for certain operations; if they succeed, he receives a legally determined high reward; if they fail, under certain circumstances his hand might be cut off (sections 215 ff). Certainly this law was an effective preventive against quacks! Farther on come regulations concerning the fees of surgeons (sections 221 ff) and veterinary surgeons; to a certain degree the latter are responsible for the killing of an animal under their charge (sections 224 f).

10. Building of Houses and Ships:

Later, the building of houses and ships is treated of (sections 228-40). The builder is responsible for the stability of the house built by him; if it falls down and kills the master of the house, the builder is killed; if it kills a child of the house, a child of the builder is killed (sections 229 f). For any other damages incurred, the builder is likewise responsible (sections 231 ff). The regulations for the builders of ships are similar (sections 234 ff). The man who hires a ship is answerable to the proprietor (sections 236 ff). With the busy shipping trade on the canals, special attention had to be given to prevent accidents (section 240).

11. Hiring in General, etc.:

Already in earlier sections there were regulations concerning hiring (rent) and wages. This eleventh division (sections 241-77) deals with the matter more in detail, but it also brings many things forward which are only slightly related thereto. It states tariffs for working animals (sections 242 f), and in conclusion to this makes equally clear to what extent the hirer of such an animal is responsible for harm to the animal (sections 244 ff). Special attention must be given an ox addicted to goring (sections 250 ff; see below). Care is taken that unfaithful stewards do not escape their punishment: in gross cases of breach of confidence they are punished with the cutting off of the hand or by being torn (in the manner of being tortured on a rack) by oxen (sections 253 ff). The wages for agricultural laborers are determined (sections 257 f), and in connection with this, lesser cases of theft of field-utensils are considered and covered by a money fine (sections 259 f). The wages of a shepherd and his duties form the subject of some other paragraphs (sections 261 ff). Finally, matters having to do with hiring are mentioned: the hiring of animals for threshing (sections 268 if), of carriages (section 271), wages of laborers (section 273) and handworkers (section 274), and the hire of ships (sections 276 f).

12. Slaves:

The last division (sections 278-82) treats of slaves in so far as they are not already mentioned. The seller is responsible to the buyer that the slave does not suffer from epilepsy (section 278), and that nobody else has a claim upon him (section 279). Slaves of Babylonian origin, bought in a foreign land, must be released, if they are brought back to Babylonia and recognized by their former master (section 280). If a slave did not acknowledge his master, his ear could be cut off (section 282).

Here the laws come to an end. In spite of many regulations which seem to us cruel, they show keen sense of justice and impartiality. Thus the king, in an epilogue, rightly extols himself as a shepherd of salvation, as a helper of the oppressed, as an adviser of widows and orphans, in short, as the father of his people. In conclusion, future rulers are admonished to respect his laws, and the blessings of the gods are promised to those who do so. But upon those who might attempt to abolish the Code he calls down the curse of all the great gods, individually and collectively. With that the stele ends.

III. The Significance of the Code.

The significance of the Code has been recognized ever since its discovery; for, indeed, it is the most ancient collection of laws which we know. For judgment concerning the ancient Babylonian civilization, for the history of slavery, for the position of woman and many other questions the Code offers the most important material. The fact that law and religion are nearly always distinctly separated is worthy of special attention.

1. Hammurabi and Moses:

It is not to be wondered at that a monument of such importance demands comparison with similar monuments. In this reference the most important question is as to the relation in which the Code stands to the Law of Moses. Hammurabi was not only king of Babylonia but also of Amurru (=" land of the Amorites"), called later Palestine and Western Syria. As his successors also retained the dominion over Amurru, it is quite possible that, for a considerable time, the laws of Hammurabi were in force here also, even if perhaps in a modified form. In the time of Abraham, for example, one may consider the narratives of Sarah and Hagar (Ge 16:1 ), and Rachel and Bilhah (Ge 30:1 ), which show the same juridical principles as the Code (compare sections 144 ff; see above). Other narratives of the Old Testament indicate the same customs as the Code does for Babylonia; compare Ge 24:53, where the bridal gifts to Rebekah correspond to the Babylonian terhatu (section 159); similarly Ge 31:14 f.

Between the Code and the Law of Moses, especially in the so-called Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:22-23:33), there are indeed extraordinary parallels. We might mention here the following examples:

Ex 21:2: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Similarly, Code of Hammurabi, section 117: "If a man become involved in debt, and give his wife, his son or his daughter for silver or for labor, they shall serve three years in the house of their purchaser or bondmaster: in the fourth year they shall regain their freedom."

Ex 21:15: "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." Compare Code of Hammurabi, section 195: "If a son strike his father, his hand shall be cut off."

Ex 21:18 f: "And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed; if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed." Compare Code of Hammurabi, section 206: "If a man strike another man in a noisy dispute and wound him, that man shall swear, ‘I did not strike him knowingly’; and he shall pay for the physician."

Ex 21:22: "If men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Compare Code of Hammurabi, section 209: "If a man strike a free woman and cause her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fruit."

Ex 21:24: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Compare Code of Hammurabi, section 196: "If a man destroy the eye of a free man, his eye shall be destroyed." section 197: "If he break the bone of a free man, his bone shall be broken." section 200: "If a man knock out the teeth of a man of the same rank, his teeth shall be knocked out."

Ex 21:28-32: "If an ox gore a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and it hath been testified to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. .... If the ox gore a man-servant or a maid-servant, there shall be given unto their master 30 shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned." Compare Code of Hammurabi, sections 250 ff: "If an ox, while going along the street, gore a man and cause his death, no claims of any kind can be made. If a man’s ox be addicted to goring and have manifested to him his failing, that it is addicted to goring, and, nevertheless, he have neither blunted his horns, nor fastened up his ox; then if his ox gore a free man and cause his death, he shall give 30 shekels of silver. If it be a man’s slave, he shall give 20 shekels of silver."

Ex 22:7 ff reminds one of Code of Hammurabi, sections 124 ff; Ex 22:10 ff of Code of Hammurabi, sections 244 ff and 266 f.

The resemblances between the other parts of the Pentateuch and the Code are not so striking as those between the Code and the. Book of the Covenant; nevertheless one may compare Le 19:35 f with Code of Hammurabi, section 5; Le 20:10 with Code of Hammurabi, section 129; Le 24:19 f with Code of Hammurabi, sections 196 ff; Le 25:39 ff with Code of Hammurabi, section 117; De 19:16 ff with Code of Hammurabi, sections 3 f; De 22:22 with Code of Hammurabi, section 129; De 24:1 with Code of Hammurabi, sections 137 ff and sections 148 f; De 24:7 with Code of Hammurabi, section 14; especially De 21:15 ff, 18 ff, with Code of Hammurabi, sections 167, 168 f, where, in both cases, there is a transition from regulations concerning the property left by a man, married several times, to provisions referring to the punishment of a disobedient son, certainly a remarkable agreement in sequence.

One can hardly assert that the parallels quoted are accidental, but just as little could one say that they are directly taken from the Code; for they bear quite a definite impression due to the Israelite culture, and numerous marked divergences also exist. As we have already mentioned, the land Amurru was for a time Babylonian territory, so that Babylonian law must have found entrance there. When the Israelites came into contact with Babylonian culture, on taking possession of the land of Canaan (a part of the old Amurru), it was natural that they should employ the results of that culture as far as they found them of use for themselves. Under no circumstances may one suppose here direct quotation. Single parts of the Laws of Moses, especially the Decalogue (Ex 20), with its particularly pointed conciseness, have no parallel in Code of Hammurabi.

2. The Code and Other Legal Systems: It has also been attempted to establish relations between the Code and other legal systems. In the Talmud, especially in the fourth order of the Mishna called Neziqin (i.e. "damages"), there are many regulations which remind one of the Code. But one must bear in mind that the Jews during the exile could hardly have known the Code in detail; if there happen to be similarities, these are to be explained by the fact that many of the regulations of the Code were still retained in the later Babylonian law, and the Talmud drew upon this later Babylonian law for many regulations which seemed useful for its purposes. The connection is therefore an indirect one.

The similarities with the remains of old Arabian laws and the so-called Syrio-Roman Lawbook (5th century AD) have to be considered in the same way, though some of these agreements may have only come about accidentally.

That the similarities between Roman and Greek legal usages and the Code are only of an accidental nature may be taken as assured. This seems all the more probable, in that between the Code and other legal systems there are quite striking similarities in individual points, even though we cannot find any historical connection, e.g. the Salic law, the lawbook of the Salic Franks, compiled about 500 AD, and which is the oldest preserved Germanic legal code.

Until a whole number of lost codes, as the Old Amoritish and the neo-Bab, are known to us in detail, one must guard well against hasty conclusions. In any case it is rash to speak of direct borrowings where there may be a whole series of mediating factors.


(Concerning the questions treated of in the last paragraphs refer especially to: S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and Code of Hammurabi, London, 1903; J. Jeremias, Moses and Hammurabi, Leipzig, 1903; S. Oettli, Das Gesetz Hammurabis und die Thora Israels, Leipzig, 1903; H. Grimme, Das Gesetz Hammurabis und Moses, Koln, 1903; H. Fehr, Hammurapi und das Salische Recht, Bonn, 1910.

Arthur Ungnad


ha’-mon-gog (hamon-gogh, "the multitude of Gog"): The name of the place where "Gog and all his multitude" are to be buried (Eze 39:11,15). By a change in the pointing of Eze 39:11, ha-‘abharim for ha-‘obherim, we should read "valley of Abarim" for "valley of them that pass through." In that case it would seem that the prophet thought of some ravine in the mountains East of the Dead Sea.


ha-mo’-na (hamonah): The name of a city which stood apparently near HAMON-GOG (which see) (Eze 39:16).


ha’-mor (chamor, "an ass"; Emmor): Hamor was the father of Shechem from whom Jacob bought a piece of ground on his return from Paddan-aram for one hundred pieces of silver (Ge 33:19), and the burial place of Joseph when his body was removed from Egypt to Canaan (Jos 24:32). "The men of Hamor" were inhabitants of Shechem, and suffered a great loss under Abimelech, a prince over Israel (Jud 9:22-49). Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, was criminally treated by Hamor, who requested her to be given to him in marriage, in which plan he had the cooperation of his father, Shechem. The sons of Jacob rejected their proposition and laid a scheme by which the inhabitants of the city were circumcised, and in the hour of helplessness slew all the males, thus wreaking special vengeance upon Hamor and his father Shechem. It is mere conjecture to claim that Hamor and Dinah were personifications of early central Palestinian clans in sharp antagonism, and that the course of Simeon and Levi was really the treachery of primitive tribes. Because the word Hamor means "an ass" and Shechem "a shoulder," there is no reason for rejecting the terms as designations of individuals and considering the titles as mere tribal appellations.

Byron H. Dement





ham’-u-el, ha-mu’-el.



ha’-mul (chamul, "pitied," "spared"): A son of Perez, and head of one of the clans of Judah (Ge 46:12; 1Ch 2:5; Nu 26:21). His descendants were called Hamulites.


ha-mu’-tal (chamuTal, "father-in-law" or "kinsman of the dew"): A daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, and wife of King Josiah, and mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (2Ki 23:31; 24:18; Jer 52:1). In the last two references and in the Septuagint the name appears as "Hamital." Swete gives a number of variants, e.g. 2Ki 24:18: Codex Vaticanus, Mitat; Codex Alexandrinus, Amitath; Jer 52:1: Codex Vaticanus, Hameitaal; Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus Hamitaal; Codex Q Hamital.


han’-a-mel (hanam’el; the King James Version Hanameel, ha-nam’el): The son of Shallum, Jeremiah’s uncle, of whom the prophet, while in prison, during the time when Jerusalem was besieged by the Chaldeans, bought a field with due formalities, in token that a time would come when house and vineyards would once more be bought in the land (Jer 32:6-15).


ha’-nan (chanan, "gracious"):

(1) A chief of the tribe of Benjamin (1Ch 8:23).

(2) The youngest son of Azel, a descendant of Saul (1Ch 8:38; 9:44).

(3) One of David’s mighty men of valor (1Ch 11:43).

(4) The head of a family of the Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:46; Ne 7:49).

(5) An assistant of Ezra in expounding the law (Ne 8:7). Possibly the same person is referred to in Ne 10:10 (11).

(6) One of the four treasurers put in charge of the tithes by Nehemiah (Ne 13:13).

(7,8) Two who "sealed the covenant" on the eve of the restoration (Ne 10:22 (23), 26 (27)).

(9) A son of Igdaliah, "the man of God," whose sons had a chamber in the temple at Jerusalem (Jer 35:4).

Byron H. Dement


ban’-an-el (chanan’el, "El (God) is gracious"; the King James Version Hananeel, ha-nan’e-el): A tower in the walls of Jerusalem adjoining (Ne 3:1; 12:39) the tower of HAMMEAH (which see). The company of Levites coming from the West passed "by the fish gate, and the tower of Hananel, and the tower of Hammeah, even unto the sheep gate" (Ne 12:39). In Jer 31:38 it is foretold "that the city shall be built to Yahweh from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner"—apparently the whole stretch of North wall. In Zec 14:10 it says Jerusalem "shall dwell in her place, from Benjamin’s gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananel unto the king’s winepresses." These last were probably near Siloam, and the distance "from the tower of Hananel unto the king’s winepresses" describes the greatest length of the city from North to South. All the indications point to a tower, close to the tower of Hammeah, near the Northeast corner, a point of the city always requiring special fortification and later the sites successively of the Baris and of the Antonia.


E. W. G. Masterman


ha-na’-ni (chanani, "gracious"):

(1) A musician and son of Heman, David’s seer, and head of one of the courses of the temple service (1Ch 25:4,25).

(2) A seer, the father of Jehu. He was cast into prison for his courage in rebuking Asa for relying on Syria (1Ki 16:1,7; 2Ch 19:2; 20:34).

(3) A priest, of the sons of Immer, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:20).

(4) A brother or kinsman of Nehemiah who carried news of the condition of the Jews in Palestine to Susa and became one of the governors of Jerusalem (Ne 1:2; 7:2).

(5) A priest and chief musician who took part in the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (Ne 12:36).

Byron H. Dement


han-a-ni’-a (chananyahu, chananyah; Ananias; also with aspirate, "Yahweh hath been gracious"): This was a common name in Israel for many centuries.

(1) A Benjamite (1Ch 8:24).

(2) A captain of Uzziah’s army (2Ch 26:11).

(3) Father of one of the princes under Jehoiakim (Jer 36:12).

(4) One of the sons of Heman and leader of the 16th division of David’s musicians (1Ch 25:4,23).

(5) Grandfather of the officer of the guard which apprehended Jeremiah on a charge of desertion (Jer 37:13).

(6) A false prophet of Gibeon, son of Azzur, who opposed Jeremiah, predicting that the yoke of Babylon would be broken in two years, and that the king, the people and the vessels of the temple would be brought back to Jerusalem. Jeremiah would be glad if it should be so, nevertheless it would not be. The question then arose, Which is right, Jeremiah or Hananiah? Jeremiah claimed that he was right because he was in accordance with all the great prophets of the past who prophesied evil and their words came true. Therefore his words are more likely to be true. The prophet of good, however, must wait to have his prophecy fulfilled before he can be accredited. Hananiah took off the yoke from Jeremiah and broke it in pieces, symbolic of the breaking of the power of Babylon. Jeremiah was seemingly beaten, retired and received a message from Yahweh that the bar of wood would become a bar of iron, and that Hananiah would die during the year because he had spoken rebellion against Yahweh (Jer 28 passim).

(7) One of Daniel’s companions in Babylon whose name was changed to Shadrach (Da 1:7,11,19).

(8) A son of Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:19,21).

(9) A Levite, one of the sons of Bebai, one of those who married foreign wives (Ezr 10:28; APC 1Esdras 9:29).

(10) One of the perfumers (the King James Version "apothecaries") who wrought in rebuilding the wall under Nehemiah (Ne 3:8).

(11) One who helped to repair the wall above the horse gate (Ne 3:30). This may be the same person as number 10.

(12) A governor of the castle, i.e. the birah or fortress, and by Nehemiah placed in charge of the whole city of Jerusalem, because "he was a faithful man, and feared God above many" (Ne 7:2).

(13) One of those who sealed the covenant under Nehemiah (Ne 10:23); a Levite.

(14) A priest who was present at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (Ne 12:12,41).

J. J. Reeve


(yadh, "hand"; kaph, "the hollow hand," "palm"; yamin, "the right hand"; semo’l, "the left hand"; cheir, "hand"; dexia, "the right hand"; aristera, "the left hand" (only Lu 23:33; 2Co 6:7), or euphemistically (for evil omens come from the left hand; compare Latin sinister, German linkisch, etc.); euonumos, literally, "having a good name"): The Hebrew words are used in a large variety of idiomatic expressions, part of which have passed into the Greek (through the Sepuagint) and into modern European languages (through the translations of the Bible; see Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, under the word "yadh"). We group what has to be said about the word under the following heads:

1. The Human Hand: Various Uses:

The human hand (considered physically) and, anthropopathically, the hand of God (Ge 3:22; Ps 145:16): The hand included the wrist, as Will be seen from all passages in which bracelets are mentioned as ornaments of the hand, e.g. Ge 24:22,30,47; Eze 16:11; 23:42, or where the Bible speaks of fetters on the hands (Jud 15:14, etc.). On the other hand, it cannot seem strange that occasionally the expression "hand" may be used for a part, e.g. the fingers, as in Ge 41:42, etc.. According to the lexicon talionis, justice demanded "hand for hand" (Ex 21:24; De 19:21). We enumerate the following phrases without claiming to present a complete list: "To fill the hand" (Ex 32:29 m; 1Ch 29:5 margin) means to consecrate, evidently from the filling of hands with sacrificial portions for the altar. Compare also Le 7:37; 8:22,28,29,31,33, where the sacrifice, the ram, the basket of consecration are mentioned. "To put or set the hand unto" (De 15:10; 23:20; 28:8,20), to commence to do; "to put forth the hand" (Ge 3:22; 8:9); "to stretch out the hand" (Eze 25:13,16; Ze 2:13); "to shake or wag the hand upon" (Isa 10:32; Ze 2:15; Zec 2:9), to defy. "To lay the hand upon the head" (2Sa 13:19) is an expression of sadness and mourning, as we see from Egyptian representations of scenes of mourning. Both in joy and in anger hands are "smitten together" (Nu 24:10), and people "clap their hands" at a person or over a person in spiteful triumph (Job 27:23; La 2:15; Na 3:19). "To put one’s life into one’s hand" is to risk one’s life (1Sa 19:5; 28:21). "To lay hands upon" is used in the sense of blessing (Mt 19:13), or is symbolical in the act of miraculous healing (Mt 9:18; Mr 8:23; Ac 28:8), or an emblem of the gift of the Holy Spirit and His endowments (Ac 8:17-19; 13:3; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6); but it also designates the infliction of cruelty and punishment (Ge 37:22; Le 24:14), the imposition of responsibility (Nu 8:10; De 34:9). Thus also the sins of the people were symbolically transferred upon the goat which was to be sent into the wilderness (Le 16:21). This act, rabbinical writings declare, was not so much a laying on of hands, as a vigorous pressing. "Lifting up the hand" was a gesture accompanying an oath (De 32:40) or a blessing pronounced over a multitude (Le 9:22; Lu 24:50), a prayer (Ps 119:48). "To put the hands to the mouth" is indicative of (compulsory) silence (Job 21:5; 40:4; Pr 30:32; Mic 7:16). To "slack one’s hand" is synonymous with negligence and neglect (Jos 10:6), and "to hide or bury the hand in the dish" is descriptive of the slothful, who is tired even at meals (Pr 19:24; 26:15).

2. The Hand as Power:

The hand in the sense of power and authority: (compare Assyrian idu, "strength"); Jos 8:20 margin, "They had no hands (the Revised Version (British and American) "power") to flee this way or that way"; Jud 1:35, "The hand of the house of Joseph prevailed"; Ps 76:5, "None of the men of might have found their hands"; Ps 89:48 margin, "shall deliver his soul from the hand (the Revised Version (British and American) "power") of Sheol"; 2Ki 3:15, "The hand of Yahweh came upon him"; Ex 14:31 margin, "Israel saw the great hand (the Revised Version (British and American) "work") which Yahweh did upon the Egyptians"; De 34:12, "in all the mighty hand .... which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel."

3. The Hand for the Person:

The hand used (pars pro toto) for the person: "His hand shall be against every man" (Ge 16:12). "Slay the priests of Yahweh; because their hand also is with David" (1Sa 22:17). "Jonathan went to David into the wood and strengthened his hand in God" (1Sa 23:16). In this sense penalty is exacted "from the hand" or "at the hand" of the transgressor (Ge 9:5; Eze 33:8).

4. Hand, Meaning Side:

The hand in the sense of side: "All the side (Hebrew "hand") of the river Jabbok" (De 2:37); "by the wayside" (Hebrew "by the hand of the way," 1Sa 4:13). The manuscripts have here the error yakh, for yadh; compare the Hebrew of Ps 140:5 (6) (leyadh ma‘gal); "On the side (Hebrew "hand") of their oppressors there was power" (Ec 4:1); "I was by the side (Hebrew "hand") of the great river" (Da 10:4).

5. English Idiom:

Mention must also be made here of the English idiom, "at hand," frequently found in our versions of the Scriptures. In Hebrew and Greek there is no reference to the word "hand," but words designating nearness of time or place are used. The usual word in Hebrew is qarabh, "to be near," and qarobh, "near"; in Greek eggus, "near," and the verb eggizo, "to come near." Rarely other words are used, as enesteken, "has come," the English Revised Version "is now present" (2Th 2:2), and ephesteken, "is come" (2Ti 4:6).

Frequently the words refer to the "day" or "coming of the Lord"; still it must not be forgotten that it may often refer to the nearness of God in a local sense, as in Jer 23:23, "Am I a God at hand, saith Yahweh, and not a God afar off?" and probably in Php 4:5, "The Lord is at hand," though many, perhaps most, commentators regard the expression as a version of the Aramaic maran atha (1Co 16:22). Passages such as Ps 31:20; 119:151; Mt 28:20 would, however, speak for an interpretation which lays the ictus on the abiding presence of the Lord with the believer.

NOTE.—The ancients made a careful distinction of the respective values of the two hands. This is perhaps best seen from Ge 48:13-19, where the imposition of the hands of aged Israel upon the heads of Joseph’s sons seems unfair to their father, because the left hand is being placed upon the elder, the right hand upon the younger son. The very word euonumos proves the same from the Greek point of view. This word is a euphemistic synonym of aristera, and is used to avoid the unlucky omen the common word may have for the person spoken to. Thus the goats, i.e. the godless, are placed at the left hand of the great Judge, while the righteous appear at His right (Mt 25:33). We read in Ec 10:2, "A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left," i.e. is inclined to evil. As the Jews orientated themselves by looking toward the rising of the sun (Latin oriens, the east), the left hand represented the north, and the right hand the south (1Sa 23:19,24; 2Sa 24:5). The right hand was considered the more honorable (1Ki 2:19; Ps 45:9); therefore it was given in attestation of a contract, a federation or fellowship (Ga 2:9). It is the more valuable in battle; a friend or protector will therefore take his place at the right to guard it (Ps 16:8; 73:23; 109:31; 110:5; 121:5), but the enemy will, for the same reason, try to assail it (Job 30:12; Ps 109:6; Zec 3:1). It was also the unprotected side, because the shield was carried on the left arm: hence, the point of danger and honor. The right hand is also the side of power and strength (Ps 60:5; 63:8; 108:6; 118:15,16; 110:1; Mt 22:44; Mt 20:21,23). Both hands are mentioned together in the sense of close proximity, intimate association, in Mr 10:37.

H. L. E. Luering


hand’-wep’-un (Nu 35:18 the King James Version).



hand’-bredth (Tephach, Tophach, 1Ki 7:26; 2Ch 4:5; Ps 39:5; Ex 25:25; 37:12; Eze 40:5,43; 43:13): A Hebrew linear measure containing 4 fingers, or digits, and equal to about 3 inches.



hand’-fool: There are five words in Hebrew used to indicate what may be held in the hand, either closed or open.

(1) chophen, chophnayim. The fist or closed hand occurs in the dual in Ex 9:8, where it signifies what can be taken in the two hands conjoined, a double handful.

(2) kaph, "hollow of the hand," the palm; an open handful (Le 9:17; 1Ki 17:12; Ec 4:6).

(3) ‘amir, "sheaf or bundle." It signifies the quantity of grain a gleaner may gather in his hand (Jer 9:22 (Hebrew 21)).

(4) qomets, "the closed handful" (Ge 41:47; Le 2:2; 5:12; 6:15 (Hebrew 6:8); Nu 5:26).

(5) sho‘al, "the hollow of the hand," or what can be held in it (1Ki 20:10; Eze 13:19). In Isa 40:12 it signifies "measure."

(6) piccah (Ps 72:16) is rendered "handful" by the King James Version, but is properly "abundance" as in the Revised Version (British and American).

H. Porter





han’-ker-chif (soudarion): A loan-word from the Latin sudarium, found in plural in Ac 19:12, soudaria; compare sudor, "perspiration"; literally, "a cloth used to wipe off perspiration." Elsewhere it is rendered "napkin" (Lu 19:20; Joh 11:44; 20:7), for which see DRESS; NAPKIN.


han’-d’-l (kaph): The noun occurs once in So 5:5, "handles of the bolt" (the King James Version "lock"). The verb "handle" represents several Hebrew (’achaz, mashakh, taphas, etc.) and Greek (thiggano, Col 2:21; pselaphao, Lu 24:39; 1 Joh 1:1) words in the King James Version, but is also sometimes substituted in the Revised Version (British and American) for other renderings in the King James Version, as in So 3:8 for "hold"; in Lu 20:11, "handled shamefully," for "entreated shamefully"; in 2Ti 2:15, "handling aright," for "rightly dividing," etc.


hand’-mad: Which appears often in the Old Testament, but seldom in the New Testament, like bondmaid, is used to translate two Hebrew words (shiphchah, and ‘amah) both of which normally mean a female slave. It is used to translate the former word in the ordinary sense of female slave in Ge 16:1; 25:12; 29:24,29; Pr 30:23; Jer 34:11,16; Joe 2:29; to translate the latter word in Ex 23:12; Jud 19:19; 2Sa 6:20. It is used as a term of humility and respectful self-depreciation in the presence of great men, prophets and kings, to translate the former word in Ru 2:13; 1Sa 1:18; 28:21; 2Sa 14:6; 2Ki 4:2,16; it translates the latter word in the same sense in Ru 3:9; 1Sa 1:16; 25:24,28,31,41; 2Sa 20:17; 1Ki 1:13,17; 3:20. It is also used to express a sense of religious humility in translating the latter word only, and appears in this sense in but three passages, 1Sa 1:11; Ps 86:16; 116:16.

In the New Testament it occurs 3 t, in a religious sense, as the translation of doule, "a female slave" (Lu 1:38,48; Ac 2:18), and twice (Ga 4:22,23) as the translation of paidiske, the King James Version "bondmaid."

William Joseph McGlothlin


im-po-zish’-un (epithesis cheiron, Ac 8:18; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6; Heb 6:2): The act or ceremony of the imposition of hands appears in the Old Testament in various connections: in the act of blessing (Ge 48:14 ); in the ritual of sacrifice (hands of the offerer laid on head of victim, Ex 29:10,15,19; Le 1:4; 3:2,8,13; 4:4,24,29; 8:14; 16:21); in witness-bearing in capital offenses (Le 24:14). The tribe of Levi was set apart by solemn imposition of hands (Nu 8:10); Moses appointed Joshua to be his successor by a similar act (Nu 27:18,23; De 34:9). The idea in these cases varies with the purpose of the act. The primary idea seems to be that of conveyance or transference (compare Le 16:21), but, conjoined with this, in certain instances, are the ideas of identification and of devotion to God.

In the New Testament Jesus laid hands on the little children (Mt 19:13,15 parallel Mr 10:16) and on the sick (Mt 9:18; Mr 6:5, etc.), and the apostles laid hands on those whom they baptized that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Ac 8:17,19; 19:6), and in healing (Ac 12:17). Specially the imposition of hands was used in the setting apart of persons to a particular office or work in the church. This is noticed as taking place in the appointment of the Seven (Ac 6:6), in the sending out of Barnabas and Saul (Ac 13:3), at the ordination of Timothy (1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6), but though not directly mentioned, it seems likely that it accompanied all acts of ordination of presbyters and deacons (compare 1Ti 5:22; Heb 6:2). The presbyters could hardly convey what they had not themselves received (1Ti 1:14). Here again the fundamental idea is communication. The act of laying on of hands was accompanied by prayer (Ac 6:6; 8:15; 13:3), and the blessing sought was imparted by God Himself. No ground is afforded by this symbolical action for a sacrament of "Orders."


James Orr


hand’-staf (maqqkel yadh): In plural in Eze 39:9, among weapons of war.






ha’-nez (chanec): Occurs only in Isa 30:4. The one question of importance concerning this place is its location. It has never been certainly identified. It was probably an Egyptian city, though even that is not certain. Pharaoh, in his selfish haste to make league with the kingdom of Judah, may have sent his ambassadors far beyond the frontier. The language of Isa, "Their ambassadors came to Hanes," certainly seems to indicate a place in the direction of Jerusalem from Tanis. This indication is also the sum of all the evidence yet available. There is no real knowledge concerning the exact location of Hanes. Opinions on the subject are little more than clever guesses. They rest almost entirely upon etymological grounds, a very precarious foundation when not supported by historical evidence. The Septuagint has, "For there are in Tanis princes, wicked messengers." Evidently knowing no such place, they tried to translate the name. The Aramaic version gives "Tahpanhes" for Hanes, which may have been founded upon exact knowledge, as we shall see.

Hanes has been thought by some commentators to be Heracleopolis Magna, Egyptian Hunensurten, abridged to Hunensu, Copt Ahnes, Hebrew Chanec, Arabic Ahneysa, the capital of the XXth Nome, or province, of ancient Egypt. It was a large city on an island between the Nile and the Bahr Yuseph, opposite the modern town of Beni Suef. The Greeks identified the ram-headed god of the place with Heracles, hence, "Heracleopolis." The most important historical notes in Egypt and the best philological arguments point to this city as Hanes. But the plain meaning of Isa 30:4 points more positively to a city somewhere in the delta nearer to Jerusalem than Tanis (compare Naville’s cogent argument, "Ahnas el Medineh," 3-4). Dumichen considered the hieroglyphic name of Tahpanhes to be Hens. Knowledge of this as a fact may have influenced the Aramaic rendering, but does not warrant the arbitrary altering of the Hebrew text.

M. G. Kyle.


hang’-ing (talah, "to hang up," "suspend," 2Sa 21:12; De 28:66; Job 26:7; Ps 137:2; So 4:4; Ho 11:7): Generally, where the word is used in connection with punishments, it appears to have reference to the hanging of the corpse after execution. We find but two clear instances of death by hanging, i.e. strangulation—those of Ahithophel and Judas ((2Sa 17:23; Mt 27:5), and both these were eases of suicide, not of execution. The foregoing Hebrew word is clearly used for "hanging" as a mode of execution in Es 5:14; 6:4; 7:9 ff; 8:7; 9:13,14,25; but probably the "gallows" or "tree" (’ets) was a stake for the purpose of impaling the victim. It could be lowered for this purpose, then raised "fifty cubits high" to arrest the public gaze. The Greek word used in Mt 27:5 is apagchesthai, "to strangle oneself." See HDB, article "Hanging," for an exhaustive discussion.

Frank E. Hirsch



(1) In English Versions of the Bible this word in the plural represents the Hebrew qela‘im, the curtains of "fine twined linen" with which the court of the tabernacle was enclosed. These were five cubits in height, and of lengths corresponding to the sides of the enclosure and the space on either side of the entrance in front, and were suspended from hooks fastened to the pillars of the court. They are described at length in Ex 27:9-15; 38:9-18. See, besides, Ex 35:17; 39:40; Nu 3:26; 4:26.

(2) In the King James Version another word, macakh (the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly "screen"), is distinguished from the preceding only by the singular, "hanging" (Ex 35:17; 38:18, etc.). It is used of the screen or portiere, embroidered in colors, that closed the entrance of the court (Ex 27:16; 35:17; 38:18; 39:40; 40:8,33; Nu 3:26; 4:26); of the screen of similar workmanship at the entrance of the tabernacle (Ex 26:36,37; 35:15; 36:37; 39:38; 40:5,28; Nu 3:25; 4:25); and once (Nu 3:31) of the tapestry veil, adorned with cherubim, at the entrance of the Holy of Holies (elsewhere, parokheth, "veil," Ex 26:31-33, etc., or parokheth ha-macakh, "veil of the screen," Ex 35:12, etc.). In Nu 3:26, the King James Version renders macakh "curtain," and in Ex 35:12; 39:34; 40:21 (compare also Nu 4:5), "covering."

(3) In 2Ki 23:7 we read of "hangings" (Hebrew "houses") which the women wove for the Asherah. If the text is correct we are to think perhaps of tent shrines for the image of the goddess. Lucian’s reading (stolas, "robes") is preferred by some, which would have reference to the custom of bringing offerings of clothing for the images of the gods. In 1Ki 7:29 the Revised Version (British and American), "wreaths of hanging work" refers to a kind of ornamentation on the bases of the lavers. In Es 1:6, "hangings" is supplied by the translators.

Benjamin Reno Downer





han’-a (channah, "grace," "favor"; Hanna): One of the two wives of Elkanah, an Ephraimite who lived at Ramathaim-zophim. Hannah visited Shiloh yearly with her husband to offer sacrifices, for there the tabernacle was located. She was greatly distressed because they had no children. She therefore prayed earnestly for a male child whom she promised to dedicate to the Lord from his birth. The prayer was heard, and she called her son’s name Samuel ("God hears"). When he was weaned he was carried to Shiloh to be trained by Eli, the priest (1Sa 1). Hannah became the mother of five other children, three sons and two daughters (1Sa 2:2). Her devotion in sending Samuel a little robe every year is one of the tenderest recorded instances of maternal love (1Sa 2:19). She was a prophetess of no ordinary talent, as is evident from her elevated poetic deliverance elicited by God’s answer to her prayer (1Sa 2:1-10).

Byron H. Dement


han’-a-thon (channathon): A city on the northern boundary of Zebulun (Jos 19:14). It is probably identical with Kefar Hananyah, which the Mishna gives as marking the northern limit of lower Galilee (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 179). It is represented by the modern Kefr ‘Anan, about 3 miles Southeast of er-Rameh.


han’-i-el (channi’el "grace of God"):

(1) The son of Ephod and a prince of Manasseh who assisted in dividing Canaan among the tribes (Nu 34:23).

(2) A son of Ulla and a prince and hero of the tribe of Asher (1Ch 7:39); the King James Version "Haniel."


ha’-nok, ha’-nok-its (chanokh, "initiation," "dedication"):

(1) A grandson of Abraham by Keturah, and an ancestral head of a clan of Midian (Ge 25:4; 1Ch 1:33, the King James Version "Henoch").

(2) The eldest son of Reuben (Ge 46:9; Ex 6:14; 1Ch 5:3).

The descendants of Hanoch were known as Hanochites (Nu 26:5).


ha’-nun (chanun, "favored," "pitied"):

(1) A son and successor of Nahash, king of Ammon. Upon the death of Nahash, David sent sympathetic communications to Hanun, which were misinterpreted and the messengers dishonored. Because of this indignity, David waged a war against him, which caused the Ammonites to lose their independence (2Sa 10:1 ff; 1Ch 19:1 ).

(2) One of the six sons of Zalaph who assisted in repairing the East wall of Jerusalem (Ne 3:30).

(3) One of the inhabitants of Zanoah who repaired the Valley Gate in the wall of Jerusalem (Ne 3:13).

Byron H. Dement


hap, hap’-li (miqreh, lu; mepote):

Hap (a Saxon word for "luck, chance") is the translation of miqreh, "a fortuitous chance," "a lot" (Ru 2:3, the King James Version "Her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz"); in 1Sa 6:9, the same word is translated "chance" (that happened); "event," in Ec 9:2,3, with "happeneth," in Ec 2:14.

Haply (from "hap") is the translation of lu, "if that" (1Sa 14:30, "if haply the people had eaten freely"); of ei ara, "if then" (Mr 11:13, "if haply he might find anything thereon"); of ei arage (Ac 17:27, "if haply they might feel after him"); of mepote, "lest ever" "lest perhaps" etc. (Lu 14:29; Ac 5:39); of me pos, "lest in anyway" (2Co 9:4 the King James Version, "lest haply," the Revised Version (British and American) "lest by any means").

The Revised Version has "haply" for "at any time" (Mt 4:6; 5:25; 13:15; Mr 4:12; Lu 4:11; 21:34; Heb 2:1); introduces "haply" (Mt 7:6; 13:29; 15:32; 27:64; Mr 14:2; Lu 3:15; 12:58; 14:8,12; Ac 27:29; Heb 4:1); has "haply there shall be," for "lest there be" (Heb 3:12).

W. L. Walker


haf-a’-ra’-im (chapharayim; the King James Version Haphraim, haf-ra’im, possibly "place of a moat"): A town in the territory of Issachar, named with Shunem and Anaharath (Jos 19:19). Eusebius, Onomasticon identifies it with "Affarea," and places it 6 miles North of Legio-Megiddo. This position corresponds with that of the modern el-Ferriyeh, an ancient site with remarkable tombs Northwest of el-Lejjun.


hap’-’-n (qarah; sumbaino): "Happen" (from "hap"), "to fall out," "befall," etc., "come to anyone," is the translation of qarah, "to meet," etc. (1Sa 28:10, "There shall no punishment happen to thee," the Revised Version margin "guilt come upon thee"; 2Sa 1:6; Es 4:7; Ec 2:14,15; 9:11 Isa 41:22); of qara’," to meet," "cause to happen," etc. (2Sa 20:1); of hayah, "to be" (1Sa 6:9, "It was a chance that happened to us"); of nagha’," to touch," "to come to" (Ec 8:14 bis). In the New Testament it is in several instances the translation of sumbaino, "to go" or "come up together" "to happen" (Mr 10:32; Lu 24:14; Ac 3:10; 1Co 10:11; 1Pe 4:12; 2Pe 2:22); once of ginomai, "to become," "to happen" (Ro 11:25, the Revised Version (British and American), "befallen"). "Happeneth" occurs (Ec 2:15, as it happeneth to the fool" (miqreh); APC 2Esdras 10:6; Baruch 3:10 (ti estin)). The Revised Version (British and American) supplies "that happened" for "were done" (Lu 24:35).

See also CHANGE.

W. L. Walker





hap’-i-zez (ha-pitstsets; the King James Version, Aphses): A priest on whom fell the lot for the 18th of the 24 courses which David appointed for the temple service (1Ch 24:15).


har-ma-ged’-on (Harmagedon from Hebrew har meghiddo, "Mount of Megiddo"; the King James Version Armageddon): This name is found only in Re 16:16. It is described as the rallying-place of the kings of the whole world who, led by the unclean spirits issuing from the mouth of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, assemble here for "the war of the great day of God, the Almighty." Various explanations have been suggested; but, as Nestle says (HDB, s.v), "Upon the whole, to find an allusion here to Megiddo is still the most probable explanation." In the history of Israel it had been the scene of never-to-be-forgotten battles. Here took place the fatal struggle between Josiah and Pharaoh-necoh (2Ki 23:29; 2Ch 35:22). Long before, the hosts of Israel had won glory here, in the splendid victory over Sisera and his host (Jud 5:19). These low hills around Megiddo, with their outlook over the plain of Esdraelon, have witnessed perhaps a greater number of bloody encounters than have ever stained a like area of the world’s surface. There was, therefore, a peculiar appropriateness in the choice of this as the arena of the last mighty struggle between the powers of good and evil. The choice of the hill as the battlefield has been criticized, as it is less suitable for military operations than the plain. But the thought of Gilboa and Tabor and the uplands beyond Jordan might have reminded the critics that Israel was not unaccustomed to mountain warfare. Megiddo itself was a hill-town, and the district was in part mountainous (compare Mt. Tabor, Jud 4:6,12; "the high places of the field," 5:18). It will be remembered that this is apocalypse. Har-Magedon may stand for the battlefield without indicating any particular locality. The attempt of certain scholars to connect the name with "the mount of congregation" in Isa 14:13 (Hommel, Genkel, etc.), and with Babylonian mythology, cannot be pronounced successful. Ewald (Die Johan. Schrift, II, 204) found that the Hebrew forms of "Har-Magedon" and "the great Rome" have the same numerical value—304. The historical persons alluded to in the passage do not concern us here.

W. Ewing


ha’-ra (hara’; Septuagint omits): A place named in 1Ch 5:26 along with Halah, Habor and the river of Gozan, whither the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh were carried by Tiglath-pileser. In 2Ki 17:6; 18:11, Hara is omitted, and in both, "and in the cities of the Medes" is added. Septuagint renders ore Medon, "the mountains of the Medes," which may represent Hebrew hare madhay, "mountains of Media," or, ‘are madhay, "cities of Media." The text seems to be corrupt. The second word may have fallen out in 1Ch 5:26, hare being changed to hara’.

W. Ewing


ha-ra’-da, har’-a-da (charadhah, "fearful"): A desert station of the Israelites between Mt. Shepher and Makheloth (Nu 33:24:25).



ha’-ran (haran):

(1) Son of Terah, younger brother of Abraham and Nahor, and father of Lot (Ge 11:27). He had two daughters, Milcah and Iscah (Ge 11:29).

(2) A Gershonite, of the family of Shimei (1Ch 23:9).


ha’-ran (charan; Charhran): The city where Terah settled on his departure from Ur (Ge 11:31 f); whence Abram set out on his pilgrimage of faith to Canaan (Ge 12:1 ). It was probably "the city of Nahor" to which Abraham’s servant came to find a wife for Isaac (Ge 24:10 ). Hither came Jacob when he fled from Esau’s anger (Ge 27:43). Here he met his bride (Ge 29:4), and in the neighboring pastures he tended the flocks of Laban. It is one of the cities named by Rabshakeh as destroyed by the king of Assyria (2Ki 19:12; Isa 37:12). Ezekiel speaks of the merchants of Haran as trading with Tyre (27:23).

The name appears in Assyro-Babalonian as Charran, which means "road"; possibly because here the trade route from Damascus joined that from Nineveh to Carchemish. It is mentioned in the prism inscription of Tiglath-pileser I. It was a seat of the worship of Sin, the moon-god, from very ancient times. A temple was built by Shalmaneser II. Haran seems to have shared in the rebellion of Assur (763 BC, the year of the solar eclipse, June 15). The privileges then lost were restored by Sargon II. The temple, which had been destroyed, was rebuilt by Ashurbanipal, who was here crowned with the crown of Sin. Haran and the temple suffered much damage in the invasion of the Umman-Manda (the Medes). Nabuna‘id restored temple and city, adorning them on a lavish scale. Near Haran the Parthians defeated and slew Crassus (53 BC), and here Caracalla was assassinated (217 AD). In the 4th century it was the seat of a bishopric; but the cult of the moon persisted far into the Christian centuries. The chief temple was the scene of heathen worship until the 11th century, and was destroyed by the Mongols in the 13th.

The ancient city is represented by the modern Charran to the Southeast of Edessa, on the river Belias, an affluent of the Euphrates. The ruins lie on both sides of the stream, and include those of a very ancient castle, built of great basaltic blocks, with square columns, 8 ft. thick, which support an arched roof some 30 ft. in height. Remains of the old cathedral are also conspicuous. No inscriptions have yet been found here, but a fragment of an Assyrian lion has been uncovered. A well nearby is identified as that where Eliezer met Rebekah.

In Ac 7:2,4, the King James Version gives the name as Charran.

W. Ewing


ha’-ra-rit (ha-harari, or ha-’arari): Literally, "mountaineer," more particularly an inhabitant of the hill country of Judah. Thus used of two heroes:

(1) Shammah, the son of Agee (2Sa 23:11,33). The parallel passage, 1Ch 11:34, has "Shage" in place of "Shammah."

(2) Ahiam, the son of Sharar the Ararite" (2Sa 23:33). In 1Ch 11:35, "Sacar" for Sharar as here.


har-bo’-na (charebhona’ charebhonah): One of the seven eunuchs who served Ahasuerus and to whom was given the command to bring Queen Esther before the king (Es 1:10). It was he who suggested that Haman be hanged upon the self-same gallows that he had erected for Mordecai (Es 7:9). Jewish tradition has it that Harbona had originally been a confederate of Haman, but, upon noting the failure of the latter’s plans, abandoned him. The Persian equivalent of the name means "donkey-driver."


har’-ber. Used figuratively of God in Joe 3:16 the King James Version margin, (Hebrew) "place of repair, or, harbour" (the King James Version "hope," the Revised Version (British and American) "refuge").



sa’-ingz; , sen’-ten-siz: In Da 5:12 the King James Version (Aramaic ‘aqiahan), the Revised Version (British and American) "dark sentences," of enigmatic utterances which preternatural wisdom was needed to interpret; in Joh 6:60 (skleros .... ho logos), of sayings (Christ’s words at Capernaum about eating His flesh and drinking His blood) difficult for the natural mind to understand (compare 6:52).


hard, har’-di-nes, hard’-nes, hard’-li (qasheh, pala’; skleros) :The senses in which hard is used may be distinguished as:

(1) "Firm," "stiff," opposite to soft: Job 41:24, yatsaq, "to be firm," "his heart .... as hard as a piece of the nether millstone," the Revised Version (British and American) "firm"; Eze 3:7, qasheh, "sharp," "hard of heart"; chazaq, "firm," "As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead"; Jer 5:3, "They have made their faces harder than a rock"; Pr 21:29, ‘azaz, "to make strong," "hard," "impudent," "a wicked man hardeneth his face"; Pr 13:15 probably belongs here also where ‘ethan is translated "hard": "The way of the transgressor is hard," the English Revised Version "The way of the treacherous is rugged"; the Hebrew word means, "lasting," "firm," poet. "rocks" (the earth’s foundations, Mic 6:2), and the meaning seems to be, not that the way (path) of transgressors, or the treacherous (Delitzsch has "uncultivated"), is hard (rocky) to them, but that their way, or mode of acting, is hard, unsympathetic, unkind, "destitute of feeling in things which, as we say, would soften a stone" (Delitzsch on passage); also Mt 25:24, skleros, "stiff," "thou art a hard man"; The Wisdom of Solomon 11:4, skleros, "hard stone," the Revised Version (British and American) "flinty rock," margin "the steep rock."

(2) "Sore," "trying," "painful," qasheh (Ex 1:14, "hard service"; Deuteronomy, 26:6; 2Sa 3:39; Ps 60:3; Isa 14:3); qashah "to have it hard" (Ge 35:16,17; De 15:18); ‘athaq, "stiff" (Ps 94:4 the King James Version, "They utter and speak hard things"); skleros (Joh 6:60, "This is a hard saying"—hard to accept, hard in its nature; Ac 9:5 the King James Version; Ac 26:14; Jude 1:15, "hard speeches"; The Wisdom of Solomon 19:13).

(3) "Heavy," "pressing hard," kabhedh, "weighty" (Eze 3:5,6, "a people of a strange speech and of a hard language," the Revised Version margin (Hebrew) "deep of lip and heavy of tongue"); camakh, "to lay" (Ps 88:7, "Thy wrath lieth hard upon me").

(4) "Difficult," "hard to do," "know," etc., pala’," difficult to be done" (Ge 18:14, "Is anything too hard for Yahweh?"; Jer 32:17,27; De 17:8; 2Sa 13:2); qasheh (Ex 18:26, "hard causes"); qashah (De 1:17; 2Ki 2:10); chidhah, "something twisted," "involved," "an enigma"; compare Jud 14:14 (1Ki 10:1; 2Ch 9:1, "to prove Solomon with hard questions"); ‘ahidhan, Aramaic (Da 5:12); duskolos, literally, "difficult about food," "hard to please," hence, "difficult to accomplish" (Mr 10:24, "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God"); dusnoetos, "hard to be understood" (Heb 5:11; 2Pe 3:16; compare Ecclesiasticus 3:21, "things too hard for thee," chalepos).

(5) "Close," or "near to" (hard by), naghash, "to come nigh" (Jud 9:52, the American Standard Revised Version "near"); dabhaq and dabheq, "to follow hard after" (Jud 20:45; Ps 63:8, etc.); ‘etsel, "near" (1Ki 21:1); le’ummath, "over against" (Le 3:9); ‘adh, "to" "even to" (1Ch 19:4, the King James Version "hard by," the Revised Version (British and American) "even to").

Hardiness occurs in Judith 16:10 thrasos, the Revised Version (British and American) "boldness."

Hardness is the translation of mutsaq, "something poured out," "dust wetted," "running into clods" (Job 38:38), the Revised Version (British and American) "runneth into a mass"; "hardness of heart" occurs in the Gospels; in Mr 3:5, it is porosis, "hardness," "callousness"; Mt 19:8; Mr 10:5; 16:14, sklerokardia, "dryness," "stiffness of heart"; compare Ecclesiasticus 16:10; in Ro 2:5, it is sklerotes; in 2Ti 2:3 the King James Version we have, "Endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ," the Revised Version (British and American) "Suffer hardship with me" (corrected text), margin "Take thy part in suffering hardship" (kakopatheo, "to suffer evil").

Hardly occurs in the Old Testament (Ex 13:15), "Pharaoh would hardly let us go," qashah, literally, "hardened to let us go," the Revised Version margin "hardened himself against letting us go"; "hardly bestead" (Isa 8:21) is the translation of qadshah, the American Standard Revised Version "sore distressed." In the New Testament "hardly" is the translation of duskolos, "hard to please," "difficult," meaning not scarcely or barely, but with difficulty (Mt 19:23, "A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven," the Revised Version (British and American) "it is hard for"; Mr 10:23; Lu 18:24, "how hardly" ("with what difficulty")); of mogis, "with labor," "pain," "trouble" (Lu 9:39, "hardly departeth from him" ("painfully")); of molis "with toil and fatigue" (Ac 27:8, the Revised Version (British and American) "with difficulty"; The Wisdom of Solomon 9:16, "Hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon earth"; Ecclesiasticus 26:29, "A merchant shall hardly keep himself from wrong doing"; 29:6, "He shall hardly receive the half," in each instance the word is molis, but in the last two instances we seem to see the transition to "scarcely"; compare also Ex 13:15).

The Revised Version has "too hard" for "hidden" (De 30:11, margin "wonderful"); "hardness" for "boldness" (of face) (Ec 8:1); for "sorrow" (La 3:65); "deal hardly with me" for "make yourselves strong to me" (Job 19:3); omits "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (Ac 9:5, corrected text); "hardship" for "trouble" (2Ti 2:9).

W. L. Walker


har’-d’-n (chazaq, qashah; skleruno):

(1) "Harden" occurs most frequently in the phrase "to harden the heart," or "the neck." This hardening of men’s hearts is attributed both to God and to men themselves, e.g. with reference to the hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians; the Hiphil of chazaq, "to make strong," is frequently used in this connection (Ex 4:21, "I will harden his heart," the Revised Version margin (Hebrew) "make strong"; Ex 7:13, "And he hardened P.’s heart," the Revised Version (British and American) "was hardened," margin (Hebrew) "was strong"; Ex 7:22; 8:19; 9:12; 10:20,27, etc.; Ex 14:17, "I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians," the Revised Version margin (Hebrew) "make strong"; compare Jos 11:20); qashah, "to be heavy," "to make hard" (Ex 7:3); kabhedh, "heavy," "slow," "hard," not easily moved (Ex 10:1, the Revised Version margin (Hebrew) "made heavy"). When the hardening is attributed to man’s own act kabhedh is generally used (Ex 8:15, "He hardened his heart, and hearkened not," the Revised Version margin (Hebrew) "made heavy"; Ex 8:32, "Pharaoh hardened his heart" (the Revised Version margin as before); Ex 9:7,34; 1Sa 6:6 twice). The "hardening" of men’s hearts by God is in the way of punishment, but it is always a consequence of their own self-hardening. In Pharaoh’s case we read that "he hardened his heart" against the appeal to free the Israelites; so hardening himself, he became always more confirmed in his obstinacy, till he brought the final doom upon himself. This is how sin is made to become its own punishment. It was not confined to Pharaoh and the Egyptians nor does it belong to the past only. As Paul says (Ro 9:18),"whom he will he hardeneth" (skleruno); Ex 11:7, "The election obtained it, and the rest were hardened" (the Revised Version (British and American) and King James Version margin, poroo, "to make hard" or "callous"); a "Hardening in part hath befallen Israel" (porosis); compare Joh 12:40 (from Isa 6:10), "He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart"; Isa 63:17, "O Yahweh, why dost thou make us to err from thy ways, and hardenest our heart from thy fear?" (qashach, "to harden"); compare on the other side, as expressing the human blameworthiness, Job 9:4, "Who hath hardened himself against him, and prospered?" Mr 3:5, "being grieved at the hardening of their heart;" Mr 6:52, "Their heart was hardened"; Ro 2:5, "after thy hardness and impenitent heart." In Hebrew religious thought everything was directly attributed to God, and the hardening is God’s work, in His physical and ethical constitution and laws of man’s nature; but it is always the consequence of human action out of harmony therewith. Other instances of skleruno are in Ac 19:9; Heb 3:8,13,15; 4:7.

(2) "Harden" in the sense of "to fortify one’s self" (make one’s self hard) is the translation of caladh, "to leap," "exult" (Job 6:10 the King James Version, "I would harden myself in sorrow," the Revised Version (British and American) "Let me exult in pain," margin "harden myself").

(3) In Pr 21:29 "harden" has the meaning of "boldness," "defiance" or "shamelessness" (brazen-faced); ‘azaz, Hiphil, "to strengthen one’s countenance," "A wicked man hardeneth his face"; Delitzsch, "A godless man showeth boldness in his mien"; compare Pr 7:13; Ec 8:1; see also HARD.

For "harden" the Revised Version (British and American) has "stubborn" (Ex 7:14; 9:7, margin "heavy"); "hardenest" (Isa 63:17); "made stiff" (Jer 7:26; 19:15); for "is hardened" (Job 39:16, the American Standard Revised Version "dealeth hardly," and the English Revised Version margin); "at the hardening" instead of "for the hardness" (Mr 3:5); "hardening" for "blindness" (Eph 4:18).

W. L. Walker




har (’arnebheth (Le 11:6; De 14:7); compare Arabic ‘arnab, "hare"): This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Where it occurs along with the camel, the coney and the swine. The camel, the hare and the coney are unclean, ‘because they chew the cud but part not the hoof,’ the swine, "because he parteth the hoof .... but cheweth not the cud." The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continually moving their jaws. Both are freely eaten by the Arabs. Although ‘arnebheth occurs only in the two places cited, there is no doubt that it is the hare. Septuagint has dasupous, "rough-footed," which, while not the commonest Greek word (lagos), refers to the remarkable fact that in hares and rabbits the soles of the feet are densely covered with hair. ‘Arnab, which is the common Arabic word for "hare," is from the same root as the Hebrew ‘arnebheth.

Le 11:4-7: verse 4, English Versions of the Bible "camel"; Septuagint ton kamelon; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) camelus; Hebrew ha-gamal. Le 11:5, English Versions of the Bible "coney"; Septuagint ton dasupoda; Vulgate, choerogryllus; Hebrew ha-shapan. Le 11:6, English Versions of the Bible "hare"; Septuagint ton choirogruillion Vulgate, lepus; Hebrew ha-arnebeth. Le 11:7, English Versions of the Bible "swine"; Septuagint ton hun; Vulgate, sus; Hebrew ha-chazir.

De 14:7: English Versions of the Bible "camel"; Septuagint ton kamelon Vulgate, camelum; Hebrew hagamal; English Versions of the Bible "hare"; Septuagint dasupoda; Vulgate, leporem; Hebrew ha’arnebeth; English Versions of the Bible "coney"; Septuagint choirogrullion; Vulgate, choerogryllum; Hebrew hashaphan.

De 14:8: English Versions of the Bible "swine"; Septuagint ton hun Vulgate, sus; Hebrew hacheziyr.

It is evident from the above and from the meanings of dasupous and chorogrullios as given in Liddell and Scott, that the order of Septuagint in Le 11:5,6 does not follow the Hebrew, but has apparently assimilated the order of that of De 14:7,8. In Ps 104:18, Septuagint has chorogrullios for shaphan; also in Pr 30:26.

Since the word "coney," which properly means "rabbit," has been applied to the hyrax, so, in America at least, the word "rabbit" is widely used for various species of hare, e.g. the gray rabbit and the jack-rabbit, both of which are hares. Hares have longer legs and ears and are swifter than rabbits. Their young are hairy and have their eyes open, while rabbits are born naked and blind. Hares are widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere, and there is one species in South America. Rabbits are apparently native to the Western Mediterranean countries, although they have been distributed by man all over the world.

Lepus syriacus, the common hare of Syria and Palestine, differs somewhat from the European hare. Lepus judeae is cited by Tristram from Northeastern Palestine, and he also notes three other species from the extreme south.

Alfred Ely Day


ha’-ref (chareph, "scornful"): A chief of Judah, one of the sons of Caleb and father of Beth-gader (1Ch 2:51). A quite similar name, Hariph, occurs in Ne 7:24; 10:19, but it is probably that of another individual.


ha’-reth (chhareth, in pause).



har-ha’-ya (charhayah, "Yah protects"): A goldsmith, whose son, Uzziel, helped to repair the walls of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (Ne 3:8).


har’-has (charchas, "splendor"): Grandfather of Shallum, husband of Huldah (2Ki 22:14). Name given as "Hasrah" in paralle passage (2Ch 34:22).


har’-hur (charchur, "free-born" or "fever"; "Hasour): One of the Nethinim whose descendants came from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:51; Ne 7:53; APC 1Esdras 5:31).


ha’-rim (charim): A family name.

(1) A non-priestly family that returned from captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:32; Ne 7:35); mentioned among those who married foreign wives (Ezr 10:31); also mentioned among those who renewed the covenant (Ne 10:27).

(2) A priestly family returning with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:39; Ne 7:42; 12:3,15 (see REHUM)); members of this family covenanted to put away their foreign wives (Ezr 10:21; Ne 10:5). A family of this name appears as the third of the priestly courses in the days of David and Solomon (1Ch 24:8).

(3) In Ne 3:11 is mentioned Malchijah, son of Harim, one of the wall-builders. Which family is here designated is uncertain.

W. N. Stearns


ha’-rif (chariph, chariph): One of those who returned from exile under Zerubbabel and helped to seal the covenant under Nehemiah and Ezra (Ne 7:24; 10:19 (20)). Ezr 2:18 has "Jorah."


har’-lot: This name replaces in the Revised Version (British and American) "whore" of the King James Version. It stands for several words and phrases used to designate or describe the unchaste woman, married or unmarried, e.g. zonah, ‘ishshah nokhriyah, qedheshah; Septuagint and New Testament porne. porneia is used chiefly of prenuptial immorality, but the married woman guilty of sexual immorality is said to be guilty of porneia (Mt 5:32; 19:9; compare Am 7:17 Septuagint). These and cognate words are applied especially in the Old Testament to those devoted to immoral service in idol sanctuaries, or given over to a dissolute life for gain. Such a class existed among all ancient peoples, and may be traced in the history of Israel. Evidence of its existence in very early times is found (Ge 38). It grew out of conditions, sexual and social, which were universal. After the corrupting foreign influxes and influences of Solomon’s day, it developed to even fuller shamelessness, and its voluptuous songs (Isa 23:16), seductive arts (Pr 6:24), and blighting influence are vividly pictured and denounced by the prophets (Pr 7:10; 29:3; Isa 23:16; Jer 3:3; 5:7; Eze 16:25; compare De 23:17). Money was lavished upon women of this class, and the weak and unwary were taken captive by them, so that it became one of the chief concerns of the devout father in Israel to "keep (his son) from the evil woman," who "hunteth for the precious life" (Pr 6:24,26). From the title given her in Prov, a "foreign woman" (23:27), and the warnings against "the flattery of the foreigner’s tongue" (6:24; compare 1Ki 11:1; Ezr 10:2), we may infer that in later times this class was chiefly made up of strangers from without. The whole subject must be viewed in the setting of the times. Even in Israel, then, apart from breaches of marriage vows, immoral relations between the sexes were deemed venial (De 22:28 f). A man was forbidden to compel his daughter to sin (Le 19:29), to "profane (her) and make her a harlot," but she was apparently left free to take that way herself (compare Ge 38). The children of the harlot, though, were outlawed (De 23:2), and later the harlot is found under the sternest social ban (Mt 21:31,32).

The subject takes on even a darker hue when viewed in the light of the hideous conditions that prevailed in ancient Syria affecting this practice. The harlot represented more than a social peril and problem. She was a qedheshah, one of a consecrated class, and as such was the concrete expression and agent of the most insidious and powerful influence and system menacing the purity and permanence of the religion of Yahweh. This system deified the reproductive organs and forces of Nature and its devotees worshipped their idol symbols in grossly licentious rites and orgies. The temple prostitute was invested with sanctity as a member of the religious caste, as she is today in India. Men and women thus prostituted themselves in the service of their gods. The Canaanite sanctuaries were gigantic brothels, legalized under the sanctions of religion. For a time, therefore, the supreme religious question was whether such a cult should be established and allowed to naturalize itself in Israel, as it had done in Babylon (Herodotus i.199) and in Greece (Strabo viii.6). That the appeal thus made to the baser passions of the Israelites was all too successful is sadly clear (Am 2:7; Ho 4:13 ). The prophets give vivid pictures of the syncretizing of the worship of Baal and Astarte with that of Yahweh and the extent to which the local sanctuaries were given over to this form of corruption. They denounced it as the height of impiety and as sure to provoke Divine judgments. Asa and Jehoshaphat undertook to purge the land of such vile abominations (1Ki 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The Deuteronomic code required that all such "paramours" be banished, and forbade the use of their unholy gains as temple revenue (De 23:17,18. Driver’s note). The Levitical law forbade a priest to take a harlot to wife (Le 21:7). and commanded that the daughter of a priest who played the harlot should be burned (Le 21:9).


It is grimly significant that the prophets denounce spiritual apostasy as "harlotry" (the King James Version "whoredom"). But it would seem that the true ethical attitude toward prostitution was unattainable so long as marriage was in the low, transitional stage mirrored in the Old Testament; though the religion of Yahweh was in a measure delivered from the threatened peril by the fiery discipline of the exile.

In New Testament times, a kindred danger beset the followers of Christ, especially in Greece and Asia Minor (Ac 15:20,29; Ro 1:24 ff; 1Co 6:9 ff; Ga 5:19). That lax views of sexual morality were widely prevalent in the generation in which Christ lived is evident both from His casual references to the subject and from His specific teaching in answer to questions concerning adultery and divorce (compare Josephus, Ant, IV, viii, 23; Vita, section 76; Sirach 7:26; 25:26; 42:9, and the Talm). The ideas of the times were debased by the prevalent polygamous customs, "it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives" (Josephus, BJ, I, xxiv, 2; compare Ant, XVII, i, 2). The teaching of Jesus was in sharp contrast with the low ideals and the rabbinical teaching of the times. The controversy on this question waxed hot between the two famous rival rabbinical schools. Hillel reduced adultery to the level of the minor faults. Shammai opposed his teaching as immoral in tendency. kata pasan aitian (Mt 19:3), gives incidental evidence of the nature of the controversy. It was characteristic of the teaching of Jesus that He went to the root of the matter, making this sin to consist in "looking on a woman to lust after her." Nor did He confine Himself to the case of the married. The general character of the terms in Mt 5:28, pas ho blepon, forbids the idea that gunaika, and emoicheusen, are to be limited to post-nuptial sin with a married woman. On the other hand it is a characteristic part of the work of Jesus to rescue the erring woman from the merciless clutches of the Pharisaic tribunal, and to bring her within the pale of mercy and redemption (Mt 21:31,32). He everywhere leaned to the side of mercy in dealing with such cases, as is indicated by the traditional and doubtless true narrative found in the accepted text of the Fourth Gospel (Joh 7:53-8:11).

George B. Eager





har’-ne-fer, har-ne’-fer (charnepher): A member of the tribe of Asher (1Ch 7:36).


har’-nes: A word of Celtic origin meaning "armour" in the King James Version; it is the translation of shiryan, "a coat of mail" (1Ki 22:34; 2Ch 18:33); of nesheq, "arms," "weapons" (2Ch 9:24, the Revised Version (British and American) "armor"); of ‘acar "to bind" (Jer 46:4), "harness the horses," probably here, "yoke the horses"; compare 1Sa 6:7, "tie the kine to the cart" (bind them), Ge 46:29; another rendering is "put on their accoutrements"; compare APC 1Macc 6:43, "one of the beasts armed with royal harness" (thorax), the Revised Version (British and American) "breastplates"; compare APC 1Macc 3:3, "warlike harness"; APC 1Macc 6:41 (hopla), the Revised Version (British and American) "arms"; APC 2Macc 3:25, etc.; harnessed represents chamushim, "armed," "girded" (Ex 13:18, "The children of Israel went up harnessed," the Revised Version (British and American) "armed"). Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva have "harnes" in Lu 11:22, Wycliff "armer."

W. L. Walker


ha’-rod (‘en charodh, "fountain of trembling"): The fountain beside which (probably above it) Gideon and his army were encamped (Jud 7:1). Moore (Judges, in the place cited.) argues, inconclusively, that the hill Moreh must be sought near Shechem, and that the well of Harod must be some spring in the neighborhood of that city. There is no good reason to question the accuracy of the common view which places this spring at ‘Ain Jalud, on the edge of the vale of Jezreel, about 2 miles East of Zer‘in, and just under the northern cliffs of Gilboa. A copious spring of clear cold water rises in a rocky cave and flows out into a large pool, whence it drains off, in Nahr Jalud, down the vale past Beisan to the Jordan. This is probably also to be identified with the spring "which is in Jezreel," i.e. in the district, near which Saul encamped before the battle of Gilboa (1Sa 29:1). ‘Ain el-Meiyiteh, just below Zer‘in on the North, is hardly of sufficient size and importance to be a rival to ‘Ain Jalud.


W. Ewing


ha’-rod-it (charodhi): Two of David’s heroes, Shamma and Elika, are so called (2Sa 23:25). Septuagint omits the second name. In 1Ch 11:27, the first is called "Shammoth the Harorite," while the second is omitted. "Harorite" is a clerical error for "Harodite," the Hebrew letter daleth ("d") being taken for the Hebrew letter resh ("r"). Possibly Harodite may be connected with the well of HAROD (which see).


ha-ro’-e (ha-ro’eh, "the seer"): A Judahite (1Ch 2:52).





ha-ro’-sheth or (charosheth ha-goyim): There is now no means of discovering what is meant by the phrase "of the nations." This is the place whence Sisera led his hosts to the Kishon against Deborah and Barak (Jud 4:13), to which the discomfited and leaderless army fled after their defeat (Jud 4:16). No site seems so well to meet the requirements of the narrative as el Charithiyeh. There are still the remains of an ancient stronghold on this great double mound, which rises on the North bank of the Kishon, in the throat of the pass leading by the base of Carmel, from the coast to Esdraelon. It effectually commands the road which here climbs the slope, and winds through the oak forest to the plain; Megiddo being some 16 miles distant. The modern also preserves a reminiscence of the ancient name. By emending the text, Cheyne would here find the name "Kadshon," to be identified with Kedesh in Galilee (EB, under the word). On any reasonable reading of the narrative this is unnecessary.

W. Ewing





har’-o (sadhadh): Sadhadh occurs in 3 passages (Job 39:10; Isa 28:24; Ho 10:11). In the first 2 it is translated "harrow," in the last "break the clods." That this was a separate operation from plowing, and that it was performed with an instrument drawn by animals, seems certain. As to whether it corresponded to our modern harrowing is a question. The reasons for this uncertainty are:

(1) the ancient Egyptians have left no records of its use;

(2) at the present time, in those parts of Palestine and Syria where foreign methods have not been introduced, harrowing is not commonly known, although the writer has been told that in some districts the ground is leveled after plowing with the threshing-sledge or a log drawn by oxen. Cross-plowing is resorted to for breaking up the lumpy soil, especially where the ground has been baked during the long rainless summer. Lumps not reduced in this way are further broken up with a hoe or pick. Seed is always sown before plowing, so that harrowing to cover the seed is unnecessary. See AGRICULTURE. Figuratively used of affliction, discipline, etc. (Isa 28:24).

James A. Patch


har’-oz (chrits): Charits has no connection with the verb translated "harrows." The context seems to indicate some form of pointed instrument (2Sa 12:31; 1Ch 20:3; see especially the Revised Version margin).


har’-sha (charsha’): Head of one of the families of the Nethinim (Ezr 2:52; Ne 7:54); 1 Esdras 5:32, "Charea."


har’-sith (charcith): One of the gates of Jerusalem (Jer 19:2 the Revised Version (British and American)); margin suggests "gate of the potsherds"; the King James Version has "east gate" and the King James Version margin "sun gate," both deriving the name from cherec, "sun." The gate opened into the valley of Hinnom.






ha’-rum, har’-um (charum): A Judahite (1Ch 4:8).


ha-roo’-maf (charumaph): Father of Jedaiah who assisted in repairing the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Ne 3:10).


ha-roo’-fit (charuphi, or chariphi); In 1Ch 12:5 Shephatiah, one of the companions of David, is called a Haruphite (K) or Hariphite (Q). If the latter be the correct reading, it is connected with HARIPH or perhaps HAREPH (which see).


ha’-ruz (charuts): Father of Meshullemeth, the mother of Amon, king of Judah (2Ki 21:19).


har’-vest (qatsir; therismos): To many of us, harvest time is of little concern, because in our complex life we are far removed from the actual production of our food supplies, but for the Hebrew people, as for those in any agricultural district today, the harvest was a most important season (Ge 8:22; 45:6). Events were reckoned from harvests (Ge 30:14; Jos 3:15; Jud 15:1; Ru 1:22; 2:23; 1Sa 6:13; 2Sa 21:9; 23:13). The three principal feasts of the Jews corresponded to the three harvest seasons (Ex 23:16; 34:21,22);

(1) the feast of the Passover in April at the time of the barley harvest (compare Ru 1:22);

(2) the feast of Pentecost (7 weeks later) at the wheat harvest (Ex 34:22), and

(3) the feast of Tabernacles at the end of the year (October) during the fruit harvest.

The seasons have not changed since that time. Between the reaping of the barley in April and the wheat in June, most of the other cereals are reaped. The grapes begin to ripen in August, but the gathering in for making wine and molasses (dibs), and the storing of the dried figs and raisins, is at the end of September. Between the barley harvest in April and the wheat harvest, only a few showers fall, which are welcomed because they increase the yield of wheat (compare Am 4:7). Samuel made use of the unusual occurrence of rain during the wheat harvest to strike fear into the hearts of the people (1Sa 12:17). Such an unusual storm of excessive violence visited Syria in 1912, and did much damage to the harvests, bringing fear to the superstitious farmers, who thought some greater disaster awaited them. From the wheat harvest until the fruit harvest no rain falls (2Sa 21:10; Jer 5:24; compare Pr 26:1). The harvesters long for cool weather during the reaping season (compare Pr 25:13).

Many definite laws were instituted regarding the harvest. Gleaning was forbidden (Le 19:9; 23:22; De 24:19) (see GLEANING). The first-fruits were required to be presented to Yahweh (Le 23:10). In Syria the Christians still celebrate ‘id er-rubb ("feast of the Lord"), at which time the owners of the vineyards bring their first bunches of grapes to the church. The children of Israel were enjoined to reap no harvest for which they had not labored (Le 25:5). In Proverbs the harvesting of ants is mentioned as a lesson for the sluggard (Pr 6:8; 10:5; 20:4).

Figurative: A destroyed harvest typified devastation or affliction (Job 5:5; Isa 16:9; 17:11; Jer 5:17; 50:16). The "time of harvest," in the Old Testament frequently meant the day of destruction (Jer 51:33; Ho 6:11; Joe 3:13). "Joy in harvest" typified great joy (Isa 9:3); "harvest of the Nile," an abundant harvest (Isa 23:3). "The harvest is past" meant that the appointed time was gone (Jer 8:20). Yahweh chose the most promising time to cut off the wicked, namely, "when there is a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest" (Isa 18:4,5). This occurrence of hot misty days just before the ripening of the grapes is still common. They are welcome because they are supposed to hasten the harvest. The Syrian farmers in some districts call it et-tabbakh el’ainib wa tin ("the fireplace of the grapes and figs").

In the Gospels, Jesus frequently refers to the harvest of souls (Mt 9:37,38 bis; Mt13:30,39; Mr 4:29; Joh 4:35). In explaining the parable of the Tares he said, "The harvest is the end of the world" (Mt 13:39; compare Re 14:15).


James A. Patch


has-a-di’-a (chacadhyah, "Yah is kind"): A son of Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:20). In Baruch 1:1 the Greek is Asadias.


has-e-nu’-a (haccenu’ah): In the King James Version (1Ch 9:7) for HASSENUAH (which see).


hash-a-bi’-a (chashabhyah):

(1) Two Levites of the family of Merari (1Ch 6:45; 9:14).

(2) A Levite who dwelt in Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah (Ne 11:15).

(3) A son of Jeduthun (1Ch 25:3).

(4) A Hebronite, chief of a clan of warriors who had charge of West Jordan in the interests of Yahweh and the king of Israel (1Ch 26:30).

(5) A Levite who was a "ruler" (1Ch 27:17).

(6) One of the Levite chiefs in the time of Josiah, who gave liberally toward the sacrifices (2Ch 35:9). In 1 Esdras 1:9 it is "Sabias."

(7) A Levite whom Ezra induced to return from exile with him (Ezr 8:19). 1 Esdras 8:48 has "Asebias."

(8) One of the twelve priests set apart by Ezra to take care of the gold, the silver, and the vessels of the temple on their return from exile (Ezr 8:24; APC 1Esdras 8:54, "‘Assamias").

(9) Ruler of half of the district of "Keilah," who helped to repair the walls under Nehemiah (Ne 3:17), and also helped to seal the covenant (Ne 10:11; 12:24).

(10) A Levite (Ne 11:22).

(11) A priest (Ne 12:21).

J. J. Reeve


ha-shab’-na (chashabhnah): One who helped to seal the covenant under Nehemiah (Ne 10:25).


hash-ab-ne-i’-a (chashabhneyah; the King James Version Hashabniah, hash-ab-ni’a).

(1) Father of one of the builders of the wall (Ne 3:10).

(2) A Levite mentioned in connection with the prayer preceding the signing of the covenant (Ne 9:5); possibly identical with the Hashabiah (chashabhyah) of Ezr 8:19,24; Ne 10:11; 11:22; 12:24, or one of these.


hash-ba-da’-na, hash-bad’-a-na (chashbaddanah): Probably a Levite. He was one of those who stood at Ezra’s left hand when he read the law, and helped the people to understand the meaning (Ne 8:4). 1 Esdras 9:44 has "Nabarias" (Nabareias).


ha’-shem (hashem): The "sons of Hashem" are mentioned (1Ch 11:34) among David’s mighty men. The parallel passage (2Sa 23:32) has "sons of Jashen."


hash’-mo-na (chashmonah, "fatness"): A desert camp of the Israelites between Mithkah and Moseroth (Nu 33:29,30).



ha’-shub, hash’-ub.



ha-shoo’-ba (chashubhah, "consideration"): One of the sons of Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:20).


ha’-shum (chashum):

(1) In Ezr 2:19; Ne 7:22, "children of Hashum" are mentioned among the returning exiles. In Ezr 10:33 (compare 1 Esdras 9:33, "Asom"), members of the same family are named among those who married foreign wives.

(2) One of those who stood on Ezra’s left at the reading of the law (Ne 8:4; APC 1Esdras 9:44, "Lothasubus"). The signer of the covenant (Ne 10:18) is possibly the same.


has-i-de’-anz (Hasidaioi, a transliteration of chacidhim, "the pious," "Puritans"): A name assumed by the orthodox Jews (1 Macc 2:42; 7:13) to distinguish them from the Hellenizing faction described in the Maccabean books as the "impious," the "lawless," the "transgressors." They held perhaps narrow but strict and seriously honest views in religion, and recognized Judas Maccabeus as their leader (2 Macc 14:6). They existed as a party before the days of the Maccabees, standing on the ancient ways, caring little for politics, and having small sympathy with merely national aspirations, except when affecting religion (1 Macc 1:63; 2 Macc 6:18 ff; Judith 12:2; Ant, XIV, iv, 3). Their cooperation with Judas went only to the length of securing the right to follow their own religious practices. When Bacchides came against Jerusalem, they were quite willing to make peace because Alcimus, "a priest of the seed of Aaron," was in his company. Him they accepted as high priest, though sixty of them soon fell by his treachery (1 Macc 7:13). Their desertion of Judas was largely the cause of his downfall.

J. Hutchinson



HASRAH haz’-ra, has’-ra (chacrah): Grandfather of Shallum, who was the husband of Huldah the prophetess (2Ch 34:22). In 2Ki 22:14, HARHAS (which see).


has-e-na’-a (haccena’ah): In Ne 3:3 the "sons of Hassenaah" are mentioned among the builders of the wall. Probably the same as Senaah (Ezr 2:35; Ne 7:38) with the definite article, i.e. has-Senaah. The latter, from the connection, would appear to be a place-name.



has-e-nu’-a (haccenu’ah): A family name in the two lists of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (1Ch 9:7, the King James Version "Hasenuah"; Ne 11:9, "Senuah"). The name is possibly the same as HASSENAAH (which see), yet the occurrence of the singular ("son of Hassenuah") does not so well accord with the idea of a place-name.


hash’-ub (chashshubh, "considerate"; the King James Version everywhere Hashub except 1Ch 9:14):

(1) A builder of the wall (Ne 3:11).

(2) Another builder of the same name (Ne 3:23).

(3) One of the signers of the covenant (Ne 10:23).

(4) A Levite chief (Ne 11:15; 1Ch 9:14). BDB makes (1) and (3) identical.





hast (chaphaz, chush, mahar; speudo): "Haste" (from a root meaning "to pursue") implies "celerity of motion."

(1) The noun occurs as translation of mahar, "to hasten," etc. (Ex 10:16; 12:33, "in haste"); of chapaz, "to make haste" (2Ki 7:15; Ps 31:22; 116:11, "I said in my haste (the Revised Version margin "alarm"), All men are liars"); of chippazon, a "hasty flight" (Ex 12:11; De 16:3; Isa 52:12); of nachats, "to be urgent" (1Sa 21:8, "The king’s business required haste").

(2) "Haste" as a verb is transitive and intrans; instances of the transitive use are, ‘uts, "to hasten," "press" (Ex 5:13, "And the taskmasters hasted them," the Revised Version (British and American) "were urgent"); chush, "to make haste" (Isa 5:19); mahar (2Ch 24:5 twice); shaqadh, "to watch," "to fix one’s attention" on anything (Jer 1:12 the King James Version, "I will hasten my word"); mahir, "hasting" (Isa 16:5, "hasting righteousness," the Revised Version (British and American) "swift to do"). The intransitive use is more frequent and represents many different words.

Hasty also occurs in several instances (Pr 21:5; 29:20, ‘uts, etc.); in Isa 28:4, bikkur, "first-fruit," is translated "hasty fruit," the Revised Version (British and American) "first-ripe fig."

The Revised Version (British and American) has "Haste ye" for "assemble yourselves" (Joe 3:11 margin, as the King James Version); "make haste" for "speedily" (Ps 143:7); "and hasted to catch whether it were his mind" (for 1Ki 20:33 the King James Version); "and it hasteth toward the end," margin (Hebrew) "panteth," for "but at the end it shall speak" (Hab 2:3); "hastily" for "suddenly" (1Ti 5:22); for "and for this I make haste" (Job 20:2), "even by reason of my haste that is in me," margin "and by reason of this my haste is within me"; for "hasten after another god" (Ps 16:4), the American Standard Revised Version has "that give gifts for another god," the English Revised Version "exchange the Lord for"; for "hasten hereunto" (Ec 2:25), "have enjoyment"; for "hasten hither" (1Ki 22:9), "fetch quickly"; for "and gather" (Ex 9:19), "hasten in"; for "hasteneth that he may" (Isa 51:14), "shall speedily"; for "hasteth to" (Job 9:26), "swoopeth on"; for "and hasteth" (Job 40:23), "he trembleth"; for "hasty" (Da 2:15), "urgent."

W. L. Walker


ha-sa’-fa (chasupha’): Head of a family of Nethinim among the returning exiles (Ezr 2:43; Ne 7:46). Ne 7:46 the King James Version has "Hashupha," and 1 Esdras 5:29, "Asipha."


The original word (karbela’, Aramaic) rendered "hat" in Da 3:21 the King James Version is very rare, appearing only here in the Old Testament. There is acknowledged difficulty in translating it, as well as the other words of the passage. "Hat" of the King James Version certainly fails to give its exact meaning. The hat as we know it, i.e. headgear distinguished from the cap or bonnet by a circular brim, was unknown to the ancient East. The nearest thing to the modern hat among the ancients was the petasus worn by the Romans when on a journey, though something like it was used on like occasions by the early Greeks. In the earlier Hebrew writings there is little concerning the headgear worn by the people. In 1Ki 20:31 we find mention of "ropes" upon the head in connection with "sackcloth" on the loins. On Egyptian monuments are found pictures of Syrians likewise with cords tied about their flowing hair. The custom, however, did not survive, or was modified, clearly because the cord alone would afford no protection against the sun, to which peasants and travelers were perilously exposed. It is likely, therefore, that for kindred reasons the later Israelites used a head-covering similar to that of the modern Bedouin. This consists of a rectangular piece of cloth called keffiyeh, which is usually folded into triangular form and placed over the head so as to let the middle part hang down over the back of the neck and protect it from the sun, while the two ends are drawn as needed under the chin and tied, or thrown back over the shoulders. A cord of wool is then used to secure it at the top. It became customary still later for Israelites to use a head-covering more like the "turban" worn by the fella-heen today. It consists in detail of a piece of cotton cloth worked into the form of a cap (takiyeh), and so worn as to protect the other headgear from being soiled by the perspiration. A felt cap, or, as among the Turks, a fez or red tarbush, is worn over this. On the top of these is wound a long piece of cotton cloth with red stripes and fringes, a flowered kerchief, or a striped keffiyeh. This protects the head from the sun, serves as a sort of purse by day, and often as a pillow by night. Some such headgear is probably meant by the "diadem" of Job 29:14 and the "hood" of Isa 3:23, Hebrew tsaniph, from tsanaph, "to roll up like a coil" (compare Isa 22:18).

George B. Eager





hach’-et (kashshil): Ps 74:6 the Revised Version (British and American), "hatchet," the King James Version "axes."

See AX.


hat, ha’-tred (verb, sane’," oftenest," saTam, Ge 27:41, etc.; noun, sin’ah; miseo): A feeling of strong antagonism and dislike, generally malevolent and prompting to injury (the opposite of love); sometimes born of moral resentment. Alike in the Old Testament and New Testament, hate of the malevolent sort is unsparingly condemned (Nu 35:20; Ps 109:5; Pr 10:12; Tit 3:3; 1 Joh 3:15), but in the Old Testament hatred of evil and evil-doers, purged of personal malice, is commended (Ps 97:10; 101:3; 139:21,22, etc.). The New Testament law softens this feeling as regards persons, bringing it under the higher law of love (Mt 5:43,14; compare Ro 12:17-21), while intensifying the hatred of evil (Jude 1:23; Re 2:6). God himself is hated by the wicked (Ex 20:5; Ps 139:21; compare Ro 8:7). Sometimes, however, the word "hate" is used hyperbolically in a relative sense to express only the strong preference of one to another. God loved Jacob, but hated Esau (Mal 1:3; Ro 9:13); father and mother are to be hated in comparison with Christ (Lu 14:26; compare Mt 10:37).


James Orr


ha’-thak (hathakh; Septuagint Hachrathaios): One of the chamberlains of Ahasuerus, appointed to attend on Esther (Es 4:5,6,9,10, the King James Version "Hatach"), through whom she learned from Mordecai of Haman’s plot.


ha’-thath (chathath, "terror"): Son of Othniel and grandson of Kenaz (1Ch 4:13).


ha-ti’-fa, hat’-i-fa (chaTipha’," taken," "captive" (?)): The ancestral head of a family of Nethinim that returned from Babylon (Ezr 2:54; Ne 7:56 =" Atipha," APC 1Esdras 5:32).


ha-ti’-ta, hat’-i-ta (chaTiTa’): Head of a family among the "children of the porters" who returned from exile (Ezr 2:42; Ne 7:45; APC 1Esdras 5:28, "Ateta").


hat-si-ham-en-u’-koth: A marginal reading in 1Ch 2:52 the King James Version. It disappears in the Revised Version (British and American), which reads in text, "half of the MENUHOTH" (which see) (Hebrew chatsi ha-menuchoth).


hat’-il (chaTTil): A company of servants of Solomon appearing in the post-exilic literature (Ezr 2:57; Ne 7:59). Same called "Agia" in 1 Esdras 5:34.


hat’-ush (chaTTush):

(1) Son of Shemaiah, a descendant of the kings of Judah, in the 5th generation from Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:22). He returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezr 8:2; Ne 12:2). (There is some doubt as to whether the Hatrush of the lineage of David and the priest of the same name, mentioned in Ne 10:4 and 12:2, are one and the same.) He was one of those who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Ne 10:4).

(2) Son of Hashabneiah; aided Nehemiah to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Ne 3:10).

Horace J. Wolf


hont, hant: The verb in Old English was simply "to resort to," "frequent"; a place of dwelling or of business was a haunt. The noun occurs in 1Sa 23:22 as the translation of reghel, "foot," "See his place where his haunt is," the Revised Version margin, Hebrew ‘foot’ "; the verb is the translation of yashabh, "to sit down," "to dwell" (Eze 26:17, "on all that haunt it," the Revised Version (British and American) "dwelt there," margin "inhabited her"), and of halakh, "to go,"‘ or "live" (1Sa 30:31, "all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt").


ho’-ran (chawran; Septuagint Auranitis, also with aspirate):

1. Extent of Province in Ancient Times:

A province of Eastern Palestine which, in Eze 47:16,18, stretched from Da in the North to Gilead in the South, including all that lay between the Jordan and the desert. It thus covered the districts now known as el-Jedur, el-Jaulan, and el-Chauran. It corresponded roughly with the jurisdiction of the modern Turkish governor of Hauran. The Auranites of later times answered more closely to the Hauran of today.

2. Modern Hauran:

The name Chauran probably means "hollow land." Between Jebel ed-Druze (see BASHAN (MOUNT OF) on the East, and Jedua and Jaulan (see GOLAN) on the West, runs a broad vale, from Jebel el ‘Aswad in the North, to the Yarmuk in the Southwest, and the open desert in the Southeast. It is from 1,500 to 2,000 ft. above sea-level, and almost 50 miles in length, by 45 in breadth. Chauran aptly describes it. To the modern Chauran are reckoned 3 districts, clearly distinguished in local speech:

3. En-Nuqrah:

(1) En-Nuqrah, "the cavity." This district touches the desert in the Southeast, the low range of ez Zumleh on the Southwest, Jaulan on the West, el-Leja’ on the North and, Jebel ed-Druze on the East. The soil, composed of volcanic detritus, is extraordinarily rich. Here and there may be found a bank of vines; but the country is practically treeless: the characteristic product is wheat, and in its cultivation the village population is almost wholly occupied.

4. El-Leja’:

(2) El-Leja’," the asylum." This is a rocky tract lying to the North of en-Nuqrah. It is entirely volcanic, and takes, roughly, the form of a triangle, with apex in the North at el Burak, and a base of almost 20 miles in the South. For the general characteristics of this district see TRACHONITIS. Its sharply marked border, where the rocky edges fall into the surrounding plain, have suggested to some the thought that here we have chebhel ‘argobh, "the measured lot of Argob." See, however, ARGOB. There is little land capable of cultivation, and the Arabs who occupy the greater part have an evil reputation. As a refuge for the hunted and for fugitives from justice it well deserves its name.

5. El-Jebel:

(3) El-Jebel, "the mountain." This is the great volcanic range which stands on the edge of the desert, protecting the fertile reaches of el-Chauran from encroachment by the sand, known at different times as Mons Asaldamus, Jebel Chauran, and Jebel ed-Druze. This last is the name it bears today in consequence of the settlement of Druzes here, after the massacre in Mt. Lebanon in 1860. Those free-spirited people have been a thorn in the side of the Turks ever since: and whether or not the recent operations against them (January, 1911) will result in their entire, subjugation, remains to be seen. The western slopes of the mountain are well cultivated, and very fruitful; vineyards abound; and there are large reaches of shady woodlands. Calkhad, marking the eastern boundary of the land of Israel, stands on the ridge of the mountain to the South Jebel el-Kuleib in which the range culminates, reaches a height of 5,730 ft. Jebel Chauran is named in the Mishna (Rosh ha-shanah, ii.4) as one of the heights from which fire-signals were flashed, announcing the advent of the new year. For its history see BASHAN. The ruins which are so plentiful in the country date for the most part from the early Christian centuries; and probably nothing above ground is older than the Roman period. The substructions, however, and the subterranean dwellings found in different parts, e.g. at Der‘ah, may be very ancient. The latest mention of a Christian building is in an inscription found by the present writer at el-Kufr, which tells of the foundation of a church in 720 AD (PEFS, July, 1895, p. 275, Inscr number 150). A good account of Hauran and its cities is given in HGHL, XXIX, 611.

W. Ewing


hav: "To have" is to own or possess; its various uses may be resolved into this, its proper meaning.

A few of the many changes in the Revised Version (British and American) are, for "a man that hath friends" (Pr 18:24), "maketh many friends," margin (Hebrew) "a man of friends"; for "all that I have" (Lu 15:31), "all that is mine"; for "we have peace with God" (Ro 5:1) the English Revised Version has "let us have," margin "some authorities read we have," the American Standard Revised Version as the King James Version margin "many ancient authorities read let us have"; for "what great conflict I have" (Col 2:1), "how greatly I strive"; for "will have" (Mt 9:13; 12:7), "desire"; Mt 27:43, "desireth"; for "would have" (Mr 6:19; Ac 10:10), "desired"; Ac 16:27, "was about"; 19:30, "was minded to"; 23:28 "desiring"; Heb 12:17, "desired to"; for "ye have" (Heb 10:34), the English Revised Version has "ye yourselves have," margin "ye have your ownselves," the American Standard Revised Version "ye have for yourselves," margin "many ancient authorities read, ye have your own selves for a better possession" (compare Lu 9:25; 21:19); "having heard" for "after that ye heard" (Eph 1:13); "having suffered before," for "even after that we had suffered" (1Th 2:2); "and thus, having," for "so after he had" (Heb 6:15).

W. L. Walker



(1) choph (Ge 49:13, the Revised Version margin "beach"; Jud 5:17, the Revised Version margin "shore," the King James Version "seashore," the King James Version margin "port"); elsewhere "sea-shore" (De 1:7; Jos 9:1; Jer 47:7) or "sea coast" (Eze 25:16); from root chaphaph, "to wash" or "to lave"; compare Arabic chaffa, "to rub"; and chaffat, "border"; Chufuf, in Eastern Arabia;

(2) machoz (Ps 107:30);

(3) limen (Ac 27:12 bis); also Fair Havens, kaloi limenes (Ac 27:8)):

While the Greek limen is "harbor," the Hebrew Choph is primarily "shore." There is no harbor worthy of the name on the shore of Palestine South of Chaifa. Indeed there is no good natural harbor on the whole coast of Syria and Palestine. The promontories of Carmel, Beirut and Tripolis afford shelter from the prevalent southwest wind, but offer no refuge from the fury of a northern gale. On rocky shores there are inlets which will protect sail boats at most times, but the ships of the ancients were beached in rough weather, and small craft are so treated at the present time. See illustration under BITHYNIA, p. 483.

Alfred Ely Day





hav’-i-la (chawilah; Heuila):

(1) Son of Cush (Ge 10:7; 1Ch 1:9).

(2) Son of Yoktan, descendant of Shem (Ge 10:29; 1Ch 1:23).

(3) Mentioned with Shur as one of the limits of the territory of the Ishmaelites (Ge 25:18); compare the same limits of the land of the Amalekites (1Sa 15:7), where, however, the text is doubtful. It is described (Ge 2:11,12) as bounded by the river Pishon and as being rich in gold, bdellium and "shoham-stone" (English Version of the Bible, "onyx"). The shoham-stone was perhaps the Assyrian samtu, probably the malachite or turquoise. The mention of a Cushite Havilah is explained by the fact that the Arabian tribes at an early time migrated to the coast of Africa. The context of Ge 10:7 thus favors situation on the Ethiopian shore, and the name is perhaps preserved in the kolpos Aualites and in the tribe Abalitai on the South side of the straits of Babel-Mandeb. Or possibly a trace of the name appears in the classical Aualis, now Zeila‘ in Somaliland. But its occurrence among the Yoktanite Arabs (Ge 10:29) suggests a location in Arabia. South Arabian inscriptions mention a district of Khaulan (Chaulan), and a place of this name is found both in Tihama and Southeast of San‘a’. Again Strabo’s Chaulotaioi and Chuwaila in Bahrein point to a district on the Arabian shore of the Persian Gulf. No exact identification has yet been made.

A. S. Fulton


hav’-ok: "Devastation," "to make havoc of" is the translation of lumainomai, "to stain," "to disgrace"; in the New Testament "to injure," "destroy" (Ac 8:3, "As for Saul he made havoc of the church," the Revised Version (British and American) "laid waste"; APC 1Macc 7:7, "what havoc," the Revised Version (British and American) "all the havock," exolothreusis, "utter destruction").

The Revised Version has "made havoc of" (portheo) for "destroyed" (Ac 9:21; Ga 1:23), for "wasted" (Ga 1:13).


hav’-a (chawwah): Hebrew spelling, rendered Eve, "mother of all living," Ge 3:20 the Revised Version margin.

See EVE.


hav-oth-ja’-ir (chawwoth ya’ir "the encampments" or "tent villages of Jair"; the King James Version Havoth-Jair, ha-voth-ja’ir): The word chawwoth occurs only in this combination (Nu 32:41; De 3:14; Jud 10:4), and is a legacy from the nomadic stage of Hebrew life. Jair had thirty sons who possessed thirty "cities," and these are identified with Havvoth-jair in Jud 10:3 ff. The district was in Gilead (10:5; Nu 32:41). In De 3:13 f, it is identified with Bashan and Argob; but in 1Ki 4:13, "the towns of Jair" are said to be in Gilead; while to him also "pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars." There is evident confusion here. If we follow Jud 10:3 ff, we may find a useful clue in 10:5. Kamon is named as the burial place of Jair. This probably corresponds to Kamun taken by Antiochus III, on his march from Pella to Gephrun (Polyb. v.70, 12). Schumacher (Northern ‘Ajlun, 137) found two places to the West of Irbid with the names Qamm and Qumeim (the latter a diminutive of the former) with ancient ruins. Qamm probably represents the Hebrew Qamon, so that Havvoth-jair should most likely be sought in this district, i.e. in North Gilead, between the Jordan Valley and Jebel ez-Zumleh.

W. Ewing


hok (nets; hierax, and glaux; Latin Accipiter nisus): A bird of prey of the genus accipiter. Large hawks were numerous in Palestine. The largest were 2 ft. long, have flat heads, hooked beaks, strong talons and eyes appearing the keenest and most comprehensive of any bird. They can sail the length or breadth of the Holy Land many times a day. It is a fact worth knowing that mist and clouds interfere with the vision of birds and they hide, and hungry and silent wait for fair weather, so you will see them sailing and soaring on clear days only. These large hawks and the glede are of eagle-like nature, nesting on Carmel and on the hills of Galilee, in large trees and on mountain crags. They flock near Beersheba, and live in untold numbers in the wilderness of the Dead Sea. They build a crude nest of sticks and twigs and carry most of the food alive to their young. Of course they were among the birds of prey that swarm over the fresh offal from slaughter and sacrifice. No bird steers with its tail in flight in a more pronounced manner than the hawk. These large birds are all-the-year residents, for which reason no doubt the people distinguished them from smaller families that migrated. They knew the kite that Isaiah mentioned in predicting the fall of Edom. With them the smaller, brighter-colored kestrels, that flocked over the rocky shores of the Dead Sea and over the ruins of deserted cities, seemed to be closest in appearance to the birds we include in the general term "falcon." Their ate mice, insects and small birds, but not carrion. The abomination lists of Le 11:16 and De 14:15 each include hawks in a general term and specify several species as unfit for food. Job 39:26 reads:

"Is it by thy wisdom that the hawk soareth,

And stretcheth her wings toward the south?"

Aside from calling attention to the miraculous flight, , this might refer to migration, or to the wonderful soaring exhibitions of these birds.


Gene Stratton-Porter





ha-za’-el, ha’-za-el, haz’-a-el (chaza’-el and chazah’-el; Hazael; Assyrian haza’ilu):

1. In Biblical History:

Comes first into Biblical history as a high officer in the service of Ben-hadad II, king of Syria (2Ki 8:7 ff; compare 1Ki 19:15 ff). He had been sent by his sick sovereign to inquire of the prophet Elisha, who was then in Damascus, whether he should recover of his sickness or not. He took with him a present "even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden," and stood before the man of God with his master’s question of life or death. To it Elisha made the oracular response, "Go, say unto him, Thou shalt surely recover; howbeit Yahweh hath showed me that he shall surely die." Elisha looked steadfastly at Hazael and wept, explaining to the incredulous officer that he was to be the perpetrator of horrible cruelties against the children of Israel: "Their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child" (2Ki 8:12). Hazael protested against the very thought of such things, but Elisha assured him that Yahweh had shown him that he was to be king of Syria. No sooner had Hazael delivered to his master the answer of the man of God than the treacherous purpose took shape in his heart to hasten Ben-hadad’s end, and "He took the coverlet, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead" (2Ki 8:15). The reign which opened under such sinister auspices proved long and successful, and brought the kingdom of Syria to the zenith of its power. Hazael soon found occasion to invade Israel. It was at Ramoth-gilead, which had already been the scene of a fierce conflict between Israel and Syria when Ahab met his death, that Hazael encountered Joram, the king of Israel, with whom his kinsman, Ahaziah, king of Judah, had joined forces to retain that important fortress which had been recovered from the Syrians (2Ki 9:14,15). The final issue of the battle is not recorded, but Joram received wounds which obliged him to return across the Jordan to Jezreel, leaving the forces of Israel in command of Jehu, whose anointing by Elisha’s deputy at Ramoth-gilead, usurpation of the throne of Israel, slaughter of Joram, Ahaziah and Jezebel, and vengeance upon the whole house of Ahab are told in rapid and tragic succession by the sacred historian (2Ki 9; 10).

Whatever was the issue of this attack upon Ramoth-gilead, it was not long before Hazael laid waste the whole country East of the Jordan—"all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan" (2Ki 10:33; compare Am 1:3). Nor did Judah escape the heavy hand of the Syrian oppressor. Marching southward through the plain of Esdraelon, and following a route along the maritime plain taken by many conquerors before and since, Hazael fought against Gath and took it, and then "set his face to go up to Jerus" (2Ki 12:17). As other kings of Judah had to do with other conquerors, Jehoash, who was now on the throne, bought off the invader with the gold and the treasures of temple and palace, and Hazael withdrew his forces from Jerusalem.

Israel, however, still suffered at the hands of Hazael and Ben-hadad, his son, and the sacred historian mentions that Hazael oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu. So grievous was the oppression of the Syrians that Hazael "left not to Jehoahaz, of the people save fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria destroyed them, and made them like the dust in threshing" (2Ki 13:1-7). Forty or fifty years later Amos, in the opening of his prophecy, recalled those Syrian campaigns against Israel when he predicted vengeance that was to come upon Damascus. "Thus saith Yahweh .... I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, and it shall devour the palaces of Ben-hadad" (Am 1:3,4).

2. In the Monuments:

Already, however, the power of Syria had passed its meridian and had begun to decline. Events of which there is no express record in the Biblical narrative were proceeding which, ere long, made it possible for the son of Jehoahaz, Joash or Jehoash, to retrieve the honor of Israel and recover the cities that had been lost (2Ki 13:25). For the full record of these events we must turn to the Assyrian annals preserved in the monuments. We do read in the sacred history that Yahweh gave Israel "a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians" (2Ki 13:5). The annals of the Assyrian kings give us clearly and distinctly the interpretation of this enigmatic saying. The relief that came to Israel was due to the crippling of the power of Syria by the aggression of Assyria upon the lands of the West. From the Black Obelisk in the British Museum, on which Shalmaneser II (860-825 BC) has inscribed the story of the campaign he carried on during his long reign, there are instructive notices of this period of Israelite history. In the 18th year of his reign (842 BC), Shalmaneser made war against Hazael. On the Obelisk the record is short, but a longer account is given on one of the pavement slabs from Nimroud, the ancient Kalab. It is as follows: "In the 18th year of my reign for the 16th time I crossed the Euphrates. Hazael of Damascus trusted to the strength of his armies and mustered his troops in full force. Senir (Hermon), a mountain summit which is in front of Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him; his defeat I accomplished; 600 of his soldiers with weapons I laid low; 1,121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp I took from him. To save his life, he retreated; I pursued him; in Damascus, his royal city, I shut him up. His plantations I cut down. As far as the mountains of the Hauran I marched. Cities without number I wrecked, razed, and burnt with fire. Their spoil beyond count I carried away. As far as the mountains of Baal-Rosh, which is a headland of the sea (at the mouth of the Nahr el-Kelb, Dog River), I marched; my royal likeness I there set up. At that time I received the tribute of the Syrians and Sidonians and of Yahua (Jehu) the son of Khumri (Omri)" (Ball, Light from the East, 166; Schrader, COT, 200 f). From this inscription we gather that Shalmaneser did not succeed in the capture of Damascus. But it still remained an object of ambition to Assyria, and Ramman-nirari III, the grandson of Shalmaneser, succeeded in capturing it, and reduced it to subjection. It was this monarch who was "the saviour" whom God raised up to deliver Israel from the hand of Syria. Then it became possible for Israel under Jehoash to recover the cities he had lost, but by this time Hazael had died and Ben-hadad, his son, Ben-hadad III, called Mari on the monuments, had become king in his stead (2Ki 13:24,25).


Schrader, COT, 197-208; McCurdy, HPM, I, 282 ff.

T. Nicol.


ha-za’-ya (chazayah, "Jah sees"): Among the inhabitants of Jerusalem mentioned in the list of Judahites in Ne 11:5.


ha’-zar (chatsar, construct of chatser, "an enclosure," "settlement," or "village"): Is frequently the first element in Hebrew place-names.

1. Hazar-addar:

Hazar-addar (Hebrew chatsar ‘addar), a place on the southern boundary of Judah (Nu 34:4), is probably identical with Hazron (Jos 15:3), which, in this case, however, is separated from Addar (the King James Version "Adar"). It seems to have lain somewhere to the Southwest of Kadesh-barnea.

2. Hazar-enan:

Hazar-enan (Hebrew chatsar ‘enan, "village of springs": enan is Aramaic; Once (Eze 47:17) it is called Enon), a place, unidentified, at the junction of the northern and eastern frontiers of the land promised to Israel (Nu 34:9 f; compare Eze 47:17; 48:1). To identify it with the sources of the Orontes seems to leave too great a gap between this and the places named to the South. Buhl (GAP, 66 f) would draw the northern boundary from Nahr el-Qasimiyeh to the foot of Hermon, and would locate Hazar-enan at Banias. The springs there lend fitness to the name; a condition absent from el-Chadr, farther east, suggested by von Kesteren. But there is no certainty.

3. Hazar-gaddah:

Hazar-gaddah (Hebrew hatsar-gaddah), a place in the territory of Judah "toward the border of Edom in the South" (Jos 15:21,27). Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. "Gadda") places it in the uttermost parts of the Daroma, overlooking the Dead Sea. This might point to the site of Masada, or to the remarkable ruins of Umm Bajjaq farther south (GAP, 185).

4. Hazar-hatticon:

Hazar-hatticon (the Revised Version (British and American) HAZER-HATTICON; Hebrew chatser ha-tikhon, "the middle village"), a place named on the ideal border of Israel (Eze 47:16). The context shows that it is identical with Hazar-enan, for which this is apparently another name. Possibly, however, it is due to a scribal error. 5. Hazarmaveth:

Hazarmaveth (Hebrew chatsarmaweth), the name of a son of Joktan attached to a clan or district in South Arabia (Ge 10:26; 1Ch 1:20). It is represented by the modern Chadramaut, a broad and fruitful valley running nearly parallel with the coast for about 100 miles, north of el-Yemen. The ruins and inscriptions found by Glaser show that it was once the home of a great civilization, the capital being Sabata (Ge 10:7) (Glaser, Skizze, II, 20, 423 ff).

6. Hazar-shual:

Hazar-Shual (Hebrew chatsar shu‘al), a place in the South of Judah (Jos 15:28) assigned to Simeon (Jos 19:3; 1Ch 4:28). It was reoccupied after the exile (Ne 11:27). Sa‘weh on a hill East of Beersheba has been suggested; but there is no certainty.

7. Hazar-susah:

Hazar-susah (Hebrew chatsar cucah, Jos 19:5), Hazar-susim (Hebrew chatsar cucim, 1Ch 4:31). As it stands, the name means "station of a mare" or "of horses," and it occurs along with Beth-marcaboth, "place of chariots," which might suggest depots for trade in chariots and horses. The sites have not been identified.

W. Ewing


ad’-ar; e’-nan; gad’-a; hat’-i-kon; ma’-veth; shoo’-al; su’-sa; su’-sim.



haz’-a-zan-ta’-mar (chatsatson tamar; the King James Version Hazezon Tamar): "Hazazon of the palm trees," mentioned (Ge 14:7) as a place of the Amorites, conquered, together with En-mishpat and the country of the Amalekites, by Chedorlaomer; in 2Ch 20:2 it is identified with EN-GEDI (which see); and if so, it must have been its older name. If this identification be accepted, then Hazazon may survive in the name Wady Husasah, Northwest of ‘Ain Jidy. Another suggestion, which certainly meets the needs of the narrative better, is that Hazazon-tamar is the Thamara of Eusebius, Onomasticon (85 3; 210 86), the Thamaro, of Ptol. xvi.3. The ruin Kurnub, 20 miles West-Southwest of the South end of the Dead Sea—on the road from Hebron to Elath—is supposed to mark this site.

E. W. G. Masterman


ha’-z’-l (Ge 30:37 the King James Version).









ha-ze’-rim, haz’-er-im (chatserim): Is rendered in the King James Version (De 2:23) as the name of a place in the Southwest of Palestine, in which dwelt the Avvim, ancient inhabitants of the land. The word means "villages," and ought to be translated as in the Revised Version (British and American). The sentence means that the Avvim dwelt in villages—not in fortified towns—before the coming of the Caphtorim, the Philistines, who destroyed them.


ha-ze’-roth, haz’-er-oth (chatseroth, "enclosures"): A camp of the Israelites, the 3rd from Sinai (Nu 11:35; 12:16; 33:17; De 1:1). It is identified with ‘Ain Chadrah ("spring of the enclosure"), 30 miles Northeast of Jebel Musa, on the way to the ‘Arabah.



haz’-e-zon-ta’-mar chatsatson tamar, Ge 14:7 the King James Version; chatstson tamar, 2Ch 20:2).



ha’-zi-el (chazi’el, "God sees"): A Levite of the sons of Shimei, of David’s time (1Ch 23:9).


ha’-zo (chazo, fifth son of Nahor (Ge 22:22)): Possibly the eponym of a Nahorite family or clan.


ha’-zor (chatsor; Nasor; Codex Sinaiticus, Asor, 1 Macc 11:67):

(1) The royal city of Jabin (Jos 11:1), which, before the Israelite conquest, seems to have been the seat of a wide authority (Jos 11:11). It was taken by Joshua, who exterminated the inhabitants, and it was the only city in that region which he destroyed by fire (11:11-13). At a later time the Jabin Dynasty appears to have recovered power and restored the city (Jud 4:2). The heavy defeat of their army at the hands of Deborah and Barak led to their final downfall (Jud 4:23 ). It was in the territory allotted to Naphtali (Jos 19:36). Hazor was one of the cities for the fortification of which Solomon raised a levy (1Ki 9:15). Along with other cities in Galilee, it was taken by Tiglathpileser III (2Ki 15:29). In the plain of Hazor, Jonathan the Maccabee gained a great victory over Demetrius (1 Macc 11:67 ff). In Tobit 12 it is called "Asher" Septuagint Aser), and Kedesh is said to be "above" it. Josephus (Ant., V, v, 1) says that Hazor was situated over the lake, Semechonitis, which he evidently identifies with the Waters of Merom (Jos 11:13). It must clearly be sought on the heights West of el-Chuleh. Several identifications have been suggested, but no certain conclusion can be reached. Some (Wilson and Guerin) favor Tell Harreh to the Southeast of Qedes, where there are extensive ruins. Robinson thought of Tell Khureibeh, 2 1/2 miles South of Qedes, where, however, there are no ruins. We may take it as certain that the ancient name of Hazor is preserved in Merj el-Chadireh, Southwest of Qedes, and North of Wady ‘Uba, and in Jebel Chadireh, East of the Merj, although it has evidently drifted from the original site, as names have so often done in Palestine. Conder suggests a possible identification with Chazzur, farther South, "at the foot of the chain of Upper Galilee .... in position more appropriate to the use of the chariots that belonged to the king of Hazor" (HDB, under the word).

(2) A town, unidentified, in the South of Judah (Jos 15:23).

(3) A town in the South of Judah (Jos 15:25).


(4) A town in Benjamin (Ne 11:33) now represented by Khirbet Chazzar, not far to the East of Neby Samwil.

(5) An unidentified place in Arabia, smitten by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 49:28,33).

W. Ewing


ha’-zor-ha-dat’-a (Aramaic chatsor chadhattah, "New Hazor"): "An Aramaic adjective, however, in this region is so strange that the reading must be questioned" (Di). One of the "uttermost cities .... of Judah toward the border of Edom" (Jos 15:25). Eusebius and Jerome describe a "New Hazor" to the East of Ascalon, but this is too far North.


haz-e-lel-po’-ni (hatstselelponi): A feminine name occurring in the list of the genealogy of Judah (1Ch 4:3); probably representing a clan.


ha: The fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "h." It came also to be used for the number 5. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.


hed (ro’-sh, Aramaic re’sh, and in special sense gulgoleth, literally, "skull," "cut-off head" (1Ch 10:10), whence Golgotha (Mt 27:33; Mr 15:22; Joh 19:17); mera’ashah, literally, "head-rest," "pillow," "bolster" (1Ki 19:6); qodhqodh, literally, crown of the head (De 28:35; 33:16,20; 2Sa 14:25; Isa 3:17; Jer 48:45); barzel, "the head of an axe" (De 19:5, the Revised Version margin "iron"; 2Ki 6:5); lehabhah, lahebheth, "the head of a spear" (1Sa 17:7); kephale): The first-mentioned Hebrew word and its Aramaic form are found frequently in their literal as well as metaphorical sense. We may distinguish the following meanings:

1. Used of Men:

By a slight extension of meaning, "head" occasionally stands for the person itself. This is the case in all passages where evil is said to return or to be requited upon the head of a person (see below).

2. Used of Animals:

The word is also used in connection with the serpent’s head (Ge 3:15), the head of the sacrificial ram, bullock and goat (Ex 29:10,15,19; Le 4:4,24), the head of leviathan (Job 41:7, Hebrew 40:31).

3. The Head-Piece:

It is used also as representing the top or summit of a thing, as the capital of column or pillar (Ex 36:38; 38:28; 2Ch 3:15); of mountains (Ex 19:20; Nu 21:20; Jud 9:7; Am 1:2; 9:3); of a scepter (Es 5:2); of a ladder (Ge 28:12); of a tower (Ge 11:4).

4. Beginning, Source, Origin:

As a fourth meaning the word occurs (Pr 8:23; Ec 3:11; Isa 41:4) in the sense of beginning of months (Ex 12:2), of rivers (Ge 2:10), of streets or roads (Isa 51:20; Eze 16:25; 21:21).

As a leader, prince, chief, chieftain, captain (or as an adjective, with the meaning of foremost, uppermost), originally: "he that stands at the head"; compare "God is with us at our head" (2Ch 13:12); "Knowest thou that Yahweh will take away thy master from thy head?" (2Ki 2:3); "head-stone" the Revised Version (British and American) "top stone," i.e. the upper-most stone (Zec 4:7).

5. Leader, Prince:

Israel is called the head of nations (De 28:13); "The head (capital) of Syria is Damascus, and the head (prince) of Damascus is Rezin" (Isa 7:8); "heads of their fathers’ houses," i.e. elders of the clans (Ex 6:14); compare "heads of tribes" (De 1:15), also "captain," literally, head (Nu 14:4; De 1:15; 1Ch 11:42; Ne 9:17). The phrase "head and tail" (Isa 9:14; 19:15) is explained by the rabbis as meaning the nobles and the commons among the people; compare "palm-branch and rush" (Isa 9:14), "hair of the feet .... and beard" (Isa 7:20), but compare also Isa 9:15. In the New Testament we find the remarkable statement of Christ being "the head of the church" (Eph 1:22; 5:23), "head of every man" (1Co 11:3), "head of all principality and power" (Col 2:10), "head of the body, the church" (Col 1:18; compare Eph 4:15). The context of 1Co 11:3 is very instructive to a true understanding of this expression: "I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (compare Eph 5:23). Here, clearly, reference is had to the lordship of Christ over His church, not to the oneness of Christ and His church, while in Eph 4:16 the dependence of the church upon Christ is spoken of. These passages should not therefore be pressed to include the idea of Christ being the intellectual center, the brain of His people, from whence the members are passively governed, for to the Jewish mind the heart was the seat of the intellect, not the head.


6. Various Uses:

As the head is the most essential part of physical man, calamity and blessing are said to come upon the head of a person (Ge 49:26; De 33:16; Jud 9:57; 1Sa 25:39; 2Ch 6:23; Eze 9:10; 11:21; 16:43; 22:31). For this reason hands are placed upon the head of a person on which blessings are being invoked (Ge 48:14,17,18; Mt 19:15) and upon the sacrificial animal upon which sins are laid (Ex 29:15; Le 1:4; 4:29,33). Responsibility for a deed is also said to rest on the head of the doer (2Sa 1:16; 3:29; 1Ki 8:32; Ps 7:16; Ac 18:6). The Bible teaches us to return good for evil (Mt 5:44), or in the very idiomatic Hebrew style, to "heap coals of fire upon (the) head" of the adversary (Pr 25:22; Ro 12:20). This phrase is dark as to its origin, but quite clear as to its meaning and application (compare Ro 12:17,19,21). The Jew was inclined to swear by his head (Mt 5:36), as the modern Oriental swears by his beard. The head is said to be under a vow (Nu 6:18,19; Ac 18:18; 21:23), because the Nazirite vow could readily be recognized by the head.

There are numerous idiomatic expressions connected with the head, of which we enumerate the following: "the hoary head" designates old age (see HAIR); "to round the corners of the head," etc. (Le 19:27; compare also De 14:1; Am 8:10), probably refers to the shaving of the side locks or the whole scalp among heathen nations, which was often done in idolatrous shrines or in token of initiation into the service of an idol. It was therefore forbidden to Israel, and its rigid observance gave rise to the peculiar Jewish custom of wearing long side locks (see HAIR). "Anointing the head" (Ps 23:5; 92:10; Heb 1:9) was a sign of joy and hospitality, while the "covering of the head" (2Sa 15:30; Es 6:12; Jer 14:3), "putting the hand upon the head" (2Sa 13:19) and putting earth, dust or ashes upon it (Jos 7:6; 1Sa 4:12; 2Sa 12; 13:19; La 2:10; compare Am 2:7) were expressive of sadness, grief, deep shame and mourning. In Es 7:8 Haman’s face is covered as a condemned criminal, or as one who has been utterly put to shame, and who has nothing more to say for his life.

In this connection the Pauline injunction as to the veiling of women in the public gatherings of the Christians (1Co 11:5), while men were instructed to appear bareheaded, must be mentioned. This is diametrically opposed to the Jewish custom, according to which men wore the head covered by the Tallith or prayer shawl, while women were considered sufficiently covered by their long hair (1Co 11:15). The apostle here simply commends a Greek custom for the congregation residing among Greek populations; in other words, he recommends obedience to local standards of decency and good order.

"To bruise the head" (Ge 3:15) means to injure gravely; "to smite through the head" (Ps 68:21) is synonymous with complete destruction. "To shake or wag the head" (Ps 22:7; 44:14; 64:8; Jer 18:16; 48:27; La 2:15; Mt 27:39; Mr 15:29) conveys the meaning of open derision and contempt. "To bow down the head" (Isa 58:5) indicates humility, sadness and mourning, but it may also be a mere pretense for piety. (Sirach 19:26).

H. L. E. Luering

















hed’i: The translation in the King James Version of propetes, "falling forward," trop. "prone," "ready to do anything," "precipitate," "headlong" (2Ti 3:4, "heady, high-minded," etc., the Revised Version (British and American) "headstrong"; in Ac 19:36, the only other place in the New Testament where propetes occurs, the King James Version has "rashly," the Revised Version (British and American) "rash"). "Headstrong signifies strong in the head or the mind, and heady, full of one’s own head" (Crabb, English Synonyms). "Heady confidence promises victory without contest" (Johnson).


hel (rapha’; therapeuo, iaomai, diasozo): The English word is connected with the Anglo-Saxon hoelan, and is used in several senses:

(1) Lit., in its meaning of making whole or well, as in Ec 3:3. In this way it occurs in prayers for restoration to health (Nu 12:13; Ps 6:2; Jer 17:14); and also in declarations as to God’s power to restore to health (De 32:39; 2Ki 20:5-8).

(2) Metaphorically it is applied to the restoration of the soul to spiritual health and to the repair of the injuries caused by sin (Ps 41:4; Jer 30:17).

(3) The restoration and deliverance of the afflicted land is expressed by it in 2Ch 7:14; Isa 19:22.

(4) It is applied to the forgiveness of sin (Jer 3:22).

In the New Testament, therapeuo is used 10 times in describing our Lord’s miracles, and is translated "heal." Iaomai is used to express spiritual healing (Mt 13:15; Lu 5:17; Joh 12:40), and also of curing bodily disease (Joh 4:47). Diasozo, meaning "to heal thoroughly," is used in Lu 7:3 the King James Version where the Revised Version (British and American) renders it "save." The act of healing is called iasis twice, in Ac 4:22,30; sozo, to save or deliver, is translated "made whole" by the Revised Version (British and American) in Mr 5:23; Lu 8:36; Ac 14:9, but is "healed" in the King James Version. Conversely "made whole" the King James Version in Mt 15:28 is replaced by "healed" in the Revised Version (British and American).

Healed is used 33 times in the Old Testament as the rendering of the same Hebrew word, and in the same variety of senses. It is also used of purification for an offense or breach of the ceremonial law (2Ch 30:20); and to express the purification of water which had caused disease (2Ki 2:21,22). Figuratively, the expression "healed slightly" (the English Revised Version "lightly") is used to describe the futile efforts of the false prophets and priests to remedy the backsliding of Israel (Jer 6:14; 8:11); here the word for "slightly" is the contemptuous term, qalal, which means despicably or insignificantly. In Eze 30:21, the word "healed" is the rendering of the feminine passive participle, rephu’ah and is better translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "apply healing medicines." In the New Testament "healed" usually occurs in connection with the miracles of our Lord and the apostles. Here it is worthy of note that Luke more frequently uses the verb iaomai than therapeuo, in the proportion of 17 to 4, while in Matthew and Mark the proportion is 4 to 8.

Healer (chabhash) occurs once in Isa 3:7; the word literally means a "wrapper up" or "bandager."

Alexander Macalister


hel’-ing (marpe’, te‘alah, kehah): In the Old Testament this word is always used in its figurative sense; marpe’, which literally means "a cure," is used in Jer 14:19 twice, and in Mal 4:2; te‘alah, which literally means "an irrigation canal," here means something applied externally, as a plaster, in which sense it is used metaphorically in Jer 30:13; kehah occurs only in Na 3:19 the King James Version and is translated "assuagings" in the Revised Version (British and American).

In the New Testament 5 times the verb is therapeuo; once (Ac 10:38) iaomai; in the other passages it is either iama, as in 1Co 12:9-30, or iasis, as in Ac 4:22, derivatives from this verb


(charismata iamaton): Among the "spiritual gifts" enumerated in 1Co 12:4-11,28 are included "gifts of healings." See SPIRITUAL GIFTS. The subject has risen into much prominence of recent years, and so calls for separate treatment. The points to be considered are:

(1) the New Testament facts,

(2) the nature of the gifts,

(3) their permanence in the church.

1. The New Testament Facts:

The Gospels abundantly show that the ministry of Christ Himself was one of healing no less than of teaching (compare Mr 1:14 f with 1:32-34). When He sent forth the Twelve (Mr 6:7,13) and the Seventy (Lu 10:1,9), it was not only to preach the Kingdom of God but to heal the sick. The inauthentic conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, if it does not preserve words actually used by Christ Himself, bears witness at all events to the traditional belief of the early church that after His departure from the world His disciples would still possess the gift of healing. The Book of Ac furnishes plentiful evidence of the exercise of this gift by apostles and other prominent men in the primitive church (Ac 3:7 f; 5:12-16; 8:7; 19:12; 28:8 f), and the Epistle of James refers to a ministry of healing carried on by the elders of a local church acting in their collective capacity (Jas 5:14 f). But Paul in this passage speaks of "gifts of healings" (the plural "healings" apparently refers to the variety of ailments that were cured) as being distributed along with other spiritual gifts among the ordinary members of the church. There were men, it would seem, who occupied no official position in the community, and who might not otherwise be distinguished among their fellow-members, on whom this special charisma of healing had been bestowed.

2. The Nature of the Gifts:

On this subject the New Testament furnishes no direct information, but it supplies evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. We notice that the exercise of the gift is ordinarily conditional on the faith of the recipient of the blessing (Mr 6:5,6; 10:52; Ac 14:9)—faith not only in God but in the human agent (Ac 3:4 ff; 5:15; 9:17). The healer himself is a person of great faith (Mt 17:19 f), while his power of inspiring the patient with confidence points to the possession of strong, magnetic personality. The diseases cured appear for the most part to have been not organic but functional; and many of them would now be classed as nervous disorders. The conclusion from these data is that the gifts of healing to which Paul alludes were not miraculous endowments, but natural therapeutic faculties raised to their highest power by Christian faith.

Modern psychology, by its revelation of the marvels of the subliminal self or subconscious mind and the power of "suggestion," shows how it is possible for one man to lay his hand on the very springs of personal life in another, and so discloses the psychical basis of the gift of healing. The medical science of our time, by its recognition of the dependence of the physical upon the spiritual, of the control of the bodily functions by the subconscious self, and of the physician’s ability by means of suggestion, whether waking or hypnotic, to influence the subconscious soul and set free the healing powers of Nature, provides the physiological basis. And may we not add that many incontestable cases of Christian faith-cure (take as a type the well-known instance in which Luther at Weimar "tore Melanchthon," as the latter put it, "out of the very jaws of death"; see RE, XII, 520) furnish the religious basis, and prove that faith in God, working through the soul upon the body, is the mightiest of all healing influences, and that one who by his own faith and sympathy and force of personality can stir up faith in others may exercise by God’s blessing the power of healing diseases?

3. Permanence of Healing Gifts in the Church:

There is abundant evidence that in the early centuries the gifts of healing were still claimed and practiced within the church (Justin, Apol. ii.6; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ii. 32, 4; Tertullian, Apol. xxiii; Origen, Contra Celsum, vii.4). The free exercise of these gifts gradually ceased, partly, no doubt, through loss of the early faith and spirituality, but partly through the growth of an ascetic temper which ignored Christ’s gospel for the body and tended to the view that pain and sickness are the indispensable ministers of His gospel for the soul. All down the history of the church, however, there have been notable personalities (e.g. Francis of Assisi, Luther, Wesley) and little societies of earnest Christians (e.g. the Waldenses, the early Moravians and Quakers) who have reasserted Christ’s gospel on its physical side as a gospel for sickness no less than for sin, and claimed for the gift of healing the place Paul assigned to it among the gifts of the Spirit. In recent years the subject of Christian healing has risen into importance outside of the regularly organized churches through the activity of various faith-healing movements. That the leaders of these movements have laid hold of a truth at once Scriptural and scientific there can be little doubt, though they have usually combined it with what we regard as a mistaken hostility to the ordinary practice of medicine. It is worth remembering that with all his faith in the spiritual gift of healing and personal experience of its power, Paul chose Luke the physician as the companion of his later journeys; and worth noticing that Luke shared with the apostle the honors showered upon the missionaries by the people of Melita whom they had cured of their diseases (Ac 28:10). Upon the modern church there seems to lie the duty of reaffirming the reality and permanence of the primitive gift of healing, while relating it to the scientific practice of medicine as another power ordained of God, and its natural ally in the task of diffusing the Christian gospel of health.


Hort, Christian Ecclesia, chapter x; A.T. Schofield, Force of Mind, Unconscious Therapeutics; E. Worcester and others, Religion and Medicine; HJ, IV, 3, p. 606; The Expositor T, XVII, 349, 417.

J. C. Lambert


helth (shalom, yeshu‘ah, ‘arukhah; riph’uth, ‘arukhah; soteria, hugiaino): Shalom is part of the formal salutation still common in Palestine. In this sense it is used in Ge 43:28; 2Sa 20:9; the stem word means "peace," and is used in many varieties of expression relating to security, success and good bodily health. Yeshu‘ah, which specifically means deliverance or help, occurs in the refrain of Ps 42:11; 43:5, as well as in Ps 67:2; in the American Standard Revised Version it is rendered "help." Riph’uth is literally, "healing," and is found only in Pr 3:8. Marpe’ also means healing of the body, but is used in a figurative sense as of promoting soundness of mind and moral character in Pr 4:22; 12:18; 13:17; 16:24, as also in Jer 8:15, where the Revised Version (British and American) renders it "healing." ‘Arukhah is also used in the same figurative sense in Isa 58:8; Jer 8:22; 30:17; 33:6; literally means "repairing or restoring"; it is the word used of the repair of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (chapter 4).

The word "health" occurs twice in the New Testament: in Paul’s appeal to his shipmates to take food (Ac 27:34), he says it is for their soteria, literally, "safety"; so the American Standard Revised Version, the King James Version "health." The verb hugianino is used in 3 Joh 1:2, in the apostle’s salutation to Gaius.

Alexander Macalister


hep (‘aremah, gal, nedh, tel): "Heap" appears

(1) in the simple sense of a gathering or pile, as the translation of ‘aremah, a "heap," in Ru 3:7 of grain; Ne 4:2 of stones; in 2Ch 31:6, etc., of the tithes, etc.; of chomer (boiling up), a "heap"; in Ex 8:14 of frogs; of gal, a "heap"; in Job 8:17 of stones.

(2) As indicating "ruin," "waste," gal (2Ki 19:25; Job 15:28; Isa 25:2; 37:26; Jer 9:11; 51:37); me‘i (Isa 17:1); ‘i (Ps 79:1; Jer 26:18; Mic 1:6; 3:12); tel, "mound," "hillock," "heap" (De 13:16; Jos 8:28; Jer 30:18 the King James Version; Jer 49:2).

(3) Of waters, nedh, "heap," "pile" (Ex 15:8; Jos 3:13,16; Ps 33:7; 78:13); chomer (Hab 3:15, "the heap of mighty waters," the Revised Version margin "surge").

(4) A cairn, or heap of stones (a) over the dead body of a dishonored person, gal (Jos 7:26; 8:29; 2Sa 18:17); (b) as a witness or boundary-heap (Ge 31:46 f, Gal‘edh (Galeed) in Hebrew, also mitspah, "watch tower," Yeghar-Sahadhutha’ (Jegar-sahadutha) in Aramaic, both words meaning "the heap of witness"; see Ge 31:47,49 the Revised Version (British and American)).

(5) As a way mark, tamrurim, from tamar, "to stand erect" (Jer 31:21 the King James Version, "Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps," the Revised Version (British and American) "guide-posts," a more likely translation).

"To heap" represents various single words: chathah, "to take," "to take hold of," with one exception, applied to fire or burning coals (Pr 25:22, "Thou writ heap coals of fire upon his head," "Thou wilt take coals of fire (and heap them) on his head"); caphah, "to add" (De 32:23); tsabhar, "to heap up" (Hab 1:10); kabhats, "to press together" (with the fingers or hand) (Hab 2:5); rabhah, "to multiply" (Eze 24:10); episoreuo, "to heap up upon" (2Ti 4:3, they "will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts"); soreuo, "to heap up" (Ro 12:20, "Thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head"); thesaurizo, "to lay up" (as treasure) (Jas 5:3 the King James Version, "Ye have heaped treasure together," the Revised Version (British and American) "laid up"); tsabhar, "to heap up," "to heap" or "store up" (Job 27:16, "silver"; Ps 39:6, "riches"; Zec 9:3, "silver,"); sum, sim "to place," "set," "put" (Job 36:13 the King James Version, "The hypocrites in heart heap up wrath," the Revised Version (British and American) "They that are godless in heart lay up anger"). In Jud 15:16 we have chamor, chamorothayim, "with the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps," the Revised Version margin "heap, two heaps"; one of Samson’s sayings; chamor means "an ass," chomer "a heap."

For "heap up words" (Job 16:4), the Revised Version (British and American) has "join together"; for "shall be a heap" (Isa 17:11), "fleeth away," margin "shall be a heap"; "heap" for "number" (Na 3:3); the English Revised Version "heap of stones" for "sling," margin as the King James Version and the American Standard Revised Version (Pr 26:8); "in one heap" for "upon a heap" (Jos 3:16); "he heapeth up (dust)" for "they shall heap" (Hab 1:10).

W. L. Walker


hart (lebh, lebhabh; kardia): The different senses in which the word occurs in the Old Testament and the New Testament may be grouped under the following heads:

1. Various Meanings:

It represents in the first place the bodily organ, and by easy transition those experiences which affect or are affected by the body. Fear, love, courage, anger, Joy, sorrow, hatred are always ascribed to the heart—especially in the Old Testament; thus courage for which usually ruach is used (Ps 27:14); joy (Ps 4:7); anger (De 19:6, "while his heart is hot," lebhabh); fear (1Sa 25:37); sorrow (Ps 13:2), etc.

Hence, naturally it came to stand for the man himself (De 7:17; "say in thine heart," Isa 14:13).

2. Heart and Personality:

As representing the man himself, it was considered to be the seat of the emotions and passions and appetites (Ge 18:5; Le 19:17; Ps 104:15), and embraced likewise the intellectual and moral faculties—though these are necessarily ascribed to the "soul" as well. This distinction is not always observed.

3. Soul and Heart:

"Soul" in Hebrew can never be rendered by "heart"; nor can "heart" be considered as a synonym for "soul." Cremer has well observed: "The Hebrew nephesh ("soul") is never translated kardia ("heart"). .... The range of the Hebrew nephesh, to which the Greek psuche alone corresponds, differs so widely from the ideas connected with psuche, that utter confusion would have ensued had psuche been employed in an unlimited degree for lebh ("heart"). The Biblical lebh never, like psuche, denotes the personal subject, nor could it do so. That which in classical Greek is ascribed to psuche (a good soul, a just soul, etc.) is in the Bible ascribed to the heart alone and cannot be otherwise" (Cremer, Lexicon, article "Kardia," 437 ff, German edition).

4. Center of Vital Action:

In the heart vital action is centered (1Ki 21:7). "Heart," except as a bodily organ, is never ascribed to animals, as is the case sometimes with nephesh and ruach (Le 17:11, nephesh; Ge 2:19; Nu 16:22; Ge 7:22, ruach). "Heart" is thus often used interchangeably with these two (Ge 41:8; Ps 86:4; 119:20); but "it never denotes the personal subject, always the personal organ."

5. Heart and Mind:

As the central organ in the body, forming a focus for its vital action, it has come to stand for the center of its moral, spiritual, intellectual life. "In particular the heart is the place in which the process of self-consciousness is carried out, in which the soul is at home with itself, and is conscious of all its doing and suffering as its own" (Oehler). Hence, it is that men of "courage" are called "men of the heart"; that the Lord is said to speak "in his heart" (Ge 8:21); that men "know in their own heart" (De 8:5); that "no one considereth in his heart’ (Isa 44:19 the King James Version). "Heart" in this connection is sometimes rendered "mind," as in Nu 16:28 ("of mine own mind," Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ex proprio corde, Septuagint ap’ emautou); the foolish "is void of understanding," i.e. "heart" (Pr 6:32, where the Septuagint renders phrenon, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) cordis, Luther "der ist ein Narr"). God is represented as "searching the heart" and "trying the reins" (Jer 17:10 the King James Version). Thus, "heart" comes to stand for "conscience," for which there is no word in Hebrew, as in Job 27:6, "My heart shall not reproach me," or in 1Sa 24:5, "David’s heart smote him"; compare 1Sa 25:31. From this it appears, in the words of Owen: "The heart in Scripture is variously used, sometimes for the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil."

6. Figurative Senses:

The radical corruption of human nature is clearly taught in Scripture and brought into connection with the heart. It is "uncircumcised" (Jer 9:26; Eze 44:7; compare Ac 7:51); and "hardened" (Ex 4:21); "wicked" (Pr 26:23); "perverse" (Pr 11:20); "godless" (Job 36:13); "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9 the King James Version). It defiles the whole man (Mt 15:19,20); resists, as in the case of Pharaoh, the repeated call of God (Ex 7:13). There, however, the law of God is written (Ro 2:15); there the work of grace is wrought (Ac 15:9), for the "heart" may be "renewed" by grace (Eze 36:26), because the "heart" is the seat of sin (Ge 6:5; 8:21).

7. Process of Heart Renewal:

This process of heart-renewal is indicated in various ways. It is the removal of a "stony heart" (Eze 11:19). The heart becomes "clean" (Ps 51:10); "fixed" (Ps 112:7) through "the fear" of the Lord (verse 1); "With the heart man believeth" (Ro 10:10); on the "heart" the power of God is exercised for renewal (Jer 31:33). To God the bereaved apostles pray as a knower of the heart (Ac 1:24—a word not known to classical writers, found only here in the New Testament and in Ac 15:8, kardiognostes). In the "heart" God’s Spirit dwells with might (Eph 3:16, eis ton eso anthropon); in the "heart" God’s love is poured forth (Ro 5:5). The Spirit of His son has been "sent forth into the heart" (Ga 4:6); the "earnest of the Spirit" has been given "in the heart" (2Co 1:22). In the work of grace, therefore, the heart occupies a position almost unique.

8. The Heart First:

We might also refer here to the command, on which both the Old Testament and New Testament revelation of love is based: "Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (De 6:5); where "heart" always takes the first place, and is the term which in the New Testament rendering remains unchanged (compare Mt 22:37; Mr 12:30,33; Lu 10:27, where "heart" always takes precedence).

9. A Term for "Deepest":

A bare reference may be made to the employment of the term for that which is innermost, hidden, deepest in anything (Ex 15:8; Jon 2:3), the very center of things. This we find in all languages. Compare Eph 3:16,17, "in the inward man," as above.

J. I. Marais


harth: Occurs 7 times in the King James Version: Ge 18:6; Ps 102:3; Isa 30:14; Jer 36:22,23 bis; Zec 12:6; 4 times in the Revised Version: Le 6:9; Isa 30:14; Eze 43:15,16 ("altar hearth"); compare also Isa 29:1 the Revised Version margin. It will be noted that the renderings of the two versions agree in only one passage (Isa 30:14).

(1) The hearth in case of a tent was nothing more than a depression in the ground in which fire was kindled for cooking or for warmth. Cakes were baked, after the fashion of Ge 18:6, in the ashes or upon hot stones. In this passage, however, there is nothing in the Hebrew corresponding to the King James Version "on the hearth." In the poorer class of houses also the hearth consisted of such a depression, of varying dimensions, in the middle or in one corner of the room. There was no chimney for the smoke, which escaped as it could, or through a latticed opening for the purpose (the "chimney" of Ho 13:3). While the nature of the hearth is thus clear enough, more or less uncertainty attaches to specific terms used in the Hebrew. In Isa 30:14 the expression means simply "that which is kindled," referring to the bed of live coals. From this same verb (yaqadh, "be kindled") are formed the nouns moqedh (Ps 102:3 (Hebrew 4)) and moqkedhah (Le 6:9 (Hebrew 2)) which might, according to their formation, mean either the material kindled or the place where a fire is kindled. Hence, the various renderings, "firebrand," "hearth," etc. Moreover, in Le 6:9 (2) the termination -ah of moqedhah may be taken as the pronominal suffix, "its"; hence, the Revised Version margin "on its firewood."

(2) Two other terms have reference to heating in the better class of houses. In Jer 36:22,23 the word (’ach) means a "brazier" of burning coals, with which Jehoiakim’s "winter house" was heated. The same purpose was served by the "pan (kiyyor) of fire" of Zec 12:6 the Revised Version (British and American), apparently a wide, shallow vessel otherwise used for cooking (1Sa 2:14, English Versions of the Bible "pan"), or as a wash basin (compare Ex 30:18; 1Ki 7:38, etc., "laver").

(3) Another class of passages is referred to the signification "altar hearth," which seems to have been a term applied to the top of the altar of burnt offering. The moqedhah of Le 6:9 (2), though related by derivation to the words discussed under (1) above, belongs here (compare also Ecclesiasticus 50:12, "by the hearth of the altar," par’ eschara bomou). Again in Ezekiel’s description of the altar of the restored temple (43:15,16), he designates the top of the altar by a special term (the Revised Version margin, ariel), which is by most understood to mean "altar hearth" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). With this may be compared the symbolical name given to Jerusalem (Isa 29:1), and variously explained as "lion (or lioness) of God," or "hearth of God."

Benjamin Reno Downer


har’-ti-li: Occurs (Col 3:23) as the translation of ek psuches, "out of the soul," "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as unto the Lord (who sees the heart and recompenses "whatsoever good thing a man does") and not unto men" (however they, your masters according to the flesh, may regard it); the Revised Version (British and American) "work heartily," margin (Greek) "from the soul."

In 2 Macc 4:37, we have "Antiochus was heartily sorry," psuchikos ("from the soul").


het (chom, horebh, "drought," Job 30:30; Isa 4:6; 25:4; Jer 36:30; sharabh, Isa 49:10, translated in the Revised Version margin "mirage"; zestos, "fervent," Re 3:15, therme, Ac 28:3, kauma, Re 7:16, kauson, Mt 20:12; see MIRAGE):

1. Dreaded in Palestine:

The heat of the summer is greatly dreaded in Palestine, and as a rule the people rest under cover during the middle of the day, when the sun is hottest. There is no rain from May to October, and scarcely a cloud in the sky to cool the air or to screen off the burning vertical rays of the sun. The first word of advice given to visitors to the country is to protect themselves from the sun. Even on the mountains, where the temperature of the air is lower, the sun is perhaps more fierce, owing to the lesser density of the atmosphere.

2. Causes Disease:

This continuous summer heat often causes sunstroke, and the glare causes diseases of the eye which affect a large percentage of the people of Palestine and Egypt.

3. Relief Sought:

It is to be expected that in these times of heat and drought the ideal pleasure has come to be to sit in the shade by some cool flowing fountain. In the mountains the village which has the coolest spring of water is the most desired. These considerations give renewed meaning to the passages: "as cold waters to a thirsty soul" (Pr 25:25); "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside still waters" (Ps 23:2). What a blessing to be "under the shadow of the Almighty" (Ps 91:1), where "the sun shall not strike upon them, nor any heat" (Re 7:16)!

4. Midday Heat:

The middle of the day is often referred to as the "heat of the day" (1Sa 11:11). It made a great difference to the army whether it could win the battle before the midday heat. Saladin won the great battle at Hattin by taking advantage of this fact. It was a particular time of the day when it was the custom to rest. "They came about the heat of the day to the house of Ish-bosheth, as he took his rest at noon" (2Sa 4:5). Yahweh appeared to Abraham as "he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day" (Ge 18:1). The hardship of working throughout the day is expressed in Mt 20:12, "who have borne the burden of the day and scorching heat." Sometimes just after sunrise the contrast of the cold of night and the heat of the sun is especially noticeable. "The sun ariseth with the scorching wind" (Jas 1:11).

5. Summer Heat:

In summer the wind is usually from the Southwest, but in case it is from the South it is sure to be hot. "When ye see a south wind blowing, ye say, There will be a scorching heat" (Lu 12:55). The heat on a damp, sultry day, when the atmosphere is full of dust haze is especially oppressive, and is referred to in Isa 25:5 as "the heat by the shade of a cloud." The heat of summer melts the snow on the mountains and causes all vegetation to dry up and wither. Ice and snow vanish in the heat thereof (Job 6:17), "Drought and heat consume the snow waters" (Job 24:19). But the "tree planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots by the river .... shall not fear when heat cometh, but its leaf shall be green" (Jer 17:8).

6. Figurative Uses:

The word is used often in connection with anger in the Scriptures: "hot anger" (Ex 11:8); "hot displeasure" (De 9:19); "anger of the Lord was hot against Israel" (Jud 2:14 the King James Version); "thine anger from waxing hot" (Ps 85:3 King James Version, margin); "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot" (Re 3:15).

Alfred H. Joy





he’-th’-n, he’-then.



hev of’-er-ing.






See ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 1.


See ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 1; II, 13.


See ASTRONOMY, sec. III, 4.


hev’-’n-li (ouranios, epouranios): Pertaining to heaven or the heavens. See HEAVENS. The phrase ta epourania, translated "heavenly things" in Joh 3:12; Heb 8:5; 9:23, but in Ephesians "heavenly places" (Joh 1:3,10; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), has shades of meaning defined by the context. In Joh 3:12, in contrast with "earthly things" (i.e. such as can be brought to the test of experience), it denotes truths known only through revelation (God’s love in salvation). In Hebrews the sense is local. In Ephesians it denotes the sphere of spiritual privilege in Christ, except in 6:12, where it stands for the unseen spiritual world, in which both good and evil forces operate. It is always the sphere of the super-earthly.

James Orr


hev’-’nz (shamayim; ouranoi): On the physical heavens see ASTRONOMY; WORLD. Above these, in popular conception, were the celestial heavens, the abode of God and of the hosts of angels (Ps 11:4; 103:19-21; Isa 66:1; Re 4:2; 5:11; compare Da 7:10), though it was recognized that Yahweh’s presence was not confined to any region (1Ki 8:27). Later Judaism reckoned seven heavens. The apostle Paul speaks of himself as caught up into "the third heaven," which he evidently identifies with Paradise (2Co 12:2).



1. Eschatological Idea

2. Earliest Conceptions: Cosmic verses National Type

3. Different from Mythological Theory

4. Antiquity of Cosmical Conception

5. The Cosmical Dependent on the Ethico-Religious

6. The End Correspondent to the Beginning

7. The Cosmical Heavens: Hebrews 12:26-29

8. Palingenesis: Matthew 19:28

9. A Purified Universe

1. Eschatological Idea:

The formal conception of new heavens and a new earth occurs in Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2Pe 3:13; Re 21:1 (where "heaven," singular). The idea in substance is also found in Isa 51:16; Mt 19:28; 2Co 5:17; Heb 12:26-28. In each case the reference is eschatological, indeed the adjective "new" seems to have acquired in this and other connections a semi-technical eschatological sense. It must be remembered that the Old Testament has no single word for "universe," and that the phrase "heaven and earth" serves to supply the deficiency. The promise of a new heavens and a new earth is therefore equivalent to a promise of world renewal.

2. Earliest Conceptions: Cosmic verses National Type:

It is a debated question how old in the history of revelation this promise is. Isaiah is the prophet with whom the idea first occurs in explicit form, and that in passages which many critics would assign to the post-exilic period (the so-called Trito-Isaiah). In general, until recently, the trend of criticism has been to represent the universalistic-cosmic type of eschatology as developed out of the particularistic-national type by a gradual process of widening of the horizon of prophecy, a view which would put the emergence of the former at a comparatively late date. More recently, however, Gressmann (Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, 1905) and others have endeavored to show that often even prophecies belonging to the latter type embody material and employ means of expression which presuppose acquaintance with the idea of a world-catastrophe at the end. On this view the world-eschatology would have, from ancient times, existed alongside of the more narrowly confined outlook, and would be even older than the latter. These writers further assume that the cosmic eschatology was not indigenous among the Hebrews, but of oriental (Babylonian) origin, a theory which they apply not only to the more developed system of the later apocalyptic writings, but also to its preformations in the Old Testament. The cosmic eschatology is not believed to have been the distinctive property of the great ethical prophets, but rather a commonly current mythological belief to which the prophets refer without formally endorsing it.

3. Different from Mythological Theory:

Its central thought is said to have been the belief that the end of the world-process must correspond to the beginning, that consequently the original condition of things, when heaven and earth were new, must repeat itself at some future point, and the state of paradise with its concomitants return, a belief supposed to have rested on certain astronomical observations.

4. Antiquity of Cosmical Conception

While this theory in the form presented is unproven and unacceptable, it deserves credit for having focused attention on certain phenomena in the Old Testament which clearly show that Messianic prophecy, and particularly the world-embracing scope which it assumes in some predictions, is far older than modern criticism had been willing to concede. The Old Testament from the beginning has an eschatology and puts the eschatological promise on the broadest racial basis (Ge 3). It does not first ascend from Israel to the new humanity, but at the very outset takes its point of departure in the race and from this descends to the election of Israel, always keeping the Universalistic goal in clear view. Also in the earliest accounts, already elements of a cosmical universalism find their place side by side with those of a racial kind, as when Nature is represented as sharing in the consequences of the fall of man.

5. The Cosmical Dependent on the Ethico-Religious:

As regards the antiquity of the universalistic and cosmical eschatology, therefore, the conclusions of these writers may be registered as a gain, while on the two other points of the pagan origin and the unethical character of the expectation involved, dissent from them should be expressed. According to the Old Testament, the whole idea of world-renewal is of strictly super-natural origin, and in it the cosmical follows the ethical hope. The cosmical eschatology is simply the correlate of the fundamental Biblical principle that the issues of the world-process depend on the ethico-religious developments in the history of man (compare 2Pe 3:13).

6. The End Correspondent to the Beginning:

But the end correspondent to the beginning is likewise a true Scriptural principle, which theory in question has helped to reemphasize, although there is this difference that Scripture does not look forward to a repetition of the same process, but to a restoration of the primeval harmony on a higher plane such as precludes all further disturbance. In the passages above cited, there are clear reminiscences of the account of creation (Isa 51:16, "that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth"; Isa 65:17, "I create new heavens and a new earth"; 2Pe 3:13 compared with 2Pe 3:4-6; Re 21:1 compared with the imagery of paradise throughout the chapter). Besides this, where the thought of the renewal of earth is met with in older prophecy, this is depicted in colors of the state of paradise (Isa 11:6-9; Ho 2:18-21). The "regeneration" (palingenesia) of Mt 19:28 also points back to the first genesis of the world. The ‘inhabited earth to come’ (oikoumene mellousa) of Heb 2:5 occurs at the opening of a context throughout which the account of Ge 1-3 evidently stood before the writer’s mind.

7. The Cosmical Heavens: Hebrews 12:26-29:

In the combination "new heavens and a new earth," the term "heavens" must therefore be taken in the sense imposed upon it by the story of creation, where "heavens" designates not the celestial habitation of God, but the cosmical heavens, the region of the supernal waters, sun moon and stars. The Bible nowhere suggests that there is anything abnormal or requiring renewal in God’s dwelling-place (Heb 9:23 is of a different import). In Re 21, where "the new heaven and the new earth" appear, it is at the same time stated that the new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven (compare 21:1,2,10). In Heb 12:26-28 also the implication is that only the lower heavens are subject to renewal. The "shaking" that accompanies the new covenant and corresponds to the shaking of the law-giving at Sinai, is a shaking of "not the earth only, but also the heaven." This shaking, in its reference to heaven as well as to earth, signifies a removal of the things shaken. But from the things thus shaken and removed (including heaven), the writer distinguishes "those things which are not shaken," which are destined to remain, and these are identified with the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God, however, according to the general trend of the teaching of the epistle, has its center in the heavenly world. The words "that have been made," in 12:27, do not assign their created character as the reason why heaven and earth can be shaken, an exegesis which would involve us in the difficulty that among that which remains there is something uncreated besides God; the true construction and correct paraphrase are: "as of things that were made with the thought in the mind of God that those things which cannot be shaken may remain," i.e. already at creation God contemplated an unchangeable universe as the ultimate, higher state of things.

8. Palingenesis: Matthew 19:28:

In Mt 19:28 the term palingenesia marks the world-renewing as the renewal of an abnormal state of things. The Scripture teaching, therefore, is that around the center of God’s heaven, which is not subject to deterioration or renewal, a new cosmical heaven and a new earth will be established to be the dwelling-place of the eschatological humanity. The light in which the promise thus appears reminds us that the renewed kosmos, earth as well as cosmical heavens, is destined to play a permanent (not merely provisional, on the principle of chiliasm) part in the future life of the people of God. This is in entire harmony with the prevailing Biblical representation, not only in the Old Testament but likewise in the New Testament (compare Mt 5:5; Heb 2:5), although in the Fourth Gospel and in the Pauline Epistles the emphasis is to such an extent thrown on the heaven-centered character of the future life that the role to be played in it by the renewed earth recedes into the background. Revelation, on the other hand, recognizes this element in its imagery of "the new Jerus" coming down from God out of heaven upon earth.

9. A Purified Universe:

That the new heavens and the new earth are represented as the result of a "creation" does not necessarily involve a production ex nihilo. The terms employed in 2Pe 3:6-13 seem rather to imply that the renewal will out of the old produce a purified universe, whence also the catastrophe is compared to that of the Deluge. As then the old world perished by water and the present world arose out of the flood, so in the end-crisis "the heavens shall be dissolved by fire and the elements melt with fervent heat," to give rise to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells. The term palingenesia (Mt 19:28) points to renewal, not to creation de novo. The Talmud also teaches that the world will pass through a process of purification, although at the same time it seems to break up the continuity between this and the coming world by the fantastic assumption that the new heavens and the new earth of Isa 65:17 were created at the close of the Hexemeron of Ge 1. This was inferred from the occurrence of the article in Isa 66:22, "the new heavens and the new earth."

Geerhardus Vos


hev’-i, hev’-i-nes (kabhedh, de’aghah; lupe):

1. Literal:

Heavy (heave, to lift) is used literally with respect to material things, as the translation of kobhedh, "heaviness" (Pr 27:3, "a stone is heavy"); of kabhedh, "to be weighty" (1Sa 4:18; 2Sa 14:26; La 3:7); of ‘amac, "to load" (Isa 46:1 the King James Version; compare Mt 26:43; Mr 14:40; Lu 9:32, "Their eyes were heavy"); bareomai, "to be weighed down."

2. Figuratively:

It is used

(1) for what is hard to bear, oppressive, kabhedh (Ex 18:18; Nu 11:14; 1Sa 5:6,11; Ps 38:4; Isa 24:20); motah, a "yoke" (Isa 58:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "bands of the yoke"); qasheh, "sharp," "hard" (1Ki 14:6, "heavy tidings"); barus, "heavy" (Mt 23:4);

(2) for sad, sorrowful (weighed down), mar, "bitter" (Pr 31:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "bitter"); ra‘, "evil" (Pr 25:20); ademoneo, literally, "to be sated," "wearied," then, "to be very heavy," "dejected" (Mt 26:37, of our Lord in Gethsemane, "(he) began to be sorrowful and very heavy," the Revised Version (British and American) "sore troubled"); "ademonein denotes a kind of stupefaction and bewilderment, the intellectual powers reeling and staggering under the pressure of the ideas presented to them" (Mason, The Conditions of our Lord’s Life on Earth); compare Mr 14:33;

(3) morose, sulky, as well as sad, car, "sullen," "sour," "angry" (1Ki 20:43; 21:4, "heavy and displeased");

(4) dull, kabhedh (Isa 6:10, "make their ears heavy"; Isa 59:1, "neither (is) his ear heavy");

(5) "tired" seems to be the meaning in Ex 17:12, "Moses’ hands were heavy" (kabhedh); compare Mt 26:43 and parallels above.

Heavily is the translation of kebhedhuth, "heaviness" (Ex 14:25), meaning "with difficulty"; of qadhar, "to be black," "to be a mourner" (Ps 35:14 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "I bowed down mourning"); of kabhedh (Isa 47:6).

Heaviness has always the sense of anxiety, sorrow, grief, etc.; de’aghah, "fear," "dread," "anxious care" (Pr 12:25, "Heaviness in the heart of a man maketh it stoop," the Revised Version margin "or care"); kehah, "to be feeble," "weak" (Isa 61:3, "the spirit of heaviness"); panim, "face," "aspect" (Job 9:27 the King James Version, "I will leave off my heaviness," the Revised Version (British and American) "(sad) countenance"; compare 2 Esdras 5:16; The Wisdom of Solomon 17:4; Ecclesiasticus 25:23); ta’aniyah, from ‘anah, "to groan," "to sigh" (Isa 29:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "mourning and lamentation"); tughah, "sadness," "sorrow" (Ps 119:28; Pr 10:1; 14:13); ta‘anith, "affliction of one’s self," "fasting" (Ezr 9:5, the Revised Version (British and American) "humiliation," margin "fasting"); katepheia, "dejection," "sorrow" (literally, "of the eyes") (Jas 4:9, "your joy (turned) to heaviness"); lupe, "grief" (Ro 9:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "great sorrow"; 2Co 2:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow"); lupeomai (1Pe 1:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "put to grief"); for nush, "to be sick," "feeble" (Ps 69:20, the Revised Version margin "sore sick"), and ademoneo (Php 2:26 the Revised Version (British and American) "sore troubled"), the King James Version has "full of heaviness." "Heaviness," in the sense of sorrow, sadness, occurs in 2 Esdras 10:7,8,24; Tobit 2:5; lupe (Ecclesiasticus 22:4, the Revised Version (British and American) "grief"; 30:21, "Give not thy soul to heaviness," the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow"; 1 Macc 6:4); lupeo (Ecclesiasticus 30:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "will grieve thee"; penthos (1 Macc 3:51, etc.).

The Revised Version has "heavier work" for "more work" (Ex 5:9); "heavy upon men" for "common among men" (Ec 6:1); for "were heavy loaden" (Isa 46:1), "are made a load"; for "the burden thereof is heavy" (Isa 30:27), "in thick rising smoke."

W. L. Walker


he’-ber (chebher, "associate" or, possibly, "enchanter"; Eber): A name occurring several times in the Old Testament as the name of an individual or of a clan.

(1) A member of the tribe of Asher and son of Beraiah (Ge 46:17; Nu 26:45; 1Ch 7:31 f).

(2) A Kenite, husband of Jael, who deceptively slew Sisera, captain of the army of Jabin, a Canaanite king (Jud 4:17; 5:24). He had separated himself from the main body of the Kenites, which accounts for his tent being near Kedesh, the place of Sisera’s disastrous battle (Jud 4:11).

(3) Head of a clan of Judah, and son of Mered by his Jewish, as distinguished from an Egyptian wife. He was father, or founder, of Soco (1Ch 4:18).

(4) A Benjamite, or clan or family of Elpaal belonging to Benjamin (1Ch 8:17).

(5) Heber, of our Lord’s genealogy (Lu 3:35 the King James Version), better, Eber.

So, the name "Eber," ‘ebher, in 1Ch 5:13; 8:22, is not to be confused with Heber, chebher, as in the foregoing passages.

Edward Bagby Pollard


he’-ber-its (ha-chebhri): Descendants of Heber, a prominent clan of Asher, (Nu 26:45). Supposed by some to be connected with the Chabiri of the Tell el-Amarna Letters.




he’-broo, he’-broo-es (‘ibhri, feminine ‘ibhriyah; Hebraios): The earliest name for Abraham (Ge 14:13) and his descendants (Joseph, Ge 39:14,17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32; Israelites in Egypt, Ex 1:15; 2:6,11,13; 3:18; in laws, Ex 21:2; De 15:12; in history, 1Sa 4:6,9; 13:7,19, etc.; later, Jer 34:9, "Hebrewess," 34:14; Jon 1:9; in the New Testament, Ac 6:1; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5). The etymology of the word is disputed. It may be derived from Eber (Ge 10:21,24,25, etc.), or, as some think, from the verb ‘abhar, "to cross over" (people from across the Euphrates; compare Jos 24:2). A connection is sought by some with the apri or epri of the Egyptian monuments, and again with the Habiri of the Tell el-Amarna Letters. In Ac 6:1, the "Hebrews" are contrasted with "Hellenists," or Greek-speaking Jews. By the "Hebrew" tongue in the New Testament (Hebraisti, Joh 5:2; 19:13,17,20; 20:16) is meant ARAMAIC (which see), but also in Re 9:11; 16:16, Hebrew proper.

James Orr





1. The Author’s Culture and Style

2. Letter, Epistle or Treatise?

3. A Unity or a Composite Work?


1. Tradition

(1) Alexandrian: Paul

(2) African: Barnabas

(3) Rome and the West: Anonymous

2. The Witness of the Epistle Itself

(1) Paul not the Author

(2) Other Theories

(a) Luke and Clement

(b) Barnabas; Priscilla and Aquila; Philip; Aristion; Apollos


1. General Character of the Readers

2. Jews or Gentiles?

3. The Locality of the Readers


1. Terminal Dates

2. Conversion and History of the Readers

3. Doctrinal Development

4. The Fall of Jerusalem

5. Timothy

6. Two Persecutions


1. Summary of Contents

2. The Main Theme

3. Alexandrian Influences

4. The Christian Factor


I. Title.

In the King James Version and the English Revised Version the title of this book describes it as "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." Modern scholarship has disputed the applicability of every word of this title. Neither does it appear in the oldest manuscripts, where we find simply "to Hebrews" (pros Hebraious). This, too, seems to have been prefixed to the original writing by a collector or copyist. It is too vague and general for the author to have used it. And there is nothing in the body of the book which affirms any part of either title. Even the shorter title was an inference from the general character of the writing. Nowhere is criticism less hampered by problems of authenticity and inspiration. No question arises, at least directly, of pseudonymity either of author or of readers, for both are anonymous. For the purpose of tracing the history and interpreting the meaning of the book, the absence of a title, or of any definite historical data, is a disadvantage. We are left to infer its historical context from a few fragments of uncertain tradition, and from such general references to historical conditions as the document itself contains. Where no date, name or well-known event is fixed, it becomes impossible to decide, among many possibilities, what known historical conditions, if any, are pre-supposed. Yet this very fact, of the book’s detachment from personal and historical incidents, renders it more self-contained, and its exegesis less dependent upon understanding the exact historical situation. But its general relation to the thought of its time must be taken into account if we are to understand it at all.

II. Literary Form.

1. The Author’s Culture and Style:

The writer was evidently a man of culture, who had a masterly command of the Greek language. The theory of Clement of Alexandria, that the work was a translation from Hebrew, was merely an inference from the supposition that it was first addressed to Hebrew-speaking Christians. It bears none of the marks of a translation. It is written in pure idiomatic Greek. The writer had an intimate knowledge of the Septuagint, and was familiar with Jewish life. He was well-read in Hellenic literally (e.g. Wisdom), and had probably made a careful study of Philo (see VI below). His argument proceeds continuously and methodically, in general, though not strict, accord with the rules of Greek rhetoric, and without the interruptions and digressions which render Paul’s arguments so hard to follow. "Where the literary skill of the author comes out is in the deft adjustment of the argumentative to the hortatory sections" (Moffatt, Introduction, 424 f). He has been classed with Lu as the most "cultured" of the early Christian writers.

2. Letter, Epistle or Treatise?:

It has been questioned whether Hebrews is rightly called a letter at all. Unlike all Paul’s letters, it opens without any personal note of address or salutation; and at the outset it sets forth, in rounded periods and in philosophical language, the central theme which is developed throughout. In this respect it resembles the Johannine writings alone in the New Testament. But as the argument proceeds, the personal note of application, exhortation and expostulation emerges more clearly (Heb 2:1; 3:1-12; 4:1,14; 5:11; 6:9; 10:9; 13:7); and it ends with greetings and salutations (Heb 13:18 ). The writer calls it "a word of exhortation." The verb epesteila (the Revised Version (British and American) "I have written") is the usual expression for writing a letter (Heb 13:22). Hebrews begins like an essay, proceeds like a sermon, and ends as a letter.

Deissmann, who distinguishes between a "true letter," the genuine personal message of one man to another, and an "epistle," or a treatise written in imitation of the form of a letter, but with an eye on the reading public, puts Hebrews in the latter class; nor would he "consider it anything but a literary oration—hence, not as an epistle at all—if the epesteila, and the greetings at the close, did not permit of the supposition that it had at one time opened with something of the nature of an address as well" (Bible Studies, 49-50). There is no textual or historical evidence of any opening address having ever stood as part of the text; nor does the opening section bear any mark or suggestion of fragmentariness, as if it had once followed such an address.

Yet the supposition that a greeting once stood at the beginning of our document is not so impossible as Zahn thinks (Introduction to the New Testament, II, 313 f), as a comparison with James or 1 Peter will show.

So unusual is the phenomenon of a letter without a greeting, that among the ancients, Pantaenus had offered the explanation that Paul, out of modesty, had refrained from putting his name to a letter addressed to the Hebrews, because the Lord Himself had been apostle to them.

In recent times, Julicher and Harnack have conjectured that the author intentionally suppressed the greeting, either from motives of prudence at a time of persecution, or because it was unnecessary, since the bearer of the letter would communicate the name of the sender to the recipients.

Overbeck advanced the more revolutionary hypothesis that the letter once opened with a greeting, but from someone other than Paul; that in order to satisfy the general conditions of canonization, the non-apostolic greeting was struck out by the Alexandrians, and the personal references in Heb 13:22-25 added, in order to represent it as Pauline.

3. A Unity or a Composite Work?:

W. Wrede, starting from this theory, rejects the first part of it and adopts the second. He does not base his hypothesis on the conditions of canonization, but on an examination of the writing itself. He adopts Deissmann’s rejected alternative, and argues that the main part of the book was originally not an epistle at all, but a general doctrinal treatise. Then Heb 13, and especially 13:18 ff, were added by a later hand, in order to represent the whole as a Pauline letter, and the book in its final form was made, after all, pseudonymous. The latter supposition is based upon an assumed reference to imprisonment in 13:19 (compare Phm 1:22) and upon the reference to Timothy in Heb 13:23 (compare Php 2:19); and the proof that these professed Pauline phrases are not really Pauline is found in a supposed contradiction between Heb 13:19 and 13:23. But 13:19 does not necessarily refer to imprisonment exclusively or even at all, and therefore it stands in no contradiction with 13:23 (compare Ro 1:9-13). And Timothy must have associated with many Christian leaders besides Paul. But why should anybody who wanted to represent the letter as Pauline and who scrupled not to add to it for that purpose, refrain from the obvious device of prefixing a Pauline greeting? Moreover, it is only by the most forced special pleading that it can be maintained that Heb 1-12 are a mere doctrinal treatise, devoid of all evidences of a personal relation to a circumscribed circle of readers. The period and manner of the readers’ conversion are defined (2:3 f). Their present spiritual condition is described in terms of such anxiety and hope as betoken a very intimate personal relation (5:11 f; 6:9-11). Their past conflicts, temptations, endurance and triumph are recalled for their encouragement under present trials, and both past and present are defined in particular terms that point to concrete situations well known to writer and readers (10:32-36). There is, it is true, not in Hebrews the same intense and all-pervading personal note as appears in the earlier Pauline letters; the writer often loses sight of his particular audience and develops his argument in detached and abstract form. But it cannot be assumed that nothing is a letter which does not conform to the Pauline model. And the presence of long, abstract arguments does not justify the excision or explaining away of undoubted personal passages. Neither the language nor the logic of the book either demands or permits the separation of doctrinal and personal passages from one another, so as to leave for residuum a mere doctrinal treatise. Doctrinal statements lead up to personal exhortations, and personal exhortations form the transition to new arguments; they are indissolubly involved in one another; and chapter 13 presents no such exceptional. features as to justify its separation from the whole work. There is really no reason, but the unwarrantable assumption that an ancient writer must have conformed with a certain convention of letter-writing, to forbid the acceptance of Hebrews for what it appears to be—a defense of Christianity written for the benefit of definite readers, growing more intimate and personal as the writer gathers his argument into a practical appeal to the hearts and consciences of his readers,

III. The Author.

Certain coincidences of language and thought between this epistle and that of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians justify the inference that Hebrews was known in Rome toward the end of the 1st century AD (compare Heb 11:7,31 and 1:3 ff with Clement ad Cor 9,12,36). Clement makes no explicit reference to the book or its author: the quotations are unacknowledged. But they show that Hebrews already had some authority in Rome. The same inference is supported by similarities of expression found also in the Shepherd of Hermas. The possible marks of its influence in Polycarp and Justin Martyr are too uncertain and indefinite to justify any inference. Its name does not appear in the list of New Testament writings compiled and acknowledged by Marcion, nor in that of the Muratorian Fragment. The latter definitely assigns letters by Paul to only seven churches, and so inferentially excludes Hebrews.

When the book emerges into the clear light of history toward the end of the 2nd century, the tradition as to its authorship is seen to divide into three different streams.

(1) Alexandrian: Paul

In Alexandria, it was regarded as in some sense the work of Paul. Clement tells how his teacher, apparently Pantaenus, explained why Paul does not in this letter, as in others, address his readers under his name. Out of reverence for the Lord (II, 2, above) and to avoid suspicion and prejudice, he as apostle of the Gentiles refrains from addressing himself to the Hebrews as their apostle. Clement accepts this explanation, and adds to it that the original Hebrew of Paul’s epistle had been translated into Greek by Luke. That Paul wrote in Hebrew was assumed from the tradition or inference that the letter was addressed to Aramaic-speaking Hebrews. Clement also had noticed the dissimilarity of its Greek from that of Paul’s epistles, and thought he found a resemblance to that of Acts.

Origen starts with the same tradition, but he knew, moreover, that other churches did not accept the Alexandrian view, and that they even criticized Alexandria for admitting Hebrews into the Canon. And he feels, more than Clement, that not only the language, but the forms of thought are different from those of Paul’s epistles. This he tries to explain by the hypothesis that while the ideas were Paul’s, they had been formulated and written down by some other disciple. He found traditions that named Luke and Clement of Rome, but who the actual writer was, Origen declares that "God alone knows."

The Pauline tradition persisted in Alexandria, and by the 4th century it was accepted without any of the qualifications made by Clement and Origen. It had also in the same period spread over the other eastern churches, both Greek and Syrian. But the Pauline tradition, where it is nearest the fountain-head of history, in Clement and Origen, only ascribes Hebrews to Paul in a secondary sense.

(2) African: Barnabas

In the West, the Pauline tradition failed to assert itself till the 4th century, and was not generally accepted till the 5th century. In Africa, another tradition prevailed, namely, that Barnabas was the author. This was the only other definite tradition of authorship that prevailed in antiquity. Tertullian, introducing a quotation of Heb 6:1,4-6, writes: "There is also an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas .... and the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the churches than that apocryphal ‘Shepherd’ of adulterers" (De Pudicitia, 20). Tertullian is not expressing his mere personal opinion, but quoting a tradition which had so far established itself as to appear in the title of the epistle in the MS, and he betrays no consciousness of the existence of any other tradition. Zahn infers that this view prevailed in Montanist churches and may have originated in Asia. Moffatt thinks that it had also behind it "some Roman tradition" (Introduction, 437). If it was originally, or at any time, the tradition of the African churches, it gave way there to the Alexandrian view in the course of the 4th century. A Council of Hippo in 393 reckons "thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul, and one by the same to the Hebrews." A council of Carthage in 419 reckons "fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul." By such gradual stages did the Pauline tradition establish itself.

(3) Rome and the West: Anonymous

All the evidence tends to show that in Rome and the remaining churches of the West, the epistle was originally anonymous. No tradition of authorship appears before the 4th century. And Stephen Gobarus, writing in 600, says that both Irenaeus and Hippolytus denied the Pauline authorship. Photius repeats this statement as regards Hippolytus. Neither he nor Gobarus mentions any alternative view (Zahn, Intro, II, 310). The epistle was known in Rome (to Clement) toward the end of the 1st century, and if Paul’s name, or any other, had been associated with it from the beginning, it is impossible that it could have been forgotten by the time of Hippolytus. The western churches had no reason for refusing to admit Hebrews into the Pauline and canonical list of books, except only that they did not believe it to be the work of Paul, or of any other apostle.

It seems therefore certain that the epistle first became generally known as an anonymous writing. Even the Alexandrian tradition implies as much, for it appears first as an explanation by Pantaenus why Paul concealed his name. The idea that Paul was the author was therefore an Alexandrian inference. The religious value of the epistle was naturally first recognized in Alexandria, and the name of Paul, the chief letter-writer of the church, at once occurred to those in search for its author. Two facts account for the ultimate acceptance of that view by the whole church. The spiritual value and authority of the book were seen to be too great to relegate it into the same class as the Shepherd or the Epistle of Barnabas. And the conception of the Canon developed into the hard-and-fast rule of apostolicity. No writing could be admitted into the Canon unless it had an apostle for its author; and when Hebrews could no longer be excluded, it followed that its apostolic authorship must be affirmed. The tradition already existing in Alexandria supplied the demand, and who but Paul, among the apostles, could have written it?

The Pauline theory prevailed together with the scheme of thought that made it necessary, from the 5th to the 16th century. The Humanists and the Reformers rejected it. But it was again revived in the 17th and 18th centuries, along with the recrudescence of scholastic ideas. It is clear, however, that tradition and history shed no light upon the question of the authorship of Hebrews. They neither prove nor disprove the Pauline, or any other theory.

2. The Witness of the Epistle Itself:

We are therefore thrown back, in our search for the author, on such evidence as the epistle itself affords, and that is wholly inferential. It seems probable that the author was a Hellenist, a Greek-speaking Jew. He was familiar with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and with the religious ideas and worship of the Jews. He claims the inheritance of their sacred history, traditions and institutions (Heb 1:1), and dwells on them with an intimate knowledge and enthusiasm that would be improbable, though not impossible, in a proselyte, and still more in a Christian convert from heathenism. But he knew the Old Testament only in the Septuagint translation, which he follows even where it deviates from the Hebrew. He writes Greek with a purity of style and vocabulary to which the writings of Luke alone in the New Testament can be compared. His mind is imbued with that combination of Hebrew and Greek thought which is best known in the writings of Philo. His general typological mode of thinking, his use of the allegorical method, as well as the adoption of many terms that are most familiar in Alexandrian thought, all reveal the Hellenistic mind. Yet his fundamental conceptions are in full accord with the teaching of Paul and of the Johannine writings.

The central position assigned to Christ, the high estimate of His person, the saving significance of His death, the general trend of the ethical teaching, the writer’s opposition to asceticism and his esteem for the rulers and teachers of the church, all bear out the inference that he belonged to a Christian circle dominated by Pauline ideas. The author and his readers alike were not personal disciples of Jesus, but had received the gospel from those who had heard the Lord (Heb 2:3) and who were no longer living (Heb 13:7). He had lived among his readers, and had probably been their teacher and leader; he is now separated from them but he hopes soon to return to them again (Heb 13:18 f).

Is it possible to give a name to this person?

(1) Paul not the Author

Although the Pauline tradition itself proves nothing, the internal evidence is conclusive against it. We know enough about Paul to be certain that he could not have written Hebrews, and that is all that can be said with confidence on the question of authorship. The style and language, the categories of thought and the method of argument, all differ widely from those of any writings ascribed to Paul. The latter quotes the Old Testament from the Hebrew and Septuagint, but He only from Septuagint. Paul’s formula of quotation is, "It is written" or "The scripture saith"; that of Hebrews, "God," or "The Holy Spirit," or "One somewhere saith." For Paul the Old Testament is law, and stands in antithesis to the New Testament, but in Hebrews the Old Testament is covenant, and is the "shadow" of the New Covenant. Paul’s characteristic terms, "Christ Jesus," and "Our Lord Jesus Christ," are never found in Hebrews; and "Jesus Christ" only 3 times (10:10; 13:8), and "the Lord" (for Christ) only twice (2:3; 7:14)—phrases used by Paul over 600 times (Zahn). Paul’s Christology turns around the death, resurrection and living presence of Christ in the church, that of Hebrews around His high-priestly function in heaven. Their conceptions of God differ accordingly. In Hebrews it is Judaistic-Platonistic, or (in later terminology) Deistic. The revelation of the Divine Fatherhood and the consequent immanence of God in history and in the world had not possessed the author s mind as it had Paul’s. Since the present world is conceived in Hebrews as a world of "shadows," God could only intervene in it by mediators.

The experience and conception of salvation are also different in these two writers. There is no evidence in Hebrews of inward conflict and conversion and of constant personal relation with Christ, which constituted the entire spiritual life of Paul. The apostle’s central doctrine, that of justification by faith, does not appear in Hebrews. Faith is less the personal, mystical relation with Christ, that it is for Paul, than a general hope which lays hold of the future to overcome the present; and salvation is accomplished by cleansing, sanctification and perfection, not by justification. While Paul’s mind was not uninfluenced by Hellenistic thought, as we find it in Alexandria (as, e.g. in Col and Eph), it nowhere appears in his epistles so clearly and prominently as it does in Hebrews. Moreover, the author of Hebrews was probably a member of the community to which he writes (Heb 13:18 f), but Paul never stood in quite the relation supposed here to any church. Finally, Paul could not have written Heb 2:3, for he emphatically declares that he did not receive his gospel from the older disciples (Ga 1:12; 2:6).

The general Christian ideas on which He was in agreement with Paul were part of the heritage which the apostle had left to all the churches. The few more particular affinities of Hebrews with certain Pauline writings (e.g. Heb 2:2 parallel Ga 3:19; Heb 12:22; 3:14 parallel Ga 4:25; Heb 2:10 parallel Ro 11:36; also with Ephesians; see yon Soden, Hand-Commentar, 3) are easily explicable either as due to the author’s reading of Paul’s Epistles or as reminiscences of Pauline phrases that were current in the churches. But they are too few and slender to rest upon them any presumption against the arguments which disprove the Pauline tradition.

(2) Other Theories

The passage that is most conclusive against the Pauline authorship (Heb 2:3) is equally conclusive against any other apostle being the author. But almost every prominent name among the Christians of the second generation has been suggested. The epistle itself excludes Timothy (Heb 13:23), and Titus awaits his turn. Otherwise Luke, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila, Philip the Deacon, and Aristion have all had their champions.

(a) Luke and Clement

The first two, Luke and Clement, were brought in through their connection with Paul. Where it was recognized that a direct Pauline authorship could not be maintained, the Pauline tradition might still be retained, if the epistle could be assigned to one of the apostle’s disciples. These two were fixed upon as being well-known writers. But this very fact reveals the improbability of theory. Similar arguments from language and thought to those derived from the comparison of Hebrews with the Pauline writings avail also in the comparison of Hebrews with the writings of Lu and Clement. Both these disciples of the apostle adhere much closer to his system of thought than Hebrews does, and they reveal none of the influences of Alexandrian thought, which is predominant in Hebrews.

(b) Barnabas; Priscilla and Aquila; Philip; Aristion; Apollos

Of all the other persons suggested, so little is known that it is impossible to establish, with any convincing force, an argument for or against their authorship.

(i) Barnabas was a Levite of Cyprus (Ac 4:36), and once a companion of Paul (Ac 13:2 ). Another ancient writing is called "the Epistle of Barnabas," but it has no affinity with Hebrews. The coincidence of the occurrence of the word "consolation" in Barnabas’ name (Ac 4:36) and in the writer’s description of Hebrews (13:22) is quite irrelevant. Tertullian’s tradition is the only positive argument in favor of the Barnabas theory. It has been argued against it that Barnabas, being a Levite, could not have shown the opposition to the Levitical system, and the unfamiliarity with it (Heb 7:27; 9:4), which is supposed to mark our epistle. But the author’s Levitical system was derived, not from the Hebrew Old Testament, nor from the Jerusalem temple, but from Jewish tradition; and the supposed inaccuracies as to the daily sin offering (7:27), and the position of the golden altar of incense (9:4) have been traced to Jewish tradition (see Moffatt, Introduction, 438). And the writer’s hostility to the Levitical system is not nearly as intense as that of Paul to Pharisaism. There is nothing that renders it intrinsically impossible that Barnabas was the author, nor is anything known of him that makes it probable; and if he was, it is a mystery why the tradition was confined to Africa.

(ii) Harnack has argued the probability of a joint authorship by Priscilla and Aquila. The interchange of "I" and "we" he explains as due to a dual authorship by persons intimately related, but such an interchange of the personal "I" and the epistolary "we" can be paralleled in the Epistles of Paul (e.g. Romans) where no question of joint authorship arises. The probable relation of the author to a church in Rome may suit Priscilla arid Aquila (compare Ro 16:5 with Heb 13:22-24), but even if this interpretation of the aforementioned passages were correct, it is possible and probable that Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, and certainly Clement, stood in a similar relation to a Roman church. Harnack, on this theory, explains the disappearance of the author’s name as due to prejudice against women teachers. This is the only novel point in favor of this theory as compared with several others; and it does not explain why Aquila’s name should not have been retained with the address. The evidences adduced of a feminine mind behind the epistle are highly disputable. On the other hand, a female disciple of Paul’s circle would scarcely assume such authority in the church as the author of Hebrews does (13:17 f; compare 1Co 14:34 f). And nothing that is known of Priscilla and Aquila would suggest the culture and the familiarity with Alexandrian thought possessed by this writer. Ac 18:26 does not prove that they were expert and cultured teachers, but only that they knew and could repeat the salient points of Paul’s early preaching. So unusual a phenomenon as this theory supposes demands more evidence to make it even probable. (But see Rendel Harris, Sidelights on New Testament Research, 148-76.)

(iii) Philip the Deacon and Aristion, "a disciple of the Lord" mentioned by Papias, are little more than names to us. No positive knowledge of either survives on which any theory can be built. It is probable that both were personal disciples of the Lord, and they could not therefore have written Heb 2:3.

(iv) Apollos has found favor with many scholars from Luther downward. No ancient tradition supports this theory, a fact which tells heavily against it, but not conclusively, for someone must have written the letter, and his name was actually lost to early tradition, unless it were Barnabas, and that tradition too was Unknown to the vast majority of the early churches. All that is known of Apollos suits the author of Hebrews. He may have learned the gospel from "them that heard" (2:3); he was a Jew, "an Alexandrian by race, a learned (or eloquent) man," "mighty in the Scriptures," "he powerfully confuted the Jews" (Ac 18:24 ), and he belonged to the same Pauline circle as Timothy and Titus (1Co 16:10-12; Tit 3:13; compare Heb 13:23). The Alexandrian type of thought, the affinities with Philo, the arguments from Jewish tradition and ceremonial, the fluent style, may all have issued from "an eloquent Jew of Alexandria." But it does not follow that Apollos was the only person of this type. The author may have been a Gentile, as the purity of his Greek language and style suggests; and the combination of Greek and Hebrew thought, which the epistle reflects, and even Philo’s terms, may have had a wide currency outside Alexandria, as for instance in the great cosmopolitan cities of Asia. All that can be said is that the author of Hebrews was someone generally like what is known of Apollos, but who he actually was, we must confess with Origen, "God alone knows."

IV. Destination.

The identity of the first readers of Hebrews is, if possible, more obscure than that of the author. It was written to Christians, and to a specific body or group of Christians (see I above). The title "to Hebrews" might mean properly Palestinian Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, but the fact that the epistle was written in Greek excludes that supposition. It therefore meant Christians of Jewish origin, and gives no indication of their place of residence. The title represents an early inference drawn from the contents of the document, and the tradition it embodies was unanimously accepted from the 2nd century down to the early part of the last century. Now, however, a considerable body of critics hold that the original readers were Gentiles. The question is entirely one of inference from the contents of the epistle itself.

1. General Character of the Readers:

The readers, like the writer, received the gospel first from "them that heard" (Heb 2:3), from the personal disciples of the Lord, but they were not of their number. They had witnessed "signs and wonders" and "manifold powers" and "gifts of the Holy Spirit" (Heb 2:4). Their conversion had been thorough, and their faith and Christian life had been of a high order. They had a sound knowledge of the first principles of Christ (Heb 6:1 ). They had become "partakers of Christ," and had need only to "hold fast the beginning of (their) confidence firm unto the end" (Heb 3:14). They had been fruitful in good works, ministering unto the saints (Heb 6:10), enduring suffering and persecution, and sympathizing with whose who were imprisoned (Heb 10:32-34). All this had been in former days which appeared now remote. Their rulers and ministers of those days are now dead (Heb 13:7). And they themselves have undergone a great change. While they should have been teachers, they have become dull of hearing, and have need again to be taught the rudiments of the first principles of the gospel (Heb 5:12), and they are in danger of a great apostasy from the faith. They need warning against "an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God" (Heb 3:12). They are become sluggish (Heb 6:12), profane like Esau (Heb 12:16), worldly-minded (Heb 13:5). Perhaps their religion was tending toward a false asceticism and outward works (Heb 13:4,9). And now that this moral dulness and spiritual indifference had fallen upon them, they are being subjected to a new test by persecution from outside (Heb 10:36; 12:4), which renders the danger of their falling away from the faith all the more imminent. The author apparently bases his claim to warn them on the fact that he had been a teacher among them, and hoped soon to return to them (Heb 13:18 f). The same might be said perhaps of Timothy (Heb 13:23). Both author and readers had friends in Italy (Heb 13:24) who were with the author when he wrote, either in Italy saluting the readers outside, or outside, saluting the readers in Italy. In all this there is little or nothing to help to fix the destination of the letter, for it might be true at some time or other of any church.

2. Jews or Gentiles?:

The old tradition that the readers were Jews claims some more definite support from the epistle itself. The writer assumes an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament and of Jewish ceremonial on their part. The fathers of the Hebrew race are also their fathers (Heb 1:1; 3:9). The humanity that Christ assumed and redeemed is called "the seed of Abraham" (Heb 2:16). All this, however, might stand in reference to a Gentilechurch, for the early Christians, without distinction of race, regarded themselves as the true Israel and heirs of the Hebrew revelation, and of all that related to it (1Co 10:1; Ga 3:7 ff; 4:21 ff; Ro 4:11-18). Still there is force in Zahn’s argument that "Hebrews does not contain a single sentence in which it is so much as intimated that the readers became members of God’s people who descended from Abraham, and heirs of the promise given to them and their forefathers, and how they became such" (Intro to New Testament, II, 323). Zahn further finds a direct proof in Heb 13:13 that "both the readers and the author belong to the Jewish people," which he interprets as "meaning that the readers were to renounce fellowship with the Jewish people who had rejected Jesus, to confess the crucified Jesus, and to take upon themselves all the ignominy that Jesus met at the hands of his countrymen" (ibid., 324-25). But that is too large an inference to draw from a figurative expression which need not, and probably does not, mean more than an exhortation to rely on the sacrifice of Christ, rather than upon any external rules and ceremomes. Nor were the "divers and strange teachings" about marriage and meats (13:4,9) necessarily Jewish doctrines. They might be the doctrines of an incipient Gnosticism which spread widely throughout the Christian churches, both Jewish and gentile, toward the end of the 1st century. There is otherwise no evidence that the apostasy, of which the readers stood in danger, was into Judaism, but it was rather a general unbelief and "falling away from the living God" (3:12).

It is the whole argument of the epistle, rather than any special references, that produced the tradition, and supports the view, that the readers were Jews. The entire message of the epistle, the dominant claims of Christ and of the Christian faith, rests upon the supposition that the readers held Moses, Aaron, the Jewish priesthood, the old Covenant and the Levitical ritual, in the highest esteem. The author’s argument is: You will grant the Divine authority and greatness of Moses, Aaron and the Jewish institutions: Christ is greater than they; therefore you ought to be faithful to Him. He assumes an exclusively Jewish point of view in the minds of his readers as his major premise. He could scarcely do that, if they had been Gentiles. Paul, when writing to the mixed church at Rome, relates his philosophy of the Christian revelation to both Jewish and Gentilepre-Christian revelation. Gentile Christians adopted the Jewish tradition as their own in consequence of, and secondary to, their attachment to Christianity. Even Judaizing GentileChristians, such as may be supposed to have belonged to the Galatian and Corinthian churches, adopted some parts of the Jewish law only as a supplement to Christianity, but not as its basis.

Von Soden and others have argued with much reason that these Christians were not in danger of falling back into Judaism from Christianity, but rather of falling away from all faith into unbelief and materialism, like the Israelites in the wilderness (Heb 3:7 ), or Esau (Heb 12:16). With all its references to Old Testament sacrifice and ceremonial, the letter contains not a single warning against reviving them, nor any indications that the readers were in danger of so doing (Hand-Commentar, 12-16). But it has been too readily assumed that these facts prove that the readers were not Jews. The pressure of Social influence and persecution rendered Jews and Jewish Christians, as well as GentileChristians, liable to apostatize to heathenism or irreligion (The Wisdom of Solomon 2:10,20; 2 Macc 4; 6; 7; Philo, De Migratione Abrahami, XVI; Mt 24:10,12; Ac 20:30; 1Co 10:7,14; 2Th 2:4; 1 Joh 2:18; 5:21; Pliny Epistle X, 96). Von Soden’s argument really cuts the other way. If the writer had been dealing with Gentile Christians who were in danger of relapsing into heathenism or of falling into religious indifference, his argument from the shadowy and temporary glories of Judaism to the perfect salvation in Christ would avail nothing, because, for such, his premises would depend upon his conclusion. But if they were Jewish Christians, even though leaning toward heathenism, his argument is well calculated to call up on its side all the dormant force of their early religious training. He is not arguing them out of a "subtle Judaism" quickened by the zeal of a propaganda (Moffatt, Introduction, 449-50), but from "drifting away" in Heb (2:1), from "neglect" (2:3), from "an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God" (3:12), from "disobedience" (4:11), from "a dulness of hearing" (5:11), but into "diligence .... that ye be not sluggish" (6:11 f), into "boldness and patience" (10:35 f), and to "lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied knees" (12:12); and this he might well do by his appeal to their whole religious experience, both Jewish and Christian, and to the whole religious history of their race.

3. The Locality of the Readers:

The question of the locality of these "Hebrews" remains a matter for mere conjecture. Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Colosse, Ephesus, Berea, Ravenna and other places have been suggested. Tradition, since Clement of Alexandria, fixed on Jerusalem, but on the untenable ground that the letter was written to Aramaic-speaking Jews. The undisputed fact that it was written in Greek tells against Jerusalem. So does the absence of all reference to the temple ritual, and the mention of almsgiving as the chief grace of the "Hebrews" (6:10). Jerusalem received rather than gave alms. Nor is it likely that all the personal disciples of the Lord would have died out in Jerusalem (2:3). And it could not be charged against the mother church that it had produced no teachers (5:12). These points also tell with almost equal force against any Palestinian locality.

Alexandria was suggested as an alternative to Jerusalem, on the supposition that those references to Jewish ritual which did not correspond with the Jerusalem ritual (Heb 7:27; 9:4; 10:11) might refer to the temple at Leontopolis. But the ritual system of the epistle is that of the tabernacle and of tradition, and not of any temple. The Alexandrian character of the letter has bearing on the identity of the author, but not so much on that of his readers. The erroneous idea that Paul was the author arose in Alexandria, but it would have been least likely to arise where the letter was originally sent.

Rome has lately found much favor. We first learn of the existence of the letter at Rome. The phrase "they of Italy salute you" (Heb 13:24) implies that either the writer or his readers were in Italy. It may be more natural to think of the writer, with a small group of Italian friends away from home, sending greetings to Italy, than to suppose that a greeting from Italy generally was sent to a church at a distance. It is probable that a body of Jewish Christians existed in Rome, as in other large cities of the Empire. But this view does not, as von Soden thinks, explain any coincidences between Hebrews and Romans. A Roman origin might. It could explain the use of Hebrews by Clement. But the letter might also have come to Rome by Clement’s time, even though it was originally sent elsewhere. The slender arguments in favor of Rome find favor chiefly because no arguments can be adduced in favor of any other place.

V. Date.

1. Terminal Dates:

The latest date for the composition of Hebrews is clearly fixed as earlier than 96 AD by reason of its use by Clement of Rome about that time. There is no justification for the view that Hebrews shows dependence on Josephus. The earliest date cannot be so definitely fixed. The apparent dependence of Hebrews on Paul’s Epistles, Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Romans, brings it beyond 50 AD.

2. Conversion and History of Readers:

But we have data in the epistle itself which require a date considerably later. The readers had been converted by personal disciples of the Lord (Heb 2:3). They did not, therefore, belong to the earliest group of Christians. But it is not necessary to suppose a long interval between the Lord’s ascension and their conversion. The disciples were scattered widely from Jerusalem by the persecution that followed the death of Stephen (Ac 8:1). "We may well believe that the vigorous preaching of Stephen would set a wave in motion which would be felt even at Rome" (Sanday, Romans, xxviii). They are not, therefore, necessarily to be described as Christians of the 2nd generation in the strict chronological sense. But the letter was written a considerable time after their conversion. They have had time for great development in Heb (5:12). They have forgotten the former days after their conversion (10:32). Their early leaders are now dead (13:7). Yet the majority of the church still consists of the first converts (2:3; 10:32). And although no argument can be based upon the mention of 40 years (3:9), for it is only an incidental phrase in a quotation, yet no longer interval could lie between the founding of the church and the writing of the letter. It might be shorter. And the church may have been founded at any time from 32 to 70 AD.

3. Doctrinal Development:

The doctrinal development represented in Hebrews stands midway between the system of the later Pauline Epistles (Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians) and that of the Johannine Writings. The divers and strange teachings mentioned include only such ascetic tendencies about meat and marriage (Heb 13:4,9) as are reflected in Paul’s Epistles early and late. There is no sign of the appearance of the full-blown heresies of the Ebionites, Docetists, and Gnostics, which became prevalent before the end of the 1st century. On the other hand the Logos-doctrine as the interpretation of the person of Christ (Heb 1:1-4) is more fully thought out than in Paul, but less explicit, and less assimilated with the purpose of Christianity, than in the Fourth Gospel.

4. The Fall of Jerusalem:

It has been argued that the letter must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, because in writing to a Jewish community, and especially in dealing with Jewish ritual, the writer would have referred to that event, if it had happened. This point would be relevant, if the letter had been addressed to Jerusalem, which is highly improbable. But, at a distance, an author so utterly unconcerned with contemporary history could easily have omitted mention of even so important a fact. For in fact the author never mentions the temple or its ritual. His system is that of the tabernacle of the Old Testament and of Jewish tradition. The writer’s interest is not in historical Judaism, and his omission to mention the great catastrophe does not prove that it had not occurred. The use of the present tense of the ritual does not imply its present continuance. "The present expresses the fact that so it is enjoined in the law, the past that with the founding of the New Covenant the old had been abolished" (Peake, Hebrews, 39).

5. Timothy:

A point of contact with contemporary history is found in the fact that Timothy was still living and active when Hebrews was written (13:23), but it does not carry us far. Timothy was a young man and already a disciple, when Paul visited Galatia on his 2nd journey about 46 AD (Ac 16:1). And he may have lived to the end of the century or near to it. It cannot be safely argued from the mere mention of his name alone, that Paul and his other companions were dead.

6. Two Persecutions:

Two incidents in the history of the readers are mentioned which afford further ground for a somewhat late date. Immediately after their conversion, they suffered persecution, "a great conflict of sufferings; partly, being made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, becoming partakers with them that were so used" (Heb 10:32 f). And now again, when the letter is written, they are entering upon another time of similar trial, in which they "have need of patience" (Heb 10:36), though they "have not yet resisted unto blood" (Heb 12:4). Their leaders, at least, it would appear, the writer and Timothy, have also been in prison, but one is at liberty and the other expects to be soon (Heb 13:19,23). It has been conjectured that the first persecution was that under Nero in 64 AD, and the second, that in the reign of Domitian, after 81 AD. But when it is remembered that in some part of the Empire Christians were almost always under persecution, and that the locale of these readers is very uncertain, these last criteria do not justify any dogmatizing. It is certain that the letter was written in the second half of the 1st century. Certain general impressions, the probability that the first apostles and leaders of the church were dead, the absence of any mention of Paul, the development of Paul’s theological ideas in a new medium, the disappearance of the early enthusiasm, the many and great changes that had come over the community, point strongly to the last quarter of the century. The opinions of scholars at present seem to converge about the year 80 AD or a little later.

VI. Contents.

1. Summary of Contents:

I. The Revelation of God in His Son (Heb 1-2).

1. Christ the completion of revelation (Heb 1:1-3).

2. Christ’s superiority over the angels (Heb 1:4 ).

(1) Because lie is a Son (Heb 1:4-6).

(2) Because His reign is eternal (Heb 1:7 ).

3. The dangers of neglecting salvation through the Son (Heb 2:1-4).

4. The Son and humanity (Heb 2:5 ).

(1) The lowliness and dignity of man (Heb 2:5-8).

(2) Necessity for the Incarnation (Heb 2:9 ).

(a) To fulfill God’s gracious purpose (Heb 2:9 f) . ( b) That the Saviour and saved might be one (Heb 2:11-15).

(c) That the Saviour may sympathize with the saved (Heb 2:16 ).

II. The Prince of Salvation (Heb 3:1-4:13).

1. Christ as Son superior to Moses as servant (Heb 3:1-6).

2. Consequences of Israel’s unbelief (Heb 3:7-11).

3. Warning the "Hebrews" against similar unbelief (Heb 3:12 ).

4. Exhortations to faithfulness (Heb 4:1-13).

(1) Because a rest remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-11).

(2) Because the omniscient God is judge (Heb 4:12 f).

III. The Great High Priest (Heb 4:14-10:18).

1. Christ’s priesthood the Christian’s confidence (Heb 4:14-16).

2. Christ has the essential qualifications for priesthood (Heb 5:1-10).

(1) Sympathy with men (Heb 5:1-3).

(2) God’s appointment (Heb 5:4-10).

3. The spiritual dulness of the Hebrews (Heb 5:11-6:12).

(1) Their lack of growth in knowledge (Heb 5:11 ).

(2) "Press on unto perfection" (Heb 6:1-3).

(3) The danger of falling away from Christ (Heb 6:4-8).

(4) Their past history ground for hoping better things (Heb 6:9-12).

4. God’s oath the ground of Christ’s priesthood and of the believer’s hope (Heb 6:13 ).

5. Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1 ).

(1) The history of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-3).

(2) The superiority of his order over that of Aaron (Heb 7:4-10).

(3) Supersession of the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:11-19).

(4) Superiority of Christ’s priesthood (Heb 7:20-24).

(5) Christ a priest befitting us (Heb 7:24 ).

6. Christ the true high priest (Heb 8:1-10:18).

(1) Because He entered the true sanctuary (Heb 8:1-5).

(2) Because He is priest of the New Covenant (Heb 8:6 ).

(3) A description of the old tabernacle and its services (Heb 9:1-7).

(4) Ineffectiveness of its sacrifices (Heb 9:8-10).

(5) Superiority of Christ’s sacrifice (Heb 9:11-14).

(6) The Mediator of the New Covenant through His own blood (Heb 9:15 ).

(7) Weakness of the sacrifices of the law (Heb 10:1-5).

(8) Incarnation for the sake of sacrifice (Heb 10:6-9).

(9) The one satisfactory sacrifice (Heb 10:10-18).

IV. Practical Exhortations (Heb 10:19-13:25).

1. Draw near to God and hold fast the faith (Heb 10:19-23).

2. The responsibility of Christians and the judgment of God (Heb 10:24-31).

3. Past faithfulness a ground for present confidence (Heb 10:32 ).

4. The household of faith (Heb 11:1 ).

(1) What is faith? (Heb 11:1-3).

(2) The examples of faith (Heb 11:4-32).

(3) The triumphs of faith (Heb 11:33 ).

5. Run the race looking unto Jesus (Heb 12:1-3).

6. Sufferings as discipline from the Father (Heb 12:4-11).

7. The duty of helping and loving the brethren (Heb 12:12-17).

8. Comparison of the trials and privileges of Christians with those of the Israelites (Heb 12:18 ).

9. Various duties (Heb 13:1-17).

(1) Moral and social relations (Heb 13:1-6).

(2) Loyalty to leaders (Heb 13:7 f).

(3) Beware of Jewish heresies (Heb 13:9-4).

(4) Ecclesiastical worship and order (Heb 13:15-17).

10. Personal affairs and greetings (Heb 13:18 ).

(1) A request for the prayers of the church (Heb 13:18 f).

(2) A prayer for the church (Heb 13:20 f) .

(3) "Bear with the word of exhortation" (Heb 13:22).

(4) "Our brother Timothy" (Heb 13:23).

(5) Greetings (Heb 13:24).

(6) Grace (Heb 13:25).

2. The Main Theme:

The theme of the epistle is the absoluteness of the Christian religion, as based-upon the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, the one and only mediator of salvation. The essence of Christ’s preeminence is that He fully realizes in His own person the principles of revelation and reconciliation. It is made manifest in His superiority over the Jewish system of salvation, which He therefore at once supersedes and fulfils. The author’s working concept is the Logos-doctrine of Philo; and the empirical data to which it is related is the religious history of Israel, as it culminates in Christianity. He makes no attempt to prove either his ideal first principles or his historical premises, and his philosophy of religion takes no account of the heathen world. The inner method of his argument is to fit Judaism and Christianity into the Logos-concept; but his actual is related to the ideal in the way of Plato’s antithesis, of shadow and reality, of pattern and original, rather than in Aristotle’s way of development, although the influence of the latter method may often be traced, as in the history of faith, which is carried back to the beginnings of history, but is made perfect only in the Christian consummation (Heb 11:40). In a number of other ideas the teleological movement may be seen cutting across the categories of shadow and reality (Heb 1:3; 1:10; 4:8 f; 5:8 f; 9:12; 10:12; 12:22).

3. Alexandrian Influences:

The form of the argument may be described as either rabbinical or Alexandrian. The writer, after laying down his proposition, proceeds to prove it by quotations from the Old Testament, taken out of their context and historical connection, adapted and even changed to suit his present purpose. This practice was common to Palestinian and Alexandrian writers; as was also the use of allegory which plays a large part in Hebrews (e.g. Heb 3:7-4:11; 13:11 f). But the writer’s allegorical method differs from that of the rabbis in that it is like Philo’s, part of a conscious philosophy, according to which the whole of the past and present history of the world is only a shadow of the true realities which are laid up in heaven (Heb 8:5; 9:23 f; 10:1). His interest in historical facts, in Old Testament writers, in Jewish institutions and even in the historical life of Jesus, is quite subordinate to his prepossession with the eternal and heavenly realities which they, in more or less shadowy fashion, represent. That the affinities of Hebrews are Alexandrian rather than Palestinian is further proved by many philological and literary correspondences with The Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. Most of the characteristic terms and phrases of the epistle are also found in these earlier writers. It has been argued that Hebrews and Wisdom came from the same hand, and it seems certain that the author of Hebrews was familiar with both Wisdom and the writings of Philo (Plumptre in The Expositor, I, 329 ff, 409 ff; von Soden in Hand-Commentar, 5-6). In Philo the dualism of appearance and reality finds its ultimate synthesis in his master-conception of the Logos, and although this term does not appear in Hebrews in Philo’s sense, the doctrine is set forth in Philonic phraseology in the opening verses (1:1-4). As Logos, Christ excels the prophets as revealer of God, is superior to the angels who Were the mediators of the old Covenant, and is more glorious than Moses as the builder of God’s true tabernacle, His eternal house; He is a greater Saviour than Joshua, for He brings his own to final rest; and He supersedes the Aaronic priesthood, for while they ministered in a "holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true," under a "law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things" (Heb 9:24; 10:1), He "having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands .... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb 9:11 f).

4. The Christian Factor:

Yet it is possible to exaggerate the dependence of Hebrews on Alexandrian thought. Deeper than the allegorical interpretation of passages culled from the Septuagint, deeper than the Logos-philosophy which formed the framework of his thought, is the writer’s experience and idea of the personal Christ. His central interest lies, not in the theoretical scheme which he adopts, but in the living person who, while He is the eternal reality behind all shadows, and the very image of God’s essence, is also our brother who lived and suffered on earth, the author of our salvation, our "fore-runner within the veil," who "is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb 1:1-4; 2:14 ff; 2:10; 5:7-9; 4:14-15; 6:20; 7:25). As in Paul and John, so in Hebrews, the historical and ever-living Christ comes in as an original and creative element, which transforms the abstract philosophy of Hellenistic thought into a living system of salvation. Because of His essential and personal preeminence over the institutions and personalities of the old Covenant, Christ has founded a new Covenant, given a new revelation and proclaimed a new gospel. The writer never loses sight of the present bearing of these eternal realities on the lives of his readers. They are for their warning against apostasy, for their encouragement in the face of persecution, and for their undying hope while they ‘run the race that is set before (them), looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of .... faith (Heb 2:3; 3:12 ff; 4:1 ff; 10:28 ff; 12:1 f, 22 ).


(1) Commentary by A. S. Peake, Century Bible; A.B. Davidson, Bible Handbooks; Marcus Dods, Expositor’s Greek Test.; T.C. Edwards, Expositor’s Bible; F. Rendall (London, 1888); Westcott3 (1903); von Soden, Hand-Commentar; Hollmann, Die Schriften des New Testament.

(2) Introductions by Moffatt, Introduction to the Lit. of the New Testament; A. B. Bruce in HDB; von Soden in EB; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament; H.H.B Ayles, Destination, Date, and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Harnack, "Probabilia, uber die Addresse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes," ZNTW, I (1900); W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratsel des Hebraerbriefes (1906).

(3) Theology: Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews; Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Menegoz, La theologie de l’epitre aux Hebreux. For fuller list, see Moffatt, in the work quoted

T. Rees


(Euaggelion kath’ Hebraious, to Hebraikon, to Ioudaikon; Evangelium Hebraeorum, Judeorum):

1. References in Early Church History

2. Its Character and Contents

3. Its Circulation and Language

4. Relation to Matthew

5. Time of Composition

6. Uncanonical Sayings and Incidents

7. Conclusion


"The Gospel according to the Hebrews" was a work of early Christian literature to which reference is frequently made by the church Fathers in the first five centuries, and of which some twenty or more fragments, preserved in their writings, have come down to us. The book itself has long disappeared. It has, however, been the subject of many critical surmises and discussions in the course of the last century. It has been regarded as the original record of the life of Jesus, the Archimedespoint of the whole gospel history. From it Justin Martyr has been represented as deriving his knowledge of the works and words of Christ, and to it have been referred the gospel quotations found in Justin and other early writers when these deviate in any measure from the text of the canonical gospels. Recent discussions have thrown considerable light upon the problems connected with this Gospel, and a large literature has grown up around it of which the most important works will be noted below.

1. References in Early Church History:

Speaking of Papias Eusebius mentions that he has related the story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews." This does not prove that Papias was acquainted with this Gospel, for he might have obtained the story, which cannot any longer be regarded as part of John’s Gospel, from oral tradition. But there is a certain significance in Eusebius’ mentioning it in this connection (Euseb., HE, III, xxxix, 16). Eusebius, speaking of Ignatius and his epp., takes notice of a saying of Jesus which he quotes (Ep. ad Smyrn, iii; compare Lu 24:39), "Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." The saying differs materially from the saying in Luke’s Gospel, and Eusebius says he has no knowledge whence it had been taken by Ignatius. Jerome, however, twice over attributes the saying to the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and Origen quotes it from the "Teaching of Peter." Ignatius may have got the saying from oral tradition, and we cannot, therefore, be sure that he knew this Gospel.

The first early Christian writer who is mentioned as having actually used the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" is Hegesippus, who flourished in the second half of the 2nd century. Eusebius, to whom we owe the reference, tells us that Hegesippus in his Memoirs quotes passages from "the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii, 7).

Irenaeus, in the last quarter of the 2nd century, says the Ebionites use only the "Gospel according to Matthew" and reject the apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the law (Adv. Haer., i. 26, 2). There is reason to believe that there is some confusion in this statement of Irenaeus, for we have the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius that it was the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" that was used by the Ebionites. With this qualification we may accept Irenaeus as a witness to this Gospel.

Clement of Alexandria early in the 3rd century quotes from it an apocryphal saying with the same formula as he employs for quotation of Holy Scripture (Strom., ii.9). Origen, Clement’s successor at Alexandria, has one very striking quotation from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Comm. in Joann, ii), and Jerome says this Gospel is often used by Origen. Eusebius, in the first half of the 4th century, mentions that the Ebionites use only the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" and take small account of the others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxvii, 4). He has, besides, other references to it, and in his widely known classification of Christian Scriptures into "acknowledged" "disputed," and "rejected," he mentions this Gospel which he says some have placed in the last category, although those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ are delighted with it (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxv, 5). Eusebius had himself in all probability seen and handled the book in the library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea, where Jerome, half a century later, found it and translated it.

Epiphanius, who lived largely in Palestine, and wrote his treatise on heresies in the latter half of the 4th century, has much to say of the Ebionites, and the Nazarenes. Speaking of the Ebionites, he says they receive the "Gospel according to Matthew" to the exclusion of the others, mentioning that it alone of the New Testament books is in Hebrew speech and Hebrew characters, and is called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Haer., xxx.3). He goes on to say, that their "Gospel according to Matthew," as it is named, is not complete but falsified and mutilated, "and they call it the Hebrew Gospel" (Haer., xxx. 13). The quotations which Epiphanius proceeds to make show that this Gospel diverges considerably from the canonical Gospel of Mt and may well be that according to the Hebrews. It is more likely that "the Gospel according to Matthew, very full, in Hebrew," of which Epiphanius speaks, when telling about the Nazarene, is the Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew" attested by Papias, Irenaeus, and a widespread early tradition. But as Epiphanius confesses he does not know whether it has the genealogies, it is clear he was not himself acquainted with the book.

Jerome, toward the end of the 4th century, is our chief authority for the circulation and use of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," although his later statements on the subject do not always agree with the earlier. He was proud of being "trilinguis," acquainted with Hebrew as well as with Latin and Greek. "There is a Gospel," he says, "which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which I lately translated from the Hebrew tongue into Greek and which is called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew" (Commentary on Matthew 12:13). The fact here mentioned, that he translated the work, seems to imply that this Gospel was really something different from the canonical Mt which he had in his hands. In another place, however, he writes: "Matthew .... first of all composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, in Judea, for behoof of those of the circumcision who had believed, and it is not quite certain who afterward translated it into Greek. But the very Hebrew is preserved to this day in the Caesarean library, which Pamphilus the Martyr, with such care, collected. I myself was allowed the opportunity of copying it by the Nazarenes in Berea who use this volume. In which it is to be observed that the evangelist, when he uses the testimonies of the Old Testament, either in his own person, or in that of the Lord and Saviour, does not follow the authority of the Septuagint translators, but the Hebrew. Of those, the following are two examples: ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son’ (Mt 2:15 the King James Version); and ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ (Mt 2:23)" (De Vir. Ill., iii). It certainly looks as if in the former instance Jerome meant the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and in the latter the well-authenticated Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. At a later time, however, Jerome appears to withdraw this and to introduce a confusing or even contradictory note. His words are: "In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was written indeed in the Chaldee-Syr (Aramaic) language, but in Hebrew characters, which the Nazarenes use as the ‘Gospel of the Apostles,’ or as most people think ‘according to Matthew,’ which also is contained in the library at Caesarea, the narrative says" (Adv. Pelag., iii.2). As he proceeds, he quotes passages which are not in the canonical Mt. He also says: "That Gospel which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews which was latedly translated by me into Greek and Latin, and was used frequently by Origen" (Catal. Script. Eccl., "Jacobus"). Jerome’s notices of the actual Gospel were frequent, detailed and unequivocal.

Nicephorus at the beginning of the 9th century puts the Gospel according to the Hebrews in his list of disputed books of the New Testament along with the Apocalypse of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas. This list is believed to rest upon an authority of about the year 500 AD, and, in the stichometry attached, this Gospel is estimated to have occupied 2,200 lines, while the canonical Mt occupied 2,500.

Codex Lambda of the 9th century, discovered by Tischendorf, and now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, has marginal notes affixed to four passages of Matthew giving the readings of to Ioudaikon, the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews (Scrivener, Textual Criticism, I4, 160; see also Plate XI, 30, p. 131).

2. Its Character and Contents:

All that survives, and all that we are told, of this work, show that it was of the nature of a Gospel, and that it was written in the manner of the Synoptic Gospels. But it seems not to have acquired at any time ecclesiastical standing outside the very limited circles of Jewish Christians who preferred it. And it never attained canonical authority. The Muratorian Fragment has no reference to it. Irenaeus knew that the Ebionites used only the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew, although, as we have seen, this may be really the Gospel according to the Hebrews; but his fourfold Gospel comprises the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which we know. There is no reason to believe that it was the source of the quotations made by Justin from the Apomnemoneumata, or of quotations made anonymously by others of the early Fathers. Like the Synoptic Gospels, however, it contained narratives of events as well as sayings and discourses. It had an account of John the Baptist’s ministry, of the baptism of Jesus, of the call of the apostles, of the woman taken in adultery, of the Last Supper, of the denial of Peter, of appearances of Jesus after the resurrection; and it contained the Lord’s Prayer, and sayings of Jesus, like the forgiveness of injuries seventy times seven, the counsel to the rich young ruler, and others. One or two sayings have a Gnostic tinge, as when Jesus calls the Holy Spirit His mother, and is made to express His unwillingness to eat the flesh of the Passover Lamb. There are apocryphal additions, even where incidents and sayings are narrated belonging to the canonical Gospels, and there are sayings and incidents wholly apocryphal in the fragments of the Gospel which have survived. But these superfluities do not imply any serious deviation from Catholic doctrine; they only prove, as Professor Zahn says, "the earnestness of the redactor of the Gospel according to the Hebrews to enrich the only Gospel which Jewish Christians possessed up to that time from the still unexhausted source of private oral tradition" (GK, II, 717).

The very title of the work suggests that it circulated among Jewish Christians. Those Christians of Palestine to whom Jerusalem was the ecclesiastical center betook themselves, after the troubles which befell the Holy City, to the less frequented regions beyond the Jordan, and were thus cut off from the main stream of catholic Christianity.

3. Its Circulation and Language:

It was accordingly easier for the spirit of exclusiveness to assert itself among them and also for heretical tendencies to develop. The Ebionites went farthest in this direction. They denied the supernatural birth of our Lord, and insisted upon the binding character of the Law for all Christians. The Nazarenes, as all Jewish Christians were called at first, observed the ceremonial law themselves, but did not impose it upon GentileChristians. And they accepted the catholic doctrine of the person of Christ. It was among a community of these Nazarenes at Berea, the modern Aleppo, that Jerome, during a temporary residence at Chalcis in Northern Syria, found the Gospel according to the Hebrews in circulation. No fewer than 9 times does he mention that this Gospel is their one Gospel, and only once does he connect the Ebionites with them in the use of it. Epiphanius draws a clear line of distinction between the Ebionites and the Nazarenes; and we can scarcely suppose that a Gospel which satisfied the one would be wholly acceptable to the other. There is reason to believe that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was most to the mind of the Hebrew Christians, and that it took different forms in the hands of the sects into which the Jewish Christian church became divided. Thus the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in all probability had some affinity with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of the Ebionites, which seems to have been the same as the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, was something of a more divergent doctrinal tendency suited to the exclusive and heretical views of that sect. But it is not easy to reconcile the statements of Epiphanius with those of Eusebius and Jerome.

That the Hebrew tongue in which Papins says Matthew composed his Logia was the Aramaic of Palestine is generally accepted. This Aramaic was closely akin to the Syriac spoken between the Mediterranean and the Tigris. It was the same as the Chaldee of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, of which examples have so recently been found in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine at Assouan. Eusebius and Jerome are emphatic and precise in recording the fact that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was not only Hebrew or Aramaic in composition, but written in the square Hebrew characters, so different from the Old Hebrew of the Moabite Stone and the Siloam inscription. That there was a Greek translation before the time of Jerome of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was used by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others, is strenuously affirmed by Professor Harnack (Altchristliche Literatur, I, 6 ff) and as strenuously denied by Professor Zahn (GK, II, 648 ff). One reason why the book never attained to any ecclesiastical authority was no doubt its limited circulation in a tongue familiar, outside the circle of Jewish Christians, to only a learned few. For this reason also it is unlikely that it will ever be found, as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd, and other works have been.

4. Relation to Matthew:

It is natural to seek for traces of special relationship between the Gospel according to the Hebrews, circulating among communities of Jewish Christians, and the Gospel according to Matthew which grew up on the soil of Palestine, and which was originally composed in the interest of Jewish Christians, and circulated at a very early period in a Hebrew recension, soon superseded by the canonical Gospel of Matthew and now altogether lost. We have already seen that Irenaeus in all likelihood confused the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; and that Jerome says the Gospel used by the Nazarenes was called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew. Moreover, among the fragments that have survived, there are more which resemble Matthew’s record than either of the other Synoptics. E.B. Nicholson, after a full and scholarly examination of the fragments and of the references, puts forward the hypothesis that "Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or, at least, that large part of the latter which runs parallel to the former" (The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 104). The possibility of two editions of the same Gospel-writing coming from the same hand has recently received illustration from Professor. Blass’ theory of two recensions of the Ac and of Luke’s Gospel to explain the textual peculiarities of these books in Codex Bezae (D). This theory has received the adhesion of eminent scholars, but Nicholson has more serious differences to explain, and it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars.

5. Time of Composition:

If we could be sure that Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrneans derived the striking saying attributed to our Lord, "Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit," from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we should be able to fix its composition as at any rate within the 1st century. The obscurity of its origin, the primitive cast of its contents, and the respect accorded to it down into the 5th century, have disposed some scholars to assign it an origin not later than our Synoptic Gospels, and to regard it as continuing the Aramaic tradition of the earliest preaching and teaching regarding Christ. The manifestly secondary character of some of its contents seems to be against such an early origin. Professor Zahn is rather disposed to place it not earlier than 130, when, during the insurrection of Bar-cochba, the gulf that had grown up between Jews and Jewish Christians was greatly deepened, and with an exclusively Gentilechurch in Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians had lost their center and broken off into sects. The whole situation seems to him to point to a date somewhere between 130-50 AD. The data for any precise determination of the question are wanting.

6. Uncanonical Sayings and Incidents:

There is a saying which Clement of Alexandria quotes from it as Scripture: "He that wonders shall reign and he that reigns shall rest" (Strom., ii.9). Origen quotes from it a saying of Jesus, reminding us somewhat of Eze (8:3): "Just now My Mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs, and bore me away to the great mountain Thabor" (Orig., In Joann., ii; it is quoted several times both by Origen and Jerome). Jerome more than once quotes from it a saying of the Lord to His disciples: "Never be joyful except when ye look on your brother in love" (Hieron. in Eph 5:4; in Eze 18:7). In his commentary on Mt (6:11) Jerome mentions that he found in the third petition of the Lord’s prayer for the difficult and unique Greek word epiousios, which he translates "supersubstantialis," the Aramaic word machar, crastinus, so that the sense would be, "Tomorrow’s bread give us today." Of unrecorded incidents the most notable is that of the appearance of the Risen Lord to James: "And when the Lord had given His linen cloth to the servant of the priest, He went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw Him rising from the dead. Again a little afterward the Lord says, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added: He took bread and blessed and brake, and afterward gave it to James the Just and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread for the Son of Man has risen from them that sleep" (Hieron., De Vir. Illustr., "Jacobus").

Jerome also tells that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, there is the following passage: "Lo, the mother of the Lord and His brethren said unto Him: John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them: What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perchance this very word which I have spoken is a sin of ignorance" (Hieron., Adv. Pelag., iii.2).

7. Conclusion:

This Gospel is not to be classed with heretical Gospels like that of Marcion, nor with apocryphal Gospels like that of James or Nicodemus. It differed from the former in that it did not deviate from any essential of catholic truth in its representation of our Lord. It differed from the latter in that it narrated particulars mostly relating to our Lord’s public ministry, while they occupy themselves with matters of curiosity left unrecorded in the canonical Gospels. It differs from the canonical Gospels only in that it is more florid in style, more diffuse in the relation of incidents, and more inclined to sectional views of doctrine. Its uncanonical sayings and incidents may have come from oral tradition, and they do lend a certain interest and picturesqueness to the narrative. Its language confined it to a very limited sphere, and its sectional character prevented it from ever professing Scriptural authority or attaining to canonical rank.



E.B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879); R. Handmann, Das Hebrder-Evangelium: Texte u. Untersuchungen, Band V (1889); Zahn, GK, II, 642-723 (1890); Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I, 6 ff; II, 1, 625-51 (1897); Neutestamentliche Apocryphen (Hennecke), I, 11-21 (1904).

T. Nicol




he’-brun (chebhron, "league" or "confederacy"; Chebron): One of the most ancient and important cities in Southern Palestine, now known to the Moslems as el Khalil (i.e. Khalil er Rahman, "the friend of the Merciful," i.e. of God, a favorite name for Abraham; compare Jas 2:23). The city is some 20 miles South of Jerusalem, situated in an open valley, 3,040 ft. above sea-level.

I. History of the City.

Hebron is said to have been rounded before Zoan (i.e. Tanis) in Egypt (Nu 13:22); its ancient name was Kiriath-arba, probably meaning the "Four Cities," perhaps because divided at one time into four quarters, but according to Jewish writers so called because four patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Adam were buried there. According to Jos 15:13 it was so called after Arba, the father of Anak.

1. Patriarchal Period:

Abram came and dwelt by the oaks of MAMRE (which see), "which are in Hebron" Ge (13:18); from here he went to the rescue of Lot and brought him back after the defeat of Chedorlaomer (14:13 f); here his name was changed to Abraham (17:5); to this place came the three angels with the promise of a son (18:1 f); Sarah died here (23:2), and for her sepulcher Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah (23:17); here Isaac and Jacob spent much of their lives (35:27; 37:14); from here Jacob sent Joseph to seek his brethren (37:14), and hence, Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt (46:1). In the cave of Machpelah all the patriarchs and their wives, except Rachel, were buried (49:30 f; 50:13).

2. Times of Joshua and Judges:

The spies visited Hebron and near there cut the cluster of grapes (Nu 13:22 f). HOHAM (which see), king of Hebron, was one of the five kings defeated by Joshua at Beth-horon and slain at Makkedah (Jos 10:3 f). Caleb drove out from Hebron the "three sons of Anak" (Jos 14:12; 15:14); it became one of the cities of Judah (Jos 15:54), but was set apart for the Kohathite Levites (Jos 21:10 f), and became a city of refuge (Jos 20:7). One of Samson’s exploits was the carrying of the gate of Gaza "to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron" (Jud 16:3).

3. The Days of the Monarchy:

David, when a fugitive, received kindness from the people of this city (1Sa 30:31); here Abner was treacherously slain by Joab at the gate (2Sa 3:27), and the sons of Rimmon, after their hands and feet had been cut off, were hanged "beside the pool" (2Sa 4:12). After the death of Saul, David was here anointed king (2Sa 5:3) and reigned here 7 1/2 years, until he captured Jerusalem and made that his capital (2Sa 5:5); while here, six sons were born to him (2Sa 3:2). In this city Absalom found a center for his disaffection, and repairing there under pretense of performing a vow to Yahweh, he raised the standard of revolt (2Sa 15:7 f). Josephus mistakenly places here the dream of Solomon (Ant., VIII, ii, 1) which occurred at Gibeon (1Ki 3:4). Hebron was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch 11:10).

4. Later History:

Probably during the captivity Hebron came into the hands of Edom, though it appears to have been colonized by returning Jews (Ne 11:25); it was recovered from Edom by Simon Maccabeus (1 Macc 5:65; Josephus, Ant, XII, viii, 6). In the first great revolt against Rome, Simon bar-Gioras captured the city (BJ, IV, ix, 7), but it was retaken, for Vespasian, by his general Cerealis who carried it by storm, slaughtered the inhabitants and burnt it (ibid., 9).

During the Muslim period Hebron has retained its importance on account of veneration to the patriarchs, especially Abraham; for the same reason it was respected by the Crusaders who called it Castellum ad Sanctum Abraham. In 1165 it became the see of a Latin bishop, but 20 years later it fell to the victorious arms of Saladin, and it has ever since remained a fanatic Moslem center, although regarded as a holy city, alike by Moslem, Jew and Christian.

II. The Ancient Site.

Modern Hebron is a straggling town clustered round the Haram or sacred enclosure built above the traditional cave of MACHPELAH (which see); it is this sacred spot which has determined the present position of the town all through the Christian era, but it is quite evident that an exposed and indefensible situation, running along a valley, like this, could not have been that of earlier and less settled times. From many of the pilgrim narratives, we can gather that for long there had been a tradition that the original site was some distance from the modern town, and, as analogy might suggest, upon a hill. There can be little doubt that the site of the Hebron of Old Testament history is a lofty, olive-covered hill, lying to the West of the present town, known as er Rumeidy. Upon its summit are cyclopian walls and other traces of ancient occupation. In the midst are the ruins of a medieval building known as Der el-Arba‘in, the "monastery of the forty" (martyrs) about whom the Hebronites have an interesting folklore tale. In the building are shown the so-called tombs of Jesse and Ruth. Near the foot of the hill are several fine old tombs, while to the North is a large and very ancient Jewish cemetery, the graves of which are each covered with a massive monolith, 5 and 6 ft. long. At the eastern foot of the hill is a perennial spring, ‘Ain el Judeideh; the water rises in a vault, roofed by masonry and reached by steps. The environs of this hill are full of folklore associations; the summit would well repay a thorough excavation.

A mile or more to the Northwest of Hebron is the famous oak of MAMRE (which see), or "Abraham’s oak," near which the Russians have erected a hospice. It is a fine specimen of the Holm oak (Quercus coccifera), but is gradually dying. The present site appears to have been pointed out as that of Abraham’s tent since the 12th century; the earlier traditional site was at Ramet el Khalil.


III. Modern Hebron.

Modern Hebron is a city of some 20,000 inhabitants, 85 percent of whom are Moslems and the remainder mostly Jews. The city is divided into seven quarters, one of which is known as that of the "glass blowers" and another as that of the "water-skin makers." These industries, with the manufacture of pottery, are the main sources of trade. The most conspicuous building is the Haram (see MACHPELAH). In the town are two large open reservoirs the Birket el Qassasin, the "pool of the glass blowers" and Birket es Sultan, "the pool of the Sultan." This latter, which is the larger, is by tradition the site of the execution of the murderers of Ishbosheth (2Sa 4:12). The Moslem inhabitants are noted for their fanatical exclusiveness and conservatism, but this has been greatly modified in recent years through the patient and beneficent work of Dr. Paterson, of the U. F. Ch. of S. Med. Mission. The Jews, who number about 1,500, are mostly confined to a special ghetto; they have four synagogues, two Sephardic and two Ashkenazic; they are a poor and unprogressive community.

For Hebron (Jos 19:28) see EBRON.

E. W. G. Masterman


(chebhron, "league," "association"):

(1) The third son of Kohath, son of Levi (Ex 6:18; Nu 3:19,27; 1Ch 6:2,18; 23:12,19).

(2) A son of Mareshah and descendant of Caleb (1Ch 2:42,43).

See also KORAH.


he’-brun-its (chebhroni): A family of Levites, descendants of Hebron, third son of Kohath (Nu 3:27; 26:58, etc.).



(1) mecukhah, "a thorn hedge," only in Mic 7:4.; mesukkah, "a hedge" (Isa 5:5); mesukhath chadheq, "a hedge of thorns" (Pr 15:19).

(2) gadher, and geherah, translated "hedges" in the Revised Version (British and American) only in Ps 89:40, elsewhere "fence." GEDERAH (which see) in the Revised Version margin is translated "hedges" (1Ch 4:23).

(3) na‘atsuts, "thorn-hedges" (Isa 7:19).

(4) phragmos, translated "hedge" (Mt 21:33; Mr 12:1; Lu 14:23); "partition" in Eph 2:14, which is its literal meaning. In the Septuagint it is the usual equivalent of the above Hebrew words.

Loose stone walls without mortar are the usual "fences" around fields in Palestine, and this is what gadher and gedherah signify in most passages. Hedges made of cut thorn branches or thorny bushes are very common in the plains and particularly in the Jordan valley.

E. W. G. Masterman


hej’-hog Septuagint echinos, "hedgehog," for qippodh, in Isa 14:23; 34:11; Ze 2:14, and for qippoz, in Isa 34:15).



hed: This word, in the sense of giving careful attention ("take heed," "give heed," etc.), represents several Hebrew and Greek words; chief among them shamar, "to watch"; blepo, "to look," horao, "to see." As opposed to thoughtlessness, disregard of God’s words, of the counsels of wisdom, of care for one’s ways, it is constantly inculcated as a duty of supreme importance in the moral and spiritual life (De 4:9,15,23; 27:9 the King James Version, etc.; Jos 22:5; 23:11; Ps 39:1; Mt 16:6; Mr 4:24; 13:33; Lu 12:15; 1Co 3:10; 8:9; 10:12; Col 4:17).

James Orr


hel (‘aqebh): "The iniquity of my heels" (Ps 49:5 the King James Version) is a literal translation, and might be understood to indicate the Psalmist’s "false steps," errors or sins, but that meaning is very doubtful here. the Revised Version (British and American) gives "iniquity at my heels." the Revised Version margin gives a still better sense, "When the iniquity of them that would supplant me compasseth me about, even of them that trust in .... riches"—treacherous enemies ever on the watch to trip up a man’s heels (compare Ho 12:3). Of Judah it was said, "Thy heels (shall) suffer violence" (Jer 13:22) through being "made bare" (the King James Version), and thus subject to the roughness of the road as she was led captive.


(1) Of the partial victory of the evil power over humanity, "Thou shalt bruise (m "lie in wait for") his heel" (Ge 3:15), through constant, insidious suggestion of the satisfaction of the lower desires. Or if we regard this statement as a part of the Protevangelium, the earliest proclamation of Christ’s final, and complete victory over sin, the destruction of "the serpent" ("He shall bruise thy head"), then the reference is evidently to Christ’s sufferings and death, even to all that He endured in His human nature.

(2) Of the stealthy tactics of the tribe of Da in war, "An adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels" (Ge 49:17), by which it triumphed over foes of superior strength.

(3) Of violence and brutality, "Who .... hath lifted up his heel against me" (Ps 41:9; Joh 13:18), i.e. lifted up his foot to trample upon me (compare Jos 10:24).

M. O. Evans


he’-ga-i, he’-ge (heghay; Gai (Es 2:8,15), and heghe’, Hege (Es 2:3)): One of the officers of the Persian king Ahasuerus; a chamberlain or eunuch (keeper of women), into whose custody the "fair young virgins" were delivered from whom the king intended to choose his queen in the place of the discredited Vashti.


heg-e-mon’-i-dez, hej-e-mo-ni’-dez (Hegemonides): The Syrian officer placed in command of the district extending from Ptolemais to the Gerrenians (2 Macc 13:24). It is not easy to see how in the King James Version and even in Swete’s revised text the word can be taken as a mere appellative along with strategon, the two being rendered "principal officer": one of the two could certainly be omitted (Swete, 3rd ed., 1905, capitalizes Hegemonides). In the Revised Version (British and American) the word is taken as the name of some person otherwise unknown.


hef’-er (parah, in Nu 19 (see following article) and Ho 4:16; ‘eghlah, elsewhere in the Old Testament; damalis, in Heb 9:13):for the "heifer of three years old" in the King James Version, the Revised Version margin of Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34, see EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH. A young cow (contrast BULLOCK). The ‘eghlah figures specifically in religious rites only in the ceremony of De 21:1-9 for the cleansing of the land, where an unexpiated murder had been committed. This was not a sacrificial rite—the priests are witnesses only, and the animal was slain by breaking the neck—but sacrificial purity was required for the heifer. Indeed, it is commonly supposed that the rite as it now stands is a rededication of one that formerly had been sacrificial. In the sacrifices proper the heifer could be used for a peace offering (Le 3:1), but was forbidden for the burnt (Le 1:3) or sin (Le 4:3,14) offerings. Hence, the sacrifice of 1Sa 16:2 was a peace offering. In Ge 15:9 the ceremony of the ratification of the covenant by God makes use of a heifer and a she-goat, but the reason for the use of the females is altogether obscure. Compare following article.

Figuratively: The heifer appears as representing sleekness combined with helplessness in Jer 46:20 (compare the comparison of the soldiers to ‘stalled calves’ in the next verse). In Jer 50:11; Ho 10:11, the heifer is pictured as engaged in threshing. This was particularly light work, coupled with unusually abundant food (De 25:4), so that the threshing heifer served especially well for a picture of contentment. ("Wanton" in Jer 50:11, however, is an unfortunate translation in the Revised Version (British and American).) Hosea, in contrast, predicts that the "heifers" shall be set to the hard work of plowing and breaking the sods. In Jud 14:18, Samson uses "heifer" in his riddle to refer to his wife. This, however, was not meant to convey the impression of licentiousness that it gives the modern reader.

Burton Scott Easton


In Nu 19 a rite is described in which the ashes of a "red heifer" and of certain objects are mixed with running water to obtain the so-called "water for impurity." (Such is the correct translation of the American Standard Revised Version in Nu 19:9,13,10,21; 31:23. In these passages, the King James Version and the English Revised Version, through a misunderstanding of a rather difficult Hebrew term, have "water of separation"; Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) have, "water of sprinkling." the English Revised Version margin, "water of impurity," is right, but ambiguous.) This water was employed in the removal of the uncleanness of a person or thing that had been in contact with a dead body, and also in removing ritual defilement from booty taken in war.

1. Origin and Significance of the Rite:

The general origin of the rite is clear enough, as is the fact that this origin lies back of the official sacrificial system of Israel. For the removal of impurity, ritual as well as physical, water, preferably running water (Nu 19:17; compare Le 14:5 ff; Le 15:13), is the natural means, and is employed universally. But where the impurity was unusually great, mere water was not felt to be adequate, and various substances were mixed with it in order to increase its efficacy. So (among other things) blood is used in Le 14:6,7, and dust in Nu 5:17 (see WATER OF BITTERNESS). The use, however, of ashes in Nu 19:17 is unique in the Old Testament, although parallels from elsewhere can be adduced. So e.g. in Ovid Fasti, iv.639-40, 725, 733, in the last of these references, "The blood of a horse shall be a purification, and the ashes of calves," is remarkably close to the Old Testament. The ashes were obtained by burning the heifer completely, "her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung" (the contents of the entrails) (Nu 19:5; compare Ex 29:14). Here only in the Old Testament is blood burned for a ceremonial purpose, and here only is burning a pewliminary; elsewhere it is either a chief act or serves to consume the remnants of a finished sacrifice—Le 4:12 and Nu 19:3 are altogether different.

The heifer is a female. For the regular sin offering for the congregation, only the male was permitted (Le 4:14), but the female was used in the purificatory ceremony of De 21:3 (a rite that has several points of similarity to that of Nu 19). An individual sin offering by one of the common people, however, required a female (Le 4:28), but probably only in order to give greater prominence to the more solemn sacrifices for which the male was reserved. A female is required again in the cases enumerated in Le 5:1-6, most of which are ritual defilements needing purification; a female was required at the purification of a leper (in addition to two males, Le 14:10), and a female, with one male, was offered when a Nazirite terminated his vows (Nu 6:14). Some connection between purification and the sacrifice of a female may be established by this list, for even in the case of the Nazirite the idea may be removal of the state of consecration. But the reason for such a connection is anything but obvious, and the various explanations that have been offered are hardly more than guesses. The most likely is that purificatory rites originated in a very primitive stage when the female was thought to be the more sacred animal on account of its greater usefulness. Of the other requirements for the heifer she must be "red," i.e. reddish brown (Nu 19:2). Likeness in color to blood is at first sight the most natural explanation, but likeness in color to ripe grain is almost equally plausible. It may be noted that certain Egyptian sacrifices also required red cattle as victims (Plutarch, De Isid. 31). The heifer is to be "without spot" ("faultless"), "wherein is no blemish," the ordinary requirement for sacrifices. (The Jewish exegetes misread this "perfectly red, wherein is no blemish," with extraordinary results; see below.) But an advance on sacrificial requirements is that she shall be one "upon which never came yoke." This requirement is found elsewhere only in De 21:3 and in 1Sa 6:7 (that the animals in this last case were finally sacrificed is, however, not in point). But in other religions this requirement was very common (compare Iliad x.293; Vergil, Georg. iv.550-51; Ovid, Fasti iv.336).

2. Use of Cedar and Hyssop:

While the heifer was being burned, "cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet" (i.e. scarlet wool or thread) were cast into the flames. The same combination of objects (although differently employed) is found at the cleansing of a leper (Le 14:4), but their meaning is entirely unknown. The explanations offered are almost countless. It is quite clear that hyssop was especially prized in purifications (Ps 51:7), but the use of hyssop as a sprinkler and the use of ashes of hyssop may be quite unrelated. Hyssop and cedar were supposed to have medicinal properties (see CEDAR; HYSSOP). Or the point may be the use of aromatic woods. For a mixture of cedar and other substances in water as a purificatory medium compare Fossey, Magie Assyrienne, 285. The scarlet wool offers still greater difficulties, apart from the color, but it may be noted that scarlet wool plays a part in some of the Babylonian conjurations (Assyrian Bibl., XII, 31). But, obviously, none of this leads very far and it may all be in the wrong direction. All that can be said definitely is that Le 14:4 and Nu 19:6 show that the combination of objects was deemed to have a high purificatory value.

3. Application and Sacredness of the Ashes:

The ashes, when obtained, were used in removing the greatest of impurities. Consequently, they themselves were deemed to have an extraordinarily "consecrated" character, and they were not to be handled carelessly. Their consecration extended to the rite by which they were produced, so that every person engaged in it was rendered unclean (Nu 19:7,8,10), an excellent example of how in primitive religious thought the ideas of "holiness" and "uncleanness" blend. It was necessary to perform the whole ceremony "without the camp" (Nu 19:3), and the ashes, when prepared, were also kept without the camp (Nu 19:9), probably in order to guard against their touch defiling anyone (as well as to keep them from being defiled). When used they were mixed with running water, and the mixture was sprinkled with hyssop on the person or object to be cleansed (Nu 19:17-19). The same water was used to purify booty (Nu 31:23), and it may also be meant by the "water of expiation" in Nu 8:7.

4. Of Non-Priestly and Non-Israelitish Origin:

In addition to the similarities already pointed out between Nu 19 and De 21:1-9, the rites resemble each other also in the fact that, in both, laymen are the chief functionaries and that the priests have little to do (in De 21:1-9 they are mere passive witnesses). This suggests a non-priestly origin. The title "sin-offering" in Nu 19:9,17 (unless used in a unique sense) points to an original sacrificial meaning, although in Nu 19 the heifer is carefully kept away from the altar. Again, the correspondences with rites in other religions indicate a non-Israelitish origin. Such a ceremony may well have passed among the Israelites and have become prized by them. It contained nothing objectionable and seemed to have much of deep worth, and a few slight additions—chiefly the sprinkling (Nu 19:4; compare Le 4:6,17)—made it fit for adoption into the highest system. Some older features may have been eliminated also, but as to this, of course, there is no information. But, in any case, the ceremony is formed of separate rites that are exceedingly old and that are found in a great diversity of religions so that any elaborate symbolic interpretation of the details would seem to be without justification. The same result can be reached by comparing the countless symbolic interpretations that have been attempted in the past, for they differ hopelessly. As a matter of fact, the immense advance that has been gained in the understanding of the meaning of the Old Testament rites through the comparative study of religions has shown the futility of much that has been written on symbolism. That a Certain rite is widely practiced may merely mean that it rests on a true instinct. To be sure, the symbolism of the future will be written on broader lines and will be less pretentious in its claims, but for these very reasons it will rest on a more solid basis. At present, however, the chief task is the collection of material and its correct historical interpretation.

5. Obscurity of Later History:

The later history of the rite is altogether obscure. As no provision was made in Nu 19 for sending the ashes to different points, the purification could have been practiced only by those living near the sanctuary. Rabbinical casuistry still further complicated. matters by providing that two black or white hairs from the same follicle would disqualify the heifer (see above), and that one on whom even a cloth had been laid could not be used. In consequence, it became virtually or altogether impossible to secure a proper animal, and the Mishnic statement that only nine had ever been found (Parah, iii.5) probably means that the rite had been obsolete long before New Testament times. Still, the existence of the tractate, Parah, and the mention in Heb 9:13 show that the provisions were well remembered.



Baentsch (1903), Holzinger (1903), and (especially) Grey (1903) on Nu; Kennedy in HDB; Edersheim, Temple and Ministry, chapter xviii (rabbinic traditions. Edersheim gives the best of the "typological" explanations).

Burton Scott Easton


hit, The English terms represent a large number of Hebrew words (gobhah, marom, qomah, rum, etc.). A chief thing to notice is that in the Revised Version (British and American) "height" and "heights" are frequently substituted for other words in the King James Version, as "coast" (Jos 12:23), "region" (1Ki 4:11), "borders" (Jos 11:2), "countries" (Jos 17:11), "strength" (Ps 95:4), "high places" (Isa 41:18; Jer 3:2,21; 7:29; 12:12; 14:6), "high palaces" (Ps 78:69). On the other hand, for "height" in the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) has "stature" (Eze 31:5,10), "raised basement" (Eze 41:8), etc. In the New Testament we have hupsoma, prop. of space (Ro 8:39), and hupsos of measure (Eph 3:18; Re 21:16).

James Orr



1. The Word "Heir":

In the New Testament "heir" is the invariable translation of kleronomos (15 times), the technical equivalent in Greek, and of the compound sunkleronomos, "co-heir," in Ro 8:17; Eph 3:6; Heb 11:9; 1Pe 3:7 (in Ga 4:30; Heb 1:14, contrast the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). In the Old Testament "heir" and "to be heir" both represent some form of the common verb yarash, "possess," and the particular rendition of the verb as "to be heir" is given only by the context (compare e.g. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in Jer 49:2; Mic 1:15). Exactly the same is true of the words translated "inherit," "inheritance," which in by far the great majority of cases would have been represented better by "possess," "possession" (see INHERITANCE and OHL on ...). Consequently, when God is said, for instance, to have given Palestine to Israel as an ‘inheritance’ (Le 20:24, etc.), nothing more need be meant than ‘given as a possession.’ The Septuagint, however, for the sake of variety in its rendition of Hebrew words, used kleronomeo in many such cases (especially Ge 15:7,8; 22:17), and thereby fixed on ‘heir’ the sense of ‘recipient of a gift from God.’ And so the word passed in this sense into New Testament Greek—Ro 4:13,14; Ga 3:29; Tit 3:7; Heb 6:17; 11:7; Jas 2:5; compare Eph 3:6; Heb 11:9; 1Pe 3:7. On the other hand, the literal meaning of the word is found in Mr 12:7 (and parallels and Ga 4:1—in the latter case being suggested by the transferred meaning in 3:29—while in Ro 8:17; Ga 4:7, the literal and transferred meanings are blended. This blending has produced the phrase "heirs of God," which, literally, is meaningless and which doubtless was formed without much deliberation, although it is perfectly clear. A similar blending has applied "heir" to Christ in Heb 1:2 (compare Ro 8:17 and perhaps Mr 12:7) as the recipient of all things in their totality. But apart from these "blended" passages, it would be a mistake to think that sonship is always consciously thought of where "heir" is mentioned, and hence, too much theological implication should not be assigned the latter word.

2. Heir in Old Testament Law:

The heirs of property in the Old Testament were normally the sons and, chief among these, the firstborn.

(1) De 21:15-17 provides that the firstborn shall inherit a "double portion," whence it would appear that all the other sons shared equally. (It should be noted that in this law the firstborn is the eldest son of the father, not of the mother as in Ex 13:2.) Uncertain, however, is what De 21:15-17 means by "wife," and the practice must have varied. In Ge 21:10 the son of the handmaid was not to be heir with Isaac, but in Ge 30:1-13 the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah are reckoned as legitimate children of Jacob. See MARRIAGE. Nor is it clear that De 21:15-17 forbids setting aside the eldest son because of his own sin—compare the case of Reuben (Ge 49:3,1; 1Ch 5:1), although the son of a regular wife (Ge 29:32). The very existence of De 21:15-17, moreover, shows that in spite of the absence of formal wills, a man could control to some extent the disposition of his property after his death and that the right of the firstborn could be set aside by the father (1Ch 26:10). That the royal dignity went by primogeniture is asserted only (in a particular case) in 2Ch 21:3, and both David (1Ki 1:11-13) and Rehoboam (2Ch 11:21-23) chose younger sons as their successors. A single payment in the father’s lifetime could be given in lieu of heritage (Ge 25:6; Lu 15:12), and it was possible for two brothers to make a bargain as to the disposition of the property after the father’s death (Ge 25:31-34).

(2) When there were sons alive, the daughters had no right of inheritance, and married daughters had no such right in any case. (Job 42:15 describes an altogether exceptional procedure.) Probably unmarried daughters passed under the charge of the firstborn, as the new head of the family, and he took the responsibility of finding them husbands. Nu 27:1-11; 36:1-12 treat of the case where there were no sons—the daughters inherited the estate, but they could marry only within the tribe, lest the tribal possessions be confused. This right of the daughters, however, is definitely stated to be a new thing, and in earlier times the property probably passed to the nearest male relatives, to whom it went in later times if there were no daughters. In extreme cases, where no other heirs could be found, the property went to the slaves (Ge 15:3; Pr 30:23, noting that the meaning of the latter verse is uncertain), but this could have happened only at the rarest intervals. A curious instance is that of 1Ch 2:34,35, where property is preserved in the family by marrying the daughter to an Egyptian slave belonging to the father; perhaps some adoption-idea underlies this.

(3) The wife had no claim on the inheritance, though the disposition made of her dowry is not explained, and it may have been returned to her. If she was childless she resorted to the Levirate marriage (De 25:5-10). If this was impracticable or was without issue she returned to her own family and might marry another husband (Ge 38:11; Le 22:13; Ru 1:8). The inferior wives (concubines) were part of the estate and went to the heir; indeed, possession of the father’s concubines was proof of possession of his dignities (2Sa 16:21,22; 1Ki 2:13-25). At least, such was the custom in the time of David and Solomon, but at a later period nothing is heard of the practice.

(4) The disposition of land is a very obscure question. Nu 36:4 states explicitly that each heir had a share, but the continual splittin up of an estate through successive generations would have produced an impossible state of affairs. Possibly the land went to the eldest born as part of his portion, possibly in some cases it was held in common by the members of the family, possibly some member bought the shares of the others, possibly the practice differed at different times. But our ignorance of the facts is complete.

NOTE.—The dates assigned by different scholars to the passages cited have an important bearing on the discussion.

Burton Scott Easton


he’-la (chel’ah): A wife of Ashhur, father of Tekoa (1Ch 4:5,7).


he’-lam (chelam, 2Sa 10:16 f; in 16:17 with the he of locale; Septuagint Hailam): A place near which David is said to have defeated the Aramean world under Hadarezer (2Sa 10:16 ). Its site is unknown. Cornill and others introduce it into the text of Eze 47:16 from the Septuagint Heliam). This would place it between the territories of Damascus and Hamath, which is not unreasonable. Some scholars identify it with Aleppo, which seems too far north.


hel’-ba (chelbah): A place in the territory assigned to Asher (Jud 1:31). It may be identical with Mahalliba of Sennacherib’s prism inscription. The site, however, has not been recovered.


hel’-bon (chelbon; Chelbon, Chebron): A district from which Tyre received supplies of wine through the Damascus market (Eze 27:18); universally admitted to be the modern Halbun, a village at the head of a fruitful valley of the same name among the chalk slopes on the eastern side of Anti-Lebanon, 13 miles North-Northwest of Damascus, where traces of ancient vineyard terracing still exist. Records contemporary with Eze mention mat helbunim or the land of Helbon, whence Nebuchadnezzar received wine for sacrificial purposes (Belinno Cylinder, I, 23), while karan hulbunu, or Helbonian wine, is named in Western Asiatic Inscriptions, II, 44. Strabo (xv.735) also tells that the kings of Persia esteemed it highly. The district is still famous for its grapes—the best in the country—but these are mostly made into raisins, since the population is now Moslem. Helbon must not be confounded with Chalybon (Ptol. v.15, 17), the Greek-Roman province of Haleb or Aleppo.

W. M. Christie





hel’-da-i (chelday):

(1) A captain of the temple-service, appointed for the 12th month (1Ch 27:15). Same as Heled (cheledh) in parallel list (compare 1Ch 11:30), and is probably also to be identified with Heleb, son of Baanah the Metophathite, one of David’s heroic leaders (2Sa 23:29).

(2) One of a company of Jews who brought gifts of gold and silver from Babylon to assist the exiles under Zerubbabel (Zec 6:10).


he’-leb chelebh, 2Sa 23:29).



he’-led (cheledh, 1Ch 11:30).



he’-lek chelekh): Son of Gilead the Manassite (Nu 26:30; Jos 17:2). Patronymic, Helekites (Nu 26:30).



(1) helem; Septuagint Codex Vaticanus, Balaam, omitting "son," Codex Alexandrinus, huios Elam, "son of Elam" (1Ch 7:35). A great-grandson of Asher, called Hotham in 1Ch 7:32. The form "Elam" appears as the name of a Levite in 1 Esdras 8:33.

(2) chelem, "strength," regarded by Septuagint as a common noun (Zec 6:14). One of the ambassadors from the Jews of the exile to Jerusalem; probably the person called Heldai in Zec 6:10 is meant.


he’-lef (cheleph): A place on the southern border of Naphtali (Jos 19:33); unidentified.


he’-lez (chelets "vigor"; Septuagint Selles, Chelles):

(1) 2Sa 23:26; 1Ch 11:27; 27:10. One of David’s mighty men; according to 1Ch 27:10, he belonged to the sons of Ephraim and was at the head of the 7th course in David’s organization of the kingdom.

(2) Septuagint Chelles, 1Ch 2:39. A man of Judah of the clan of the Jerahmeelites.


he’-li (Helei for ‘eli):

(1) The father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, in Luke’s account of the genealogy of Jesus (Lu 3:23).

(2) An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:2).


he-li-o-do’-rus (Heliodoros): Treasurer of the Syrian king Seleucus IV, Philopator (187-175 BC), the immediate predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes who carried out to its utmost extremity the Hellenizing policy begun by Seleucus and the "sons of Tobias." Greatly in want of money to pay the tribute due to the Romans as one of the results of the victory of Scipio over Antiochus the Great at Magnesia (190 BC), Seleucus learned from Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria (Pal) and Phoenicia, of the wealth which was reported to be stored up in the Temple at Jerusalem and commissioned Heliodorus. (2 Macc 3) to plunder the temple and to bring its contents to him. On the wealth collected in the Temple at this time, Josephus (Ant., IV, vii, 2) may be consulted. The Temple seems to have served the purposes of a bank in which the private deposits of widows and orphans were kept for greater security, and in 2 Macc 3:15-21 is narrated the panic at Jerusalem which took place when Heliodorus came with an armed guard to seize the contents of the Temple (see Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, III, 287). In spite of the protest of Onias, the high priest, Heliodorus. was proceeding to carry out his commission when, "through the Lord of Spirits and the Prince of all power," a great apparition appeared which caused him to fall down "compassed with great darkness" and speechless. When "quite at the last gasp" he was by the intercession of Onias restored to life and strength and "testified to all men the works of the great God which he had beheld with his eyes." The narrative given in 2 Macc 3 is not mentioned by any other historian, though 4 Macc refers to the plundering of the Temple and assigns the deed to Apollonius. Raffaelle used the incident in depicting, on the walls of the Vatican, the triumph of Pope Julius II over the enemies of the Pontificate.

J. Hutchison



See ON.


hel’-ka-i, hel’-ki, hel-ka’-i (chelqay, perhaps an abbreviation for Helkiah, "Yah is my portion." Not in the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus; Codex L: Chelkias (Ne 12:15)): The head of a priestly house in the days of Joiakim.


hel’-kath (chelqath (Jos 19:25); chelqath (Jos 21:31); by a scribal error chuqoq (1Ch 6:75)): A town or district on the border of Asher, assigned to the Levites; unidentified.


hel’-kath-haz’-u-rim, -ha-zu’-rim (chelqath ha-tsurim; Meris ton epiboulon): The name as it stands means "field of the sword edges," and is applied to the scene of the conflict in which twelve champions each from the army of Joab and that of Abner perished together, each slaying his fellow (2Sa 2:16). Some, following Septuagint, would read chelqath ha-tsodhim, "field of the crafty," i.e. "of the ambush." Thenius suggested chelqath ha-tsarim, "field of the adversaries" (see also H. P. Smith, ICC, "Samuel," 271). Probably, however, the text as it stands is correct.

W. Ewing


hel-ki’-as (chilqiyah; Chelkias; the King James Version Chelcias):

(1) Father of Susanna (Susanna verses 2,29,63). According to tradition he was brother of Jeremiah, and he is identified with the priest who found the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah (2Ki 22:8).

(2) Ancestor of Baruch (Baruch 1:1).

(3) Father of Joiakim the high priest (Baruch 1:7). The name represents HILKIAH (which see).



1. The Word in the King James Version:

The English word, from a Teutonic root meaning "to hide" or "cover," had originally the significance of the world of the dead generally, and in this sense is used by Chaucer, Spenser, etc., and in the Creed ("He descended into hell"); compare the English Revised Version Preface. Now the word has come to mean almost exclusively the place of punishment of the lost or finally impenitent; the place of torment of the wicked. In the King James Version of the Scriptures, it is the rendering adopted in many places in the Old Testament for the Hebrew word she’ol (in 31 out of 65 occurrences of that word it is so translated), and in all places, save one (1Co 15:55) in the New Testament, for the Greek word Hades (this word occurs 11 times; in 10 of these it is translated "hell"; 1Co 15:55 reads "grave," with "hell" in the margin). In these cases the word has its older general meaning, though in Lu 16:23 (parable of Rich Man and Lazarus) it is specially connected with a place of "torment," in contrast with the "Abraham’s bosom" to which Lazarus is taken (16:22). 2. The Word in the Revised Version:

In the above cases the Revised Version (British and American) has introduced changes, replacing "hell" by "Sheol" in the passages in the Old Testament (the English Revised Version retains "hell" in Isa 14:9,15; the American Standard Revised Version makes no exception), and by "Hades" in the passages in the New Testament (see under these words).

3. Gehenna:

Besides the above uses, and more in accordance with the modern meaning, the word "hell" is used in the New Testament in the King James Version as the equivalent of Gehenna (12 t; Mt 5:22,29; 10:28, etc.). the Revised Version (British and American) in these cases puts "Gehenna" in the margin. Originally the Valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, Gehenna became among the Jews the synonym for the place of torment in the future life (the "Gehenna of fire," Mt 5:22, etc.; see GEHENNA).

4. Tartarus:

In yet one other passage in the New Testament (2Pe 2:4), "to cast down to hell" is used (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) to represent the Greek tartaroo, ("to send into Tartarus"). Here it stands for the place of punishment of the fallen angels: "spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits (or chains) of darkness" (compare Jude 1:6; but also Mt 25:41). Similar ideas are found in certain of the Jewish apocalyptic books (Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Apocrypha Baruch, with apparent reference to Ge 6:1-4; compare ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT).

On theological aspect, see PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING. For literature, see references in above-named arts., and compare article "Hell" by Dr. D. S. Salmond in HDB.

James Orr


hel’-en-iz’-m, hel’-en-ist: Hellenism is the name we give to the manifold achievements of the Greeks in social and political institutions, in the various arts, in science and philosophy, in morals and religion. It is customary to distinguish two main periods, between which stands the striking figure of Alexander the Great, and to apply to the earlier period the adjective "Hellenic," that of "Hellenistic" to the latter. While there is abundant reason for making this distinction, it must not be considered as resting upon fortuitous changes occasioned by foreign influences. The Hellenistic age is rather the sudden unfolding of a flower whose bud was forming and maturing for centuries.

1. The Expansion of the Greek Peoples:

Before the coming of the Hellenic peoples into what we now call Greece, there existed in those lands a flourishing civilization to which we may give the name "Aegean." The explorations of archaeologists during the last few decades have brought it to light in many places on the continent, as well as on the islands of the Aegean and notably in Crete. When the Hellenic peoples came, it was not as a united nation, nor even as homogeneous tribes of a common race; though without doubt predominantly of kindred origin, it was the common possession of an Aryan speech and of similar customs and religion that marked them off from the peoples among whom they settled. When their southward movemerit from Illyria occurred, and by what causes it was brought about, we do not know; but it can hardly have long antedated the continuance of this migration which led to the settlement of the coast districts of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean from about the 13th to the 10th centuries BC. In the colonization of these new territories the Hellenic peoples became conscious of their kinship, partly because the several colonies received contingents from various regions of the motherland, partly because they were in common brought into striking contrast to the alien "Barbarians" who spoke other untintelligible languages. As the older communities on the mainland and on the islands began to flourish, they felt the need, arising from various causes, for further colonization. Among these causes we may mention the poverty of the soil in Greece proper, the restricting pressure of the strong tribes of Asia Minor who prevented expansion inland, a growing disaffection with the aristocratic regime in almost all Greek states and with the operation of the law of primogeniture in land tenure, and lastly the combined lure of adventure and the prospect of trade. Thus, it came about that in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, two great movements of colonial expansion set in, one toward the Hellespont and to the shores of the Pontus, or Black Sea, beyond, the other westward toward Southern Italy, Sicily, and beyond as far as Gades in Spain. To the 7th century belongs also the colonization of Naucratis in Egypt and of Cyrene in Libya. Then followed a period of relative inactivity during the 5th century, which was marked by the desperate conflict of the Greeks with Persia in the East and with Carthage in the West, succeeded by even more disastrous conflicts among themselves. With the enforced internal peace imposed by Macedonia came the resumption of colonial and military expansion in a measure before undreamed of. In a few years the empire of Alexander embraced Thrace, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Asia eastward beyond the Indus. The easternmost regions soon fell away, but Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt long continued under Greek rule, until Rome in the 1st century BC made good her claims to sovereignty in those lands.

2. The Hellenic State:

Throughout this course of development and expansion we speak of the people as Greeks, although it is evident that even such racial homogeneity as they may have had on coming into Greece must have been greatly modified by the absorption of conquered peoples. But the strong individuality of the Hellenic population manifested itself everywhere in its civilization. In the evolution from the Homeric kingship (supported by the nobles in council, from which the commonalty was excluded, or where it was supposed at most to express assent or dissent to proposals laid before it) through oligarchic or aristocratic rule and the usurped authority of the tyrants, to the establishement of democratic government, there is nothing surprising to the man of today. That is because Greek civilization has become typical of all western civilization. In the earlier stages of this process, moreover, there is nothing strikingly at variance with the institutions of the Hebrews, at least so far as concerns the outward forms. But there existed throughout a subtle difference of spirit which made it possible, even inevitable, for the Greeks to attain to democratic institutions, whereas to the Hebrews such a development was impossible, if not unthinkable. It is difficult to define this spirit, but one may say that it was marked from the first by an inclination to permit the free development and expression of individuality subordinated to the common good; by a corresponding recognition of human limitations over against one’s fellow-man as over against Deity; by an instinctive dread of excess as inhuman and provoking the just punishment of the gods; and lastly by a sane refusal to take oneself too seriously, displaying itself in a certain good-humored irony even among men who, like Socrates and Epicurus, regarded themselves as charged with a sublime mission, in striking contrast with the Hebrew prophets who voiced the thunders of Sinai, but never by any chance smiled at their own earnestness. Even the Macedonians did not attempt to rule Greece with despotic sway, leaving the states in general in the enjoyment of their liberties; and in the Orient, Alexander and his successors, Roman as well as Greek, secured their power and extended civilization by the foundation and encouragement of Hellenic cities in extraordinary numbers. The city-state, often confederated with other city-states, displaced the organization of tribe or clan, thus substituting a new unit and a new interest for the old; and the centers thus created radiated Hellenic influence and made for order and good government everywhere. But in accordance with the new conditions the state took on a somewhat different form. While the city preserved local autonomy, the state became monarchical; and the oriental deification of the king reinforced by the Hellenic tendency to deify the benefactors of mankind, eventuated in modes of speech and thought which powerfully influenced the Messianic hopes of the Jews.

3. Hellenic Life:

The life of the Greeks, essentially urban and dominated by political interests fostered in states in which the individual counted for much, was of a type wholly different from the oriental. Although the fiction of consanguinity was cultivated by the Hellenic city-state as by the Semitic tribe, it was more transparent in the former, particularly in the newer communities formed in historical times. There was thus a powerful stimulus to mutual tolerance and concession which, supported as it was by the strong love of personal independence and the cultivation of individuality, led to the development of liberty and the recognition of the rights of man. A healthy social life was the result for those who shared the privileges of citizenship, and also, in hardly less degree, for those resident aliens who received the protection of the state. Women also, though not so free as men, enjoyed, even at Athens where they were most limited, liberties unknown to the Orientals. In the Hellenistic age they attained a position essentially similar to that of modern Europe. There were slaves belonging both to individuals and the state, but their lot was mitigated in general by a steadily growing humanity. The amenities of life were many, and were cultivated no less in the name of religion than of art, literature, and science.

4. Hellenic Art and Letters:

As in every phase of Greek civilization, the development of art and letters was free. Indeed their supreme excellence must be attributed to the happy circumstances which suffered them to grow spontaneously from the life of the people without artificial constraints imposed from within, or overpowering influences coming from without: a fortune which no other great movement in art or letters can boast. Greek art was largely developed in the service of religion; but owing to the circumstance that both grew side by side, springing from the heart of man, their reactions were mutual, art contributing to religion quite as much as it received. The creative genius of the Hellenic people expressed itself with singular directness and simplicity in forms clearly visualized and subject to the conditions of psychologically effective grouping in space or time. Their art is marked by the observance of a just proportion and by a certain natural restraint due to the preponderance of the intellectual element over the purely sensuous. Its most characteristic product is the ideal type in which only enough individuality enters to give to the typical the concreteness of life. What has been said of art in the narrower sense applies equally to artistic letters. The types thus created, whether in sculpture, architecture, music, drama, history, or oratory, though not regarded with superstitious reverence, commended themselves by the sheer force of inherent truth and beauty to succeeding generations, thus steadying the course of development and restraining the exuberant originality and the tendency to individualism. In the Hellenistic age, individualism gradually preponderated where the lessening power of creative genius did not lead to simple imitation.

5. Philosophy of Nature and of Conduct:

The traditional views of the Hellenic peoples touching Nature and conduct, which did not differ widely from those of other peoples in a corresponding stage of culture, maintained themselves down to the 7th century BC with comparatively little change. Along with and following the colonial expansion of Hellenism there came the awakening intellectual curiosity, or rather the shock of surprise necessary to convert attention into question. The mythology of the Greeks had contained a vague theology, without authority indeed, but satisfactory because adequate to express the national thought. Ethics there was none, morality being customary. But the extending horizon of Hellenic thought discovered that customs differed widely in various lands; indeed, it is altogether likely that the collection of strange and shocking customs which filled the quivers of the militant Sophists in the 5th century had its inception in the 6th and possibly the 7th century At any rate it furnished the fiery darts of the adversary until ethics was founded in reason by the quest of Socrates for the universal, not in conduct, but in judgment. As ethics arose out of the irreconcilable contradictions of conduct, so natural philosophy sprung from the contradictions of mythical theology and in opposition to it. There were in fact two strata of conceptions touching supernatural beings; one, growing out of a primitive animism, regarded their operations essentially from the point of view of magic, which refuses to be surprised at any result, be it never so ill-proportioned to the means employed, so long as the mysterious word was spoken or the requisite act performed; the other, sprung from a worship of Nature in her most striking phenomena, recognized an order, akin to the moral order, in her operations. When natural philosophy arose in the 6th century, it instinctively at first, then consciously, divested Nature of personality by stripping off the disguise of myth and substituting a plain and reasoned tale founded on mechanical principles. This is the spirit which pervades pre-Socratic science and philosophy. The quest of Socrates for universally valid judgments on conduct directed thought to the laws of mind, which are teleological, in contradistinction to the laws of matter, which are mechanical; and thus in effect dethroned Nature, regarded as material, by giving primacy to mind. Henceforth, Greek philosophy was destined, with relatively few and unimportant exceptions, to devote itself to the study of human conduct and to be essentially idealistic, even where the foundation, as with the Stoics, was ostensibly materialistic. More and more it became true of the Greek philosophers that they sought God, "if haply they might feel after him and find him," conscious of the essential unity of the Divine and the human, and defining philosophy as the endeavor to assimilate the soul to God.

6. Hellenic and Hellenistic Religion:

The Homeric poems present a picture of Greek life as seen by a highly cultivated aristocratic society having no sympathy with the commonalty. Hence, we are not to regard Homeric religion as the religion of the Hellenic peoples in the Homeric age. Our first clear view of the Hellenic commoner is presented by Hesiod in the 8th century. Here we find, alongside of the worship of the Olympians, evidences of chthonian cults and abundant hints of human needs not satisfied by the well-regulated religion of the several city-states. The conventionalized monarchy of Zeus ruling over his fellow-Olympians is known to be a fiction of the poets, having just as much—no more—foundation, in fact, as the mythical overlordship of Agamemnon over the assembled princes of the Achaens; while it caught the imagination of the Greeks and dominated their literature, each city-state possessed its own shrines sacred to its own gods, who might or might not be called by the names of Olympians. Yet the great shrines which attracted Greeks from every state, such as those of Zeus at Dodona (chiefly in the period before the 7th century) and Olympia, of Apollo at Delos and Delphi, and of Hera at Argos, were the favored abodes of Olympians. Only one other should be mentioned: that of Demeter at Eleusis. Her worship was of a different character, and the great repute of her shrine dates from the 5th century. If the Zeus of Olympia was predominantly the benign god of the sky, to whom men came in joyous mood to delight him with pomp and festive gatherings, performing feats of manly prowess in the Olympic games, the Zeus of Dodona, and the Delphian Apollo, as oracular deities, were visited in times of doubt and distress. The 7th and 6th centuries mark the advent—or the coming into prominence—of deities whose appeal was to the deepest human emotions, of ecstatic enthusiasm, of fear, and of hope. Among them we must mention Dionysus, the god of teeming Nature (see DIONYSUS), and Orpheus. With their advent comes an awakening of the individual soul, whose aspiration to commune with Deity found little satisfaction in the general worship of the states. Private organizations and quasi-monastic orders, like those of the Orphics and Pythagoreans, arose and won countless adherents. Their deities found admission into older shrines, chiefly those of chthonian divinities, like that of Demeter at Eleusis, and wrought a change in the spirit and to a certain extent in the ritual of the "mysteries" practiced there. It was in these "mysteries" that the Christian Fathers, according to the mood or the need, polemic or apologetic, of the moment, saw now the propaedeutic type, now the diabolically instituted counterfeit, of the sacraments and ordinances of the church. The spirit and even the details of the observances of the "mysteries" are difficult to determine; but one must beware of accepting the hostile judgments of Christian writers who were in fact retorting upon the Greeks criticisms leveled at the church: both were blinded by partisanship and so misread the symbols.

If we thus find a true praeparatio evangelica in the Hellenistic developments of earlier Hellenic religion, there are parallel developments in the other religions which were adopted in the Hellenistic age. The older national religions of Persia and Egypt underwent a similar change, giving rise respectively to the worship of Mithra and of Isis, both destined, along with the chthonian mysteries of the Greeks, to be dangerous rivals for the conquest of the world of Christianity, itself a younger son in this prolific family of new religions. Space is wanting here for a consideration of these religious movements, the family resemblance of which with Christianity is becoming every day more apparent; but so much at least should be said, that while every candid student must admit the superiority of Christianity in moral content and adaptation to the religious nature of man, the difference in these respects was not at first sight so obvious that the successful rival might at the beginning of the contest have been confidently predicted.


As with other manifestations of the Hellenic spirit, so, too, in matters of religion, it was the free development of living institutions that most strikingly distinguishes the Greeks from the Hebrews. They had priests, but were never ruled by them; they possessed a literature regarded with veneration, and in certain shrines treasured sacred writings containing directions for the practice and ritual of the cults, but they were neither intended nor suffered to fix for all time the interpretation of the symbols. In the 5th and 4th centuries the leaders of Greek thought rebuked the activity of certain priests, and it was not before the period of Roman dominion that priests succeeded even in a small measure in usurping power, and sacred writings began to exercise an authority remotely comparable to that recognized among the Jews.

A most interesting question is that concerning the extent to which Greek civilization and thought had penetrated and influenced Judaism. During three centuries before the advent of Jesus, Hellenism had been a power in Syria and Judea. The earliest writings of the Hebrews showing this influence are Da and the Old Testament Apocrypha. Several books of the Apocrypha were originally written in Greek, and show strong influence of Greek thought. The Septuagint, made for the Jews of the Dispersion, early won its way to authority even in Palestine, where Aramaic had displaced Hebrew, which thus became a dead language known only to a few. New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are almost without exception taken from the Septuagint. Thus the sacred literature of the Jews was for practical purposes Greek. Though Jesus spoke Aramaic, He unquestionably knew some Greek. Yet there is no clear evidence of specifically Greek influence on this thought, the presuppositions of which are Jewish or generally those of the Hellenistic age. All the writings of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, though their authors differed widely in the degree of proficiency in the use of the language and in acquaintance with Hellenic thought. Their debt to these sources can be profitably considered only in connection with the individual writers; but one who is acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek literature instinctively feels in reading the New Testament that the national character of the Jews, as reflected in the Old Testament, has all but vanished, remaining only as a subtle tone of moral earnestness and as an imaginative coloring, except in the simple story of the Synoptic Gospels. But for the bitterness aroused by the destruction of Jerusalem, it is probable that the Jews would have yielded completely to Hellenic influences.

William Arthur Heidel








hel’-on (chelon, "valorous"; the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus, Chailon): The father of Eliab, the prince of the tribe of Zebulun (Nu 1:9; 2:7; 7:24,29; 10:16).


With the sense of that which brings aid, support, or deliverance, "help" (noun and vb.) represents a large variety of words in Hebrew and Greek (noun 7, verb 16). A principal Hebrew word is ‘azar, "to help," with the corresponding nouns ‘ezer, ‘ezrah; a chief Greek word is boetheo (Mt 15:25; Mr 9:22,24, etc.). True help is to be sought for in Yahweh, in whom, in the Old Testament, the believer is constantly exhorted to trust, with the renouncing of all other confidences (Ps 20:2; 33:20; 42:5; 46:1; 115:9,10,11; 121:2; Isa 41:10,13,14, etc.). In Ro 8:26 it is said, "the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity," the verb here (sunantilambanetai) having the striking meaning of to "take hold along with one." In the story of Eden, Eve is spoken of as "a help meet" for Adam (Ge 2:18,20). The idea in "meet" is not so much "suitability," though that is implied, as likeness, correspondence in nature (Vulgate, similem sibi). One like himself, as taken from him, the woman would be an aid and companion to the man in his tasks.

James Orr





(antilempseis, 1Co 12:28): In classical Greek the word antilempsis means "remuneration," the hold one has on something, then perception, apprehension. But in Biblical Greek it has an altruistic meaning. Thus, it is used in the Septuagint, both in the Old Testament Scriptures and in the Apocrypha (Ps 22:19; 89:19, APC 1Esdras 8:27; 2Macc 15:7). Thus, we obtain a clue to its meaning in our text, where it has been usually understood as referring to the deacons, the following word kuberneseis, translated "governments," being explained as referring to the presbyters.

Henry E. Dosker


(boetheiai, Ac 27:17).



helv (‘ets "wood," "tree"): The handle or wooden part of an ax. "The head (margin "iron") slippeth from the helve" (margin "tree," De 19:5). The marginal reading suggests that "the ax is supposed to glance off the tree it is working on."


(kraspedon): The classic instance of the use of "hem" in the New Testament is Mt 9:20 the King James Version (compare Mt 14:36), where the woman "touched the hem of his (Christ’s) garment." The reference is to the fringe or tassel with its traditional blue thread which the faithful Israelite was directed to wear on the corners of the outer garment (Nu 15:37 ff; De 22:12). Great importance came to be attached to it, the ostentatious Pharisees making it very broad or large (Mt 23:5). Here the woman clearly thought there might be peculiar virtue in touching the tassel or fringe of Jesus’ garment. Elsewhere the word is rendered BORDER (which see).


George B. Eager


he’-mam (Ge 36:22 the King James Version and the English Revised Version).



he’-man (heman, "faithful"): The name of two men in the Old Testament.

(1) A musician and seer, a Levite, son of Joe and grandson of the prophet Samuel; of the family of the Kohathites (1Ch 6:33), appointed by David as one of the leaders of the temple-singing (1Ch 15:17; 2Ch 5:12). He had 14 sons (and 3 daughters) who assisted their father in the chorus. Heman seems also to have been a man of spiritual power; is called "the king’s seer in matters of God" (1Ch 25:5; 2Ch 35:15).

(2) One of the noted wise men prior to, or about, the time of Solomon. He was one of the three sons of Mahol (1Ki 4:31 (Hebrew 5:11)); also called a son of Zerah (1Ch 2:6).

Ps 88 is inscribed to Heman the Ezrahite, who is probably to be identified with the second son of Zerah.

Edward Babgy Pollard



See HAMMATH (1Ch 2:55).

HEMDAN hem’-dan (chemdan, "pleasant"): A descendant of Seir, the Horite (Ge 36:26). Wrongly translated "Amram" by the King James Version in 1Ch 1:41 (the Revised Version (British and American) "Hamran"), where the transcribers made an error in one vowel and one consonant, writing (chamran), instead of (chemdan).




HEN (1)

hen (chen, "favor"). In Zec 6:14, English Versions of the Bible reads, "And the crowns shall be to Helem .... and to Hen the son of Zephaniah." But as this person is called Josiah in Zec 6:10, the Revised Version, margin "and for the kindness of the son of Zephaniah" is probably right, but the text is uncertain.


HEN (2)

(ornis): Mentioned in the accounts of the different disciples in describing the work of Jesus (Mt 23:37; Lu 13:34).


he’-na (hena‘; Ana): Named in 2Ki 19:13, as one of the cities destroyed by Sennacherib along with Sepharvaim. It does not appear in a similar connection in 17:24. The text is probably corrupt. No reasonable identification has been proposed. Cheyne (Encyclopaedia Biblica, under the word) says of the phrase "Hena and Ivah" that "underlying this is a witty editorial suggestion that the existence of cities called h-n-‘ and ‘-w-h respectively has passed out of mind (compare Ps 9:6 (7)), for hena‘ we‘iwwah, clearly means ‘he has driven away and overturned’ (so Targum, Symmachus)." He would drop out h-n-‘. Hommel (Expositors Times, IX, 330) thinks that here we have divine names; Hena standing for the Arabic star-name al-han‘a, and Ivvah for al-‘awwa’u.


W. Ewing


hen’-a-dad (chenadhadh, "favor of Hadad"; Septuagint Henaad; Henadad; Henadab; Henalab (Ezr 3:9; Ne 3:18,24; 10:9)): One of the heads of the Levites in the post-exilic community.


hen’-a (So 1:14; 4:13): An aromatic plant.


he’-nok (chanokh; Henoch; in 1Ch 1:3 the King James Version the Revised Version (British and American), "Enoch"; in Ge 25:4, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "Hanoch"; 1Ch 1:33, the King James Version "Henoch," the Revised Version (British and American) "Hanoch"): The name of a Midianite, a descendant of Abram.



(1) Septuagint Hopher (Jos 12:17), a Canaanitish town mentioned between Tappuah and Aphek, unidentified.

(2) In 1Ki 4:10 a district connected with Socoh, and placed by Solomon under the direction of Benhesed of Arubboth, unidentified.


he’-fer, he’-fer-its (chepher, chephri):

(1) Septuagint Hopher (Nu 26:32 f; 27:1; Jos 17:2 f), the head of a family or clan of the tribe of Manasseh. The clan is called the Hepherites in Nu 26:32.

(2) Septuagint Hephal (1Ch 4:6), a man of Judah.

(3) Septuagint Hopher (1Ch 11:36), one of David’s heroes.


hef’-zi-ba (chephtsi-bhah, "my delight is in her"):

(1) Septuagint Hopseiba, Hapseiba, Hophsiba, the mother of Manasseh (2Ki 21:1).

(2) The new name of Zion (Isa 62:4); Septuagint translates Thelema emon, "my delight."


her’-a-klez (Herakles).



her’-ald: The word occurs once (Da 3:4) as the translation of the Aramaic word karoz (compare kerux): "Then the herald cried aloud."

See also GAMES.


hurb, urb:

(1) yaraq, "green thing" (Ex 10:15; Isa 15:6); a garden of herbs" (De 11:10; 1Ki 21:2); "(a dinner, the margin portion of) herbs" (Pr 15:17).

(2) ‘esebh; compare Arabic ‘ushb, "herbage," "grass," etc.; "herbs yielding seed" (Ge 1:11); "herbage" for food (Ge 1:30; Jer 14:6); translated "grass" (De 11:15; Am 7:2); "herbs" (Pr 27:25, etc.).

(3) deshe’, translated "herb" (2Ki 19:26; Pr 27:25; Isa 37:27; 66:14 the King James Version), but generally GRASS (which see).

(4) chatsir, vegetation generally, but translated GRASS (which see).

(5) ‘oroth, ‘owroth (plural only), "green plants" or "herbs." In 2Ki 4:39 the Talmud interprets it to mean "colewort," but it may mean any edible herbs which had survived the drought. In Isa 26:19 the expression "dew of herbs" is in the margin translated "dew of light" which is more probable (see DEW), and the translation "heat upon herbs" (Isa 18:4 the King James Version) is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "clear heat in sunshine."

(6) botane (Heb 6:7).

(7) lachana = yaraq (Mt 13:32).


E. W. G. Masterman


hur’-ku-lez (Herakles): The process of Hellenizing the Jews which began at an earlier date was greatly promoted under Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC). Jason, who supplanted his brother Onias in the office of high priest by promising Antiochus an increase of tribute, aided the movement by setting up under the king’s authority a Greek palaestra for the training of youth in Greek exercises, and by registering the inhabitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch (2 Macc 4:8 f). Certain of these Antiochians of Jerusalem Jason sent to Tyre, where games were held every five years in honor of Hercules, that is, the national Tyrian deity Melcart, identified with Baal of Old Testament history. According to Josephus (Ant., VII, v, 3) Hiram, king of Tyre in the days of Solomon, built the temple of Hercules and also of Astarte. Jason s deputies carried 300 drachmas of silver for the sacrifice of Hercules, but they were so ashamed of their commission that they "thought it not right to use the money for any sacrifice" and "on account of present circumstances it went to the equipment of the galleys" (2 Macc 4:18-20).

J. Hutchison





hurdz’-man (boqer; the King James Version, the English Revised Version "herdman"): A cowherd (Am 7:14). The same word is used in Syria today. ro‘eh, has its equivalent in the language of Syria and Palestine (Arabic ra’i), and is a general term for any kind of a herdsman (Ge 13:7,8; 26:20; 1Sa 21:7). noqedh, occurs in one passage (Am 1:1); literally it means one who spots or marks the sheep, hence, a herdsman. Spotting the wool with different dyes is still the method of distinguishing between the sheep of different flocks. The herdsman is seldom the owner of the sheep, but a hireling.


James A. Patch


her, in composition:


her-aft’-er (here (this present) and after) represents Hebrew ‘achar, "hinder part," "end" (Isa 41:23), "the things that are to come hereafter" (’achor after, behind the present), with den, "this," ‘achare dhen, Aramaic (Da 2:29,45), ‘achar, "after," "behind," "last" (Eze 20:39), Greek ap’ arti, "from now" (Mt 26:64), "Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," which does not mean "at a future time" according to the more modern usage of "hereafter," but (as the Greek) "from now," the Revised Version (British and American) "henceforth"; Tyndale and the chief versions after him have "hereafter," but Wycliff has "fro hennes forth." Joh 1:51, "Hereafter ye shall see the heaven opened," etc., where "hereafter" has the same meaning; it is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American) after a corrected text (Wycliff also omits); eti, "yet," "still," "any more" "any longer" (Joh 14:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "I will no more speak much with you," Wycliff, "now I schal not"); meketi, "no more," "no longer" (Mr 11:14, "no man eat fruit of thee hereafter," the Revised Version (British and American) "henceforward"); apo tou nun, "from now" (Lu 22:69, the Revised Version (British and American) "From henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God," Wycliff "aftir this tyme"); meta tauta (Joh 13:7, "Thou shalt know (the Revised Version (British and American) "understand") hereafter," Wycliff "aftirward").


her-bi’, represents bezo’th, "in or by this" (Ge 42:15 "Hereby ye shall be proved"); ek toutou, "out of this" (1Joh 4:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "by this"); en touto, "in this," "by this means" (1Co 4:4; 1 Joh 2:3,1; 3:16,19,24; 4:2,13).



1. Physiological Heredity:

Heredity, in modern language, is the law by which living beings tend to repeat their characteristics, physiological and psychical, in their offspring, a law familiar in some form to even the most uncultured peoples. The references to it in the Bible are of various kinds.

Curiously enough, little mention is made of physiological heredity, even in so simple a form as the resemblance of a son to his father, but there are a few references, such as, e.g., those to giants with giants for sons (2Sa 21:18-22; 1Ch 20:4-8; compare Ge 6:4; Nu 13:33; De 1:28, etc.). Moreover De 28:59-61 may contain a thought of hereditary diseases (compare 2Ki 5:27). On the psychical side the data are almost equally scanty. That a son and his father may differ entirely is taken for granted and mentioned repeatedly (especially in Eze 18:5-20). Even in the case of the king, the frequent changes of dynasty prevented such a phrase as "the seed royal" (2Ki 11:1; Jer 41:1) from being taken very seriously. Yet, perhaps, the inheritance of mechanical dexterity is hinted at in Ge 4:20-22, if "father" means anything more than "teacher." But, in any case, the fact that "father" could have this metaphorical sense, together with the corresponding use of "son" in such phrases as "son of Belial" (Jud 19:22 the King James Version), "son of wickedness" (Ps 89:22), "sons of the prophets" (Am 7:14 margin, etc.), "son of the wise, .... of ancient kings" (Isa 19:11; this last phrase may be meant literally), shows that the inheritance of characteristics was a very familiar fact.

See SON.

2. Hebrew Conception of Heredity:

The question, however, is considerably complicated by the intense solidarity that the Hebrews ascribed to the family. The individual was felt to be only a link in the chain, his "personality" (very vaguely conceived) somehow continuing that of his ancestors and being continued in that of his descendants. After death the happiness (or even existence; see DEATH) of this shade in the other world depended on the preservation of a posterity in this. Hence, slaying the sons of a dead man was thought to affect him directly, and it would be a great mistake to suppose that an act such as that of 2Sa 21:1-9, etc., was simply to prevent a blood-feud. Nor was it at all in point that the children might repeat the qualities of the father, however much this may have been realized in other connections. Consequently, it is impossible to tell in many cases just how much of a modern heredity idea is present.

The most important example is the conception of the position of the nations. These are traced back to single ancestors, and in various cases the qualities of the nation are explained by those of the ancestor (Ge 9:22-27; 21:20,21; 49, etc.). The influences that determine national characteristics are evidently thought to be hereditary, and yet not all of them are hereditary in our sense; e.g. in Ge 27, the condition of the descendants of Jacob and Esau is conceived to have been fixed by the nature of the blessings (mistakenly) pronounced by Isaac. On the other hand, Ezra (9:11,12) thinks of the danger of intermarrying with the children of a degenerate people in an entirely modern style, but in De 23:3-6 the case is not so clear. There a curse pronounced on the nations for their active hostility is more in point than moral degeneracy (however much this may be spoken of elsewhere, Nu 25:1-3, etc.), and it is on account of the curse that the taint takes ten generations to work itself out, while, in the case of Edomite or Egyptian blood, purity was attained in three. Hence, it is hard to tell just how Ex 20:5,6 was interpreted. The modern conception of the effect of heredity was surely present in part, but there must have been also ideas of the extension of the curse-bearing individuality that we should find hard to understand.

3. Abraham’s Children:

The chiefest question is that of the Israelites. Primarily they are viewed as the descendants of Abraham, blessed because he was blessed (Ge 22:15-18, etc.). This was taken by many with the utmost literalness, and physical descent from Abraham was thought to be sufficient (especially Mt 3:9; Joh 8:31-44; Ro 9:6-13), or at least necessary (especially Ezr 2:59; 9:2; Ne 7:61), for salvation. Occasionally this descent is stated to give superior qualities in other regards (Es 6:13). But a distinction between natural inheritance of Abraham’s qualities and the blessing bestowed by God’s unbounded favor and decree on his descendants must have been thoroughly recognized, otherwise the practice of proselytizing would have been impossible.

4. Heredity and the New Testament:

In the New Testament the doctrine of original sin, held already by a certain school among the Jews (2 Esdras 7:48), alone raises much question regarding heredity (compare 1Co 7:14). Otherwise the Old Testament concepts are simply reversed: where likeness of nature appears, there is (spiritual) descent (Ro 4:12; Ga 3:7, etc.). None the less, that the Israel "after the flesh" has a real spiritual privilege is stated explicitly (Ro 3:1,2; 11:26; Re 11:13).


Burton Scott Easton


her-in’, Hebrew bezo’th, "in" or "by this" (Ge 34:22, the Revised Version (British and American) "on this condition"); en touta (Joh 4:37; 9:30; 15:8; Ac 24:16; 2Co 8:10; 1 Joh 4:10,17).


her-ov’, Greek haute, "this" (Mt 9:26); houtos, "this" (Heb 5:3, the Revised Version (British and American) "thereof").


he’-rez, he’-res:

(1) har-cherec, "Mount Heres" (Jud 1:34 f), a district from which the Amorites were not expelled; it is mentioned along with Aijalon and Shallbim. In Jos 19:41 f we have then two towns in association with Ir-shemesh and many authorities consider that as cherec = shemesh, i.e. the sun, and har, being perhaps a copyist’s error for ‘ir, "city," we have in Jud 1:34 a reference to Beth-shemesh, the modern ‘Ain Shems. Conder thinks that Batn Harasheh, Northeast of Aijalon, a prominent hill, may be the place referred to. Budde thinks Har-heres may be identified with the Bit-Ninib (Ninib being the fierce morning sun) of the Tell el-Amarna Letters; this place was in the district of Jerusalem.

(2) ma‘aleh he-charec, "the ascent of Heres" (Jud 8:13, the King James Version "before the sun was up"), the place from which Gideon returned to Succoth after his defeat of Zebah and Zalmunna. the Revised Version (British and American) is probably a great improvement on the King James Version, but both the text and the topography are uncertain.

(3) ‘ir ha-cherec, "City of Heres" EVm, "City of Destruction" (cherem) English Versions of the Bible, or "City of the sun" cherec) English Versions, margin. This is the name of one of the "five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Yahweh of hosts" (Isa 19:18).


E. W. G. Masterman


he’-resh (cheresh; the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus, Rharaiel; Codex Alexandrinus, Hares): A Levite (1Ch 9:15).


her’-e-si, her’-e-si (hairesis, from verb haireo, "to choose"): The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into common usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament, except as implied in one passage. In classical Greek, it may be used either in a good or a bad sense, first, simply for "choice," then, "a chosen course of procedure," and afterward of various schools and tendencies. Polybius refers to those devoting themselves to the study of Greek literature as given to the Hellenike hairesis. It was used not simply for a teaching or a course followed, but also for those devoting themselves to such pursuit, namely, a sect, or assembly of those advocating a particular doctrine or mode of life. Thus, in Acts, the word is used in the Greek, where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "sect," "sect of the Sadducees" (Ac 5:17), "sect of the Nazarenes" (Ac 24:5). In Ac 26:5 the Pharisees are called "the straitest hairesis (sect)." The name was applied contemptuously to Christianity (Ac 24:14; 28:22). Its application, with censure, is found in 1Co 11:19 m; Ga 5:20 margin, where it is shown to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that belong to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against. Ellicott, on Ga 5:20, correctly defines "heresies" (King James Version, the English Revised Version) as "a more aggravated form of dichostasia" (the American Standard Revised Version "parties") "when the divisions have developed into distinct and organized parties"; so also 1Co 11:19, translated by the Revised Version (British and American) "factions." In 2Pe 2:1, the transition toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The "destructive heresies" (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin "sects of perdition") are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church.

In the fixed ecclesiastical sense that it ultimately attained, it indicated not merely any doctrinal error, but "the open espousal of fundamental error" (Ellicott on Tit 3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders. Roman Catholics, regarding all professed Christians who are not in their communion as heretics, modify their doctrine on this point by distinguishing between Formal and terial Heresy, the former being unconscious and unintentional, and between different degrees of each of these classes (Cath. Encyclopedia, VII, 256 ff). For the development of the ecclesiastical meaning, see Suicer’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I, 119-23.

H. E. Jacobs


he’-reth (ya‘-ar chareth; Septuagint polis Sareik; the King James Version Hareth): David (1Sa 22:5) was told by the prophet Gad to depart from Mizpah of Moab and go to the land of Judah, and he "came into the forest of Hereth." The Septuagint has "city" instead of forest; see also Josephus, Ant, VI, xii, 4. The village Kharas, on an ancient high road, 3 miles Southeast of Aid el ma, probably David’s stronghold ADULLAM (which see), may possibly answer to the place (PEF, III, 305, Sh XXI). "Horesh" has been suggested as an alternative reading.

E. W. G. Masterman


her’-e-tik, her’-e-tik, he-ret’-i-kal (hairetikos): Used in Tit 3:10, must be interpreted according to the sense in which Paul employs the word "heresy" (1Co 11:19; Ga 5:20) for "parties" or "factions." According to this, the Scriptural meaning of the word is no more than "a factious man" (American Standard Revised Version), an agitator who creates divisions and makes parties. Weizsacker translates it into German ein Sektierer, "a sectarist." The nature of the offense is described in other words in 2Th 2:6,11.


her-too-for’, Hebrew temol, "yesterday," "neither heretofore, nor since" (Ex 4:10; compare Ex 5:7,8,14; Jos 3:4; Ru 2:11); ‘ethmol shilshom, "yesterday," "third day" (1Sa 4:7, "There hath not been such a thing heretofore."


her-un-too’, Greek eis touto, "unto," "with a view to this" (1Pe 2:21, "For hereunto were ye called"): "hereunto" is supplied (Ec 2:25, "Who else can hasten hereunto more than I" the Revised Version (British and American) "who can have enjoyment," margin "hasten thereto").


her-with’, Hebrew ba-zo’th, bezo’th, "in," "by," or "with this" (Eze 16:29; Mal 3:10, "Prove me now herewith, saith Yahweh").

The Revised Version (British and American) has "herein" for "to do this" (Ezr 4:22); for "in these things" (Ro 14:18); "of them that have sinned heretofore" for "which have sinned already" (2Co 12:21); "hereunto" for "thereunto" (1Pe 3:9); "herewith" for "thus" (Le 16:3).

W. L. Walker


her’-i-taj (nachalah, from nachal, "to give"; kleroo): That which is allotted, possession, property, portion, share, peculiar right, inheritance; applied to land transferred from the Canaanites to Israel (Ps 11:6; 136:22); to Israel, as the heritage of Yahweh (Joe 3:2, etc.). In the New Testament (Eph 1:11) applied to believers, the spiritual Israel, as God’s peculiar possession (Ellicott, Eadie).


hur’-mas (Hermas): An abbreviated form of several names, e.g. Hermagoras, Hermeros, Hermodorus, Hermogenes, etc.; the name of a Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Ro 16:14). Origen and some later writers have identified him with the author of The Pastor of Hermas, but without sufficient reason. According to the Canon of Muratori, the author of The Pastor wrote when his brother Pius was bishop of Rome (140-55 AD). He speaks of himself, however, as a contemporary of Clement of Rome (chapter 4) (circa 100 AD). The name Hermas is very common, and Origen’s identification is purely conjectural.

S. F. Hunter





hur’-mez (Hermes): In the Revised Version margin of Ac 14:12 for "Mercury" in text (the King James Version "Mercurius").


(Hermes): The name of a Roman Christian, otherwise unknown, to whom Paul sent greetings (Ro 16:14). "Hermes is among the commonest slave names. In the household alone probably not less than a score of persons might be counted up from the inscriptions, who bore this name at or about the time when Paul wrote" (Lightfoot, Philippians, 176).


her-moj’-e-nez (Hermogenes, literally "born of Hermes," a Greek deity, called by the Romans, "Mercury," 2Ti 1:15):

1. Where Did He "Turn Away"?:

Hermogenes was a Christian, mentioned by Paul as having, along with Phygellus and "all that are in Asia," turned away from him. It is not clear when or where the defection of those Asiatic Christians from the apostle took place, whether it was at Rome at the time of Paul’s second imprisonment there, and especially on the occasion of his being brought before the emperor’s supreme court, to be tried on a charge now involving the death penalty, or whether it was at some previous time in Ephesus.

2. Was It in Ephesus?:

If it was the latter, then the meaning is that Paul wishes to inform Timothy, or perhaps only to remind him, how in Ephesus, where Timothy was the presiding minister of the church, these persons, Phygellus and Hermogenes with many more, had turned away from him, that is, had refused to submit to his authority, and had rejected the Christian doctrine which he taught. This latter meaning, referring the "turning away" to some previous occasion in Ephesus, is thought by some expositors to be the probable signification, owing to the fact that the verb "they be turned away" is in the aorist tense, referring to a time long past when the apostle wrote.

3. Unlikelihood of It Being in Ephesus:

On the other hand there is no evidence that there ever was a time when "all they which are in Asia" (the King James Version) turned away from obedience to Paul. Whatever may have been the disloyalty and disobedience of individuals—and this certainly existed; see, e.g., Ac 20:29 f—yet, certainly the New Testament does not show that all that were in Asia, the Christian community as a whole, in Ephesus and Miletus and Laodicea and Hierapolis and Colosse and other places, repudiated his apostolic authority.

4. Probalility of It Being in Rome:

If the words "all they which are in Asia" refer to all the Christians from the proconsular province of Asia, who happened to be in Rome at the time of Paul’s second imprisonment there, it can easily be understood that they should turn away from him at that testing time. It is impossible to say exactly what form their desertion of the apostle assumed. Their turning away would likely be caused by fear, lest if it were known that they were friends of the prisoner in the Mamertine, they would be involved in the same imprisonment as had overtaken him, and probably also in the same death penalty.

It is altogether in favor of a reference to Rome, that what is said about Phygellus and Hermogenes and their turning away from Paul is immediately followed by a reference to Onesiphorus, and to the great kindness which he showed, when he sought the apostle but very diligently in Rome. On the whole, therefore, a reference to Rome and to the manner in which these persons, named and unnamed, from Asia, had deserted Paul, seems most probable.


John Rutherfurd


hur’-mon (chermon; Codex Vaticanus, Haermon):

1. Description:

The name of the majestic mountain in which the Anti-Lebanon range terminates to the South (De 3:8, etc.). It reaches a height of 9,200 ft. above the sea, and extends some 16 to 20 miles from North to South. It was called Sirion by the Sidonians (De 3:9; compare Ps 29:6), and Senir by the Amorites (De 3:9). It is also identified with Sion (De 4:48). See SIRION; SENIR; SION. Sometimes it is called "Mt. Hermon" (De 3:8; Jos 11:17; 1Ch 5:23, etc.); at other times simply "Hermon" (Jos 11:3; Ps 89:12, etc.).

2. The Hermons:

Once it is called "Hermons" (chermonim). the King James Version mistakenly renders this "the Hermonites" (Ps 42:6). It must be a reference to the triple summits of the mountain. There are three distinct heads, rising near the middle of the mass, the two higher being toward the East. The eastern declivities are steep and bare; the western slopes are more gradual; and while the upper reaches are barren, the lower are well wooded; and as one descends he passes through fruitful vineyards and orchards, finally entering the rich fields below, in Wady etteim. The Aleppo pine, the oak, and the poplar are plentiful. The wolf and the leopard are still to be found on the mountain; and it is the last resort of the brown, or Syrian, bear. Snow lies long on the summits and shoulders of the mountain; and in some of the deeper hollows, especially to the North, it may be seen through most of the year.

Mt. Hermon is the source of many blessings to the land over which it so proudly lifts its splendid form. Refreshing breezes blow from its cold heights. Its snows are carried to Damascus and to the towns on the seaboard, where, mingled with the sharab, "drink," they mitigate the heat of the Syrian summer. Great reservoirs in the depths of the mountain, fed by the melting snows, find outlet in the magnificent springs at Chasbeiyeh, Tell el-Kady, and Banias, while the dew-clouds of Hermon bring a benediction wherever they are carried (Ps 133:3).

3. Sanctuaries:

Hermon marked the northern limit of Joshua’s victorious campaigns (Jos 12:1, etc.). It was part, of the dominion of Og (Jos 12:5), and with the fall of that monarch, it would naturally come under Israelite influence. Its remote and solitary heights must have attracted worshippers from the earliest times; and we cannot doubt that it was a famous sanctuary in far antiquity. Under the highest peak are the ruins of Kacr ‘Antar, which may have been an ancient sanctuary of Baal. Eusebius, Onomasticon, speaks of a temple on the summit much frequented by the surrounding peoples; and the remains of many temples of the Roman period have been found on the sides and at the base of the mountain. The sacredness of Hermon may be inferred from the allusion in Ps 89:12 (compare Enoch 6:6; and see also BAAL-HERMON).

Some have thought that the scene of the Transfiguration should be sought here; see, however, TRANSFIGURATION, MOUNT OF.

The modern name of Hermon is Jebel eth-thilj, "mount of snow," or Jebel esh-sheikh, "mount of the elder," or "of the chief."

Little Hermon, the name now often applied to the hill between Tabor and Gilboa, possibly the Hill of Moreh, on which is the sanctuary of Neby Dahy, has no Biblical authority, and dates only from the Middle Ages.

W. Ewing


hur’-mon-its: In Ps 42:6 the King James Version, where the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Hermons."



her’-ud: The name Herod (Herodes) is a familiar one in the history of the Jews and of the early Christian church. The name itself signifies "heroic," a name not wholly applicable to the family, which was characterized by craft and knavery rather than by heroism. The fortunes of the Herodiam family are inseparably connected with the last flickerings of the flame of Judaism, as a national power, before it was forever extinguished in the great Jewish war of rebellion, 70 AD. The history of the Herodian family is not lacking in elements of greatness, but whatever these elements were and in whomsoever found, they were in every ease dimmed by the insufferable egotism which disfigured the family, root and branch. Some of the Herodian princes were undeniably talented; but these talents, wrongly used, left no marks for the good of the people of Israel. Of nearly all the kings of the house of Herod it may truly be said that at their death "they went without being desired," unmissed, unmourned. The entire family history is one of incessant brawls, suspicion, intrigue arid shocking immorality. In the baleful and waning light of the rule of the Herodians, Christ lived and died, and under it the foundations of the Christian church were laid.1Co 11:19 m; Ga 5:20 margin, where it is shown to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that belong to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against. Ellicott, on Ga 5:20, correctly defines "heresies" (King James Version, the English Revised Version) as "a more aggravated form of dichostasia" (the American Standard Revised Version "parties") "when the divisions have developed into distinct and organized parties"; so also 1Co 11:19, translated by the Revised Version (British and American) "factions." In 2Pe 2:1, the transition toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The "destructive heresies" (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin "sects of perdition") are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church.

1. The Family Descent:

The Herodians were not of Jewish stock. Herod the Great encouraged the circulation of the legend of the family descent from an illustrious Babylonian Jew (Ant., XIV, i, 3), but it has no historic basis. It is true the Idumeans were at that time nominal Jews, since they were subdued by John Hyrcanus in 125 BC, and embodied in the Asmonean kingdom through an enforced circumcision, but the old national antagonism remained (Ge 27:41). The Herodian family sprang from Antipas (died 78 BC), who was appointed governor of Idumaea by Alexander Janneus. His son Antipater, who succeeded him, possessed al the cunning, resourcefulness and unbridled ambition of his son Herod the Great. He had an open eye for two things—the unconquerable strength of the Roman power and the pitiable weakness of the decadent Asmonean house, and on these two factors he built the house of his hopes. He craftily chose the side of Hyrcanus II in his internecine war with Aristobulus his brother (69 BC), and induced him to seek the aid of the Romans. Together they supported the claims of Pompey and, after the latter’s defeat, they availed themselves of the magnanimity of Caesar to submit to him, after the crushing defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus (48 BC). As a reward, Antipater received the procuratorship of Judea (47 BC), while his innocent dupe Hyrcanus had to satisfy himself with the high-priesthood. Antipater died by the hand of an assassin (43 BC) and left four sons, Phasael, Herod the Great, Joseph, Pheroras, and a daughter Salome. The second of these sons raised the family to its highest pinnacle of power and glory. Pheroras was nominally his co-regent ann, possessed of his father’s cunning, maintained himself to the end, surviving his cruel brother, but he cuts a small figure in the family history. He, as well as his sister Salome, proved an endless source of trouble to Herod by the endless family brawls which they occasioned.

2. Herod the Great:

With a different environment and with a different character, Herod the Great might have been worthy of the surname which he now bears only as a tribute of inane flattery. What we know of him, we owe, in the main, to the exhaustive treatment of the subject by Josephus in his Antiquities and Jewish War, and from Strabo and Dio Cassius among the classics. We may subsume our little sketch of Herod’s life under the heads of (1) political activity, (2) evidences of talent, and (3) character and domestic life.

(1) Political Activity.

Antipater had great ambitions for his son. Herod was only a young man when he began his career as governor of Galilee. Josephus’ statement, however, that he was only "fifteen years old" (Ant., XIV, ix, 2) is evidently the mistake of some transcriber, because we are told (XVII, viii, 1) that "he continued his life till a very old age." That was 42 years later, so that Herod at this time must have been at least 25 years old. His activity and success in ridding his dominion of dangerous bands of freebooters, and his still greater success in raising the always welcome tribute-money for the Roman government, gained for him additional power at court. His advance became rapid. Antony appointed him "tetrarch" of Judea in 41 BC, and although he was forced by circumstances temporarily to leave his domain in the hands of the Parthians and of Antigonus, this, in the end, proved a blessing in disguise. In this final spasm of the dying Asmonean house, Antigonus took Jerusalem by storm, and Phasael, Herod’s oldest brother, fell into his hands. The latter was governor of the city, and foreseeing his fate, he committed suicide by dashing out his brains against the walls of his prison. Antigonus incapacitated his brother Hyrcanus, who was captured at the same time, from ever holding the holy office again by cropping off his ears (Ant., XIV, xiii, 10). Meanwhile, Herod was at Rome, and through the favor of Antony and Augustus he obtained the crown of Judea in 37 BC. The fond ambition of his heart was now attained, although he had literally to carve out his own empire with the sword. He made quick work of the task, cut his way back into Judea and took Jerusalem by storm in 37 BC.

The first act of his reign was the extermination of the Asmonean house, to which Herod himself was related through his marriage with Mariamne, the grandchild of Hyrcanus. Antigonus was slain and with him 45 of his chief adherents. Hyrcanus was recalled from Babylon, to which he had been banished by Antigonus, but the high-priesthood was bestowed on Aristobulus, Herod’s brother-in-law, who, however, soon fell a victim to the suspicion and fear of the king (Ant., XV, iii, 3). These outrages against the purest blood in Judea turned the love of Mariamne, once cherished for Herod, into a bitter hatred. The Jews, loyal to the dynasty of the Maccabees, accused Herod before the Roman court, but he was summarily acquitted by Antony. Hyrcanus, mutilated and helpless as he was, soon followed Aristobulus in the way of death, 31 BC (Ant., XV, vi, 1). When Antony, who had ever befriended Herod, was conquered by Augustus at Actium (31 BC), Herod quickly turned to the powers that were, and, by subtle flattery and timely support, won the imperial favor. The boundaries of his kingdom were now extended by Rome. And Herod proved equal to the greater task. By a decisive victory over the Arabians, he showed, as he had done in his earlier Galilean government, what manner of man he was, when aroused to action. The Arabians were wholly crushed, and submitted themselves unconditionally under the power of Herod (Ant., XV, v, 5). Afraid to leave a remnant of the Asmonean power alive, he sacrificed Mariamne his wife, the only human being he ever seems to have loved (28 BC), his mother-in-law Alexandra (Ant., XV, vii, 8), and ultimately, shortly before his death, even his own sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus 7 BC (Ant., XVI, xi, 7). In his emulation of the habits and views of life of the Romans, he continually offended and defied his Jewish subjects, by the introduction of Roman sports and heathen temples in his dominion. His influence on the younger Jews in this regard was baneful, and slowly a distinct partly arose, partly political, partly religious, which called itself the Herodian party, Jews in outward religious forms but Gentiles in their dress and in their whole view of life. They were a bitter offense to the rest of the nation, but were associated with the Pharisees and Sadducees in their opposition to Christ (Mt 22:16; Mr 3:6; 12:13). In vain Herod tried to win over the Jews, by royal charity in time of famine, and by yielding, wherever possible, to their bitter prejudices. They saw in him only a usurper of the throne of David, maintained by the strong arm of the hated Roman oppressor. Innumerable plots were made against his life, but, with almost superhuman cunning, Herod defeated them all (Ant., XV, viii). He robbed his own people that he might give munificent gifts to the Romans; he did not even spare the grave of King David, which was held in almost idolatrous reverence by the people, but robbed it of its treasures (Ant., XVI, vii, 1). The last days of Herod were embittered by endless court intrigues and conspiracies, by an almost insane suspicion on the part of the aged king, and by increasing indications of the restlessness of the nation. Like Augustus himself, Herod was the victim of an incurable and loathsome disease. His temper became more irritable, as the malady made progress, and he made both himself and his court unutterably miserable. The picture drawn by Josephus (Ant., XVII) is lifelike and tragic in its vividness. In his last will and testament, he remained true to his life-long fawning upon the Roman power (Ant., XVII, vi, 1). So great became his suffering toward the last that he made a fruitless attempt at suicide. But, true to his character, one of the last acts of his life was an order to execute his son Antipater, who had instigated the murder of his halfbrothers, Alexander and Aristobulus, and another order to slay, after his death, a number of nobles, who were guilty of a small outbreak at Jerusalem and who were confined in the hippodrome (Ant., XVI, vi, 5). He died in the 37th year of his reign, 34 years after he had captured Jerusalem and slain Antigonus. Josephus writes this epitaph: "A man he was of great barbarity toward all men equally, and a slave to his passions, but above the consideration of what was right. Yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was, for from a private man he became a king, and though he were encompassed by ten thousand dangers, he got clear of them all and continued his life to a very old age" (Ant., XVII, viii, 1).

(2) Evidences of Talent.

The life of Herod the Great was not a fortuitous chain of favorable accidents. He was unquestionably a man of talent. In a family like that of Antipus and Antipater, talent must necessarily be hereditary, and Herod inherited it more largely than any of his brothers. His whole life exhibits in no small degree statecraft, power of organization, shrewdness. He knew men and he knew how to use them. He won the warmest friendship of Roman emperors, and had a faculty of convincing the Romans of the righteousness of his cause, in every contingency. In his own dominions he was like Ishmael, his hand against all, and the hands of all against him, and yet he maintained himself in the government for a whole generation. His Galilean governorship showed what manner of man he was, a man with iron determination and great generalship. His Judean conquest proved the same thing, as did his Arabian war. Herod was a born leader of men. Under a different environment he might have developed into a truly great man, and had his character been coordinate with his gifts, he might have done great things for the Jewish people. But by far the greatest talent of Herod was his singular architectural taste and ability. Here he reminds one of the old Egyptian Pharaohs. Against the laws of Judaism, which he pretended to obey, he built at Jerusalem a magnificent theater and an amphitheater, of which the ruins remain. The one was within the city, the other outside the walls. Thus he introduced into the ascetic sphere of the Jewish life the frivolous spirit of the Greeks and the Romans. To offset this cruel infraction of all the maxims of orthodox Judaism, he tried to placate the nation by rebuilding the temple of Zerubbabel and making it more magnificent than even Solomon’s temple had been. This work was accomplished somewhere between 19 BC and 11 or 9 BC, although the entire work was not finished till the procuratorship of Albinus, 62-64 AD (Ant., XV, xi, 5, 6; XX, ix, 7; Joh 2:20). It was so transcendently beautiful that it ranked among the world’s wonders, and Josephus does not tire of describing its glories (BJ, V, v). Even Titus sought to spare the building in the final attack on the city (BJ, VI, iv, 3). Besides this, Herod rebuilt and beautified Struto’s Tower, which he called after the emperor, Caesarea. He spent 12 years in this gigantic work, building a theater and amphitheater, and above all in achieving the apparently impossible by creating a harbor where there was none before. This was accomplished by constructing a gigantic mole far out into the sea, and so enduring was the work that the remains of it are seen today. The Romans were so appreciative of the work done by Herod that they made Caesarea the capital of the new regime, after the passing away of the Herodian power. Besides this, Herod rebuilt Samaria, to the utter disgust of the Jews, calling it Sebaste. In Jerusalem itself he built the three great towers, Antonia, Phasaelus and Mariamne, which survived even the catastrophe of the year 70 AD. All over Herod’s dominion were found the evidences of this constructive passion. Antipatris was built by him, on the site of the ancient Kapharsaba, as well as the stronghold Phasaelus near Jericho, where he was destined to see so much suffering and ultimately to die. He even reached beyond his own domain to satisfy this building mania at Ascalon, Damascus, Tyre and Sidon, Tripoli, Ptolemais, nay even at Athens and Lacedaemon. But the universal character of these operations itself occasioned the bitterest hatred against him on the part of the narrowminded Jews.

(3) Characteristics and Domestic Life.

The personality of Herod was impressive, and he was possessed of great physical strength. His intellectual powers were far beyond the ordinary; his will was indomitable; he was possessed of great tact, when he saw fit to employ it; in the great crises of his life he was never at a loss what to do; and no one has ever accused Herod the Great of cowardice. There were in him two distinct individualities, as was the case with Nero. Two powers struggled in him for the mastery, and the lower one at last gained complete control. During the first part of his reign there were evidences of large-heartedness, of great possibilities in the man. But the bitter experiences of his life, the endless whisperings and warnings of his court, the irreconcilable spirit of the Jews, as well as the consciousness of his own wrongdoing, changed him into a Jewish Nero: a tyrant, who bathed his own house and his own people in blood. The demons of Herod’s life were jealousy of power, and suspicion, its necessary companion.

He was the incarnation of brute lust, which in turn became the burden of the lives of his children. History tells of few more immoral families than the house of Herod, which by intermarriage of its members so entangled the genealogical tree as to make it a veritable puzzle. As these marriages were nearly all within the line of forbidden consanguinity, under the Jewish law, they still further embittered the people of Israel against the Herodian family. When Herod came to the throne of Judea, Phasael was dead. Joseph his younger brother had fallen in battle (Ant., XIV, xv, 10), and only Pheroras and Salome survived. The first, as we have seen, nominally shared the government with Herod, but was of little consequence and only proved a thorn in the king’s flesh by his endless interference and plotting. To him were allotted the revenues of the East Jordanic territory. Salome, his sister, was ever neck-deep in the intrigues of the Herodian family, but had the cunning of a fox and succeeded in making Herod believe in her unchangeable loyalty, although the king had killed her own son-in-law and her nephew, Aristobulus, his own son. The will of Herod, made shortly before his death, is a convincing proof of his regard for his sister (Ant., XVII, viii, 1).

His domestic relations were very unhappy. Of his marriage with Doris and of her son, Antipater, he reaped only misery, the son, as stated above, ultimately falling a victim to his father’s wrath, when the crown, for which he plotted, was practically within his grasp. Herod appears to have been deeply in love with Mariamne, the grandchild of Hyrcanus, in so far as he was capable of such a feeling, but his attitude toward the entire Asmonean family and his fixed determination to make an end of it changed whatever love Mariamne had for him into hatred. Ultimately she, as well as her two sons, fell victims to Herod’s insane jealousy of power. Like Nero, however, in a similar situation, Herod felt the keenest remorse after her death. As his sons grew up, the family tragedy thickened, and the court of Herod became a veritable hotbed of mutual recriminations, intrigues and catastrophes. The trials and executions of his own conspiring sons were conducted with the acquiescence of the Roman power, for Herod was shrewd enough not to make a move without it. Yet so thoroughly was the condition of the Jewish court understood at Rome, that Augustus, after the death of Mariamne’s sons (7 BC), is said to have exclaimed: "I would rather be Herod’s hog hus than his son huios." At the time of his death, the remaining sons were these: Herod, son of Mariamne, Simon’s daughter; Archelaus and Antipas, sons of Malthace, and Herod Philip, son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Alexander and Aristobulus were killed, through the persistent intrigues of Antipater, the oldest son and heir presumptive to the crown, and he himself fell into the grave he had dug for his brothers.

By the final testament of Herod, as ratified by Rome, the kingdom was divided as follows: Archelaus received one-half of the kingdom, with the title of king, really "ethnarch," governing Judea, Samaria and Idumaea; Antipas was appointed "tetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea; Philip, "tetrarch" of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis and Paneas. To Salome, his intriguing sister, he bequeathed Jamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelus, together with 500,000 drachmas of coined silver. All his kindred were liberally provided for in his will, "so as to leave them all in a wealthy condition" (Ant., XVII, viii, 1). In his death he had been better to his family than in his life. He died unmourned and unbeloved by his own people, to pass into history as a name soiled by violence and blood. As the waters of Callirhoe were unable to cleanse his corrupting body, those of time were unable to wash away the stains of a tyrant’s name. The only time he is mentioned in the New Testament is in Mt 2 and Lu 1. In Matthew he is associated with the wise men of the East, who came to investigate the birth of the "king of the Jews." Learning their secret, Herod found out from the "priests and scribes of the people" where the Christ was to be born and ordered the "massacre of the innocents," with which his name is perhaps more generally associated than with any other act of his life. As Herod died in 4 BC and some time elapsed between the massacre and his death (Mt 2:19), we have here a clue to the approximate fixing of the true date of Christ’s birth. Another, in this same connection, is an eclipse of the moon, the only one mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XVII, vi, 4; text and note), which was seen shortly before Herod’s death. This eclipse occurred on March 13, in the year of the Julian Period, 4710, therefore 4 BC.

3. Herod Antipas:

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and "Galilee of the Gentiles" seemed a fit dominion for such a prince. He ruled as "tetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea (Lu 3:1) from 4 BC till 39 AD. The gospel picture we have of him is far from prepossessing. He is superstitious (Mt 14:1 f), foxlike in his cunning (Lu 13:31 f) and wholly immoral. John the Baptist was brought into his life through an open rebuke of his gross immorality and defiance of the laws of Moses (Le 18:16), and paid for his courage with his life (Mt 14:10; Ant, XVIII, v, 2).

On the death of his father, although he was younger than his brother Archelaus (Ant., XVII, ix, 4 f; BJ, II, ii, 3), he contested the will of Herod, who had given to the other the major part of the dominion. Rome, however, sustained the will and assigned to him the "tetrarchy" of Galilee and Peraea, as it had been set apart for him by Herod (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). Educated at Rome with Archelaus and Philip, his half-brother, son of Mariamne, daughter of Simon, he imbibed many of the tastes and graces and far more of the vices of the Romans. His first wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. But he sent her back to her father at Petra, for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, whom he had met and seduced at Rome. Since the latter was the daughter of Aristobulus, his half-brother, and therefore his niece, and at the same time the wife of another half-brother, the union between her and Antipas was doubly sinful. Aretas repaid this insult to his daughter by a destructive war (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Herodias had a baneful influence over him and wholly dominated his life (Mt 14:3-10). He emulated the example of his father in a mania for erecting buildings and beautifying cities. Thus, he built the wall of Sepphoris and made the place his capital. He elevated Bethsaida to the rank of a city and gave it the name "Julia," after the daughter of Tiberius. Another example of this inherited or cultivated building-mania was the work he did at Betharamphtha, which he called "Julias" (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1). His influence on his subjects was morally bad (Mr 8:15). If his life was less marked by enormities than his father’s, it was only so by reason of its inevitable restrictions. The last glimpse the Gospels afford of him shows him to us in the final tragedy of the life of Christ. He is then at Jerusalem. Pilate in his perplexity had sent the Saviour bound to Herod, and the utter inefficiency and flippancy of the man is revealed in the account the Gospels give us of the incident (Lu 23:7-12; Ac 4:27). It served, however, to bridge the chasm of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (Lu 23:12), both of whom were to be stripped of their power and to die in shameful exile. When Caius Caligula had become emperor and when his scheming favorite Herod Agrippa I, the bitter enemy of Antipas, had been made king in 37 AD, Herodias prevailed on Herod Antipas to accompany her to Rome to demand a similar favor. The machinations of Agrippa and the accusation of high treason preferred against him, however, proved his undoing, and he was banished to Lyons in Gaul, where he died in great misery (Ant., XVIII, vii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6).

4. Herod Philip:

Herod Philip was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. At the death of his father he inherited Gaulonitis, Traehonitis and Paneas (Ant., XVII, viii, 1). He was Philip apparently utterly unlike the rest of the Herodian family, retiring, dignified, moderate and just. He was also wholly free from the intriguing spirit of his brothers, and it is but fair to suppose that he inherited this totally un-Herodian character and disposition from his mother. He died in the year 34 AD, and his territory was given three years later to Agrippa I, his nephew and the son of Aristobulus, together with the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Ant., XVIII, iv, 6; XIX, v, 1).

5. Herod Archelaus:

Herod Archelaus was the oldest son of Herod the Great by Malthace, the Samaritan. He was a man of violent temper, reminding one a great deal of his father. Educated like all Archelaus the Herodian princes at Rome, he was fully familiar with the life and arbitrariness of the Roman court. In the last days of his father’s life, Antipater, who evidently aimed at the extermination of all the heirs to the throne, accused him and Philip, his half-brother, of treason. Both were acquitted (Ant., XVI, iv, 4; XVII, vii, 1). By the will of his father, the greater part of the Herodian kingdom fell to his share, with the title of "ethnarch." The will was contested by his brother Antipas before the Roman court. While the matter was in abeyance, Archelaus incurred the hatred of the Jews by the forcible repression of a rebellion, in which some 3,000 people were slain. They therefore opposed his claims at Rome, but Arche1aus, in the face of all this opposition, received the Roman support (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). It is very ingeniously suggested that this episode may be the foundation of the parable of Christ, found in Lu 19:12-27. Archelaus, once invested with the government of Judea, ruled with a hard hand, so that Judea and Samaria were both soon in a chronic state of unrest. The two nations, bitterly as they hated each other, became friends in this common crisis, and sent an embassy to Rome to complain of the conduct of Archelaus, and this time they were successful. Archelaus was warned by a dream of the coming disaster, whereupon he went at once to Rome to defend himself, but wholly in vain. His government was taken from him, his possessions were all confiscated by the Roman power and he himself was banished to Vienna in Gaul (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2, 3). He, too, displayed some of his father’s taste for architecture, in the building of a royal palace at Jericho and of a village, named after himself, Archelais. He was married first to Mariamne, and after his divorce from her to Glaphyra, who had been the wife of his half-brother Alexander (Ant., XVII, xiii). The only mention made of him in the Gospels is found in Mt 2:22.

Of Herod, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, Simon’s daughter, we know nothing except that he married Herodias, the daughter of his dead halfbrother Aristobulus. He is called Philip in the New Testament (Mt 14:3), and it was from him that Antipas lured Herodias away. His later history is wholly unknown, as well as that of Herod, the brother of Philip the tetrarch, and the oldest son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem.

6. Herod Agrippa I:

Two members of the Herodian family are named Agrippa. They are of the line of Aristobulus, who through Mariamne, grand-daughter of Hyrcanus, carried down the line of the Asmonean blood. And it is worthy of note that in this line, nearly extinguished by Herod through his mad jealousy and fear of the Maccabean power, the kingdom of Herod came to its greatest glory again.

Herod Agrippa I, called Agrippa by Josephus, was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice and the grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne. Educated at Rome with Claudius (Ant., XVIII, vi, 1, 4), he was possessed of great shrewdness and tact. Returning to Judea for a little while, he came back to Rome in 37 AD. He hated his uncle Antipas and left no stone unturned to hurt his cause. His mind was far-seeing, and he cultivated, as his grandfather had done, every means that might lead to his own promotion. He, therefore, made fast friends with Caius Caligula, heir presumptive to the Roman throne, and his rather outspoken advocacy of the latter’s claims led to his imprisonment by Tiberius. This proved the making of his fortune, for Caligula did not forget him, but immediately on his accession to the throne, liberated Agrippa and bestowed on him, who up to that time had been merely a private citizen, the "tetrarchies" of Philip, his uncle, and of Lysanias, with the title of king, although he did not come into the possession of the latter till two more years had gone by (Ant., XVIII, vi, 10). The foolish ambition of Herod Antipas led to his undoing, and the emperor, who had heeded the accusation of Agrippa against his uncle, bestowed on him the additional territory of Galilee and Peraea in 39 AD. Agrippa kept in close touch with the imperial government, and when, on the assassination of Caligula, the imperial crown was offered to the indifferent Claudius, it fell to the lot of Agrippa to lead the latter to accept the proffered honor. This led to further imperial favors and further extension of his territory, Judea and Samaria being added to his domain, 40 AD. The fondest dreams of Agrippa had now been realized, his father’s fate was avenged and the old Herodian power had been restored to its original extent. He ruled with great munificence and was very tactful in his contact with the Jews. With this end in view, several years before, he had moved Caligula to recall the command of erecting an imperial statue in the city of Jerusalem; and when he was forced to take sides in the struggle between Judaism and the nascent Christian sect, he did not hesitate a moment, but assumed the role of its bitter persecutor, slaying James the apostle with the sword and harrying the church whenever possible (Ac 12.). He died, in the full flush of his power, of a death, which, in its harrowing details reminds us of the fate of his grandfather (Ac 12:20-23; Ant, XIX, viii, 2). Of the four children he left (BJ, II, xi, 6), three are known to history—Herod Agrippa II, king of Calchis, Bernice of immoral celebrity, who consorted with her own brother in defiance of human and Divine law, and became a byword even among the heathen (Juv. Sat. vi. 156-60), and Drusilla, the wife of the Roman governor Felix (Ac 24:24). According to tradition the latter perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, together with her son Agrippa. With Herod Agrippa I, the Herodian power had virtually run its course.

7. Herod Agrippa II:

Herod Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and Cypros. When his father died in 44 AD he was a youth of only 17 years and considered too young to assume the government of Judea. Claudius therefore placed the country under the care of a procurator. Agrippa had received a royal education in the palace of the emperor himself (Ant., XIX, ix, 2). But he had not wholly forgotten his people, as is proven by his intercession in behalf of the Jews, when they asked to be permitted to have the custody of the official highpriestly robes, till then in the hands of the Romans and to be used only on stated occasions (Ant., XX, i, 1). On the death of his uncle, Herod of Calchis, Claudius made Agrippa II "tetrarch" of the territory, 48 AD (BJ, II, xii, 1; XIV, iv; Ant, XX, v, 2). As Josephus tells us, he espoused the cause of the Jews whenever he could (Ant., XX, vi, 3). Four years later (52 AD), Claudius extended the dominion of Agrippa by giving him the old "tetrarchies" of Philip and Lysanias. Even at Calchis they had called him king; now it became his official title (Ant., XX, vii, 1). Still later (55 AD), Nero added some Galilean and Perean cities to his domain. His whole career indicates the predominating influence of the Asmonean blood, which had shown itself in his father’s career also. If the Herodian taste for architecture reveals itself here and there (Ant., XX, viii, 11; IX, iv), there is a total absence of the cold disdain wherewith the Herods in general treated their subjects. The Agrippas are Jews.

Herod Agrippa II figures in the New Testament in Ac 25:13; 26:32. Paul there calls him "king" and appeals to him as to one knowing the Scriptures. As the brother-in-law of Felix he was a favored guest on this occasion. His relation to Bernice his sister was a scandal among Jews and Gentiles alike (Ant., XX, vii, 3). In the fall of the Jewish nation, Herod Agrippa’s kingdom went down. Knowing the futility of resistance, Agrippa warned the Jews not to rebel against Rome, but in vain (BJ, II, xvi, 2-5; XVII, iv; XVIII, ix; XIX, iii). When the war began he boldly sided with Rome and fought under its banners, getting wounded by a sling-stone in the siege of Gamala (BJ, IV, i, 3). The oration by which he sought to persuade the Jews against the rebellion is a masterpiece of its kind and became historical (BJ, II, xvi). When the inevitable came and when with the Jewish nation also the kingdom of Herod Agrippa II had been destroyed, the Romans remembered his loyalty. With Bernice his sister he removed to Rome, where he became a praetor and died in the year 100 AD, at the age of 70 years, in the beginning of Trajan’s reign.


Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities and BJ; Strabo; Dio Cassius. Among all modern works on the subject, Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (5 vols) is perhaps still the best.

Henry E. Dosker


he-ro’-di-anz (Herodianoi): A party twice mentioned in the Gospels (Mt 22:16 parallel Mr 12:13; 3:6) as acting with the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus. They were not a religious sect, but, as the name implies, a court or political party, supporters of the dynasty of Herod. Nothing is known of them beyond what the Gospels state. Whatever their political aims, they early perceived that Christ’s pure and spiritual teaching on the kingdom of God was irreconcilable with these, and that Christ’s influence with the people was antagonistic to their interests. Hence, in Galilee, on the occasion of the healing of the man with the withered hand, they readily joined with the more powerful party of the Pharisees in plots to crush Jesus (Mr 3:6); and again, in Jerusalem, in the last week of Christ’s life, they renewed this alliance in the attempt to entrap Jesus on the question of the tribute money (Mt 22:16). The warning of Jesus to His disciples to "beware of the leaven of Herod" (Mr 8:15) may have had reference to the insidious spirit of this party.

James Orr


he-ro’-di-as (Herodias): The woman who compassed the death of John the Baptist at Macherus (Mt 14:1-12; Mr 6:14-29; compare also Lu 3:19,20; 9:7-9). According to the Gospel records, Herodias had previously been married to Philip, but had deserted him for his brother Herod the tetrarch. For this Herod was reproved by John (compare Le 18:16; 20:21), and Herod, therefore, to please Herodias, bound him and cast him into prison. According to Mt 14:5 he would even then have put John to death, but "feared the multitude," which regarded John as a prophet. But Mr 6:19 f relates it was Herodias who especially desired the death of John, but that she was withstood by Herod whose conscience was not altogether dead. This latter explanation is more in harmony with the sequel. At Herod’s birthday feast, Herodias induced her daughter Salome, whose dancing had so charmed the tetrarch, to ask as her reward the head of John the Baptist on a charger. This was given her and she then brought it to her mother.

Herodias was daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, by Mariamne, daughter of Hyrcanus. Her second husband (compare above) was Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (circa 4-39 AD), son of Herod the Great by Malthace. Herod Antipus was thus the step-brother of Aristobulus, father of Herodias. Regarding the first husband of Herodias, to whom she bore Salome, some hold that the Gospel accounts are at variance with that of Josephus. In Mt 14:3; Mr 6:17; Lu 3:19, he is called Philip the brother of Herod (Antipus). But in Mt 14:3 and Lu 3:19 the name Philip is omitted by certain important manuscripts. According to Josephus, he was Herod, son of Herod the Great by Mariamne daughter of Simon the high priest, and was thus a step-brother of Herod Antipas (compare Josephus, Ant, XVIII, v, 4). It is suggested in explanation of the discrepancy

(1) that Herod, son of Mariamne, bore a second name Philip, or

(2) that there is confusion in the Gospels with Heroal-Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, who was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra, and who was in reality the husband of Salome, daughter of Herodias (compare also A. B. Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament., I, 381; A. C. Headlam, article "Herod" in HDB, II, 359, 360).

According to Josephus (Ant., VIII, vii, 2; XVIII, vii, 1) the ambition of Herodias proved the ruin of Herod Antipas. Being jealous of the power of Agrippa her brother, she induced Herod to demand of Caligula the title of king. This was refused through the machinations of Agrippa, and Herod was banished. But the pride of Herodias kept her still faithful to her husband in his misfortune.

C. M. Kerr


he-ro’-di-on (Herodion; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Hrodion): A Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Ro 16:11). The name seems to imply that he was a freedman of the Herods, or a member of the household of Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great (Ro 16:10). Paul calls him "my kinsman," i.e. "a Jew" (see JUNIAS, 1).


her’-un (’anaphah; charadrios; Latin Ardea cinerea): Herons are mentioned only in the abomination lists of Le 11:19 (margin "ibis") and De 14:18. They are near relatives of crane, stork, ibis and bittern. These birds, blue, white or brown, swarmed in Europe and wintered around Merom, along the Jordan, at the headwaters of the Jabbok and along its marshy bed in the dry season. Herons of Southern Africa that summered in the Holy Land loved to nest on the banks of Merom, and raise their young among the bulrushes, papyrus, reeds and water grasses, although it is their usual habit to build in large trees. The white herons were small, the blue, larger, and the brown, close to the same size. The blue were 3 1/2 ft. in length, and had a 5-ft. sweep. The beak, neck and legs constituted two-thirds of the length of the body, which is small, lean and bony, taking its appearance of size from its long loose feathers. Moses no doubt forbade these birds as an article of diet, because they ate fish and in older specimens would be tough, dark and evil smelling. The very poor of our western and southeastern coast states eat them.

Gene Stratton-Porter





hesh’-bon (cheshbon; Hesebon): The royal city of Sihon king of the Amorites, taken and occupied by the Israelites under Moses (Nu 21:25 f, etc.). It lay on the southern border of Gad (Jos 13:26), and was one of the cities fortified by Reuben (Nu 32:37). It is reckoned among the cities of Gad given to the Merarite Levites (Jos 21:39). In later literature (Isa 15:4; 16:8 f; Jer 48:2,34,45; 49:3) it is referred to as a city of Moab. It passed again into Jewish hands, and is mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XIII, xv, 4) as among their possessions in the country of Moab under Alexander Janneus. The city with its district called Hesebonitis, was also under the jurisdiction of Herod the Great (Ant., XV, vii, 5, where it is described as lying in the Peraea). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 20 Roman miles from the Jordan. It is represented by the modern Chesban, a ruined site in the mountains over against Jericho, about 16 miles East of the Jordan. It stands on the edge of Wady Chesban in a position of great strength, about 600 ft. above ‘Ain Chesban. The ruins, dating mainly from Roman times, spread over two hills, respectively 2,930 ft. and 2,954 ft. in height. There are remains of a temple overlooked from the West by those of a castle. There is also a large ruined reservoir; while the spring in the valley forms a succession of pools (So 7:4). The city is approached from the valley by a steep path passing through a cutting in the rock, which may have been closed by a gate (Conder, Heth and Moab, 142). On a hill to the West, el-Kurmiyeh, is a collection of dolmens and stone circles (Musil, Arabia Petrea, I, 383 ff).

W. Ewing


hesh’-mon (cheshmon): An unidentified place on the border of Judah toward Edom (Jos 15:27). This may have been the original home of the Hasmoneans.

HETH (1)

chath cheth: The eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "ch". It came also to be used for the number 8. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

HETH (2)

heth (cheth): In Ge 23:10 the ancestor of the Hittites. As the various peoples who occupied Canaan were thought to belong to one stock, Ge 10:15 (1Ch 1:13) makes Heth the (2nd) son of Canaan. In Ge 23 the "sons of Heth" occupy Hebron, but they were known to have come there from the north. A reference to this seems to be preserved in the order of the names in Ge 10:15,16, where Heth is placed between Sidon and the Jebusites.



heth’-lon (chethlon; Peshitta chethron): Name of a place associated with Zedad on the ideal northern boundary of Israel, as given in Eze 47:15 and 48:1, but not named in Nu 34:8, while the Septuagint evidently translated the text it had. In accordance with the opinion they hold as to the boundary line of Northern Israel, van Kasteren and Buhl seek to identify Hethlon with ‘Adlun on the river Qasmiyeh. Much more in harmony with the line of the other border towns given is its identification with Heitala to the Northeast of Tripoli. The "way of Hethlon" would then coincide with the Eleutherus valley, between Homs and the Mediterranean, through which the railway now runs, and to this identification the Septuagint seems to give testimony, indicating some path of "descent" from the Biqa’a.

W. M. Christie


hu’-er (choTebh): Applies especially to a wood-worker or wood-gatherer (compare Arabic chattab, "a woodman") (Jos 9:21,23,17; 2Ch 2:10; Jer 46:22). Gathering wood, like drawing water, was a menial task. Special servants were assigned to the work (De 29:11). Joshua set the Gibeonites to hewing wood and drawing water as a punishment for their trickery, whereas were it not for the oath which the Israelites had sworn, the Gibeonites would probably have been killed.


chatsbh, from the root "to cut" or "to carve," applies to hewers of stone in 1Ki 5:15; 2Ki 12:12; 1Ch 22:15; 2Ch 2:18.

James A. Patch



1. Evidence for:

This word, formed on the analogy of Pentateuch, Heptateuch, etc., is used by modern writers to denote the first six books of the Bible (i.e. the Law and Joshua) collectively. Many critics hold that these six books were composed out of the sources JEP, etc. (on which see PENTATEUCH), and only separated very much later into different works. The main grounds for this belief are:

(1) the obvious fact that Jos provides the sequel to the Pentateuch, narrating the conquest and settlement in Canaan to which the latter work looks forward, and

(2) certain material and stylistic resemblances. The composition of the respective works is considered in the articles PENTATEUCH and JOSHUA.

2. Evidence against:

Here we must glance at the evidence against theory of a Hexateuch. It is admitted that there is no trace of any such work as the Hexateuch anywhere in tradition. The Jewish Canon places the Pentateuch in a separate category from Joshua. The Samaritans went farther and adopted the Pentateuch alone. The orthography of the two works differs in certain important particulars (see E. Konig, Einleitung, 151 f, 250). Hence, a different literary history has to be postulated for the two works, even by those who adopt theory of a Hexateuch. But that theory is open to objection on other grounds. There are grave differences of opinion among its supporters as to whether all the supposed Pentateuchal documents are present in Joshua, and in any case it is held that they are quite differently worked up, the redactors having proceeded on one system in the Pentateuch and on quite another in Joshua. Arguments are given in the article PENTATEUCH to show the presence of Mosaic and pre-Mosaic elements in the Pentateuch and the unsoundness of the documentary theory in that work, and if these be correct theory of a Hexateuch necessarily falls to the ground.

For Bibliography see PENTATEUCH; JOSHUA.

Harold M. Wiener


hez’-e-ki (chizqi).



hez-e-ki’-a (chizqiyah):

(1) King of Judah. See special article

(2) A son of Neariah, of the royal family of Judah (1Ch 3:23, the Revised Version (British and American) "Hizkiah").

(3) An ancestor of Zephaniah (Ze 1:1, the King James Version "Hizkiah").

(4) One of the returned exiles from Babylon (Ezr 2:16; Ne 7:21).


(chizqiyah, "Yahweh has strengthened"; also written chizqiyahu, "Yah has strengthened him"; Hezekias): One of the greatest of the kings of Judah; reigned (according to the most self-consistent chronology) from circa 715 to circa 690 BC.

Old Testament Estimate:

On the Old Testament standard of loyalty to Yahweh he is eulogized by Jesus Sirach as one of the three kings who alone did not "commit trespass" (Sirach 49:4), the other two being David and Josiah. The Chronicler represents him (2Ch 32:31) as lapsing from the wisdom of piety only by his vainglory in revealing the resources of his realm to the envoys of Merodach-baladan. In 2Ki 18:5, the earliest estimate, his special distinction, beyond all other Judean kings, before or after, was that he "trusted in Yahweh, the God of Israel." It is as the king who "clave to Yahweh" (2Ki 18:6) that the Hebrew mind sums up his royal and personal character.

I. Sources for His Life and Times.

1. Scripture Annals:

The historical accounts in 2Ki 18,20 and 2Ch 29,32 are derived in the main from the same state annals, though the latter seems also to have had the Temple archives to draw upon. For "the rest of his acts" 2Ki refers to a source then still in existence but now lost, "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah" (2Ki 20:20), and 2 Chronicles to "the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel" (2Ch 32:32). In this last-named source (if this is the original of our Book of Isa.), besides the warnings and directions called out by the course of the history, there is a narrative section (Isa 36,39) recounting the Sennacherib crisis much as do the other histories, but incorporating also a passage of Isaianic prophecy (Isa 37:22-32) and a "writing of Hezekiah king of Judah" (Isa 38:10-20). Lastly, in Sirach 48:17-25, there is a summary of the good and wise deeds of Hezekiah, drawn from the accounts that we already have.

2. View-point and Colouring:

Of these sources the account in 2 Kings is most purely historianic, originating at a time when religious and political values, in the Hebrew mind, were inseparable. In 2Ch the religious point and coloring, especially in its later developed ritual and legal aspects, has the decided predominance. Sirach, with the mind of a man of letters, is concerned mainly with eulogizing Hezekiah. in his "praise of famous men" (compare Sirach 44-50), of course from the devout Hebrew point of view. In the vision of Isaiah (Isa 1,39), we have the reflection of the moral and spiritual situation in Jerusalem, as realized in the fervid prophetic consciousness; and in the prophecy of his younger contemporary Micah, the state of things in the outlying country districts nearest the path of invasion, where both the iniquities of the ruling classes and the horrors of war were felt most keenly. Doubtless also many devotional echoes of these times of stress are deducible from the Psalms, so far as we can fairly identify them.

3. Side-Lights:

It is in Hezekiah’s times especially that the Assyrian inscriptions become illuminating for the history of Israel; for one important thing they furnish certain fixed dates to which the chronology of the times can be adjusted. Of Sennacherib’s campaign of 701, for instance, no fewer than six accounts are at present known (see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 154, note), the most detailed being the "Taylor Cylinder," now in the British Museum, which in the main agrees, or at least is not inconsistent, with the Scripture history.

II. Events of His Reign.

1. His Heritage:

From his weak and unprincipled father Ahaz (compare 2Ch 28:16-25), Hezekiah inherited not only a disorganized realm but a grievous burden of Assyrian dominance and tribute, and the constant peril and suspense of greater encroachments from that arrogant and arbitrary power: the state of things foretold in Isa 7:20; 8:7 f. The situation was aggravated by the fact that not only the nation’s weakness but its spiritual propensities had incurred it: the dominant classes were aping the sentiments, fashions and cult of the East (compare Isa 2:6-8), while the neglected common people were exposed to the corruptions of the still surviving heathenism of the land. The realm, in short, was at the spiritual nadir-point from which prophets like Isaiah and Micah were laboring to bring about the birth of a true Hebrew conscience and faith. Their task was a hard one: with a nation smear-eyed, dull-cared, fat-hearted (Isa 6:10), whose religion was a precept of men learned by rote (Isa 29:13). Clearly, from this point of view, a most difficult career was before him.

2. Religious Reform:

The sense of this unspiritual state of things furnishes the best keynote of Hezekiah’s reforms in religion, which according to the Chronicler he set about as soon as he came to the throne (2Ch 29:3). It is the Chronicler who gives the fullest account of these reforms (2Ch 29-31); naturally, from his priestly point of view and access to ecclesiastical archives. Hezekiah began with the most pressing constructive need, the opening and cleansing of the Temple, which his father Ahaz had left closed and desecrated (2Ch 28:24), and went on to the reorganization of its liturgical and choral service. In connection with this work he appointed a Passover observance, which, on a scale and spirit unknown since Solomon (2Ch 30:26), he designed as a religious reunion of the devout-minded in all Israel, open not only to Jerusalem and Judah, but to all who would accept his invitation from Samaria, Galilee, and beyond the Jordan (2Ch 30:5-12,18). The immediate result of the enthusiasm engendered by this Old Home Week was a vigorous popular movement of iconoclasm against the idolatrous high places of the land. That this was no weak fanatical impulse to break something, but a touch of real spiritual quickening, seems evidenced by one incident of it: the breaking up of Moses’ old brazen serpent and calling it what it had come to mean, nechushtan, "a piece of brass" (2Ki 18:4); the movement seems in fact to have had in it the sense, however crude, that old religious forms had become hurtful and effete superstitions, hindering spirituality. Nor could the movement stop with the old fetish. With it went the demolition of the high places themselves and the breaking down of the pillars (matstsebhoth) and felling of the sacred groves (’asherah), main symbols these of a debasing naturecult. This reform, on account of later reactions (see under MANASSEH), has been deemed ineffective; rather, its effects were inward and germinal; nor were they less outwardly than could reasonably be expected, before its meanings were more deepened and centralized.

3. Internal Improvements:

All this, on the king’s part, was his response to the spiritual influence of Isaiah, with whose mind his own was sincerely at one. As a devout disciple in the school of prophetic ideas, he earnestly desired to maintain the prophet’s insistent attitude of "quietness and confidence" (compare Isa 30:15), that is, of stedfast trust in Yahweh alone, and of abstinence from revolt and entangling alliances with foreign powers. This, however, in the stress and suspense of the times, did not preclude a quiet preparation for emergencies; and doubtless the early years of his reign were notable, not only for mild and just administration throughout his realm, but for measures looking to the fortifying and defense of the capital. His work of repairing and extending the walls and of strengthening the citadel (Millo), as mentioned in 2Ch 32:5, had probably been in progress long before the Assyrian crisis was imminent. Nor was he backward in coming to an understanding with other nations, as to the outlook for revolt against Assyria. He could not learn his lesson of faith all at once, especially with a factious court pulling the other way. He did not escape the suspicion of Sargon (died 705), who for his Egyptian leanings counted him among the "plotters of sedition" (compare COT, 100); while the increasing prosperity and strength of his realm marked him for a leading role in an eventual uprising. He weathered at least one chance of rebellion, however, in 711, probably through the strenuous exertions of Isaiah (see Isa 20:1 ff).

4. The Assyrian Crisis:

Hezekiah’s opportunity to rise against Assyrian domination seems to have been taken about 704. How so pious a king came to do it in spite of Isaiah’s strenuous warnings, both against opposition to Assyria and alliance with other powers, is not very clear. The present writer ventures to suggest the view that the beginning was forced or perhaps sprung upon him by his princes and nobles. In the year before, Sargon, dying, had left his throne to Sennacherib, and, as at all ancient changes of sovereignty, this was the signal for a general effort for independence on the part of subject provinces. That was also the year of Hezekiah’s deadly illness (2Ki 20; Isa 38), when for a time we know not how long he would be incapacitated for active administration of affairs. Not unlikely on his recovery he found his realm committed beyond withdrawal to an alliance with Egypt and perhaps the leadership of a coalition with Philistia; in which case personally he could only make the best of the situation. There was nothing for it but to confirm this coalition by force, which he did in his Philistine campaign mentioned in 2Ki 18:8. Meanwhile, in the same general uprising, the Chaldean Merodach-baladan, who had already been expelled from Babylon after an 11-year reign (721-710), again seized that throne; and in due time envoys from him appeared in Jerusalem, ostensibly to congratulate the king on his recovery from his illness, but really to secure his aid and alliance against Assyria (2Ki 20:12-15; Isa 39:1-4). Hezekiah, flattered by such distinguished attention from so distant and powerful a source, by revealing his resources committed what the Chronicler calls the one impious indiscretion of his life (2Ch 32:31), incurring also Isaiah’s reproof and adverse prediction (2Ki 20:17 f; Isa 39:6 f). The conflict with Sennacherib was now inevitable; and Hezekiah, by turning the water supply of Jerusalem from the Gihon spring to a pool within the walls and closing it from without, put the capital in readiness to stand a siege. The faith evoked by this wise work, confirmed by the subsequent deliverance, is reflected in Ps 46. That this incurring of a hazardous war, however, with its turmoils and treacheries, and the presence of uncouth Arab mercenaries, was little to the king’s desire or disposition, seems indicated in Ps 120, which with the other Songs of Degrees (Pss 120-134) may well reflect the religious faith of this period of Hezekiah’s life.

5. Invasion and Deliverance:

The critical moment came in 701, when Sennacherib, who the year before had reconquered Babylon and expelled Merodach-baladan (perhaps Isa 21:1-9 refers to and this), was free to invade his rebellious provinces in the West. It was a vigorous and sweeping campaign; in which, beginning with Sidon and advancing down

through the coast lands, he speedily subdued the Philistine cities, defeating them and their southern allies (whether these were from Egypt proper or from its extension across the Sinai peninsula and Northern Arabia, Mutsri, is not quite clear) at Eltekeh; in which campaign, according to his inscription, he took 46 walled towns belonging to Judah with their spoil and deported over 200,000 of their inhabitants. This, which left Jerusalem a blockaded town (in fact he says of Hezekiah: "Himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem his royal city"), seems referred to in Isa 1:7-9 and predicted in Isa 6:11 f. Its immediate effect was to bring Hezekiah to terms and extort an enormous tribute (2Ki 18:14-16). When later, however, he was treacherous enough to disregard the compact thus implied (perhaps Isa 33 refers to this), and demanded the surrender of the city (2Ki 18:17-19:7; Isa 36:2-37:7), Hezekiah besought the counsel of Isaiah, who bade him refuse the demand, and predicted that Sennacherib would "hear tidings" and return to his own land; which prediction actually came to pass, and suddenly Hezekiah found himself free. A deliverance so great, and so signally vindicating the setting forth of faith, could not but produce a momentous revulsion in the nation’s mind, like a new spiritual birth in which the faith of the "remnant" became a vital power in Israel; its immediate effect seems portrayed in Ps 124 and perhaps Ps 126, and its deep significance as the birth of a nation in a day seems summarized long afterward in Isa 66:7-9; compare 37:3; 2Ki 19:3.

6. The Second Summons:

A second summons to surrender, sent from Libnah by letter (2Ki 19:1 ff; Isa 37:8 ), is treated by the Scripture historians as a later feature of the same campaign; but recent researches seem to make it possible, nay probable, that this belonged to another campaign of Sennacherib, when Taharka of Ethiopia (Tirhakah, 2Ki 19:9; Isa 37:9) came to power in Egypt, in 691. If this was so, there is room in Hezekiah’s latter years for a decade of peace and prosperity (compare Ch 32:22,23,27-30), and in Isaiah’s old age for a collection and revision of his so wonderfully vindicated prophecies. The historians’ evident union of two stories in one makes the new attitude with which this crisis was met, obscure; but the tone of confirmed confidence and courage seems decidedly higher. The discomfiture of Sennacherib in this case was brought about, not by a rumor of rebellions at home, but by an outbreak of plague (2Ki 19:35 f; Isa 37:36 f), which event the Scripture writers interpreted as a miracle. The prophetic sign of deliverance (2Ki 19:29; Isa 37:30) may be referred to the recovery of the devastated lands from the ravage inflicted by Sennacherib in his first campaign (compare also Ps 126:5 f).

III. His Character.

Our estimate of Hezekiah’s character is most consistently made by regarding him as a disciple of Isaiah, who was earnestly minded to carry out his prophetic ideas. As, however, these were to begin with only the initial ideas of a spiritual "remnant," the king’s sympathies must needs be identified at heart, not with his imperious nobles and princes, but with a minority of the common people, whose religious faith did not become a recognizable influence in the state until after 701. In the meantime his zeal for purer worship and more just domestic administration, which made him virtually king of the remnant, made him a wise and sagacious prince over the whole realm. Isaiah’s glowing prophecy (32:1-8) seems to be a Messianic projection of the saner and clearer-seeing era that his domestic policy adumbrated—a time when king and nobles rule in righteousness, when man can lean on man, when things good and evil are seen as they are and called by their right names. When it came to dealing with the foreign situation, however, especially according to the Isaianic program, his task was exceedingly difficult, as it were a pioneer venture in faith. His effort to maintain an attitude of steadfast trust in Yahweh, with the devout quietism which, though really its consistency and strength looked like a supine passivity, would lead his restlessly scheming nobles to regard him as a pious weakling; and not improbably they came to deem him almost a negligible quantity, and forced his hand into diplomacies and coalitions that were not to his mind. Some such insolent attitude of theirs seems to be portrayed in Isa 28:14-22. This was rendered all the more feasible, perhaps, by the period of incapacitation that must have attended his illness, in the very midst of the nation’s critical affairs. Isaiah’s words (33:17 ff) may be an allusion at once to his essential kingliness, to the abeyance of its manifestation due to his disease, and to the constricted condition into which, meanwhile, the realm had fallen. This exceedingly critical episode of Hezekiah’s career does not seem to have had its rights with students of the era. Considering the trials that his patient faith must have had, always at cross-purposes with his nobles (compare Ps 120:6 f); that now by reason of his sickness they had the whip hand; that his disease cut him off not only from hope of life, but from association with men and access to the sanctuary (compare Isa 38:10,11,12); that, as his son Manasseh was not born till three years within the fifteen now graciously added to his life (compare 2Ki 21:1), his illness seemed to endanger the very perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty, we have reason for regarding him as well-nigh a martyr to the new spiritual uprising of faith which Isaiah was laboring to bring about. In the Messianic ideal which, in Isaiah’s sublime conception, was rising into personal form, it fell to his lot to adumbrate the first kingly stage, the stage of committal to Yahweh’s word and will and abiding the event. It was a cardinal element in that composite ideal which the Second Isaiah pushes to its ultimate in his portrayal of the servant of Yahweh; another element, the element of sacrifice, has yet to be added. Meanwhile, as with the king so with his remnant-realm, the venture of faith is like a precipitation of spiritual vitality, or, as the prophet puts it, a new birth (compare Isa 26:17 f; 37:3; 66:7 f, for the stages of it). The event of deliverance, not by men’s policies but by Yahweh’s miraculous hand, was the speedy vindication of such trust; and the revulsion of the next decade witnessed a confirming and solidifying of spiritual integrity in the remnant which made it a factor to be reckoned with in the trying times that succeeded (see under MANASSEH). The date of Hezekiah’s death (probably not long after 690) is not certainly known; nor of the death of his mentor Isaiah (tradition puts this by martyrdom under Manasseh); but if our view of his closing years is correct, the king’s death crowned a consistent character of strength and spiritual steadfastness; while the unapproachable greatness of Isaiah speaks for itself.

IV. Reflection of His Age in Literature.

1. Complication and Revival:

The sublime and mature utterances of Isaiah alone, falling in this time, are sufficient evidence that in Hezekiah’s age, Israel reached its golden literary prime. Among the idealists and thinkers throughout the nation a new spiritual vigor and insight were awake. Of their fellowship was the king himself, who emulated the activity of his predecessor Solomon as patron of piety and letters. The compilation of the later Solomonic section of the Proverbs (Pr 25-29), attributed to the "men of Hezekiah," indicates the value attached to the accumulations of the so-called Wisdom literature; and it is fair to assume that these men of Hezekiah did not stop with compiling, but stamped upon the body of Proverbs as a whole that sense of it as a philosophy of life which it henceforth bears, and perhaps added the introductory section, Pr 1-9. Nor would a king so zealous for the organization and enrichment of the temple-worship (compare Isa 38:20) be indifferent to its body of sacred song. It seems certain that his was, in all the nation’s history, the greatest single agency in compiling and adapting the older Davidic Psalms, and in the composition of new ones. Perhaps this union of collecting and creative work in psalmody is referred to in the mention of "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (2Ch 29:30). To Hezekiah himself is attributed one "writing" which is virtually a psalm, Isa 38:20. The custom through all the history of hymnology (in our own day also) of adapting older compositions to new liturgical uses makes uncertain the identification of psalms belonging specifically to this period; still, many psalms of books ii and iii, and especially those ascribed to Asaph and the sons of Korah, seem a close reflection of the spirit of the times. An interesting theory recently advanced (see THIRTLE, Old Testament Problems) that the fifteen Songs of the Steps ("Degrees" or "Ascents," Psalms 120-134) are a memorial of Hezekiah’s fifteen added years, when as a sign the shadow went backward on the steps of Ahaz (2Ki 20:8-11), seems to reveal many remarkable echoes of that eventful time. Nor does it seem unlikely that with this first extensive collection of psalms the titles began to be added.

2. Of More Creative Strain:

This literary activity of Hezekiah’s time, though concerned largely with collecting and reviving the treasures of older literature, was pursued not in the cold scribal spirit, but in a fervid creative way. This may be realized in two of the psalms which the present writer ascribes to this period. Ps 49, a psalm of the sons of Korah, is concerned to make an essential tenet of Wisdom viable in song (compare Ps 49:3,4), as if one of the "men of Hezekiah" who is busy with the Solomonic counsels would popularize the spirit of his findings. Ps 78 in like manner, a Maschil of Asaph, is concerned to make the noble histories of old viable in song (78:2), especially the wilderness history when Israel received the law and beheld Yahweh’s wonders, and down to the time when Ephraim was rejected and Judah, in the person of David, was chosen to the leadership in Israel.

Such a didactic poem would not stand solitary in a period so instructed. As in Wisdom and psalmody, so in the domain of law and its attendant history, the literary activity was vigorous. This age of Hezekiah seems the likeliest time for putting into literary idiom that "book of the law" found later in the Temple (2Ki 22); which book Josiah’s reforms, carried out according to its commands, prove to have been our Book of Deuteronomy. This is not the place to discuss the Deuteronomic problem (see under JOSIAH); it is fair to note here, however, that as compared with the austere statement of the Mosaic statutes elsewhere, this book has a literary art and coloring which seem to stamp its style as that of a later age than Moses’, though its substance is Mosaic; and this age of Hezekiah seems the likeliest time to put its rewriting and adaptation. Nor did the new spirit of literary creation feed itself entirely on the past. The king’s chastening experience of illness and trial, with the steadfast faith that upbore and survived it, must have been fruitful of new ideas, especially of that tremendous conception, now just entering into thought, of the ministry of suffering. Time, of course, must be allowed for the ripening of an idea so full of involvement; and it is long before its sacrificial and atoning values come to light in such utterances as Isa 53. But such psalms as Ps 49 and Ps 73, not to mention Hezekiah’s own psalm (Isa 38), show that the problem was a living one; it was working, moreover, in connection with the growing Wisdom philosophy, toward the composition of the Book of Job, which in a masterly way both subjects the current Wisdom motives to a searching test and vindicates the intrinsic integrity of the patriarch in a discipline of most extreme trial. The life of a king whose experience had some share in clarifying the ideas of such a book was not lived in vain.

John Franklin Genung



HEZEKIAH, THE MEN OF A body of men of letters to whom is ascribed the compilation of a supplementary collection of Solomonic proverbs (Pr 25:1).



he’-zi-on (chezyon; the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus, Azein; Codex Alexandrinus, Azael): An ancestor of Ben-hadad, king of Syria (1Ki 15:18).



(1) (chezir; the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus, Chezein; Codex Alexandrinus, Iezeir): A Levite in the time of David (1Ch 24:15).

(2) Septuagint Hezeir): A chief of the people in the time of Nehemiah (Ne 10:20).


hez’-ro, hez’-ra-i, hez’-ri (chezro, 2Sa 23:35; 1Ch 11:37, but the Qere of 2Sa 23:35 is chezray. The ancient versions almost unanimously support the form Hezrai): A Carmelite, i.e. an inhabitant of Carmel. See CARMELITE. One of David’s thirty "mighty men."


hez’-ron (chetsron, and chetsron; Septuagint Asron):

(1) A son of Reuben (Ge 46:9; Ex 6:14), and head of the family of the Hezronites (Nu 26:6).

(2) A son of Perez, and grandson of Judah (Ge 46:12; Nu 26:21; 1Ch 2:5,9,18,21,24,25; 4:1), a direct ancestor of David (Ru 4:18 f). He appears also in the genealogy of our Lord (Esrom) (Mt 1:3; Lu 3:33).


(chetsron, "enclosure"): On the South boundary of Judah between "Kadesh-barnea" and "Addar" (Jos 15:3); in the parallel passage (Nu 34:4) "Hazar-addar." The two places may have been near together. Conder suggests that the name survives in Jebel Hadhireh, a mountain Northwest of Petra in the Tih.


hez’-ron-its (ha-chetsrowni and ha-chetsroni; Septuagint ho Asronei): The name of the descendants of Hezron the son of Reuben (Nu 26:6), and of the descendants of Hezron the son of Perez (Nu 26:21).


hid’-a-i, hi-da’-i (hidday; Alexandrian Haththai): One of David’s thirty "mighty men" (2Sa 23:30), described as "of the brooks of Gaash." In the parallel list in 1Ch 11:32 the form of the name is "Hurai" (huray).


hid’-e-kel (chiddeqel): One of the rivers of EDEN (which see) (Ge 2:14, the Revised Version margin "that is, Tigris"; so Septuagint Tigris), said to flow East to Assyria, usually identified with the Tigris, which rises in Armenia near Lake Van and, after flowing Southeast through 8 degrees of latitude, joins the Euphrates in Babylonia to form the Shatt el-’Arab, which runs for 100 miles through a delta which has been formed since the time of Abraham, and now enters the Persian Gulf through 2 branches. About one-third of the distance below its source, and soon after it emerges from the mountains of Kurdistan, the Tigris passes by Mosul, the site of ancient Nineveh, and, lower down at Bagdad, approaches within a few miles of the Euphrates. Here and for many miles below, since the level is lower than that of the Euphrates, numerous canals are conducted to it, irrigating the most fertile portions of Babylonia.

George Frederick Wright


hid’-’n: The translation of Taman, "to hide," "to bury" (Job 3:16); of tsaphan "to conceal," "store up" (Job 15:20, "The number of years is hidden to the oppressor," the Revised Version (British and American) "even the number of years that are laid up for the oppressor," margin "and years that are numbered are laid up"; Job 24:1, "Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty," the Revised Version (British and American) "Why are times not laid up by the Almighty?" margin as the King James Version with "Why is it?" prefixed; Ps 83:3, "They consulted (the Revised Version (British and American) "consult") against thy hidden ones"); of matspunim (from tsaphan), "hidden things or places" (Ob 1:6, "How are his hidden things sought up!" the Revised Version (British and American) "treasures," the American Standard Revised Version "sought out"); of pala’," to be wonderful," "difficult" (De 30:11, "This commandment .... is not hidden from thee," the Revised Version (British and American) "too hard for thee," margin "or wonderful"); of chaphas, Hithpael, "to hide one’s self" (Pr 28:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "When the wicked rise, men hide themselves," margin (Hebrew) "must be searched for"); of kruptos, "hidden," "secret" (1Pe 3:4, "the hidden man of the heart"; 1Co 4:5, krupton, "the hidden things of darkness"; 2Co 4:2, "the hidden things of dishonesty," the Revised Version (British and American) "of shame"); of apokrupto, "to hide away," trop., not to reveal or make known (1Co 2:7, "But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden"; compare Eph 3:9; Col 1:26).

Among the occurrences of "hidden" in Apocrypha we have (2 Esdras 16:62), "The Spirit of Almighty God .... searcheth out all hidden things in the secrets of the earth," the Revised Version (British and American) "He who made all things and searcheth out hidden things in hidden places"; Ecclesiasticus 42:19, "revealing the steps (the Revised Version (British and American) "traces") of hidden things," apokruphos; 42:20, "Neither any word is hidden from him," the Revised Version (British and American) "hid," ekrube).

W. L. Walker


hi’-el (chi’el; Achiel): A Bethelite who according to 1Ki 16:34 rebuilt Jericho, and in fulfillment of a curse pronounced by Joshua (Jos 6:26) sacrificed his two sons. This seems to have been a custom prevalent among primitive peoples, the purpose being to ward off ill luck from the inhabitants, especially in a case where the destroyer had invoked a curse on him who presumed to rebuild. Numerous instances are brought to light in the excavations of Gezer (Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer, chapter x). At first the very best was claimed as a gift to the deity, e.g. one’s own sons; then some less valuable member of the community. When civilization prevented human sacrifice, animals were offered instead. The story of Abraham offering Isaac may be a trace of this old custom, the tenor of the story implying that at the time of the writing of the record, the custom was coming to be in disrepute. A similar instance is the offering of his eldest son by the king of Edom to appease the deity and win success in battle (2Ki 3:27; compare Mic 6:7). Various conjectures have been made as to the identity of this king. Ewald regarded him as a man of wealth and enterprise (unternehmender reicher Mann); Cheyne following Niebuhr makes it Jehu in disguise, putting 1Ki 16:34 after 2Ki 10:33; Winckler explains as folklore.

W. N. Stearns


he-er-ap’-o-lis (Hierapolis, "sacred city"): As the name implies, Hierapolis was a holy city. It was situated 6 miles from Laodicea and twice that distance from Colosse, on the road from Sardis to Apamea. Though its history is not well known, it seems to have been of Lydian origin, and once bore the name of Kydrara. The Phrygian god Sabazios was worshipped there under the name Echidma, and represented by the symbol of the serpent. Other local deities were Leto and her son Lairbenos. Though called the holy city, Hierapolis was peculiarly regarded as the stronghold of Satan, for there was a Plutonium, or a hole reaching far down into the earth, from which there issued a vapor, even poisoning the birds flying above. It is supposed that upon a stool, deep in the Plutonium, a priest or priestess sat, and, when under the influence of the vapor, uttered prophecies valuable to those who sought them. Though a stronghold of Satan, Hierapolis early became a Christian city, for, according to Col 4:13, the only place where it is mentioned in the New Testament, a church was founded there through the influence of Paul while he was at Ephesus. Tradition claims that Philip was the first evangelist to preach there, and it also claims that he and his two unmarried daughters were buried there; a third who was married, was buried at Ephesus. Several of the early Christians suffered martyrdom at Hierapolis, yet Christianity flourished, other churches were built, and during the 4th century the Christians filled the Plutonium with stones, thus giving evidence that the paganism had been entirely supplanted by the church. During the Roman period, Justinian made the city a metropolis, and it continued to exist into the Middle Ages. In the year 1190 Frederick Barbarossa fought with the Byzantines there.

The modern town is called Pambuk Kalessi, or cotton castle, not because cotton is raised in the vicinity, but because of the white deposit from the water of the calcareous springs. The springs were famous in ancient times because they were supposed to possess Divine powers. The water is tepid, impregnated with alum, but pleasant to the taste. It was used by the ancients for dyeing and medicinal purposes. The deposit of pure white brought up by the water from the springs has heaped itself over the surrounding buildings, nearly burying them, and stalactite formations, resembling icicles, hang from the ruins. The ruins, which are extensive, stand on a terrace, commanding an extensive view, and though they are partly covered by the deposit, one may still trace the city walls, the temple, several churches, the triumphal arch, the gymnasium and baths, and the most perfect theater in Asia Minor. Outside the walls are many tombs.

E. J. Banks


hi-er’-e-el (Hiereel): 1 Esdras 9:21. In Ezr 8:9 the name is Jehiel.


hi-er’-e-moth (Ieremoth):

(1) 1 Esdras 9:27 = Jeremoth (Ezr 10:26).

(2) 1 Esdras 9:30 = Jeremoth (Ezr 10:29, margin "and Ramoth").


hi-er-i-e’-lus (Iezrielos).



hi-ur’-mas (Hiermas): 1 Esdras 9:26, corresponding to Ramiah in Ezr 10:25.


hi-ga’yon, hi-gi’-on (higgayon): The meaning of this word is uncertain. Two interpretations are possible; the one based on an allied Arabic root gives "a deep vibrating sound," the other derived from the Greek versions of Ps 9:16, where we read higgayon Celah, takes it to mean an instrumental interlude.



Is found in Ge 29:7 as a rendering of the Hebrew yom agadhol, literally, "great day." The Hebrew means the day at its height, broad daylight as contrasted with the time for getting the cattle to their sheds for the night (compare French grand jour). In Joh 19:31, "highday" renders megale hemera, literally, "great day," and refers to the Passover Sabbath—and therefore a Sabbath of special sanctity.


1. General:

(1) "High place" is the normal translation of bamah, a word that means simply "elevation" (Jer 26:18; Eze 36:2, etc.; compare the use in Job 9:8 of the waves of the sea. For the plural as a proper noun see BAMOTH). In the King James Version of Eze 16:24,25,31,39, "high places" is the translation of ramah (the Revised Version (British and American) "lofty places"), a common word (see RAMAH) of exactly the same meaning, indistinguishable from bamah in 16:16. In three of these verses of Eze (16:24,31,39) ramah is paralleled by gabh, which again has precisely the same sense ("eminent place" in the King James Version, the English Revised Version), and the "vaulted place" of the American Standard Revised Version (English Revised Version margin) is in disregard of Hebrew parallelism. In particular, the high places are places of worship, specifically of idolatrous worship. So the title was transferred from the elevation to the sanctuary on the elevation (1Ki 11:7; 14:23; compare the burning of the "high place" in 2Ki 23:15), and so came to be used of any idolatrous shrine, whether constructed on an elevation or not (note how in 2Ki 16:4; 2Ch 28:4 the "high places" are distinguished from the "hills"). So the "high places" in the cities (2Ki 17:9; 2Ch 21:11 (Septuagint)) could have stood anywhere, while in Eze 16:16 a portable structure seems to be in point.

(2) The use of elevations for purposes of worship is so widespread as to be almost universal, and rests, probably, on motives so primitive as to evade formal analysis. If any reason is to be assigned, the best seems to be that to dwellers in hilly country the heaven appears to rest on the ridges and the sun to go forth from them—but such reasons are certainly insufficient to explain everything. Certain it is that Israel, no less than her neighbors, found special sanctity in the hills. Not only was’ Sinai the "Mount of God," but a long list can be drawn up of peaks that have a special relation to Yahweh (see MOUNT, MOUNTAIN; and for the New Testament, compare Mr 9:2; Heb 12:18-24, etc.). And the choice of a hilltop for the Temple was based on considerations other than convenience and visibility. (But bamah is not used of the Temple Mount.)

2. Description:

Archaeological research, particularly at Petra and Gezer, aided by the Old Testament notices, enables us to reconstruct these sanctuaries with tolerable fullness. The cult was not limited to the summit of the hill but took place also on the slopes, and the objects of the cult might be scattered over a considerable area. The most sacred objects were the upright stone pillars (matstsebhah), which seem to have been indispensable. (Probably the simplest "high places" were only a single upright stone.) They were regarded as the habitation of the deity, but, none the less, were usually many in number (a fact that in no way need implicate a plurality of deities). At one time they were the only altars, and even at a later period, when the altar proper was used, libations were sometimes poured on the pillars directly. The altars were of various shapes, according to their purpose (incense, whole burnt offerings, etc.), but were always accompanied by one or more pillars. Saucer-shaped depressions, into which sacrifices could be poured, are a remnant of very primitive rites (to this day in Samaria the paschal lamb is cooked in a pit). The trees of the high place, especially the "terebinths" (oaks?), were sacred, and their number could be supplemented or their absence supplied by an artificial tree or pole (’asherah, the "grove" of the King James Version). (Of course the original meaning of the pillar and asherah was not always known to the worshipper.) An amusing feature of the discoveries is that these objects were often of minute size, so that the gods could be gratified at a minimum of expense to the worshipper. Images (ephods?; the teraphim were household objects, normally) are certain, but in Palestine no remnants exist (the little Bes and Astarte figures were not idols used in worship). Other necessary features of a high place of the larger size were ample provision of water for lustral purposes, kitchens where the sacrifices could be cooked (normally by boiling), and tables for the sacrificial feasts. Normally, also, the service went on in the open air, but slight shelters were provided frequently for some of the objects. If a regular priest was attached to the high place (not always the case), his dwelling must have been a feature, unless he lived in some nearby village. Huts for those practicing incubation (sleeping in the sanctuary to obtain revelations through dreams) seem not to have been uncommon. But formal temples were very rare and "houses of the high places" in 1Ki 12:31; 13:32; 2Ki 17:29,32; 23:19 may refer only to the slighter structures just mentioned (see the comm.). In any case, however, the boundaries of the sanctuary were marked out, generally by a low stone wall, and ablutions and removal of the sandals were necessary before the worshipper could enter.

For the ritual, of course, there was no uniform rule. The gods of the different localities were different, and in Palestine a more or less thorough rededication of the high places to Yahweh had taken place. So the service might be anything from the orderly worship of Yahweh under so thoroughly an accredited leader as Samuel (1Sa 9:11-24) to the wildest orgiastic rites. That the worship at many high places was intensely licentious is certain (but it must be emphasized against the statements of many writers that there is no evidence for a specific phallic cult, and that the explorations have revealed no unmistakable phallic emblems). The gruesome cemetery for newly born infants at Gezer is only one of the proofs of the prevalence of child-sacrifice, and the evidence for human sacrifice in other forms is unfortunately only too clear.

See GEZER, and illustration on p. 1224.

3. History:

(1) The opposition to the high places had many motives. When used for the worship of other gods their objectionable character is obvious, but even the worship of Yahweh in the high places was intermixed with heathen practices (Ho 4:14, etc.). In Am 5:21-24, etc., sacrifice in the high places is denounced because it is regarded as a substitute for righteousness in exactly the same way that sacrifice in the Temple is denounced in Jer 7:21-24. Or, sacrifice in the high places may be denounced under the best of conditions, because in violation of the law of the one sanctuary (2Ch 33:17, etc.).

(2) In 1 Samuel, sacrifice outside of Jerusalem is treated as an entirely normal thing, and Samuel presides in one such case (1Sa 9:11-24). In 1Ki the practice of using high places is treated as legitimate before the construction of the Temple (1Ki 3:2-4), but after that it is condemned unequivocally. The primal sin of Northern Israel was the establishment of high places (1Ki 12:31-33; 13:2,33 f), and their continuance was a chief cause of the evils that came to pass (2Ki 17:10 f), while worship in them was a characteristic of the mongrel throng that repopulated Samaria (2Ki 17:32). So Judah sinned in building high places (1Ki 14:23), but the editor of Kings notes with obvious regret that even the pious kings (Asa, 1Ki 15:14; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2Ki 12:3; Amaziah, 14:4; Azariah, 15:4; Jotham, 15:35) did not put them away; i.e. the editor of Kings has about the point of view of De 12:8-11, according to which sacrifice was not to be restricted to Jerusalem until the country should be at peace, but afterward the restriction should be absolute. The practice had been of such long standing that Hezekiah’s destruction of the high places (2Ki 18:4) could be cited by Rabshakeh as an act of apostasy from Yahweh (2Ki 18:22; 2Ch 32:12; Isa 36:7). Under Manasseh they were rebuilt, in connection with other idolatrous practices (2Ki 21:3-9). This act determined the final punishment of the nation (21:10-15), and the root-and-branch reformation of Josiah (2Ki 23) came too late. The attitude of the editor of Chronicles is still more condemnatory. He explains the sacrifice at Gibeon as justified by the presence of the Tabernacle (1Ch 16:39; 21:29; 2Ch 1:3,13), states that God-fearing northerners avoided the high places (2Ch 11:16; compare 1Ki 19:10,14), and (against Kings) credits Asa (2Ch 14:3,5) and Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17:6) with their removal. (This last notice is also in contradiction with 2Ch 20:33, but 16:17a is probably meant to refer to the Northern Kingdom, despite 16:17b.) On the other hand, the construction of high places is added to the sins of Jehoram (2Ch 21:11) and of Ahaz (2Ch 28:4,5).

(3) Among the prophets, Elijah felt the destruction of the many altars of God as a terrible grief (1Ki 19:10,14). Amos and Hosea each mention the high places by name only once (Am 7:9; Ho 10:8), but both prophets have only denunciation for the sacrificial practices of the Northern Kingdom. That, however, these sacrifices were offered in the wrong place is not said. Isa has nothing to say about the high places, except in 36:7, while Mic 1:5 equates the sins of Jerusalem with those of the high places (if the text is right), but promises the exaltation of Jerusalem (4:1 f). In the references in Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Eze 6:3,1; 16:16; 20:29; 43:7, idolatry or abominable practices are in point (so probably in Jer 17:3, while Jer 48:35 and Isa 16:12 refer to non-Israelites).

(4) The interpretation of the above data and their historical import depend on the critical position taken as to the general history of Israel’s religion.



See, especially, IDOLATRY, and also ALTAR; ASHERAH, etc. For the archaeological literature, see PALESTINE.

Burton Scott Easton




The translation of hupselos, "high," "lofty," "elevated" (Ro 12:16, "Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate," the King James Version margin "be contented with mean things," the Revised Version (British and American) "Set not your mind on high things, but condescend to (margin "Greek: be carried away with") things (margin "them") that are lowly"); high things are proud things, things regarded by the world as high.

High thing is hupsoma, "a high place," "elevation," etc. (2Co 10:5, "casting down every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God," "like a lofty tower or fortress built up proudly by the enemy"). In APC Judith 10:8; 13:4, hupsoma is rendered "exaltation."

W. L. Walker




hi’-est (‘elyon; hupsistos): The translation of ‘elyon, used frequently of God and commonly translated "Most High" (Ps 18:13, "The Highest gave his voice," the Revised Version (British and American) "Most High"; Ps 87:5, "the highest himself," the Revised Version (British and American) "Most High"; Eze 41:7, "the lowest (chamber) to the highest"); of tsammereth, the foliage of a tree (as if the wool or hair of trees), "the highest branch" (Eze 17:3,12, the Revised Version (British and American) "top," "lofty top"); of ro’sh, "head," "top" (Pr 8:26, "the highest part of the dust of the world," the King James Version margin "the chief part," the Revised Version (British and American) "the beginning of," margin "sum"); gappe marom, "on the ridges of the heights" (Pr 9:3, "the highest places of the city"); ghabhoah me‘al gabhoah, literally, "one high (powerful) who is above the high (oppressor)," is translated "he that is higher than the highest" (Ec 5:8), the Revised Version (British and American) "one higher than the high (regardeth)." In the New Testament, hupsistos (like ‘elyon) is used of God (Lu 1:32, "the Son of the Highest," Lu 1:35, "the power of the Highest," Lu 1:76, "the prophet of the Highest"; Lu 6:35, "the children of the Highest," in these places the Revised Version (British and American) has "Most High"); we have also "Hosanna in the highest" (Mt 21:9; Mr 11:10; see HOSANNA), "Glory to God in the highest" (Lu 2:14), "Glory in the highest" (Lu 19:38); protoklisia, "the first reclining-place" (at table), the chief place at meals, the middle place in each couch of the triclinium (Robinson), is rendered (Lu 14:8), "the highest room," the Revised Version (British and American) "chief seat"; "room" was introduced by Tyndale; Wycliff had "the first place"; protokathedria (protos, "first," kathedra, "seat"), "the first or chief seat," is rendered (Lu 20:46) "the highest seats," the Revised Version (British and American) "chief seats" Wycliff "the first chairs."

"The Highest" as a term for God appears (2 Esdras 4:11,34, the Revised Version (British and American) "Most High"; The Wisdom of Solomon 6:3, hupsistos; Ecclesiasticus 28:7, the Revised Version (British and American) "Most High").

See also GOD, NAMES OF.

W. L. Walker


hi’-mind-ed: In modern usage denotes elevation of mind in a good sense, but formerly it was used to denote upliftedness in a bad sense, pride, arrogance. It is the translation of hupselophroneo, "to be highminded," "proud," "haughty" (Ro 11:20, "Be not highminded, but fear"; 1Ti 6:17, "Charge them that are rich .... that they be not highminded"); of tuphoo "to wrap in mist or smoke," trop., to wrap in conceit, to make proud, etc. (2Ti 3:4, "Traitors, heady, highminded," the Revised Version (British and American) "puffed up"; compare 1Ti 3:6; 6:4). "No one can be highminded without thinking better of himself, and worse of others, than he ought to think" (Crabb, English Synonyms).

W. L. Walker





hi-len (chilen): A city in the hill country of Judah, probably West or Southwest of Hebron, assigned with its suburbs to the Levites (1Ch 6:58 (Hebrew 43)). The form of the name in Jos 15:51; 21:15 is HOLON (which see).


hil-ki’-a (chilqiyah, "Yah is my portion" or "Yah’s portion"): The name of 8 individuals in the Old Testament or 7, if the person mentioned in Ne 12:7,21 was the same who stood with Ezra at the reading of the Law (Ne 8:4). The latter appears as Ezecias (the King James Version) in 1 Esdras 9:43. Five of this name are clearly associated with the priesthood, and the others are presumably so. The etymology suggests this. Either interpretation of the name expresses the person’s claim on Yahweh or the parents’ recognition of Yahweh’s claim on him.

(1) The person mentioned above (Ne 8:4, etc.).

(2) A Levite of the sons of Merari (1Ch 6:45).

(3) Another Levite of Merari, son of Hosah (1Ch 26:11). Is he the "porter," i.e. "doorkeeper" of 1Ch 16:38?

(4) Father of the Gemariah whom Zedekiah of Judah sent to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 29:3).

(5) The man in 2Ki 18:18 ff who is evidently more famous as the father of Eliakim, the majordomo of Hezekiah’s palace (Isa 22:20 ff; 36:3 ). Probably the father’s name is given in this and similar cases to distinguish between two persons of otherwise identical name.

(6) A priest of Anathoth, father of Jeremiah (Jer 1:1).

(7) The son of Shallum, and the best known of the name (1Ch 6:13). He is great-grandfather of Ezra through his son Azariah (1 Esdras 8:1; compare 1Ch 9:11; Ne 11:11). He discovered the lost Book of the Law during the repairing of the Temple (2Ki 22:4,8 ); became chief leader in the ensuing reformation in 621 BC (2Ki 23:4; 2Ch 34:9 ff; 35:8). He showed the recovered book to Shaphan the scribe, who, in turn, brought it to the notice of the king. At Josiah’s request he led a deputation to Huldah the prophetess to "inquire of the Lord" concerning the new situation created by the discovery. The book discovered is usually identified with the Book of Deuteronomy.


Henry Wallace


hil’-kun-tri: The common translation of three Hebrew words:

(1) gibh‘ah, from root meaning "to be curved," is almost always translated "hill"; it is a pecuIiarly appropriate designation for the very rounded hills of Palestine; it is never used for a range of mountains. Several times it occurs as a place-name, "Gibeah of Judah" (Jos 15:20,57); "Gibeah of Benjamin" or "Saul" (Jud 19:12-16, etc.); "Gibeah of Phinehas" (Jos 24:33 margin), etc. (see GIBEAH). Many such hills were used for idolatrous rites (1Ki 14:23; 2Ki 17:10; Jer 2:20, etc.).

(2) har, frequently translated in the King James Version "hill," is in the Revised Version (British and American) usually translated "mountain" (compare Ge 7:19; Jos 15:9; 18:15 f, and many other references), or "hillcountry." Thus we have the "hill-country of the Amorites" (De 1:7,19,20); the "hill-country of Gilead" (De 3:12); the "hill-country of Ephraim" (Jos 17:15,16,18; 19:50; 20:7, etc.); the "hill-country of Judah" (Jos 11:21; 20:7; 21:11; 2Ch 27:4, etc.; and (he oreine) Lu 1:39,65); the "hill-country of Naphtali" (Jos 20:7). For geographical descriptions see PALESTINE; COUNTRY; EPHRAIM; JUDAH, etc.

(3) ‘ophel, is translated by "hill" in 2Ki 5:24; Isa 32:14; Mic 4:8, but may possibly mean "tower" or "fort." In other passages the word occurs with the article as a place-name.


E. W. G. Masterman


1. Names:

(1) The commonest word is har (also harar, and herer), which is rendered "hill," "mount" or "mountain." It occurs several hundreds of times. In a number of places the Revised Version (British and American) changes "hill" to "mountain," e.g. Ge 7:19, mountains covered by flood; Ex 24:4, Horeb; Jos 18:14, mountain before Beth-horon: Jud 16:3, mountain before Hebron; Ps 95:4, "The heights of the mountains are his also"; 121:1, "I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains." "Hill" remains in De 11:11, "land of hills and valleys"; 1Ki 20:23, "god of the hills"; Ps 2:6, "my holy hill of Zion": 98:8, "hills sing for joy." "Mount" is changed "hill-country" in De 1:7, "hill-country of the Amorites"; Jud 12:15, "hill-country of the Amalekites"; De 3:12, "hill-country of Gilead"; but Ge 3:21, "mountain of Gilead"; and Jud 7:3, "Mount Gilead." "Hill" or "hills" is changed to "hill-country" in De 1:7; Jos 9:1; 10:40; 11:16; 17:16; 21:11. In De 1:41,43, the American Standard Revised Version changes "hill" to "hill-country," while the English Revised Version has "mountain." The reasons for these differences of treatment are not in all cases apparent.

(2) The Greek oros, is perhaps etymologically akin to har. It occurs often in the New Testament, and is usually translated "mount" or "mountain." In three places (Mt 5:14; Lu 4:29; 9:37) the King James Version has hill, which the Revised Version (British and American) retains, except in Lu 9:37, "when they were come down from the mountain" (of the transfiguration). The derivative oreinos, "hill country," occurs in Lu 1:39,65.

(3) The common Hebrew word for "hill" is gibh‘ah = Gibeah (Jud 19:12); compare Geba, gebha‘ (1Sa 13:3); Gibeon, gib‘on (Jos 9:3), from root gabha‘, "to be high"; compare Arabic qubbeh, "dome"; Latin caput; kephale.

(4) In 1Sa 9:11, the King James Version has "hill" for ma‘aleh, root ‘alah, "to ascend"; compare Arabic ‘ala’," to be high," and ‘ali, "high." Here and elsewhere the Revised Version (British and American) has "ascent."

(5) English Versions of the Bible has "hill" in Isa 5 for qeren, "horn"; compare Arabic qarn, "horn," which is also used for a mountain peak.

(6) Tur, is translated "mountain" in Da 2:35,45, but the Revised Version margin "rock" in Da 2:35. The Arabic tur, "mountain," is especially used with Sinai, jebel tur sina’.

(7) mutstsabh (Isa 29:3), is translated in the King James Version "mount" in the English Revised Version "fort," in the American Standard Revised Version "posted troops"; compare matstsabh, "garrison" (1Sa 14:1, etc.), from root natsabh, "to set"; compare Arabic nacab, "to set."

(8) colelah, from calal, "to raise," is in the King James Version and the English Revised Version "mount," the King James Version margin "engine of shot," the American Standard Revised Version "mound" (Jer 32:24; 33:4; Eze 4:2; 17; 21:22; 26:8; Da 11:15).

2. Figurative and Descriptive:

The mountains and hills of Palestine are the features of the country, and were much in the thoughts of the Biblical writers. Their general aspect is that of vast expanses of rock. As compared with better-watered regions Descriptive of the earth, the verdure is sparse and incidental. Snow remains throughout the year on Hermon and the two highest peaks of Lebanon, although in the summer it is in great isolated drifts which are not usually visible from below. In Palestine proper, there are no snow mountains. Most of the valleys are dry wadies, and the roads often follow these wadies, which are to the traveler veritable ovens. It is when he reaches a commanding height and sees the peaks and ridges stretching away one after the other, with perhaps, through some opening to the West, a gleam of the sea like molten metal, that he thinks of the vastness and enduring strength of the mountains. At sunset the rosy lights are succeeded by the cool purple shadows that gradually fade into cold gray, and the traveler is glad of the shelter of his tent. The stars come out, and there is no sound outside the camp except perhaps the cries of jackals or the barking of some goat-herd’s dog. These mountains are apt to repel the casual traveler by their bareness. They have no great forests on their slopes. Steep and rugged peaks like those of the Alps are entirely absent. There are no snow peaks or glaciers. There are, it is true, cliffs and crags, but the general outlines are not striking. Nevertheless, these mountains and hills have a great charm for those who have come to know them. To the Biblical writers they are symbols of eternity (Ge 49:26; De 33:15; Job 15:7; Hab 3:6). They are strong and steadfast, but they too are the creation of God, and they manifest His power (Ps 18:7; 97:5; Isa 40:12; 41:15; 54:10; Jer 4:24; Na 1:5; Hab 3:6). The hills were places of heathen sacrifice (De 12:2; 1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 16:4; 17:10; Eze 6:13; Ho 4:13), and also of sacrifice to Yahweh (Ge 22:2; 31:54; Jos 8:30). Zion is the hill of the Lord (Ps 2:6; 135:21; Isa 8:18; Joe 3:21; Mic 4:2).

3. Particular Mountains:

Many proper names are associated with the mountains and hills: as Abarim, Amalekites, Ammah, Amorites, Ararat, Baalah, Baal-hermon, Bashan, Beth-el, Bether, Carmel, Chesalon, Ebal, Ephraim, Ephron, Esau, Gaash, Gareb, Geba, Gerizim, Gibeah, Gibeon, Gilboa, Gilead, Hachilah, Halak, Hebron, Heres, Hermon, Hor, Horeb, Jearim, Judah, Lebanon, Mizar, Moreh, Moriah, Naphtali, Nebo, Olives, Olivet, Paran, Perazim, Pisgah, Samaria, Seir, Senir, Sephar, Shepher, Sinai, Sion, Sirion, Tabor, Zalmon, Zemaraim, Zion. See also "mountain of the east" (Ge 10:30); "mountains of the leopards" (So 4:8); "rocks of the wild goats" (1Sa 24:2); "hill of the foreskins" (Gibeah-haaraloth) (Jos 5:3); "mountains of brass" (Zec 6:1); "hill of God" (Gibeah of God) (1Sa 10:5); "hill of Yahweh" (Ps 24:3); "mount of congregation" (Isa 14:13); see also Mt 4:8; 5:1; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1; 28:16; Lu 8:32; Ga 4:25.

Alfred Ely Day


hil’-el (hillel, "he greatly praised"; Septuagint Ellel): An inhabitant of Pirathon in the hill country of Ephraim, and father of Abdon, one of the judges of Israel (Jud 12:13,15).


hin (hin): A liquid measure containing 12 logs, equal to about 8 quarts.






The translation of Aijeleth hash-Shahar (’ayyeleth ha-shachar) in the title of Ps 22, probably the name of some wellknown song to which the psalm was intended to be sung, which possibly had reference to the early habits of the deer tribe in search of water and food, or to the flight of the hind from the hunters in early dawn; or "morning" may symbolize the deliverance from persecution and sorrow.

"The first rays of the morning sun, by which it announces its appearance before being itself visible, are compared to the fork-like antlers of a stag; and this appearance is called, Ps 22 title. ‘The hind of the morning,’ because those antler rays preceded the red of dawn, which again forms the transition to sunrise" (Delitzsch, Iris. 107).

According to Hengstenberg, the words indicate the subject-matter of the poem, the character, sufferings, and triumph of the person who is set before us. See PSALMS. For an interesting Messianic interpretation see Hood, Christmas Evans, the Preacher of Wild Wales, 92 ff.

M. O. Evans


hinj (poth): Hinges of Jewish sacred buildings in Scripture are mentioned only in connection with Solomon’s temple. Here those for the doors, both of the oracle and of the outer temple, are said to have been of gold (1Ki 7:50). By this is probably to be understood that the pivots upon which the doors swung, and which turned in the sockets of the threshold and the lintel, were cased in gold. The proverb, "As the door turneth upon its hinges, so doth the sluggard upon his bed" (Pr 26:14), describes the ancient mode of ingress and egress into important edifices. In the British Museum are many examples of stone sockets taken from Babylonian and Assyrian palaces and temples, engraved with the name and titles of the royal builder; while in the Hauran doors of a single slab of stone with stone pivots are still found in situ. Hinges, as we understand the word, were unknown in the ancient world.

See HOUSE, II, 1.

W. Shaw Caldecott


hin’-om (ge hinnom, Jos 15:8; 18:16; "valley of the son of Hinnom" (ge bhen hinnom), Jos 15:8; 18:16; 2Ch 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31 f; 19:2,6; 32:35; "valley of the children (sons) of Hinnom" (ge bhene hinnom), 2Ki 23:10; or simply "the valley," literally, the "hollow" or "ravine" (ha-gay’), 2Ch 26:9; Ne 2:13,15; 3:13; Jer 31:40 and, perhaps also, Jer 2:23 (the above references are in the Hebrew text; there are some variations in the Septuagint)): The meaning of "Hinnom" is unknown; the expressions ben Hinnom and bene Hinnom would suggest that it is a proper name; in Jer 7:32; 19:6 it is altered by the prophet to "valley of slaughter," and therefore some have thought the original name must have had a pleasing meaning.

1. Bible References and History:

It was near the walls of Jerusalem, "by the entry of the gate Harsith" (Jer 19:2); the Valley Gate opened into it (Ne 2:13; 3:13). The boundary between Judah and Benjamin ran along it (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It was the scene of idolatrous practices in the days of Ahaz (2Ch 28:3) and of Manasseh, who "made his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom" (2Ch 33:6), but Josiah in the course of his reforms "defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children (margin "son") of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech" (2Ki 23:10). It was on account of these evil practices that Jeremiah (7:32; 19:6) announced the change of name. Into this valley dead bodies were probably cast to be consumed by the dogs, as is done in the Wady er-Rababi today, and fires were here kept burning to consume the rubbish of the city. Such associations led to the Ge-Hinnom (New Testament "Gehenna") becoming the "type of Hell" (Milton, Paradise Lost, i, 405).


2. Situation:

The Valley of Hinnom has been located by different writers in each of the three great valleys of Jerusalem. In favor of the eastern or Kidron valley we have the facts that Eusebius and Jerome (Onom) place "Gehennom" under the eastern wall of Jerusalem and the Moslem geographical writers, Muqaddasi and Nasir-i-khusran, call the Kidron valley Wady Jahamum. The Jewish writer Kimchi also identifies the Valley of Jehoshaphat (i.e. the Kidron) with Hinnom. These ideas are probably due to the identification of the eastern valley, on account of its propinquity to the Temple, as the scene of the last judgment—the "Valley of Jehoshaphat" of Joe 3:2—and the consequent transference there of the scene of the punishment of the wicked, Gehenna, after the ancient geographical position of the Valley of Hinnom, had long been lost. In selecting sacred sites, from the 4th Christian century onward, no critical topographical acumen has been displayed until quite modern times. There are three amply sufficient arguments against this view: (1) the Kidron valley is always called a nachal and not a gay’ (see KIDRON); (2) the "Gate of the Gai" clearly did not lie to the East of the city; (3) En-rogel, which lay at the beginning of the Valley of Hinnom and to its East (Jos 15:8; 18:16) cannot be the "Virgin’s fount," the ancient Gihon (2Sa 17:17).


Several distinguished modern writers have sought to identify the Tyropeon Valley (el Wad) with Hinnom, but as the Tyropeon was incorporated within the city walls before the days of Manasseh (see JERUSALEM), it is practically impossible that it could have been the scene of the sacrifice of children—a ritual which must have occurred beyond the city’s limits (2Ki 23:10, etc.).

3. Wady er-Rababi:

The clearest geographical fact is found in Jos 15:8; 18:16, where we find that the boundary of Judah and Benjamin passed from En-rogel "by the valley of the son of Hinnom"; if the modern Bir Eyyub is En-rogel, as is certainly most probable, then the Wady er-Rababi, known traditionally as Hinnom, is correctly so called. It is possible that the name extended to the wide open land formed by the junction of the three valleys; indeed, some would place Tophet at this spot, but there is no need to extend the name beyond the actual gorge. The Wady er-Rababi commences in a shallow, open valley due West of the Jaffa Gate, in the center of which lies the Birket Mamilla; near the Jaffa Gate it turns South for about 1/3 of a mile, its course being dammed here to form a large pool, the Birket es Sultan. Below this it gradually curves to the East and rapidly descends between sides of bare rocky scarps, much steeper in ancient times. A little before the valley joins the wide Kidron valley lies the traditional site of AKELDAMA (which see).

E. W. G. Masterman


(shoq, "leg," "limb," "hip," "shoulder"): Samson smote the Philistines "hip and thigh" (Hebrew "leg upon thigh"), which was indicative of "a great slaughter" (Jud 15:8), the bodies being hewed in pieces with such violence that they lay in bloody confusion, their limbs piled up on one another in great heaps.

See also SINEW.


hip-o-pot’-a-mus (Job 41:1 margin).



hi’-ra (chirah; Septuagint Eiras): A native of Adullam, and a "friend" of Judah (Ge 38:1,12). The Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) both describe him as Judah’s "shepherd."


hi’-ram (chiram; Septuagint Chiram, but Cheiram, in 2Sa 5:11; 1Ch 14:1): There is some confusion regarding the form of this name. In the books of Samuel and Kings the prevailing form is "Hiram" (chiram); but in 1Ki 5:10,18 margin (Hebrew 24,32); 7:40 margin "Hirom" (chirom) is found. In Chronicles the form of the word is uniformly "Huram" (churam).

(1) A king of Tyre who lived on most friendly terms with both David and Solomon. After David had taken the stronghold of Zion, Hiram sent messengers and workmen and materials to build a palace for him at Jerusalem (2Sa 5:11; 1Ch 14:1). Solomon, on his accession to the throne, made a league with Hiram, in consequence of which Hiram furnished the new king of Israel with skilled workmen and with cedar trees and fir trees and algum trees from Lebanon for the building of the Temple. In return Solomon gave annually to Hiram large quantities of wheat and oil (1Ki 5:1 (Hebrew 15) ff; 2Ch 2:3 (Hebrew 2) ff). "At the end of twenty years, wherein Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house," Solomon made a present to Hiram of twenty cities in the land of Galilee. Hiram was not at all pleased with these cities and contemptuously called them "Cabul." His displeasure, however, with this gift does not seem to have disturbed the amicable relations that had hitherto existed between the two kings, for subsequently Hiram sent to the king of Israel 120 talents of gold (1Ki 9:10-14). Hiram and Solomon maintained merchant vessels on the Mediterranean and shared mutually in a profitable trade with foreign ports (1Ki 10:22). Hiram’s servants, "shipmen that had knowledge of the sea," taught the sailors of Solomon the route from Ezion-geber and Eloth to Ophir, whence large stores of gold were brought to King Solomon (1Ki 9:26; 2Ch 8:17 f).

Josephus (Apion, I, 17, 18) informs us, on the authority of the historians Dius and Menander, that Hiram was the son of Abibal, that he had a prosperous reign of 34 years, and died at the age of 53. He tells us on the same authority that Hiram and Solomon sent problems to each other to solve; that Hiram could not solve those sent him by Solomon, whereupon he paid to Solomon a large sum of money, as had at first been agreed upon. Finally, Abdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the problems, and proposed others which Solomon was unable to explain; consequently Solomon was obliged to pay back to Hiram a vast sum of money. Josephus further states (Ant., VIII, ii, 8) that the correspondence carried on between Solomon and Hiram in regard to the building of the Temple was preserved, not only in the records of the Jews, but also in the public records of Tyre. It is also related by Phoenician historians that Hiram gave his daughter to Solomon in marriage.

(2) The name of a skillful worker in brass and other substances, whom Solomon secured from Hiram king of Tyre to do work on the Temple. His father was a brass-worker of Tyre, and his mother was a woman of the tribe of Naphtali (1Ki 7:14), "a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2Ch 2:14 (Hebrew 13); 1Ki 7:13 ff; 2Ch 2:13 f (Hebrew 12,13)).

Jesse L. Cotton





hir: Two entirely different words are translated "hire" in the Old Testament:

(1) The most frequent one is sakhar, verb sakhar, and verbal adjective sakhir.

(a) As a verb it means "to hire" for a wage, either money or something else; in this sense it is used with regard to ordinary laborers (1Sa 2:5; 2Ch 24:12), or mercenary soldiers (2Sa 10:6; 2Ki 7:6; 1Ch 19:6; 2Ch 25:6), or a goldsmith (Isa 46:6), or a band of loose followers (Jud 9:4), or a false priest (Jud 18:4), or Balaam (De 23:4; Ne 13:2), or hostile counselors (Ezr 4:5), or false prophets (Ne 6:12 f). As a verbal adjective it refers to things (Ex 22:15; Isa 7:20)or men (Le 19:13; Jer 46:21).

(b) As a noun it denotes the wage in money, or something else, paid to workmen for their services (Ge 30:32 f; 31:8; De 24:15; 1Ki 5:6; Zec 8:10), or the rent or hire paid for a thing (Ex 22:15), or a work-beast (Zec 8:10). In Ge 30:16 Leah hires from Rachel the privilege of having Jacob with her again, and her conception and the subsequent birth of a son, she calls her hire or wage from the Lord for the gift of her slave girl to Jacob as a concubine (Ge 30:18).

(2) The other word translated hire is ‘ethnan, once ‘ethnan. It is rather a gift (from root nathan, "to give") than a wage earned by labor, and is used uniformly in a bad sense. It is the gift made to a harlot (De 23:18), or, reversing the usual custom, made by the harlot nation (Eze 16:31,41). It was also used metaphorically of the gifts made by Israelites to idols, since this was regarded as spiritual harlotry (Isa 23:17 f; Mic 1:7; compare also Ho 8:9 f).

In the English New Testament the word occurs once as a verb and 3 times as a noun as the translation of misthos, and its verbal form. In Mt 20:1,8 and Jas 5:4 it refers to the hiring of ordinary field laborers for a daily wage. In Lu 10:7 it signifies the stipend which is due the laborer in the spiritual work of the kingdom of God. It is a wage, earned by toil, as that of other laborers. The word is very significant here and absolutely negatives the idea, all too prevalent, that money received by the spiritual toiler is a gift. It is rather a wage, the reward of real toil.

William Joseph McGlothlin


hir’-ling (sakhir): Occurs only 6 times in the Old Testament, and uniformly means a laborer for a wage. In Job 7:1 f there is reference to the hireling’s anxiety for the close of the day. In Isa 16:14 and 21:16 the length of the years of a hireling is referred to, probably because of the accuracy with which they were determined by the employer and the employee. Malachi (3:5) speaks of the oppression of the hireling in his wages, probably by the smallness of the wage or by in some way defrauding him of part of it.

In the New Testament the word "hireling" (misthotos) occurs only in Joh 10:12 f, where his neglect of the sheep is contrasted unfavorably with the care and courage of the shepherd who owns the sheep, who leads them to pasture and lays down his life for their protection from danger and death.

William Joseph McGlothlin


hiz: Used often in the King James Version with reference to a neuter or inanimate thing, or to a lower animal (Ge 1:11, "after his kind"; Le 1:16, "pluck away his crop"; Ac 12:10, "of his own accord"; 1Co 15:38, "his own body"), etc. the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "its."


his (sharaq): "To hiss" has two applications:

(1) to call,

(2) to express contempt or scorn.

(1) It is the translation of sharaq, a mimetic word meaning to hiss or whistle, to call (bees, etc.), (a) Isa 5:26, "I will hiss unto them from the ends of the earth," the Revised Version (British and American) "hiss for them (margin "him") from the end of the earth"; 7:18, "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"; namely, Egyptians whose land was noted for flies (18:1) and Assyrians whose country was pre-eminently one of bees. Dangerous enemies are compared to bees in De 1:44; Ps 118:12 (Skinner’s Isaiah): Zec 10:8, "I will hiss for them, and gather them" (His own people, who will come at His call).

(2) More often, to hiss is to express contempt or derision (1Ki 9:8; Job 27:23; Jer 19:8, etc.). In this sense we have also frequently a hissing (2Ch 29:8; Jer 19:8; 25:9,18; 29:18; 51:37; Mic 6:16, shereqah); Jer 18:16, sheriqoth or sheruqoth; Ecclesiasticus 22:1, "Every one will hiss him (the slothful man) out in his disgrace" (eksurisso, "to hiss out"); The Wisdom of Solomon 17:9, "hissing of serpents" (surigmos).

W. L. Walker


hith’-er-too (to this): Used of both place and time. It is the translation of various words and phrases:

(1) Of place, ‘adh halom (2Sa 7:18, "Thou hast brought me hitherto," the Revised Version (British and American) "thus far"; 1Ch 17:16; perhaps 1Sa 7:12, ‘adh hennah, "Hitherto hath Yahweh helped us" (in connection with the setting up of the stone Ebenezer)) belongs to this head; hennah is properly an adverb of place; it might always be rendered "thus far."

(2) Of time, ‘adh koh, "unto this" (Ex 7:16, "Hitherto thou hast not hearkened"; Jos 17:14, "Hitherto Yahweh hath blessed me"); me’az, "from then" (2Sa 15:34, the Revised Version (British and American) "in time past"); hale’ah, "beyond," etc. (Isa 18:7, "terrible from their beginning hitherto," the Revised Version (British and American) "onward"); ‘adh kah, Aramaic (Da 7:28, the Revised Version (British and American) "here," margin "hitherto"); ‘adh hennah, "unto here" (Jud 16:13; 1Sa 1:16; Ps 71:17, etc.); achri tou deuro (Ro 1:13, "was let (the Revised Version (British and American) "hindered") hitherto"); heos arti, "until now" (Joh 5:17, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" the Revised Version (British and American) "even until now," that is, "on the Sabbath as well as on other days’, and I do as He does"; Joh 16:24, "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive," that is "up till now"; "now ask in my name and ye shall receive"); oupo, "not yet" (1Co 3:2, "Hitherto ye were not able to bear it," the Revised Version (British and American) "not yet").

W. L. Walker


hit’-its (bene cheth, chittim; Chettaioi): One of the seven nations conquered by Israel in Palestine.


1. Enumeration of Races

2. Individuals

3. Later Mention


1. Sources

2. Chronology

3. Egyptian Invasions: XVIIIth Dynasty

4. "The Great King" 5. Egyptian Invasions: XIXth Dynasty

6. Declension of Power: Aryan Invasion

7. Second Aryan Invasion

8. Assyrian Invasions

9. Invasion by Assur-nasir-pal

10. Invasions by Shalmaneser II and Rimmonnirari III

11. Revolts and Invasions

12. Break-up of Hittite Power

13. Mongols in Syria


1. Mongol Race

2. Hittire and Egyptian Monuments

3. Hair and Beard

4. Hittite Dress

5. Hittite Names

6. Vocabulary of Pterium Epistles

7. Tell el-Amarna Tablet


1. Polytheism: Names of Deities

2. Religious Symbolism


1. Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic

2. Description of Signs

3. Interpretation of Monuments


I. Old Testament Notices.

1. Enumeration of Races:

The "sons of Heth" are noticed 12 times and the Hittites 48 times in the Old Testament. In 21 cases the name Occurs in the enumeration of races, in Syria and Canaan, which are said (Ge 10:6 f) to have been akin to the early inhabitants of Chaldea and Babylon. From at least 2000 BC this population is known, from monumental records, to have been partly Semitic and partly Mongolic; and the same mixed race is represented by the Hittite records recently discovered in Cappadocia and Pontus. Thus, while the Canaanites ("lowlanders"), Amorites (probably "highlanders"), Hivites ("tribesmen") and Perizzites ("rustics") bear Semitic titles, the Hittites, Jebusites and Girgashites appear to have non-Sem names. Ezekiel (16:3,15) speaks of the Jebusites as a mixed Hittite-Amorite people.

2. Individuals:

The names of Hittites noticed in the Old Testament include several that are Semitic (Ahimelech, Judith, Bashemath, etc.), but others like Uriah and Beeri (Ge 26:34) which are probably non-Sem. Uriah appears to have married a Hebrew wife (Bathsheba), and Esau in like manner married Hittite women (Ge 26:34; 36:2). In the time of Abraham we read of Hittites as far South as Hebron (Ge 23:3 ff; 27:46), but there is no historic improbability in this at a time when the same race appears (see ZOAN) to have ruled in the Nile Delta (but see Gray in The Expositor, May, 1898, 340 f).

3. Later Mention:

In later times the "land of the Hittites" (Jos 1:4; Jud 1:26) was in Syria and near the Euphrates (see TAHTIM-HODSHI); though Uriah (2Sa 11) lived in Jerusalem, and Ahimelech (1Sa 26:6) followed David. In the time of Solomon (1Ki 10:29), the "kings of the Hittites" are mentioned with the "kings of Syria," and were still powerful a century later (2Ki 7:6). Solomon himself married Hittite wives (1Ki 11:1), and a few Hittites seem still to have been left in the South (2Ch 8:7), even in his time, if not after the captivity (Ezr 9:1; Ne 9:8).

II. History.

1. Sources:

The Hittites were known to the Assyrians as Chatti, and to the Egyptians as Kheta, and their history has been very fully recovered from the records of the XVIIIth and XIXth Egyptian Dynasties, from the Tell el-Amarna Letters, from Assyrian annals and, quite recently, from copies of letters addressed to Babylonian rulers by the Hittite kings, discovered by Dr. H. Winckler in the ruins of Boghaz-keui ("the town of the pass"), the ancient Pterium in Pontus, East of the river Halys. The earliest known notice (King, Egypt and West Asia, 250) is in the reign of Saamsu-ditana, the last king of the first Babylonian Dynasty, about 2000 BC, when the Hittites marched on the "land of Akkad," or "highlands" North of Mesopotamia.

2. Chronology:

The chronology of the Hittites has been made clear by the notices of contemporary rulers in Babylonia, Matiene, Syria and Egypt, found by Winckler in the Hittite correspondence above noticed, and is of great importance to Bible history, because, taken in conjunction with the Tell el-Amarna Letters, with the Kassite monuments of Nippur, with the Babylonian chronicles and contemporary chronicles of Babylon and Assyria, it serves to fix the dates of the Egyptian kings of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties which were previously uncertain by nearly a century, but which may now be regarded as settled within a few years. From the Tell el-Amarna Letters it is known that Thothmes IV was contemporary with the father of Adad-nirari of Assyria (Berlin number 30), and Amenophis IV with Burna-burias of Babylon (Brit. Mss. number 2); while a letter from Chattu-sil, the Hittite contemporary of Rameses II, was addressed to Kadashman-Turgu of Babylon on the occasion of his accession. These notices serve to show that the approximate dates given by Brugsch for the Pharaohs are more correct than those proposed by Mahler; and the following table will be useful for the understanding of the history—Thothmes III being known to have reigned 54 years, Amenophis III at least 36 years, and Rameses II, 66 years or more. The approximate dates appear to be thus fixed.

3. Egyptian Invasions: XVIIIth Dynasty:

The Hyksos race having been expelled from the Delta by Aahmes, the founder of the XVIIIth (Theban) Dynasty, after 1700 BC, the great trade route through Palestine Syria was later conquered by Thothmes I, who set up a monument on the West bank of the Euphrates. The conquests of Aahmes were maintained by his successors Amenophis I and Thothmes I and II; but when Thothmes III attained his majority (about 1580 BC), a great league of Syrian tribes and of Canaanites, from Sharuhen near Gaza and "from the water of Egypt, as far as the land of Naharain" (Aram-naharaim), opposed this Pharaoh in his 22nd year, being led by the king of Kadesh—probably Kadesh on the Orontes (now Qedes, North of Riblah)—but they were defeated near Megiddo in Central Palestine; and in successive campaigns down to his 31st year, Thothmes III reconquered the Palestine plains, and all Syria to Carchemish on the Euphrates. In his 29th year, after the conquest of Tuneb (now Tennnib, West of Arpad), he mentions the tribute of the Hittites including "304 lbs in 8 rings of silver, a great piece of white precious stone, and zagu wood." They were, however, still powerful, and further wars in Syria were waged by Amenophis II, while Thothmes IV also speaks of his first "campaign against the land of the Kheta." Adad-nirari I wrote to Egypt to say that Thothmes IV had established his father (Bel-tiglat-Assur) as ruler of the land of Marchasse (probably Mer’ash in the extreme North of Syria), and to ask aid against the "king of the land of the Hittites." Against the increasing power of this race Thothmes IV and his son Amenophis III strengthened themselves by marriage alliances with the Kassite kings of Babylon, and with the cognate rulers of Matiene, East of the Hittite lands of Syria, and Cappadocia. Dusratta of Matiene, whose sister Gilukhepa was married by Amenophis III in his 10th year, wrote subsequently to this Pharaoh to announce his own accession (Am Tab, Brit. Mus. number 9) and his defeat of the Hittites, sending a two-horse chariot and a young man and young woman as "spoils of the land of the Hittites."

4. "The Great King":

About this time (1480 BC) arose a great Hittite ruler bearing the strange name Subbiliuliuma, similar to that of Sapalulmi, chief the Hattinai, in North Syria, mentioned by Shalmaneser II in the 9th century BC. He seems to have ruled at Pterium, and calls himself "the great king, the noble king of the Hatti." He allied himself against Dusratta with Artatama, king of the Harri or North Syrians. The Syrian Hittites in Marchassi, North of the land of the Amorites, were led shortly after by Edugamma of Kinza (probably Kittiz, North of Arpad) in alliance with Aziru the Amorite, on a great raid into Phoenicia and to Bashan, South of Damascus. Thus it appears that the Amorites had only reached this region shortly before the Hebrew conquest of Bashan. Amenophis III repelled them in Phoenicia, and Subbiliuliuma descended on Kinza, having made a treaty with Egypt, and captured Edugamma and his father Suttatarra. He also conquered the land of Ikata which apparently lay East of the Euphrates and South of Carehemish. Some 30 years later, in the reign of Amenophis IV, Dusratta of Matiene was murdered, and his kingdom was attacked by the Assyrians; but Subbiliuliuma, though not a friend of Dusratta with whom he disputed the suzerainty of North Syria, sent aid to Dusratta’s son Mattipiza, whom he set on his throne, giving him his own daughter as a wife. A little later (about 1440 BC) Aziru the Amorite, who had been subject to Amenophis III, submitted to this same great Hittite ruler, and was soon able to conquer the whole of Phoenicia down to Tyre. All the Egyptian conquests were thus lost in the latter part of the reign of Amenophis III, and in that of Amenophis IV. Only Gaza seems to have been retained, and Burna-burias of Babylon, writing to Amenophis IV, speaks of the Canaanite rebellion as beginning in the time of his father Kuri-galzu I (Am Tab, British Museum number 2), and of subsequent risings in his own time (Berlin number 7) which interrupted communication with Egypt. Assur-yuballidh of Assyria (Berlin number 9), writing to the same Pharaoh, states also that the relations with Assyria, which dated back even to the time of Assur-nadin-akhi (about 1550 BC), had ceased. About this earlier period Thothmes III records that he received presents from Assyria. The ruin of Egypt thus left the Hittites independent, in North Syria, about the time when—according to Old Testament chronology—Palestine was conquered by Joshua. They probably acknowledged Arandas, the successor of Subbiliuliuma, as their suzerain.

5. Egyptian Invasions: XIXth Dynasty:

The XVIIIth Dynasty was succeeded, about 1400 BC, or a little later, by the XIXth, and Rameses I appears to have been the Pharaoh who made the treaty which Mursilis, brother of Arandas, contracted with Egypt. But on the accession of Seti I, son of Rameses I, the Syrian tribes prepared to "make a stand in the country of the Harri" against the Egyptian resolution to recover the suzerainty of their country. Seti I claims to have conquered "Kadesh (on the Orontes) in the Land of the Amorites," and it is known that Mutallis, the eldest son of Mursilis, fought against Egypt. According to his younger brother Hattusil, he was tyrant, who was finally driven out by his subjects and died before the accession of Kadashman-Turgu (about 1355 BC) in Babylon. Hattusil, the contemporary of Rameses II, then seized the throne as "great king of the Hittites" and "king of Kus" ("Cush," Ge 2:3), a term which in the Akkadian language meant "the West." In his 2nd year Rameses II advanced, after the capture of Ashkelon, as far as Beirut, and in his 5th year he advanced on Kadesh where he was opposed by a league of the natives of "the land of the Kheta, the land of Naharain, and of all the Kati" (or inhabitants of Cilicia), among which confederates the "prince of Aleppo" is specially noticed. The famous poem of Pentaur gives an exaggerated account of the victory won by Rameses II at Kadesh, over the allies, who included the people of Carchemish and of many other unknown places; for it admits that the Egyptian advance was not continued, and that peace was concluded. A second war occurred later (when the sons of Rameses II were old enough to take part), and a battle was then fought at Tuneb (Tennib) far North of Kadesh, probably about 1316 BC. The celebrated treaty between Rameses II and Chattusil was then made, in the 21st year of the first named. It was engraved on a silver tablet having on the back the image of Set (or Sutekh), the Hittite god of heaven, and was brought to Egypt by Tar-Tessubas, the Hittite envoy. The two "great kings" treated together as equals, and formed a defensive and offensive alliance, with extradition clauses which show the advanced civilization of the age. In the 34th year of his reign, Rameses II (who was then over 50 years of age) married a daughter of Chattusil, who wrote to a son of Kadashman-Turgu (probably Kadashman-burias) to inform this Kassite ruler of Babylon of the event. He states in another letter that he was allied by marriage to the father of Kadashman-Turgu, but the relations between the Kassite rulers and the Hittites were not very cordial, and complaints were made on both sides. Chattusil died before Rameses II, who ruled to extreme old age; for the latter (and his queen) wrote letters to Pudukhipa, the widow of this successful Hittite overlord. He was succeeded by Dudhalia, who calls himself "the great king" and the "son of Pudukhipa the great queen, queen of the land of the city of the Chatti."

6. Declension of Power: Aryan Invasion:

The Hittite power began now, however, to decline, in consequence of attacks from the West by hostile Aryan invaders. In the 5th year of Seti Merenptah II, son of Rameses II, these fair "peoples of the North" raided the Syrian coasts, and advanced even to Belbeis and Heliopolis in Egypt, in alliance with the Libyans West of the Delta. They were defeated, and Merenptah appears to have pursued them even to Pa-Kan’-ana near Tyre. A text of his 5th year (found by Dr. Flinders Petrie in 1896) speaks of this campaign, and says that while "Israel is spoiled" the "Hittites are quieted": for Merenptah appears to have been on good terms with them, and allowed corn to be sent in ships "to preserve the life of this people of the Chatti." Dudchalia was succeeded by his son "Arnuanta the great king," of whom a bilingual seal has been found by Dr. Winckler, in Hittite and cuneiform characters; but the confederacy of Hittite tribes which had so long resisted Egypt seems to have been broken up by these disasters and by the increasing power of Assyria.

7. Second Aryan Invasion:

A second invasion by the Aryans occurred in the reign of Rameses III (about 1200 BC) when "agitation seized the peoples of the North," and "no people stood before their arms, beginning with the people of the Chatti, of the Kati, of Carchemish and Aradus." The invaders, including Danai (or early Greeks), came by land and sea to Egypt, but were again defeated, and Rameses III—the last of the great Pharaohs—pursued them far north, and is even supposed by Brugsch to have conquered Cyprus. Among the cities which he took he names Carchemish, and among his captives were "the miserable king of the Chatti, a living prisoner," and the "miserable king of the Amorites."

8. Assyrian Invasions:

Half a century later (1150 BC) the Assyrians began to invade Syria, and Assur-ris-isi reached Beirut; for even as early as about 1270 BC Tukulti-Ninip of Assyria had conquered the Kassites, and had set a Semitic prince on their throne in Babylon. Early in his reign (about 1130 BC) Tiglath- pileser I claims to have subdued 42 kings, marching "to the fords of the Euphrates, the land of the Chatti, and the upper sea of the setting sun"—or Mediterranean. Soldiers of the Chatti had seized the cities of Sumasti (probably Samosata), but the Assyrian conqueror made his soldiers swim the Euphrates on skin bags, and so attacked "Carchemish of the land of the Hittites." The Moschians in Cappadocia were apparently of Hittite race, and were ruled by 5 kings: for 50 years they had exacted tribute in Commagene (Northeastern Syria), and they were defeated, though placing 20,000 men in the field against Tiglath-pileser I. He advanced to Kumani (probably Comana in Cappadocia), and to Arini which was apparently the Hittite capital called Arinas (now Iranes), West of Caesarea in the same region.

9. Invasion by Assur-nacir-pal:

The power of the Hittites was thus broken by Assyria, yet they continued the struggle for more than 4 centuries afterward. After the defeat of Tiglath-pileser I by Marduk-nadin-akhi of Babylon (1128-1111 BC), there is a gap in Assyrian records, and we next hear of the Hittites in the reign of Assur-nacir-pal (883-858 BC); he entered Commagene, and took tribute from "the son of Bachian of the land of the Chatti," and from "Sangara of Carchemish in the land of the Chatti," so that it appears that the Hittites no longer acknowledged a single "great king." They were, however, still rich, judging from the spoil taken at Carchemish, which included 20 talents of silver, beads, chains, and sword scabbards of gold, 100 talents of copper, 250 talents of iron, and bronze objects from the palace representing sacred bulls, bowls, cups and censers, couches, seats, thrones, dishes, instruments of ivory and 200 slave girls, besides embroidered robes of linen and of black and purple stuffs, gems, elephants’ tusks, chariots and horses. The Assyrian advance continued to ‘Azzaz in North Syria, and to the Afrin river, in the country of the Chattinai who were no doubt Hittites, where similar spoils are noticed, with 1,000 oxen and 10,000 sheep: the pagutu, or "maces" which the Syrian kings used as scepters, and which are often represented on Hittite monuments, are specially mentioned in this record. Assur-nacir-pal reached the Mediterranean at Arvad, and received tribute from "kings of the sea coast" including those of Gebal, Sidon and Tyre. He reaped the corn of the Hittites, and from Mt. Amanus in North Syria he took logs of cedar, pine, box and cypress.

10. Invasions by Shalmaneser II and Rimmonnirari III:

His son Shalmaneser II (858-823 BC) also invaded Syria in his 1st year, and again mentions Sangara of Carchemish, with Sapalulmi of the Chattinai. In Commagene the chief of the Gamgums bore the old Hittite name Mutallis. In 856 BC Shalmaneser II attacked Mer’-ash and advanced by Dabigu (now Toipuk) to ‘Azzaz. He took from the Hattinai 3 talents of gold, 100 of silver, 300 of copper, 1,000 bronze vases and 1,000 embroidered robes. He also accepted as wives a daughter of Mutallis and another Syrian princess. Two years later 120,000 Assyrians raided the same region, but the southward advance was barred by the great Syrian league which came to the aid of Irchulena, king of Hamath, who was not subdued till about 840 BC. In 836 BC the people of Tubal, and the Kati of Cappadocia and Cilicia, were again attacked. In 831 BC Qubarna, the vassal king of the Chattinai in Syria, was murdered by his subjects, and an Assyrian tartanu or general was sent to restore order. The rebels under Sapalulmi had been confederated with Sangara of Carchemish. Adad-nirari III, grandson of Shalmaneser II, was the next Assyrian conqueror: in 805 BC he attacked ‘Azzaz and Arpad, but the resistance of the Syrians was feeble, and presents were sent from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus and Edom. This conqueror states that he subdued "the land of the Hittites, the land of the Amorites, to the limits of the land of Sidon," as well as Damascus, Edom and Philistia.

11. Revolts and Invasions:

But the Hittites were not as yet thoroughly subdued, and often revolted. In 738 BC Tiglath-pileser II mentions among his tributaries a chief of the Gamgums bearing the Hittite name Tarku-lara, with Pisiris of Carchemish. In 702 BC Sennacherib passed peacefully through the "land of the Chatti" on his way to Sidon: for in 717 BC Sargon had destroyed Carchemish, and had taken many of the Hittites prisoners, sending them away far east and replacing them by Babylonians. Two years later he in the same way took the Hamathites as captives to Assyria. Some of the Hittites may have fled to the South, for in 709 BC Sargon states that the king of Ashdod was deposed by "people of the Chatti plotting rebellion who despised his rule," and who set up Azuri instead.

12. Breakup of Hittite Power:

The power of the Hittites was thus entirely broken before Sennacherib’s time, but they were not entirely exterminated, for, in 673 BC, Esar-haddon speaks of "twenty-two kings of the Chatti and near the sea." Hittite names occur in 712 BC (Tarchu-nazi of Meletene) and in 711 BC (Mutallis of Commagene), but after this they disappear. Yet, even in a recently found text of Nebuchadnezzar (after 600 BC), we read that "chiefs of the land of the Chattim, bordering on the Euphrates to the West, where by command of Nergal my lord I had destroyed their rule, were made to bring strong beams from the mountain of Lebanon to my city Babylon." A Hittite population seems to have survived even in Roman times in Cilicia and Cappadocia, for (as Dr. Mordtman observed) a king and his son in this region both bore the name Tarkon-dimotos in the time of Augustus, according to Dio Cassius and Tacitus; and this name recalls that of Tarku-timme, the king of Erine in Cappadocia, occurring on a monument which shows him as brought captive before an Assyrian king, while the same name also occurs on the bilingual silver boss which was the head of his scepter, inscribed in Hittite and cuneiform characters.

13. Mongols in Syria:

The power of the Mongolic race decayed gradually as that of the Semitic Assyrians increased; but even now in Syria the two races remain mingled, and Turkoman nomads still camp even as far South as the site of Kadesh on the Orontes, while a few tribes of the same stock (which entered Syria in the Middle Ages) still inhabit the plains of Sharon and Esdraelon, just as the southern Hittites dwelt among the Amorites at Jerusalem and Hebron in the days of Abraham, before they were driven north by Thothmes III.

III. Language.

1. Mongol Race:

The questions of race and language in early times, before the early stocks were mixed or decayed, cannot be dissociated, and we have abundant evidence of the racial type and characteristic dress of the Hittites. The late Dr. Birch of the British Museum pointed out the Mongol character of the Hittite type, and his opinion has been very generally adopted. In 1888 Dr. Sayce (The Hittites, 15, 101) calls them "Mongoloid," and says, "They had in fact, according to craniologists, the characteristics of a Mongoloid race." This was also the opinion of Sir W. Flower; and, if the Hittites were Mongols, it would appear probable that they spoke a Mongol dialect. It is also apparent that, in this case, they would be related to the old Mongol population of Chaldea (the people of Akkad and Sumir or "of the highlands and river valley") from whom the Semitic Babylonians derived their earliest civilization.

2. Hittite on Egyptian Monuments:

The Hittite type is represented, not only on their own monuments, but on those of the XVIIIth and XIXth Egyptian Dynasties, including a~ colored picture of the time of Rameses III. The type represented has a short head and receding forehead, a prominent and sometimes rather curved nose, a strong jaw and a hairless face. The complexion is yellow, the eyes slightly slanting, the hair of the head black, and gathered into a long pigtail behind. The physiognomy is like that of the Sumerians represented on a bas-relief at Tel-loh (Zirgul) in Chaldea, and very like that of some of the Kirghiz Mongols of the present time, and of some of the more purely Mongolic Turks. The head of Gudea at Zirgul in like manner shows (about 2800 BC) the broad cheek bones and hairless face of the Turkish type; and the language of his texts, in both grammar and vocabulary, is closely similar to pure Turkish speech.

3. Hair and Beard:

Among Mongolic peoples the beard grows only late in life, and among the Akkadians it is rarely represented—excepting in the case of gods and ancient kings. The great bas-relief found by Koldewey at Babylon, and representing a Hittite thunder-god with a long pigtail and (at the back) a Hittite inscription, is bearded, but the pigtailed heads on other Hittite monuments are usually hairless. At Iasili-Kaia—the rock shrine near Pterium—only the supreme god is bearded, and all the other male figures are beardless. At Ibreez, in Lycaonia, the gigantic god who holds corn and grapes in his hands is bearded, and the worshipper who approaches him also has a beard, and his hair is arranged in the distinctive fashion of the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians. This type may represent Semitic mixture, for M. Chantre discovered at Kara-eyak, in Cappadocia, tablets in Semitic Babylonian representing traders’ letters perhaps as old as 2000 BC. The type of the Ibreez figures has been said to resemble that of the Armenian peasantry of today; but, although the Armenians are Aryans of the old Phrygian stock, and their language almost purely Aryan, they have mixed with the Turkish and Semitic races, and have been said even to resemble the Jews. Little reliance can be placed, therefore, on comparison with modern mixed types. The Hittite pigtail is very distinctive of a Mongolic race. It was imposed on the Chinese by the Manchus in the 17th century, but it is unknown among Aryan or Semitic peoples, though it seems to be represented on some Akkadian seals, and on a bas-relief picturing the Mongolic Susians in the 7th century BC.

4. Hittite Dress:

The costume of the Hittites on monuments seems also to indicate Mongolic origin. Kings and priests wear long robes, but warriors (and the gods at Ibreez and Babylon) wear short jerkins, and the Turkish shoe or slipper with a curled-up toe, which, however, is also worn by the Hebrew tribute bearers from Jehu on the "black obelisk" (about 840 BC) of Shalmaneser II. Hittite gods and warriors are shown as wearing a high, conical head-dress, just like that which (with addition of the Moslem turban) characterized the Turks at least as late as the 18th century. The short jerkin also appears on Akkadian seals and bas-reliefs, and, generally speaking, the Hittites (who were enemies of the Lycians, Danai and other Aryans to their west) may be held to be very clearly Mongolic in physical type and costume, while the art of their monuments is closely similar to that of the most archaic Akkadian and Babylonian sculptures of Mesopotamia. It is natural to suppose that they were a branch of the same remarkable race which civilized Chaldea, but which seems to have had its earliest home in Akkad, or the "highlands" near Ararat and Media, long before the appearance of Aryan tribes either in this region or in Ionia. The conclusion also agrees with the Old Testament statement that the Hittites were akin to the descendants of Ham in Babylonia, and not to the "fair" tribes (Japheth), including Medes, Ionians and other Aryan peoples.

5. Hittite Names:

As early as 1866 Chabas remarked that the Hittite names (of which so many have been mentioned above) were clearly not Semitic, and this has been generally allowed. Those of the Amorites, on the other hand, are Semitic, and the type represented, with brown skin, dark eyes and hair, aqui-line features and beards, agrees (as is generally allowed) in indicating a Semitic race. There are now some 60 of these Hittite names known, and they do not suggest any Aryan etymology. They are quite unlike those of the Aryan Medes (such as Baga-datta, etc.) mentioned by the Assyrians, or those of the Vannic kings whose language (as shown by recently published bilinguals in Vannic and Assyrian) seems very clearly to have been Iranian—or similar to Persian and Sanskrit—but which only occurs in the later Assyrian age. Comparisons with Armenian and Georgian (derived from the Phrygian and Scythian) also fail to show any similarity of vocabulary or of syntax, while on the other hand comparisons with the Akkadian, the Kassite and modern Turkish at once suggest a linguistic connection which fully agrees with what has been said above of the racial type. The common element Tarku, or Tarkhan, in Hittite names suggests the Mongol dargo and the Turkish tarkhan, meaning a "tribal chief." Sil again is an Akkadian word for a "ruler," and nazi is an element in both Hittite and Kassite names.

6. Vocabulary of Pterium Epistles:

It has also been remarked that the vocabulary of the Hittite letters discovered by Chantre at Pterium recalls that of the letter written by Dusratta of Matiene to Amenophis III (Am Tab number 27, Berlin), and that Dusratta adored the Hittite god Tessupas. A careful study of the language of this letter shows that, in syntax and vocabulary alike, it must be regarded as Mongolic and as a dialect of the Akkadian group. The cases of the noun, for instance, are the same as in Akkadian and in modern Turkish. No less than 50 words and terminations are common to the language of this letter and of those discovered by M. Chantre and attributed to the Hittites whose territory immediately adjoined that of Matiene. The majority of these words occur also in Akkadian.

7. Tell el-Amarna Tablet:

But in addition to these indications we have a letter in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Berlin number 10) written by a Hittite prince, in his own tongue and in the cuneiform script. It is from (and not to, as has been wrongly supposed by Knudtzon) a chief named Tarchun-dara, and is addressed to Amenophis III, whose name stands first. In all the other letters the name of the sender always follows that of the recipient. The general meaning of this letter is clear from the known meanings of the "ideograms" used for many words; and it is also clear that the language is "agglutinative" like the Akkadian. The suffixed possessive pronouns follow the plural termination of the noun as in Akkadian, and prepositions are not used as they are in Semitic and Aryan speech; the precative form of the verb has also been recognized to be the same as used in Akkadian. The pronouns mi, "my," and ti, "thy," are to be found in many living Mongolic dialects (e.g. the Zyrianian me and te); in Akkadian also they occur as mi and zi. The letter opens with the usual salutation: "Letter to Amenophis III the great king, king of the land of Egypt (Mizzari-na), from Tarchun-dara (Tarchundara-da), king of the land of Arzapi (or Arzaa), thus. To me is prosperity. To my nobles, my hosts, my cavalry, to all that is mine in all my lands, may there be prosperity; (moreover?) may there be prosperity: to thy house, thy wives, thy sons, thy nobles, thy hosts, thy cavalry, to all that is thine in thy lands may there be prosperity." The letter continues to speak of a daughter of the Pharaoh, and of a sum of gold which is being sent in charge of an envoy named Irsappa. It concludes (as in many other instances) with a list of presents, these being sent by "the Hittite prince (Nu Chattu) from the land Igait" (perhaps the same as Ikata), and including, besides the gold, various robes, and ten chairs of ebony inlaid with ivory. As far as it can at present be understood, the language of this letter, which bears no indications of either Semitic or Aryan speech, whether in vocabulary or in syntax, strongly favors the conclusion that the native Hittite language was a dialect of that spoken by the Akkadians, the Kassites and the Minyans of Matiene, in the same age.

IV. Religion.

1. Polytheism: Names of Deities:

The Hittites like their neighbors adored many gods. Besides Set (or Sutekh), the "great ruler of heaven," and Ishtar (Ashtoreth), we also find mentioned (in Chattusil’s treaty) gods and goddesses of "the hills and rivers of the land of the Chatti," "the great sea, the winds and the clouds." Tessupas was known to the Babylonians as a name of Rimmon, the god of thunder and rain. On a bilingual seal (in Hittite and cuneiform characters), now in the Ashmolean Museum, we find noticed the goddess Ischara, whose name, among the Kassites, was equivalent to Istar. The Hittite gods are represented—like those of the Assyrians—standing erect on lions. One of them (at Samala in Syria) is lion-headed like Nergal. They also believed in demons, like the Akkadians and others.

2. Religious Symbolism:

Their pantheon was thus also Mongolic, and the suggestion (by Dr. Winckler) that they adored Indian gods (Indra, Varuna), and the Persian Mithra, not only seems improbable, but is also hardly supported by the quotations from Semitic texts on which this idea is based. The sphinx is found as a Hittite emblem at Eyuk, North of Pterium, with the double-headed eagle which again, at Iasili-kaia, supports a pair of deities. It also occurs at Tel-loh as an Akkadian emblem, and was adopted by the Seljuk Turks about 1000 AD. At Eyuk we have a representation of a procession bringing goats and rams to an altar. At Iflatun-bunar the winged sun is an emblem as in Babylonia. At Mer’-ash, in Syria, the mother goddess carries her child, while an eagle perches on a harp beside her. At Carchemish the naked Ishtar is represented with wings. The religious symbolism, like the names of deities, thus suggests a close connection with the emblems and beliefs of the Kassites and Akkadians.

V Script.

1. Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic:

In the 16th century BC, and down to the 13th century, the Hittites used the cuneiform characters and the Babylonian language for correspondence abroad. On seals and and mace-heads they used their own hieroglyphics, together with the cuneiform. These emblems, which occur on archaic monuments at Hamath, Carchemish and Aleppo in Syria, as well as very frequently in Cappadocia and Pontus, and less frequently as far West as Ionia, and on the East at Babylon, are now proved to be of Hittite origin, since the discovery of the seal of Arnuanta already noticed. The suggestion that they were Hittite was first made by the late Dr. W. Wright (British and Foreign Evangelical Review, 1874). About 100 such monuments are now known, including seals from Nineveh and Cappadocia, and Hittite gold ornaments in the Ashmolean Museum; and there can be little doubt that, in cases where the texts accompany figures of the gods, they are of a votive character.

2. Description of Signs:

The script is quite distinctive, though many of the emblems are similar to those used by the Akkadians. There are some 170 signs in all, arranged one below another in the line—as among Akkadians. The lines read alternately from right to left and from left to right, the profile emblems always facing the beginning of each line.

The interpretation of these texts is still a controversial question, but the most valuable suggestion toward their understanding is that made by the late Canon Isaac Taylor (see ALPHABET, 1883). A syllabary which was afterward used by the Greeks in Cyprus, and which is found extensively spread in Asia Minor, Egypt, Palestine, Crete, and even on later coins in Spain, was recognized by Dr. Taylor as being derived from the Hittite signs. It was deciphered by George Smith from a Cypriote-Phoenician bilingual, and appears to give the sounds applying to some 60 signs.

3. Interpretation of Monuments:

These sounds are confirmed by the short bilinguals as yet known, and they appear in some cases at least to be very clearly the monosyllabic words which apply in Akkadian to similar emblems. We have thus the bases of a comparative study, by aid of a known language and script—a method similar to that which enabled Sir H. Rawlinson to recover scientifically the lost cuneiform, or Champollion to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.



The Egyptian notices will be found in Brugsch’s A History of Egypt under the Pharaohs, 1879, and the Assyrian in Schrader’s Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, English Translation, 1885. The discoveries of Chantre are published in his Mission en Cappadoce, 1898, and those of Dr. H. Winckler in the Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, number 35, December, 1907. The researches of Humann and Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, 1890, are also valuable for this question; as is also Dr. Robert Koldewey’s discovery of a Hittite monument at Babylon (Die hettische Inschrift, 1900). The recent discovery of sculpture at a site North of Samala by Professor Garstang is published in the Annals of Archaeology, I, number 4, 1908, by the University of Liverpool. These sculptures are supposed to date about 800 BC, but no accompanying inscriptions have as yet been found. The views of the present writer are detailed in his Tell Amarna Tablets, 2nd edition, 1894, and in The Hittites and Their Languages, 1898. Dr. Sayce has given an account of his researches in a small volume, The Hittites, 1888, but many discoveries by Sir C. Wilson, Mr. D.G. Hogarth, Sir W. Ramsay, and other explorers have since been published, and are scattered in various periodicals not easily accessible. The suggestions of Drs. Jensen, Hommel, and Peiser, in Germany, of comparison with Armenian, Georgian and Turkish, have not as yet produced any agreement; nor have those of Dr. Sayce, who looks to Vannic or to Gr; and further light on Hittite decipherment is still awaited. See, further, Professor Garstang’s Land of the Hittites, 1910.

C. R. Conder


hi’-vit (chiwwni; Heuaios):

1. Name:

A son of Canaan (Ge 10:17), i.e. an inhabitant of the land of Canaan along with the Canaanite and other tribes (Ex 3:17, etc.). In the list of Canaanite peoples given in Ge 15:19-21, the Hivites are omitted in the Hebrew text, though inserted in Septuagint and S. Gesenius suggests that the name is descriptive, meaning "villagers." The difficulty of explaining it is increased by the fact that it has been confused with "Horite" in some passages of the Hebrew text. In Jos 9:7 the Septuagint reads "Horite" as also does Codex A in Ge 34:2, and in Ge 36:2 a comparison with 36:24,25 shows that "Horite" must be substituted for "Hivite."

2. Geographical Situation:

In Jud 3:3 the Hittites are described as dwelling "in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon unto the entrance of Hamath," and in accordance with this the Hivite is described in Jos 11:3 as being "under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh," and in 2Sa 24:7 they are mentioned immediately after "the stronghold of Tyre." Hence, the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) reading must be right in Ge 34:2 and Jos 9:7, which makes the inhabitants of Shechem and Gibeon Horites instead of Hivites; indeed, in Ge 48:22 the people of Shechem are called Amorite, though this was a general name for the population of Canaan in the patriarchal period. No name resembling Hivite has yet been found in the Egyptian or Babylonian inscriptions.

A. H. Sayce


hiz’-ki (chizqi; Septuagint Azaki; the King James Version Hezeki): A son of Elpaal, a descendant of Benjamin (1Ch 8:17).


hiz-ki’-a (chizqiyah; Septuagint Ezekia, "strength of Yah"):

(1) A son of Neariah, a descendant of David (1Ch 3:23, the King James Version "Hezekiah").

(2) An ancestor of the prophet Zephaniah (Ze 1:1). In the Revised Version (British and American) this word is here translated "Hezekiah." This name again appears in Ne 10:17 (Hebrew 18) in the form of "Hizkijah" in the King James Version, but as "Hezekiah" in the Revised Version (British and American).






hor, hor’-i.

See COLOR (8); HAIR.


ho’-bab (chobhabh, "beloved"; Septuagint Obab): This name occurs only twice (Nu 10:29; Jud 4:11). It is not certain whether it denotes the father-in-law or the brother-in-law of Moses. The direct statement of Nu 10:29 is that Hobab was "the son of Reuel" (the King James Version "Raguel"). This is probably the correct view and finds support in Ex 18:27, which tells us that some time before the departure of the Israelites from Sinai, Jethro had departed and returned to his own land. The statement of Jud 4:11 is ambiguous, and therefore does not help us out of the difficulty, but is rather itself to be interpreted in the light of the earlier statement in Nu 10:29.

Mohammedan traditions favor the view that Hobab was only another name for Jethro. But this has little weight against the statements of Scripture. However, whether father-in-law or brother-in-law to Moses, the service he rendered to the leader of the hosts of Israel was most valuable and beautiful. Hobab was an experienced sheikh of the desert whose counsel and companionship Moses desired in the unfamiliar regions through which he was to journey. His knowledge of the wilderness and of its possible dangers would enable him to be to the Israelites "instead of eyes."

The facts recorded of this man are too meager to enable us to answer all the questions that arise concerning him. A difficulty that remains unsolved is the fact that in Jud 1:16 and 4:11 he is described as a Kenite, while in Ex 3:1 and 18:1, the father-in-law of Moses is spoken of as "the priest of Midian."

Jesse L. Cotton


ho’-ba (chobhah): A place "on the left hand," i.e. to the North of "Damascus," to which Abraham pursued the defeated army of Chedorlaomer (Ge 14:15). It is probably identical with the modern Choba, about 60 miles Northwest of Damascus.


ho-ba’-ya (chobhayah, "whom Yahweh hides," i.e. "protects"): The head of a priestly family that returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel. Because they could not trace their genealogy, they were not permitted to serve in the priestly office (Ne 7:63 f). In the Qere of this passage and in the parallel list of Ezr 2:61, this name appears in the form "Habaiah" (chabhayyah). "Obdia" is the form of the word in 1 Esdras 5:38.


(‘aqar, "to root out"): To hamstring, i.e. to render useless by cutting the tendons of the hock (in the King James Version and the English Revised Version "hough"). "In their selfwill they hocked an ox" (Ge 49:6, the King James Version "digged down a wall"), in their destructiveness maiming those which they could not carry off: See also Jos 11:6,9; 2Sa 8:4.


hod (hodh, "majesty," "splendor"; the Septuagint’s Codex Alexadrinus, Hod; Codex Vaticanus, Oa): One of the sons of Zophah, a descendant of Asher (1Ch 7:37).





hod-a-vi’-a (hodhawyah, or hodhawyahu; the Septuagint’s Codex Alexandrinus, Hodouia):

(1) One of the heads of the half-tribe of Manasseh on the East of the Jordan (1Ch 5:24).

(2) A Benjamite, the son of Hassenuah (1Ch 9:7).

(3) A Levite, who seems to have been the head of an important family in that tribe (Ezr 2:40). In Ne 7:43 the name is Hodevah (hodhewah; Qere hodheyah). Compare Ezr 3:9.

(4) A son of Elioenai, and a descendant of David (1Ch 3:24; hodhaywahu; Qere hodhawyahu, the King James Version "Hodaiah").


ho’-desh (chodhesh, "new moon"): One of the wives of Shaharaim, a Benjamite (1Ch 8:9).


ho-de’-va, ho’-de-va (hodhewah, hodheyah, "splendor of Yah"): A Levite and founder of a Levite family, seventy-four of whom returned from exile with Zerubbabel, 538 BC (Ne 7:43). the American Revised Version, margin gives as another reading "Hodeiah." In Ezr 2:40 he is called Hodaviah, of which Hodevah and Hodeiah are slight textual corruptions, and in Ezr 3:9 Judah, a name practically synonymous.


ho-di’-a, ho-di’-ja (hodhiyah, "splendor of Yah"):

(1) A brother-in-law of Naham (1Ch 4:19), and possibly for that reason reckoned a member of the tribe of Judah. the King James Version translate "his wife" is wrong.

(2) One of the Levites who explained to the people the Law as read by Ezra (Ne 8:7) and led their prayers (Ne 9:5). He is doubtless one of the two Levites of this name who sealed the covenant of Nehemiah (Ne 10:10,13).

(3) One of the chiefs of the people who sealed the covenant of Nehemiah (Ne 10:18). J. Gray Mcallister


hog’-la (choghlah, "partridge"): The third of five daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manasseh (Nu 26:33). Zelophehad leaving no male heir, it was made a statute that the inheritance in such cases should pass to the daughters, if such there were, as joint heirs, on condition, however, of marriage within the tribe (Nu 27:1-11; 36:1-12; Jos 17:3 f).


ho’-ham (hoham, "whom Yahweh impels(?)" Gesenius): An Amorite king of Hebron and one of the five kings of the Amorites who leagued for war on Gibeon because of its treaty of peace with Joshua. The five were defeated in the decisive battle of Beth-horon, shut up in the cave at Makkedah in which they had taken refuge, and after the battle were slain, hanged and cast into the cave (Jos 10:1-27).


hoiz: The older form of "hoist" (Old English, hoise), to raise, to lift, and is the translation of epairo, "to lift up": "they .... hoised up the mainsail to the wind" (Ac 27:40). the Revised Version (British and American) "and hoisting up the foresail to the wind"; Wycliff has "lefte up" Tyndale "hoysed up."


hold: In the American Standard Revised Version frequently "stronghold" (Jud 9:49; 1Sa 22:4; 24:22; 2Sa 5:17; 23:14; 1Ch 11:16; 12:16). See FORTIFICATION. In Re 18:2 for the King James Version "cage" (phulake) the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes, as in first clause, "hold," and in the margin "prison."


hol’-ding: Occurs with various shades of meaning:

(1) as the translation of tamakh, "to acquire," it has the sense of taking, obtaining (Isa 33:15, the Revised Version (British and American) "that shaketh his hands from taking a bribe," the English Revised Version, as the King James Version, "holding");

(2) of kul, "to hold," "contain," having the sense of containing or restraining (Jer 6:11, "I am weary with holding in");

(3) of krateo, "to receive," "observe," "maintain" (Mr 7:3, "holding the tradition of the elders"; 1Ti 1:19, echo, "holding faith and a good conscience"; 1Ti 3:9, "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience");

(4) holding fast, cleaving to, krateo (Col 2:19, "not holding the head," the Revised Version (British and American) "holding fast"; compare Ac 3:11; Re 7:1, "holding the four winds of the earth, that no wind should blow"); antechomai, "to hold over against one’s self," "to hold fast" (Tit 1:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "holding to the faithful word");

(5) holding forth, epecho, "to hold upon, to hold out toward" (Php 2:16, "holding forth the word of life," so the Revised Version (British and American)); Lightfoot has "holding out" (as offering); others, however, render "holding fast," persevering in the Christian faith and life—connecting with being "blameless and harmless" in Php 2:15.

W. L. Walker


ho’-li-nes (qadhosh, "holy," qodhesh, "holiness"; hagios, "holy"):


1. The Holiness of God

(1) Absoluteness and Majesty

(2) Ethical Holiness

2. Holiness of Place, Time and Object

3. Holiness of Men

(1) Ceremonial

(2) Ethical and Spiritual


1. Applied to God

2. Applied To Christ

3. Applied To Things

4. Applied To Christians

(1) As Separate from the World

(2) As Bound to the Pursuit of an Ethical Ideal

I. In the Old Testament Meaning of the Term.

There has been much discussion as to the original meaning of the Semitic root Q-D-SH, by which the notion of holiness is expressed in the Old Testament. Some would connect it with an Assyrian word denoting purity, clearness; most modern scholars incline to the view that the primary idea is that of cutting off or separation. Etymology gives no sure verdict on the point, but the idea of separation lends itself best to the various senses in which the word "holiness" is employed. In primitive Semitic usage "holiness" seems to have expressed nothing more than that ceremonial separation of an object from common use which the modern study of savage religions has rendered familiar under the name of taboo (W.R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, Lect iv). But within the Biblical sphere, with which alone we are immediately concerned, holiness attaches itself first of all, not to visible objects, but to the invisible Yahweh, and to places, seasons, things and human beings only in so far as they are associated with Him. And while the idea of ceremonial holiness runs through the Old Testament, the ethical significance which Christianity attributes to the term is never wholly absent, and gradually rises in the course of the revelation into more emphatic prominence.

1. The Holiness of God:

As applied to God the notion of holiness is used in the Old Testament in two distinct senses:

(1) Absoluteness and Majesty

First in the more general sense of separation from all that is human and earthly. It thus denotes the absoluteness, majesty, and awfulness of the Creator in His distinction from the creature. In this use of the word, "holiness" is little more than an equivalent general term for "Godhead," and the adjective "holy" is almost synonymous with "Divine" (compare Da 4:8,9,18; 5:11). Yahweh’s "holy arm" (Isa 52:10; Ps 98:1) is His Divine arm, and His "holy name" (Le 20:3, etc.) is His Divine name. When Hannah sings "There is none holy as Yahweh" (1Sa 2:2), the rest of the verse suggests that she is referring, not to His ethical holiness, but simply to His supreme Divinity.

(2) Ethical Holiness

But, in the next place, holiness of character in the distinct ethical sense is ascribed to God. The injunction, "Be ye holy; for I am holy" (Le 11:44; 19:2), plainly implies an ethical conception. Men cannot resemble God in His incommunicable attributes. They can reflect His likeness only along the lines of those moral qualities of righteousness and love in which true holiness consists. In the Psalmists and Prophets the Divine holiness becomes, above all, an ethical reality convicting men of sin (Isa 6:3,1) and demanding of those who would stand in His presence clean hands and a pure heart (Ps 24:3 f).

2. Holiness of Place, Time and Object:

From the holiness of God is derived that ceremonial holiness of things which is characteristic of the Old Testament religion. Whatever is connected with the worship of the holy Yahweh is itself holy. Nothing is holy in itself, but anything becomes holy by its consecration to Him. A place where He manifests His presence is holy ground (Ex 3:5). The tabernacle or temple in which His glory is revealed is a holy building (Ex 28:29; 2Ch 35:5); and all its sacrifices (Ex 29:33), ceremonial materials (30:25; Nu 5:17) and utensils (1Ki 8:4) are also holy. The Sabbath is holy because it is the Sabbath of the Lord (Ex 20:8-11). "Holiness, in short, expresses a relation, which consists negatively in separation from common use, and positively in dedication to the service of Yahweh" (Skinner in HDB, II, 395).

3. Holiness of Men:

The holiness of men is of two kinds:

(1) Ceremonial

A ceremonial holiness, corresponding to that of impersonal objects and depending upon their relation to the outward service of Yahweh. Priests and Levites are holy because they have been "hallowed" or "sanctified" by acts of consecration (Ex 29:1; Le 8:12,30). The Nazirite is holy because he has separated himself unto the Lord (Nu 6:5). Above all, Israel, notwithstanding all its sins and shortcomings, is holy, as a nation separated from other nations for Divine purposes and uses (Ex 19:6, etc.; compare Le 20:24).

(2) Ethical and Spiritual

But out of this merely ceremonial holiness there emerges a higher holiness that is spiritual and ethical. For unlike other creatures man was made in the image of God and capable of reflecting the Divine likeness. And as God reveals Himself as ethically holy, He calls man to a holiness resembling His own (Le 19:2). In the so-called "Law of Holiness" (Le 17:1-26:46), God’s demand for moral holiness is made clear; and yet the moral contents of the Law are still intermingled with ceremonial elements (Le 17:10 ff; 19:19; 21:1 ). In psalm and prophecy, however, a purely ethical conception comes into view—the conception of a human holiness which rests upon righteousness and truth (Ps 15:1 f) and the possession of a contrite and humble spirit (Isa 57:15). This corresponds to the knowledge of a God who, being Himself ethically holy, esteems justice, mercy and lowly piety more highly than sacrifice (Ho 6:6; Mic 6:6-8).

II. In the New Testament: The Christian Conception.

The idea of holiness is expressed here chiefly by the word hagios and its derivatives, which correspond very closely to the words of the Q-D-SH group in Hebrew, and are employed to render them in the Septuagint. The distinctive feature of the New Testament idea of holiness is that the external aspect of it has almost entirely disappeared, and the ethical meaning has become supreme. The ceremonial idea still exists in contemporary Judaism, and is typically represented by the Pharisees (Mr 7:1-13; Lu 18:11 f). But Jesus proclaimed a new view of religion and morality according to which men are cleansed or defiled, not by anything outward, but by the thoughts of their hearts (Mt 15:17-20), and God is to be worshipped neither in Samaria nor Jerusalem, but wherever men seek Him in spirit and in truth (Joh 4:21-24).

1. Applied to God:

In the New Testament the term "holy" is seldom applied to God, and except in quotations from the Old Testament (Lu 1:49; 1Pe 1:15 f), only in the Johannine writings (Joh 17:11; Re 4:8; 6:10). But it is constantly used of the Spirit of God (Mt 1:18; Ac 1:2; Ro 5:5, etc.), who now, in contrast with Old Testament usage, becomes specifically the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.

2. Applied to Christ:

In several passages the term is applied to Christ (Mr 1:24; Ac 3:14; 4:30, etc.), as being the very type of ethical perfection (compare Heb 7:26).

3. Applied to Things:

In keeping with the fact that things are holy in a derivative sense through their relationship to God, the word is used of Jerusalem (Mt 4:5), the Old Testament covenant (Lu 1:72), the Scriptures (Ro 1:2), the Law (Ro 7:12), the Mount of Transfiguration (2Pe 1:18), etc.

4. Applied to Christians:

But it is especially in its application to Christians that the idea of holiness meets us in the New Testament in a sense that is characteristic and distinctive. Christ’s people are regularly called "saints" or holy persons, and holiness in the high ethical and spiritual meaning of the word is used to denote the appropriate quality of their life and conduct.

(1) As Separate from the World

No doubt, as applied to believers, "saints" conveys in the first place the notion of a separation from the world and a consecration to God. Just as Israel under the old covenant was a chosen race, so the Christian church in succeeding to Israel’s privileges becomes a holy nation (1Pe 2:9), and the Christian individual, as one of the elect people, becomes a holy man or woman (Col 3:12). In Paul’s usage all baptized persons are "saints," however far they may still be from the saintly character (compare 1Co 1:2,14 with 5:1 ff).

(2) As Bound to the Pursuit of an Ethical Ideal

But though the use of the name does not imply high ethical character as a realized fact, it always assumes it as an ideal and an obligation. It is taken for granted that the Holy Spirit has taken up His abode in the heart of every regenerate person, and that a work of positive sanctification is going on there. The New Testament leaves no room for the thought of a holiness divorced from those moral qualities which the holy God demands of those whom He has called to be His people.



Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, Lects. iii, iv; A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 145 ff; Schultz, Theology of the Old Testament, II, 167 ff; Orr, Sin as a Problem of Today, chapter iii; Sanday-Headlam, Romans, 12 ff; articles "Holiness" in HDB and "Heiligkeit Gottes im AT" in RE.

J. C. Lambert


hol’-o (kaph, nabhabh): "Hollow" is the translation of kaph, "hollow" (Ge 32:25,32, "the hollow of his thigh," the hip-pan or socket, over the sciatic nerve); of nabhabh, "to be hollow" (Ex 27:8; 38:7; Jer 52:21); of sho‘-al, "hollow" (Isa 40:12, "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand?" (in handfuls; compare 1Ki 20:10; Eze 13:19)); of makhtesh, "a mortar," "socket of a tooth" (from its shape) (Jud 15:19, "God clave an (the Revised Version (British and American) "the") hollow place that is in Lehi"); of sheqa‘aruroth, probably from qa‘ar, "to sink" (Le 14:37, "the walls of the house with hollow strakes," so the English Revised Version, the American Standard Revised Version "hollow streaks," depressions); of koilotes (The Wisdom of Solomon 17:19, "the hollow mountains," the Revised Version (British and American) "hollows of the mountains"); of koiloma (2 Macc 1:19, "hollow place of a pit," the Revised Version (British and American) "hollow of a well"); of antrodes (2 Macc 2:5, "a hollow cave," the Revised Version (British and American) "a chamber in the rock," margin (Greek) "a cavernous chamber").

W. L. Walker



(1) tirzah (Isa 44:14, the King James Version "cypress"): The name, from the root meaning (compare Arabic taraza) "to be hard," implies some very hard wood. Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has ilex, which is Latin for holm oak, so named from its holly-like leaves (hollen in Old English =" holly"); this translation has now been adopted, but it is doubtful.

(2) prinos, Susanna verse 58. This is the ilex or holm oak. There is a play on the words prinos and prisai (literally, "saw") in verses 58 and 59 (see SUSANNA). The evergreen or holm oak is represented by two species in Palestine, Quercus ilex and Q. coccifera. The leaf of both species is somewhat like a small holly leaf, is glossy green and usually spiny. The Q. ilex is insignificant, but Q. coccifera is a magnificent tree growing to a height of 40 ft. or more, and often found in Palestine flourishing near sacred tombs, and itself not infrequently the object of superstitious veneration.

E. W. G. Masterman


hol-o-fur’-nez (Olophernes): According to the Book of Judith, chief captain of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians (Judith 2:4), who was commissioned to make war upon the West country and to receive from the inhabitants the usual tokens of complete submission, earth and water. The object of the expedition of Holofernes, who thus became the typical persecutor of the Jews, was to compel men everywhere to worship Nebuchadnezzar. He was slain by Judith, the heroine of the book of that name, during the siege of Bethulia. There is no notice of Holofernes except in the Book of Judith. The termination of the word would seem to indicate a Persian origin for the name. The Holofernes of Shakespeare and Rabelais is in no way connected with the deeds of the Holofernes of the Apocrypha.

J. Hutchison


ho’-lon (cholon or chowlon):

(1) One of the towns in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:51) assigned to the Levites 21:15). In 1Ch 6:58 (Hebrew 43), it is HILEN (which see). The site may be the important ruins of Beit‘alam (see PEF, III, 313, 321, Sh XXI).

(2) Probably once an important town in the "plain," i.e. plateau, of Moab (Jer 48:21); the site is unknown.


ho’-li gost.





ho’-liz (qodhesh ha-qodhashim, Ex 26:33, debhir, 1Ki 6:16, etc.; in the New Testament, hagia hagion, Heb 9:3): The name given to the innermost shrine, or adytum of the sanctuary of Yahweh.

1. In the Tabernacle:

The most holy place of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex 26:31-33) was a small cube of 10 cubits (15 ft.) every way. It was divided from the holy Ceiled by curtains which bore cherubic figures embroidered in blue and purple and scarlet (Ex 26:1), it contained no furniture but the Ark of the Covenant, covered by a slab of gold called the MERCY-SEAT (which see), and having within it only the two stone tables of the Law (see TABERNACLE; ARK OF THE COVENANT). Only the high priest, and he but once a year, on the great @@clothed in penitential garments, amid a cloud of incense, and with blood of sacrifice (Le 16; compare Heb 9:7).

2. In the Temple of Solomon:

The proportions of the most holy place in the first temple were the same as in the tabernacle, but the dimensions were doubled. The sacred chamber was enlarged to 20 cubits (30 ft.) each way. We now meet with the word debhir, "oracle" (1Ki 6:16, etc.), which with the exception of Ps 28:2, belonging perhaps to the same age, is met with in Scripture only in the period of Solomon’s reign. This sanctum, like its predecessor, contained but one piece of furniture—the Ark of the Covenant. It had, however, one new conspicuous feature in the two large figures of cherubim of olive wood, covered with gold, with wings stretching from wall to wall, beneath which the ark was now placed (1Ki 6:23-28; 2Ch 3:10-13; see TEMPLE).

3. In Later Times:

In Ezekiel’s temple plans, which in many things may have been those of the temple of Zerubbabel, the prophet gives 20 cubits as the length and breadth of the most holy place, showing that these figures were regarded as too sacred to undergo change (Eze 41:4). There was then no Ark of the Covenant, but Jewish tradition relates that the blood of the great Day of Atonement was sprinkled on an unhewn stone that stood in its place. In Herod’s temple, the dimensions of the two holy chambers remained the same—at least in length and breadth (see TEMPLE, HEROD’S). The holiest place continued empty. In the spoils of the temple depicted on the Arch of Titus there is no representation of the Ark of the Covenant; only of the furniture of the outer chamber or holy place.

4. Figurative:

In the Epistle to the Hebrews we are taught that the true holy of holies is the heaven into which Jesus has now entered to appear in virtue of His own sacrifice in the presence of God for us (Heb 9:11 ). Restriction is now removed, and the way into the holiest is made open for all His people (Heb 10:19,20).

W. Shaw Caldecott




(ha-qodhesh, Ex 26:33, ha-hekhal, 1Ki 6:17, etc.; he prote skene, Heb 9:6 f):

1. The Terms:

The tabernacle consisted of two divisions to which a graduated scale of holiness is attached: "The veil shall separate unto you between the holy place and the most holy" (Ex 26:33). This distinction was never abrogated. In the Epistle to the Hebrews these divisions are called the "first" and "second" tabernacles (Heb 9:6 f). The term "holy place" is not indeed confined to the outer chamber of the sanctuary; in Le 6:16, it is applied to "the court of the tent of meeting." But the other is its technical use. In Solomon’s temple we have a different usage. The word hekhal, "temple," is not at first applied, as after, to the whole building, but is the designation specifically of the holy place, in distinction from the debhir, or "oracle" (compare 1Ki 6:3,5,16,17,33, etc.; so in Eze 41:1,2,4, etc.). The wider usage is later (compare 2Ki 11:10,11,13, etc.).

2. Size of the Holy Place:

The size of the holy place differed at different times. The holy place of the tabernacle was 20 cubits long by 10 broad and 10 high (30 x 15 x 15 ft.); that of Solomon’s temple was twice this in length and breadth—40 by 20 cubits; but it is contended by many (Bahr, etc.) that in height it was the full internal height of the building—30 cubits; the Herodian temple has the same dimensions of length and breadth, but Josephus and Middoth give largely increased, though differing, numbers for the height (see TEMPLE, HEROD’S).

3. Contents of Holy Place:

The contents of the holy place were from the beginning ordered to be these (Ex 25:23 ff; 30:1-10): the altar of incense, a golden candlestick (in Solomon’s temple increased to ten, 1Ki 7:49), and a table of showbread (likewise increased to ten, 2Ch 4:8). For the construction, position, history and uses of these objects, see TABERNACLE; TEMPLE, and articles under the several headings. This, as shown by Josephus and by the sculptures on the Arch of Titus, continued to be the furniture of the holy place till the end.

4. Symbolism:

As the outer division of the sanctuary, into which, as yet, not the people, but only their representatives in the priesthood, were admitted while yet the symbols of the people’s consecrated life (prayer, light, thanksgiving) were found in it, the holy place may be said to represent the people’s relation to God in the earthly life, as the holy of holies represented God’s relation to the people in a perfected communion. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the holy place is not largely dwelt on as compared with the court in which the perfect sacrifice was offered, and the holiest of all into which Christ has now entered (Christ passes "through" the tabernacle into the holiest, 9:11). It pertains, however, evidently to the earthly sphere of Christ’s manifestation, even as earth is the present scene of the church’s fellowship. Through earth, by the way which Christ has opened up, the believer, already in spirit, finally in fact, passes with Him into the holiest (Heb 10:19; compare Heb 9:8; see Westcott, Hebrews, 233 ff).

W. Shaw Caldecott


ho’-li spir’-it:


1. Meaning of the Word

2. The Spirit in Relation to the Godhead

3. The Spirit in External Nature

4. The Spirit of God In Man

5. Imparting Powers for Service

(1) Judges and Warriors

(2) Wisdom for Various Purposes

(3) In Prophecy

6. Imparting Moral Character

7. The Spirit in in the Messiah

8. Predictions of Future Outpouring of the Spirit


1. The Spirit in Josephus

2. The Spirit in the Pseudepigrapha

3. The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

4. The Spirit in Philo


1. In Relation to the Person and Work of Christ

(1) Birth of Jesus

(2) Baptism of Jesus

(3) Temptation of Jesus

(4) Public Ministry of Jesus

(5) Death and Resurrection and Pentecostal Gift

2. The Holy Spirit in the Kingdom of God

(1) Synoptic Teachings

(2) In the Writings of John

(3) In Acts

(4) In Paul’s Writings

(a) The Spirit and Jesus

(b) In Bestowing Charismatic Gifts

(c) In the Beginnings of the Christian Life

(d) In the Religious and Moral Life

(e) In the Church

(f) In the Resurrection of Believers

(5) The Holy Spirit in Other New Testament Writings


The expression Spirit, or Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, is found in the great majority of the books of the Bible. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word uniformly employed for the Spirit as referring to God’s Spirit is ruach meaning "breath," "wind" or "breeze." The verb form of the word is ruach, or riach used only in the Hiphil and meaning "to breathe," "to blow." A kindred verb is rawach, meaning "to breathe" "having breathing room," "to be spacious," etc. The word always used in the New Testament for the Spirit is the Greek neuter noun pneuma, with or without the article, and for Holy Spirit, pneuma hagion, or to pneuma to hagion. In the New Testament we find also the expressions, "the Spirit of God," "the Spirit of the Lord," "the Spirit of the Father," "the Spirit of Jesus," "of Christ." The word for Spirit in the Greek is from the verb pneo, "to breathe," "to blow." The corresponding word in the Latin is spiritus, meaning "spirit."

I. Old Testament Teachings as to the Spirit.

1. Meaning of the Word:

At the outset we note the significance of the term itself. From the primary meaning of the word which is "wind," as referring to Nature, arises the idea of breath in man and thence the breath, wind or Spirit of God. We have no way of tracing exactly how the minds of the Biblical writers connected the earlier literal meaning of the word with the Divine Spirit. Nearly all shades of meaning from the lowest to the highest appear in the Old Testament, and it is not difficult to conceive how the original narrower meaning was gradually expanded into the larger and wider. The following are some of the shades of Old Testament usage. From the notion of wind or breath, ruach came to signify:

(1) the principle of life itself; spirit in this sense indicated the degree of vitality: "My spirit is consumed, my days are extinct" (Job 17:1; also Jud 15:19; 1Sa 30:12);

(2) human feelings of various kinds, as anger (Jud 8:3; Pr 29:11), desire (Isa 26:9), courage (Jos 2:11);

(3) intelligence (Ex 28:3; Isa 29:24);

(4) general disposition (Ps 34:18; 5l:17; Pr 14:29; 16:18; 29:23).

No doubt the Biblical writers thought of man as made in the image of God (Ge 1:27 f), and it was easy for them to think of God as being like man. It is remarkable that their anthropomorphism did not go farther. They preserve, however, a highly spiritual conception of God as compared with that of surrounding nations. But as the human breath was an invisible part of man, and as it represented his vitality, his life and energy, it was easy to transfer the conception to God in the effort to represent His energetic and transitive action upon man and Nature. The Spirit of God, therefore, as based upon the idea of the ruach or breath of man, originally stood for the energy or power of God (Isa 31:3; compare A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 117-18), as contrasted with the weakness of the flesh.

2. The Spirit in Relation to the Godhead:

We consider next the Spirit of God in relation to God Himself in the Old Testament. Here there are several points to be noted. The first is that there is no indication of a belief that the Spirit of God was a material particle or emanation from God. The point of view of Biblical writers is nearly always practical rather than speculative. They did not philosophize about the Divine nature. Nevertheless, they retained a very clear distinction between spirit and flesh or other material forms. Again we observe in the Old Testament both an identification of God and the Spirit of God, and also a clear distinction between them. The identification is seen in Ps 139:7 where the omni-presence of the Spirit is declared, and in Isa 63:10; Jer 31:33; Eze 36:27. In a great number of passages, however, God and the Spirit of God are not thought of as identical, as in Ge 1:2; 6:3; Ne 9:20; Ps 51:11; 104:29 f. Of course this does not mean that God and the Spirit of God were two distinct beings in the thought of Old Testament writers, but only that the Spirit had functions of His own in distinction from God. The Spirit was God in action, particularly when the action was specific, with a view to accomplishing some particular end or purpose of God. The Spirit came upon individuals for special purposes. The Spirit was thus God immanent in man and in the world. As the angel of the Lord, or angel of the Covenant in certain passages, represents both Yahweh Himself and one sent by Yahweh, so in like manner the Spirit of Yahweh was both Yahweh within or upon man, and at the same time one sent by Yahweh to man.

Do the Old Testament teachings indicate that in the view of the writers the Spirit of Yahweh was a distinct person in the Divine nature? The passage in Ge 1:26 is scarcely conclusive. The idea and importance of personality were but slowly developed in Israelite thought. Not until some of the later prophets did it receive great emphasis, and even then scarcely in the fully developed form. The statement in Ge 1:26 may be taken as the plural of majesty or as referring to the Divine council, and on this account is not conclusive for the Trinitarian view. Indeed, there are no Old Testament passages which compel us to understand the complete New Testament doctrine of the Trinity and the distinct personality of the Spirit in the New Testament sense. There are, however, numerous Old Testament passages which are in harmony with the Trinitarian conception and prepare the way for it, such as Ps 139:7; Isa 63:10; 48:16; Hag 2:5; Zec 4:6. The Spirit is grieved, vexed, etc., and in other ways is conceived of personally, but as He is God in action, God exerting power, this was the natural way for the Old Testament writers to think of the Spirit.

The question has been raised as to how the Biblical writers were able to hold the conception of the Spirit of God without violence to their monotheism. A suggested reply is that the idea of the Spirit came gradually and indirectly from the conception of subordinate gods which prevailed among some of the surrounding nations (I.F. Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, 30). But the best Israelite thought developed in opposition to, rather than in analogy with, polytheism. A more natural explanation seems to be that their simple anthropomorphism led them to conceive the Spirit of God as the breath of God parallel with the conception of man’s breath as being part of man and yet going forth from him.

3. The Spirit in External Nature:

We consider next the Spirit of God in external Nature. "And the Spirit of God moved (was brooding or hovering) upon the face of the waters" (Ge 1:2). The figure is that of a brooding or hovering bird (compare De 32:11). Here the Spirit brings order and beauty out of the primeval chaos and conducts the cosmic forces toward the goal of an ordered universe. Again in Ps 104:28-30, God sends forth His Spirit, and visible things are called into being: "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground." In Job 26:13 the beauty of the heavens is ascribed to the Spirit: "By his Spirit the heavens are garnished." In Isa 32:15 the wilderness becomes a fruitful field as the result of the outpouring of the Spirit. The Biblical writers scarcely took into their thinking the idea of second causes, certainly not in the modern scientific sense. They regarded the phenomena of Nature as the result of God’s direct action through His Spirit. At every point their conception of the Spirit saved them from pantheism on the one hand and polytheism on the other.

4. The Spirit of God in Man:

The Spirit may next be considered in imparting natural powers both physical and intellectual. In Ge 2:7 God originates man’s personal and intellectual life by breathing into his nostrils "the breath of life." In Nu 16:22 God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh." In Ex 28:3; 31:3; 35:31, wisdom for all kinds of workmanship is declared to be the gift of God. So also physical life is due to the presence of the Spirit of God (Job 27:3); . and Elihu declares (Job 33:4) that the Spirit of God made him. See also Eze 37:14 and 39:29. Thus man is regarded by the Old Testament writers, in all the parts of his being, body, mind and spirit, as the direct result of the action of the Spirit of God. In Ge 6:3 the Spirit of God "strives" with or "rules" in or is "humbled" in man in the antediluvian world. Here reference is not made to the Spirit’s activity over and above, but within the moral nature of man.

5. Imparting Powers for Service:

The greater part of the Old Testament passages which refer to the Spirit of God deal with the subject from the point of view of the covenant relations between Yahweh and Israel. And the greater portion of these, in turn, have to do with gifts and powers conferred by the Spirit for service in the ongoing of the kingdom of God. We fail to grasp the full meaning of very many statements of the Old Testament unless we keep constantly in mind the fundamental assumption of all the Old Testament, namely, the covenant relations between God and Israel. Extraordinary powers exhibited by Israelites of whatever kind were usually attributed to the Spirit. These are so numerous that our limits of space forbid an exhaustive presentation. The chief points we may notice.

(1) Judges and Warriors.

The children of Israel cried unto Yahweh and He raised up a savior for them, Othniel, the son of Kenaz: "And the Spirit of Yahweh came upon him, and he judged Israel" (Jud 3:10). So also Gideon (Jud 6:34): "The Spirit of Yahweh came upon (literally, clothed itself with) Gideon." In Jud 11:29 "the spirit of Yahweh came upon Jephthah"; and in 13:25 "the Spirit of Yahweh began to move" Samson. In 14:6 "the Spirit of Yahweh came mightily upon him." In 1Sa 16:14 we read "the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him." In all this class of passages, the Spirit imparts special endowments of power without necessary reference to the moral character of the recipient. The end in view is not personal, merely to the agent, but concerns theocratic kingdom and implies the covenant between God and Israel. In some cases the Spirit exerts physical energy in a more direct way (2Ki 2:16; Eze 2:1 f; 3:12).

(2) Wisdom for Various Purposes.

Bezalel is filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom and in understanding to work in gold, and silver and brass, etc., in the building of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2-4; 35:31); and the Spirit of wisdom is given to others in making Aaron’s garments (Ex 28:3). So also of one of the builders of Solomon’s temple (1Ki 7:14; 2Ch 2:14). In these cases there seems to be a combination of the thought of natural talents and skill to which is superadded a special endowment of the Spirit. Pharaoh refers to Joseph as one in whom the Spirit of God is, as fitting him for administration and government (Ge 41:38). Joshua is qualified for leadership by the Spirit (Nu 27:18). In this and in De 34:9, Joshua is represented as possessing the Spirit through the laying on of the hands of Moses. This is an interesting Old Testament parallel to the bestowment of the Spirit by laying on of hands in the New Testament (Ac 8:17; 19:6). Daniel is represented as having wisdom to interpret dreams through the Spirit, and afterward because of the Spirit he is exalted to a position of authority and power (Da 4:8; 5:11-14; 6:3). The Spirit qualifies Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple (Zec 4:6). The Spirit was given to the people for instruction and strengthening during the wilderness wanderings (Ne 9:20), and to the elders along with Moses (Nu 11:17,25). It thus appears how very widespread were the activities of the redemptive Spirit, or the Spirit in the covenant. All these forms of the Spirit’s action bore in some way upon the national life of the people, and were directed in one way or another toward theocratic ends.

(3) In Prophecy.

The most distinctive and important manifestation of the Spirit’s activity in the Old Testament was in the sphere of prophecy. In the earlier period the prophet was called seer (ro’eh), and later he was called prophet (nabhi’). The word "prophet" (prophetes) means one who speaks for God. The prophets were very early differentiated from the masses of the people into a prophetic class or order, although Abraham himself was called a prophet, as were Moses and other leaders (Ge 20:7; De 18:15). The prophet was especially distinguished from others as the man who possessed the Spirit of God (Ho 9:7). The prophets ordinarily began their messages with the phrase, "thus saith Yahweh," or its equivalent. But they ascribed their messages directly also to the Spirit of God (Eze 2:2; 8:3; 11:1,24; 13:3). The case of Balaam presents some difficulties (Nu 24:2). He does not seem to have been a genuine prophet, but rather a diviner, although it is declared that the Spirit of God came upon him. Balaam serves, however, to illustrate the Old Testament point of view. The chief interest was the national or theocratic or covenant ideal, not that of the individual. The Spirit was bestowed at times upon unworthy men for the achievement of these ends. Saul presents a similar example. The prophet was God’s messenger speaking God’s message by the Spirit. His message was not his own. It came directly from God, and at times overpowered the prophet with its urgency, as in the case of Jeremiah (1:4 ff).

There are quite perceptible stages in the development of the Old Testament prophecy. In the earlier period the prophet was sometimes moved, not so much to intelligible speech, as by a sort of enthusiasm or prophetic ecstasy. In 1Sa 10 we have an example of this earlier form of prophecy, where a company with musical instruments prophesied together. To what extent this form of prophetic enthusiasm was attended by warnings and exhortations, if so attended at all, we do not know. There was more in it than in the excitement of the diviners and devotees of the surrounding nations. For the Spirit of Yahweh was its source.

In the later period we have prophecy in its highest forms in the Old Testament. The differences between earlier and later prophecy are probably due in part to the conditions. The early period required action, the later required teaching. The judges on whom the Spirit came were deliverers in a turbulent age. There was not need for, nor could the people have borne, the higher ethical and spiritual truths which came in later revelations through the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and others. See 2Sa 23:2; Eze 2:2; 8:3; 11:24; 13:3; . Mic 3:8; Ho 9:7.

A difficulty arises from statements such as the following: A lying spirit was sometimes present in the prophet (1Ki 22:21 f); Yahweh puts a spirit in the king of Assyria and turns him back to his destruction (Isa 37:7); because of sin, a lying prophet should serve the people (Mic 2:11); in Micaiah’s vision Yahweh sends a spirit to entice Ahab through lying prophets (1Ki 22:19 ); an evil spirit from Yahweh comes upon Saul (1Sa 16:14; 18:10; 19:9). The following considerations may be of value in explaining these passages. Yahweh was the source of things generally in Old Testament thought. Its pronounced monotheism appears in this as in so many other ways. Besides this, Old Testament writers usually spoke phenomenally. Prophecy was a particular form of manifestation with certain outward marks and signs. Whatever presented these outward marks was called prophecy, whether the message conveyed was true or false. The standard of discrimination here was not the outward signs of the prophet, but the truth or right of the message as shown by the event. As to the evil spirit from Yahweh, it may be explained in either of two ways. First, it may have referred to the evil disposition of the man upon whom God’s Spirit was acting, in which case he would resist the Spirit and his own spirit would be the evil spirit. Or the "evil spirit from Yahweh" may have referred, in the prophet’s mind, to an actual spirit of evil which Yahweh sent or permitted to enter the man. The latter is the more probable explanation, in accordance with which the prophet would conceive that Yahweh’s higher will was accomplished, even through the action of the evil spirit upon man’s spirit. Yahweh’s judicial anger against transgression would, to the prophet’s mind, justify the sending of an evil spirit by Yahweh.

6. Imparting Moral Character:

The activity of the Spirit in the Old Testament is not limited to gifts for service. Moral and spiritual character is traced to the Spirit’s operations as well. "Thy holy Spirit" (Ps 51:11); "his holy spirit" (Isa 63:10); "thy good Spirit" (Ne 9:20); "Thy Spirit is good" (Ps 143:10) are expressions pointing to the ethical quality of the Spirit’s action. "Holy" is from the verb form (qadhash), whose root meaning is doubtful, but which probably meant "to be separated" from which it comes to mean to be exalted, and this led to the conception to be Divine. And as Yahweh is morally good, the conception of "the holy (= Divine) one" came to signify the holy one in the moral sense. Thence the word was applied to the Spirit of Yahweh. Yahweh gives His good Spirit for instruction (Ne 9:20); the Spirit is called good because it teaches to do God’s will (Ps 143:10); the Spirit gives the fear of the Lord (Isa 11:2-5); judgment and righteousness (Isa 32:15 ); devotion to the Lord (Isa 44:3-5); hearty obedience and a new heart (Eze 36:26 f); penitence and prayer (Zec 12:10). In Ps 51:11 there is an intense sense of guilt and sin coupled with the prayer, "Take not thy holy Spirit from me." Thus, we see that the Old Testament in numerous ways recognizes the Holy Spirit as the source of inward moral purity, although the thought is not so developed as in the New Testament.

7. The Spirit in the Messiah:

In both the first and the second sections of Isaiah, there are distinct references to the Spirit in connection with the Messiah, although the Messiah is conceived as the ideal King who springs from the root of David in some instances, and in others as the Suffering Servant of Yahweh. This is not the place to discuss the Messianic import of the latter group of passages which has given rise to much difference of opinion. As in the case of the ideal Davidic King which, in the prophet’s mind, passes from the lower to the higher and Messianic conception, so, under the form of the Suffering Servant, the "remnant" of Israel becomes the basis for an ideal which transcends in the Messianic sense the original nucleus of the conception derived from the historic events in the history of Israel. The prophet rises in the employment of both conceptions to the thought of the Messiah who is the "anointed" of Yahweh as endued especially with the power and wisdom of the Spirit. In Isa 11:1-5 a glowing picture is given of the "shoot out of the stock of Jesse." The Spirit imparts "wisdom and understanding" and endows him with manifold gifts through the exercise of which he shall bring in the kingdom of righteousness and peace. In Isa 42:1 ff, the "servant" is in like manner endowed most richly with the gifts of the Spirit by virtue of which he shall bring forth "justice to the Gentiles." In Isa 61:1 ff occur the notable words cited by Jesus in Lu 4:18 f, beginning, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" etc. In these passages the prophet describes elaborately and minutely the Messiah’s endowment with a wide range of powers, all of which are traced to the action of God’s Spirit.

8. Predictions of Future Outpouring of the Spirit:

In the later history of Israel, when the sufferings of the exile pressed heavily, there arose a tendency to idealize a past age as the era of the special blessing of the Spirit, coupled with a very marked optimism as to a future outpouring of the Spirit. In Hag 2:5 reference is made to the Mosaic period as the age of the Spirit, "when ye came out of Egypt, and my Spirit abode among you." In Isa 44:3 the Spirit is to be poured out on Jacob and his seed; and in Isa 59:20 a Redeemer is to come to Zion under the covenant of Yahweh, and the Spirit is to abide upon the people. The passage, however, which especially indicates the transition from Old Testament to New Testament times is that in Joe 2:28,32 which is cited by Peter in Ac 2:17-21. In this prophecy the bestowal of the Spirit is extended to all classes, is attended by marvelous signs and is accompanied by the gift of salvation. Looking back from the later to the earlier period of Old Testament history, we observe a twofold tendency of teaching in relation to the Spirit. The first is from the outward gift of the Spirit for various uses toward a deepening sense of inner need of the Spirit for moral purity, and consequent emphasis upon the ethical energy of the Spirit. The second tendency is toward a sense of the futility of the merely human or theocratic national organization in and of itself to achieve the ends of Yahweh, along with a sense of the need for the Spirit of God upon the people generally, and a prediction of the universal diffusion of the Spirit.

II. The Spirit in Non-Canonical Jewish Literature.

In the Palestinian and Alexandrian literature of the Jews there are comparatively few references to the Spirit of God. The two books in which the teachings as to the Spirit are most explicit and most fully developed are of Alexandrian origin, namely, The Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of Philo.

In the Old Testament Apocrypha and in Josephus the references to the Spirit are nearly always merely echoes of a long-past age when the Spirit was active among men. In no particular is the contrast between the canonical and noncanonical literature more striking than in the teaching as to the Spirit of God. 1. The Spirit of Josephus:

Josephus has a number of references to the Holy Spirit, but nearly always they have to do with the long-past history of Israel. He refers to 22 books of the Old Testament which are of the utmost reliability. There are other books, but none "of like authority," because there has "not been an exact succession of prophets" (Josephus, Against Apion I, 8). Samuel is described as having a large place in the affairs of the kingdom because he is a prophet (Ant., VI, v, 6). God appears to Solomon in sleep and teaches him wisdom (ibid., VIII, ii); Balaam prophesies through the Spirit’s power (ibid., IV, v, 6); and Moses was such a prophet that his words were God’s words (ibid., IV, viii, 49). In Josephus we have then simply a testimony to the inspiration and power of the prophets and the books written by them, in so far as we have in him teachings regarding the Spirit of God. Even here the action of the Spirit is usually implied rather than expressed.

2. The Spirit in the Pseudepigrapha:

In the pseudepigraphic writings the Spirit of God is usually referred to as acting in the long-past history of Israel or in the future Messianic age. In the apocalyptic books, the past age of power, when the Spirit wrought mightily, becomes the ground of the hopes of the future. The past is glorified, and out of it arises the hope of a future kingdom of glory and power. Enoch says to Methuselah: "The word calls me and the Spirit is poured out upon me" (En 91:1). In 49:1-4 the Messiah has the Spirit of wisdom, understanding and might. Enoch is represented as describing his own translation. "He was carried aloft in the chariots of the Spirit" (En 70:2). In Jubilees 31:16 Isaac is represented as prophesying, and in 25:13 it is said of Rebekah that the" Holy Spirit descended into her mouth." Sometimes the action of the Spirit is closely connected with the moral life, although this is rare. "The Spirit of God rests" on the man of pure and loving heart (XII the Priestly Code (P), Benj. 8). In Simeon 4 it is declared that Joseph was a good man and that the Spirit of God rested on him. There appears at times a lament for the departed age of prophecy (1 Macc 9:27; 14:41). The future is depicted in glowing colors. The Spirit is to come in a future judgment (XII the Priestly Code (P), Levi 18); and the spirit of holiness shall rest upon the redeemed in Paradise (Levi 18); and in Levi 2 the spirit of insight is given, and the vision of the sinful world and its salvation follows. Generally speaking, this literature is far below that of the Old Testament, both in moral tone and religious insight. Much of it seems childish, although at times we encounter noble passages. There is lacking in it the prevailing Old Testament mood which is best described as prophetic, in which the writer feels constrained by the power of God’s Spirit to speak or write. The Old Testament literature thus possesses a vitality and power which accounts for the strength of its appeal to our religious consciousness.

3. The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon:

We note in the next place a few teachings as to the Spirit of God in Wisd. Here the ethical element in character is a condition of the Spirit’s indwelling. "Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter: nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in" (The Wisdom of Solomon 1:4 f). This "holy spirit of discipline" is evidently God’s Holy Spirit, for in 1:7 the writer proceeds to assert, "For the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world," and in 1:8,9 there is a return to the conception of unrighteousness as a hindrance to right speaking. In The Wisdom of Solomon 7:7 the Spirit of Wisdom comes in response to prayer. In 7:22-30 is an elaborate and very beautiful description of wisdom: "In her is an understanding spirit, holy, one only, manifold, subtle, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the thing that is good, quick, which cannot be letted, ready to do good, kind to man, steadfast, sure," etc. "She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness," etc. No one can know God’s counsel except by the Holy Spirit (9:17). The writer of The Wisdom of Solomon was deeply possessed of the sense of the omnipresence of the Spirit of God, as seen in 1:7 and in 12:1. In the latter passage we read: "For thine incorruptible spirit is in all things."

4. The Spirit in Philo:

In Philo we have what is almost wholly wanting in other Jewish literature, namely, analytic and reflective thought upon the work of the Spirit of God. The interest in Philo is primarily philosophic, and his teachings on the Spirit possess special interest on this account in contrast with Biblical and other extra-Biblical literature. In his Questions and Solutions, 27, 28, he explains the expression in Ge 8:1: "He brought a breath over the earth and the wind ceased." He argues that water is not diminished by wind, but only agitated and disturbed. Hence, there must be a reference to God’s Spirit or breath by which the whole universe obtains security. He has a similar discussion of the point why the word "Spirit" is not used instead of "breath" in Ge in the account of man’s creation, and concludes that "to breathe into" here means to "inspire," and that God by His Spirit imparted to man mental and moral life and capacity for Divine things (Allegories, xiii). In several passages Philo discusses prophecy and the prophetic office. One of the most interesting relates to the prophetic office of Moses (Life of Moses, xxiii ff). He also describes a false prophet who claims to be "inspired and possessed by the Holy Spirit" (On Those Who Offer Sacrifice, xi). In a very notable passage, Philo describes in detail his own subjective experiences under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and his language is that of the intellectual mystic. He says that at times he found himself devoid of impulse or capacity for mental activity, when suddenly by the coming of the Spirit of God, his intellect was rendered very fruitful: "and sometimes when I have come to my work empty I have suddenly become full, ideas being, in an invisible manner, showered upon me and implanted in me from on high; so that through the influence of Divine inspiration I have become greatly excited and have known neither the place in which I was, nor those who were present, nor myself, nor what I was saying, nor what I was writing," etc. (Migrations of Abraham, vii).

In Philo, as in the non-canonical literature generally, we find little metaphysical teaching as to the Spirit and His relations to the Godhead. On this point there is no material advance over the Old Testament teaching. The agency of the Holy Spirit in shaping and maintaining the physical universe and as the source of man’s capacities and powers is clearly recognized in Philo. In Philo, as in Josephus, the conception of inspiration as the complete occupation and domination of the prophet’s mind by the Spirit of God, even to the extent of suspending the operation of the natural powers, comes clearly into view. This is rather in contrast with, than in conformity to, the Old Testament and New Testament conception of inspiration, in which the personality of the prophet remains intensely active while under the influence of the Spirit, except possibly in cases of vision and trance.


III. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

In the New Testament there is unusual symmetry and completeness of teaching as to the work of the Spirit of God in relation to the Messiah Himself, and to the founding of the Messianic kingdom. The simplest mode of presentation will be to trace the course of the progressive activities of the Spirit, or teachings regarding these activities, as these are presented to us in the New Testament literature as we now have it, so far as the nature of the subject will permit. This will, of course, disturb to some extent the chronological order in which the New Testament books were written, since in some cases, as in John’s Gospel, a very late book contains early teachings as to the Spirit.

1. In Relation to the Person and Work of Christ:

(1) Birth of Jesus.

In Mt 1:18 Mary is found with child "of the Holy Spirit" (ek pneumatos hagiou); an angel tells Joseph that that "which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (1:20), all of which is declared to be in fulfillment of the prophecy that a virgin shall bring forth a son whose name shall be called Immanuel (Isa 7:14). In Lu 1:35 the angel says to Mary that the Holy Spirit (pneuma hagion) shall come upon her, and the power of the Most High (dunamis Hupsistou) shall overshadow her. Here "Holy Spirit" and "power of the Most High" are parallel expressions meaning the same thing; in the one case emphasizing the Divine source and in the other the holiness of "the holy thing which is begotten" (1:35). In connection with the presentation of the babe in the temple, Simeon is described as one upon whom the Holy Spirit rested, to whom revelation was made through the Spirit and who came into the temple in the Spirit (Lu 2:25-28). So also Anna the prophetess speaks concerning the babe, evidently in Luke’s thought, under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Lu 2:36 ).

It is clear from the foregoing that the passages in Matthew and Luke mean to set forth, first, the supernatural origin, and secondly, the sinlessness of the babe born of Mary. The act of the Holy Spirit is regarded as creative, although the words employed signify "begotten" or "born" (gennethen, Mt 1:20; and gennomenon, Lu 1:35). There is no hint in the stories of the nativity concerning the pretemporal existence of Christ. This doctrine was developed later. Nor is there any suggestion of the immaculate conception or sinlessness of Mary, the mother of our Lord. Dr. C.A. Briggs has set forth a theory of the sinlessness of Mary somewhat different from the Roman Catholic view, to the effect that the Old Testament prophecies foretell the purification of the Davidic line, and that Mary was the culminating point in the purifying process, who thereby became sinless (Incarnation of the Lord, 230-34). This, however, is speculative and without substantial Biblical warrant. The sinlessness of Jesus was not due to the sinlessness of His mother, but to the Divine origin of His human nature, the Spirit of God.

In Heb 10:5 ff the writer makes reference to the sinless body of Christ as affording a perfect offering for sins. No direct reference is made to the birth of Jesus, but the origin of His body is ascribed to God (Heb 10:5), though not specifically to the Holy Spirit.

(2) Baptism of Jesus.

The New Testament records give us very little information regarding the growth of Jesus to manhood. In Lu 2:40 ff a picture is given of the boyhood, exceedingly brief, but full of significance. The "child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom (m "becoming full of wisdom"): and the grace of God was upon him." Then follows the account of the visit to the temple. Evidently in all these experiences, the boy is under the influence and guidance of the Spirit. This alone would supply an adequate explanation, although Luke does not expressly name the Spirit as the source of these particular experiences. The Spirit’s action is rather assumed.

Great emphasis, however, is given to the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at His baptism. Mt 3:16 declares that after His baptism "the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him." Mr 1:10 repeats the statement in substantially equivalent terms. Lu 3:22 declares that the Spirit descended in "bodily form, as a dove" (somatiko eidei hos peristeran). In Joh 1:32,33 the Baptist testifies that he saw the Spirit descending upon Jesus as a dove out of heaven, and that it abode upon Him, and, further, that this descent of the Spirit was the mark by which he was to recognize Jesus as "he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit."

We gather from these passages that at the baptism there was a new communication of the Spirit to Jesus in great fullness, as a special anointing for His Messianic vocation. The account declares that the dovelike appearance was seen by Jesus as well as John, which is scarcely compatible with a subjective experience merely. Of course, the dove here is to be taken as a symbol, and not as an assertion that God’s Spirit assumed the form of a dove actually. Various meanings have been assigned to the symbol. One connects it with the creative power, according to a Gentileusage; others with the speculative philosophy of Alexandrian Judaism, according to which the dove symbolized the Divine wisdom or reason. But the most natural explanation connects the symbolism of the dove with the brooding or hovering of the Spirit in Ge 13. In this new spiritual creation of humanity, as in the first physical creation, the Spirit of God is the energy through which the work is carried on. Possibly the dove, as a living organism, complete in itself, may suggest the totality and fullness of the gift of the Spirit to Jesus. At Pentecost, on the contrary, the Spirit is bestowed distributively and partially at least to individuals as such, as suggested by the cloven tongues as of fire which "sat upon each one of them" (Ac 2:3). Joh 3:34 emphasizes the fullness of the bestowal upon Jesus: "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for he giveth not the Spirit by measure." In the witness of the Baptist the permanence of the anointing of Jesus is declared: "Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding" (1:33).

It is probable that the connection of the bestowal of the Spirit with water baptism, as seen later in the Book of Acts, is traceable to the reception of the Spirit by Jesus at His own baptism. Baptism in the Spirit did not supersede water baptism.

The gift of the Spirit in fullness to Jesus at His baptism was no doubt His formal and public anointing for His Messianic work (Ac 10:38). The baptism of Jesus could not have the same significance with that of sinful men. For the symbolic cleansing from sin had no meaning for the sinless one. Yet as an act of formal public consecration it was appropriate to the Messiah. It brought to a close His private life and introduced Him to His public Messianic career. The conception of an anointing for public service was a familiar one in the Old Testament writings and applied to the priest (Ex 28:41; 40:13; Le 4:3,5,16; 6:20,22); to kings (1Sa 9:16; 10:1; 15:1; 16:3,13); sometimes to prophets (1Ki 19:16; compare Isa 61:1; Ps 2:2; 20:6). These anointings were with oil, and the oil came to be regarded as a symbol of the Spirit of God.

The anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit qualified Him in two particulars for His Messianic office.

(a) It was the source of His own endowments of power for the endurance of temptation, for teaching, for casting out demons, and healing the sick, for His sufferings and death, for His resurrection and ascension. The question is often raised, why Jesus, the Divine one, should have needed the Holy Spirit for His Messianic vocation. The reply is that His human nature, which was real, required the Spirit’s presence. Man, made in God’s image, is constituted in dependence upon the Spirit of God. Apart from God’s Spirit man fails of his true destiny, simply because our nature is constituted as dependent upon the indwelling Spirit of God for the performance of our true functions. Jesus as human, therefore, required the presence of God’s Spirit, notwithstanding His Divine-human consciousness.

(b) The Holy Spirit’s coming upon Jesus in fullness also qualified Him to bestow the Holy Spirit upon His disciples. John the Baptist especially predicts that it is He who shall baptize in the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11; Mr 18; Lu 3:16; see also Joh 20:22; Ac 15$). It was especially true of the king that He was anointed for His office, and the term Messiah (mashiach, equivalent to the Greek ho Christos), meaning the Anointed One, points to this fact.

(3) Temptation of Jesus.

The facts as to the temptation are as follows: In Mt 4:1 we are told that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Mr 1:12 declares in his graphic way that after the baptism "straightway the Spirit driveth (ekballei) him forth into the wilderness." Lu 4:1 more fully declares that Jesus was "full of the Holy Spirit," and that He was "led in the Spirit in the wilderness during 40 days." The impression which the narratives of the temptation give is of energetic spiritual conflict. As the Messiah confronted His life task He was subject to the ordinary conditions of other men in an evil world. Not by sheer divinity and acting from without as God, but as human also and a part of the world, He must overcome, so that while He was sinless, it was nevertheless true that the righteousness of Jesus was also an achieved righteousness. The temptations were no doubt such as were peculiar to His Messianic vocation, the misuse of power, the presumption of faith and the appeal of temporal splendor. To these He opposes the restraint of power, the poise of faith and the conception of a kingdom wholly spiritual in its origin, means and ends. Jesus is hurled, as it were, by the Spirit into this terrific conflict with the powers of evil, and His conquest, like the temptations themselves, was not final, but typical and representative. It is a mistake to suppose that the temptations of Jesus ended at the close of the forty days. Later in His ministry, He refers to the disciples as those who had been with Him in His temptations (Lu 22:28). The temptations continued throughout His life, though, of course, the wilderness temptations were the severest test of all, and the victory there contained in principle and by anticipation later victories. Comment has been made upon the absence of reference to the Holy Spirit’s influence upon Jesus in certain remarkable experiences, which in the case of others would ordinarily have been traced directly to the Spirit, as in Lu 11:14 ff, etc. (compare the article by James Denney in DCG, I, 732, 734). Is it not true, however, that the point of view of the writers of the Gospels is that Jesus is always under the power of the Spirit? At His baptism, in the temptation, and at the beginning of His public ministry (Lu 4:14) very special stress is placed upon the fact. Thenceforward the Spirit’s presence and action are assumed. From time to time, reference is made to the Spirit for special reasons, but the action of the Spirit in and through Jesus is always assumed.

(4) Public Ministry of Jesus.

Here we can select only a few points to illustrate a much larger truth. The writers of the Gospels, and especially Luke, conceived of the entire ministry of Jesus as under the power of the Holy Spirit. After declaring that Jesus was "full of the Holy Spirit" and that He was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness forty days in 4:1, he declares, in 4:14, that Jesus "returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee." This is followed in the next verse by a general summary of His activities: "And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all." Then, as if to complete his teaching as to the relation of the Spirit to Jesus, he narrates the visit to Nazareth and the citation by Jesus in the synagogue there of Isaiah’s words beginning, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," with the detailed description of His Messianic activity, namely, preaching to the poor, announcement of release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (Isa 61:1 f). Jesus proclaims the fulfillment of this prophecy in Himself (Lu 4:21). In Mt 12:18 ff a citation from Isa 42:1-3 is given in connection with the miraculous healing work of Jesus. It is a passage of exquisite beauty and describes the Messiah as a quiet and unobtrusive and tender minister to human needs, possessed of irresistible power and infinite patience. Thus the highest Old Testament ideals as to the operations of the Spirit of God come to realization, especially in the public ministry of Jesus. The comprehensive terms of the description make it incontestably clear that the New Testament writers thought of the entire public life of Jesus as directed by the Spirit of God. We need only to read the evangelic records in order to fill in the details.

The miracles of Jesus were wrought through the power of the Holy Spirit. Occasionally He is seized as it were by a sense of the urgency of His work in some such way as to impress beholders with the presence of a strange power working in Him. In one case men think He is beside Himself (Mr 3:21); in another they are impressed with the authoritativeness of His teaching (Mr 1:22); in another His intense devotion to His task makes Him forget bodily needs (Joh 4:31); again men think He has a demon (Joh 8:48); at one time He is seized with a rapturous joy when the 70 return from their successful evangelistic tour, and Luke declares that at that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit (Lu 10:21; compare Mt 11:25). This whole passage is a remarkable one, containing elements which point to the Johannine conception of Jesus, on which account Harnack is disposed to discredit it at certain points (Sayings of Jesus, 302). One of the most impressive aspects of this activity of Jesus in the Spirit is its suppressed intensity. Nowhere is there lack of self-control. Nowhere is there evidence of a coldly didactic attitude, on the one hand, or of a loose rein upon the will, on the other. Jesus is always an intensely human Master wrapped in Divine power. The miracles contrast strikingly with the miracles of the apocryphal gospels. In the latter all sorts of capricious deeds of power are ascribed to Jesus as a boy. In our Gospels, on the contrary, no miracle is wrought until after His anointing with the Spirit at baptism.

A topic of especial interest is that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus cast out demons by the power of God’s Spirit. In Mt 12:31; Mr 3:28 f; Lu 12:10, we have the declaration that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable sin. Mark particularizes the offense of the accusers of Jesus by saying that they said of Jesus, "He hath an unclean spirit." The blasphemy against the Spirit seems to have been not merely rejection of Jesus and His words, which might be due to various causes. It was rather the sin of ascribing works of Divine mercy and power-works which had all the marks of their origin in the goodness of God—to a diabolic source. The charge was that He cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. We are not to suppose that the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy Spirit was due to anything arbitrary in God’s arrangements regarding sin. The moral and spiritual attitude involved in the charge against Jesus was simply a hopeless one. It presupposed a warping or wrenching of the moral nature from the truth in such degree, a deep-seated malignity and insusceptibility to Divine influences so complete, that no moral nucleus remained on which the forgiving love of God might work.


(5) Death, Resurrection and Pentecostal Gift.

It is not possible to give here a complete outline of the activities of Jesus in the Holy Spirit. We observe one or two additional points as to the relations of the Holy Spirit to Him. In Heb 9:14 it is declared that Christ "through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God," and in Ro 1:4, Paul says He was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (compare also Ro 8:11).

As already noted, John the Baptist gave as a particular designation of Jesus that it was He who should baptize with the Holy Spirit, in contrast with his own baptism in water. In Joh 20:22, after the resurrection and before the ascension, Jesus breathed on the disciples and said "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." There was probably a real communication of the Spirit in this act of Jesus in anticipation of the outpouring in fullness on the day of Pentecost. In Ac 1:2 it is declared that He gave commandment through the Holy Spirit, and in 1:5 it is predicted by Him that the disciples should "be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence"; and in 1:8 it is declared, "Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you."

It is clear from the preceding that in the thought of the New Testament writers Jesus is completely endued with the power of the. Holy Spirit. It is in large measure the Old Testament view of the Spirit; that is to say, the operation of the Spirit in and through Jesus is chiefly with a view to His official Messianic work, the charismatic Spirit imparting power rather than the Spirit for holy living merely. Yet there is a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament representations here. In the Old Testament the agency of the Spirit is made very prominent when mighty works are performed by His power. In the Gospels the view is concentrated less upon the Spirit than upon Jesus Himself, though it is always assumed that He is acting in the power of the Spirit. In the case of Jesus also, the moral quality of His words and deeds is always assumed.

2. The Holy Spirit in the Kingdom of God:

Our next topic in setting forth the New Testament teaching is the Holy Spirit in relation to the kingdom of God. Quite in harmony with the plenary endowment of Jesus, the founder of the kingdom, with the power of the Spirit, is the communication of the Spirit to the agents employed by Providence in the conduct of the affairs of the kingdom. We need, at all points, in considering the subject in the New Testament to keep in view the Old Testament background. The covenant relations between God and Israel were the presupposition of all the blessings of the Old Testament. In the New Testament there is not an identical but an analogous point of view. God is continuing His work among men. Indeed in a real sense He has begun a new work, but this new work is the fulfillment of the old. The new differs from the old in some very important respects, chiefly indeed in this, that now the national and theocratic life is wholly out of sight. Prophecy no longer deals with political questions. The power of the Spirit no longer anoints kings and judges for their duties. The action of the Spirit upon the cosmos now ceases to receive attention. In short, the kingdom of God is intensely spiritualized, and the relation of the Spirit to the individual or the church is nearly always that which is dealt with.

(1) Synoptic Teachings.

We consider briefly the synoptic teachings as to the Holy Spirit in relation to the kingdom of God. The forerunner of Jesus goes before His face in the Spirit and power of Elijah (Lu 1:17). Of Him it had been predicted that He should be filled with the Holy Spirit from His mother’s womb (Lu 1:15). The Master expressly predicts that the Holy Spirit will give the needed wisdom when the disciples are delivered up. "It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit" (Mr 13:11). In Lu 12:12 it is also declared that "The Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say." Likewise in Mt 10:20, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." In Lu 11:13 is a beautiful saying: If we who are evil give good gifts to our children, how much more shall the "heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." This is a variation from the parallel passage in Mt (7:11), and illustrates Luke’s marked emphasis upon the operations of the Spirit. In Mt 28:19, the disciples are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This passage has been called in question, but there is not sufficient ground for its rejection. Hitherto there has been almost no hint directly of the personality of the Spirit or the Trinitarian implications in the teaching as to the Spirit. Here, however, we have a very suggestive hint toward a doctrine of the Spirit which attains more complete development later.

(2) In the Writings of John

In the Gospel of John there is a more elaborate presentation of the office and work of the Holy Spirit, particularly in Joh 14-17. Several earlier passages, however, must be noticed. The passage on the new birth in Joh 3:5 ff we notice first. The expression, "except one be born of water and the Spirit," seems to contain a reference to baptism along with the action of the Spirit of God directly on the soul. In the light of other New Testament teachings, however, we are not warranted in ascribing saving efficacy to baptism here. The "birth," in so far as it relates to baptism, is symbolic simply, not actual. The outward act is the fitting symbolic accompaniment of the spiritual regeneration by the Spirit. Symbolism and spiritual fact move on parallel lines. The entrance into the kingdom is symbolically effected by means of baptism, just as the "new birth" takes place symbolically by the same means.

In Joh 6:51 ff we have the very difficult words attributed to Jesus concerning the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. The disciples were greatly distressed by these words, and in 6:63 Jesus insists that "it is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing." One’s view of the meaning of this much-discussed passage will turn largely on his point of view in interpreting it. If he adopts the view that John is reading back into the record much that came later in the history, the inference will probably follow that Jesus is here referring to the Lord’s Supper. If on the other hand it is held that John is seeking to reproduce substantially what was said, and to convey an impression of the actual situation, the reference to the Supper will not be inferred. Certainly the language fits the later teaching in the establishment of the Supper, although John omits a detailed account of the Supper. But Jesus was meeting a very real situation in the carnal spirit of the multitude which followed Him for the loaves and fishes. His deeply mystical words seem to have been intended to accomplish the result which followed, namely, the separation of the true from the false disciples. There is no necessary reference to the Lord’s Supper specifically, therefore, in His words. Spiritual meat and drink, not carnal, are the true food of man. He Himself was that food, but only the spiritually susceptible would grasp His meaning. It is difficult to assign any sufficient reason why Jesus should have here referred to the Supper, or why John should have desired to introduce such reference into the story at this stage.

In Joh 7:37 ff we have a saying of Jesus and its interpretation by John which accords with the synoptic reference to a future baptism in the Holy Spirit to be bestowed by Jesus: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water." John adds: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." No doubt John’s Gospel is largely a reproduction of the facts and teachings of Jesus in the evangelist’s own words. This passage indicates, however, that John discriminated between his own constructions of Christ’s teachings and the teachings themselves, and warns us against the custom of many exegetes who broadly assume that John employed his material with slight regard for careful and correct statement, passing it through his own consciousness in such manner as to leave us his own subjective Gospel, rather than a truly historical record. The ethical implications of such a process on John’s part would scarcely harmonize with his general tone and especially the teachings of his Epistles. No doubt John’s Gospel contains much meaning which he could not have put into it prior to the coming of the Spirit. But what John seeks to give is the teaching of Jesus and not his own theory of Jesus.

We give next an outline of the teachings in the great Joh 14 to 17, the farewell discourse of Jesus. In 14:16 Jesus says, "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter" (parakletos; see PARACLETE). Next Jesus describes this Comforter as one whom the world cannot receive. Disciples know Him because He abides in them. The truth of Christianity is spiritually discerned, i.e. it is discerned by the power and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In the name of "reality," science sometimes repudiates these inner experiences as "mystical." But Christians cling to them as most real, data of experience as true and reliable as any other forms of human experience. To repudiate them would be for them to repudiate reality itself. The Father and Son shall make their abode in Christians (14:23). This is probably another form of assertion of the Spirit’s presence, and not a distinct line of mystical teaching. (Compare Woods, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, 243.) For in 14:26 the promise of the Spirit is repeated. The Father is to send the Spirit in the name of Christ, and He is to teach the disciples all things, quickening also their memories. In the New Testament generally, and especially in John’s and Paul’s writings, there is no sense of conflict between Father, Son and Spirit in their work in the Christian. All proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and is accomplished in the Christian by the Holy Spirit. As will appear, Christ in the believer is represented as being practically all that the Spirit does without identifying Christ with the Spirit. So far there are several notes suggesting the personality of the Holy Spirit. The designation "another Comforter," taken in connection with the description of his work, is one. The fact that He is sent or given is another. And another is seen in the specific work which the Spirit is to do. Another is the masculine pronoun employed here (ekeinos). In Joh 14:26 the function of the Spirit is indicated. He is to bring to "remembrance all that I said unto you." In 15:26 this is made even more comprehensive: "He shall bear witness of me," and yet more emphatically in 16:14, "He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you." The sphere of the Spirit’s activity is the heart of the individual believer and of the church. His chief function is to illumine the teaching and glorify the person of Jesus. Joh 15:26 is the passage which has been used in support of the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit. Jesus says, "I will send" (pempso), future tense, referring to the "Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" (ekporeuetai); present tense. The present tense here suggests timeless action and has been taken to indicate an essential relation of the Spirit to God the Father (compare Godet, Commentary on John, in the place cited.). The hazard of such an interpretation lies chiefly in the absence of other corroborative Scriptures and in the possibility of another and simpler meaning of the word. However, the language is unusual, and the change of tense in the course of the sentence is suggestive. Perhaps it is one of the many instances where we must admit we do not know the precise import of the language of Scripture.

In Joh 16:7-15 we have a very important passage. Jesus declares to the anxious disciples that it is expedient for Him to go away, because otherwise the Spirit will not come. "He, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (16:8). The term translated "convict" (elegksei) involves a cognitive along with a moral process. The Spirit who deals in truth, and makes His appeal through the truth, shall convict, shall bring the mind on which He is working into a sense of self-condemnation on account of sin. The word means more than reprove, or refute, or convince. It signifies up to a certain point a moral conquest of the mind: "of sin, because they believe not on me" (16:9). Unbelief is the root sin. The revelation of God in Christ is, broadly speaking, His condemnation of all sin. The Spirit may convict of particular sins, but they will all be shown to consist essentially in the rejection of God’s love and righteousness in Christ, i.e. in unbelief. "Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more" (16:10). What does this mean? Does Jesus mean that His going to the Father will be the proof of His righteousness to those who put Him to death, or that this going to the Father will be the consummating or crowning act of His righteousness which the Spirit is to carry home to the hearts of men? Or does He mean that because He goes away the Spirit will take His place in convicting men of righteousness? The latter meaning seems implied in the words, "and ye behold me no more." Probably, however, the meanings are not mutually exclusive. "Of judgment because the prince of this world hath been judged" (16:11). In His incarnation and death the prince of this world, the usurper, is conquered and cast out.

We may sum up the teachings as to the Spirit in these four chapters as follows: He is the Spirit of truth; He guides into all truth; He brings to memory Christ’s teachings; He shows things to come; He glorifies Christ; He speaks not of Himself but of Christ; He, like believers, bears witness to Christ; He enables Christians to do greater works than those of Christ; He convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; He comes because Christ goes away; He is "another Comforter"; He is to abide with disciples forever.

These teachings cover a very wide range of needs. The Holy Spirit is the subject of the entire discourse. In a sense it is the counterpart of the Sermon on the Mount. There the laws of the kingdom are expounded. Here the means of realization of all the ends of that kingdom are presented. The kingdom now becomes the kingdom of the Spirit. The historical revelation of truth in the life, death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus being completed, the Spirit of truth comes in fullness. The gospel as history is now to become the gospel as experience. The Messiah as a fact is now to become the Messiah as a life through the Spirit’s action. All the elements of the Spirit’s action are embraced: the charismatic for mighty works; the intellectual for guidance into truth; the moral and spiritual for producing holy lives. This discourse transfers the kingdom, so to speak, from the shoulders of the Master to those of the disciples, but the latter are empowered for their tasks by the might of the indwelling and abiding Spirit. The method of the kingdom’s growth and advance is clearly indicated as spiritual, conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, and obedient and holy lives of Christ’s disciples.

Before passing to the next topic, one remark should be made as to the Trinitarian suggestions of these chapters in John. The personality of the Spirit is clearly implied in much of the language here. It is true we have no formal teaching on the metaphysical side, no ontology in the strict sense of the word. This fact is made much of by writers who are slow to recognize the personality of the Holy Spirit in the light of the teachings of John and Paul. These writers have no difficulty, however, in asserting that the New Testament writers hold that God is a personal being (see I. F. Woods, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, 256, 268). It must be insisted, however, that in the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, there is little metaphysics, little ontological teaching as to God. His personality is deduced from the same kind of sayings as those relating to the Spirit. From the ontological point of view, therefore, we should also have to reject the personality of God on the basis of the Biblical teachings. The Trinitarian formulations may not be correct at all points, but the New Testament warrants the Trinitarian doctrine, just as it warrants belief in the personality of God. We are not insisting on finding metaphysics in Scripture where it is absent, but we do insist upon consistency in construing the popular and practical language of Scripture as to the second and third as well as the first Person of the Trinity.

We add a few lines as to John’s teachings in the Epistles and Revelation. In general they are in close harmony with the teachings in his Gospel and do not require extended treatment. The Spirit imparts assurance (1 Joh 3:24); incites to confession of Christ (1 Joh 4:2); bears witness to Christ (1 Joh 5:6 ff). In Re 1:4 the "seven Spirits" is an expression for the completeness of the Spirit. The Spirit speaks to the churches (1 Joh 2:7,11; 3:6). The seer is "in the Spirit" (1 Joh 4:2). The Spirit joins the church in the invitation of the gospel (1Joh 2:17).

(3) In Acts.

The Book of Ac contains the record of the beginning of the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit. There is at the outset the closest connection with the recorded predictions of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels. Particularly does Luke make clear the continuity of his own thought regarding the Spirit in his earlier and later writing. Jesus in the first chapter of Ac gives commandment through the Holy Spirit and predicts the reception of power as the result of the baptism in the Holy Spirit which the disciples are soon to receive.

The form of the Spirit’s activities in Ac is chiefly charismatic, that is, the miraculous endowment of disciples with power or wisdom for their work in extending the Messianic kingdom. As yet the work of the Spirit within disciples as the chief sanctifying agency is not fully developed, and is later described with great fullness in Paul’s writings. Some recent writers have overemphasized the contrast between the earlier and the more developed view of the Spirit with regard to the moral life. In Ac the ethical import of the Spirit’s action appears at several points (see Ac 5:3,9; 7:51; 8:18 f; 13:9; 15:28). The chief interest in Ac is naturally the Spirit’s agency in founding the Messianic kingdom, since here is recorded the early history of the expansion of that kingdom. The phenomenal rather than the inner moral aspects of that great movement naturally come chiefly into view. But everywhere the ethical implications are present. Gunkel is no doubt correct in the statement that Paul’s conception of the Spirit as inward and moral and acting in the daily life of the Christian opens the way for the activity of the Spirit as a historical principle in subsequent ages. After all, this is the fundamental and universal import of the Spirit (see Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, etc., 76; compare Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 200).

We now proceed to give a brief summary of the Holy Spirit’s activities as recorded in Acts, and follow this with a discussion of one or two special points. The great event is of course the outpouring or baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost followed by the completion of the baptism in the Holy Spirit by the baptism of the household of Cornelius (2:1 ff; 10:17-48). Speaking with tongues, and other striking manifestations attended this baptism, as also witnessing to the gospel with power by the apostles. See BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This outpouring is declared to be in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and the assertion is also made that it is the gift of the exalted Lord Jesus Christ (2:17,33). Following this baptism of the Holy Spirit the disciples are endued with miraculous power for their work. Miracles are wrought (Ac 2:43 ), and all necessary gifts of wisdom and Divine guidance are bestowed. A frequent form of expression describing the actors in the history is, "filled with the Holy Spirit." It is applied to Peter (4:8); to disciples (4:31); to the seven deacons (6:3); to Stephen (6:5; 7:55); to Saul who becomes Paul (13:9).

The presence of the Spirit and His immediate and direct superintendence of affairs are seen in the fact that Ananias and Sapphira are represented as lying to the Holy Spirit (Ac 5:3,9); the Jews are charged by Stephen with resisting the Holy Spirit (Ac 7:51); and Simon Magus is rebuked for attempting to purchase the Spirit with money (Ac 8:18 f).

The Holy Spirit is connected with the act of baptism, but there does not seem to be any fixed order as between the two. In Ac 9:17 the Spirit comes before baptism; and after baptism in 8:17 and 19:6. In these cases the coming of the Spirit was in connection with the laying on of hands also. But in 10:44 the Holy Spirit falls upon the hearers while Peter is speaking prior to baptism and with no laying on of hands. These instances in which the order of baptism, the laying on of hands and the gift of the Spirit seem to be a matter of indifference, are a striking indication of the non-sacramentarian character of the teaching of the Book of Acts, and indeed in the New Testament generally. Certainly no particular efficacy seems to be attached to the laying on of hands or baptism except as symbolic representations of spiritual facts. Gunkel, in his excellent work on the Holy Spirit, claims Ac 2:38 as an instance when the Spirit is bestowed during baptism (Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, etc., 7). The words of Peter, however, may refer to a reception of the Spirit subsequent to baptism, although evidently in immediate connection with it. The baptism of the Holy Spirit clearly then was not meant to supplant water baptism. Moreover, in the strict sense the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a historical event or events completed at the outset when the extension of the kingdom of God, beginning at Pentecost, began to reach out to the Gentile world.


In Ac the entire historical movement is represented by Luke as being under the direction of the Spirit. He guides Philip to the Ethiopian and then "catches away" Philip (8:29,39). He guides Peter at Joppa through the vision and then leads him to Cornelius at Caesarea (10:19 f; 11:12 f). The Spirit commands the church at Antioch to separate Saul and Barnabas for missionary work (13:2 ff). He guides the church at Jerusalem (15:28). He forbids the apostle to go to Asia (16:6 f). The Spirit enables Agabus to prophesy that Paul will be bound by the Jews at Jerusalem (21:11; compare also 20:23). The Spirit appointed the elders at Ephesus (20:28).

One or two points require notice before passing from Acts. The impression we get of the Spirit’s action here very strongly suggests a Divine purpose moving on the stage of history in a large and comprehensive way. In Jesus that purpose was individualized. Here the supplementary thought of a vast historic movement is powerfully suggested. Gunkel asserts that usually the Spirit’s action is not conceived by the subjects of it in terms of means (Mittel) and end (Zweck), but rather as cause (Ursache) and activity (Wirkung) (see Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, etc., 20). There is an element of truth in this, but the idea of purpose is by no means confined to the historian who later recorded the Spirit’s action. The actors in the spiritual drama were everywhere conscious of the great movement of which they as individuals were a part. In some passages the existence of purpose in the Spirit’s action is clearly recognized, as in His restraining of Paul at certain points and in the appointment of Saul and Barnabas as missionaries. Divine purpose is indeed implied at all points, and while the particular end in view was not always clear in a given instance, the subjects of the Spirit’s working were scarcely so naive in their apprehension of the matter as to think of their experiences merely as so many extraordinary phenomena caused in a particular way.

We note next the glossolalia, or speaking with tongues, recorded in Ac 2, as well as in later chapters and in Paul’s Epistles. The prevailing view at present is that "speaking with tongues" does not mean speaking actual intelligible words in a foreign language, but rather the utterance of meaningless sounds, as was customary among the heathen and as is sometimes witnessed today where religious life becomes highly emotional in its manifestation. To support this view the account in Ac 2 is questioned, and Paul’s instructions in 1Co 14 are cited. Of course a man’s world-view will be likely to influence his interpretation in this as in other matters. Philosophically an antisupernatural world-view makes it easy to question the glossolalia of the New Testament. Candid exegesis, however, rather requires the recognition of the presence in the apostolic church of a speaking in foreign tongues, even if alongside of it there existed (which is open to serious doubt) the other phenomenon mentioned above. Ac 2:3 ff is absolutely conclusive taken by itself, and no valid critical grounds have been found for rejecting the passage. 1Co 14 confirms this view when its most natural meaning is sought. Paul is here insisting upon the orderly conduct of worship and upon edification as the important thing. To this end he insists that they who speak with tongues pray that they may also interpret (1Co 14:5; chapter 13). It is difficult to conceive what he means by "interpret" if the speaking with tongues was a meaningless jargon of sounds uttered under emotional excitement, and nothing more. Paul’s whole exposition in this chapter implies that "tongues" may be used for edification. He ranks it below prophecy simply because without an interpreter "tongues" would not edify the hearer. Paul himself spoke with tongues more than they all (1Co 14:18). It seems scarcely in keeping with Paul’s character to suppose that he refers here to a merely emotional volubility in meaningless and disconnected sounds.


(4) In Paul’s Writings.

The teachings of Paul on the Holy Spirit are so rich and abundant that space forbids an exhaustive presentation. In his writings the Biblical representations reach their climax. Mr. Wood says correctly that Paul grasped the idea of the unity of the Christian life. All the parts exist in a living whole and the Holy Spirit constitutes and maintains it (Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, 268). In fact a careful study of Paul’s teachings discloses three parallel lines, one relating to faith, another to Christ, and the third to the Holy Spirit. That is to say, his teachings coalesce, as it were, point by point, in reference to these three subjects. Faith is the human side of the Divine activity carried on by the Holy Spirit. Faith is therefore implied in the Spirit’s action and is the result of or response to it in its various forms. But faith is primarily and essentially faith in Jesus Christ. Hence, we find in Paul that Christ is represented as doing substantially everything that the Spirit does. Now we are not to see in this any conflicting conceptions as to Christ and the Spirit, but rather Paul’s intense feeling of the unity of the work of Christ and the Spirit. The "law" of the Spirit’s action is the revelation and glorification of Christ. In his Gospel, which came later, John, as we have seen, defined the Spirit’s function in precisely these terms. Whether or not John was influenced by Paul in the matter we need not here consider.

(a) The Spirit and Jesus

We begin with a brief reference to the connection in Paul’s thought between the Spirit and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God’s Son (Ro 8:14 ff; Ga 4:6), as the Spirit of Christ (Ro 8:9). He who confesses Jesus does so by the Holy Spirit, and no one can say that Jesus is anathema in the Holy Spirit (1Co 12:3). Christ is called a life-giving Spirit (1Co 15:45); and in 2Co 3:17 the statement appears, "Now the Lord is the Spirit." All of this shows how completely one Paul regarded the work of Christ and the Spirit, not because they were identical in the sense in which Beyschlag has contended, but because their task and aim being identical, there was no sense of discord in Paul’s mind in explaining their activities in similar terms.

(b) In Bestowing Charismatic Gifts

The Spirit appears in Paul as in Ac imparting all kinds of charismatic gifts for the ends of the Messianic kingdom. He enumerates a long list of spiritual gifts which cannot receive separate treatment here, such as prophecy (1Th 5:19 f) ; tongues (1Co 12-14); wisdom (1Co 2:6 ); knowledge (1Co 12:8); power to work miracles (1Co 12:9 f); discerning of spirits (1Co 12:10); interpretation of tongues (1Co 12:10); faith (1Co 12:9); boldness in Christian testimony (2Co 3:17 f); charismata generally (1Th 1:5; 4:8, etc.). See SPIRITUAL GIFTS. In addition to the above list, Paul especially emphasizes the Spirit’s action in revealing to himself and to Christians the mind of God (1Co 2:10-12; Eph 3:5). He speaks in words taught by the Spirit (1Co 2:13). He preaches in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1Co 2:4; 1Th 1:5).

In the above manifestations of the Spirit, as enumerated in Paul’s writings, we have presented in very large measure what we have already seen in Acts, but with some additions. In 1Co 14 and elsewhere Paul gives a new view as to the charismatic gifts which was greatly needed in view of the tendency to extravagant and intemperate indulgence in emotional excitement, due to the mighty action of God’s Spirit in the Corinthian church. He insists that all things be done unto edification, that spiritual growth is the true aim of all spiritual endowments. This may be regarded as the connecting link between the earlier and later New Testament teaching as to the Holy Spirit, between the charismatic and moral-religious significance of the Spirit. To the latter we now direct attention.

(c) In the Beginnings of the Christian Life

We note the Spirit in the beginnings of the Christian life. From beginning to end the Christian life is regarded by Paul as under the power of the Holy Spirit, in its inner moral and religious aspects as well as in its charismatic forms. It is a singular fact that Paul does not anywhere expressly declare that the Holy Spirit originates the Christian life. Gunkel is correct in this so far as specific and direct teaching is concerned. But Wood who asserts the contrary is also right, if regard is had to clear implications and legitimate inferences from Paul’s statements (op. cit., 202). Ro 8:2 does not perhaps refer to the act of regeneration, and yet it is hard to conceive of the Christian life as thus constituted by the "law of the Spirit of life" apart from its origin through the Spirit. There are other passages which seem to imply very clearly, if they do not directly assert, that the Christian life is originated by the Holy Spirit (1Th 1:6; Ro 5:5; 8:9; 1Co 2:4; 6:11; Tit 3:5).

The Holy Spirit in the beginnings of the Christian life itself is set forth in many forms of statement. They who have the Spirit belong to Christ (Ro 8:9). We received not the Spirit of bondage but of adoption, "whereby we cry, Abba, Father" (Ro 8:15). "The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God" (Ro 8:16). The Spirit is received by the hearing of faith (Ga 3:2). See also Ro 5:5; 8:2; 1Co 16:11; Ga 3:3,14; Eph 2:18. There are two or three expressions employed by Paul which express some particular aspect of the Spirit’s work in believers. One of these is "first-fruits" (Ro 8:23, aparche), which means that the present possession of the Spirit by the believer is the guarantee of the full redemption which is to come, as the first-fruits were the guarantee of the full harvest. Another of these words is "earnest" (2Co 1:22; 5:5, arrabon), which also means a pledge or guarantee. Paul also speaks of the "sealing" of the Christians with the Holy Spirit of promise, as in Eph 1:13 (esphragisthete, "ye were sealed"). This refers to the seal by which a king stamped his mark of authorization or ownership upon a document.

(d) In the Religious and Moral Life

Paul gives a great variety of expressions indicating the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the religious and moral life of the Christian. In fact at every point that life is under the guidance and sustaining energy of the Spirit. If we live after the flesh, we die; if after the Spirit, we live (Ro 8:6). The Spirit helps the Christian to pray (Ro 8:26 f). The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Ro 14:17). Christians are to abound in hope through the Holy Spirit (Ro 15:13). "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control" (Ga 5:22). Christians are warned to grieve not the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30), and are urged to take the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17). The flesh is contrasted with the Spirit at a number of points in Paul’s writings (e.g. Ro 8:5 f; Ga 5:17 ff). The Spirit in these passages probably means either the Spirit of God or man’s spirit as under the influence of the Spirit of God. Flesh is a difficult word to define, as it seems to be used in several somewhat different senses. When the flesh is represented as lusting against the Spirit, however, it seems equivalent to the "carnal mind," i.e. the mind of the sinful natural man as distinct from the mind of the spiritual man. This carnal or fleshly mind is thus described because the flesh is thought of as the sphere in which the sinful impulses in large part, though not altogether (Ga 5:19 ), take their rise.

Paul contrasts the Spirit with the letter (2Co 3:6) and puts strong emphasis on the Spirit as the source of Christian liberty. As Gunkel points out, spirit and freedom with Paul are correlatives, like spirit and life. Freedom must needs come of the Spirit’s presence because He is superior to all other authorities and powers (Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, etc., 95). See also an excellent passage on the freedom of the Christian from statutory religious requirements in DCG, article "Holy Spirit" by Dr. James Denney, I, 739.

(e) In the Church.

Toward the end of his ministry and in his later group of epistles, Paul devoted much thought to the subject of the church, and one of his favorite figures was of the church as the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit is represented as animating this body, as communicating to it life, and directing all its affairs. As in the case of the individual believer, so also in the body of believers the Spirit is the sovereign energy which rules completely. By one Spirit all are baptized into one body and made to drink of one Spirit (1Co 12:13). All the gifts of the church, charismatic and otherwise, are from the Spirit (1Co 12:4,8-11). All spiritual gifts in the church are for edification (1Co 14:12). Prayer is to be in the Spirit (1Co 14:15). The church is to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). Love (Col 1:8); fellowship (Php 2:1); worship (Php 3:3) are in the Spirit. The church is the habitation of the Spirit (Eph 2:22). The church is an epistle of Christ written by the Spirit (2Co 3:3). Thus the whole life of the church falls under the operation of the Holy Spirit.

(f) In the Resurrection of Believers

The Spirit also carries on His work in believers in raising the body from the dead. In Ro 8:11 Paul asserts that the present indwelling in believers of the Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead is the guarantee of the quickening of their mortal bodies by the power of the same Spirit. See also 1Co 15:44 f; Ga 5:5.

We have thus exhibited Paul’s teachings as to the Holy Spirit in some detail in order to make clear their scope and comprehensiveness. And we have not exhausted the material supplied by his writings. It will be observed that Paul nowhere elaborates a doctrine of the Spirit, as he does in a number of instances his doctrine of the person of Christ. The references to the Spirit are in connection with other subjects usually. This, however, only serves to indicate how very fundamental the work of the Spirit was in Paul’s assumptions as to the Christian life. The Spirit is the Christian life, just as Christ is that life.

The personality of the Spirit appears in Paul as in John. The benediction in 2Co 13:14 distinguishes clearly Father, Son and Spirit (compare also Eph 4:4). In many connections the Spirit is distinguished from the Son and Father, and the work of the Spirit is set forth in personal terms. It is true, references are often made to the Holy Spirit by Paul as if the Spirit were an impersonal influence, or at least without clearly personal attributes. This distinguishes his usage as to the Spirit from that as to Christ and God, who are always personal. It is a natural explanation of this fact if we hold that in the case of the impersonal references we have a survival of the current Old Testament conception of the Spirit, while in those which are personal we have the developed conception as found in both Paul and John. Personal attributes are ascribed to the Spirit in so many instances, it would seem unwarranted in us to make the earlier and lower conception determinative of the later and higher.

In Paul’s writings we have the crowning factor in the Biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He gathers up most of the preceding elements, and adds to them his own distinctive teaching or emphasis. Some of the earlier Old Testament elements are lacking, but all those which came earlier in the New Testament are found in Paul. The three points which Paul especially brought into full expression were first, the law of edification in the use of spiritual gifts, second, the Holy Spirit in the moral life of the believer, and third, the Holy Spirit in the church. Thus Paul enables us to make an important distinction as to the work of the Spirit in founding the kingdom of God, namely, the distinction between means and ends. Charismatic gifts of the Spirit were, after all, means to ethical ends. God’s kingdom is moral in its purpose, "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Christianity is, according to Paul, inherently and essentially supernatural. But its permanent and abiding significance is to be found, not in extraordinary phenomena in the form of "mighty works," "wonders," "tongues" and other miracles in the ordinary sense, but in the creation of a new moral order in time and eternity. The supernatural is to become normal and "natural" in human history, therefore, in the building up of this ethical kingdom on the basis of a redemption that is in and through Jesus Christ, and wrought out in all its details by the power of the Holy Spirit.

(5) The Holy Spirit in Other New Testament Writings.

There is little to add to the New Testament teaching as to the Holy Spirit. Paul and John practically cover all the aspects of His work which are presented. There are a few passages, however, we may note in concluding Our general survey. In He the Holy Spirit is referred to a number of times as inspiring the Old Testament Scriptures (Heb 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). We have already referred to the remarkable statement in Heb 9:14 to the effect that the blood of Christ was offered through the eternal Spirit. In 10:29 doing "despite unto the Spirit of grace" seems to be closely akin to the sin against the Holy Spirit in the Gospels. In Heb 4:12 there is a very remarkable description of the "word of God" in personal terms, as having all the energy and activity of an actual personal presence of the Spirit, and recalls Paul’s language in Eph 6:17. In 1Pe we need only refer to 1:11 in which Peter declares that the "Spirit of Christ" was in the Old Testament prophets, pointing forward to the sufferings and glories of Christ.


I. F. Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature; article "Spiritual Gifts" in EB; Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Gelstea; Gloel, Der heilige Geist in der Heilsverkundigung des Paulus; Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch; Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister; Dickson, Paul’s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit; Smeaton, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; Walker, The Spirit and the Incarnation; Denio, The Supreme Leader; Moberly, Administration of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ; Hutchings, Person and Work of the Holy Spirit; Owen, Pneumatologia; Webb, Person and Office of the Holy Spirit; Hare, The Mission of the Comforter; Candlish, The Work of the Holy Spirit; Wirgman, The Sevenfold Gifts; Heber, Personality and Offices of the Holy Spirit; Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament; Moule, Veni Creator; Johnson, The Holy Spirit Then and Now; Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit; Biblical Theologies of Schultz, Davidson, Weiss, Beyschlag, Stevens; list appended to the article on "Holy Spirit" in HDB and DCG; extensive bibliography in Denio’s The Supreme Leader, 239 ff.

E. Y. Mullins


ho’-li-da: This word occurs twice in the King James Version, namely, Ps 42:4, "a multitude that kept (the Revised Version (British and American) "keeping") holyday," and Col 2:16. In the latter case it is a rendering of the Greek word heorte, the ordinary term for a religious festival. the Revised Version (British and American) translates "feast day." In the former instance "keeping holyday" renders choghegh. The verb means to "make a pilgrimage," or "keep a religious festival." Occasionally the idea of merrymaking prevails, as in 1Sa 30:16—"eating and drinking," and enjoying themselves merrily. The Psalmist (who was perhaps an exiled priest) remembers with poignant regret how he used to lead religious processions on festival occasions.

T. Lewis


ho’-mam (chomam, "destruction"): A Horite descendant of Esau (1Ch 1:39). The name appears in Ge 36:22 as "Heman."


hom (bayith, "house," maqom, "place," ‘ohel, "tent" (Jud 19:9), shubh, "to cause to turn back," tawekh, tokh, "middle," "midst" (De 21:12); oikos, "house," "household," endemeo, "to be among one’s people," oikos idios, "one’s own proper (house)"): This term in Scripture does not stand for a single specific word of the original, but for a variety of phrases. Most commonly it is a translation of the Hebrew bayith, Greek oikos "house," which means either the building or the persons occupying it. In Ge 43:26 "home" and "into the house" represent the same phase, "to the house" (ha-bayethah). In Ru 1:21, "hath brought me home again" means "has caused me to return." In 2Ch 25:10 "home again" means "to their place." In Ec 12:5 "long home," the Revised Version (British and American) "everlasting home," means "eternal house." In Joh 19:27 "unto his own home" means "unto his own things" (so Joh 1:11). In 2Co 5:6 (and the Revised Version (British and American) 5:8,9) "be at home" is a translation of endemeo, "to be among one’s own people," as opposed to ekdemeo, "to be or live abroad."

Benjamin Reno Downer


hom’-born (’ezrach): A native-born Hebrew, as contrasted with a foreigner of different blood. The same Hebrew word is found in Le 16:29; 18:26 and elsewhere, but is translated differently. Home-born in Jer 2:14 is a translation of the phrase yelidh bayith, where it means a person free-born as contrasted with a slave.


ho’-mer (chomer): A dry measure containing about 11 bushels. It was equal to 10 ephas.



hom’-i-sid (rotseach): Hebrew has no word for killing or murder; rotseach is the word for manslayer. The Greek for murder is phonos. Homicide was every conscious violent action against a human being with the immediate result of death. It was always to be punished by death, being considered a crime against the image of God. Killing is definitely forbidden in the sixth commandment (Ge 9:5 f; Ex 20:13; 21:12; Le 24:17,21; Nu 35:16-21; De 19:11-13). The penalty of death was not inflicted when the killing was unintentional or unpremeditated (Ex 21:13; Nu 35:22-25; Jos 20:3-5; compare Mishna, Makkoth, xi. 5). Cities of Refuge were founded to which the manslayer could escape from the "avenger of blood." There he had to abide till after the death of the officiating high priest. If he left the city before that event, the avenger who should kill him was free from punishment (Ex 21:13; Nu 35:10-15,25-28,32; De 19:1-13; Jos 20:2 ). See CITIES OF REFUGE. Killing a thief who broke in during the night was not accounted murder (Ex 22:2). Unintentional killing of the pregnant woman in a fray was punished according to the lexicon talionis, i.e. the husband of the woman killed could kill the wife of the man who committed the offense without being punished (Ex 21:22 f). This was not usually carried out, but it gave the judge a standard by which to fine the offender. If a man failed to build a battlement to his house, and anyone fell over and was killed, blood-guiltiness came upon that man’s house (Dr 22:8). He who killed a thief in the daytime was guilty in the same way (Ex 22:3; compare the King James Version). Where a body was found, but the murderer was unknown, the elders of the city nearest to the place where it was found were ordered by a prescribed ceremony to declare that they were not guilty of neglecting their duties, and were therefore innocent of the man’s blood (Dr 21:1-9). Two witnesses were necessary for a conviction of murder (Nu 35:30). If a slave died under chastisement, the master was to be punished according to the principle that "he that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death" (Ex 21:20; compare Ex 21:12). According to the rabbis the master was to be killed by the sword. Since in this passage the phrase "he shall die" is not used, some have supposed that punishment by death is not indicated. If the slave punished by the master died after one or two days, the master was not liable to punishment (Ex 21:21). Because of the words, "for he is his money," the rabbis held that non-Israelite slaves were meant. In ancient times the avenger of blood was himself to be the executioner of the murderer (Nu 35:19,21). According to Sanhedhrin 9:1 the murderer was to be beheaded. Nothing is said in the law about suicide.

Paul Levertoff


on’-est, on’-es-ti: The word "honest" in the New Testament in the King James Version generally represents the adjective kalos, "good," "excellent," "honorable," and, with the exception of Lu 8:15, "honest and good heart," is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) into the more correct "honorable" (Ro 12:17; 2Co 8:21; 13:7; Php 4:8); in 1Pe 2:12, into "seemly.’ In the American Standard Revised Version "honestly" in Heb 13:18 is rendered "honorably," and in 1Th 4:12 (here euschemonos) is rendered "becomingly." The noun "honesty" occurs but once in the King James Version as the translation of semnotes (1Ti 2:2), and in the Revised Version (British and American) is more appropriately rendered "gravity."

James Orr


hun’-i (debhash; meli): One familiar with life in Palestine will recognize in debhash the Arabic dibs, which is the usual term for a sweet syrup made by boiling down the juice of grapes, raisins, carob beans, or dates. Dibs is seldom, if ever, used as a name for honey (compare Arabic ‘asal), whereas in the Old Testament debhash probably had only that meaning. The honey referred to was in most cases wild honey (De 32:13; Jud 14:8,9; 1Sa 14:25,26,29,43), although the offering of honey with the first-fruits would seem to indicate that the bees were also domesticated (2Ch 31:5). The bees constructed their honeycomb and deposited their honey in holes in the ground (1Sa 14:25); under rocks or in crevices between the rocks (De 32:13; Ps 81:16). They do the same today. When domesticated they are kept in cylindrical basket hives which are plastered on the outside with mud. The Syrian bee is an especially hardy type and a good honey producer. It is carried to Europe and America for breeding purposes.

In Old Testament times, as at present, honey was rare enough to be considered a luxury (Ge 43:11; 1Ki 14:3). Honey was used in baking sweets (Ex 16:31). It was forbidden to be offered with the meal offering (Le 2:11), perhaps because it was fermentable, but was presented with the fruit offering (2Ch 31:5). Honey was offered to David’s army (2Sa 17:29). It was sometimes stored in the fields (Jer 41:8). It was also exchanged as merchandise (Eze 27:17). In New Testament times wild honey was an article of food among the lowly (Mt 3:4; Mr 1:6).

Figurative: "A land flowing with milk and honey" suggested a land filled with abundance of good things (Ex 3:8,17; Le 20:24; Nu 13:27; De 6:3; Jos 5:6; Jer 11:5; Eze 20:6,15). "A land of olive trees and honey" had the same meaning (De 8:8; 2Ki 18:32), and similarly "streams of honey and butter" (Job 20:17). Honey was a standard of sweetness (So 4:11; Eze 3:3; Re 10:9,10). It typified sumptuous fare (So 5:1; Isa 7:15,22; Eze 16:13,19). The ordinances of Yahweh were "sweeter than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb" (Ps 19:10; 119:103). "Thou didst eat .... honey" (Eze 16:13) expressed Yahweh’s goodness to Jerusalem.

James A. Patch


on’-er-a-b’-l (kabhedh; euschemon): In the Old Testament "honorable" is for the most part the translation of kabhedh, properly, "to be heavy," "weighty" (Ge 34:19, the Revised Version (British and American) "honored"; Nu 22:15; 1Sa 9:6; Isa 3:5, etc.); kabhodh, "weight," "heaviness," etc., occurs in Isa 5:13; hodh, "beauty," "majesty," "honor" (Ps 111:3, the Revised Version (British and American) "honor"); ‘adhar, "to make honorable," "illustrious" (Isa 42:21, "magnify the law, and make it honorable," the Revised Version margin "make the teaching great and glorious"); yaqar}, "precious" (Ps 45:9); [~nasa’ panim, "lifted up of face" (2Ki 5:1; Isa 3:3; 9:15); nesu phanim (Job 22:8, the Revised Version margin "he whose person is accepted"); euschemon, literally, "well fashioned," is translated Mr 15:43, the King James Version "honorable," the Revised Version (British and American) "of honorable estate"; compare Ac 13:50; 17:12; endoxos, "in glory," occurs 1Co 4:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "glory"; timios, "weighty" (Heb 13:4, the Revised Version (British and American) "had in honor"); atimos, "without weight or honor" (1Co 12:23, "less honorable"); entimos, "in honor" (Lu 14:8), "more honorable."

The Revised Version (British and American) gives for "honorable" (1Sa 9:6), "held in honor"; for "Yet shall I be glorious" (Isa 49:5), "I am honorable"; "honorable" for "honest" (Ro 12:17; 2Co 13:7; Php 4:8, margin "reverend"); for "honestly" (Heb 13:18) the American Standard Revised Version has "honorably."

In Apocrypha we have endoxos translated "honorable" (Tobit 12:7, the Revised Version (British and American) "gloriously"); endoxos (Judith 16:21), timios (The Wisdom of Solomon 4:8), doxazo (Ecclesiasticus 24:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "glorified"), doxa (29:27, the Revised Version (British and American) "honor"), etc.

W. L. Walker


hood (zeniphoth): The ladies’ "hoods" of Isa 3:23 the King James Version appear as "turbans" the Revised Version (British and American); and "mitre" of Zec 3:5 is "turban, or diadem" the English Revised Version, margin. The word is from the verb zanaph, "to wrap round." It connotes a head-covering, not a permanent article of dress.

See DRESS, sec. 5; HAT.






(1) chakkah, is rendered "fishhook" in Job 41:1 the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version "hook"). the Revised Version (British and American) is correct here and should have used the same translation for the same word in Isa 19:8; Hab 1:15, instead Of retaining AV’s "angle." Similarly in Am 4:2, tsinnah, and ciroth dughah, appear to be synonyms for "fishhook," although the former may mean the barb of a fisher’s spear. In the New Testament "fishhook" occurs in Mt 17:27 (agkistron).

(2) The "flesh-hook." (mazlegh, mizlaghah) of Ex 27:3, etc., was probably a small pitchfork, with two or three tines.

(3) The "pruning-hook" (mazmerah), used in the culture of the vine (Isa 18:5), was a sickle-shaped knife, small enough to be made from the metal of a spear-point (Isa 2:4; Joe 3:10; Mic 4:3).

(4) waw, is the name given the supports of certain hangings of the tabernacle (Ex 26:32, etc.). Their form is entirely obscure.

(5) chach, is rendered "hook" in 2Ki 19:28 = Isa 37:29; Eze 29:4; 38:4, and Eze 19:4,9 the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version "chain"). A ring (compare Ex 35:22), put in the nose of a tamed beast and through which a rope is passed to lead him, is probably meant.

(6) ‘aghmon, is rendered "hook" in Job 41:2 the King James Version, but should be "a rope" of rushes or rush-fiber as in the Revised Version (British and American), or, simply, "a rush" (on which small fish are strung).

(7) choach, is "hook" in Job 41:2 the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version "thorn," perhaps right) and 2Ch 33:11 the Revised Version margin (text chains," Ay "thorns,"). On both verses see the commentaries

(8) shephattayim, is "hooks" in Eze 40:43 (the Revised Version margin "ledges"), but the meaning of this word is completely unknown, and "hook" is a mere guess.

Burton Scott Easton


hoo’-po; -poo (dukhiphath; epops; Latin Upupa epops): One of the peculiar and famous birds of Palestine, having a curved bill and beautiful plumage. It is about the size of a thrush. Its back is a rich cinnamon color, its head golden buff with a crest of feathers of gold, banded with white and tipped with black, that gradually lengthen as they cover the head until, when folded, they lie in lines of black and white, and, when erect, each feather shows its exquisite marking. Its wings and tail are black banded with white and buff. It nests in holes and hollow trees. All ornithologists agree that it is a "nasty, filthy bird" in its feeding and breeding habits. The nest, being paid no attention by the elders, soon becomes soiled and evil smelling. The bird is mentioned only in the lists of abomination (Le 11:19; and De 14:18). One reason why Moses thought it unfit for food was on account of its habits. Quite as strong a one lay in the fact that it was one of the sacred birds of Egypt. There the belief was prevalent that it could detect water and indicate where to dig a well; that it could hear secrets and cure diseases. Its head was a part of the charms used by witches. The hoopoe was believed to have wonderful medicinal powers and was called the "Doctor Bird" by the arabs. Because it is almost the size of a hoopoe and somewhat suggestive of it in its golden plumage, the lapwing was used in the early translations of the Bible instead of hoopoe. But when it was remembered that the lapwing is a plover, its flesh and eggs especially dainty food, that it was eaten everywhere it was known, modern commentators rightly decided that the hoopoe was the bird intended by the Mosaic law. It must be put on record, however, that where no superstition attaches to the hoopoe and where its nesting habits are unknown and its feeding propensities little understood, as it passes in migration it is killed, eaten and considered delicious, especially by residents of Southern Europe.

Gene Stratton-Porter



1. In the Old Testament:

In the Revised Version (British and American) the New Testament "hope" represents the noun elpis (52 t), and the verb elpizo (31 t). King James Version, however, renders the noun in Heb 10:23 by "faith," and for the verb gives "trust" in 18 cases (apparently without much system, e.g. in Php 2 compare 2:19 and 23; see TRUST), while in Lu 6:35 it translates apelpizo, by "hoping for nothing again" (the Revised Version (British and American) "never despairing"). But in the Old Testament there is no Hebrew word that has the exact force of "expectation of some good thing," so that in the King James Version "hope" (noun and vb.) stands for some 15 Hebrew words, nearly all of which in other places are given other translation (e.g. mibhTach, is rendered "hope" in Jer 17:17, "trust" in Ps 40:4, "confidence" in Ps 65:5). the Revised Version (British and American) has attempted to be more systematic and has, for the most part, kept "hope" for the noun tiqwah, and the verb yachal, but complete consistency was not possible (e.g. Pr 10:28; 11:23; 23:18). This lack of a specific word for hope has nothing to do with any undervaluation of the virtue among the Hebrews. For the religion of the Old Testament is of all things a religion of hope, centered in God, from whom all deliverance and blessings are confidently expected (Jer 17:17; Joe 3:16; Ps 31:24; 33:18,22; 39:7, etc.). The varieties of this hope arc countless (see ISRAEL, RELIGION OF; SALVATION, etc.), but the form most perfected and with fundamental significance for the New Testament is the firm trust that at a time appointed God, in person or through His representative (see MESSIAH), will establish a kingdom of righteousness.

2. In the New Testament:

(1) The proclamation of this coming kingdom of God was the central element in the teaching of Jesus, and the message of its near advent (Mr 1:15, etc.), with the certainty of admission to it for those who accepted His teaching (Lu 12:32, etc.), is the substance of His teaching as to hope. This teaching, though, is delivered in the language of One to whom the realities of the next world and of the future are perfectly familiar; the tone is not that of prediction so much as it is that of the statement of obvious facts. In other words, "hope" to Christ is "certainty," and the word "hope" is never on His lips (Lu 6:34 and Joh 5:45 are naturally not exceptions). For the details see KINGDOM OF GOD; FAITH; FORGIVENESS, etc. And however far He may have taught that the kingdom was present in His lifetime, none the less the full consummation of that kingdom, with Himself as Messiah, was made by Him a matter of the future (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; PAROUSIA).

(2) Hence, after the ascension the early church was left with an eschatological expectation that was primarily and almost technically the "hope" of the New Testament—"looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Tit 2:13), "unto a living hope ...., unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, .... reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1Pe 13-5; compare Ro 5:2; 8:20-24; 2Co 3:12; Eph 1:18-21; Col 1:5,23,17; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1 Joh 3:2,3). The foundations of this hope were many:

(a) Primarily, of course, the promises of the Old Testament, which were the basis of Christ’s teaching. Such are often quoted at length (Ac 2:16, etc.), while they underlie countless other passages. These promises are the "anchor of hope" that holds the soul fast (Heb 6:18-20). In part, then, the earliest Christian expectations coincided with the Jewish, and the "hope of Israel" (Ac 28:20; compare 26:6,7; Eph 2:12, and especially Ro 11:25-32) was a common ground on which Jew and Christian might meet. Still, through the confidence of forgiveness and purification given in the atonement (Heb 9:14, etc.), the Christian felt himself to have a "better hope" (Heb 7:19), which the Jew could not know.

(b) Specifically Christian, however, was the pledge given in the resurrection of Christ. This sealed His Messiahship and proved His lordship (Ro 1:4; Eph 1:18-20; 1Pe 3:21, etc.), so sending forth His followers with the certainty of victory. In addition, Christ’s resurrection was felt to be the first step in the general resurrection, and hence, a proof that the consummation of all things had begun (1Co 15:23; compare Ac 23:6; 24:15; 26:6,7; 1Th 4:13,14, etc.).

(c) But more than all, devotion to Christ produced a religious experience that gave certainty to hope. "Hope putteth not to shame; because the love of God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which was given unto us" (Ro 5:5; compare 8:16,17; 2Co 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14, etc., and see HOLY SPIRIT). Even visible miracles were wrought by the Spirit that were signs of the end (Ac 2:17) as well as of the individual’s certainty of partaking in the final happiness (Ac 10:47; 19:6, etc.).

(3) Yet, certain though the hope might be, it was not yet attained, and the interim was an opportunity to develop faith, "the substance of the things hoped for" (Heb 11:1). Indeed, hope is simply faith directed toward the future, and no sharp distinction between faith and hope is attainable. It is easy enough to see how the King James Version felt "confession of our faith" clearer than "confession of our hope" in Heb 10:23, although the rendition of elpis by "faith" was arbitrary. So in Ro 8:20-24, "hope" is scarcely more than "faith" in this specialized aspect. In particular, in 8:24 we have as the most natural translation (compare Eph 2:5,8), "By hope we were saved" (so the King James Version, the English Revised Version, the American Revised Version margin), only a pedantic insistence on words can find in this any departure from the strictest Pauline theology (compare the essential outlook on the future of the classic example of "saving faith" in Ro 4:18-22, especially verse 18). Still, the combination is unusual, and the Greek may be rendered equally well "For hope we were saved" ("in hope" of the American Standard Revised Version is not so good); i.e. our salvation, in so far as it is past, is but to prepare us for what is to come (compare Eph 4:4; 1Pe 1:3). But this postponement of the full attainment, through developing faith, gives stedfastness (Ro 8:25; compare 1Th 1:3; 5:8; Heb 3:6; 6:11), which could be gained in no other way. On the other hand this stedfastness, produced by hope, reacts again on hope and increases it (Ro 5:4; 15:4). and so on. But no attempt is made in the New Testament to give a catalogue of the "fruits of hope," and, indeed, such lists are inevitably artificial.

(4) One passage that deserves special attention is 1Co 13:13, "Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three." "Abideth" is in contrast to "shall be done away" in 13:8,9, and the time of the abiding is consequently after the Parousia; i.e. while many gifts are for the present world only, faith, hope and love are eternal and endure in the next world. 1Co 13 is evidently a very carefully written section, and the permanence of faith and hope cannot be set down to any mere carelessness on Paul’s part, but the meaning is not very clear. Probably he felt that the triad of virtues was so essentially a part of the Christian’s character that the existence of the individual without them was unthinkable, without trying to define what the object of faith and hope would be in the glorified state. If any answer is to be given, it must be found in the doctrine that even in heaven life will not be static but will have opportunities of unlimited growth. Never will the finite soul be able to dispense entirely with faith, while at each stage the growth into the next can be anticipated through hope.

3. Practical:

Only adventist bodies can use all the New Testament promises literally, and the translation of the eschatological language into modern practical terms is not always easy. The simplest method is that already well developed in the Fourth Gospel, where the phrase "kingdom of God" is usually replaced by the words "eternal life," i.e. for a temporal relation between this world and the next is substituted a local, so that the accent is laid on the hope that awaits the individual beyond the grave. On the other hand, the cataclysmic imagery of the New Testament may be interpreted in evolutionary form. God, by sending into the world the supernatural power seen in the Christian church, is working for the race as well as for the individual, and has for His whole creation, as well as for individual souls, a goal in store. The individual has for his support the motives of the early church and, in particular, learns through the cross that even his own sins shall not disappoint him of his hope. But both of the above interpretations are needed if religion is fairly to represent the spirit of the New Testament. A pure individualism that looks only beyond the grave for its hope empties the phrase "kingdom of God" of its meaning and tends inevitably to asceticism. And, in contrast, the religion of Jesus cannot be reduced to a mere hope of ethical advance for the present world. A Christianity that loses a transcendent, eschatological hope ceases to be Christianity.

Burton Scott Easton


hof’-ni, fin’-e-as, -az (chophni, "pugilist" (?), pinechac, probably "face of brass"): Sons of Eli, priests of the sanctuary at Shiloh. Their character was wicked enough to merit the double designation "sons of Eli" and (the King James Version) "sons of Belial" (the Revised Version, margin "base men," 1Sa 2:12). Their evil practices are described (1Sa 2:12-17). Twice is Eli warned concerning them, once by an unknown prophet (1Sa 2:27 ) and again by the lips of the young Samuel (1Sa 3:11-18). The curse fell at the battle of Aphek (1Sa 4:1-18) at which the brothers were slain, the ark was taken and the disaster occurred which caused Eli’s death. Phinehas was father of the posthumous Ichabod, whose name marks the calamity (see ICHABOD). A remoter sequel to the prophetic warnings is seen in the deposition of Abiathar, of the house of Eli, from the priestly office (1Ki 2:26,27,35).

Henry Wallace





hor (hor ha-har; literally, "Hor, the mountain"):

1. Not Jebel Neby Harun:

(1) a tradition identifying this mountain with Jebel Neby Harun may be traced from the time of Josephus (Ant., IV, iv, 7) downward. Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. Hor) favors this identification, which has been accepted by many travelers and scholars. In HDB, while noting the fact that it has been questioned, Professor Hull devotes all the space at his disposal to a description of Jebel Neby Harun. It is now recognized, however, that this identification is impossible. Niebuhr (Reise nach Arabic, 238), Pocoke (Description of the East, I, 157), Robinson (BR, I, 185), Ewald (Hist. of Israel, II, 201, note), and others had pointed out difficulties in the way, but the careful discussion of Dr. H. Clay Trumbull (Kadesh Barnea, 127 ff) finally disposed of the claims of Jebel Neby Harun.

2. Suggested Identification:

From Nu 20:22; 33:37 we may perhaps infer that Mt. Hor, "in the edge of the land of Edom," was about a day’s journey from Kadesh. The name "Hor the mountain" suggests a prominent feature of the landscape. Aaron was buried there (Nu 20:28; De 32:50). It was therefore not in Mt. Seir (De 2:5), of which not even a foot-breadth was given to Israel. Jebel Neby Harun is certainly a prominent feature of the landscape, towering over the tumbled hills that form the western edges of the Edom plateau to a height of 4,800 ft. But it is much more than a day’s journey from Kadesh, while it is well within the boundary of Mt. Seir. The king of Arad was alarmed at the march to Mt. Hor. Had Israel marched toward Jebel Neby Harun, away to the Southeast, it could have caused him no anxiety, as he dwelt in the north.

3. Jebel Maderah:

This points to some eminence to the North or Northeast of Kadesh. A hill meeting sufficiently all these conditions is Jebel Maderah (see HALAK, MOUNT), which rises to the Northeast of ‘Ain qadis (Kadeshbarnea). It stands at the extreme Northwest boundary of the land of Edom, yet not within that boundary. Above the barrenness of the surrounding plain this "large, singular-looking, isolated chalk hill" rises "alone like a lofty citadel," "steep-sided" and "quite naked." Here the solemn transactions described in Nu 20:22 ff could have been carried out literally, "in the sight of all the congregation." While certainty is impossible, no more likely suggestion has been made.

(2) A mountain named only in Nu 34:7 f as on the North boundary of the land of Israel. No success has attended the various attempts made to identify this particular height. Some would make it Mt. Hermon (Hull, HDB, under the word); others Jebel Akkar, an outrunner on the Northeast of Lebanon (Furrer, ZDPV, VIII, 27), and others the mountain at the "knee of" Nahr el-Qasimiyeh (van Kasteren, Rev. Biblical, 1895, 30 f). In Eze 47:15 ha-derekh, should certainly be amended to chadhrakh, a proper name, instead of "the way." Possibly then Mt. Hor should disappear from Nu 34:7 f, and we should read, with slight emendation, "From the great sea ye shall draw a line for you as far as Hadrach, and from Hadrach ...."

W. Ewing


hor-ha-gid’-gad (chor ha-gidhgadh): A desert camp of the Israelites between Beeroth Bene-jaakan and Jotbathah (Nu 33:32 f). In De 10:7 it is called Gudgodah.



ho’-ram (horam, "height"): a king of Gezer defeated by Joshua when he came to the help of Lachish, which Joshua was besieging (Jos 10:33).





ho’-rem (chorem, "consecrated"): One of the fenced cities in the territory of Naphtali (Jos 19:38), named with Iron and Migdal-el. It may possibly be identified with the modern Hurah, which lies on a mound at the South end of Wady el-‘Ain, to the West of Qedes.


ho’-resh (choreshah, 1Sa 23:15,18, margin only; Septuagint en Te Kaine, "in the New"; English Versions of the Bible "in the wood" (ba-choreshdh), the particle "in" being combined with the article): Choresh in other passages is translated "forest" (compare 2Ch 27:4; Isa 17:9; Eze 31:3) and it is most probable that it should be so translated here.


ho’-ri (chori, "cave-dweller"):

(1) A Horite descendant of Esau (Ge 36:22; 1Ch 1:39).

(2) A Simonite, father of Shaphat, one of the twelve spies (Nu 13:5).


ho’-rit, ho’-rim (chori, chorim; Chorraioi): Denoted the inhabitants of Mt. Seir before its occupation by the Edomites (De 2:12). Seir is accordingly called Horite in Ge 36:20,30, where a list of his descendants is given, who afterward mixed with the invading Edomites. Esau himself married the daughter of the Horite chieftain Anah (Ge 36:25; see 36:2, where "Hivite" must be corrected into "Horite"). The "Horites" in their "Mt. Seir" were among the nations defeated by the army of Chedorlaomer in the age of Abraham (Ge 14:6). The Hebrew Horitc, however, is the Khar of the Egyptian inscriptions, a name given to the whole of Southern Palestine and Edom as well as to the adjacent sea. In accordance with this we find in the Old Testament also traces of the existence of the Horites in other parts of the country besides Mt. Seir. In Ge 34:2; Jos 9:7, the Septuagint (Cod. A) more correctly reads "Horite" instead of "Hivite" for the inhabitants of Shechem and Gibeon, and Caleb is said to be "the son of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah" or Bethlehem (1Ch 2:50; 4:4). Hor or Horite has sometimes been explained to mean "cave-dweller"; it more probably, however, denotes the "white" race. The Horites were Semites, and consequently are distinguished in De 2:12 from the tall race of Rephaim.

A. H. Sayce


hor’-ma (chormah): A city first mentioned in connection with the defeat of the Israelites by the Amalekites and the Canaanites, when, after the ten spies who brought an evil report of the land had died of plague, the people persisted, against the will of Moses, in going "up unto the place which Yahweh hath promised" (Nu 14:45; De 1:44). after the injury done them by the king of Arad, Israel took the city, utterly destroyed it, and called it Hormah, i, e. "accursed" (Nu 21:3). To this event probably the reference is in Jud 1:17; where Judah and Simeon are credited with the work. In Jos 12:14 it is named between Geder and Arad; in Jos 15:30 between Chesil and Ziklag, among the uttermost cities toward the border of Edom in the South; and in Jos 19:4 between Bethul and Ziklag (compare 1Ch 4:30). To it David sent a share of the spoil taken from the Amalekites who had raided Ziklag (1Sa 30:30). The city must have lain not far from Kadesh, probably to the Northeast. No name resembling Hormah has been recovered in that district. The ancient name was Zephath (Jud 1:17). It is not unlikely that in popular use this name outlived Hormah: and in some form it may survive to this day. In that case it may be represented by the modern ec-Cabaita between el-Khalaca in the North and ‘Ain Qadis in the South, about 23 miles from the latter. If we may identify Ziklag with ‘Asluj, about 14 miles North of ec-Cabaita, the probability is heightened. Robinson (BR, III, 150) compares the name Zephath with that of Naqb ec-Cafa, to the North of Wady el-Fiqrah; but this appears to be too far—about 40 miles—from Kadesh.

W. Ewing


horn (Hebrew and Aramaic qeren; keras; for the "ram’s horn" (yobhel) of Jos 6 see MUSIC, and for the "inkhorn" of Eze 9 (qeceth) see separate article):

(1) Qeren and keras represent the English "horn" exactly, whether on the animal (Ge 22:13), or used for musical purposes (Jos 6:5; 1Ch 25:5), or for containing a liquid (1Sa 16:1,13; 1Ki 1:39), but in Eze 27:15 the horns of ivory are of course tusks and the "horns" of ebony are small (pointed?) logs. Consequently most of the usages require no explanation.

(2) Both the altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:2; 38:2; compare Eze 43:15) and the incense altar (Ex 30:2; 37:25,26; compare Re 9:13) had "horns," which are explained to be projections "of one piece with" the wooden framework and covered with the brass (or gold) that covered the altar. They formed the most sacred part of the altar and were anointed with the blood of the most solemn sacrifices (only) (Ex 30:10; Le 4:7,18,25,30,34; 16:18; compare Eze 43:20), and according to Le 8:15; 9:9, the first official sacrifices began by anointing them. Consequently cutting off the horns effectually desecrated the altar (Am 3:14), while "sin graven on them" (Jer 17:1) took all efficacy from the sacrifice. On the other hand they offered the highest sanctuary (1Ki 1:50,51; 2:28). Of their symbolism nothing whatever is said, and the eventual origin is quite obscure. "Remnants of a bull-cult" and "miniature sacred towers" have been suggested, but are wholly uncertain. A more likely origin is from an old custom of draping the altar with skins of sacrificed animals (RS, 436). That, however, the "horns" were mere conveniences for binding the sacrificial animals (Ps 118:27, a custom referred to nowhere else in the Old Testament), is most unlikely.


(3) The common figurative use of "horn" is taken from the image of battling animals (literal use in Da 8:7, etc.) to denote aggressive strength. So Zedekiah ben Chenaanah illustrates the predicted defeat of the enemies by pushing with iron horns (1Ki 22:11; 2Ch 18:10), while "horns of the wildox" (De 33:17; Ps 22:21; 92:10, the King James Version "unicorn") represent the magnitude of power, and in Zec 1:18-21 "horns" stand for power in general. In Hab 3:4 the "horns coming out of his hand" denote the potency of Yahweh’s gesture (the Revised Version (British and American) "rays" may be smoother, but is weak). So to "exalt the horn" (1Sa 2:1,10; Ps 75:4, etc.) is to clothe with strength, and to "cut off the horn" (not to be explained by Am 3:14) is to rob of power (Ps 75:10; Jer 48:25). Hence, the "horn of salvation" in 2Sa 22:3; Ps 18:2; Lu 1:69 is a means of active defense and not a place of sanctuary as in 1Ki 1:50. When, in Da 7:7-24; 8:3,8,9,20,21; Re 13:1; 17:3,7,12,16, many horns are given to the same animal, they figure successive nations or rulers. But the seven horns in Re 5:6; 12:3 denote the completeness of the malevolent or righteous power. In Re 13:11, however, the two horns point only to the external imitation of the harmless lamb, the "horns" being mere stubs.

Burton Scott Easton


hor’-net (tsir‘ah; compare tsor‘ah, "Zorah" (Jud 13:2, etc.); also compare tsara‘ath, "leprosy" (Le 13:2, etc.); from tsara‘, "to smite"; Septuagint sphekia, literally, "wasp’s nest"): Hornets are mentioned only in Ex 23:28; De 7:20; Jos 24:12. All three references are to the miraculous interposition of God in driving out before the Israelites the original inhabitants of the promised land. There has been much speculation as to whether hornets are literally meant. The following seems to throw some light on this question (Ex 23:20,27,28): "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. .... I will send my terror before thee, and will discomfit all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send the hornet before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee." The "terror" of Ex 23:27 may well be considered to be typified by the "hornet" of 23:28, the care for the Israelites (23:20) being thrown into marked contrast with the confusion of their enemies. Compare Isa 7:18, where the fly and the bee symbolize the military forces of Egypt and Assyria: "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."

Hornets and wasps belong to the family Vespidae of the order Hymenoptera. Both belong to the genus Vespa, the hornets being distinguished by their large size. Both hornets and wasps are abundant in Palestine (compare Zorah, which may mean "town of hornets"). a large kind is called in Arabic debbur, which recalls the Hebrew debhorah, "bee." They sting fiercely, but not unless molested.

Alfred Ely Day


(qare-noth ha-mizbeach):

1. The Brazen Altar:

These projections at the four corners of the altar of burnt offering were of one piece with the altar, and were made of acacia wood overlaid with brass (Ex 27:2, "bronze"). In Ezekiel’s altar-specifications their position is described as being on a level with the altar hearth (Eze 43:15). Fugitives seeking asylum might cling to the horns of the altar, as did Adonijah (1Ki 1:50), which is one proof among many that worshippers had at all times access to the neighborhood of the altar. On certain occasions, as at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex 29:12), and a sin offering for one of the people of the land (Le 4:30), the horns were touched with sacrificial blood.

2. The Golden Altar:

The altar of incense, standing in the outer chamber of the sanctuary, had also four horns, which were covered with gold (Ex 37:25). These were touched with blood in the case of a sin offering for a high priest, or for the whole congregation, if they had sinned unwittingly (Le 4:7,18).


W. Shaw Caldecott




hor-o-na’-im (~choronayim]; Aronieim; in Jeremiah Oronaim, "the two hollows"): an unidentified place in the South of Moab. It is named in Jer 48:5. Isaiah (15:5) and Jeremiah (48:3) speak of "the way to Horanaim"; and Jeremiah (48:5) of the ," descent," or "going down" of Horonaim. Mesha (MS) says he was bidden by Chemosh to "go down" and fight against Choronem. Probably, therefore, it lay on one of the roads leading down from the Moabite plateau to the Arabah. It is mentioned by Josephus as having been taken by Alexander Janneus (Ant., XIII, xv, 4). Hyrcanus promised to restore it and the rest to Aretas (XIV, i, 4). There is no indication that in early times it was ever possessed by Israel. Buhl (GAP 272 f) thinks it may be represented by some significant ruins near Wady ed-Dera‘a (Wady Kerak).

W. Ewing


hor’-o-nit, ho’-ro-nit (ha-choroni): an appellation of Sanballat (Ne 2:10,19; 13:28), as an inhabitant of BETH-HORON (which see).


hor’-i-b’-l (sha‘arur, sha‘aruri): In Jer 5:30 sha‘arur, "vile," "horrible," is translated "horrible," "a wonderful and horrible thing" the Revised Version margin "astonishment and horror"; also Jer 23:14; in 18:13; Ho 6:10 it is sha‘aruri; in Ps 11:6 we have zil‘aphah, "heat," the Revised Version (British and American) "burning wind"; in Ps 40:2 sha’on, "noise," "tumult," "He brought me up .... out of a horrible pit," the Revised Version margin "a pit of tumult" (or destruction). Horribly is the translation of sa‘ar, "to shudder," "to be whirled away," in Jer 2:12, and of sa‘ar, "fear," "trembling," in Eze 32:10; in Eze 27:35 the Revised Version (British and American) has "horribly afraid" (sa‘ar) for "sore afraid." "Horrible" occurs frequently in Apocrypha (2 Esdras 11:45; 15:28,34; The Wisdom of Solomon 3:19, "For horrible (chalepos) is the end of the unrighteous generation" the Revised Version (British and American) "grievous" etc.).

W. L. Walker


hor’-er (’emah, pallatsuth): In Ge 15:12 ‘emah (often rendered "terror") is translated "horror," "a horror of great darkness"; pallatsuth, "trembling," "horror" (Ps 55:5; Eze 7:18); zal‘aphah, "glow," "heat" (Ps 119:53, the Revised Version (British and American) "hot indignation," margin "horror"); compare Ps 11:6; La 5:10. For "trembling" (Job 21:6) and for "fearfulness" (Isa 21:4) the Revised Version (British and American) has "horror." "Horror" does not occur in the New Testament, but in 2 Macc 3:17 we have "The man was so compassed with horror" (phrikasmos), the Revised Version (British and American) "shuddering."



1. Names:

The common names are (1) cuc, and

(2) hippos.

(3) The word parash, "horseman," occurs often, and in several cases is translated "horse" or "warhorse" (Isa 28:28; Eze 27:14; Joe 2:4 the Revised Version, margin); also in 2Sa 16, where the "horsemen" of English Versions of the Bible is ba‘ale ha-parashim, "owners of horses"; compare Arabic faris, "horseman," and faras, "horse".

(4) The feminine form cucah, occurs in So 1:9, and is rendered as follows: Septuagint he hippos; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) equitatum; the King James Version "company of horses," the Revised Version (British and American) "steed." It is not clear why English Versions of the Bible does not have "mare."

(5) The word ‘abbirim, "strong ones," is used for horses in Jud 5:22; Jer 8:16; 47:3; 50:11 (the King James Version "bulls"). In Ps 22:12 the same word is translated "strong bulls" (of Bashan).

(6) For [~rekhesh (compare Arabic rakad, "to run"), in 1Ki 4:28; Es 8:10,14; Mic 1:13, the Revised Version (British and American) has "swift steeds," while the King James Version gives "dromedaries" in 1Ki and "mules" in Est.

(7) For kirkaroth (Isa 66:20), the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "swift beasts"; the English Revised Version margin and the American Standard Revised Version "dromedaries"; Septuagint skiddia, perhaps "covered carriages." In Es 8:10,14 we find the doubtful words

(8) ‘achashteranim, and

(9) bene ha-rammakim, which have been variously translated. the King James Version has respectively "camels" and "young dromedaries," the Revised Version (British and American) "used in the king’s service" and "bred of the stud," the Revised Version margin "mules" and "young dromedaries."


2. Origin:

The Hebrew and Egyptian names for the horse are alike akin to the Assyrian. The Jews may have obtained horses from Egypt (De 17:16), but the Canaanites before them had horses (Jos 17:16), and in looking toward the Northeast for the origin of the horse, philologists are in agreement with zoologists who consider that the plains of Central Asia, and also of Europe, were the original home of the horse. At least one species of wild horse is still found in Central Asia.

3. Uses:

The horses of the Bible are almost exclusively war-horses, or at least the property of kings and not of the common people. A doubtful reference to the use of horses in threshing grain is found in Isa 28:28. Horses are among the property which the Egyptians gave to Joseph in exchange for grain (Ge 47:17). In De 17:16 it is enjoined that the king "shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses." This and other injunctions failed to prevent the Jews from borrowing from the neighboring civilizations their customs, idolatries, and vices. Solomon’s horses are enumerated in 1Ki 4, and the se‘irim and tebhen of 1Ki 4:28 (5:8) are identical with the sha‘ir ("barley") and tibn ("straw") with which the arab feeds his horse today. In war, horses were ridden and were driven in chariots (Ex 14:9; Jos 11:4; 2Sa 15:1, etc.).

4. Figurative and Descriptive:

The horse is referred to figuratively chiefly in Zechariah and Revelation. A chariot and horses of fire take Elijah up to heaven (2Ki 2:11 f). In Ps 20:7; 33:17; and 76:6, the great strength of the horse is recalled as a reminder of the greater strength of God. In Jas 3:3, the small bridle by which the horse can be managed is compared to the tongue (compare Ps 32:9). In Job 39:19-25 we have a magnificent description of a spirited war-horse.

Alfred Ely Day




(hippos melas): Symbolic of famine ("balance .... measure of wheat for a shilling," etc., Re 6:5,6; compare Zec 6:2,6).



(hippos purros): Symbolic of war, bloodshed ("slay one another," etc., Re 6:4; compare Zec 18; 6:2).



(hippos leukos): Symbolic of victory, conquest ("bow .... conquering and to conquer," Re 6:2; 19:11,14; compare Zec 1:8; 6:3,1).



hors’-lech (‘aluqah; compare Arabic ‘aluqah, "ghoul," and ‘alaqah, "leech," from root ‘aliq, "to cling"; Septuagint bdella, "leech"): The word occurs only once, in Pr 30:15, the Revised Version margin "vampire." In Arabic ‘alaqah is a leech of any kind, not only a horse-leech. The Arabic ‘aluqah, which, it may be noted, is almost identical with the Hebrew form, is a ghoul (Arabic ghul), an evil spirit which seeks to injure men and which preys upon the dead. The mythical vampire is similar to the ghoul. In zoology the name "vampire" is applied to a family of bats inhabiting tropical America, some, but not all, of which suck blood. In the passage cited the Arabic Bible has ‘aluqah, "ghoul." If leech is meant, there can be no good reason for specifying "horseleach." At least six species of leech are known in Palestine and Syria, and doubtless others exist. They are common in streams, pools, and fountains where animals drink. They enter the mouth, attach themselves to the interior of the mouth or pharynx, and are removed only with difficulty.

Alfred Ely Day





(2Ki 23:11): In connection with the sun-worship practiced by idolatrous kings in the temple at Jerusalem (2Ki 23:5; compare Eze 8:16), horses dedicated to the sun, with chariots, had been placed at the entrance of the sacred edifice. These Josiah, in his great reformation, "took away," and burned the chariots with fire. Horses sacred to the sun were common among oriental peoples (Bochart, Heiroz., I, 2, 10).


ho’-sa (chocah): A city on the border of Asher, in the neighborhood of Tyre (Jos 19:29). Septuagint reads Iaseiph, which might suggest identification with Kefr Yasif, to the Northeast of Acre. Possibly, however, as Sayce (HCM, 429) and Moore (Judges, 51) suggest, Hosah may represent the Assyrian Usu. Some scholars think that Usu was the Assyrian name for Palaetyrus. If "the fenced city of Tyre" were that on the island, while the city on the mainland lay at Ras el-‘Ain, 30 stadia to the South (Strabo xvi.758), this identification is not improbable.


ho-zan’-a (hosanna): This Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word occurs 6 times in the Gospels as the cry of the people when our Lord entered Jerusalem as the Messiah represented by Zec (9:9), and of "the children" when He cleansed the temple (Mt 21:9 bis, 15; Mr 11:9 f; Joh 12:13). In Mt 21:9 it is "Hosanna to the son of David!" followed by "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest!"; in 21:15 it is also "Hosanna to the Son of David!"; in Mr 11:9 f it is "Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest"; and in Joh 12:13 it is "Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel." Thus in all the evangelists it is an acclamation or ascription of praise. This has raised the question whether the supposed derivation from Ps 118:25, beginning with ‘annah YHWH hoshi‘ah nna’," Save now, pray" (which is followed (118:26) by "Blessed be he that cometh (the Revised Version margin "or entereth") in the name of Yahweh") is correct. (See Thayer, HDB; Cheyne, EB; Dalman, Words of Jesus.) Various other explanations have been suggested. Thayer remarks, "It is most natural to regard the word Hosanna, as respects its form, as neither syncopated nor contracted, but the shorter Hiphil imperative with the appended enclitic" (hosha‘na’; compare Ps 86:2; Jer 31:7), for which there is Talmudic warrant. "As respects its force, we must for .... contextual reasons, assume that it had already lost its primary supplicatory sense and become an ejaculation of joy or shout of welcome." It is said to have been so used in this sense at the joyous Feast of Tabernacles, the 7th day of which came to be called "the Great Hosanna," or "Hosanna Day." But, while the word is certainly an ejaculation of praise and not one of supplication, the idea of salvation need not be excluded. As in Re 7:10 (compare 19:1), we have the acclamation, "Salvation unto God .... and unto the Lamb," so we might have the cry, "Salvation to the son of David"; and "Hosanna in the Highest," might be the equivalent of "Salvation unto our God!" He who was "coming in the name of the Lord" was the king who was bringing salvation from God to the people.

W. L. Walker




1. Name

2. Native Place

3. Date

4. Personal History (Marriage)

(1) Allegorical View

(2) Literal View


1. Style and Scope

2. Historical Background

3. Contents and Divisions

(1) Hosea 1-3

(2) Hosea 4-14

4. Testimony to Earlier History

5. Testimony to Law

6. Affinity with Deuteronomy


I. The Prophet.

1. Name:

The name (hoshea Septuagint Osee-; for other forms see note in DB), probably meaning "help," seems to have been not uncommon, being derived from the auspicious verb from which we have the frequently recurring word "salvation." It may be a contraction of a larger form of which the Divine name or its abbreviation formed a part, so as to signify "God is help," or "Help, God." according to Nu 13:8,16 that was the original name of Joshua son of Nun, till Moses gave him the longer name (compounded with the name of Yahweh) which he continued to bear (yehoshua‘), "Yahweh is salvation." The last king of the Northern Kingdom was also named Hosea (2Ki 15:30), and we find the same name borne by a chief of the tribe of Ephraim under David (1Ch 27:20) and by a chief under Nehemiah (Ne 10:23).

2. Native Place:

Although it is not directly stated in the book, there can be little doubt that he exercised his ministry in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Whereas his references to Judah are of a general kind, Ephraim or Samaria being sometimes mentioned in the same connection or more frequently alone, the situation implied throughout and the whole tone of the addresses agree with what we know of the Northern Kingdom at the time, and his references to places and events in that kingdom are so numerous and minute as to lead to the conclusion that he not only prophesied there, but that he was a native of that part of the country. Gilead, e.g. a district little named in the prophets, is twice mentioned in Ho (6:8; 12:11) and in such a manner as to suggest that he knew it by personal observation; and Mizpah (mentioned in 5:1) is no doubt the Mizpah in Gilead (Jud 10:17). Then we find Tabor (Ho 5:1), Shechem (Ho 6:9 the Revised Version (British and American)), Gilgal and Bethel (Ho 4:15; 9:15; 10:5,8,15; 12:11). Even Lebanon in the distant North is spoken of with a minuteness of detail which could be expected only from one very familiar with Northern Palestine (Ho 14:5-8). In a stricter sense, therefore, than amos who, though a native of Tekoah, had a prophetic mission to the North, Hosea may be called the prophet of Northern Israel, and his book, as Ewald has said, is the prophetic voice wrung from the bosom of the kingdom itself.

3. Date:

All that we are told directly as to the time when Hosea prophesied is the statement in the first verse that the word of the Lord came to him "in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel." It is quite evident that his ministry did not extend over the combined reigns of all these kings; for, from the beginning of the reign of Uzziah to the beginning of that of Hezekiah, according to the now usually received chronology (Kautzsch, Literature of the Old Testament, English Translation), there is a period of 52 years, and Jeroboam came to his throne a few years before the accession of Uzziah.

When we examine the book itself for more precise indications of date, we find that the prophet threatens in God’s name that in "a little while" He will "avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu." Now Jeroboam was the great-grandson of Jehu, and his son Zechariah, who succeeded him, reigned only six months and was the last of the line of Jehu. We may, therefore, place the beginning of Hosea’s ministry a short time before the death of Jeroboam which took place 743 BC. as to the other limit, it is to be observed that, though the downfall of "the kingdom of the house of Israel" is threatened (Ho 1:4), the catastrophe had not occurred when the prophet ceased his ministry. The date of that event is fixed in the year 722 BC, and it is said to have happened in the 6th year of King Hezekiah. This does not give too long a time for Hosea’s activity, and it leaves the accuracy of the superscription unchallenged, whoever may have written it. If it is the work of a later editor, it may be that Hosea’s ministry ceased before the reign of Hezekiah, though he may have lived on into that king’s reign. It should be added, however, that there seems to be no reference to another event which might have been expected to find an echo in the book, namely, the conspiracy in the reign of Ahaz (735 BC) by Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus against the kingdom of Judah (2Ki 16:5; Isa 7:1).

Briefly we may say that, though there is uncertainty as to the precise dates of the beginning and end of his activity, he began his work before the middle of the 8th century, and that he saw the rise and fall of several kings. He would thus be a younger contemporary of amos whose activity seems to have been confined to the reign of Jeroboam.

4. Personal History (Marriage):

Hosea is described as the son of Beeri, who is otherwise unknown. Of his personal history we are told either absolutely nothing or else a very great deal, according as we interpret chapters 1 and 3 of his book. In ancient and in modern times, opinions have been divided as to whether in these chapters we have a recital of actual facts, or the presentation of prophetic teaching in the form of parable or allegory.

(1) Allegorical View.

The Jewish interpreters as a rule took the allegorical view, and Jerome, in the early Christian church, no doubt following Origen the great allegorizer, states it at length, and sees an intimation of the view in the closing words of Hosea’s book: "Who is wise, that he may understand these things? prudent, that he may know them?" (Ho 14:9).

It is a mystery, he says; for it is a scandal to think of Hosea being commanded to take an unchaste wife and without any reluctance obeying the command. It is a figure, like that of Jeremiah going to the Euphrates (when Jerusalem was closely besieged) and hiding a girdle in the bed of the river (Jer 13). So Ezekiel is commanded to represent, by means of a tile, the siege of Jerusalem, and to lie 390 days on his side to indicate the years of their iniquity (Eze 4); and there are other symbolical acts. Jerome then proceeds to apply the allegory first to Israel, which is the Gomer of chapter 1, and then to Judah, the wife in chapter 3, and finally to Christ and the church, the representations being types from beginning to end.

Calvin took the same view. Among modern commentators we find holding the allegorical view not only Hengstenberg, Havernick and Keil, but also Eichhorn, Rosenmuller and Hitzig. Reuss also (Das Altes Testament, II, 88 ff) protests against the literal interpretation as impossible, and that on no moral or reverential considerations, but entirely on exegetical grounds. He thinks it enough to say that, when the prophet calls his children "children of whoredom," he indicates quite clearly that he uses the words in a figurative sense; and he explains the allegory as follows: The prophet is the representative of Yahweh; Israel is the wife of Yahweh, but faithless to her husband, going after other gods; the children are the Israelites, who are therefore called children of whoredoms because they practice the idolatry of the nation. So they receive names which denote the consequences of their sin. In accordance with the allegory, the children are called the children of the prophet (for israel is God’s own) but this is not the main point; the essential thing is the naming of the children as they are named. In the third chapter, according to this interpretation, allegory again appears, but with a modification and for another purpose. Idolatrous Israel is again the unfaithful wife of the prophet as the representative of Yahweh. This relation can again be understood only as figurative; for, if the prophet stands for Yahweh, the marriage of Israel to the prophet cannot indicate infidelity to Yahweh. The sense is evident: the marriage still subsists; God does not give His people up, but they are for the present divorced "from bed and board"; it is a prophecy of the time when Yahweh will leave the people to their fate, till the day of reconciliation comes.

(2) Literal View.

The literal interpretation, adopted by Theodore of Mopsucstia in the ancient church, was followed, after the Reformation, by the chief theologians of the Lutheran church, and has been held, in modern times, by many leading expositors, including Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hofmann, Wellhausen, Cheyne, Robertson Smith, G. A. Smith and others. In this view, as generally held, chapters 1 and 3 go together and refer to the same person. The idea is that Hosea married a woman named Gomer, who had the three children here named. Whether it was that she was known to be a worthless woman before the marriage and that the prophet hoped to reclaim her, or that she proved faithless after the marriage, she finally left him and sank deeper and deeper into sin, until, at some future time, the prophet bought her from her paramour and brought her to his own house, keeping her secluded, however, and deprived of all the privileges of a wife. In support of this view it is urged that the details are related in so matter-of-fact a manner that they must be matters of fact. Though the children receive symbolical names (as Isaiah gave such names to his children), the meanings of these are clear and are explained, whereas the name of the wife cannot thus be explained. Then there are details, such as the weaning of one child before the conception of another (Ho 1:8) and the precise price paid for the erring wife (Ho 3:2), which are not needed to keep up the allegory, and are not invested with symbolical meaning by the prophet. What is considered a still stronger argument is relied on by modern advocates of this view, the psychological argument that there is always a proportion between a revelation vouchsafed and the mental state of the person receiving it. Hosea dates the beginning of his prophetic work from the time of his marriage; it was the unfaithfulness of his wife that brought home to him the apostasy of Israel; and, as his heart went after his wayward wife, so the Divine love was stronger than Israel’s sin; and thus through his own domestic experience he was prepared to be a prophet to his people.

The great difficulty in the way of accepting the literal interpretation lies, as Reuss has pointed out, in the statement at the beginning, that the prophet was commanded to take a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms. And the advocates of the view meet the difficulties in some way like this: The narrative as it stands is manifestly later than the events. On looking back, the prophet describes his wife as she turned out to be, not as she was at the beginning of the history. It is urged with some force that it was necessary to the analogy (even if the story is only a parable) that the wife should have been first of all chaste; for, in Hosea’s representation, Israel at the time of its election in the wilderness was faithful and fell away only afterward (Ho 2:15; 9:10; 11:1). The narrative does not require us to assume that Comer was an immoral person or that she was the mother of children before her marriage. The children receive symbolic names, but these names do not reflect upon Gomer but upon Israel. Why, then, is she described as a woman of Whoredoms? It is answered that the expression ‘esheth zenunim is a class-descriptive, and is different from the expression "a woman who is a harlot" (’ishshdh zonah). A Jewish interpreter quoted by Aben Ezra says: "Hosea was commanded to take a wife of whoredoms because an honest woman was not to be had. The whole people had gone astray—was an ‘adulterous generation’; and she as one of them was a typical example, and the children were involved in the common declension (see Ho 4:1 f) ." The comment of Umbreit is worthy of notice: "as the covenant of Yahweh with Israel is viewed as a marriage bond, so is the prophetic bond with Israel a marriage, for he is the messenger and mediator. Therefore, if he feels an irresistible impulse to enter into the marriage-bond with Israel, he is bound to unite himself with a bride of an unchaste character. Yea, his own wife Comer is involved in the universal guilt" (Prak. Commentary uber die Propheten, Hamburg, 1844). It is considered, then, on this view, that Gomer, after her marriage, being in heart addicted to the prevailing idolatry, which we know was often associated with gross immorality (see Ho 4:13), felt the irksomeness of restraint in the prophet’s house, left him and sank into open profligacy, from which (Ho 3) the prophet reclaimed her so far as to bring her back and keep her secluded in his own house.

Quite recently this view has been advocated by Riedel (Alttest. Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1902), who endeavors to enforce it by giving a symbolic meaning to Gomer’s name, Bath-Diblaim. The word is the dual (or might be pointed as a plural) of a word, debhelah, meaning a fruitcake, i.e. raisins or figs pressed together. It is the word used in the story of Hezekiah’s illness (2Ki 20:7), and is found in the list of things furnished by abigail to David (1Sa 25:18). See also 1Sa 30:12; 1Ch 12:40. Another name for the same thing, ashishah, occurs in Ho 3:1, rendered in the King James Version "flagons of wine," but in the Revised Version (British and American) "cakes of raisins." It seems clear that this word, at least here, denotes fruit-cakes offered to the heathen deities, as was the custom in Jeremiah’s time (Jer 7:18; 44:17). So Riedel argues that Comer may have been described as a "daughter of fruit-cakes" according to the Hebrew idiom in such expressions as "daughters of song," etc. (Ec 12:4; Pr 31:2; 2Sa 7:10; Ge 37:3, etc.).

It will be perceived that the literal interpretation as thus stated does not involve the supposition that Hosea became aware of his wife’s infidelity before the birth of the second child, as Robertson Smith and G. A. Smith suppose. The names given to the children all refer to the infidelity of Israel as a people; and the renderings of Lo’-ruchamah, "she that never knew a father’s love," and of Lo-‘ammi, "no kin of mine," are too violent in this connection. Nor does the interpretation demand that it was first through his marriage and subsequent experience that the prophet received his call; although no doubt the experience through which he passed deepened the conviction of Israel’s apostasy in his mind.

II. The Book.

1. Style and Scope:

Scarcely any book in the Old Testament is more difficult of exposition than the Book of Hosea. This does not seem to be owing to any exceptional defect in the transmitted text, but rather to the peculiarity of the style; and partly also, no doubt, to the fact that the historical situation of the prophet was one of bewildering and sudden change of a violent kind, which seems to reflect itself in the book. The style here is preeminently the man. Whatever view we may take of his personal history, it is evident that he is deeply affected by the situation in which he is placed. He is controlled by his subject, instead of controlling it. It is his heart that speaks; he is not careful to concentrate his thoughts or to mark his transitions; the sentences fall from him like the sobs of a broken heart. Mournful as Jeremiah, he does not indulge in the pleasure of melancholy as that prophet seems to do. Jeremiah broods over his sorrow, nurses it, and tells us he is weeping. Hosea does not say he is weeping, but we hear it in his broken utterances. Instead of laying out his plaint in measured form, he ejaculates it in short, sharp sentences, as the stabs of his people’s sin pierce his heart.

The result is the absence of that rhythmic flow and studied parallelism which are such common features of Hebrew oratory, and are often so helpful to the expositor. His imagery, while highly poetical, is not elaborated; his figures are not so much carried out as thrown out; nor does he dwell long on the same figure. His sentences are like utterances of an oracle, and he forgets himself in identifying himself with the God in whose name he speaks—a feature which is not without significance in its bearing on the question of his personal history. The standing expression "Thus saith the Lord" ("It is the utterance of Yahweh" the Revised Version (British and American)), so characteristic of the prophetic style, very rarely occurs (only in Ho 2:13,16,21; 11:11); whereas the words that he speaks are the very words of the Lord; and without any formal indication of the fact, he passes from speaking in his own name to speaking in the name of Yahweh (see, e.g. Ho 6:4; 7:12; 8:13; 9:9,10,14-17, etc.). Never was speaker so absorbed in his theme, or more identified with Him for whom he speaks. He seems to be oblivious of his hearers, if indeed his chapters are the transcript or summary of spoken addresses. They certainly want to a great extent the directness and point which are so marked a feature of prophetic diction, so much so that some (e.g. Reuss and Marti) suppose they are the production of one who had readers and not hearers in view.

But, though the style appears in this abrupt form, there is one clear note on divers strings sounding through the whole. The theme is twofold: the love of Yahweh, and the indifference of Israel to that love; and it would be hard to say which of the two is more vividly conceived and more forcibly expressed. Under the figures of the tenderest affection, sometimes that of the pitying, solicitous care of the parent (Ho 11:1,3,1; 14:3), but more prominently as the affection of the husband (Ho 1; 3), the Divine love is represented as ever enduring in spite of all indifference and opposition; and, on the other hand, the waywardness, unblushing faithlessness of the loved one is painted in colors so repulsive as almost to shock the moral sense, but giving thereby evidence of the painful abhorrence it had produced on the prophet’s mind. Thus early does he take the sacred bond of husband and wife as the type of the Divine electing love—a similitude found elsewhere in prophetic literature, and most fully elaborated by Ezekiel (Eze 16; compare Jer 3). Hosea is the prophet of love, and not without propriety has been called the John of the Old Testament.

2. Historical Background:

For the reasons just stated, it is very difficult to give a systematic analysis of the Book of Hos. It may, however, be helpful to that end to recall the situation of the time as furnishing a historical setting for the several sections of the book.

At the commencement of the prophet’s ministry, the Northern Kingdom was enjoying the prosperity and running into the excesses consequent on the victories of Jeroboam II. The glaring social corruptions of the times are exhibited and castigated by Amos, as they would most impress a stranger from the South; but Hosea, a native, as we are led suppose, of the Northern Kingdom, saw more deeply into the malady, and traced all the crime and vice of the nation to the fundamental evil of idolatry and apostasy from the true God. What he describes under the repulsive figure of whoredom was the rampant Worship of the be‘alim, which had practically obscured the recognition of the sole claims to worship of the national Yahweh. This worship of the be‘alim is to be distinguished from that of which we read at the earlier time of Elijah. Ahab’s Tyrian wife Jezebel had introduced the worship of her native country, that of the Sidonian Baal, which amounted to the setting up of a foreign deity; and Elijah’s contention that it must be a choice between Yahweh and Baal appealed to the sense of patriotism and the sentiment of national existence. The worship of the ba‘als, however, was an older and more insidious form of idolatry. The worship of the Canaanite tribes, among whom the Israelites found themselves on the occupation of Palestine, was a reverence of local divinities, known by the names of the places where each had his shrine or influence. The generic name of ba‘al or "lord" was applied naturally as a common word to each of these, with the addition of the name of place or potency to distinguish them. Thus we have Baal-hermon, Baal-gad, Baal-berith, etc. The insidiousness of this kind of worship is proved by its wide prevalence, especially among people at a low stage of intelligence, when the untutored mind is brought face to face with the mysterious and unseen forces of Nature. And the tenacity of the feeling is proved by the prevalence of such worship, even among people whose professed religion condemns idolatry of every kind. The veneration of local shrines among Christians of the East and in many parts of Europe is well known; and Mohammedans make pilgrimages to the tombs of saints who, though not formally worshipped as deities, are believed to have the power to confer such benefits as the Canaanites expected from the ba‘als. The very name ba‘al, originally meaning simply lord and master, as in such expressions as "master of a house," "lord of a wife," "owner of an ox," would be misleading; for the Israelites could quite innocently call Yahweh their ba‘al or Lord, as we can see they did in the formation of proper names. We can, without much difficulty, conceive what would happen among a people like the Israelite tribes, of no high grade of religious intelligence, and with the prevailing superstitions in their blood, when they found themselves in Palestine. From a nomad and pastoral people they became, and had to become, agriculturists; the natives of the land would be their instructors, in many or in most cases the actual labor would be done by them. The Book of Jud tells us emphatically that several of the Israelite tribes "did not drive out" the native inhabitants; the northern tribes in particular, where the land was most fertile, tolerated a large native admixture. We are also told (Jud 2:7) that the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua and of the elders who outlived Joshua; and this hint of a gradual declension no doubt points to what actually took place. For a time they remembered and thought of Yahweh as the God who had done for them great things in Egypt and in the wilderness; and then, as time went on, they had to think of Him as the giver of the land in which they found themselves, with all its varied produce. But this was the very thing the Canaanites ascribed to their ba‘als. And so, imperceptibly, by naming places as the natives named them, by observing the customs which the natives followed, and celebrating the festivals of the agricultural year, they were gliding into conformity with the religion of their neighbors; for, in such a state of society, custom is more or less based on religion and passes for religion. Almost before they were aware, they were doing homage to the various ba‘als in celebrating their festival days and offering to them the produce of the ground.

Such was the condition which Hosea describes as an absence of the knowledge of God (Ho 4:1). And the consequence cannot be better described than in the words of Paul: "As they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Ro 1:28). Both Hosea and Amos tell us in no ambiguous terms how the devotees of the impure worship gave themselves up "to work all uncleanness with greediness" (Eph 4:19; compare Am 2:7 f; Ho 4:14); and how deeply the canker had worked into the body politic is proved by the rapid collapse and irretrievable ruin which followed soon after the strong hand of Jeroboam was removed. The 21 years that followed his death in 743 BC saw no fewer than six successive occupants of the throne, and the final disappearance of the kingdom of the ten tribes. Zechariah, his son, had reigned only six months when "Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him .... and slew him, and reigned in his stead" (2Ki 15:10). Shallum himself reigned only a month when he was in the same bloody manner removed by Menahem. After a reign of 10 years, according to 2Ki 15:17 (although the chronology here is uncertain), he was succeeded by his son Pekahiah (2Ki 15:22), and after two years Pekah "his captain" conspired against him and reigned in his stead (2Ki 15:25). This king also was assassinated, and was succeeded by Hoshea (2Ki 15:30), the last king of the ten tribes, for the kingdom came to an end in 722 BC. Hosea must have lived during a great part of those troubled times; and we may expect to hear echoes of the events in his book.

3. Contents and Divisions:

(1) Hosea 1-3.

We should naturally expect that the order of the chapters would correspond in the main with the progress of events; and there is at least a general agreement among expositors that Hosea 1-3 refer to an earlier period than those that follow. In favor of this is the reference in 1:2 to the commencement of the prophet’s ministry, as also the threatening of the impending extirpation of the house of Jehu (1:4), implying that it was still in existence; and finally the hints of the abundance amounting to luxury which marked the prosperous time of Jeroboam’s reign. These three chapters are to be regarded as going together; and, however they may be viewed as reflecting the prophet’s personal experience, they leave no room for doubt in regard to the national apostasy that weighed so heavily on his heart. And this, in effect, is what he says: Just as the wife, espoused to a loving husband, enjoys the protection of home and owes all her provision to her husband, so Israel, chosen by Yahweh and brought by Him into a fertile land, has received all she has from Him alone. The giving of recognition to the ba‘als for material prosperity was tantamount to a wife’s bestowing her affection on another; the accepting of these blessings as bestowed on condition of homage rendered to the ba‘als was tantamount to the receiving of hire by an abandoned woman. This being so, the prophet, speaking in God’s name, declares what He will do, in a series of a thrice repeated "therefore" (2:6,9,14), marking three stages of His discipline. First of all, changing the metaphor to that of a straying heifer, the prophet in God’s name declares (2:6 ff) that He will hedge up her way with thorns, so that she will not be able to reach her lovers—meaning, no doubt, that whether by drought or blight, or some national misfortune, there would be such a disturbance of the processes of Nature that the usual rites of homage to the ba‘als would prove ineffectual. The people would fail to find the "law of the god of the land" (2Ki 17:26). In their perplexity they would bethink themselves, begin to doubt the power of the ba‘als, and resolve to pay to Yahweh the homage they had been giving to the local gods. But this is still the same low conception of Yahweh that had led them astray. To exchange one God for another simply in the hope of enjoying material prosperity is not the service which He requires. And then comes the second "therefore" (Ho 2:9 ). Instead of allowing them to enjoy their corn and wine and oil on the terms of a mere lip allegiance or ritual service, Yahweh will take these away, will reduce Israel to her original poverty, causing all the mirth of her festival days to cease, and giving garments of mourning for festal attire. Her lovers will no longer own her, her own husband’s hand is heavy upon her, and what remains? The third "therefore" tells us (Ho 2:14 ). Israel, now bereft of all, helpless, homeless, is at last convinced that, as her God could take away all, so it was from Him she had received all: she is shut up to His love and His mercy alone. And here the prophet’s thoughts clothemselves in language referring to the early betrothal period of national life. A new beginning will be made, she will again lead the wilderness life of daily dependence on God, cheerfully and joyfully she will begin a new journey, out of trouble will come a new hope, and the very recollection of the past will be a pain to her. As all the associations of the name ba‘al have been degrading, she shall think of her Lord in a different relation, not as the mere giver of material blessing, but as the husband and desire of her heart, the One Source of all good, as distinguished from one of many benefactors. In all this Hosea does not make it clear how he expected these changes to be brought about, nor do we detect any references to the political history of the time. He mentions no foreign enemy at this stage, or, at most, hints at war in a vague manner (Ho 2:14 f). In the second chapter the thing that is emphasized is the heavy hand of God laid on the things through which Israel had been led astray, the paralyzing of Nature’s operations, so as to cut at the root of Nature-worship; but the closing stage of the Divine discipline (Hosea 3), when Israel, like the wife kept in seclusion, neither enjoying the privileges of the lawful spouse nor able to follow after idols, seems to point to, and certainly was not reached till, the captivity when the people, on a foreign soil, could not exercise their ancestral worship, but yet were finally cured of idolatry.

The references to Judah in these chapters are not to be overlooked. Having said (Ho 1:6) that Israel would be utterly taken away (which seems to point to exile), the prophet adds that Judah would be saved from that fate, though not by warlike means. Farther down (Ho 1:11) he predicts the union of Israel and Judah under one head, and finally in Ho 3 it is said that in the latter day the children of Israel would seek the Lord their God and David their king. Many critics suppose that 1:10 f are out of place (though they cannot find a better place for them); and not a few declare that all the references to Judah must be taken as from a later hand, the usual reason for this conclusion being that the words "disturb the connection." In the case of a writer like Hosea, however, whose transitions are so sharp and sudden, we are not safe in speaking of disturbing the connection: what may to us appear abrupt, because we are not expecting it, may have flashed across the mind of the original writer; and Hosea, in forecasting the future of his people, can scarcely be debarred from having thought of the whole nation. It was Israel as a whole that was the original bride of Yahweh, and surely therefore the united Israel would be the partaker of the final glory. As a matter of fact, Judah was at the time in better case than Israel, and the old promise to the Davidic house (2Sa 7:16) was deeply cherished to the end.

(2) Hosea 4-14.

If it is admissible to consider Hosea 1-3 as one related piece (though possibly the written deposit of several addresses) it is quite otherwise with Ho 4:14. These are, in a manner, a counterpart of the history. When the strong hand of Jeroboam was relaxed, the kingdom rapidly fell to pieces; a series of military usurpers follows with bewildering rapidity; but who can tell how much political disorder and social disintegration lie behind those brief and grim notices: So and So "conspired against him and slew him and reigned in his stead"? So with these chapters. The wail of grief, the echo of violence and excess, is heard through all, but it is very difficult to assign each lament, each reproof, each denunciation to the primary occasion that called it forth. The chapters seem like the recital of the confused, hideous dream through which the nation passed till its rude awakening by the sharp shock of the Assyrian invasion and the exile that followed. The political condition of the time was one of party strife and national impotence. Sometimes Assyria or Egypt is mentioned alone (5:13; 8:9,13; 9:6; 10:6; 14:3), at other times Assyria and Egypt together (7:11; 9:3; 11:5,11; 12:1); but in such a way as to show too plainly that the spirit of self-reliance—not to speak of reliance on Yahweh—had departed from a race that was worm-eaten with social sins and rendered selfish and callous by the indulgence of every vice. These foreign powers, which figure as false refuges, are also in the view of the prophet destined to be future scourges (see 5:13; 8:9 f; 7:11; 12:1); and we know, from the Book of Ki and also from the Assyrian monuments, how much the kings of Israel at this time were at the mercy of the great conquering empires of the East. Such passages as speak of Assyria and Egypt in the same breath may point to the rival policies which were in vogue in the Northern Kingdom (as they appeared also somewhat later in Judah) of making alliances with one or other of these great rival powers. It was in fact the Egyptianizing policy of Hoshea that finally occasioned the ruin of the kingdom (2Ki 17:4). Thus it is that, in the last chapter, when the prophet indulges in hope no more mixed with boding fear, he puts into the mouth of repentant Ephraim the words: "Assyria shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses" (Ho 14:3), thus alluding to the two foreign powers between which Israel had lost its independence.

It is not possible to give a satisfactory analysis of the chapters under consideration. They are not marked off, as certain sections of other prophetical books are, by headings or refrains, nor are the references to current events sufficiently clear to enable us to assign different parts to different times, nor, in fine, is the matter so distinctly laid out that we can arrange the book under subjects treated. Most expositors accordingly content themselves with indicating the chief topics or lines of thought, and arranging the chapters according to the tone pervading them.

Keil, e.g., would divide all these chapters into three great sections, each forming a kind of prophetical cycle, in which the three great prophetic tones of reproof, threatening, and promise, are heard in succession. His first section embraces Hosea 4 to 6:3, ending with the gracious promise: "Come, and let us return unto Yahweh," etc. The second section, 6:4 to 11:11, ends with the promise: "They shall come trembling as a bird .... and I will make them to dwell in their houses, saith Yahweh." The third section, 11:12 to 14:9, ends: "Take with you words, and return unto Yahweh," etc. Ewald’s arrangement proceeds on the idea that the whole book consists of one narrative piece (chapters 1-3) and one long address (chapters 4-14), which, however, is marked off by resting points into smaller sections or addresses. The progress of thought is marked by the three great items of arraignment, punishment, and consolation. Thus: from 4:1-6:11 there is arraignment; from 6:11 to 9:9 punishment, and from 9:10-14:10 exhortation and comfort. Driver says of chapters 4-14: "These chapters consist of a series of discourses, a summary arranged probably by the prophet himself at the close of his ministry, of the prophecies delivered by him in the years following the death of Jeroboam II. Though the argument is not continuous, or systematically developed, they may be divided into three sections:

(a) chapters 4-8 in which the thought of Israel’s guilt predominates;

(b) chapter 9-11:11, in which the prevailing thought is that of Israel’s punishment;

(c) 11:12 through Ho 14 in which these two lines of thought are both continued (chapters 12, 13), but are followed (in chapter 14) by a glance at the brighter future which may ensue provided Israel repents."

A. B. Davidson, after mentioning the proposed analyses of Ewald and Driver, adds: "But in truth the passage is scarcely divisible; it consists of multitude of variations all executed on one theme, Israel’s apostasy or unfaithfulness to her God. This unfaithfulness is a condition of the mind, a ‘spirit of whoredoms,’ and is revealed in all the aspects of Israel’s life, though particularly in three things:

(1) the cult, which, though ostensibly service of Yahweh, is in truth worship of a being altogether different from Him;

(2) the internal political disorders, the changes of dynasty, all of which have been effected with no thought of Yahweh in the people’s minds; and

(3) the foreign politics, the making of covenants with Egypt and Assyria, in the hope that they might heal the internal hurt of the people, instead of relying on Yahweh their God.

The three things," he adds, "are not independent; the one leads to the other. The fundamental evil is that there is no knowledge of God in the land, no true conception of Deity. He is thought of as a Nature-god, and His conception exercises no restraint on the passions or life of the people: hence, the social immoralities, and the furious struggles of rival factions, and these again lead to the appeal for foreign intervention."

Some expositors, however (e.g. Maurer, Hitzig, Delitzsch and Volck), recognizing what they consider as direct references or brief allusions to certain outstanding events in the history, perceive a chronological order in the chapters. Volck, who has tempted a full analysis on this line (PRE2) thinks that chapters 4-14 arrange themselves into 6 consecutive sections as follows:

(1) chapter 4 constitutes a section by itself, determined by the introductory words "Hear the word of Yahweh" (4:1), and a similar call at the beginning of chapter 5. He assigns this chapter to the reign of Zechariah, as a description of the low condition to which the nation had fallen, the priests, the leaders, being involved in the guilt and reproof (Ho 5:6).

(2) The second section extends from Ho 5:1 to 6:3, and is addressed directly to the priests and the royal house, who ought to have been guides but were snares. The prophet in the spirit sees Divine judgment already breaking over the devoted land (5:8). This prophecy, which Hitzig referred to the time of Zechariah, and Maurer to the reign of Pekah, is assigned by Volck to the one month’s reign of Shallum, on the ground of Ho 5:7: "Now shall a month (the King James Version and the Revised Version margin, but the Revised Version (British and American) "the new moon") devour them." It is by inference from this that Volck puts Ho 4 in the preceding reign of Zechariah.

(3) The third section, Ho 6:4-7:16, is marked off by the new beginning made at 8:1: "Set the trumpet to thy mouth." The passage which determines its date is 7:7: "All their kings are fallen," which, agreeing with Hitzig, he thinks could not have been said after the fall of one king, Zechariah, and so he assigns it to the beginning of the reign of Menahem who killed Shallum.

(4) The next halting place, giving a fourth section, is at Ho 9:9, at the end of which there is a break in the Massoretic Text, and a new subject begins. Accordingly, the section embraces 8:1 to 9:9, and Volck, agreeing with Hitzig, assigns it to the reign of Menahem, on the ground of 8:4: "They have set up kings, but not by me," referring to the support given to Menahem by the king of Assyria (2Ki 15:19).

(5) The fifth section extends from 9:10 to l1:11, and is marked by the peculiarity that the prophet three times refers to the early history of Israel (9:10; 10:1; 11:1). Identifying Shalman in 10:14 with Shalmaneser, Volck refers the section to the opening years of the reign of Hoshea, against whom (as stated in 2Ki 17:3) Shalmaneser came up and Hoshea became his servant.

(6) Lastly there is a sixth section, extending from Ho 12:1 to the end, which looks to the future recovery of the people (13:14) and closes with words of gracious promise. This portion also Volck assigns to the reign of Hoshea, just as the ruin of Samaria was impending, and there was no prospect of any earthly hope. In this way Volck thinks that the statement in the superscription of the Book of Ho is confirmed, and that we have before us, in chronological order if not in precisely their original oral form, the utterances of the prophet during his ministry. Ewald also was strongly of opinion that the book (in its second part at least) has come down to us substantially in the form in which the prophet himself left it.

The impression one receives from this whole section is one of sadness, for the prevailing tone is one of denunciation and doom. And yet Hosea is not a prophet of despair; and, in fact, he bursts forth into hope just at the point where, humanly speaking, there is no ground of hope. But this hope is produced, not by what he sees in the condition of the people: it is enkindled and sustained by his confident faith in the unfailing love of Yahweh. And so he ends on theme on which he began, the love of God prevailing over man’s sin.

4. Testimony to Earlier History:

The references in Hosea to the earlier period of history are valuable, seeing that we know his date, and that the dates of the books recording that history are so much in dispute. These references are particularly valuable from the way in which they occur; for it is the manner of the prophet to introduce them indirectly, and allusively, without dwelling on particulars. Thus every single reference can be understood only by assuming its implications; and, taken together, they do not merely amount to a number of isolated testimonies to single events, but are rather dissevered links of a continuous chain of history. For they do not occur by way of rhetorical illustration of some theme that may be in hand, they are of the very essence of the prophet’s address. The events of the past are, in the prophet’s view, so many elements in the arraignment or threatening, or whatever it may be that is the subject of address for the moment: in a word, the whole history is regarded by him, not as a series of episodes, strung together in a collection of popular stories, but a course of Divine discipline with a moral and religious significance, and recorded or referred to for a high purpose. There is this also to be remembered: that, in referring briefly and by way of allusion to past events, the prophet is taking for granted that his hearers understand what he is referring to, and will not call in question the facts to which he alludes. This implies that the mass of the people, even in degenerate Israel, were well acquainted with such incidents or episodes as the prophet introduces into his discourses, as well as the links which were necessary to bind them into a connected whole. It is necessary to bear all this in mind in forming an estimate of the historical value of other books. It seems to be taken by many modern writers as certain that those parts of the Pentateuch (JE) which deal with the earlier history were not written till a comparatively short time before Hosea. It is plain, however, that the accounts must be of much earlier date, before they could have become, in an age when books could not have been numerous, the general possession of the national consciousness. Further, the homiletic manner in which Hosea handles these ancient stories makes one suspicious of the modern theory that a number of popular stories were supplied with didactic "frameworks" by later Deuteronomic or other "redactors," and makes it more probable that these accounts were invested with a moral and religious meaning from the beginning. With these considerations in mind, and particularly in view of the use he makes of his references, it is interesting to note the wide range of the prophet’s historical survey. If we read with the Revised Version (British and American) "Adam" for "men" (the King James Version Ho 6:7), we have a clear allusion to the Fall, implying in its connection the view which, as all admit, Hosea held of the religious history of his people as a declension and not an upward evolution. This view is more clearly brought out in the reference to the period of the exodus and the desert life (2:15; 9:10; 11:1). Equally suggestive are the allusions to the patriarchal history, as the references to Admah and’ Zeboiim (11:8), and the repeated references to the weak and the strong points in the character of Jacob (12:3,12). Repeatedly he declares that Yahweh is the God of Israel "from the land of Egypt" (12:9; 13:4), alludes to the sin of Achan and the valley of Achor (2:15), asserts that God had in time past "spoken unto the prophets" (12:10), "hewed" His people by prophets (6:5), and by a prophet brought His people out of Egypt (12:13). There are also references to incidents nearer to the prophet’s time, some of them not very clear (14; 5:1; 9:5:15; 10:9); and if, as seems probable, "the sin of Israel" (10:8) refers to the schism of the ten tribes, the prominence given to the Davidic kingship, which, along with the references to Judah, some critics reject on merely subjective grounds, is quite intelligible (3:5; 4:15).

5. Testimony to the Law:

We do not expect to find in a prophetic writing the same frequency of reference to the law as to the history; for it is of the essence of prophecy to appeal to history and to interpret it. Of course, the moral and social aspects of the law are as much the province of the prophet as of the priest; but the ceremonial part of the law, which was under the care of the priests, though it was designed to be the expression of the same ideas that lay at the foundation of prophecy, is mainly touched upon by the prophets when, as was too frequently the case, it ceased to express those ideas and became an offense. The words of the prophets on this subject, when fairly interpreted, are not opposed to law in any of its authorized forms, but only to its abuses; and there are expressions and allusions in Hosea, although he spoke to the Northern Kingdom, where from the time of the schism there had been a wide departure from the authorized law, which recognize its ancient existence and its Divine sanction. The much-debated passage in Ho (8:12), "Though I write for him my law in ten thousand precepts" (the Revised Version (British and American) or the Revised Version margin "I wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law"), on any understanding of the words or with any reasonable emendation of the text (for which see the comm.), points to written law, and that of considerable compass, and seems hardly consistent with the supposition that in the prophet’s time the whole of the written law was confined to a few chapters in Ex, the so-called Book of the Covenant. And the very next verse (Ho 8:13), "As for the sacrifices of mine offerings, they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but Yahweh accepteth them not," is at once an acknowledgment of the Divine institution of sacrifice, and an illustration of the kind of opposition the prophets entertained to sacrificial service as it was practiced. So when it is said, "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn assemblies" (Ho 2:11; compare 9:5), the reference, as the context shows, is to a deprivation of what were national distinctive privileges; and the allusions to transgressions and trespasses against the law (Ho 8:1; compare De 17:2) point in the same direction. We have a plain reference to the Feast of Tabernacles (Ho 12:9): "I will yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the solemn feast" (compare Le 23:39-43); and there are phrases which are either in the express language of the law-books or evident allusions to them, as "Thy people are as they that strive with the priest" (Ho 4:4; compare De 17:12); "The princes of Judah are like them that remove the landmark" (Ho 5:10; compare De 19:14); "Their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners" (Ho 9:4; compare De 26:14); "They (the priests) feed on the sin of my people" (Ho 4:8; compare Le 6:25 f; 10:17). In one verse the prophet combines the fundamental fact in the nation’s history and the fundamental principle of the law: "I am Yahweh thy God from the land of Egypt; and thou shalt know no god but me" (Ho 13:4; compare Ex 20:3).

6. Affinity with Deuteronomy:

It is, however, with the Book of De more than with any other portion of the Pentateuch that the Book of Ho shows affinity; and the resemblances here are so striking, that the critics who hold to the late date of De speak of the author of that book as "the spiritual heir of Hosea" (Driver, Commentary on Deuteronomy, Intro, xxvii), or of Hosea as "the great spiritual predecessor of the Deuteronomist" (Cheyne, Jeremiah, His Life and Times, 66). The resemblance is seen, not only in the homiletical manner in which historical events are treated, but chiefly in the great underlying principles implied or insisted upon in both books. The choice of Israel to be a peculiar people is the fundamental note in both (De 4:37; 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; 26:18; Ho 12:9; 13:4). God’s tender care and fatherly discipline are central ideas in both (De 8:2,3,5,16; Ho 9:15; 11:1-4; 14:4); and, conversely, the supreme duty of love to God, or reproof of the want of it, is everywhere emphasized (De 6:5; 10:12; 11:1,13,22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:6,16,20; Ho 4:1; 6:4,6). Now, when points of resemblance are found in two different books, it is not always easy to say on merely literary grounds which has the claim to priority. But it does seem remarkable, on the one hand, that a writer so late as the time of Josiah should take his keynote from one of the very earliest of the writing prophets two centuries before him; and, on the other hand, that these so-called "prophetic ideas," so suitable to the time of ‘the kindness of youth and love of espousals’ (Jer 2:2), should have found no place in the mind of that "prophet" by whom the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt (Ho 12:13). The ministry of Moses was to enforce the duty of whole-hearted allegiance to the God who had made special choice of Israel and claimed them as His own. Nor was Hosea the first, as it is sometimes alleged, to represent the religious history of Israel as a defection. Moses had experience of their apostasy under the very shadow of Sinai, and all his life long had to bear with a stiff-necked and rebellious people. Then, again, if these "Deuteronomic" ideas are found so clearly expressed in Hosea, why should it be necessary to postulate a late Deuteronomist going back upon older books, and editing and supplementing them with Deuteronomic matter? If Moses sustained anything like the function which all tradition assigned to him, and if, as all confess, he was the instrument of molding the tribes into one people, those addresses contained in the Book of Deuteronomy are precisely in the tone which would be adopted by a great leader in taking farewell of the people. And, if he did so, it is quite conceivable that his words would be treasured by the God-fearing men among his followers and successors, in that unbroken line of prophetic men to whose existence both Amos and Hosea appealed, and that they should be found coming to expression at the very dawn of written prophecy. Undoubtedly these two prophets took such a view, and regarded Moses as the first and greatest Deuteronomist.


Harper, "Minor Prophets," in ICC; Keil, "Minor Prophets," in Clark’s For. Theol. Library; Huxtable, "Hosea," in Speaker’s Comm.; Cheyne, "Hosea," in Cambridge Bible; Pusey, Minor Prophets; Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel; G. A. Smith, "The Book of the Twelve," in Expositor’s Bible; Horton, "‘Hosea," in Century Bible; Farrar, "Minor Prophets," in Men of the Bible; A. B. Davidson, article "Hosea" in HDB; Cornill, The Prophets of Israel, English translation, Chicago, 1897; Valeton, Amos en Hosea; Nowack, "Die kleinen Propheten," in Hand-Comm. z. Altes Testament; Marti, Dodekapropheton in Kurz. Hand-Comm.

James Robertson





ho-sha’-ya (hosha‘yah, "whom Yahweh helpeth"):

(1) Father of Jezaniah (probably = Azariah, so the Septuagint; compare Jer 42:1 and 43:2 with 2Ki 25:23 and note similar letters in names in Hebrew), who with other leaders antagonized the policy and counsel of Jeremiah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 42:1-43:7).

(2) A man, probably of Judah, who led half of the princes of Judah in procession at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Ne 12:32).


hosh’-a-ma, ho-sha’-ma (hoshama‘, abbreviated from yehoshama‘, "whom Yahweh heareth"): One of the sons or descendants of Jeconiah, the captive king of Judah (1Ch 3:18).


ho-she’-a (hoshea‘, "salvation"; Hosee, 2Ki 17:1-9):

1. A Satrap of Assyria:

Son of Elah, the 19th and last king of Israel. The time was one of social revolution and dynastic change. Of the last five kings of Israel, four had met their deaths by violence. Hoshea himself was one of these assassins (2Ki 15:30), and the nominee of Tiglath-pileser III, whose annals read, "Pekah I slew, Hoshea I appointed over them." Though called king, Hoshea was thus really a satrap of Assyria and held his appointment only during good behavior. The realm which he administered was but the shadow of its former self. Tiglath-pileser had already carried into captivity the northern tribes of Zebulun, Naphtali, Asher and Dan; as also the two and a half tribes East of the Jordan (2Ki 15:29). Apart from those forming the kingdom of Judah, there remained only Ephraim, Issachar, and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

2. The Reduced Kingdom of Israel:

Isaiah refers to the fall of Syria in the words, "Damascus is taken away from being a city" (Isa 17:1), and to the foreign occupations of Northern Israel in the words, "He brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali .... by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations" (Isa 9:1).

3. Hosea and Ephraim:

But Hosea is the prophet in whose writings we see most clearly the reflection of the politics of the day, and the altered condition of things in Israel. In the 2nd division of his and book, chapters 4-14, Hosea deals with a state of things which can only be subsequent to the first great deportation of Israelites, and therefore belongs to the reigns of Pekah and Hoshea. The larger part of the nation being removed, he addresses his utterances no longer to all Israel, but to Ephraim, the chief of the remaining tribes. This name he uses no less than 35 t, though not to the total exclusion of the term "Israel," as in 11:1, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him," the whole nation in such cases being meant. Of the 35 uses of "Ephraim," the first is, "Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone" (4:17), and the last, "Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols?" (14:8), showing that, in the prophet’s estimation, the idolatrous worship of Yahweh, as associated with the golden calves of Da and Bethel, lay at the root of the nation’s calamities.

4. Hosea’s Dependent Position:

Over this shrunken and weakened kingdom—corresponding generally with the Samaritan district of the New Testament—Hoshea was placed as the viceroy of a foreign power. The first official year of his governorship was 729, though he may have been appointed a few months earlier. Tiglath-pileser III died in 727, so that three years’ tribute was probably paid to Nineveh. There was, however, a political party in Samaria, which, ground down by cruel exactions, was for making an alliance with Egypt, hoping that, in the jealousy and antipathies of the two world-powers, it might find some relief or even a measure of independence. Hosea, himself a prophet of the north, allows us to see beneath the surface of court life in Samaria. "They call unto Egypt, they go to Assyria" (Ho 7:11), and again, "They make a covenant with Assyria, and oil is carried into Egypt" (Ho 12:1). This political duplicity from which it was the king’s prime duty to save his people, probably took its origin about the time of Tiglath-pileser’s death in 727.

5. His Treasonable Action:

That event either caused or promoted the treasonable action, and the passage of large quantities of oil on the southward road was an object-lesson to be read of all men. On the accession of Shalmaneser IV—who is the Shalmaneser of the Bible (2Ki 17:3; 18:9)—Hoshea would seem to have carried, or sent, the annual tribute for 726 to the treasury at Nineveh (2Ki 17:3). The text is not clear as to who was the bearer of this tribute, but from the statement that Shalmaneser came up against him, and Hoshea became his servant, it may be presumed that the tribute for the first year after Tiglath-pileser’s death was at first refused, then, when a military demonstration took place, was paid, and obedience promised. In such a case Hoshea would be required to attend at his suzerain’s court and do homage to the sovereign.

6. His Final Arrest:

This is what probably took place, not without inquiry into the past. Grave suspicions were thus aroused as to the loyalty of Hoshea, and on these being confirmed by the confession or discovery that messengers had passed to "So king of Egypt," and the further withholding of the tribute (2Ki 17:4), Hoshea was arrested and shut up in prison. Here he disappears from history. Such was the ignominious end of a line of kings, not one of whom had, in all the vicissitudes of two and a quarter centuries, been in harmony with theocratic spirit, or realized that the true welfare and dignity of the state lay in the unalloyed worship of Yahweh.

7. Battle of Beth-arbel:

With Hoshea in his hands, Shalmaneser’s troops marched, in the spring or summer of 725, to the completion of Assyria’s work in Palestine. Isaiah has much to say in his 10th and 11th chapters on the divinely sanctioned mission of "the Assyrian" and of the ultimate fate that should befall him for his pride and cruelty in carrying out his mission. The campaign was not a bloodless one. At Beth-arbel—at present unidentified—the hostile forces met, with the result that might have been expected. "Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle" (Ho 10:14). The defeated army took refuge behind the walls of Samaria, and the siege began. The city was well placed for purposes of defense, being built on the summit of a lonely hill, which was Omri’s reason for moving the capital from Tirzah (1Ki 16:24). It was probably during the continuance of the siege that Isaiah wrote his prophecy, "Woe to the crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim," etc. (Isa 28), in which the hill of Samaria with its coronet of walls is compared to a diadem of flowers worn in a scene of revelry, which should fade and die. Micah’s elegy on the fall of Samaria (chapter 1) has the same topographical note, "I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley, and I will uncover the foundations thereof" (1:6).

8. Fall of Samaria in 721:

Shalmaneser’s reign was one of exactly five years, December, 727 to December, 722, and the city fell in the 1st month of his successor’s reign. The history of its fall is summarized in Sargon’s great Khorsabad inscription in these words, "Samaria I besieged, I captured. 27,290 of her inhabitants I carried away. 50 chariots I collected from their midst. The rest of their property I caused to be taken."

9. Hoshea’s Character:

Hoshea’s character is summed up in the qualified phrase, "He did evil in the sight of the Lord, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before him." The meaning may be that, while not a high-principled man or ofirreproachable life, he did not give to the idolatry of Bethel the official sanction and prominence which each of his 18 predecessors had done. According to Ho 10:6 the golden calf of Samaria was to be taken to Assyria, to the shame of its erstwhile worshippers.

W. Shaw Caldecott


hos-pi-tal’-i-ti, host (philoxenia, "love of strangers," xenos, "guest," "friend"; pandocheus, "innkeeper"):

1. Among Nomads:

When the civilization of a people has advanced so far that some traveling has become necessary, but not yet so far that traveling by individuals is a usual thing, then hospitality is a virtue indispensable to the life of the people. This stage of culture was that represented in ancient Palestine and the stage whose customs are still preserved among the present-day Arabs of the desert. Hospitality is regarded as a right by the traveler, to whom it never occurs to thank his host as if for a favor. And hospitality is granted as a duty by the host, who himself may very soon be dependent on some one else’s hospitality. But none the less, both in Old Testament times and today, the granting of that right is surrounded by an etiquette that has made Arabian hospitality so justly celebrated. The traveler is made the literal master of the house during his stay; his host will perform for him the most servile offices, and will not even sit in his presence without express request. To the use of the guest is given over all that his host possesses, stopping not even short of the honor of wife or daughter. "‘ Be we not all,’ say the poor nomads, ‘guests of Ullah? Has God given unto them, God’s guest shall partake with them thereof: if they will not for God render his own, it should not go well with them’ "( Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, 228). The host is in duty bound to defend his guest against all comers and to lay aside any personal hatred—the murderer of father is safe as the guest of the son.

2. In the Old Testament:

An exquisite example of the etiquette of hospitality is found in Ge 18:1-8. The very fact that the three strangers have passed by Abraham’s door gives him the privilege of entertaining them. When he sees them approaching he runs to beg the honor of their turning in to him, with oriental courtesy depreciates the feast that he is about to lay before them as "a morsel of bread," and stands by them while they eat. Manoah (Jud 13:15) is equally pressing although more matter-of-fact, while Jethro (Ex 2:20) sends out that the stranger may be brought in. And Job (31:32) repels the very thought that he could let the sojourner be unprovided for. The one case where a breach of hospitality receives praise is that of Jael (Jud 4-5), perhaps to be referred to degeneration of customs in the conflicts with the Canaanites or (perhaps more plausibly) to literary-critical considerations, according to which in Jud 5 Sisera is not represented as entering Jael’s tent or possibly not as actually tasting the food, a state of affairs misunderstood in Jud 4, written under later circumstances of city life. (For contrasting opinions see "Jael" in Encyclopedia Biblica and HDB.)

3. The Table-Bond:

It is well to understand that to secure the right to hospitality it is not necessary, even in modern times, for the guest to eat with his host, still less to eat salt specifically. Indeed, guests arriving after sunset and departing the next morning do not, as a rule, eat at all in the tent of the host. It is sufficient to enter the tent, to grasp a tent-pin, or even, under certain circumstances, to invoke the name of a man as host. On the other hand, the bond of hospitality is certainly strengthened by eating with one’s host, or the bond may actually be created by eating food belonging to him, even by stealth or in an act of theft. Here a quite different set of motives is at work. The idea here is that of kinship arising from participation in a common sacrificial meal, and the modern Arab still terms the animal killed for his guest the dhabichah or "sacrifice" (compare HDB, II, 428). This concept finds its rather materialistic expression in theory that after the processes of digestion are completed (a time estimated as two nights and the included day), the bond lapses if it is not renewed. There seem to be various references in the Bible to some such idea of a "table-bond" (Ps 41:9, e.g.), but hardly in connection directly with hospitality. For a discussion of them see BREAD; GUEST; SACRIFICE.

4. In the City:

In the city, naturally, the exercise of hospitality was more restricted. Where travel was great, doubtless commercial provision for the travelers was made from a very early day (compare Lu 10:34 and see INN), and at all events free hospitality to all comers would have been unbearably abused. Lot in Sodom (Ge 19) is the nomad who has preserved his old ideas, although settled in the city, and who thinks of the "shadow of his roof" (19:8) as his tent. The same is true of the old man in Gibeah of Jud 19:16 ff. And the sin of Sodom and of Gibeah is not that wanderers cannot find hospitality so much as it is that they are unsafe in the streets at night. Both Lot and "the old man," however, are firm in their duty and willing to sacrifice their daughters for the safety of their guests. (Later ideas as to the position of woman should not be read back into these narratives.) However, when the city-dweller Rahab refuses to surrender her guests (Jos 2), her reason is not the breach of hospitality involved but her fear of Yahweh (Jos 2:9). When Abraham’s old slave is in Nahor, and begs a night’s lodging for himself and his camels, he accompanies the request with a substantial present, evidently conceived of as pay for the same (Ge 24:22 f). Such also are the modern conditions; compare Benzinger-Socin in Baedeker’s Palestine(3), xxxv, who observe that "inmates" of private houses "are aware that Franks always pay, and therefore receive them gladly." None the less, in New Testament times, if not earlier, and even at present, a room was set apart in each village for the use of strangers, whose expenses were borne by the entire community. Most interpreters consider that the kataluma of Lu 2:7 was a room of this sort, but this opinion cannot be regarded as quite certain. But many of the wealthier city-dwellers still strive to attain a reputation for hospitality, a zeal that naturally was found in the ancient world as well.

5. Christ and Hospitality:

Christ’s directions to the apostles to "take nothing for their journey" (Mr 6:8, etc.) presupposes that they were sure of always finding hospitality. Indeed, it is assumed that they may even make their own choice of hosts (Mt 10:11) and may stay as long as they choose (Lu 10:7). In this case, however, the claims of the travelers to hospitality are accentuated by the fact that they are bearers of good tidings for the people, and it is in view of this latter fact that hospitality to them becomes so great a virtue—the "cup of cold water" becomes so highly meritorious because it is given "in the name of a disciple" (Mt 10:42; compare 10:41, and Mr 9:41). Rejection of hospitality to one of Christ’s "least brethren" (almost certainly to be understood as disciples) is equivalent to the rejection of Christ Himself (Mt 25:43; compare 25:35). It is not quite clear whether in Mt 10:14 and parallels, simple refusal of hospitality is the sin in point or refusal to hear the message or both.

6. First Missionaries:

In the Dispersion, the Jew who was traveling seemed always to be sure of finding entertainment from the Jews resident in whatever city he might happen to be passing through. The importance of this fact for the spread of early Christianity is incalculable. To be sure, some of the first missionaries may have been men who were able to bear their own traveling expenses or who were merchants that taught the new religion when on business tours. In the case of soldiers or slaves their opportunity to carry the gospel into new fields came often through the movements of the army or of their masters. And it was by an "infiltration" of this sort, probably, rather than by any specific missionary effort that the church of Rome, at least, was rounded. See ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. But the ordinary missionary, whether apostle (in any sense of the word) or evangelist, would have been helpless if it had not been that he could count so confidently on the hospitality everywhere. From this fact comes one reason why Paul, for instance, could plan tours of such magnitude with such assurance: he knew that he would not have to face any problem of sustenance in a strange city (Ro 16:23).

7. In the Churches:

As the first Christian churches were founded, the exercise of hospitality took on a new aspect, especially after the breach with the Jews had begun. Not only did the traveling Christian look naturally to his brethren for hospitality, but the individual churches looked to the traveler for fostering the sense of the unity of the church throughout the world. Hospitality became a virtue indispensable to the well-being of the church—one reason for the emphasis laid on it (Ro 12:13; 16:1 f; Heb 13:2). As the organization of the churches became more perfected, the exercise of hospitality grew to be an official duty of the ministry and a reputation for hospitality was a prerequisite in some cases (1Ti 3:2; 5:10; Tit 1:8). The exercise of such hospitality must have become burdensome at times (1Pe 4:9), and as false teachers began to appear in the church a new set of problems was created in discriminating among applicants for hospitality. 2 and 3 Joh reflect some of the difficulties. For the later history of hospitality in the church interesting matter will be found in the Didache, chapters xi, xii, Apology of Aristides, chapter xv, and Lucian’s Death of Peregrinus, chapter xvi. The church certainly preferred to err by excess of the virtue.

An evaluation of the Biblical directions regarding hospitality for modern times is extremely difficult on account of the utterly changed conditions. Be it said at once, especially, that certain well-meant criticism of modern missionary methods, with their boards, organized finance, etc., on the basis of Christ’s directions to the Twelve, is a woeful misapplication of Biblical teaching. The hospitality that an apostle could count on in his own day is something that the modern missionary simply cannot expect and something that it would be arrant folly for him to expect (Weinel, Die urchristliche und die heutige Mission, should be read by everyone desiring to compare modern missions with the apostolic). In general, the basis for hospitality has become so altered that the special virtue has become merged in the larger field of charitable enterprise of various sorts. The modern problem nearest related to the old virtue is the question of providing for the necessities of the indigent traveler, a distinctly minor problem, although a very real one, in the general field of social problems that the modern church has to study. In so far as the New Testament exhortations are based on missionary motives there has been again a merging into general appeals for missions, perhaps specialized occasionally as appeals for traveling expense. The "hospitality" of today, by which is meant the entertainment of friends or relatives, hardly comes within the Biblical use of the term as denoting a special virtue.


For hospitality in the church, Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, II, chapter iv (10).

Burton Scott Easton


(tsebha’ hashamayim): The expression is employed in the Old Testament to denote

(1) the stars, frequently as objects of idolatry (De 4:19; 17:3; 2Ki 17:16; 21:3,1; 23:4 f; Jer 8:2; 19:13; Ze 1:5), but also as witnesses in their number, order and splendor, to the majesty and providential rule and care of Yahweh (Isa 34:4; 40:26, "calleth them all by name"; 45:12; Jer 33:22); and

(2) the angels (1Ki 22:19; 2Ch 18:18; Ne 9:6; compare Ps 103:21).

(1) Star-worship seems to have been an enticement to Israel from the first (De 4:19; 17:3; Am 5:26; compare Ac 7:42,43), but attained special prominence in the days of the later kings of Judah. The name of Manasseh is particularly connected with it. This king built altars for "all the host of heaven" in the courts of the temple (2Ki 21:3,5). Josiah destroyed these altars, and cleansed the temple from the idolatry by putting down the priests and burning the vessels associated with it (2Ki 23:4,5,12).

(2) In the other meaning of the expression, the angels are regarded as forming Yahweh’s "host" or army, and He himself is the leader of them—"Yahweh of hosts" (Isa 31:4, etc.)—though this designation has a much wider reference.

See ANGEL; ASTRONOMY; LORD OF HOSTS; compare Oehler, Theol of Old Testament, II, 270 ff (ET).

James Orr



See WAR.





ho’-tham, ho’-than (chotham, "seal"):

(1) An Asherite, son of Heber, family of Beriah (1Ch 7:32).

(2) An Aroerite, father of two of the mighty men of David (1Ch 11:44). the King James Version, following Septuagint Chothan, has, incorrectly, Hothan.


ho’-thir (hothir, "abundance"): Mentioned in 1Ch 25:4,28 among the sons of Heman, and one of those set apart by David for the musical service of the house of God (compare 25:6).





our (sha‘atha’, she‘a’; hora): Hour as a division of the day does not occur in the Old Testament; the term she‘a’ (sha‘atha’) found in Dnl, is Aramaic, and as used there denotes a short period or point of time of no definite length (Da 3:6,15; 4:33 (Hebrew 30); 5:5). The Greek hora is commonly used in the New Testament in the same way, as "that same hour," "from that hour," etc., but it also occurs as a division of the day, as, "the third hour," "the ninth hour," etc. The Hebrews would seem to have become acquainted with this division of time through the Babylonians, but whether before the captivity we are not certain. The mention of the sun dial of Ahaz would seem to indicate some such reckoning of time during the monarchy.


H. Porter


The Mosaic law did not regulate the offering of prayer, but fully recognized its spontaneous character. In what manner or how far back in Jewish history the sacrificial prayer, mentioned in Lu 1:10, originated no one knows. In the days of Christ it had evidently become an institution. But ages before that, stated hours of prayer were known and religiously observed by all devout Jews. It evidently belonged to the evolutionary process of Jewish worship, in connection with the temple-ritual. Devout Jews, living at Jerusalem, went to the temple to pray (Lu 18:10; Ac 3:1). The pious Jews of the Diaspora opened their windows "toward Jerus" and prayed "toward" the place of God’s presence (1Ki 8:48; Da 6:10; Ps 5:7). The regular hours of prayer, as we may infer from Ps 55:17 and Da 6:10, were three in number. The first coincided with the morning sacrifice, at the 3rd hour of the morning, at 9 AM therefore (Ac 2:15). The second was at the 6th hour, or at noon, and may have coincided with the thanksgiving for the chief meal of the day, a religious custom apparently universally observed (Mt 15:36; Ac 27:35). The 3rd hour of prayer coincided with the evening sacrifice, at the ninth hour (Ac 3:1; 10:30). Thus every day, as belonging to God, was religiously subdivided, and regular seasons of prayer were assigned to the devout believer. Its influence on the development of the religious spirit must have been incalculable, and it undoubtedly is, at least in part, the solution of the riddle of the preservation of the Jewish faith in the cruel centuries of its bitter persecution. Mohammedanism borrowed this feature of worship from the Jews and early Christians, and made it one of the chief pillars of its faith.

Henry E. Dosker


hous (bayith; oikos, in classical Greek generally "an estate," oikia, oikema (literally, "habitation"), in Ac 12:1, "prison"):



1. Details of Plan and Construction

(1) Corner-Stone

(2) Floor

(3) Gutter

(4) Door

(5) Hinge

(6) Lock and Key

(7) Threshold

(8) Hearth

(9) Window

(10) Roof

2. Houses of More than One Story

(1) Upper Chambers and Stairs

(2) Palaces and Castles

3. Internal Appearance



I. Cave Dwellings.

The earliest permanent habitations of the prehistoric inhabitants of Palestine were the natural caves which abound throughout the country. As the people increased and grouped themselves into communities, these abodes were supplemented by systems of artificial caves which, in some cases, developed into extensive burrowings of many adjoining compartments, having in each system several entrances. These entrances were usually cut through the roof down a few steps, or simply dropped to the floor from the rock surface. The sinking was shallow and the headroom low but sufficient for the undersized troglodites who were the occupiers.

II. Stone-built and Mud/Brick-built Houses.

There are many references to the use of caves as dwellings in the Old Testament. Lot dwelt with his two daughters in cave (Ge 19:30). Elijah, fleeing from Jezebel, lodged in a cave (1Ki 19:9). The natural successor to the cave was the stone-built hut, and just as the loose field-bowlders and the stones, quarried from the caves, served their first and most vital uses in the building of defense walls, so did they later become material for the first hut. Caves, during the rainy season, were faulty dwellings, as at the time when protection was most needed, they were being flooded through the surface openings which formed their entrances. The rudest cell built of rough stones in mud and covered a with roof of brushwood and mud was at first sufficient. More elaborate plans of several apartments, entering from what may be called a living-room, followed as a matter of course, and these, huddled together, constituted the homes of the people. Mud-brick buildings (Job 4:19) of similar plan occur, and to protect this friable material from the weather, the walls were sometimes covered with a casing of stone slabs, as at Lachish. (See Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities.) Generally speaking, this rude type of building prevailed, although, in some of the larger buildings, square dressed and jointed stones were used. There is little or no sign of improvement until the period of the Hellenistic influence, and even then the improvement was slight, so far as the homes of the common people were concerned.

1. Details of Plan and Construction:

One should observe an isometric sketch and plan showing construction of a typical small house from Gezer. The house is protected and approached from the street by an open court, on one side of which is a covered way. The doors enter into a living-room from which the two very small inner private rooms, bedchambers, are reached. Builders varied the plan to suit requirements, but in the main, this plan may be taken as typical. When members of a family married, extra accommodation was required. Additions were made as well as could be arranged on the cramped site, and in consequence, plans often became such a meaningless jumble that it is impossible to identify the respective limits of adjoining houses. The forecourt was absorbed and crushed out of existence, so that in many of the plans recovered the arrangement is lost.

(1) Corner-stone:

Corner-stone (pinnah, Isa 28:16; Jer 51:26; lithos akrogoniaios, 1Pe 2:6).—In the construction of rude boulder walls, more especially on a sloping site, as can be seen today in the highlands of Scotland and Wales, a large projecting boulder was built into the lower angle-course. It tied together the return angles and was one of the few bond-stones used in the building. This most necessary support claimed chief importance and as such assumed a figurative meaning frequently used (Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:6; see CORNER-STONE). The importance given to the laying of a sure foundation is further emphasized by the dedication rites in common practice, evidence of which has been found on various sites in Palestine (see Excavations of Gezer). The discovery of human remains placed diagonally below the foundations of the returning angle of the house gives proof of the exercise of dedication rites both before and after the Conquest. Hiel sacrificed his firstborn to the foundations of Jericho and his youngest son to the gates thereof (1Ki 16:34). But this was in a great cause compared with a similar sacrifice to a private dwelling. The latter manifests a respect scarcely borne out by the miserable nature of the houses so dedicated. At the same time, it gives proof of the frequent collapse of structures which the winter rains made inevitable and at which superstition trembled. The fear of pending disaster to the man who failed to make his sacrifice is recorded in De 20:5: "What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle." See illustration, p. 550.

(2) Floor:

Floor (qarqa‘).—When houses were built on the rock outcrop, the floor was roughly leveled on the rock surface, but it is more common to find floors of beaten clay similar to the native floor of the present day. Stone slabs were sparingly used, and only appear in the houses of the great. It is unlikely that wood was much used as a flooring to houses, although Solomon used it for his temple floor (1Ki 6:15).

(3) Gutter:

Gutter (tsinnor).—The "gutter" in 2Sa 5:8 the King James Version is obviously difficult to associate with the gutter of a house, except in so far as it may have a similar meaning to the water duct or "water course" (Revised Version (British and American)) leading to the private cistern, which formed part of the plan. Remains of open channels for this purpose have been found of rough stones set in clay, sometimes leading through a silt pit into the cistern.

(4) Door:

Door (deleth, pethach; thura).—Doorways were simple, square, entering openings in the wall with a stone or wood lintel (mashqoph, Ex 12:22,23; ‘ayil, 1Ki 6:31) and a stone threshold raised slightly above the floor. It is easy to imagine the earliest wooden door as a simple movable boarded cover with back bars, fixed vertically by a movable bar slipped into sockets in the stone jambs. Doorposts (caph, Eze 41:16) appear to have been in use, but, until locks were introduced, it is difficult to imagine a reason for them. Posts, when introduced, were probably let into the stone at top and bottom, and, unlike our present door frame, had no head-piece. When no wood was used, the stone jambs of the opening constituted the doorposts. To the present day the post retains its function as commanded in De 6:9; 11:20, and in it is fitted a small case containing a parchment on which is written the exhortation to obedience.

(5) Hinge:

Hinge (poth, 1Ki 7:50; tsir, Pr 26:14).—Specimens of sill and head sockets of stone have been discovered which suggest the use of the pivot hinge, the elongated swinging stile of the door being let into the sockets at top and bottom. A more advanced form of construction was necessary to this type of door than in the previous instance, and some little skill was required to brace it so that it would hold together. The construction of doors and windows is an interesting question, as it is in these two details that the joinery craft first claimed development. There is no indication, however, of anything of the nature of advancement, and it seems probable that there was none.

(6) Lock and key:

Lock and key ("lock," man‘ul, Ne 3:3 ff; So 5:5; "key," maphteach, Jud 3:25; figurative. Isa 22:22; kleis, Mt 16:19, etc.).—In later Hellenic times a sort of primitive lock and key appeared, similar to the Arabic type. See Excavations of Gezer, I, 197, and illustration in article KEY.

(7) Threshold:

Threshold (caph, 1Ki 14:17; Eze 40:6 ff; miphtan, 1Sa 5:4,5; Eze 9:3, etc.).—Next to the corner-stone, the threshold was specially sacred, and in many instances foundation-sacrifices have been found buried under the threshold. In later times, when the Hebrews became weaned of this unholy practice, the rite remained with the substitution of a lamp enclosed between two bowls as a symbol of the life.


(8) Hearth:

Hearth (’ach, Jer 36:22,23, the Revised Version (British and American) "brazier"; kiyyor).—The references in the Old Testament and the frequent discovery of hearths make it clear that so much provision for heating had been made. It is unlikely, however, that chimneys were provided. The smoke from the wood or charcoal fuel was allowed to find its way through the door and windows and the many interstices occurring in workmanship of the worst possible description. The "chimney" referred to (Ho 13:3) is a doubtful translation. The "fire in the brazier" (Jer 36:22 the Revised Version (British and American)) which burned before the king of Judah in his "winter house" was probably of charcoal. The modern natives, during the cold season, huddle around and warm their hands at a tiny glow in much the same way as their ancient predecessors. The use of cow and camel dung for baking-oven (tannur) fires appears to have continued from the earliest time to the present day (Eze 4:15).

See also HEARTH.

(9) Window:

Window (thuris, Ac 20:9; 2Co 11:33).—It would appear that windows were often simple openings in the wall which were furnished with some method of closing, which, it may be conjectured, was somewhat the same as the primitive door previously mentioned. The window of the ark (challon, Ge 8:6), the references in Ge 26:8; Jos 2:15, and the window from which Jezebel looked (2Ki 9:30), were presumably of the casement class. Ahaziah fell through a lattice (cebhakhah) in the same palace, and the same word is used for the "networks" (1Ki 7:41) "covering the bowls of the capitals," and in So 2:9, "through the lattice" (charakkim). It would appear, therefore, that some variety of treatment existed, and that the simple window opening with casement and the opening filled in with a lattice or grill were distinct. Windows were small, and, according to the Mishna, were kept not less than 6 ft. from floor to sill. The lattice was open, without glass filling, and in this connection there is the interesting figurative reference in Isa 54:12 the King James Version, "windows of agates," translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "pinnacles of rubies." Heaven is spoken of as having "windows" (’arubbah) for rain (Ge 7:11; 8:2; 2Ki 7:2, etc.).

(10) Roof:

Roof (gagh; stege).—These were flat. Compare "The beams of our house are cedars, and our rafters are firs" (So 1:17). To get over the difficulty of the larger spans, a common practice was to introduce a main beam (qurah) carried on the walls and strengthened by one or more intermediate posts let into stone sockets laid on the floor. Smaller timbers as joists ("rafters," rahiT) were spaced out and covered in turn with brushwood; the final covering, being of mud mixed with chopped straw, was beaten and rolled. A tiny stone roller is found on every modern native roof, and is used to roll the mud into greater solidity every year on the advent of the first rains. Similar rollers have been found among the ancient remains throughout the country; see Excavations of Gezer, I, 190; PEFS, Warren’s letters, 46. "They let him down through the tiles (keramos) with his couch into the midst before Jesus" (Lu 5:19) refers to the breaking through of a roof similar to this. The roof ("housetop," gagh; doma) was an important part of every house and was subjected to many uses. It was used for worship (2Ki 23:12; Jer 19:13; 32:29; Ze 1:5; Ac 10:9). Absalom spread his tent on the "top of the house" (2Sa 16:22). In the Feast of the Tabernacles temporary booths (cukkah) were erected on the housetops. The people, as is their habit today, gathered together on the roof as a common meeting-place on high days and holidays (Jud 16:27). The wild wranglings which can be heard in any modern native village, resulting in vile accusations and exposure of family secrets hurled from the housetops of the conflicting parties, illustrate the passage, "And what ye have spoken in the ear in the inner chambers shall be proclaimed upon the housetops" (Lu 12:3).

2. Houses of More than One Story:

(1) Upper Chambers and Stairs:

It is certain that there were upper chambers (‘aliyah; huperoon, Ac 9:37, etc.) to some of the houses. Ahaziah was fatally injured by falling from the window of his palace, and a somewhat similar fate befell his mother, Jezebel (2Ki 1:2; 9:33). The escape of the spies from the house on the wall at Jericho (Jos 2:15) and that of Paul from Damascus (2Co 11:33) give substantial evidence of window openings at a considerable height. Elijah carried the son of the widow of Zarephath "up into the chamber." The Last Supper was held in an upper chamber (Mr 14:15). Some sort of stairs (ma‘alah) of stone or wood must have existed, and the lack of the remains of stone steps suggests that they were wood steps, probably in the form of ladders. (2) Palaces and Castles:

Palaces and castles (’armon, birah, hekhal; aule, parembole).—These were part of every city and were more elaborate in plan, raised in all probability to some considerable height. The Canaanite castle discovered by Macalister at Gezer shows a building of enormously thick walls and small rooms. Reisner has unearthed Ahab’s palace at Samaria, revealing a plan of considerable area. Solomon’s palace is detailed in 1Ki 7 (see TEMPLE). In this class may also be included the megalithic fortified residences with the beehive guard towers of an earlier date, described by Dr. Mackenzie (PEF, I) .

3. International Appearance:

Walls were plastered (Le 14:43,18), and small fragments of painted (Jer 22:14) plaster discovered from time to time show that some attempt at mural decoration was made, usually in the form of crudely painted line ornament. Walls were recessed here and there into various forms of cupboards (which see) at various levels. The smaller cuttings in the wall were probably for lamps, and in the larger and deeper recesses bedmats may have been kept and garments stored.

III. Other Meanings.

The word has often the sense of "household," and this term is frequently substituted in the Revised Version (British and American) for "house" of the King James Version (e.g. Ex 12:3; 2Ki 7:11; 10:5; 15:5; Isa 36:3; 1Co 1:11; 1Ti 5:14); in certain cases for phrases with "house" the Revised Version (British and American) has "at home". (Ac 2:46; 5:42).



Macalister, Excavations at Gezer; PEFS; Sellin, Excavations at Taanach; Schumacher, Excavations at Tell Mutesellim; Bliss, Mound of Many Cities; articles in Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.

Arch. C. Dickie


In Ge 28:17,22 = BETHEL (which see). In Jgs, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezr, Neh, Ps, etc. (beth ha-’elohim), a designation of the sanctuary =" house of Yahweh" (of the tabernacle, Jud 18:31; 20:18,26 the King James Version; of the temple, 1Ch 9:11; 24:5 the King James Version; 2Ch 5:14; Ps 42:4; Isa 2:3, etc.; of the 2nd temple, Ezr 5:8,15; Ne 6:10; 13:11; compare Mt 12:4). Spiritually, in the New Testament, the "house of God" (oikos theou) is the church or community of believers (1Ti 3:15; Heb 10:21; 1Pe 4:17; compare 1Co 3:9,16,17; 1Pe 2:5).






hous’-hold: Three words are usually found in the Bible where the family is indicated. These three are the Hebrew word bayith and the Greek words oikia and oikos. The unit of the national life of Israel, from the very beginning, was found in the family. In the old patriarchal days each family was complete within itself, the oldest living sire being the unquestioned head of the whole, possessed of almost arbitrary powers. The house and the household are practically synonymous. God had called Abraham "that he might command his children and household after him" (Ge 18:19). The Passover-lamb was to be eaten by the "household" (Ex 12:3). The "households" of the rebels in the camp of Israel shared their doom (Nu 16:31-33; De 11:6). David’s household shares his humiliation (2Sa 15:16); the children everywhere in the Old Testament are the bearers of the sins of the fathers. Human life is not a conglomerate of individuals; the family is its center and unit.

Nor is it different in the New Testament. The curse and the blessing of the apostles are to abide on a house, according to its attitude (Mt 10:13). A divided house falls (Mr 3:25). The household believes with the head thereof (Joh 4:53; Ac 16:15,34). Thus the households became the nuclei for the early life of the church, e.g. the house of Prisca and Aquila at Rome (Ro 16:5), of Stephanas (1Co 16:15), of Onesiphorus (2Ti 1:16), etc. No wonder that the early church made so much of the family life. And in the midst of all our modern, rampant individualism, the family is still the throbbing heart of the church as well as of the nation.

Henry E. Dosker




hous’-hol-der (oikodespotes): The word occurs in Mt 13:27,52; 20:1; 21:33, for the master or owner of a "household," i.e. of servants ([@douloi). The Greek word emphasizes the authority of the master.





Represents various Hebrew and Greek words, interrogative, interjectional and relative. Its different uses refer to

(1) the manner or way, e.g. Ge 44:34, "How shall I go up to my father?" (’ekh); Mt 6:28, "how they grow" (pos); 1Co 15:35, "How are the dead raised?";

(2) degree, extent, frequently, "how great" (Da 4:3, mah; Mr 5:19, hosos, "how much"); "how many" (Mt 27:13, posos); "how much" (Ac 9:13, hosos); "how much more" (Mt 7:11, posos; 1Sa 14:30, ‘aph ki); "how oft" (Ps 78:40, kammah; Mt 18:21, posakis); "how long" (Job 7:19, kammah; Mt 17:17, heos pote), etc.;

(3) the reason, wherefore, etc. (Mt 18:12; Lu 12:49, tis);

(4) means—by what means? (Joh 3:4,9, pos);

(5) cause (Joh 12:34; Ac 2:8; 4:21, pos);

(6) condition, in what state, etc. (Lu 23:55, hos; Ac 15:36, pos; Eph 6:21, tis); "how" is sometimes used to emphasize a statement or exclamation (2Sa 1:19,25,27, "How are the mighty fallen!"); "how" is also used for "that" (Ge 30:29, ‘eth ‘asher, frequently "how that"; Ex 9:29, ki most frequently, in the New Testament, hoti, Mt 12:5; 16:12,21; Ac 7:25; Ro 7:1, etc., in the King James Version).

The Revised Version (British and American) has "wherefore" for "how" (Ge 38:29, margin "how"); has "what" (Jud 13:12; 1Ki 12:6; Job 13; 1Co 14:26), omits (2Co 13:5); has "how that" (1Sa 2:22); "that" (1Ch 18:9; Lu 1:58; Ga 4:13; Jas 2:22; Re 2:2); has "that even" for "how that" (Heb 12:17);" What is this?" for "How is it that?" (Lu 16:2); omits" How is it ?"( Mr 2:16, different text); has "Do ye not yet," for "How is it that?" (Mr 8:21); "Have ye not yet" (Mr 4:40, different text); "what" for "how much" (Lu 19:15, different text); omits "how that" (Lu 7:22); "then how" (Jas 2:24); has "cannot" for "How can he" (1 Joh 4:20); omits "How hast thou" (Job 26:3), "how is" (Jer 51:41); has "how" for "the fashion which" (Ge 6:15), for "and" (Ex 18:1), for "what" (Jud 18:24; 1Sa 4:16; 1Co 7:16), for "why" (Job 19:28; 31:1; Jer 2:33; Ga 2:14), for "when" (Job 37:15), for "for" (Ps 42:4), for "but God" (Pr 21:12), for "whereunto" (Mr 4:30); for "by what means" (Lu 8:36; Joh 9:21), for "how greatly" (Php 1:8); "how that" for "because" (Eze 6:9; 1Th 1:5), for "and how" (Ac 20:20); "know how to" for "can" (Mt 16:3); "how" for "by whom" (Am 7:2,5).

"How" in compounds gives us Howbeit (how be it). It is the translation of ‘ulam, "but," "truly," "yet" (Jud 18:29); of ‘akh, "certainly," "only" (1Sa 8:9); of ‘ephes, "moreover," etc. (2Sa 12:14); of ken, "so," "thus" (2Ch 32:31); of rak, "only," "surely" "nevertheless" (1Ki 11:13); of alla, "but," etc. (Joh 7:27; Ac 7:48; 1Co 8:7, etc.); of de, "but," etc. (Joh 6:23); of mentoi (Joh 7:13 the King James Version); many other instances.

For "howbeit," the Revised Version (British and American) has frequently "but" (2Ki 12:13, etc.), "and" (2Ch 21:20; Mr 5:19), "surely" (ERV) (Job 30:24), "now" (Joh 11:13), "yet" (2Co 11:21), "nay, did" (Heb 3:16); omits (Mt 17:21, different text); it has "howbeit" for "but" (2Ki 12:3; Lu 19:27; Joh 5:34, etc.), for "also" (Le 23:27,39), for "nevertheless" (Nu 13:28; 1Ki 22:43; Mr 14:36; Lu 13:33 the English Revised Version; Lu 18:8; 2Ti 2:19), for "notwithstanding" (Jos 22:19; Lu 10:20 the English Revised Version, "nevertheless" the American Standard Revised Version; (Php 4:14), for "nay" (Ro 7:7).

Howsoever (in what manner soever, although, however) is the translation of kol ‘asher, "all that which," etc. (Ze 3:7, "howsoever I punished them," the Revised Version (British and American) "according to all that I have appointed concerning her," margin "howsoever I have punished her"; the English Revised Version omits "have"); of raq, "only," "surely," "nevertheless" (Jud 19:20); of yehi-mah, "let be what" (2Sa 18:22,23, the Revised Version (British and American) "but come what may"); in 2Sa 24:3 "how" and "soever" are separated (kahem), "how many soever they may be," literally, "as they and as they."

W. L. Walker


ho’-za-i (chozay, or as it stands at the close of the verse in question, 2Ch 33:19, chozay; Septuagint ton horonton; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) "Hozai"; the King James Version the seers; the King James Version margin "Hosai"; the American Standard Revised Version "Hozia," the American Revised Version margin "the seers." Septuagint not improbably reads ha-chozim, as in 2Ch 33:18; an easy error, since there we find we-dhibhere ha-chozim, "the words of the seers," and here dibhere chozay, "the words of Hozai." Kittel, following Budde, conjectures as the original reading chozayw, "his (Manasseh’s) seers"): A historiographer of Manasseh, king of Judah. Thought by many of the Jews, incorrectly, to be the prophet Isaiah, who, as we learn from 2Ch 26:22, was historiographer of a preceding king, Uzziah. This "History of Hozai" has not come down to us. The prayer of Manasseh, mentioned in 33:12 f, 18 f and included in this history, suggested the apocryphal book, "The Prayer of Manasses," written, probably, in the 1st century BC.


J. Gray McAllister


huk’-ster: A retailer of small wares, provisions, or the like; a peddler. "A huckster shall not be acquitted of sin" (Sirach 26:29). Neither a merchant nor a huckster is without sin.


huk’-ok (chuqqoq): A town on the border of Naphtali named with Aznoth-tabor (Jos 19:34). It is usually identified with the village of yaquq, which stands on the West of Wady el-‘Amud, to the Northwest of Gennesaret, about 4 miles from the sea. This would fall on the boundary of Zebulun and Naphtali, between Tabor and Hannathon (Jos 19:14). The identification may be correct; but it seems too far from Tabor.





hul (chul): The name of one of the "sons of Aram" in the list of nations descended from Noah, but a people of uncertain identity and location (Ge 10:23; 1Ch 1:17).ew>yaquq, which stands on the West of Wady el-‘Amud, to the Northwest of Gennesaret, about 4 miles from the sea. This would fall on the boundary of Zebulun and Naphtali, between Tabor and Hannathon (Jos 19:14). The identification may be correct; but it seems too far from Tabor.


hul’-da (chuldah, "weasel"; Holda): A prophetess who lived in Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah. She was the wife of Shallum, keeper of the wardrobe, and resided in the "Mishneh" or second part or quarter of Jerusalem (location unknown). Cheyne says it should read, "She was sitting in the upper part of the gate of the Old City," i.e. in a public central place ready to receive any who wished to inquire of Yahweh. He gives no reason for such a change of text. The standing and reputation of Huldah in the city are attested by the fact that she was consulted when the Book of the Law was discovered. The king, high priest, counselors, etc., appealed to her rather than to Jeremiah, and her word was accepted by all as the word of Yahweh (2Ki 22:14-20; 2Ch 34:22-29).

J. J. Reeve




hu-mil-i-a’-shun (Ac 8:33; Php 2:8).



hu-mil’-i-ti (~[‘anawah]; tapeinophrosune):

(1) The noun occurs in the Old Testament only in Pr 15:33; 18:12; 22:4, but the adjective "humble" appears frequently as the translation of ‘ani, ‘anaw, shaphal, meaning also "poor," "afflicted"; the verb, as the translation of ‘anah, "to afflict," "to humble," and of kana‘, "to be or become humbled"; tsana‘, "to be lowly," occurs in Mic 6:8. For "humble" (Ps 9:12; 10:12) the Revised Version (British and American) has "poor"; Ps 10:17; 34:2; 69:32, "meek"; for "humbled" (Ps 35:13), "afflicted" (Isa 2:11; 10:33), "brought low"; for "He humbleth himself" (Isa 2:9) "is brought low," margin "humbleth himself"; Ps 10:10, "boweth down"; tapeinophrosune is translated "humility" (Col 2:18,23; 1Pe 5:5); in several other places it is translated "lowliness" and "lowliness of mind"; tapeinos is translated "humble" (Jas 4:6; 1Pe 5:5; elsewhere "lowly," etc.; 1Pe 3:8, tapeinophron), the Revised Version (British and American) "humble-minded"; tapeinoo, "to humble," occurs frequently (Mt 18:4; 23:12, etc.); tapeinosis is "humiliation" (Ac 8:33); for "vile body" (Php 3:21) the Revised Version (British and American) gives "body of our humiliation."

(2) (a) In the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, humility is an essential characteristic of true piety, or of the man who is right with God. God humbles men in order to bring them to Himself (De 8:2,3, etc.), and it is when men humble themselves before Him that they are accepted (1Ki 21:29; 2Ch 7:14, etc.); to "walk humbly with thy God" completes the Divine requirements (Mic 6:8). In Ps 18:35 (2Sa 22:36) the quality is ascribed to God Himself, "Thy gentleness (or condescension) hath made me great." Of "him that hath his seat on high" it is said, (Hebrew) "humbleth (shaphel) himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth" (Ps 113:6). It is in the humble heart that "the high and lofty One, .... whose name is Holy" dwells (Isa 57:15; compare Isa 66:2).

(b) The word tapeinophrosune is not found in classical Greek (Lightfoot); in the New Testament (with the exception of 1Pe 5:5) it is Pauline. In Greek pre-Christian writers tapeinos is, with a few exceptions in Plato and Platonic writers, used in a bad or inferior sense—as denoting something evil or unworthy. The prominence it gained in Christian thought indicates the new conception of man in relation to God, to himself, and to his fellows, which is due to Christianity. It by no means implies slavishness or servility; nor is it inconsistent with a right estimate of oneself, one’s gifts and calling of God, or with proper self-assertion when called for. But the habitual frame of mind of a child of God is that of one who feels not only that he owes all his natural gifts, etc., to God, but that he has been the object of undeserved redeeming love, and who regards himself as being not his own, but God’s in Christ. He cannot exalt himself, for he knows that he has nothing of himself. The humble mind is thus at the root of all other graces and virtues. Self-exaltation spoils everything. There can be no real love without humility. "Love," said Paul, "vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up" (1Co 13:4). As Augustine said, humility is first, second and third in Christianity.

(c) Jesus not only strongly impressed His disciples with the need of humility, but was in Himself its supreme example. He described Himself as "meek and lowly (tapeinos) in heart" (Mt 11:29). The first of the Beatitudes was to "the poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3), and it was "the meek" who should "inherit the earth. Humility is the way to true greatness: he who should "humble himself as this little child" should be "the greatest in the kingdom of heaven"; "Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Mt 18:4; 23:12; Lu 14:11; 18:14). To the humble mind truth is revealed (Mt 11:25; Lu 10:21). Jesus set a touching example of humility in His washing His disciples’ feet (Joh 13:1-17).

(d) Paul, therefore, makes an earnest appeal to Christians (Php 2:1-11) that they should cherish and manifest the Spirit of their Lord’s humility—"in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself," and adduces the supreme example of the self-emptying (kenosis) of Christ: "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus," etc. The rendering of heauton ekenosen (Php 2:7 the King James Version) by "he humbled himself" has given rise to the designation of the Incarnation as "the Humiliation of Christ."

(e) There is a false humility which Paul warns against, a self-sought, "voluntary humility" (Col 2:18,23). This still exists in many forms, and has to be guarded against. It is not genuine humility when we humble ourselves with the feeling that we are greater than others, but only when we do not think of self at all. It is not alone the sense of sin that should create the humble spirit: Jesus had no sin. It belongs not merely to the creature, but even to a son in relation to God. There may be much self-satisfaction where sinfulness is confessed. We may be proud of our humility. It is necessary also always to beware of "the pride that apes humility."

W. L. Walker


humps: Appears in Isa 30:6 in the American Standard Revised Version for "bunches" in the King James Version.


hum’-ta (chumTah): An unidentified place mentioned between Aphekah and Hebron in the mountain of Judah (Jos 15:54).


hun’-dred (me’-ah; hekaton).



hun’-ger (ra‘abh; limos (subs.), peinao (vb.):

(1) The desire for food, a physiological sensation associated with emptiness of the stomach, and dependent on some state of the mucous membrane;

(2) starvation as the effect of want of food, as Ex 16:3; Isa 49:10;

(3) to feel the craving for food as De 8:3; when used to indicate the condition due to general scarcity of food as Jer 38:9; Eze 34:29 it is replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by "famine." The word is used to express the poverty which follows idleness and sloth (Pr 19:15). The absence of this condition is given as one of the characteristics of the future state of happiness (Isa 49:10; Eze 34:29; Re 7:16). Metaphorically the passionate striving for moral and spiritual rectitude is called hungering and thirsting after righteousness (Mt 5:6); and the satisfaction of the soul which receives Christ is described as a state in which "he shall not hunger" (Joh 6:35).

On two occasions it is said of our Lord that He hungered (Mt 21:18; Lu 4:2); 9 times the old English expression "an hungred" is used, the "an" being a prefix which indicates that the condition is being continued (Mt 12:1,3; 25:35,37,42,44; Mr 2:25; Lu 6:3 the King James Version). In Mt 4:2 the King James Version, "an hungred" has been changed to "hungered" in the Revised Version (British and American). "Hard bestead and hungry" in Isa 8:21 means bested (that is, placed) in a condition of hardship, "sore distressed," the American Standard Revised Version. The word occurs in Spenser, "Thus ill bestedd and fearful more of shame" (I, i, 24). The reference of the aggravation of the sensation of hunger when one who is starving awakes from a dream of food (Isa 29:8) is graphically illustrated by the experience of the antarctic voyager (Shackleton, Heart of the Antarctic, II, 9).

Alexander Macalister


hunt’-ing (tsayidh): The hunting of wild animals for sport, or for the defense of men and flocks, or for food, was common in Western Asia and Egypt, especially in early times. Some of the Egyptian and Assyrian kings were great hunters in the first sense, for example Amenhotep III (1411-1375 BC "a lion-hunting and bull-baiting Pharaoh," who boasted of having slain 76 bulls in the course of one expedition, and of having killed at one time or other 102 lions; and the Assyrian conqueror, Tiglath-pileser I (circa 1100 BC), who claimed 4 wild bulls, 14 elephants and 920 lions as the trophies of his skill and courage.

1. Nimrod and His Like:

The Biblical prototype of these heroes of war and the chase is Nimrod, "a mighty hunter before Yahweh" (Ge 10:9), that is perhaps "a hunter who had no equal," a figure not yet clearly identifiable with any historical or mythical character in the Assyro-Bab monuments, but possibly the Gilgamesh of the great epic, who may be the hero represented on seals and reliefs as victorious over the lion (Skinner, "Gen," ICC, 208). We are reminded also of Samson’s exploit at Timnah (Jud 14:5 f), but this, like David’s encounter with the lion and the bear (1Sa 17:34 f) and Benaiah’s struggle with a lion in a pit on a snowy day (2Sa 23:20), was an occasional incident and scarcely comes under the category of hunting. There is no evidence that hunting for sport was ever practiced by the kings of Judah and Israel. Not until the time of Herod the Great, who had a hunting establishment and was a great hunter of boars, stags, and wild asses (Josephus, BJ, I, xxi, 13), mastering as many as 40 beasts in one day, do we find a ruler of Palestine indulging in this pastime.

2. Hunting in the Old Testament:

Hunting, however, for the two other purposes mentioned above was probably as frequent among the Israelites, even after they had ceased to be nomads, as among their neighbors. We know indeed of only two personal examples, both in the patriarchal period and both outside the direct line of Israelite descent: Esau (Ge 25:27 ) and Ishmael (Ge 21:20); but there are several references and many figurative allusions to the pursuit and its methods and instruments. Hunting (inclusive of following) is mentioned in the Pentateuch in the regulation about pouring out the blood and covering it with dust (Le 17:13); and there is a general reference in the proverb (Pr 12:27): "The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting." The hunting of the lion is assumed in Ezekiel’s allegory of the lioness and her two whelps (Eze 19:1-9; compare Job 10:16); of the antelope or oryx (De 14:5; Isa 51:20); of the roe (Pr 6:5); of the partridge in the mountains (1Sa 26:20), and of birds in general in many passages. Hunting is probably implied in the statement about the provision of harts, gazelles and roebucks for Solomon’s kitchen (1Ki 4:23), and to some extent in the reference to the den of lions in Babylon (Da 6:7 ).

3. Methods of Hunters:

The weapons most frequently employed by hunters seem to have been bows and arrows. Isaac (Ge 27:3) commands Esau to take his bow and quiver and procure him venison or game (compare also Isa 7:24; Job 41:28). This method is amply illustrated by the monuments. Ashur-nazir-pal lII (885-860 BC) and Darius (circa 500 BC), for example, are depicted shooting at lions from the chariot. Use was also made of the sword, the spear, the dart or javelin, the sling and the club (Job 41:26,28 f, where the application of these weapons to hunting is implied). The larger animals were sometimes caught in a pit. The classical reference is in Ezekiel’s allegory, "He was taken in their pit" (shachath, Eze 19:4,8; compare also Isa 24:17 f; Jer 48:43 f; Ps 35:7, etc.). The details of this mode of capture as practiced at the present day, and probably in ancient times, are described by Tristram in his Natural History of the Bible (118 f). A more elaborate method is described by Maspero in Lectures historiques (285). To make the pit-capture more effective, nets were also employed: "They spread their net over him" (Eze 19:8; compare Ps 35:7). When caught, the lion was sometimes placed in a large wooden cage (Eze 19:9, cughar, the Assyrian shigaru; for the word and the thing compare SBOT, "Ezk," English, 132; Heb, 71). The lion (or any other large animal) was led about by a ring or hook (chach) inserted in the jaws or nose (2Ki 19:28 equals Isa 37:29; Eze 19:4,9; 29:4; 38:4). From wild animals the brutal Assyrians transferred the custom to their human captives, as the Israelites were well aware (2Ch 33:11 the Revised Version margin, Hebrew choach; for monumental illustrations compare SBOT, "Ezk," English, 132 f). Nets were also used for other animals such as the oryx or antelope (Isa 51:20). The Egyptian and Assyrian monuments show that dogs were employed in hunting in the ancient East, and it is not improbable that they were put to this service by the Hebrews also, but there is no clear Biblical evidence, as "greyhound" in Pr 30:31 is a questionable rendering. Josephus indeed (Ant., IV, viii, 9) mentions the hunting dog in a law ascribed to Moses, but the value of the allusion is uncertain.

4. Fowlers and Their Snares:

The hunting of birds or fowling is so often referred or alluded to that it must have been very widely practiced (compare Ps 91:3; 124:7; Pr 1:17; 6:5; Ec 9:12; Am 3:5, etc.). The only bird specifically mentioned is the partridge, said to be hunted on the mountains (1Sa 26:20). The method of hunting is supposed by Tristram (N H B, 225) to be that still prevalent—continual pursuit until the creature is struck down by sticks thrown along the ground—but the interpretation is uncertain. Birds were generally caught by snares or traps. Two passages are peculiarly instructive on this point: Job 18:8-10, where six words are used for such contrivances, represented respectively by "net," "toils," "gin," "snare," "noose," "trap "; and Am 3:5, which is important enough to be cited in full: "Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is set for him? shall a snare spring up from the ground, and have taken nothing at all?" The word for "snare" in this passage (pach) probably describes a net laid on the ground, perhaps a circular net like the Egyptian bird-trap represented in the Cambridge Bible, "Amos," 157. The word for "gin," usually ira in the Revised Version (British and American) "snare" (moqesh, literally, "fowling instrument") is supposed to refer either to the bait (ibid., 158) or to the catch connected with it which causes the net to collapse (Siegfried). For a full account of Egyptian modes of following which probably illustrate ancient Palestinian methods, compare Wilkinson, Popular Account, II, 178-83. The two words (moqesh and pach) mentioned above are used figuratively in many Old Testament passages, the former repeatedly of the deadly influence of Canaanitish idolatry on Israel, as in Ex 23:33, "For if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee" (compare Ex 34:12; De 7:16; Jos 23:13). The use of the hawk in fowling, which is at- tested for Northern Syria by a bas-relief found in 1908 at Sakje-Geuzi, is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but there may perhaps be an allusion in Apocrypha (Baruch 3:17, "they that had their pastime with the fowls of the air"). A reference to the use of decoys has been found in Jer 5:27, "a cage .... full of birds," but that is a doubtful interpretation, and in the Greek of Sirach 11:30, "As a decoy partridge in a cage, so is the heart of a proud man," but the Hebrew text of the latter is less explicit.


5. Allusions in the New Testament:

The New Testament has a few figurative allusions to hunting. The words for "catch" in Mr 12:13 and Lu 11:54 (agreuo and thereuo) mean literally, "hunt." The verb "ensnare" (pagideuo) occurs in the Gospels (Mt 22:15), and the noun "snare" (pagis) is met with in 5 passages (Lu 21:34; Ro 11:9; 1Ti 3:7; 6:9; 2Ti 2:26). Another word for "snare" (brochos), which means literally, "noose" (Revised Version margin), is used in 1Co 7:35. The words for "things that cause stumbling" and "stumble" (skandalon and skandalizo) may possibly conceal in some passages an allusion to a hunter’s trap or snare. Skandalon is closely allied to skandalethron, "the stick in a trap on which the bait is placed," and is used in Septuagint for moqesh. The abundant use of imagery taken from hunting in the Bible is remarkable, in view of the comparative rarity of literal references.


In addition to the works cited in the course of the article, the article "Hunting" in DB2, HDB large and small, EB, Jewish Encyclopedia; and "Jagd" in German Bible Diets. of Guthe, Riehm2, and Wiener, and in RE3.

William Taylor Smith


hu’-fam (chupham, "coast-inhabitant"): One of Benjamin’s sons and head of the Huphamite family (Nu 26:39).



hup’-a (chuppah, "protection"): The priest in charge of the 13th course as prescribed under David (1Ch 24:13).


hup’-im (chuppim, "coast-people"): Probably a variant form of HUPHAM (which see). From the only mention made of him (Ge 46:21; 1Ch 7:12,15), his direct descent is difficult to establish.


hur (chur):

(1) A prominent official in Israel. With Aaron he held up Moses’ hands during the battle against the Amalekites (Ex 17:10,12) and assisted him as judicial head of the people during Moses’ stay in the mount (Ex 24:14).

(2) Grandfather of Bezalel, the head artificer in the construction of the Tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 2Ch 1:5). He is here assigned to the tribe of Judah, and in 1Ch is connected with the same by descent through Caleb (2:19,20,50; 4:1,4). Josephus (Ant., III, ii, 4; vi, 1) makes him identical with (1) and the husband of Miriam.

(3) One of the five kings of Midian slain along with Balaam when Israel avenged the "matter of Peor" upon this people (Nu 31:8; compare Nu 31:1,2,16). In Jos 13:21 these kings are spoken of as "chiefs (nesi’im) of Midian" and "princes (necikhim) of Sihon," king of the Amorites.

(4) According to 1Ki 4:8 the King James Version, the father of one of Solomon’s twelve officers who provided food for the king’s household, and whose district was the hill country of Ephraim. Here the Revised Version (British and American) has "Ben-hur," taking the Hebrew ben, "son of," as part of the proper name; and the same is true in reference to the names of four others of these officers (compare 1Ki 4:9,10,11,13).

(5) Father of Rephaiah, who was one of the builders of the wall under Nehemiah, and ruler of half the district of Jerusalem (Ne 3:9).

Benjamin Reno Downer


hu’-ri, hu’-ra-i, hu-ra’-i (churay, "linen-weaver"): One of David’s "mighty men" mentioned in 1Ch 11:32 as of the brooks of Gaash, i.e. from Mt. Gash. In the parallel 2Sa 23:30, the orthography is Hiddai.


hu’-ram (churam, "noble-born"):

(1) Grandson of Benjamin (1Ch 8:5).

(2) King of Tyre in alliance with David and Solomon. So named in 2Ch 2:3,11,12; 8:2; 9:10,21, but elsewhere written HIRAM (which see).

(3) The Tyrian artisan who is so named in 2Ch 2:13; 4:11,16, but elsewhere called "Hiram."


hu’-ri (churi, "linen weaver"): One of the immediate descendants of Gad, and father of Abihail, a chief man of his family (1Ch 5:14).


hurt: The term (noun and verb) represents a large number of Hebrew words, of which the chief are ra‘ (verb ra‘a‘), "evil" (Ge 26:29; 1Sa 24:9; Ps 35:4, etc.), and shebher or shebher (from shabhar), "a fracture" or "breaking" (Jer 6:14; 8:11,21; 10:19; compare Ex 22:10,14). In Greek a principal verb is adikeo, "to do injustice" (Lu 10:19; Re 2:11; 6:6, etc.); once the word "hurt" is used in the King James Version (Ac 27:10, story of Paul’s shipwreck) for hubris, "injury" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). In the Revised Version (British and American) "hurt" sometimes takes the place of other words in the King James Version, as "sick" (Pr 23:35), "breach" (Isa 30:26), "bruise" (Jer 30:12; Na 3:19); sometimes, on the other hand, the word in the King James Version is exchanged in the Revised Version (British and American) for "evil" (Jos 24:20), "harm" (Ac 18:10), or, as above, "injury" (Ac 27:10). These references sufficiently show the meaning of the word—harm, bruise, breaking, etc. In Jeremiah (ut supra) the word is used figuratively for moral disease or corruption.

James Orr


huz’-band (’ish; aner): In the Hebrew household the husband and father was the chief personage of an institution which was regarded as more than a social organism, inasmuch as the family in primitive Semitic society had a distinctively religious character and significance. It was through it that the cult of the household and tribal deities was practiced and perpetuated. The house-father, by virtue of being the family head, was priest of the household, and as such, responsible for the religious life of the family and the maintenance of the family altar. As priest he offered sacrifices to the family gods, as at first, before the centralization of worship, he did to Yahweh as the tribal or national Deity. We see this reflected in the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and in the Book of Job. This goes far to explain such records as we have in Ge 31:53; 32:9, and the exceptional reverence that was paid the paternal sepulchers (1Sa 20:6). Abraham was regarded as being the father of a nation. It was customary, it would seem, to assign a "father" to every known tribe and nation (Ge 10). So the family came to play an important and constructive part in Hebrew thought and life, forming the base upon which the social structure was built, merging gradually into the wider organism of the clan or tribe, and vitally affecting at last the political and religious life of the nation itself.

The husband from the first had supreme authority over his wife, or wives, and children. In his own domain his rule was well-nigh absolute. The wife, or wives, looked up to him as their lord (Ge 18:12). He was chief (compare Arabic sheik), and to dishonor him was a crime to be punished by death (Ex 21:15,17). He was permitted to divorce his wife with little reason, and divorces were all too common (De 22:13,19,28,29; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8; 5:8; Mal 2:16, etc.). The wife seems to have had no redress if wronged by him. Absolute faithfulness, though required of the wife, was apparently not expected or exacted of the husband, so long as he did not violate the rights of another husband. In general among Eastern people women were lightly esteemed, as in the Japhetic nations they came to be. Plato counted a state "disorganized" "where slaves are disobedient to their masters, and wives are on equality with their husbands." "Is there a human being," asks Socrates, "with whom you talk less than with your wife?" But from the first, among the Hebrews the ideal husband trained his household in the way they should go religiously, as well as instructed them in the traditions of the family, the tribe, and the nation (Ge 18:19; Ex 12:26; 13:8; De 6:7, etc.). It was due to this, in part at least, that, in spite of the discords and evils incident to polygamy, the Hebrew household was nursery of virtue and piety to an unusual degree, and became a genuine anticipation of the ideal realized later in the Christian home (1Co 7:2 ff; Eph 5:25; 1Pe 3:7).

Used figuratively of the relation (1) between Yahweh and His people (Isa 54:5; Jer 3:14; Ho 2:19 f); (2) between Christ and His church (Mt 9:15; 2Co 11:2; Eph 5:25; Re 19:7; 21:2).

George B. Eager


(yabham, "brother-in-law"; epigambreuo; Late Latin levir): He was required (De 25:5-10; Mt 22:24) "to perform the duty of a husband’s brother" (yibbemah); that is, if his brother, living with him on the paternal estate, died without male issue, he should take the widow to wife, and "raise up seed unto his brother," the firstborn of the new marriage inheriting the deceased brother’s estate. Refusal of the duty was possible, but entailed public ceremonial disgrace and lasting reproach. This provision for a specific case modified the general law which forbade the marriage of a sister-in-law (Le 18:16,18). It was a patriarchal custom (Ge 38; Judah and Tamar), and is alluded to in Ru 1:11-13. A related custom is found in Ru 4:1, Boaz playing; however, the part, not of levir ("brother-in-law"), but of go‘el ("redeemer"). It was at least theoretically in force in our Lord’s time (Mt 22:23-28; the question of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection). For the origin and object of this custom see FAMILY; MARRIAGE.

Philip Wendell Crannell


huz’-band-man, huz’-band-ri: Husbandman, originally a "householder" or "master of the house," is now limited in its meaning to "farmer" or "tiller of the soil." In this sense it is the correct translation of the various Biblical words: ish ‘adahamah, literally, "man of the soil" (Ge 9:20); ‘ikkar, literally, "digger," "a farmer" (2Ch 26:10; Jer 31:24; 51:23; Am 5:16; Joe 1:11); gubh, "to dig" (2Ki 25:12); yaghabh, "to dig" (Jer 52:16); georgos, "cultivator" (Mt 21:33 ff; Joh 15:1; Jas 5:7).


It is a common practice in Palestine and Syria today for a rich man to own lands in many different parts of the country. He sets farmers over these different tracts who, with the helpers, do the plowing, planting, reaping, etc.; or he lets out his lands to farmers who pay him an annual rental or return to him a certain percentage of the crop. Much of the plain of Esdraelon, for example, was until recently owned by Beirut proprietors and farmed in this way. The writer while riding on the plain near ancient Dan, was surprised to overtake an acquaintance from Beirut (3 days’ journey away), who had just dismounted at one of his farms to inspect it and to receive the annual account of his farmer. The pride with which the husbandman pointed out the abundant harvest will not be forgotten. All the difficulties of the owner with his husbandmen described by Jesus are often repeated today.

Figurative: Jesus said "I am the true vine, and my father is the husbandman" (Joh 15:1). He sows, cultivates, prunes and expects fruits from His church. In the parable of the Householder (Mt 21:33 ), the wicked husbandmen were the Jews. The church is referred to as "God’s husbandry" in 1Co 3:9 (m "tilled land").

James A. Patch


hu’-sha (chushah, "haste"): Mentioned in 1Ch 4:4 as probably an individual, a Judahite, or a family name; but may possibly be a place.


hut’-shi, hus’-sha-i (chushay, Chousei; Josephus, Chousi): An Archite, native of Archi or Erech(?), West of Bethel on the northern border of Benjamin and southern border of Joseph (Jos 16:2). Hushai was one of David’s most faithful and wise counselors. When David was fleeing from Jerusalem and Absalom, Hushai met him, having his coat rent and earth on his head. The king persuaded him to return to Jerusalem, feign submission to Absalom, and try to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel (2Sa 15:32 f). Whatever Absalom decided on, Hushai was to send word to David through two young men, sons of the priests Zadok and Abiathar (2Sa 15:34-36). Hushai obeyed, and succeeded in persuading Absalom to adopt his counsel rather than that of Ahithophel (2Sa 16:16-17:14). He sent word to David of the nature of Ahithophel’s counsel, and the king made good his escape that night across the Jordan. The result was the suicide of Ahithophel and the ultimate defeat and death of Absalom.

J. J. Reeve


hu’-sham (chusham, Ge 36:34; chusham, 1Ch 1:45-46, "alert"): According to the former reference, Husham was one of the kings of Edom, and according to the latter he was "of the land of the Temanites" and (1Ch 1:35 f) descended from Esau.


hu’-shath-it, (chushathi, "a dweller in Hushah"?): The patronymic given in two forms, but probably of the same man, Sibbeccai, one of David’s thirty heroes (2Sa 21:18; 1Ch 11:29; 20:4; 27:11), or Mebunnai as named in the parallel passage (2Sa 23:27).


hu’-shim (chusim, "hasters"):

(1) Family name of the children of Da (Ge 46:23), but of form "Shuham" in Nu 26:42.

(2) The sons of Aher of the lineage of Benjamin (1Ch 7:12).

(3) One of the wives of Shaharaim, of the family of Benjamin (1Ch 8:8,11).


hush’-shath-it (chushshathi). Same as HUSHATHITE (which see), except in reduplicated form (1Ch 27:11; compare 1Ch 11:29, Hebrew pronunciation).


husks (keratia, i.e. "little horns," Lu 15:16): These are the pods of the carob tree (Revised Version, margin), also called the locust tree (Ceratonia siliqua). This tree flourishes all over Palestine, especially on the western mountain slopes toward the sea; by the Arabs it is called kharrub. It is dioecious, has dense, dark, evergreen foliage, glossy leaves and long, curved pods, like small horns (hence, the name). These pods which are from 4 to 9 inches in length, have a leathery case containing a pulpy substance in which the beans are imbedded; this pulp is of a pleasant, sweetish flavor and has a characteristic odor, and is much loved by children. The pods are sold in the markets, both as cattle food and for the poor, who extract by boiling them a sweetish substance like molasses. The tradition that the "locusts" of Mt 3:4; Mr 1:6 were carob pods is preserved in the name given to them, "St. John’s bread," but it has little to be said for it.

E. W. G. Masterman


huz (Ge 22:21 the King James Version).

See UZ.


huz’-ab (hutstsabh, only in Na 2:7 the King James Version and the Revised Version margin): Its meaning is doubtful. According to Gesenius, it is a verb, Hoph. of tsabhabh, "flow," hence, to be rendered with preceding verse, "The palace is dissolved and made to flow down." Wordsworth made it Pual of natsabh, "fix": "The palace is dissolved, though established." Septuagint renders with the next word, he hupostasis apokaluphthe, "The foundation (or treasure) is uncovered." the King James Version, the Revised Version margin and the American Standard Revised Version text make it Hoph. of natsabh, "fix," hence, "It is decreed." Perhaps more probably, with the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) text and the American Revised Version margin, it is a name, or noun with the article (or the corruption of such a word), referring either to the Assyrian queen, or personifying Nineveh. No such queen is now known, but Assyriology may throw light. The "name" interpretation accords best with the general trend of the passage, which describes the discomfiture of a royal personage. BDB calls it "perhaps textual error." The Massoretic vocalization may be at fault.

Philip Wendell Crannell


hi’-a-sinth (huakinthos): the Revised Version (British and American) uses this word in Re 9:17 for the King James Version "jacinth," with reference, not to stone, but to dark-purple color. In Re 21:20, where stone is meant, the Revised Version (British and American) translations "sapphire."



See ASTROLOGY, sec. II, 4.


hi-das’-pez (Hudaspes): A river mentioned in Judith 1:6 in connection with the Euphrates and Tigris, but otherwise unknown. It is possible there may be a confusion with the Hydaspes of India. Some have conjectured an identity with the Choaspes.


hi-e’-na (tsabhua‘ (Jer 12:9); Septuagint huaine (Jer 12:9; Ecclesiasticus 13:18); compare Arabic dab‘ or dabu‘, "hyaena"; compare tsebho‘im, Zeboim (1Sa 13:18; Ne 11:34); also compare tsibh‘on, Zibeon (Ge 36:2,14,20; 1Ch 1:38); but not tsebhoyim, Zeboiim (Ge 10:19; 14:2, etc.)): English Versions of the Bible does not contain the word "hyena," except in Ecclesiasticus 13:18, "What peace is there between the hyena and the dog? and what; peace between the rich man and the poor?" In Jer 12:9, where the Hebrew has ha-‘ayiT tsabhua‘ (the Revised Version (British and American) "a speckled bird of prey"), Septuagint has spelaion huaines, "a hyena’s den," as if from a Hebrew original having me‘arah, "cave," instead of ha-‘ayiT, "bird." The root tsabha‘ may mean "to seize as prey" (compare Arabic seb‘, "lion" or "rapacious animal"), or "to dip" or "to dye" (compare Arabic cabagh, "to dye"), hence, the two translations of tsabhua‘ as "hyena" and as "speckled" (Vulgate versicolor).

The hyena of Palestine is the striped hyena (Hyaena striata) which ranges from India to North Africa. The striped, the spotted, and the brown hyenas constitute a distinct family of the order of Carnivora, having certain peculiarities of dentition and having four toes on each foot, instead of four behind and five in front, as in most of the order. The hyena is a nocturnal animal, rarely seen though fairly abundant, powerful but cowardly, a feeder on carrion and addicted to grave-robbing. The last habit in particular has won it the abhorrence of the natives of the countries which it inhabits. In the passage cited in Ecclus, it is to be noted that it is to the hyena that the rich man is compared. The jaws and teeth of the hyena are exceedingly strong and fitted for crushing bones which have resisted the efforts of dogs and jackals. Its dens are in desolate places and are littered with fragments of skeletons. "Is my heritage unto me as a speckled bird of prey?" (Jer 12:9) becomes a more striking passage if the Septuagint is followed, "Is my heritage unto me as a hyena’s den?"

Shaqq-ud-Diba‘, "Cleft of the hyenas," is the name of a valley north of Wadi-ul-Qelt, and Wadi-Abu-Diba‘ (of similar meaning) is the name of an affluent of Wadi-ul-Qelt. Either of these, or possibly Wadi-ul-Qelt itself, may be the valley of Zeboim (valley of hyenas) of 1Sa 13:18.

The name of Zibeon the Horite (Ge 36:2, etc.) is more doubtfully connected with "hyena."

Alfred Ely Day


hi-men-e’-us (Humenaios, so named from Hymen, the god of marriage, 1Ti 1:20; 2Ti 2:17): A heretical teacher in Ephesus, an opponent of the apostle Paul, who in the former reference associates him with Alexander (see ALEXANDER), and in the latter, with Philetus (see PHILETUS).

1. His Career:

It is worthy of notice that in both passages where these persons are mentioned, the name of Hymeneus occurs first, showing, perhaps, that he was the leader. In the passage in 1Ti Hymeneus is included in the "some" who had put away faith and a good conscience and who had made shipwreck concerning faith. The apostle adds that he had delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme.

2. His Denial of the Resurrection:

In the passage in 2 Tim, Hymeneus and Philetus are included among persons whose profane and vain babblings will increase unto more ungodliness, and whose word "will eat as doth a gangrene." The apostle declares that Hymeneus and Philetus rection are of the number of such people as those just described, and he adds that those two persons "concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some." Then, for the guidance of Timothy, he goes on to say the seal upon the foundation of God is, "The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness." The inference intended is, that though Hymeneus and Philetus had named the name of Christ, they did not depart from iniquity. There is no doubt in regard to the identity of this Hymeneus with the person of the same name in 1 Tim. Accordingly, the facts mentioned in the two epistles must be placed together, namely, that though he had made a Christian profession by naming the name of Christ, yet he had not departed from iniquity, but by his profane teaching he proceeded unto more ungodliness, and that he had put away faith and a good conscience and had made shipwreck of faith.

The error, therefore, of Hymeneus and his two companions would amount to this: They taught that "the resurrection is past already," that there shall be no bodily resurrection at all, but that all that resurrection means is that the soul awakes from sin. This awakening from sin had already taken place with themselves, so they held, and therefore there could be no day in the future when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and shall come forth from the grave (Joh 5:28).

3. Incipient Gnosticism:

This teaching of Hymeneus had been so far successful: it had "overthrown the faith of some" (2Ti 2:18). It is impossible to define exactly the full nature of this heresy, but what Paul says regarding it makes evident that it was a form of incipient Gnosticism. This spiritualizing of the resurrection sprang from the idea of the necessarily evil nature of all material substance. This idea immediately led to the conclusion of the essentially evil nature of the human body, and that if man is to rise to his true nature, he must rid himself of the thralldom, not of sin, but of the body. This contempt for the body led to the denial of the resurrection in its literal sense; and all that Christ had taught on the subject was explained only, in an allegorical sense, of the resurrection of the soul from sin.

4. Overthrows Faith:

Teaching of this kind is described by Paul as having effects similar to the "eating" caused by a gangrene. It is deadly; it overthrows Christian faith. If not destroyed, it would corrupt the community, for if there is no literal resurrection of the dead, then, as Paul shows in 1Co 15, Christ is not raised; and if the literal resurrection of Christ is denied, Christian believers are yet in their sins, and the Christian religion is false.

5. Delivered unto Satan:

The way in which the apostle dealt with these teachers, Hymeneus and his companions, was not merely in the renewed assertion of the truth which they denied, but also by passing sentence upon these teachers—"whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme." In regard to the meaning of this sentence much difficulty of interpretation exists. Some understand it to mean simple excommunication from the church. But this seems quite inadequate to exhaust the meaning of the words employed by Paul. Others take it to signify the infliction of some bodily suffering or disease. This also is quite insufficient as an explanation. It seems that a person who was delivered unto Satan was cut off from all Christian privileges, he was "put away" from the body of Christian believers, and handed over to "the Satan," the Evil One in his most distinct personality (1Co 5:2,5,13). Compare the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac 5), and of Elymas (Ac 13:11).

It is important that the purpose of this terrible sentence should not be overlooked. The intention of the punishment was distinctly remedial. Both in the case of Hymenacus and Alexander, and in that of the person dealt with in 1Co 5, the intention was the attaining of an ultimate good. In 1Co it is "for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Similarly, Hymeneus and Alexander are delivered unto Satan, not for their final perdition, but that they may be taught, through this terrible discipline—for such is the signification of the word which is translated "taught"—not to blaspheme. The purpose of this discipline, that they might learn not to blaspheme, shows the dreadful length of impiety and of railing at Christian truth to which Hymeneus had gone.

6. The "Perverse Things" at Ephesus:

In the history of Hymeneus and his companions, and in their bold and anti-Christian teaching which had overthrown the faith of some, we cannot fail to see the fulfillment of what Paul had said many years previously, in his farewell address to the elders of the church in Ephesus: "I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Ac 20:29 f). It was in the Ephesian church that Hymeneus and Alexander and Philetus had arisen. The gangrene-like nature of their teaching has already been described.

John Rutherfurd


him (humnos): In Col 3:16; Eph 5:19 Paul bids his readers sing "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) distinguishes these as follows: the Psalms were accompanied by instruments, the hymns were mainly vocal, and the song, ode, was a general term comprehending both. This distinction might suggest that the psalm belonged especially to the public worship of the church, while the hymn was the production, more or less spontaneous, of the individual member. The inference is, however, inconsistent with 1Co 14:26, and it is probable that in the apostolic age, at least, the terms were used indiscriminately. Of Christian psalms or hymns we have examples in the New Testament. Lu 1 and 2 contain such hymns in the songs of Mary, Zacharias and Simeon. The Apocalypse is studded with hymns or odes, many of them quite general in character, and probably borrowed or adapted from Jewish books of praise. In the Epistles of Paul, especially the later ones, fragments of hymns seem to be quoted. Lightfoot detects one in Eph 5:14, and others readily suggest themselves.

It is probable that the hymn mentioned as having been sung by Jesus and the disciples after the Passover (Mt 26:30; Mr 14:26) was the second part of the Hallel, i.e. Psalms 115-118, and the hymns of Paul and Silas were most likely also taken from the Psalter. But the practice of interpolating and altering Jewish non-canonical books, like the Psalter of Solomon and the recently discovered Odes of Solomon, shows that the early Christians adopted for devotional purposes the rich store of sacred poetry possessed by their nation. For the music to which these psalms, etc., were sung, see MUSIC; SONG.

James Millar


hi-pok’-ri-si, hip’-o-krit (choneph, chaneph; hupokrisis, hupokrites):

(1) "Hypocrisy" occurs only once in the Old Testament as the translation of choneph (Isa 32:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "profaneness"); chaneph, from which it is derived, means properly "to cover," "to hide," or "becloud," hence, to pollute, to be polluted or defiled, to make profane, to seduce; as a substantive it is translated "hypocrite" (Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13, in all which instances the Revised Version (British and American) has "godless man," "godless men," "godless"; Pr 11:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "the godless man"; Isa 9:17, the Revised Version (British and American) "profane"; Isa 33:14, the Revised Version (British and American) "the godless ones"); it is rendered "hypocritical," in Ps 35:16; Isa 10:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "profane."

(2) "Hypocrisy," "hypocrite" are frequent in the New Testament, chiefly in Christ’s discourses in the Gospels. The word hupokrisis (primarily, "an answer," "response") meant generally, in classical Greek, stageplaying, acting, the histrionic art; hence, it came to mean acting a part in life, etc. We find hupokrisis in this sense in 2 Macc 6:25, the Revised Version (British and American) "dissimulation," and hupokrinomai, "to pretend," "to feign," etc. Ecclesiasticus 1:29; 32:15; 33:2, translated "hypocrite"; 2 Macc 5:25, "pretending peace," the Revised Version (British and American) "playing the man of peace"; 6:21, the Revised Version (British and American) "to make as if." Hupokrites (literally, "an actor") is the Septuagint for chaneph (Job 34:30; 36:13), equivalent to bad, wicked, godless, which is perhaps included in some of our Lord’s uses of the words, e.g. Mt 23:27 f, "full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (compare 23:29 f; 24:51); but, in general, the meaning is acting a part, false, deceptive and deceived, formally and outwardly religious and good, but inwardly insincere and unrighteous; the hypocrite may come to deceive himself as well as others, but "the hypocrite’s hope shall perish" (Job 8:13 the King James Version). On no class did our Lord pronounce such severe condemnation as on the hypocrites of His day.

"Hypocrisy" (hupokrisis) occurs in Mt 23:28; Mr 12:15; Lu 12:1; 1Ti 4:2; 1Pe 2:1 (in Ga 2:13 it is rendered "dissimulation"); "hypocrite" (hupokrites), Mt 6:2,5,16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13,15,23,25 ff, 29; 24:51; Mr 7:6; Lu 12:56; 13:15; in Jas 3:17, anupokritos is "without hypocrisy," so the Revised Version (British and American), Ro 12:9 ("unfeigned," 2Co 6:6; 1Ti 1:5; 2Ti 1:5; 1Pe 1:22).

W. L. Walker


her-ka’-nus (Hurkanos): "Son of Tobias, a man of great dignity," who had a large sum of money deposited in the Temple of Jerusalem when Heliodorus was sent to confiscate it in 187 BC (2 Macc 3:11 ff). Opinions differ as to the identity of this Hyrcanus. with the grandson of Tobias whose birth and history are related at considerable length by Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 6 ff), or with another of the same name mentioned in Ant, XIII, viii, 4.



his’-up (’ezobh; hussspos, Ex 12:22; Le 14:4,6,4:9 ff; Nu 19:6,18; 1Ki 4:33; Ps 51:7; Joh 19:29; Heb 9:19): A plant used for ritual cleansing purposes; a humble plant springing out of the wall (1Ki 4:33), the extreme contrast to the cedar.

The common hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) of the Natural Order Labiatae, an aromatic plant with stomatic properties, cannot be the hyssop of the Bible as it is unknown in Palestine, but allied aromatic plants of the same Natural Order have by Maimonides (Neg. xiv.6) and other Jewish writers been identified with it. Probably hyssop is identical with the Arabic zat‘ar, a name applied to a group of aromatic plants of the genus marjoram and thyme. They would any of them furnish a bunch suitable for sprinkling, and they have the important recommendation that they grow everywhere, being found even in the desert. Post thinks of all varieties the Origanum maru, a special variety of marjoram which favors terrace walls and rocks, is the most probable.

The proposal (Royle, Jour. Royal Asiatic Soc., VII, 193-213) to identify the caper (Capparis spinosa) with hyssop, which has been popularized by the works of Tristram, has not much to recommend it. It is true that the caper is very commonly seen growing out of walls all over Palestine (1Ki 4:33), but in no other respect is it suitable to the requirements of the Biblical references. The supposed similarity between the Arabic ‘acaf ("caper") and the Hebrew ‘ezobh is fanciful; the caper with its stiff, prickly stems and smooth, flat leaves would not furnish a bunch for sprinkling as serviceable as many species of zat‘ar. It has been specially urged that the hyssop suits the conditions of Joh 19:29, it being maintained that a stem of caper would make a good object on which to raise the "sponge full of vinegar" to the Saviour’s face, the equivalent of the "reed" of Mt 27:48; Mr 15:36. For such a purpose the flexible, prickly stems of the hyssop would be most unsuitable; indeed, it would be no easy matter to find one of sufficient length. It is necessary to suppose either that a bunch of hyssop accompanied the sponge with the vinegar upon the reed, or, as has been proposed by several writers (for references see article "Hyssop," EB), that hussopo is a corruption of husso, "javelin," and that the passage should read "They put a sponge full of vinegar upon a javelin."

E. W. G. Masterman