kab (qabh, "something hollowed out," 2Ki 6:25; the King James Version Cab): A Hebrew dry measure and liquid measure equal to about 2 quarts.

See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

kab’-ze-el, kab’-zel (kabhtse’el "(whom) God collects"): One of the "uttermost cities" of Judah toward the border of Edom in the South (Negeb) (Jos 15:21). It was the native place of Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, one of David’s mighty men (2Sa 23:20; 1Ch 11:22). "Jekabzeel and the villages thereof," one of the places re-inhabited by the men of Judah (Ne 11:25), appears to be the same place. The site is unknown.

See KADESH-BARNEA.

See KEDESH, 3.

o-ron’-tez (in Massoretic Text of 2Sa 24:6, under the corrupt form tachtim chodhshi, which should be corrected from the Septuagint (Luc.) reading: eis ten genitive Chettieim Kades, "to the land of the Hittites unto Kadesh," into ‘erets ha-chittim qadheshah. Ewald and others, fixing the northern ideal boundary of Israel at the sources of the Jordan, would read "Hermon" for chodhshi, but the conjectures of Thenius and Hitzig of a reference to the northern Kadesh are fully confirmed by the reading given): Kadesh was the southern capital of the Hittites, and was situated on the upper waters of the Orontes, 80 miles North of Damascus. It is now represented by a large mound 5 miles South of what, till the Middle Ages, was called the Lake of Kades, but now the Lake of Homs. Here Thothmes III of Egypt (flourished circa 1650 BC), after the battle of Megiddo, met and received hostages from the Assyrians, and here too Rameses II defeated Hatesar, king of the Hittites (circa 1320 BC), and concluded with him a treaty, which was formally inscribed on a disk of silver. The incidents of the battle are depicted on the walls of the Ramesseum, and an Egyptian epic records the heroic deeds of Rameses. Under the name Kadytis, it is mentioned as being taken by Pharaoh-necoh (Herodotus ii.159) in 609 BC. In the only Bible reference (2Sa 24:6), it is named as the northern limit of the census made by David.

W. M. Christie

ka’-desh-bar’-ne-a (qadhesh barnea‘; Kades): Mentioned 10 times; called also "Kadesh" simply. The name perhaps means "the holy place of the desert of wandering." There are references to Kadesh in early history. At En-mishpat ("the same is Kadesh") Chedorlaomer and his allies smote the Amalekite and Amorite. Abraham dwelt near Kadesh, and it was at Beer-lahai-roi between Kadesh and Bered that the Angel of Yahweh appeared to Hagar (Ge 14:7; 16:14; 20:1). It was an important camp of the Israelites during their wanderings, and seems to have been their headquarters for 38 years (De 1:2; 2:14; Judith 5:14). There the returning spies found the camp (Nu 13:26); there Miriam died and was buried (Nu 20:1); from thence messengers were sent to the king of Edom (Nu 20:14; Jud 11:16 ). There the people rebelled because of the want of water, and Moses brought water from the rock (Nu 20:2 ); it was called therefore Meribath—or Meriboth-Kadesh (Nu 27:14; Eze 47:19; 48:28). It was situated in the wilderness of Zin (Nu 20:1; 33:36,37) in the hill country of the Amorites (De 1:19), 11 days’ journey from Horeb, by the way of Mt. Seir (De 1:2), "in the uttermost" of the border of Edom (Nu 20:16), and on the southern border, probably the Southeast corner, of Judah (Eze 47:19; compare Judith 19). See Cobern, Homiletic Review, April and May, 1914.

S. F. Hunter

kad’-mi-el (qadhmi’el, "before God," "priest"(?); "Cadmiel" in parallel lists in 1 Esdras 5:26,58 the King James Version; omitted in Septuagint Codex Vaticanus; Codex Alexandrinus reads kai Kadmielon): A Levite (Ezr 2:40; Ne 7:43), founder of a family whose descendants returned from captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:1; Ne 7:43; 12:1,8). He is named among those who praise God for the return (Ne 9:4,5; 12:24); was of those who "set forward" the work of the Lord’s house (Ezr 3:9; 1 Esdras 5:26,58), and is again mentioned with those who "seal" the new Return Covenant (Ne 10:28 ) after the re-establishment of worship (Ne 10:1,9).

kad’-mon-it (qadhmoni; Kedmonaioi, signifies "the Easterner," or, less probably, "one of the ancient race"): The Kadmonites are mentioned in Ge 15:19 along with the Kenites and Kenizzites of Edom, and are doubtless the same as "the children of the east," whose wisdom was celebrated (1Ki 4:30). qedhemah, "the East," was a son of Ishmael (Ge 25:15; compare Ge 25:6). In an Egyptian story describing the adventures of a political refugee who fled from Egypt in the time of the XIIth Dynasty, it is said that he found a refuge in Canaan in the land of Kaduma or Kedem.

A. H. Sayce

kan (ha-qayin; the King James Version Cain): A town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). There is, too, apparently a reference to this place in Nu 24:21,22:

"And he looked on the Kenite, and took up his parable, and said,

Strong is thy dwelling-place,

And thy nest is set in the rock.

Nevertheless Kain shall be wasted,

Until Asshur shall carry thee away captive."

This place has been very doubtfully identified as the ruin Yukin, a place on a lofty hill Southeast of Hebron, overlooking the wilderness of Judah; the tomb of Cain is shown there. See PEF, III, 312, Sh XXI.

E. W. G. Masterman

(qayin): A clan name, the King James Version "the Kenite" (Nu 24:22; Jud 4:11). In the first passage the Revised Version (British and American) has "Kain" and margin "the Kenites"; in the second, the Revised Version (British and American) has "the Kenite" in text and margin "Kain." Compare preceding article.

kal’-a-i, kal’-i (qallay, qal, "swift"): A priest among those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ne 12:1). He represented the family of Sallai (Ne 12:20).

ka’-mon (qamon; the King James Version Camon): The place where Jair was buffed (Jud 10:3-5). It is possibly represented either by Kamm or Kumeim, ruins which lie about 6 and 7 miles respectively to the South-Southeast of Umm Keis. See further HAVVOTH-JAIR. The ruins of Kamm, about 200 yds. square, crown a small elevation, and point to an important place in the past. There are large rock-hewn cisterns to the South. Among the ruins of Kumein, which are not considerable, a few mud huts are built, occupied today by about 200 souls (Schumacher, Northern ‘Ajlun, 137).

ka’-na (qanah, "reeds"):

(1) The name of a "brook," i.e. wady, or "torrent bed," which formed part of the boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh (Jos 16:8; 17:9). The border of Ephraim went out westward from Tappuah to the brook Kanah, ending at the sea; the border of Manasseh from Tappuah, which belonged to Ephraim, "went down unto the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook." There seems no good reason to doubt the identification of "the brook Kanah" with the modern Wady Kanah. The transition from the heavy "q" to the lighter "k" is easy, so the phonetic difficulty is not serious. The stream rises in the Southwest of Shechem, flows through Wady Ishkar, and, joining the ‘Aujeh, reaches the sea not far to the North of Jaffa. Guerin, influenced, apparently, by the masses of reeds of various kinds which fill the river, argues in favor of Nahr el-Fallq, to the North of Arsuf. He identifies it with Nahr el-Kasab, "river of reeds," mentioned by Beha ed-Din, the Moslem historian. But this last must be identified with Nahr el-Mafjir, 13 miles farther North, too far North for "the brook Kanah."

(2) A town on the northern boundary of Asher (Jos 19:28), probably identical with the village of Qana, about 7 miles Southeast of Tyre (SWP, I, 51, 64, Sh I).

W. Ewing

kaf "k": The 11th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "k", with daghesh, and "kh" (= German ch) without daghesh. It came also to be used for the number 20. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

ka-re’-a (qareach, "bald head"): The father of Johanan and Jonathan, who after the fall of Jerusalem joined Gedaliah at Mizpah (2Ki 25:23; Jer 40:8).

ka-ri-ath-i-a’-ri-us (Kariathiarios; Codex Vaticanus reads Kartatheiareios; the King James Version, Kiriathiarim (1 Esdras 5:19))= Kiriath-jearim in Ne 7:29.

kar’-ka (ha-qarqa‘ah—with the article and locale; the King James Version Karkaa): A place in the South of Judah, between Addar and Wady el-‘Arish (Jos 15:3). Eusebius, Onomasticon speaks of a village in Judah lying toward the wilderness, named Akarka. It cannot now be identified. The name means "the pavement,"‘ or "ground."

kar’-kor (qarqor): An unidentified place where Gideon surprised and overwhelmed the remnants of the army of Zeba and Zalmunnah (Jud 8:10 ). It probably corresponds to Qarkar mentioned by Shalmaneser II, S. of Hamath (KB, I, 173).

kar’-ta (qartah): A city in the territory of Zebulun, assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:34). It is not identified. Possibly it is a variant of KATTATH, or of KARTAN (which see).

kar’-tan (qartan): A city in the territory of Naphtali, given to the Gershonite Levites (Jos 21:32). It is called Kiriathaim in 1Ch 6:76. Kartan may be a contraction of this. Cheyne (EB, under the word) suggests that both names may be corruptions from "Chinnereth." Neither is mentioned in Jos 19:32,38, in the list of Naphtalite cities, while Chinnereth is.

kat’-ath (qaTTath): A city in the territory of Zebulun, named with Iphtah-el, Nahalel, and Shimron (Jos 19:15), perhaps to be identified with Kitron (Jud 1:30), from which Zebulun did not expel the Canaanites; and with Kartah (Jos 21:34), which was given to the Merarite Levites. The Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 6a) identifies Kattath with Sepphoris, the modern Seffuriyeh (but see Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, 191). The Jerusalem Talmud takes it as identical with Ketunith, Kuteineh, to the West of Esdraelon. It should probably, however, be sought near to Shimron, the modern Semuniyeh.

W. Ewing

ke’-dar (qedhar; Kedar): Second in order of the sons of Ishmael (Ge 25:13 parallel 1Ch 1:29). The name occurs as typical of a distant eastern country in opposition to the lands of the Mediterranean (Jer 2:10). The author of Second Isa introduces this tribe in company with Nebaioth, and both are represented as owners of flocks (Isa 60:7). Evidence of their nomadic habits appears in Jer 49:28,29, where they are classed among the Bene-Qedhem, and mention is made of their flocks, camels, tents, curtains and furniture. They are spoken of (Isa 42:11) as dwelling in chatserim ("villages"), from which it would appear that they were a somewhat settled tribe, corresponding to the Arabic chadariya or "town-dwellers," as distinct from wabariya or "nomads." Ezekiel (27:21) gives another hint of their pastoral nature where, in his detailed picture of the wealth of Tyre, Kedar and Arabia provide the Tyrians with lambs, rams and goats. The fame of the tribe is further reflected in Isa 21:16,17 (the only allusion to their might in war), and in the figurative references to their tents (Ps 120:5; So 1:5). In this last passage where the tents are made symbolic of dark beauty, the word qadhar ("to be black") may have been in the writer’s mind.

The settlements of Kedar were probably in the Northwest of Arabia, not far from the borders of Palestine. Assyrian inscriptions have thrown light upon the history of the tribe. There Kedar is mentioned along with the Arabs and Nebaioth, which decides its identity with Kedar of the Old Testament, and there is found also an account of the conflicts between the tribe and King Assurbanipal (see Margoliouth in HDB).

Of the Ishmaelite tribes, Kedar must have been one of the most important, and thus in later times the name came to be applied to all the wild tribes of the desert. It is through Kedar (Arabic, keidar) that Muslim genealogists trace the descent of Mohammed from Ishmael.

A. S. Fulton

ked’-e-ma, ke-de’-ma (qedhemah, "eastward"): Son of Ishmael (Ge 25:16), head of a clan (1Ch 1:31).

See KADMONITE.

See JAHAZ.

ke’-desh (qedhesh; Kades):

(1) One of the "uttermost cities" of Judah "toward the border of Edom in the South" (Jos 15:23). Possibly it is to be identified with KADESH-BARNEA (which see); otherwise it is strange that this latter should be omitted from the list. Dillmann would identify it with Kadus, to the South of Hebron, mentioned by Muqaddasi.

(2) A town in the territory of Issachar, given to the Gershonite Levites (1Ch 6:72). In the list of Joshua (21:28) its place is taken by KISHION (which see). Conder suggests identification with Tell Abu Qades, near Megiddo.

(3) Kedesh-naphtali, the famous city of refuge in the uplands of Naphtali. It is called "Kedesh," simply, in Jos 12:22, etc.; Kedesh-naphtali in Jud 4:6; Tobit 1:2; Kedesh in Galilee in Jos 20:7, etc. It was assigned to the Gershonite Levites (1Ch 6:76). From the name "holy," we gather that it was a sanctuary from old time. It was therefore a place of asylum, and only preserved its ancient character in this respect when chosen as one of the cities of refuge. It was the home of Barak, and here his host assembled. When the Assyrians invaded the land under Tiglath-pileser, it was among the first cities to be captured, and its inhabitants were deported (2Ki 15:29). Near Kedesh was fought the great battle between Jonathan the Maccabee and Demetrius (1 Macc 11:63 ff). Josephus says that in his time it belonged to the Tyrians, lying between their land and that of Galilee (Ant., XIII, v, 6; B J, II, xviii, 1; IV, ii, 3, etc.). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 20 miles from Tyre, near to Paneas. It is represented by the modern village of Kedes, which lies on the plateau to the West of el-Chuleh. It crowns a tell which runs out in a low ridge into the little plain to the West. Near the fountain, which rises under the ridge to the North, are the most interesting of the ancient remains. There are many fine sarcophagi, some of them being used as watering-troughs. From its lofty situation, Kedesh commanded a spacious view over a richly varied landscape, With smiling cornfields, and hills clothed with oak and terebinth.

W. Ewing

(1 Macc 11:63,73, Codex Alexandrinus, Kedes; the King James Version Cades): Scene of a battle between Judas Maccabeus and the forces of Demetrius.

See KEDESH-NAPHTALI, under KEDESH, 3.

ke’-desh-naf’-ta-li.

See KEDESH, 3.

kep’-er, (mostly from shamar; phulax): The word is used of keepers of sheep, vineyards, doors, prisons (in Ge 39:21 ff, car; compare Ac 5:23), etc. In Ec 12:3, "The keepers of the house shall tremble," the allusion is to the decay of bodily powers, the "keepers" being specially the arms, which had become feeble through age.

ke-he-la’-tha, ke-hel’-a-tha (qehlathah, "gathering," "assembly"): A desert camp of the Israelites between Rissah and Mt. Shepher (Nu 33:22,23). Situation is unknown.

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

ke-i’-la (qe‘ilah; Keeilam):

(1) A city of the Shephelah mentioned (Jos 15:44) along with Nezib, Aehzib and Mareshah. Among those who repaired the walls of Jerusalem was "Hashabiah, the ruler of half the district of Keilah, for his district. After him repaired their brethren, Bavvai the son of Henadad, the ruler of half the district of Keilah" (Ne 3:17,18).

1. David and Keilah:

It is, however, from the story of the wandering of David that we have most information regarding this place. It was a city with gates and bars (1Sa 23:7). The Philistines came against it and commenced robbing the threshing-floors. David, after twice inquiring of Yahweh, went down with his 600 men (1Sa 23:13) and "fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and slew them with great slaughter." Saul hearing that David and his men were within a fortified town "summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men" (1Sa 23:8). Then David asked Abiathar the priest to bring him an ephod, and he inquired of Yahweh whether, if Saul came, the men of Keilah would surrender him to save that city; hearing from Yahweh, "They will deliver thee up," he and all his men escaped from Keilah and went into the wilderness. The reputed strength of Keilah is confirmed by its mention in 5 tablets in the Tell el-Amarna Letters under the name of Kilts (qilti, Petrie) with Gedor, Gath, Rabbah and Gezer.

2. Identification:

Although other identifications were proposed by the older topographers, there is now a general consensus of opinion that the site of this city is Khurbet Kila (Josephus, Ant, VI, xiii, 1, in his account of David’s adventure calls the place "Killa"). It is a hill covered with ruins in the higher part of Wady es Sur, 1,575 ft. above sea-level, whose terraced sides are covered with grainfields. The Eusebius, Onomasticon (Latin text) states that it was 8 miles from Eleutheropolis, which is about the distance of Khurbet Kila from Beit Jibrin. Beit Nusib (Nezib) is a couple of miles away, and Tell Sandahannah (Mareshah) but 7 miles to the West (Jos 15:44). An early Christian tradition states that the prophet Habakkuk was buried at Keilah.

(2) The Garmite (which see), 1Ch 4:19; see PEF, 314, Sh XXI.

E. W. G. Masterman

kel’-i-ta, ke-li’-ta (qeliTa’ "dwarf").

See KELAIAH.

kem’-u-el, ke-mu’-el (qemu’el, "God’s mound"):

(1) Nephew of Abraham (Ge 22:21), father of Aram, whom Ewald identifies with Ram of Job 32:2; but compare Ge 10:22, where Aram is described as one of the children of Shem. They may not be the same person.

(2) Prince of Ephraim, one of the land commissioners who divided Canaan (Nu 34:24).

(3) A Levite, father of Hashabiah, one of the tribal princes of David’s time, a ruler among the Levites (1Ch 27:17).

ke’-nan (qenan; Kainan) :A son of Enosh, the son of Seth (Ge 5:9,10,12,13,14; 1Ch 1:2). the King James Version form (except in 1Ch 1:2), is "Cainan."

ke’-nath (qenath; Kaath kaanath, in Septuagint, Codex Alexandrinus): A city in Bashan, taken along with its "daughters," i.e. "villages" from the Amorites by Nobah who gave it his own name (Nu 32:42). It was recaptured by Geshur and Aram (1Ch 2:23). It is probably identical with the modern Kanawat, which is built on the site, and largely from the materials of an ancient city. It lies about 16 miles to the North of Bosra eski Sham, the Bostra of the Romans, on both sides of Wady Kanawat, where, descending from the slopes of Jebel ed-Druze, it plunges over a precipice, forming a picturesque waterfall. On the plateau above the modern village, there is a striking collection of Roman and Christian remains, the shapely forms of many columns lending distinction to the scene. One large building is associated with the name of the patriarch Job—Maqam Ayyub. The position commands a spacious and interesting view over the whole of the Chauran. The identification has been rejected by Socin (Baedeker, Pal3, 207), but his reasons are not given. Moore (Judges, 222) also rejects it, but for reasons that are not convincing.

W. Ewing

ke’-naz, ke’-nez (qenaz "hunting"):

(1) A "duke" of Edom, grandson of Esau (Ge 36:11,15,42; 1Ch 1:36,53).

(2) Father of Othniel (Jos 15:17; Jud 1:13; 3:9,11; 1Ch 4:13).

(3) The unidentified qenaz of 1Ch 4:15, who appears to be a descendant of (2). There is, however, some difficulty with the passage here.

ke’-nez-it (qenizzi; Kenezaios): the King James Version in Ge 15:19 and the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly, spell "Kenizzite." The Kenezites were the clan whose name-father was KENAZ (which see). Their land, along with that of their Canaanite tribes, was promised to Abram (Ge 15:19). To this clan belonged Jephunneh, the father of Caleb (Nu 32:12; Jos 14:6,14). It had evidently been absorbed by the tribe of Judah. If the Kenezites went down with Jacob into Egypt, they may have become identified with his family there.

ke’-nits (ha-qeni, haqeni; in Nu 24:22 and Jud 4:11, qayin; of hoi Kenaioi, hoi Kinaioi): A tribe of nomads named in association with various other peoples. They are first mentioned along with the Kadmonites and Kenizzites among the peoples whose land was promised to Abram (Ge 15:19). Balaam, seeing them from the heights of Moab; puns upon their name, which resembles the Hebrew ken, "a nest," prophesying their destruction although their nest was "set in the rock"—possibly a reference to Sela, the city. Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, is called "the priest of Midian" in Ex 3:1; 18:1; but in Jud 1:16 he is described as a Kenite, showing a close relation between the Kenites and Midian. At the time of Sisera’s overthrow, Heber, a Kenite, at "peace" with Jabin, king of Hazor, pitched his tent far North of his ancestral seats (Jud 4:17). There were Kenites dwelling among the Amalekites in the time of Saul (1Sa 15:6). They were spared because they had "showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt." David, in his answer to Achish, links the Kenites with the inhabitants of the South of Judah (1Sa 27:10). Among the ancestors of the tribe of Judah, the Chronicler includes the Kenite Hammath, the father of the Rechabites (1Ch 2:55). These last continued to live in tents, practicing the ancient nomadic customs (Jer 35:6 ).ichly varied landscape, With smiling cornfields, and hills clothed with oak and terebinth.

The word qeni in Aramaic means "smith." Professor Sayce thinks they may really have been a tribe of smiths, resembling "the gipsies of modern Europe, as well as the traveling tinkers or blacksmiths of the Middle Ages" (HDB, under the word). This would account for their relations with the different peoples, among whom they would reside in pursuit of their calling.

In Josephus they appear as Kenetides, and in Ant, IV, vii, 3 he calls them "the race of the Shechemites."

W. Ewing

ken’-i-zit.

See KENEZITE.

ke-no’-sis: The word "kenosis" (kenosis) has entered theological language from Php 2:7, where in the sentence he "emptied himself" the Greek verb is ekenosen. "Kenosis," then, the corresponding noun, has become a technical term for the humiliation of the Son in the incarnation, but in recent years has acquired a still more technical sense, i.e. of the Son’s emptying Himself of certain attributes, especially of omniscience.

1. The New Testament:

(1) The theological question involved was one about as far as possible from the minds of the Christians of the apostolic age and apparently one that never occurred to Paul. For in Php 2:7 the only "emptying" in point is that of the (external) change from the "form of God" to the "form of a servant." Elsewhere in the New Testament it is usually taken as a matter of course that Christ’s knowledge was far higher than that of other men (Joh 2:24 is the clearest example). But passages that imply a limitation of that knowledge do exist and are of various classes. Of not much importance are the entirely incidental references to the authorship of Old Testament passages where the traditional authorship is considered erroneous, as no other method of quotation would have been possible. Somewhat different are the references to the nearness of the Parousia (especially Mt 10:23; 24:29). But with these it is always a question how far the exact phraseology has been framed by the evangelists and, apart from this, how far Christ may not have been consciously using current imagery for the impending spiritual revolution, although knowing that the details would be quite different (see PAROUSIA). Limitation of knowledge may perhaps be deduced from the fact that Christ could be amazed (Mt 8:10, etc.), that He could be really tempted (especially Heb 4:15), or that He possessed faith (Heb 12:2; see commentary). More explicitly Christ is said to have learned in Lu 2:52; Heb 5:8. And, finally, in Mr 13:32 parallel Mt 24:36, Christ states categorically that He is ignorant of the exact time of the Parousia.

(2) An older exegesis felt only the last of these passages as a real difficulty. A distinction constructed between knowledge naturally possessed and knowledge gained by experience (i.e. although the child Jesus knew the alphabet naturally, He was obliged to learn it by experience) covered most of the others. For Mr 13:32 a variety of explanations were offered. The passage was translated "neither the Son, except the Father know it," a translation that can be borne by the Greek. But it simply transfers the difficulty by speaking of the Father’s knowledge as hypothetical, and is an impossible translation of Mt 24:36, where the word "only" is added. The explanations that assume that Christ knew the day but had no commission to reveal it are most unsatisfactory, for they place insincere words in His mouth; "It is not for you to know the day" would have been inevitable form of the saying (Ac 1:7).

2. Dogmatic:

(1) Yet the attempt so to misinterpret the verses is not the outcome of a barren dogmatic prejudice, but results from a dread lest real injury be done to the fundamentals of Christian consciousness. Not only does the mind of the Christian revolt from seeing in Christ anything less than true God, but it revolts from finding in Him two centers of personality—Christ was One. But as omniscience is an essential attribute of God, it is an essential attribute of the incarnate Son. So does not any limitation of Christ’s human knowledge tend to vitiate a sound doctrine of the incarnation? Certainly, to say with the upholders of the kenosis in its "classical" form that the Son, by an exercise of His will, determined to be ignorant as man, is not helpful, as the abandonment by God of one of His own essential attributes would be the preposterous corollary.

(2) Yet the Biblical data are explicit, and an explanation of some kind must be found. And the solution seems to lie in an ambiguous use of the word "knowledge," as applied to Christ as God and as man. When we speak of a man’s knowledge in the sense discussed in the kenotic doctrine, we mean the totality of facts present in his intellect, and by his ignorance we mean the absence of a fact or of facts from that intellect. Now in the older discussions of the subject, this intellectual knowledge was tacitly assumed (mystical theology apart) to be the only knowledge worthy of the name, and so it was at the same time also assumed that God’s knowledge is intellectual also—"God geometrizes." Under this assumption God’s knowledge is essentially of the same kind as man’s, differing from man’s only in its purity and extent. And this assumption is made in all discussions that speak of the knowledge of the Son as God illuminating His mind as man.

(3) Modern critical epistemology has, however, taught man a sharp lesson in humility by demonstrating that the intellect is by no means the perfect instrument that it has been assumed to be. And the faults are by no means faults due to lack of instruction, evil desires, etc., but are resident in the intellect itself, and inseparable from it’ as an intellect. Certain recent writers (Bergson, most notably) have even built up a case of great strength for regarding the intellect as a mere product of utilitarian development, with the defects resulting naturally from such an evolution. More especially does this restriction of the intellect seem to be true in religious knowledge, even if the contentions of Kant and (espescially) Ritschl be not fully admitted. Certain it is, in any case, that even human knowledge is something far wider than intellectual knowledge, for there are many things that we know that we never could have learned through the intellect, and, apparently, many elements of our knowledge are almost or quite incapable of translation into intellectual termsú Omniscience, then, is by no means intellectual omniscience, and it is not to be reached by any mere process of expansion of an intellect. An "omniscient intellect" is a contradiction in termsú

(4) In other words, God’s omniscience is not merely human intellectual knowledge raised to the infinite power, but something of an entirely different quality, hardly conceivable to human thought—as different from human intellectual knowledge as the Divine omnipotence is different from muscular strength. Consequently, the passage of this knowledge into a human intellect is impossible, and the problem of the incarnation should be stated: What effect did Divine omniscience in the person have on the conscious intellect of the manhood? There is so little help from the past to be gained in answering this question, that it must remain open at present—if, indeed, it is ever capable of a full answer. But that ignorance in the intellect of the manhood is fully consistent with omniscience in the person seems to be not merely a safe answer to the question as stated, but an inevitable answer if the true humanity of Christ is to be maintained at all.

LITERATURE.

Sanday’s Christology and Personality, 1911, and La Zouche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought, 1912, are among the latest discussions of the subject, with very full references to the modern literature.

Burton Scott Easton

ke’-ras (Kiras): In 1 Esdras 5:29, the head of a family of temple-servants, called "Keroz" in Ezr 2:44; Ne 7:47.

ker’-chif (micpachoth; epibolaia): Occurs only in Eze 13:18,21, in a passage which refers to some species of divination. Their exact shape or use is unknown. They were apparently long veils or coverings put over the heads of those consulting the false prophetesses and reaching down to the feet, for they were for "persons of every stature."

ker’-en-hap’-uk, ke’-ren-hap’-uk (qeren happukh, "horn of antimony," i.e. beautifier; Septuagint Amaltheias keras): The 3rd daughter of Job (Job 42:14), born after his restoration from affliction. Antimony, producing a brilliant black, was used among the Orientals for coloring the edges of the eyelids, making the eyes large and lustrousú Hence, the suggestiveness of this name of an article of the ladies’ toilet, a little horn or receptacle for the eye-paint.

ke’-ri-oth, -oth (qeriyoth):

(1) A city of Moab, named with Beth-meon and Bozrah (Jer 48:24,41). Here was a sanctuary of Chemosh, to which Mesha says (M S, l. 13) he dragged "the altar hearths of Davdoh." It may possibly be represented by the modern Kuraiat, between Diban and ‘Attarus. Some (e.g. Driver on Am 2:2) think it may be only another name for Ar-Moab. Buhl (GAP, 270) would identify it with Kir of Moab (Kerak). No certainty is yet possible.

(2) A city of Judah (Jos 15:25; the Revised Version (British and American) KERIOTH-HEZRON (which see)), possibly the modern el-Kuryatain, to the Northeast of Tell ‘Arad.

W. Ewing

ke’-ri-oth-hez’-ron (qeriyoth chetsron; Jos 15:25 says, "The same is Hazor"; the King James Version "Kerioth and Hezron which is Hazor"): One of the cities in the "south" of Judah. Robinson (BR, II, 101) identifies it with the ruined site of Kuryatain, 4 1/2 miles North of Tell ‘Arad. It has been suggested that Kerioth was the birth place of JUDAS ISCARIOT (which see). Compare KERIOTH, 2.

kur’-nel (chartsannim, English Versions of the Bible "kernels"; Septuagint reads stemphullon used by Aristophanes as olives from which oil has been pressed, later, in same, of raisin pulp): Mentioned in Nu 6:4 along with zagh, translated "husks." This translates, "kernels" or "grape stones," is from the Targum and Talmud, but is doubtful, and it may be the word should be translated "sour grapes."

ke’-ros (qeroc, "fortress"(?)): One of the Nethinim (Ezr 2:44; Ne 7:47), an order appointed to the liturgical offices of the temple.

See NETHINIM.

ke’-zil (Orion).

See ASTRONOMY.

kes’-i-ta, ke-se’-ta (qesiTah).

See PIECE OF MONEY.

ke’-tab (Ketab): Ancestor of a family of Nethinim (1 Esdras 5:30).

ket’-’l: In English Versions of the Bible only in 1Sa 2:14 for dudh, "a vessel for cooking." The same word in 2Ch 35:13 is rendered "caldrons," and in Job 41:20 (Hebrew 12), "pot." Ps 81:6 (Hebrew 7) (the King James Version "pots") belongs rather to another signification of the word (the Revised Version (British and American) "basket," for carrying clay or bricks).

ke-tu’-ra, ke-too’-ra (qeTurah; Chettoura, "incense"): The second wife of Abraham (Ge 25:1; 1Ch 1:32 f). According to the Biblical tradition, he contracted this second marriage after the death of Sarah (compare Ge 23), and very likely after the marriage of Isaac (compare Ge 24). It is not improbable that, as some writers have suggested, this change in the life of his son prompted Abraham to remarry in order to overcome the feeling of lonesomeness caused by Isaac’s entering the state of matrimony.

1Ch 1:32 (and also Ge 25:6) shows us that Keturah was not considered to be of the same dignity as Sarah who, indeed, was the mother of the son of promise, and, for obvious reasons, the sons of Abraham’s concubines were separated from Isaac. She was the mother of 6 sons representing Arab tribes South and East of Palestine (Ge 25:1-6), so that through the offspring of Keturah Abraham became "the father of many nations."

William Baur

ke (maphteach, an "opener"; compare kleis, "that which shuts"): Made of wood, usually with nails which fitted into corresponding holes in the lock, or rather bolt (Jud 3:25). Same is rendered "opening" in 1Ch 9:27.

See HOUSE.

Edward Bagby Pollard

kez

I. THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED

1. The Keys; and the Binding and Loosing

2. Meaning of the Statements

3. How Peter Is Related to These Powers

4. Is the Primary Idea that of Position and Authority?

II. VIEWS MAINTAINED

1. Agent of the Power

2. Nature of the Power

3. Scope of the Power

III. DATA FOR DECIDING THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED

1. Passages Employing the Terms "Key," "Binding and Loosing"

2. Related Passages

3. Examples of Exercise of This Power

IV. CONCLUSION

1. Nature of the Power

2. Agent of the Power

3. Scope of the Power

There is no more stubbornly contested conception in Christian terminology. The thought connects itself immediately with Mt 16:19, but it is hardly correct to say that it originates there, for the controversy is one that grows out of the conflict of forces inherent in the institutional development of religion and of society. It must have arisen, in any event, if there had been no such word as that in Mt 16:19, although not in the same terms as it is now found. Since the Reformation it has been recognized, by Catholic and Protestant, that on the interpretation of this passage depends the authority of the Church of Rome and its exclusive claims, so far as their foundation in Scripture is concerned; while on the other hand there is involved the "validity" of the "sacraments," "ordinances" and "orders" of Protestantism and the very hope of salvation of Protestants.

I. The Problems Involved.

1. The Keys; and the Binding and Loosing:

The crucial passage has two declarations, commonly spoken of as promises to Peter: to him Christ will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, while whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. How are the facts of having committed to him the keys and the function of binding and loosing related? Are they two forms of one declaration? Is the first general, and the second a specific sphere of its application?

Both statements are made in figurative terms. That of the keys is supposed to be drawn from the duties of the chief steward of a house, or establishment. The idea of the keys of a city turned over to some distinguished person is advanced, but is hardly to be considered. We need, then, to know the functions of the chief steward and how they apply to the kingdom of heaven, and to Peter as its steward.

2. Meaning of the Statements:

What was Peter to bind and loose, men or things, persons or teachings? Numerous examples could be cited of the use of these terms to signify forbidding (binding) and permitting (loosing) conduct as legitimate under the law of the Old Testament (Lightfoot, McClintock and Strong, Schaff-Herzog, Hastings, etc.). The strict school of Shammai bound many things loosed by the laxer school of Hillel (Broadus, Matthew). Is this conclusive that Jesus is here giving Peter authority for "laying down the law for his fellow-disciples," "authority to say what the law of God allows, and what it forbids," "the power of legislation for the church"? (Compare Mason in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), IV, 30.)

3. How Peter Is Related to These Powers:

Ecclesiastical contentions turn especially on Peter’s relation to these words of Jesus. Do they signify powers and "privileges" conferred on Peter, exclusively or representatively? Are they official or personal? Do they belong to other apostles, and to other officers besides apostles? Can the powers be exercised by individuals or by the church alone? If any besides Peter have these powers, do they pass to them from Peter, and how?

4. Is the Primary Idea That of Position and Authority?:

What seems to the writer a fundamental question here is either passed over very lightly or entirely omitted in the discussions of this subject. Did Jesus mean by these words to confer on Peter, or on anyone to whom they may apply, authority, or obligation; privilege, or responsibility? Does He promise position, or does He impose duty? These alternatives are not necessarily exclusive, but the interpretation of the thought will be determined in no small measure by where the stress is laid.

II. Views Maintained.

1. Agent of the Power:

The possibilities have been exhausted in the interpretations and applications advocated. It is not possible to classify on lines of the creeds, except very generally, for there is little uniformity of view existing within the various communions.

(1) Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic church gives to Peter a unique position. Her theologians also agree that all the powers and privileges of Peter descend to his successors in the vicarate of Christ. When the question is raised of the extension of these prerogatives beyond Peter and the popes, all sorts of views are held, concerning both the fact and the method of that extension.

(2) Among Protestants there is general agreement that the church is the agent of this power, but there is not uniformity as to the nature of the authority or the manner of its exercise.

(3) Some think that Peter has no peculiar relation to the keys; that these words were spoken to him only as the first who gave expression to that conception and experience, on the basis of which Jesus commits the keys of the kingdom to any believer in Him as the Christ of God.

We may summarize the more important views as to Peter thus:

(a) the power committed to him alone and exercised,

(i) at Pentecost, or

(ii) at Pentecost, Caesarea and other places;

(b) the power committed to Peter and to the other apostles, including Paul, discharged by them, and descended to no others;

(c) the power conferred on Peter officially and on his official successors;

(d) the power conferred on Peter and the other apostles and to such as hold their place in the church;

(e) that the power belongs to Peter as representative of the church, and so to the church to be exercised

(i) by the officials of the church,

(ii) by the officials and those to whom they commit it,

(iii) by all priests and persons allowed to represent the church, de facto,

(iv) by the church in its councils, or other formal and official decisions,

(v) by the church in less formal way than (iv),

(vi) by all members the church as representing it without specific commission;

(f) that it belongs to the Christian as such, and so is imposed upon, or offered to, all Christians.

2. Nature of the Power:

There is general—not absolute—agreement that the holder of the keys is to admit men into the kingdom. It is not agreed that the holder of the keys may, or can, determine who are members of the kingdom. Both sides are-taken. Some think that the power is that of announcing authoritatively the conditions of entrance, while others insist that the holder of the keys also determines what individuals have accepted the conditions.

3. Scope of the Power:

(1) There is strong support for the view that the primary function of the keys lies in determining the teaching of the kingdom, maintaining purity of doctrine. Emphasis is laid on the use of the neuter, "whatsoever"—not "whomsoever"—with the binding and loosing. This would lead, however, to the secondary and implied function of declaring who had or had not accepted the teaching of the kingdom.

(2) In the Roman Catholic church we find insistence on distinguishing between the general authority of the keys in all affairs of the church and religion, and the binding and loosing which they specifically apply to absolution. Only on this last are Catholics in full agreement. That the church administers salvation is held by Roman and Greek Catholics and by not a few Protestants, although Protestants do not, as a rule, claim exclusive power in salvation as do the others. Absolution is held to be a general (derived) priestly function, while the authority of the keys resides in the pope alone.

(3) Eminent Catholic authorities admit that the Fathers generally understood the keys to signify the power of forgiving sins, and that they seldom make any reference to the supremacy of Peter. But they claim that rarely the Fathers do take "Christ’s promise in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the church." Suarez was the first to develop the doctrine that it conferred on Peter and his successors authority in its widest sense, administrative and legislative.

(4) The extension of the authority of the keys to include civil matters is a contention of the Roman church, shared in modified form by some Protestants. Indeed the relation of ecclesiastical to civil authority must be said still to be awaiting clear definition in Protestantism. Macedo (De Clavibus Petri) claims theologians of the church for the civil authority of the keys. Joyce in the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that he is unable to verify this claim, but, on the contrary, finds that the opponents of the extension of the authority of the church to civil matters use Mt 16:19 in support of their position on the ground that to Peter were committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not of the kingdoms of this world.

III. Data for Deciding the Questions Involved.

1. Passages Employing the Terms "Key," "Binding and Loosing":

We must first examine the Scriptures employing the terms we seek to define.

(1) Mt 16:19, the crucial passage, is part of paragraph over which there is no end of controversy. The incident at Caesarea Philippi was understood then and afterward to mark an epoch in the life and teaching of Jesus. Having elicited Peter’s confession, Jesus pronounces a benediction on him because his insight represented a Divinely mediated experience of fundamental significance in His own plan and mission. Jesus goes on to say: "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter ("a stone"), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). The controversy rages about "Peter" (petros) and the "rock" (petra), "gates of Hades," and "prevail against it." Are the church to be built on the rock and the kingdom whose keys are to be given to Peter the same? Such a shifting of figure is not conclusive against the thought. Perhaps the church is the organic form of the kingdom, its personal content and expression on earth at any given time. This church exists wherever men consciously accept and are included in the kingdom. The kingdom will always embrace influences, institutions, individuals, not be reckoned in any organized or visible church. The church has never had—in the nature of the case can never have—one complete organization including all the organized life of the kingdom, or even of the church. Any claims to this are contradicted by facts obvious at every moment of history. The change in figure from Mt 16:18 to 16:19 is not conclusive against supposing the church to be built in him. But it seems far better to understand that Peter is the first stone in the building, while the foundation is that vital experience in which Peter came to know Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. On this is erected the church, out of those living stones (lithoi zontes, 1Pe 2:4) that know and confess Jesus the Christ. The transition is thus easy to giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the reason for giving them to him rather than to any other may be found in the fact that he is now the first so to enter into the kingdom as to be fitted for church functions.

It is not needful to determine, for our purpose, the exact meaning of "gates of Hades" and their not prevailing against the church (compare various commentaries). It is clear that the church is to persist in the life of the world and so the kingdom will not lack organized and aggressive expression. Nor does the relation of binding and loosing depend at all upon the critical question of reading or omitting "and" between the two parts of the verse. The conviction could hardly be escaped that the latter function is intimately related to the former, and is either directly or indirectly involved within it.

(2) The plural "keys," occurs elsewhere only in Re 1:18, where the Christ represents Himself as holding the keys of death and of Hades. The word "Hades" might connect this with Mt 16:19. The immediate occasion for the statement is that He who was dead, is alive; He has not only overcome death in His own person but has conquered it and its realm, so that they can no more have power except as subject to Him, since He holds their keys. Men on earth will either fall under the power of death and Hades or they must enter the kingdom of heaven. If the living Christ has the keys of the kingdom in the hands of Peter, or other friends, and holds the keys of its enemies in His own hands, the work will go on with success. It is not certain that the two passages can properly be so closely connected, but they thus afford just the assurance that is contained for the churches in Revelation.

(3) In Re 3:7 Christ appears in the character, "he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key (singular) of David, he that openeth and none can shut, and that shutteth and none openeth." The idea is not restricted but indicates mastery over all things in the Messianic kingdom, its own operations and all forms of opposition. In the next verse, as a specific instance, He has set before the church at Philadelphia an open door (opportunity and progress) which none can shut. Compare as to this Eph 1:22.

(4) It seems to be taken for granted that Jesus, in Mt 16:19, had direct reference to Isa 22:22, yet the passage is not Messianic except in a general sense and on the assumption that the power of Yahweh over the nations in the Old Testament is wielded by the Christ in the New Testament (see JEHOVAH; LORD). Eliakim is to have absolute power, holding the key of the house of David. The use of the words "open" and "shut," as well as the general conception, connects the passage rather with Re 3:7.

(5) Re 9:1; 20:1 are to be taken together. "The key of the pit of the abyss" in the hands of the angel or angels signifies, in these specific circumstances, the same power as that indicated in 1:18.

2. Related Passages:

Light is to be drawn from several passages that do not use the exact terms of Mt 16:19, but that deal with the same general ideas.

(1) Mt 18:18 places the responsibility for binding and loosing on all disciples (18:1), and the reason is explained in the assured presence of the Christ Himself in any company of two or three who have come together in prayer touching any matter in His name, i.e. as His representatives. The immediate reference is to matters of discipline in the effort to rescue any "brother" from sin. The passage is to be taken of sin generally, for the reading "against thee" (18:15) is to be rejected, in spite of both revised versions The reference of binding and loosing here to the man is conclusive against limiting the idea in 16:19 to teaching (compare also Lu 17:1 ff). It is also to be noted that the responsibility is placed upon the individual Christian to cooperate with others when necessary.

(2) Mt 9:8 shows that the multitude recognized that God had given power on earth to pronounce forgiveness of sins, and apparently they do not limit this power to the Divine Person, for they do not yet know Him as such.

(3) Jas 5:14 ff recognizes the value of elders, and probably of others also, in securing the forgiveness of them that have sinned.

(4) What one must regard as the proper starting-point for studying this subject is Joh 20:21 ff. Appearing to ten of the apostles and to others on the first night after the resurrection, Jesus says: "As the Father sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever ye retain, they are retained." By comparing this with the corresponding account in Lu 24 we see that Jesus is directing that they shall carry on His work (see also Joh 14:12-14; 15:15,16), that He teaches them at length of the nature of His work as seen in the Old Testament, and that the method of their work is to be preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name among all nations. Significant for our purpose are the presence of others than the apostles, the gift of the Holy Spirit, His own self-projection in His messengers, and the solemn statement that the sins of men will be retained or forgiven as it is done through these followers.

3. Examples of Excercise of This Power:

(1) It is remarkable that there is no distinct reference to this authority of the keys in the records of the work of the apostles and others in the New Testament. Their consciousness seems most of all to have been dominated by the fact that they were witnesses of Jesus, and this corresponds exactly with the point of emphasis in all the various forms and occasions of the giving of the commission (see Ac 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39,41; 13:31; 1Pe 5:1; compare Carver, Missions in the Plan of the Ages). It is said of Paul and Barnabas (Ac 14:27) that after their first missionary journey they rehearsed to the church at Antioch "all things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles." At Pentecost and at other times Peter was the chief speaker, and so opened the door of the kingdom. Referring to his preaching to Cornelius and his friends, Peter reminds the saints in the conference at Jerusalem (Ac 15) that God made choice among them, that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of God and believe, but this was said by way of conciliating the Jewish party and not as claiming any priority in authority. It was Philip, the deacon-evangelist, who first preached to the Samaritans (Ac 8), and some "men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus" (Ac 11:20), the first example of "opening a door of faith" to full heathen. Peter appears in the Jerusalem conference with no authority above that of other apostles and elders. By reference to Ga 2 we see that Paul was here only as a matter of prudence and fraternity, not recognizing any authority to legislate for his churches or his ministry. The decision there reached is promulgated as that of the brethren as a body, loosing all the law of Moses save four matters that were "necessary" on account of fundamental morals and of the universal presence of Jews in every city (Ac 15:20 f, 28 f). In the sense of teaching Christian conduct all Paul’s letters are examples of binding and loosing.

(2) As to binding and loosing sins Peter speaks in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac 5), Simon Magus (Ac 8), and in deciding upon the baptism of Cornelius and his household (Ac 10:48). Paul speaks with equal boldness in the judgment of Elymas (Ac 13:10), where we are told that he was under the Spirit; passes upon the faith of a dozen men at Ephesus, and requires their new baptism after instruction (Ac 19:3-7); commands the church at Corinth to turn over to Satan the incestuous man (1Co 5:5; compare 1Ti 1:20), and later urges the man’s restoration to loving fellowship, declaring that he has been forgiven (2Co 2:5 ). Obscure men like Philip (Ac 8) and Ananias of Damascus in the case of Paul himself (Ac 9) exercised the same sort of judgment as to the forgiveness and reception of men into the fellowship.

IV. Conclusion.

1. Nature of the Power:

We sum up what seems to be the teaching of Scripture. We conclude that the power is not a special privilege and extraordinary authority, but a responsibility entrusted by Jesus Christ as the method of extending His work. There is in it nothing magical, mysterious, or arbitrary; not ecclesiastical or official, but spiritual and primarily personal. The keys of the kingdom of heaven are first of all the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. By this means men are admitted into the kingdom. The fully attested method of using the keys is that of witnessing personally to an experience of Jesus Christ. He was conferring power for saving and not for barring from salvation. Let it be borne in mind always that Jesus was offering Peter not power but duty, not privilege but responsibility. Neither of these terms, "power" and "privilege," that have come to be associated with the gift of the keys occurs with that gift in the words of the Master. The keys are primarily for admitting to the kingdom of heaven, not for barring from the church.

2. Agent of the Power:

The holder of the keys is any man with that experience that called forth from Jesus the assurance that Peter should have the keys. Such a man will be in fellowship and cooperation with like men, in a church, and the Spirit of Jesus will be present in them, so that their decisions and their testimony will be His as well as theirs. There is a corporate, or church, agency, therefore, and the man who would ignore that lacks the experience or the Spirit needful for the use of the keys. Yet the church is never to overshadow or exclude the individual responsibility and authority.

3. Scope of the Power:

It is to be understood that the keys of the kingdom of heaven confer no political authority or power, save that of holy and redemptive influence. The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world. Its power is spiritual and is to be exercised always primarily in the saving of men. Men do not need to be locked out of the kingdom. They are out, and too contented to remain so. It does happen that evil men seek to take possession of the kingdom for evil ends, and then it is that the authority rests in spiritual men to exclude. Men that are to be brought into the kingdom of heaven are now in sin, and where the duty of releasing them is not discharged by Christians, the sinners are left bound in their sins.

There is also involved of necessity the duty of declaring not only the conditions of entrance into the kingdom, but the courses of conduct appropriate to the kingdom. It is thus that binding and loosing in teaching devolve upon the holders of the keys. To that extent, and in that sense, alone, is there the power of "legislating" within the kingdom. This is only interpreting and applying the principles that are given us in the Scriptures.

See further ABSOLUTION; IMPOSITION OF HANDS; PETER; ROCK.

William Owen Carver

ke-zi’-a (qetsi‘ah, "cassia"; Kasia, Codex Alexandrinus, Kassia): The 2nd daughter of Job (Job 42:14), born after his restoration from affliction. The word "cassia" became a feminine name from the fragrance of the flower.

ke’-ziz (qetsits).

See EMEK-KEZIZ.

kan, kan.

See INN.

kib-roth-ha-ta’-a-va, kib-roth (qibhroth ha-ta’awah "the graves of greed"): A desert camp of the Israelites, one day’s journey from the wilderness of Sinai. There the people lusted for flesh to eat, and, a great number of quails being sent, a plague resulted; hence, the name (Nu 11:34; 33:16; De 9:22).

kib-za’-im, kib’-za-im See JOKMEAM.

(laktizo): In the famous vision on the road to Damascus the unseen voice said to Saul: "Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Ac 9:4 f; 26:14). The words are omitted from the best manuscripts in Ac 9:4. This was a familiar proverb in both Greek and Latin literature, and refers to the severer goading received by an ox which kicks back at the goad used to guide or urge him on. The words seem to mean that Paul’s paroxysm of persecution was a painful as well as profitless resistance to the pricks of conscience by which God was leading him into the light.

(1) gedhi (Ex 23:19, etc.);

(2) feminine gedhiyah (Isa 11:6, etc.);

(3) gedhi ‘izzim, English Versions of the Bible "kid," literally, "kid of the goats," the King James Version margin (Jud 6:19, etc.);

(4) ‘ez, literally, "goat" (De 14:21; 1Ki 20:27); .

(5) se‘ir ‘izzim, the King James Version "kid of the goats," the Revised Version (British and American) "he-goat" (Ge 37:31; Le 9:3, etc.);

(6) eriphos (Lu 15:29).

See GOAT.

kid’-nap-ing The term itself occurs only in the New Testament andrapodistes =" manstealer") in 1Ti 1:10. The crime was directly forbidden in the Hebrew law (Ex 21:16; De 24:7), and was made punishable with death.

kid’-niz (always in the plural: kelayoth; nephroi; Latin renes, whence the English "reins"): "Reins" and "kidneys" are synonyms, but the King James Version undertook a distinction by using the former word in the figurative, the latter in the literal passages. the English Revised Version has followed the King James Version exactly, but the American Standard Revised Version has retained "reins" only in Job 16:13; La 3:13; Re 2:23, elsewhere substituting "heart," except in Ps 139:13, where "inward parts" is used. the King James Version and the English Revised Version also have "reins" for chalatsayim, in Isa 11:5 (the American Standard Revised Version "loins"). The physiological function of the kidneys is not referred to in the Bible, but has been introduced (quite wrongly) by the King James Version margin to Le 15:2; 22:4.

(1) The kidneys owe their importance in the Bible partly to the fact that they are imbedded in fat, and fat of such purity that fat of the kidneys was a proverbial term for surpassing excellence (De 32:14 margin). For the visceral fat was the part of the animal best adapted for sacrificial burning, and hence, came to be deemed peculiarly sacred (Le 7:22-25; 1Sa 2:16). Accordingly, the kidneys with the fat surrounding them were burned in every sacrifice in which the entire animal was not consumed, whether in peace (Le 3:4,10,15; 9:19), sin (Ex 29:13; Le 4:9; 8:16; 9:10), or trespass, (Le 7:4) offerings; compare the "ram of consecration" (Ex 29:22; Le 8:25). So in Isa 34:6, "fat of the kidneys of rams" is chosen as a typical sacrificial term to parallel "blood of lambs and goats."

Burton Scott Easton

kid’-ron (Kedron; the King James Version Cedron): A place which, in obedience to Antiochus Sidetes, Cendebaeus fortified (1 Macc 15:39 ff), to which, when defeated, he fled, hotly pursued by John and Judas, sons of Simon the Maccabee, who burned the city (1 Macc 16:4 ff). It is named along with Jamnia (Yebna) and Azotus (Esdud). It is possibly identical with Katrah], a village about 3 miles Southwest of ‘Aqir (Ekron).

(nachal qidhron; in Joh 18:1 (the King James Version Cedron), ho cheimarrhous ton Kedron, according to the Revised Version margin, the last two words are to be considered as meaning "of the cedars." The Hebrew word has been very generally accepted as from qadhar, "to become black," but it is an attractive suggestion (Cheyne) that it may be a phonetic variation of gidderon, "a spot for enclosures for cattle," of which latter there must have been many around the now buried caves which lay at the base of the cliffs around the spring Gihon):

1. Wady Sitti Miriam:

The Nachal Qidhron is the valley known today as the Wady Sitti Miriam, which lies between the eastern walls of Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. It commences in the plateau to the North of the city, and after making a wide sweep Southeast, under the name Wady el Joz ("Valley of the Walnuts"), passes South until level with the southeastern corner of the temple-area where its bed is spanned by an old bridge; here the bottom of the valley, 40 ft. beneath the present surface level, is 400 ft. below the temple-platform. From this point it narrows and deepens gradually, bending slightly West of South, and, after receiving the Tyropoeon valley, joins a little farther Southwest with the Valley of Hinnom to form the Wady en Nar which winds on through the "wilderness of Judea" to the Dead Sea. Where the three valleys run together is a large open space filled with gardens (the KING’S GARDEN, which see), which are kept irrigated all the year round by means of the overflow waters from the ‘Ain Silwan (see SILOAM). It is where the Hinnom valley runs into the Kidron that some would locate TOPHETH (which see). Except at the irrigated gardens, the ravine is a dry valley containing water only during and immediately after heavy rain, but in ancient times the rocky bottom—now buried beneath many feet of rich soil—must have contained a little stream from Gihon for at least some hundreds of yards. This was the "brook that flowed through the midst of the land" (2Ch 32:4). The length of the valley from its head to Bir Eyyub is 2 3/4 miles.

2. Traditions:

Since the 4th century AD, this valley has been known as the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF), and from quite early times it was a favorite situation for interments (2Ki 23:4,6,12; 2Ch 34:4,5); it is by Moslem and Jewish tradition the scene of the last judgment, and was known to the Moslems in the Middle Ages as Wady Jehannum; see GEHENNA. It is probable that the "graves of the common people," where King Jehoiakim cast the body of the prophet Uriah, were here (Jer 26:23), and it has been suggested, with less probability, that here too may have been the scene of Ezekiel’s vision of the "valley of dry bones" (Eze 37; compare Jer 31:40).

3. The Fields of Kidron:

The Fields of Kidron (2Ki 23:4), though generally identified with the open, lower part of this valley, where it is joined by the Tyropoeon valley, may more probably have been in the upper part where the wide expanded valley receives the name Wady el Joz; this part is actually on the road to Bethel.

4. Historical Associations:

The most dramatic scene associated with the Kidron is that recorded in connection with its earliest Scriptural mention (2Sa 15:23), when David, flying before his rebellious son Absalom, here stood on the Jerusalem side of the valley while all his adherents passed over. "And all the country wept with a loud voice, and all the people passed over: the king also himself passed over the brook Kidron .... toward the way of the wilderness." The passing over this brook appears to have been viewed as the solemn abandonment of the Jerusalem territory (compare 1Ki 2:37). In 1Ki 15:13; 2Ch 15:16, we read that Asa burnt at the brook Kidron "an abominable image for an Asherab" which Maacah, his mother, had set up. In the reforms of Hezekiah, "all the uncleanness that they found in the temple of Yahweh" was carried by the Levites to the brook Kidron (2Ch 29:16); "All the altars for incense took they away, and cast them into the brook Kidron" (2Ch 30:14). This locality was again used in the reforms of Josiah when the king "brought out the Asherah from the house of Yahweh, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and beat it to dust, and cast the dust thereof upon the graves of the common people" (2Ki 23:6). The same treatment was given to the vessels made for Baal, the Asherah and the host of heaven (2Ki 23:4), and the two idolatrous altars of Manasseh (2Ki 23:12). Josephus (Ant., IX, vii, 3) states that Athaliah was slain in the valley of Kidron, but this does not quite tally with the account (2Ki 11:16). It was a valley associated with graves and the ashes of abominations, but it was prophesied that it should be "holy unto Yahweh" (Jer 31:40). Twice it is mentioned simply as "the valley," nachal (2Ch 33:14; Ne 2:15). Very different from these earlier scenes is the last Scriptural reference (Joh 18:1), when Jesus "went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron" for His last hours of spiritual struggle and prayer before the turmoil of the end.

E. W. G. Masterman

ki’-lan (Kilan; the King James Version Ceilan): Mentioned with Azetas in 1 Esdras 5:15; their sons returned among the exiles with Zerubbabel. The names do not appear in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.

ki’-ma (Pleiades).

See ASTRONOMY.

See KINDRED.

See KINSMAN.

ki’-na (qinah): An unidentified town on the southern boundary of Judah, toward Edom (Jos 15:22). The word qinah means "elegy," "dirge," "lament for the dead." The name, however, may have been derived from the Kenites, qeniy, who had settlements in the South (1Sa 27:10, etc.).

kind’-nes (checedh; chrestotes): "Kindness" in the Old Testament is (with one exception) the translation of checedh, "kindness," "favor," "mercy," etc., used chiefly of man but also of God (Ge 20:13; 40:14; 1Sa 15:6; 20:14,15; 2Sa 9:3; Ne 9:17; Ps 141:5; Isa 54:8,10, etc.); Tobh, "good," is once so translated (2Sa 2:6). In the New Testament chrestotes, "usefulness," "beneficence," is rendered "kindness" 4 t in the King James Version (2Co 6:6; Eph 2:7; Col 3:12; Tit 3:4, and in Ga 5:22 the Revised Version (British and American)); see GENTLENESS; GOODNESS. Philanthropia, "love of mankind," is translated "kindness" Ac 28:2), and philadelphia, "love of the brotherhood" (2Pe 1:7, the English Revised Version "love of the brethren," the American Revised Version margin "Gr, love of the brethren").

For "kindness" (Ps 31:21) the Revised Version (British and American) has "lovingkindness," and the American Standard Revised Version in other places where the reference is to God; for "shew," "shewed kindness" (Jos 2:12) "deal," "dealt kindly"; for "The desire of man is his kindness" (Pr 19:22) the American Standard Revised Version has "That which maketh a man to be desired is his kindness," the English Revised Version "The desire of man is (the measure of) his kindness," like the American Standard Revised Version in m; for "merciful kindness" (Ps 117:2) the American Standard Revised Version has "lovingkindness," the English Revised Version "mercy "; both have "lovingkindness" (Ps 119:76); for "of great kindness" (Ne 9:17; Joe 2:13; Jon 4:2) the American Standard Revised Version has "abundant in lovingkindness," the English Revised Version "plenteous in mercy"; the Revised Version (British and American) has "kindness" for "mercy" (Ge 39:21); for "pity" (Job 6:14); for "goodness" (Pr 20:6); "favor and kindness" the American Standard Revised Version, for "grace and favor" (Es 2:17).

See LOVINGKINDNESS; MERCY.

kin’-dred: Several words are rendered "kindred" in the King James Version. ‘ach, "brother," was used loosely among Hebrews for a member of the same tribe or family, a relative; and is once translated "kindred" (1Ch 12:29 the King James Version). Once also somewhat loosely as the translation of modha‘ath, literally, "acquaintance" (Ru 3:2; compare same root in 2:1, rendered "kinsman"); once, for the, figurative expression, "men of thy redemption" (ge’ullah, referring to the law of the redemption of land by kinsmen, Le 25:25). The two most common words for kindred are: (1) moledheth, "related by birth" (Ge 12:1; 24:4,7; 31:3,13; 32:9; 43:7; Nu 10:30; Es 2:10,20; 8:6); (2) mishpachah, "family" (Ge 24:38,40,41; Jos 6:23; Ru 2:3; 1Ch 16:28; Job 32:2; Ps 22:27; 96:7).

In the New Testament (several times), genos, "kindred by birth," so, of same family, tribe or race (Ac 4:6; 7:13,19 the Revised Version (British and American) "race"); so also suggeneia (Lu 1:61; Ac 7:3,14). In the King James Version phule, "tribe," rendered "kindred" (Re 1:7; 5:9; 7:9; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6), but better "tribe" as in the Revised Version (British and American). patria, rendered "kindred" in Ac 3:25, is better "families," as in the Revised Version (British and American).

Edward Bagby Pollard

kin:

(1) ‘alaphim, plural of ‘eleph, "ox," or "cow," the American Standard Revised Version "cattle," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "kine" (De 7:13; 28:4,18,51);

(2) baqar, "ox" or "cow," the American Standard Revised Version "herd," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "kine" (De 32:14; 2Sa 17:29);

(3) paroth plural of parah, "young cow" or "heifer," the Revised Version (British and American) "kine" in Ge 41:2-27; 1Sa 6:7-14; Am 4:1; in Ge 32:15, the American Standard Revised Version has "cows."

See CATTLE; COW.

The title applied in mockery of Jesus, and put by Pilate on His cross (Mt 27:29,37 parallel Mr 15:26, etc.).

See JESUS CHRIST; KING, CHRIST AS.

See DALE, KING’S.

gan-ha-melekh): In Ne 3:15, mention is made of "the pool of Shelah by the king’s garden"; in 2Ki 25:4; Jer 52:7, "All the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden"; see also Jer 39:4. The "king’s winepresses" (Zec 14:10), which must have been to the extreme South of the city, were clearly in this neighborhood. The references all point to the one situation in Jerusalem where it is possible for gardens to flourish all the year round, namely, the part of the Kidron valley below the Tyropoeon which is watered by the overflow from the Pool of Siloam (see SILOAM). Here the vegetable gardens of the peasants of Siloam present an aspect of green freshness unknown elsewhere in Jerusalem.

E. W. G. Masterman

The queen-dowager occupied a very important position at the court of the kings of Israel, e.g. Bathsheba (1Ki 2:19); Maacah (1Ki 15:13); Athaliah (2Ch 22:2); and Nehushta (2Ki 24:8; Jer 13:18).

See QUEEN; QUEEN MOTHER.

berekhath hamelekh): This is possibly the Pool of Siloam (Ne 2:14), and may have been so named as being near to the "king’s garden."

(‘emeq ha-melekh; Septuagint in Ge reads to pedion ("the plain") basileos, in 2 Sam, he koilas ("valley") tou basileos; the King James Version King’s Dale): The place where the king of Sodom met Abram (Ge 14:17), and the situation of Absalom’s monument (2Sa 18:18). It was identical with the Vale of Shaveh, and was evidently near Salem, the city of Melchizedek (Ge 14:17). If SALEM (which see) is Jerusalem, then Absalom’s pillar was also near that city, Josephus writes (Ant., VII, x, 3), "Absalom had erected for himself a marble pillar in the king’s dale, two furlongs (stadia) from Jerusalem, which he named Absalom’s Hand." In all probability this "pillar" was a rough upright stone—a matstsebhah—but its site is lost. The traditional Greek-Egyptian tomb of perhaps 100-200 years BC which has been hewn out of the rock on the eastern side of the Kidron valley is manifestly misnamed "Absalom’s pillar," and the Kidron ravine (nachal) cannot be the King’s Vale (‘emeq).

E. W. G. Masterman

I. THE REALITY OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP

1. The Old Testament Foreshadowings

In the Psalms and Prophets

2. The Gospel Presentation

(1) Christ’s Claim to Be King

(2) Christ’s Acceptance of the Title

(3) Christ Charged and Condemned as King

(4) The Witness of the Resurrection and of Apostolic Preaching

(5) The Testimony of the Epistles and Apocalypse

II. CHRIST’S TITLE TO KINGSHIP

1. By Birth

2. By Divine Appointment

3. By Conquest

4. By the Free Choice of His People

III. THE NATURE OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP

1. Spiritual

2. Universal

(1) Kingdom of Grace, of Power

(2) Kingdom of Glory

3. Eternal

I. The Reality of Christ’s Kingship.

There can be no question but that Christ is set before us in Scripture as a king. The very title Christ or "Messiah" suggests kingship, for though the priest is spoken of as "anointed," and full elucidation of the title as applied to Jesus must take account of His threefold office of prophet, priest and king, yet generally in the Old Testament it is the king to whom the epithet is applied.

1. The Old Testament Foreshadowings:

We may briefly note some of the Old Testament predictions of Christ as king. The first prediction which represents the Christ as having dominion is that of Jacob concerning the tribe Of Judah: "Until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be" (Ge 49:10); then kingly dignity and dominion are suggested by the star and scepter in Balaam’s prophecy (Nu 24:15-17). As yet, however, Israel has no king but God, but when afterward a king is given and the people become familiar with the idea, the prophecies all more or less have a regal tint, and the coming one is preeminently the coming king.

In the Psalms and Prophets

We can only indicate a few of the many royal predictions, but these will readily suggest others. In Ps 2 the voice of Yahweh is heard above all the tumult of earth, declaring, "Yet I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." So in Psalms 24; 45; 72; 89 and 110 we have special foreshadowings of the Messianic king. The babe that Isaiah sees born of a virgin is also the "Prince of Peace" (Isa 9:6,7), of the increase of whose government there shall be no end, and as the prophet gazes on him he joyfully exclaims: "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness" (Isa 32:1). Jeremiah, the prophet of woe, catches bright glimpses of his coming Lord, and with rapture intensified by the surrounding sorrow cries: "Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land" (23:5). Ezekiel, dwelling amid his wheels, sees in the course of Providence many revolutions, but they are all to bring about the dominion of Christ: "I will overturn, overturn, overturn .... until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him" (21:27). Daniel sees the rise and progress, the decline and fall of many mighty empires, but beyond all he sees the Son of man inheriting an everlasting kingdom (7:13). Hosea sees the repentant people of Israel in the latter days seeking Yahweh their God, and David (the greater David) their king (3:5). Micah sees the everlasting Ruler coming out of Bethlehem clad in the strength and majesty of Yahweh, who shall "be great unto the ends of the earth" (5:4). Zechariah, exulting in His near approach, cries: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee" (9:9), and he follows His varied course through gloom and through glory, until the strong conviction is born in his heart and expressed in the glowing words: "Yahweh shall be King over all the earth" (14:9). The more extreme higher critics would, of course, deny that these are direct predictions of Jesus Christ, but most, if not all, would admit that they are ideal representations which were only fully realized in Jesus of Nazareth.

2. The Gospel Presentation:

The Gospels present Christ as king. Matthew, tracing His genealogy, gives special prominence to His royal lineage as son of David. He tells of the visit of the Magi who inquire for the newborn king of the Jews, and the scribes answer Herod’s question by showing from Micah’s prophecy that the Christ to be born in Bethlehem would be a "governor," and would rule, "be shepherd of my people Israel" (Mt 2:5,6). Luke’s account of the Nativity contains the angel’s declaration that the child to be born and named Jesus would occupy the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever (Lu 1:32,33). In John’s account of the beginning of Christ’s ministry, one of His early disciples, Nathanael, hails Him as "King of Israel" (Joh 1:49), and Jesus does not repudiate the title. If Mark has no such definite word, he nevertheless describes the message with which Jesus opens His ministry as the "gospel" of "the kingdom of God" (1:14,15). The people nurtured in the prophetical teaching expect the coming one to be a king, and when Jesus seems to answer to their ideal of the Messiah, they propose taking Him by force and making Him king (Joh 6:15).

(1) Christ’s Claim to Be King

Christ Himself claimed to be king. In claiming to be the Messiah He tacitly claimed kingship, but there are specific indications of the claim besides. In all His teaching of the kingdom it is implied, for though He usually calls it the "kingdom of God" or "of heaven," yet it is plain that He is the administrator of its affairs. He assumes to Himself the highest place in it. Admission into the kingdom or exclusion from it depends upon men’s attitude toward Him. In His explanation of the parable of the Tares, He distinctly speaks of His kingdom, identifying it with the kingdom of God. "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity. .... Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Mt 13:41-43). He speaks of some seeing "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Mt 16:28), of the regeneration, "when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory" (Mt 19:28), of Himself under the guise of a nobleman who goes "into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom," and does receive it (Lu 19:12-15).

(2) Christ’s Acceptance of the Title

When the mother of John and James comes asking that her two sons may occupy the chief places of honor in His kingdom, He does not deny that He is a king and has a kingdom, while indicating that the places on His right and left hand are already determined by the appointment of the Father (Mt 20:21-23). He deliberately takes steps to fulfill the prediction of Zec: "Behold, thy king cometh," and He accepts, approves and justifies the hosannas and the homage of the multitude (Mt 21:1-16; Mr 11; Lu 19; Joh 12). In His great picture of the coming judgment (Mt 25), the Son of man sits upon the throne of His glory, and it is as "the king" that He blesses and condemns. The dying thief prays, "Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom" (Lu 23:42), and Jesus gives His royal response which implies full acceptance of the position.

(3) Christ Charged and Condemned as King

His claim throughout had been so definite that His enemies make this the basis of their charge against Him before Pilate, that He said that "he himself is Christ a king," and when Pilate asks, "Art thou the King?" He answers, "Thou sayest," which was equivalent to "yes" (Lu 23:2,3). In the fuller account of John, Jesus speaks to Pilate of "my kingdom," and says "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been born" (Joh 18:37). His claim is perpetuated in the superscription of the cross in the three languages: "This is the King of the Jews," and although the priests wished it to be altered so as to detract from His claim, they yet affirm the fact of that claim when they say: "Write not, The King of the Jews; but, that he said, I am King of the Jews" (Joh 19:21). The curtain of His earthly life falls upon the king in seeming failure; the taunt of the multitude, "Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross" (Mr 15:32), meets with no response, and the title on the cross seems a solemn mockery, like the elaborate, cruel jest of the brutal soldiers clothing Him with purple, crowning Him with thorns and hailing Him King of the Jews.

(4) The Witness of the Resurrection and of Apostolic Preaching.

But the resurrection throws new light upon the scene, and fully vindicates His claims, and the sermon of Peter on the day of Pentecost proclaims the fact that the crucified one occupies the throne. "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Ac 2:36). The early preaching of the apostles, as recorded in the Acts, emphasizes His lordship, His kingship; these men were preachers in the literal sense—heralds of the king.

(5) The Testimony of the Epistles and Apocalypse.

We need not consider in detail the testimony of the Epistles. The fact that Christ is king is everywhere implied and not infrequently asserted. He is "Lord of both the dead and the living" (Ro 14:9). He is risen "to rule over the Gentiles" (Ro 15:12). "He must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet" (1Co 15:25). He is at the right hand of God "above all rule, and authority," etc. (Eph 1:20-22). Evil men have no "inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5), and believers are "translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love" (Col 1:13). He has been given the name that is above every name "that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow," etc. (Php 2:9-11). Those who suffer with Christ are to "reign with him" (2Ti 2:12), at "his appearing and his kingdom" (2Ti 4:1), and He will save them "unto his heavenly kingdom" (2Ti 4:18); "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:11). Of the Son it is said: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Heb 1:8), and He is a King-Priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7:17). In the Apocalypse, appropriately, the predominant aspect of Christ is that of a king. He is the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Re 1:5), "King of the ages" (Re 15:3), "King of kings" (Re 17:14; 19:16), "and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Re 11:15). The reality of Christ’s kingship is thus placed beyond all doubt.

II. Christ’s Title to Kingship.

1. By Birth:

After the analogy of earthly kingships it might be said that Jesus Christ is a king by birth. He was born a king. His mother, like His reputed father, "was of the house and family of David" (Lu 2:4). The angel in nouncing His birth declares that He will occupy the throne of His father David. The Pharisees have no hesitation in affirming that the Christ would be Son of David (Mt 22:45; Mr 12:35; Lu 20:41). Frequently in life He was hailed as "Son of David," and after His ascension, Peter declares that the promise God had made to David that "of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne" (Ac 2:30) was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth; while Paul declares that the gospel of God was "concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Ro 1:3). So that on the human side He had the title to kingship as son of David, while on the Divine side as Son of God He had also the right to the throne.

2. By Divine Appointment:

David was king by Divine choice and appointment, and this was the ideal in the case of his successors. The figment of "Divine right"—by virtue of which modern kings have claimed to rule—was, in the first instance, a reminiscence of the Biblical ideal. But the ideal is realized in Christ. Of the coming Messianic King, Yahweh said: "Yet I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion" (Ps 2:6), and the great proclamation of Pentecost was an echo of that decree: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Ac 2:36), while the apostle declares that "God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name" (Php 2:9), and again and again the great Old Testament word of Yahweh is applied to Christ: "Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet" (Heb 1:13).

3. By Conquest:

Often in the olden times kingship was acquired by conquest, by superior prowess. According to one etymology of our word "king," it means the "able man," "the one who can," and everyone remembers Carlyle’s fine passage thereon. In the highest sense, this is true of Christ, who establishes His sway over men’s hearts by His matchless prowess, the power of His infinite love and the charm of His perfect character.

4. By the Free Choice of His People:

Except in the most autocratic form of kingship, some place has been given to the suffrage of the people, and the other phases of the title have been confirmed and ratified by the voice of the people as they cry, "God save the king!" and no king is well established on the throne if he is not supported by the free homage of his subjects. Christ as king wins the love of His people, and they gladly acknowledge His sway. They are of one heart to make Him king.

III. The Nature of Christ’s Kingship.

We know that the Jews expected a material kingdom, marked by earthly pomp and state; a kingdom on the lines of the Davidic or Solomonic kingdom, and others since have made the same mistake.

1. Spiritual:

The Scriptures plainly declare, Christ Himself clearly taught, that His kingship was spiritual. "My kingdom," said He, "is not of this world" (Joh 18:36), and all the representations given of it are all consistent with this declaration. Some have emphasized the preposition ek here, as if that made a difference in the conception: "My kingdom is not of this world." Granted that the preposition indicates origin, it still leaves the statement an assertion of the spirituality of the kingdom, for if it is not from this kosmos, from this earthly state of things, it must be from the other world—not the earthly but the heavenly; not the material but the spiritual. The whole context shows that origin here includes character, for Christ adds, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." Because it is of an unworldly origin, it is not to be propagated by, worldly means, and the non-use of worldly means declares it to be of an unworldly character. So that to assert that Christ means that His kingdom was not to arise out of this world, but to come down from heaven, is not at all to deny, but rather, indeed, to declare its essential spirituality, its unworldliness, its otherworldliness.

Throughout the New Testament, spirituality appears as the prevailing characteristic of Christ’s reign. Earthly kingdoms are based upon material power, the power of the sword, the power of wealth, etc., but the basal factor of Christ’s kingdom is righteousness (Mt 5:20; 6:33; Ro 14:17; Heb 1:8, etc.). The ruling principle in earthly kingdoms is selfish or sectional or national aggrandizement; in the kingdom of Christ it is truth. Christ is king of truth. "Art thou a king then?" said Pilate. "I am," said Christ (for that is the force of "thou sayest that I am a king"). "To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth," and He adds, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Joh 18:37). Elsewhere He says: "I am the .... truth" (Joh 14:6), and at the head of the armies of heaven He still wears the title "Faithful and True" (Re 19:11); but if righteousness and truth occupy such a prominent place in His kingdom, it follows that it must be distinguished by its spirituality. His immediate subjects are spiritual men and women; its laws are spiritual; its work is spiritual; all the forces emanating from it, operating through it, centering in it, are spiritual.

2. Universal:

The Jewish idea of the Messiah’s reign was a narrow national one. For them it meant the glorification of the sons of Abraham, the supremacy of Judaism over all forms of faith and all systems of philosophy; the subjection to Jewish sway of the haughty Roman, the cultured Greek and the rude barbarian. The Messiah was to be a greater king than David or Solomon, but still a king after the same sort; much as the limits of the kingdom might extend, it would be but an extension on Jewish lines; others might be admitted to a share in its privileges, but they would have to become naturalized Jews, or occupy a very subordinate place. The prophetic ideal, however, was a universal kingdom, and that was the conception endorsed and emphasized by Christ. (For the prophetic ideal such passages may be noted as Psalms 2; 22; 72; Isa 11:10; Da 7:13,14, etc.) Of course, the predictions have a Jewish coloring, and people who did not apprehend the spirituality might well construe this amiss; but, closely examined, it will be found that the prophets indicate that men’s position in the coming kingdom is to be determined by their relation to the king, and in that we get the preparation for the full New Testament ideal. The note of universality is very marked in the teaching of Christ. All barriers are to be broken down, and Jews and Gentiles are to share alike in the privileges of the new order. "Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 8:11), and stranger still to the Jewish ear: "The sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness" (Mt 8:12). In the parables of the kingdom (Mt 13), the field, in which is sown the good seed of the kingdom, is the world, and the various other figures give the same idea of unlimited extent. The same thought is suggested by the declaration, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" (Joh 10:16), also by the confident affirmation: "I, if I be lifted up, from the earth, will draw all men unto myself" (Joh 12:32), and so with many other statements of the Gospels.

The terms of the commission are enough to show the universal sovereignty which Christ claims over men: "Go ye therefore," He says, as possessing all authority in heaven and on earth, "and make disciples of all the nations" (Mt 28:19), coupled with the royal assurance, "Ye shall be my witnesses .... unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Ac 1:8). The Book of Ac shows, in the carrying out of the commission, the actual widening of the borders of Christ’s kingdom to include believers of all tions. Peter is taught, and announces clearly, the great truth that Gentiles are to be received upon the same terms as the Jews. But through Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles this glorious truth is most fully and jubilantly made known. In the dogmatic teaching of his Epistles he shows that all barriers are broken down, the middle wall of the fence between Jew and Gentile no longer exists. Those who were aliens and strangers are now made nigh in Christ, and "are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Eph 2:19). That household, that commonwealth, is, in Pauline language, equivalent to the kingdom, and in the same epistle, he describes the same privileged position as being an "inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). The Saviour’s kingdom cannot be bounded by earthly limits, and all attempts to map it out according to human rules imply a failure to recognize the true Scriptural idea of its universality.

(1) Kingdom of Grace, of Power.

Most of what we have said applies to that phase of Christ’s kingdom which is generally called his kingdom of grace; there is another phase called the kingdom of power. Christ is in a special sense king in Zion, king in His church—that is universal in conception and destined to be so in reality—but He is also king of the universe. He is "head over all things"; Eph 1:22; Col 1:18, and other passages clearly intimate this. He rules over all. He does so not simply as God, but as God-man, as mediator. It is as mediator that He has the name above every name; it is as mediator that He sits upon the throne of universal power.

(2) Kingdom of Glory.

There is also the phase of the kingdom of glory. Christ’s reign now is truly glorious. The essential spirituality of it implies its glory, for as the spiritual far surpasses the material in value, so the glory of the spiritual far transcends the glory of the material. The glory of worldly pomp, of physical force, of human prowess or genius, must ever pale before the glory of righteousness, truth, spirituality. But Christ’s kingdom is glorious in another sense; it is a heavenly kingdom. It is the kingdom of grace into which saved sinners now enter, but it is also the kingdom of heavenly glory, and in it the glorified saints have a place. Entrance into the kingdom of grace in this earthly state secures entrance into the kingdom of glory. Rightly does the church confess: "Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ." The kingdom is yet to assume an externally glorious form. That is connected with the appearing of Christ (2Ti 4:1), the glory that shall be revealed, the heavenly kingdom. The kingdom in that stage cannot be entered by flesh and blood (1Co 15:50), man in his mortality—but the resurrection change will give the fitness, when in the fullest sense the kingdom of this world shall have "become the kingdom of our Lord, , and of his Christ" (Re 11:15).

3. Eternal:

It would be easy to multiply quotations in proof of this. The great passage in Da 7 emphatically declares it. The echo of this is heard in the angel’s announcement: "He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Lu 1:33). The reign of 1,000 years which so greatly occupies the thoughts of so many brethren, whatever we may decide as to its nature, is but an episode in the reign of Christ. He is reigning now, He shall reign forever. Re 11:15, above quoted, is often cited as applying to the millennium, but it goes on to say "and he shall reign (not for 1,000 years simply, but) for ever and ever." So, many of the glowing predictions of the Old Testament, which are often assigned to the millennium, indicate no limit, but deal with the enduring and eternal.

The difficult passage in 1Co 15:24-28 must be interpreted in the light of those declarations concerning the eternity of Christ’s reign. It is evidently as mediator that He delivers up the kingdom to the Father. The dispensation of mediator comes to an end. All has been done according to the purpose of redemption. All the ransomed are finally gathered home. He sees of the travail of His soul and is satisfied. Obdurate enemies are subdued. God’s glory has been fully vindicated. The Son becoming subject to the Father, God governs directly and is all in all. But the Son in some sense still reigns and through Him God’s glory will ever shine, while the kingdom eternally rests upon redemption. We may summarize by saying that Christ is king of truth, king of salvation (Mt 21:5; Zec 9:9); king of grace; king of peace (Lu 19:38; Heb 7:2); king of righteousness (Heb 1:8; 7:2); king of glory (Mt 25:31-34); king eternal; king of saints, king of the ages; king of kings (Re 19:16). "Upon his head are many diadems" (Re 19:12).

See also CHRIST, OFFICES OF.

Archibald M’caig

king’-dum:

I. KING

1. Etymology and Definition

2. Earliest Kings

3. Biblical Signification of the Title

II. KINGDOM

1. Israel’s Theocracy

2. Period of Judges

3. Establishment of the Monarchy

4. Appointment of King

5. Authority of the King

6. Duties of the King

7. The Symbols of Royal Dignity

8. Maintenance and Establishment

(1) Income

(2) The Royal Court

9. Short Character Sketch of Israel’s Kingdom

LITERATURE

I. King.

1. Etymology and Definition:

The Hebrew word for king is melekh; its denominative malakh, "to reign" "to be king." The word is apparently derived from the mlkh which denotes: (1) in the Arabic (the verb and the noun) it means "to possess," "to reign," inasmuch as the possessor is also "lord" and "ruler"; (2) in the Aramaic melekh), and Assyrian "counsel," and in the Syrian "to consult"; compare Latin, consul.

If, as has been suggested, the root idea of "king" is "counsellor" and not "ruler," then the rise of the kingly office and power would be due to intellectual superiority rather than to physical prowess. And since the first form of monarchy known was that of a "city-state," the office of king may have evolved from that of the chief "elder" or intellectual head of the clan.

2. Earliest Kings:

The first king of whom we read in the Bible was Nimrod (Ge 10:8-10), who was supposedly the founder of the Babylonian empire. Historical research regarding the kings of Babylonia and Egypt corroborates this Biblical statement in so far as the ancestry of these kings is traced back to the earliest times of antiquity. According to Isa 19:11, it was the pride of the Egyptian princes that they could trace their lineage to most ancient kings. The Canaanites and Philistines had kings as early as the times of Abraham (Ge 14:2; 20:2). Thus also the Edomites, who were related to Israel (Ge 36:31), the Moabites, and the Midianites had kings (Nu 22:4; 31:8) earlier than the Israelites.

In Ge 14:18 we read of Melchizedek, who was a priest, and king of Salem. At first the extent of the dominion of kings was often very limited, as appears from 70 of them being conquered by Adonibezek (Jud 1:7), 31 by Joshua (Jos 12:7 ), and 32 being subject to Ben-hadad (1Ki 20:1).

3. Biblical Signification of the Title:

The earliest Biblical usage of this title "king," in consonance with the general oriental practice, denotes an absolute monarch who exercises unchecked control over his subjects. In this sense the title is applied to Yahweh, and to human rulers. No constitutional obligations were laid upon the ruler nor were any restrictions put upon his arbitrary authority. His good or bad conduct depended upon his own free will.

The title "king" was applied also to dependent kings. In the New Testament it is used even for the head of a province (Re 17:12). To distinguish him from the smaller and dependent kings, the king of Assyria bore the title "king of kings."

II. Kingdom.

The notable fact that Israel attained to the degree of a kingdom rather late, as compared with the other Semitic nations, does not imply that Israel, before the establishment of the monarchy, had not arrived at the stage of constitutional government, or that the idea of a kingdom had no room in the original plan of the founder of the Hebrew nation. For a satisfactory explanation we must take cognizance of the unique place that Israel held among the Semitic peoples.

1. Israel’s Theocracy:

It is universally recognized that Israel was a singular community. From the beginning of its existence as a nation it bore the character of a religious and moral community, a theocratic commonwealth, having Yahweh Himself as the Head and Ruler. The theocracy is not to be mistaken for a hierarchy, nor can it strictly be identified with any existent form of political organization. It was rather something over and above, and therefore independent of the political organization. It did not supersede the tribal organization of Israel, but it supplied the centralizing power, constituting Israel a nation. In lieu of a strong political center, the unifying bond of a common allegiance to Yahweh, i.e. the common faith in Him, the God of Israel, kept the tribes together. The consciousness that Yahweh was Israel’s king was deeply rooted, was a national feeling, and the inspiration of a true patriotism (Ex 15:18; 19:6; Jud 5). Yahweh’s kingship is evinced by the laws He gave to Israel, by the fact that justice was administered in His name (Ex 22:28), and by His leading and siding Israel in its wars (Ex 14:14; 15:3; Nu 21:14; 1Sa 18:17; 25:28). This decentralized system which characterized the early government of Israel politically, in spite of some great disadvantages, proved advantageous for Israel on the whole and served a great providential purpose. It safeguarded the individual liberties and rights of the Israelites. When later the monarchy was established, they enjoyed a degree of local freedom and self-control that was unknown in the rest of the Semitic world; there was home rule for every community, which admitted the untrammeled cultivation of their inherited religious and social institutions.

From the political point of view Israel, through the absence of a strong central government, was at a great disadvantage, making almost impossible its development into a world-empire. But this barrier to a policy of self-aggrandizement was a decided blessing from the viewpoint of Israel’s providential mission to the world. It made possible the transmission of the pure religion entrusted to it, to later generations of men without destructive contamination from the ungodly forces with which Israel would inevitably have come into closer contact, had it not been for its self-contained character, resulting from the fashion of a state it was providentially molded into. Only as the small and insignificant nation that it was, could Israel perform its mission as "the depository and perpetuating agency of truths vital to the welfare of humanity." Thus its religion was the central authority of this nation, supplying the lack of a centralized government. Herein lay Israel’s uniqueness and greatness, and also the secret of its strength as a nation, as long as the loyalty and devotion to Yahweh lasted. Under the leadership of Moses and Joshua who, though they exercised a royal authority, acted merely as representatives of Yahweh, the influence of religion of which these leaders were a personal embodiment was still so strong as to keep the tribes united for common action. But when, after the removal of these strong leaders, Israel no longer had a standing representative of Yahweh, those changes took place which eventually necessitated the establishment of the monarchy.

2. Period of Judges:

In the absence of a special representative of Yahweh, His will as Israel’s King was divined by the use of the holy lot in the hand of the highest priest. But the lot would not supply the place of a strong personal leader. Besides, many of the Israelites came under the deteriorating influence of the Canaanite worship and began to adopt heathenish customs. The sense of religious unity weakened, the tribes became disunited and ceased to act in common, and as a result they were conquered by their foes. Yahweh came to their assistance by sending them leaders, who released the regions where they lived from foreign attacks. But these leaders were not the strong religious personalities that Moses and Joshua had been; besides, they had no official authority, and their rule was only temporary and local. It was now that the need of a centralized political government was felt, and the only type of permanent organization of which the age was cognizant was the kingship. The crown was offered to Gideon, but he declined it, saying: "Yahweh shall rule over you" (Jud 8:22,23). The attempt of his son, Abimelech, to establish a kingship over Shechem and the adjacent country, after the Canaanitic fashion, was abortive.

The general political condition of this period is briefly and pertinently described by the oft-recurring statement in Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

3. Establishment of the Monarchy:

Not until the time of Samuel was a formal kingdom established over Israel. An attempt to ameliorate conditions by a union of civil and religious functions in the hands of Eli, the priest, had failed through the degeneracy of his sons. Similarly the hopes of Israel in a hereditary judgeship had been disappointed through the corruption of the sons of Samuel. The Philistines were threatening the independence and hope of Israel. Its very existence as a distinct race, and consequently the future of Yahweh’s religion, imperatively demanded a king. Considering that it was the moral decline of the nation that had created the necessity for a monarchy, and moreover that the people’s desire for a king originated from a purely national and not from a religious motive, the unwillingness of Samuel, at first, to comply with the demand for a king is not surprising. Even Yahweh declared: "They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me," etc. Instead of recognizing that they themselves were responsible for the failures of the past, they blamed the form of government they had, and put all their hopes upon a king. That it was not the monarchy as such that was objectionable to Yahweh and His prophet is evidenced by the fact that to the patriarchs the promise had been given: "Kings shall come out of thy loins" (Ge 17:6; 35:11). In view of this Moses had made provision for a kingship (De 17:14-20). According to the Mosaic charter for the kingship, the monarchy when established must be brought into consonance with the fact that Yahweh was Israel’s king. Of this fact Israel had lost sight when it requested a kingship like that of the neighboring peoples. Samuel’s gloomy prognostications were perfectly justified in view of such a kingship as they desired, which would inevitably tend to selfish despotism (1Sa 8:11 f). therefore God directs Samuel to give them a king—since the introduction of a kingship typifying the kingship of Christ lay within the plan of His economy—not according to their desire, but in accordance with the instructions of the law concerning kings (De 17:14-20), in order to safeguard their liberties and prevent the forfeiture of their mission.

4. Appointment of King:

According to the Law of Moses Yahweh was to choose the king of israel, who was to be His representative. The choice of Yahweh in the case of Saul is implied by the anointing of Saul by Samuel and through the confirmation of this choice by the holy lot (1Sa 10:1-20). This method of choosing the king did not exclude the people altogether, since Saul was publicly presented to them, and acknowledged as king (1Sa 10:24). The participation of the people in the choice of their king is more pronounced in the case of David, who, having been designated as Yahweh’s choice by being anointed by Samuel, was anointed again by the elders of Israel before he actually became king (2Sa 2:4).

The anointing itself signified the consecration to an office in theocracy. The custom of anointing kings was an old one, and by no means peculiar to Israel (Jud 9:8,15). The hereditary kingship began with David. Usually the firstborn succeeded to the throne, but not necessarily. The king might choose as his successor from among his sons the one whom he thought best qualified.

5. Authority of the King:

The king of Israel was not a constitutional monarch in the modern sense, nor was he an autocrat in the oriental sense. He was responsible to Yahweh, who had chosen him and whose vicegerent and servant he was. Furthermore, his authority was more or less limited on the religious side by the prophets, the representatives of Yahweh, and in the political sphere by the "elders," the representatives of the people, though as king he stood above all. Rightly conceived, his kingship in relation to Yahweh, who was Israel’s true king, implied that he was Yahweh’s servant and His earthly substitute. In relation to his subjects his kingship demanded of him, according to the Law, "that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren" (De 17:20).

6. Duties of the King:

In a summary way the king was held responsible for all Israel as the Lord’s people. His main duty was to defend it against its enemies, and for this reason it devolved upon him to raise and maintain a standing army; and it was expected of him that he be its leader in case of war (1Sa 8:20). In respect to the judiciary the king was a kind of supreme court, or court of final appeal, and as such, as in the days of Solomon, might be approached by his most humble subjects (2Sa 15:2; 1Ki 3:16 ). Legislative functions he had none and was himself under the law (1Ki 21:4; De 17:19). The king was also in a way the summus episcopus in Israel. His very kingship was of an entirely religious character and implied a unity of the heavenly and earthly rule over Israel through him who as Yahweh’s substitute sat "upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel" (1Ch 17:14; 28:5; 29:23), who was "Yahweh’s anointed" (1Sa 24:10; 26:9; 2Sa 1:14), and also bore the title of "son of Yahweh" and "the first-born," the same as Israel did (Ex 4:22; Ho 11:1; 2Sa 7:14; Ps 89:27; 2:7). Thus a place of honor was assigned to the king in the temple (2Ki 11:4; 23:3; Eze 46:1,2); besides, he officiated at the national sacrifices (especially mentioned of David and Solomon). He prayed for his people and blessed them in the name of Yahweh (2Sa 6:18; 24:25; 1Ki 3:4,8; 8:14,55,62; 9:25). Apparently it was the king’s right to appoint and dismiss the chief priests at the sanctuaries, though in his choice he was doubtless restricted to the Aaronites (1Ch 16:37,39; 2Sa 8:17; 1Ki 2:27,35). The priesthood was under the king’s supervision to such an extent that he might concern himself about its organization and duties (1Ch 15:16,23,24; 16:4-6), and that he was responsible for the purity of the cult and the maintenance of the order of worship. In general he was to watch over the religious life and conduct of his people, to eradicate the high places and every form of idolatry in the land (2Ki 18:4). Eze 45:22 demands of the prince that he shall provide at the Passover a bullock for a sin offering for all the people.

7. The Symbols of Royal Dignity:

The marks of royal dignity, besides the beautiful robes in which the king was attired (1Ki 22:10), were:

(1) the diadem nezer) and the crown (aTarah, 2Sa 1:10; 2Ki 11:12; 2Sa 12:30), the headtire;

(2) the scepter (shebheT), originally a long, straight staff, the primitive sign of dominion and authority (Ge 49:10; Nu 24:17; Isa 14:5; Jer 48:17; Ps 2:9; 45:7). Saul had a spear (1Sa 18:10; 22:6);

(3) the throne (kicce’, 1Ki 10:18-20), the symbol of majesty. Israel’s kings also had a palace (1Ki 7:1-12; 22:39; Jer 22:14), a royal harem (2Sa 16:21), and a bodyguard (2Sa 8:18; 15:18).

8. Maintenance and Establishment:

(1) Income.

(a) According to the custom of the times presents were expected of the subjects (1Sa 10:27; 16:20) and of foreigners (2Sa 8:2; 1Ki 5:1 ff; 10:25; 2Ch 32:23), and these often took the form of an annual tribute.

(b) In time of war the king would lay claim to his share of the booty (2Sa 8:11; 12:30; 1Ch 26:27).

(c) Various forms of taxes were in vogue, as a part of the produce of the land (1Ki 9:11; 1Sa 17:25), forced labor of the Canaanites (1Ki 9:20; 2Ch 2:16) and also of the Israelites (1Ki 5:13; 11:28; 12:4), the first growth of the pasture lands (Am 7:1), toll collected from caravans (1Ki 10:15).

(d) Subdued nations had to pay a heavy tribute (2Ki 3:4).

(e) The royal domain often comprised extensive possessions (1Ch 27:25-31).

(2) The Royal Court.

The highest office was that of the princes (1Ki 4:2), who were the king’s advisers or counselors. In 2Ki 25:19 and Jer 52:25 they are called "they that saw the king’s face" (compare also 1Ki 12:6, "stood before Solomon"). The following officers of King David are mentioned: the captain of the host (commander-in-chief), the captain of the Cherethites and the Pelethites (bodyguard), the recorder (chronicler and reminder), the scribe (secretary of state), the overseer of the forced labor, the chief ministers or priests (confidants of the king, usually selected from the royal family) (2Sa 8:16-18; 20:23-26).

During the reign of Solomon other officers were added as follows: the overseer over the twelve men "who provided victuals for the king and his household" (1Ki 4:5,7), the officer over the household (1Ki 4:6; 18:3) (steward, the head of the palace who had "the key" in his possession, Isa 22:22); the king’s friend (1Ki 4:5; 1Ch 27:33) is probably the same as the king’s servant mentioned among the high officials in 2Ki 22:12. It is not stated what his duties were. Minor officials are servants, cupbearer (1Ki 10:5), keeper of the wardrobe (2Ki 22:14; 10:22), eunuchs (chamberlains, not mentioned before the division of the kingdom) (1Ki 22:9; 2Ki 8:6).

9. Short Character Sketch of Israel’s Kingdom:

No higher conceptions of a good king have ever been given to the world than those which are presented in the representations of kingship in the Old Testament, both actual and ideal. Though Samuel’s characterization of the kingship was borne out in the example of a great number of kings of Israel, the Divine ideal of a true king came as near to its realization in the case of one king of Israel, at least, as possibly nowhere else, namely, in the case of David. Therefore King David appears as the type of that king in whom the Divine ideal of a Yahweh-king was to find its perfect realization; toward whose reign the kingship in Israel tended. The history of the kingship in Israel after David is, indeed, characterized by that desire for political aggrandizement which had prompted the establishment of the monarchy, which was contrary to Israel’s Divine mission as the peculiar people of the Yahweh-king. When Israel’s kingdom terminated in the Bah exile, it became evident that the continued existence of the nation was possible even without a monarchical form of government. Though a kingdom was established again under the Maccabees, as a result of the attempt of Antiochus to extinguish Israel’s religion, this kingdom was neither as perfectly national nor as truly religious in its character as the Davidic. It soon became dependent on Rome. The kingship of Herod was entirely alien to the true Israelite conception.

It remains to be said only that the final attempt of Israel in its revolt against the Roman Empire, to establish the old monarchy, resulted in its downfall as a nation, because it would not learn the lesson that the future of a nation does not depend upon political greatness, but upon the fulfillment of its Divine mission.

LITERATURE.

J.P. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments; Riehm, Handwiirterbuch des bibl. Alterrums; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); Kinzler, Bibl. Altes Testament.

S. D. Press

(he basileia ton ouranon; he basileia tou theou):

I. MEANING AND ORIGIN OF THE TERM

1. Place in the Gospels

2. "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God"

3. Relation to the Old Testament (Daniel, etc.)

II. ITS USE BY JESUS—CONTRAST WITH JEWISH CONCEPTIONS

1. Current Jewish Opinions

2. Relation of Jesus to Same

3. Growing Divergence and Contrast

4. Prophetic Character of the "Temptation"

5. Modern "Futuristic" Hypothesis (J. Weiss, Schweitzer)

6. Weakness of This View

7. Positive Conceptions of Jesus

III. THE IDEA IN HISTORY

1. Apostolic and Post-apostolic Age

2. Early Christian Centuries

3. Reformation Period

4. Later Ideas

IV. PLACE IN THEOLOGY

1. Danger of Exaggeration

2. Elements of Living Power in Idea

LITERATURE

The "kingdom of God" is one of the most remarkable ideas and phrases of all time, having begun to be used very near the beginnings of history and continuing in force down to the present day.

I. Meaning and Origin of the Term

1. Place in the Gospels:

Its use by Jesus is by far its most interesting aspect; for, in the Synoptists, at least, it is His watchword, or a comprehensive term for the whole of His teaching. Of this the ordinary reader of Scripture may hardly be aware, but it becomes evident and significant to the student. Thus, in Mt 4:23, the commencement of the ministry is described in these words, "And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people"; and, somewhat later, in Lu 8:1, the expansion of His activity is described in the following terms, "And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God, and with him the twelve." When the Twelve are sent forth by themselves, the purpose of their mission is, in Lu 9:2, given in these words, "And he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick." In Mt 13:11, the parables, which formed so large and prominent a portion of His teaching, are denominated collectively "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"; and it will be remembered how many of these commence with the phrase, "The kingdom of heaven is like."

2. "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God":

In these quotations, and in others which might easily be adduced, it will be observed that the phrases "the kingdom," "the kingdom of God," "the kingdom of heaven" are used interchangeably. The last of the three, "the kingdom of heaven," is confined to the First Gospel, which does not, however, always make use of it; and it is not certain what may have been the reason for the substitution. The simplest explanation would be that heaven is a name for God, as, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the penitent says, "I have sinned against heaven," and we ourselves might say, "Heaven forbid!" It is not, however, improbable that the true meaning has to be learned from two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, the one of which is epexegetic of the other, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." Here the disciples are instructed to pray that the kingdom of God may come, but this is equivalent to the petition that the will of God may be done on earth; Jesus is, however, aware of a region in the universe where the will of God is at present being perfectly and universally done, and, for reasons not difficult to surmise, He elevates thither the minds and hearts of those who pray. The kingdom of heaven would thus be so entitled because it is already realized there, and is, through prayer and effort, to be transferred thence to this earth.

3. Relation to the Old Testament (Daniel, etc.):

Although, however, the phrase held this master position in the teaching of Jesus, it was not of His invention. It was employed before Him by John the Baptist, of whom we read, in Mt 3:1 f, "And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Indeed, the phrase is far older; for, on glancing toward the Old Testament, we come at once, in Da 2:44, to a passage where the young prophet, explaining to the monarch the image of gold, silver, iron and clay, which, in his dream, he had seen shattered by "a stone cut out w