Part 43
(170 BC) . This displeased Antiochus, who marched against Alexandria, but was stopped beneath the walls by a Rom embassy (168 BC), in obedience to which he withdrew. The brothers quarreled again, and Philometor, expelled by Euergetes, went to Rome to seek assistance (164 BC). The Romans seated him again on his throne, assigning Cyrenaica to Euergetes. The next quarrel was about Cyprus. Philometor this time secured his brother as a prisoner, but sent him back to his province. Philometor was later drawn into Syrian poHtics in the conflict between Alexander Balas and Demetrius. The Egyp king espoused the cause of the former, to whom he also betrothed his daughter Cleopatra. But on discovering Balas' treachery, he took away his daughter from him and gave her to his opponent, Demetrius Nikator, whom he now supported against Balas. Balas was defeated in a decisive battle on the Oenoparas and killed, but Ptolemy himself died in 146 BC from the eiTects of a fall from his horse in the battle (1 Maco 1 18; 10 51 ff; 2 Mace 1 10; 4 21). Dnl 11 25-30 refers to the events of this reign. Philometor seems to have taken a friendly attitude toward the Jews. In his reign the Jewish temple of Leontopolis near Heliopolis was founded in 154 BC (Jos, Ant, XIII, iii, 1 f), and two Jewish generals, Onias and Dositheus, were at the head of his armies and had a large share in the government (Jos, CAp, II, 5). The JewishAlexandrine philosopher Aristobulus probably lived in this reign.
(4) Ptolemy IV, surnamed Philopator (*iXo7r(iTwp, Philopator, "Lover of his father"), or Tryphon
{tpirpuv, Truphon), the eldest son of Euergetes whom he succeeded in 222 BC. Antiochus the Great of Syria declared war against Egypt about 219 BC, but, after conquering Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, he was defeated by Philopator at the battle of Raphia near Gaza (217 BC). On his victorious return to Alexandria, Philopator assumed a very anti-Jewish attitude, and indeed caused discontent generally among his subjects. In spite of the victory of Raphia, Egypt began to decline under his weakness. He was as dissolute as Nero, while his domestic tragedies are as dark as those of Herod the Great. He died in 20.5 BC. Dnl 11 10-12 refers to the reign of Philopator. He was most probably the oppressor of 3 Mace.
(7) (On the death of Philometor his young son was proclaimed king as Ptolemy Eupator ["of a noble father"], but after reigning but a few months was put to death by his uncle Euergetes II [Just. xxxviii.8]. His reign being so brief he need hardly be numbered among the Ptolemies.)
(5) Ptolemy V, surnamed Epiphanes ('E7ri0an)s, Epiphants, "Illustrious"). He was only 5 years old when his father Philopator died. Taking advantage of the king's minority, Antiochus the Great leagued with Philip of Macedon against Egypt. Philip took the Cyclades and some cities in Thrace, while Antiochus defeated the Egyp general Scopas at Paneas on the Jordan in 198 BC, and thus Pal passed to the Seleucid dynasty. The Romans now interfered to make Antiochus surrender his conquests. Not daring to disobey Rome, Antiochus compromised by making peace with Ptolemy and betrothing to him his daughter Cleopatra, who was to receive as her dower the revenues of the conquered provinces Coele-Syria, Pal and Phoenicia (Jos, Aid, XII, iv, 1; Polyb. xxviii.l7), but the control of these provinces seems to have been retained by Antiochus. The marriage took place in 193 BC. After the dismissal of his faithful minister, Aristomenes, Epiphanes' character and reign deteriorated. At last he bestirred himself to recover the lost provinces from Seleucus, the successor of Antiochus, but was poisoned before his plans materialized, in 182 (181) BC (Jos, Ant, XII,
(8) Ptolemy VII (VIII), surnamed Euergetes (II) and called also Physcon {^v(tkwv, Phuskon, "Big-paunch"), became sole ruler in succession to his brother Philometor (or to his murdered nephew) in 146 BC, and reigned till 117 BC. His reign was characterized by cruelty, tjTanny and vice, so that he was hated by his sulDJects, esp. by the people of Alexandria, who on one occasion expelled him during an insurrection. It is uncertain whether Physcon was an enemy and persecutor of the Jews or their patron. Some authorities refer the persecutions mentioned in 3 Mace to this reign, but most modern authorities are disposed to date them in the reign of the anti-Jewish Ptolemy IV Philopator. The statement, "in the 38th year of King Euergetes," in the Prologue to Sir refers to Physcon Euergetes II and = 132 BC, since he dated his reign from the year of joint kingship with his brother (170 BC).
The other Ptolemies of Egypt require no mention here.
The following are the apocryphal Ptolemies:
(1) Ptolemy Macron. See Macron.
iv, 11). Dnl 11 14-17 is to be interpreted as referring to the relations between Ptolemy V and Antiochus III, "the Great."
(2) Ptolemy, son of Abubus, son-in-law of Simon the Maccabee. He treacherously assassinated Simon and two of his sons in the stronghold of Dok near Jericho, 135 BC (1 Mace 16 15).
(6) Ptolemy VI, surnamed Philometor (<i>iXofi^- Tup, Philometor, "Fond of his mother"), elder son of Ptolemy V whom he succeeded in 182 (181) BC. For the first 7 years of his reign his mother Cleopatra acted as queen-regent, and peace was maintained with Syria till 173 BC. Antiochus IV Epiphanes then invaded Egypt, defeated the Egyptians at Pelusium and secured the person of Philometor, whom he spared, hoping to employ him as a tool to gain the ascendancy over Egypt. Philometor's brother was now proclaimed king by the Alexandrians, with the title of Euergetes (II). When Antiochtts retired, Philometor made peace with his
(3) Ptolemy, the father of Lysimachus (Apoc) (Ad Est 11 1).
(4) Ptolemy, son of a Dositheus; he and his father were bearers of the "epistle of Phrurai" (Ad Est 11 1).
Literature.—J. P. Mahafly, Empire of the Ptolemies, la the best account for Eng. reader.?. A long list of Ptolemies will be found, e.g. in Smith's Classical Diet. The ancient authorities are Josephus, Polybius, Justin, Pausanias, Plutarch (Cteom.), Livy, Diodorus, Jerome (Comm. to Diit 11).
S. Angus
2501 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Ptolemy Punishment
PUAH, pu'a, PTJVAH, pti'va:
way his daughter would be named Claudia. But this identiflcation of the British princess with the Claudia who sends salutation to Timottiy is only a supposition; it lacks both evidence and proof. See Claudia and CH (St.P), ch xxvii.
(1) ny^B, pu'ah: One of the Heb midwives whom the king of Egypt commanded to kill all male children of the Hebrews at birth. The midwives, fearing God, refused to obey, pretending that the children of the Heb women were usually born before they arrived. Their act is spoken of as being meritorious in the eyes of the Lord, who is said to have rewarded them by making "houses" for them
In modern Rome, however, the tourist is still shown a building which is called the house of Pudens. in the same way as "Paul's hired house" is also shown. The authenticity in both cases is lacking.
Pudens is not mentioned elsewhere in the NT.
John Rutherfurd PUHITES, pu'hits (TIB, puthl). ,See PuTHITES.
(Ex 1 15-20). In the Midhrash, Ex Rabba', Puah
is identified with Miriam, and Shiphrah, the other midwife, with her mother Jochebed. According to another tradition Puah was a proselyte.
PUL, pul:
(2) nSIB, pu'ah, in 1 Ch 7 1; Hjp, puwwah, in Gen 46 13; Nu 26 23; written also "Pua" AV, and "Puvah" RV: Second son of Issaohar, ancestor of the Punites, enumerated in the desert census taken by Moses and Eleazar.
(1) An Assyr king (2 K 16 19). See TiglathPILESER.
(2) An African country and people (Isa 66 19). See Put.
(3) nXIB
, pu'ah: Member of the tribe of Issachar, mentioned (Jgs 10 1) as the son of Dodo and the father of Tola, the judge. Ella Davis Isaacs
PULPIT, pfi&l'pit: Neh 8 4, "Ezra the scribe stood upon a mighdol of wood." Mighdol is one of the commonest words in the OT and means simply a high object—here a scaffolding or platform
PUBLICAN, pub'li-kan. See Tax, Taxing.
((3^/ia, bima, 1 Esd 9 42). "Tower" (so RVm) gives an entirely wrong picture.
PUBLIUS, pub'li-us (IliirXios, Pdplios, from the Lat praenomen Publius, derived from populus, "popular"; according to Ramsay it is the Gr form of the Lat nomen Popilius; the Gr title meaning "first," applied to Publius in Acts 28 7, was an
PULSE, puis (D'ly-lT, zeroHm [Dnl 1 12 m,
"herbs"], D^jyiT, zer'onim [Dnl 1 16]; cf y^lT,
zeru'^\ "sowing seed" [Lev 11 37], and D^'y^llT,
zeru'im, "things sown" [Isa 61 11]): (1) In Dnl 1 12.16, it must mean herbs or vegetables grown from seeds; a vegetable diet is what is implied. (2) In 2 S 17 28, "pulse" after "parched" is not in the original, but is probably more correct than the tr in (1), as pulse" usually implies leguminous plants, peas, beans, etc.
official one, and has been found on an inscription from the island of Gaulus near Malta [cf Bockh, CIG, no. 5, 754]): Publius. held office under the governor of Sicily. As the leading official in Malta, he was responsible for any Rom soldiers and their prisoners who might land there, but the account in Acts 28 7 imphes that he displayed more than ordinary solicitude for Paul and his shipwrecked company, for, according to the writer, he "received us, and lodged us three days courteously" (AV). The Apocryphal "Acts of St. Paul" (see Apocryphal Acts, B, I) states also that "he did for them many acts of great kindness and charity" (cf Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 605). On this occasion Paul miraculously healed the father of Publius, who "lay sick of fever and dysentery" (Acts 28 8). The exactitude of the medical terms here employed forms part of the evidence that the writer of Acts was a physician. Tradition relates that Publius was the first bishop of Malta and that he afterward became bishop of Athens. C. M. Kerr
PUNISHMENT, pun'ish-ment, EVERLASTING:
I. Pheliminaby Assumptions 1. Survival after Death 2. Retribution for Sin 3. Conscious Suffering in Future II. Scriptural Support 1. OT and Jewish Conceptions 2. NT Teaching (1) "Eternal"
(2J Equivalent Expressions (3) The Last Judgment 3. Teaching of Analogy III. Difficulties and Rival Hypotheses
1. Universal Salvation 2. Annihilation 3. Second Probation IV. Nature, Conditions and Issues
1. Mystery of the Future
2. Nature of Punishment 3. Range of Divine Mercy
PUDENS, pu'denz, pu'dens (IIoiiSTis, Poudes,
lit. "bashful" [2 Tim 4 21]): One of the Christians in Rome who remained loyal to
4. Gradation of Punishment
5. God "AUin AU" Literature
1. Faithful Paul during his second and last im-
/. Preliminary Assumptions.— (For "everlasting," where used in AV as the rendering of aldvios,
to Paul prisonment there, when most of the memljers of the church "forsook him." The pressure under which they acted must have been very great, as the apostle's final trial before the supreme court of the empire followed quickly after the Neronic persecution. Their defection from
aidnios, RV substitutes "eternal.") It is assumed
in this art. that Scripture teaches the survival of the soul after death, the reality of retribution and
of judgment to come, and a shorter or longer period
their loyalty to Paul must not be taken as implying
of suffering for sin in the case of the unredeemed
that they had also proved untrue to Christ. At
in the world beyond. Only a few words need be
this time, however, there were some of the Chris-
said, therefore, in preliminary remark on these assumptions.
tians who risked their earthly all, and their lives
too, in order to prove their adherence to Paul, and Pudens was one of these.
Whatever view may be taken of the development of the doctrine of immortality in the OT (see
Eschatology of the OT), it will
Writing tlie last of all liis letters, the Second Ep. to Tim Paul sends greeting from "all the brethren" who
1. Survival scarcely be doubted that it is through-
were then with him. Among these ho
after Death out assumed in the NT that the souls
Piirronc names Pudens. There are three other
of men, good and bad, survive death
7 i;, ?• names associated by the apostle with that and Claudia of Pudens: Eubulus, Linus and Claudia. There is an interesting conjecture regard-
(see Immortality). Two passages only need be
referred to in proof: one, Christ's saying in Mt 10
ing Pudens and Claudia, that they were husband and wife and that Claudia was of British birth, a daughter
28: "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, but
are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"
of a British king, called Cogidunus. King Cogidunus was an ally of the Romans, and assumed the name of the emperor Tiberius Claudius, who was his patron. In this
Punishment THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2502
"eternal" (according to Cox it does not mean this at all), but is strictly "age-long," is therefore compatible with, if it does not directly suggest, a terminable period. Cox allows that the term is "saturated through and through with the element of time" (p. 100), but he denies its equivalence with "everlasting." The sense, no doubt, is to be determined by the context, but it can hardly be questioned that "the aeons of the aeons" and simi-
(Gehenna); the other, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Lk 16 19-31: Lazarus is carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom; the rich man lifts up his eyes in Hades, being in torments. The whole doctrine of the future judgment in the NT presupposes survival after death.
Retribution for sin is a cardinal point in the teaching of both the OT and NT. The doctrine of judgment, again, in the NT, with Christ as 2. Retribujudge, turns on this point. ThetoUowtion for Sin ing passages are decisive: Isa 3 10.11; Mt 11 22.24; 12 41.42; Rom 2 5.12; 2 Cor 5 10; Gal 6 7.8, etc (see Retribution). The conscious endurance of punishment for sin in the future state is already implied in the preceding. The parable of the Rich Man
lar phrases are the practical NT equivalents for eternity, and that aionios in its application to God and to life ("eternal life") includes the idea of unending duration (cf Jn 10 28.29 for express assertion of this). When, therefore, the term is applied
in the same context to punishment and to life (Mt 25 46), and no hint is given anywhere of limitation, the only reasonable exegesis is to take the word in
3. Conspeaks of it as following immediately scious on death in Hades; all the descripSuffering tions of the judgment imply pain and in Future anguish as the result of condemnation
its full sense of "eternal."
(2) Equivalent expressions.—The meaning "eter-
' is confirmed by the use of equivalent expressions and of forms of speech which convey in the strong-
nal"
(cfRoni 2 5.12). This does not settle the nature or duration of the punishment; but it excludes the idea that physical death is the extinction of being, or that annihilation follows immediately upon death or judgment.
est manner the idea of finality. Such are the expressions, "the unquenchable fire," the "worm" that "dieth not" (Mt 3 12; Mk 9 43-48; cf Mt 13 42.50), with those numerous references to "death," "destruction," "second death," on which the advocates of conditional immortality build their arguments for final extinction. Such is the dictum of Jesus: "He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth [remains] on him" (Jn 3 36; the opposite of "life"
These things being assumed, the questions that remain are: Is the period of suffering for sin eternal, or is it terminable? May it be cut short by repentance or by annihilation? Is there any final solution of the discord it implies in the universe? It is maintained here that the punishment of sin, in the case of the finally impenitent, is everlasting.
is "perishing," ver 16); or that in Rev 22 11, "He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness
//. Scriptural Support.—The doctrine that the punishment of sin is everlasting is sustained by many plain testimonies of Scripture.
still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy
still." Finality is the note in all Christ's warnings —"the outer darkness" (Mt 8 12; 22 13); "The door was shut .... I know you not" (Mt 25 10.12; cf 7 23), as in those of the Epp. (e.g. He 2 3; 6 6.S; 10 27.31; 12 25.29). Jesus speaks of the blasphemy against the Spirit as a sin which shall not be forgiven, "neither in this world, nor in that which is to come" (Mt 12 32; not as implying that other sins, unforgiven in this life, may be forgiven in the next), a passage which Mk gives in the remarkable form, "hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mk 3 29). The Rich Man in Hades found an impassable gulf fixed between himself and Lazarus (Lk 16 26). See Gdlf. It adds to the terribleness of these sayings that, as before remarked, there is nothing to put against them; no hint or indication of a termination of the doom. Why did Jesus not safeguard His words from misapprehension, if behind them there lay an assurance of restoration and mercy? One may ask with Oxenham, in a reply to Jukes, "whether if Christ had intended to teach the doctrine of eternal punishment. He could possibly have taught it in plainer terms."
The doctrine of future punishment is not prominent in the OT, where rewards and punishments
are chiefly connected with the present
1. OT and life. In a few passages (Ps 49 14.15; Jewish 73 18,19; cf Isa 24 21.22; 66 24), Conceptions Dr. Charles thinks that "Sheol appears
as the place of punishment of the wicked" {Eschatology, 7:3-76, 156). If so, there is no suggestion of escape from it. In Dnl 12 2, some that sleep in the dust are represented as awaking to "shame and everlasting contempt" (the word for "everlasting" is the usual one, 'oldm). In the Jewish literature of the century before Christ, "Sheol is regarded," says Dr. Charles, "as the place of final eternal punishment, that is, it has become hell" (op. eit., 2.36; see Eschatology of the OT). In the NT, the strongest language is used by Jesus and the apostolic writers on the certainty and
severity of the punishment of sin in
2. NT the future state, and always in a manTeaching ner which suggests that the doom is final.
(1) "Eternal."—The word "eternal" (aionios)
(3) The last judgment.—The NT doctrine of the last judgment leads to the same conclusion. Two things seem plainly taught about this j udgment : the
is repeatedly applied to the punishment of sin, or to the fire which is its symbol. A principal example
is Mt 25 41.46, "eternal fire," "eternal punishment" (kolasis amnios). Here precisely the same word is applied to the punishment of the wicked as to the blessedness of the righteous. Other instances are Mt 18 8; Jude ver 7; cf Rev 14 11; 19 3; 20 10. In 2 Thess 1 9, we have, "eternal destruction." The kindred word aidios, "everlasting," is in Jude ver 6 applied to the punishment of the fallen angels.
first, that it proceeds on the matter of the present
life—"the things done in the body" (Mt 25 31-46; 2 Cor 5 10; Rev 20 12); and the second, that it is decisive in its issues. Not a single suggestion is given of a reversal of its decisions in any future age. Such silence is inexplicable if the Scriptures meant to teach what the opponents of this doctrine so confidently maintain.
The reply made by Maurice {Theological Essays, 442 fT) that aionios in such passages denotes quality, not duration, cannot be sustained. Whatever else the term includes, it connotes duration. More pertinent is the criticism of other writers (e.g. Cox, Salvalor Mundi, 96 ff; Farrar, Eternal Hope, Pref., .xxxiv, pp. 78ff, 197ff; vi his Mercy and Judgment, passim) that aionios does not necessarily mean
In corroboration of this Scriptural view analogy might be pleaded. How constantly even in this
life is the law illustrated of the tend3. Teaching ency of character to fixity! The of Analogy present is the season of grace (2 Cor 6 2), yet what powers of resistance to God and goodness are seen to lie in human nature, and how effectually, often, does it harden itself
2503 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Punishment
under the influences that, seem most fitted to break down its rebellion! What likehhood is there that eternity will alter this tendency, or make conversion more easy? Eternity can hardly be thought of as more really a scene of grace than time is for those to whom the gospel has aheady come. Its characteristic mark is said to be "judgment" (He 9 27). Like the photographer's bath, may its effect not be to develop and fix existing character, rather than to change it? If so, the state in which judgment finds the soul may be presumed to be one that will remain.
which active opposition to God's kingdom is no longer to be reckoned with.
'The view favored by another class is that of the annihilation of the finally impenitent. The type of doctrine called "conditional im-
2. Annimortality" includes other elements hilation which need not here be discussed (see Immortality). The annihilation theory takes different forms. So far as the annihilation is supposed to take place at death, it is contradicted by the Scriptures which support the soul's survival after death; so far as it is believed to take place after a longer or shorter period of conscious suffering (which is White's theory), it involves its advocates in difficulties with their own interpretations of "death," "destruction," "perishing," seeing that in Scripture this doom is uniformly represented as overtaking the ungodly at the day of judgment, and not at some indefinite period thereafter. The theory conflicts also with the idea of gradation of punishment, for which room has to be sought in the period of conscious suffering, and rests really on an unduly narrowed conception of the meaning of the Scriptural terms "life" and "death." ^ Life is not bare existence, nor is "death" necessarily extinction
///. Difficulties and Objections—Rival Hypotheses.—What, it will now be asked, of the tremendous difficulties which inhere in this doctrine, with their undeniable effect in alienating many generous minds from it and from Christianity? The lurid rhetorical picturings of the sufferings of the lost, too frequent in the teaching of the past, may be discounted; it is not necessary to go beyond the inexpressibly solemn words of Christ Himself and His apostles. But even with this limitation, does
it not seem as if, by this doctrine, a reflection was cast on the righteousness and mercy of God in creating such multitudes of the human race, as, on any showing, are outside the pale of Christ's salvation—the countless generations of the heathen, with the masses even in Christian lands who have not received or do not obey the light—only to doom them to endless misery? Before attempting a positive answer, it is proper that a glance be taken at the
of being. As said earher, the language of many parts
of Scripture implies the continued existence of the subjects of the Divine wrath.
It is significant that on the side alike of the advo-
cates of restoration and of those of annihilation
(e.g. E. White), refuge from the diffi-
rival theories put forth in alleviation of the difficulty.
3. Second culties is frequently sought in the Probation hypothesis of an extended probation and work of evangehzation beyond
The most comprehensive solution propounded
is that of universal salvation—of a flnal restitution
of all souls to God's favor and to bless-
death. This theory labors under the drawback
1. Universal edness. This tempting speculation Salvation for it is no more—advocated by Origen in the early church, by Schleiermacher
that, in marked contrast with Scripture, it throws immensely the larger part of the work of salvation
in the last century, has been urged by many writers
into the future state of being. It is, besides, apart from the dubious and hmited support given to it by the passage on Christ's preaching to "the spirits in prison" (1 Pet 3 19.20), destitute of Scriptural sup-
in modern times. One of its best known advocates was Samuel Cox, in his book Salvalor Mundi. It
is noticeable that not a few who favor this theory
port. It has already been pointed out that the final judgment is uniformly represented as proceeding on the matter of this life. The theory is considered elsewhere (see Eschatology of the NT, X).
(e.g. Maurice, Farrar) decline to commit themselves
to it as more than a "hope," and admit the possi-
bility of human souls continuing to resist God end-
IV. Nature, Conditions and Issues.—While dogmatisms like the above, which seem opposed to Scripture, are to be avoided, it is
lessly (Maurice, Theological Essays, 476; Farrar, Eternal Hope, Pref., xv, xvi; Mercy and Judgment,
I, 485, "In this sense there may be for some souls an endless hell"). It must, however, be evident
that, be the number greater or smaller—and who
1. Mystery equally necessary to guard against
shall give assurance of its smallness?—if there are any such souls, the difficulty in principle remains, and the passages alleged as teaching universal
of the dogmatisms of an opposite kind, as Future if eternity must not, in the nature of the case, have its undisclosed mysteries
of which we here in time can frame no conception. The difficulties connected with the ultimate des-
restoration are equally contradicted. The deeper
objection to this theory is that, springing, not from
tinies of mankind are truly enormous, and no serious thinker will minimize them. Scripture does not warrant it in negative, any more than in positive, dogmatisms; with its uniformly practical aim, it does not seek to satisfy an idle curiosity (cf Lk 13
real knowledge, but from men's hopes and wishes,
it has, as already shown, the tremendous stress of
Scripture testimony against it; nor do the pas.sages commonly adduced as favoring it really bear the
weight put upon them. We read, e.g., of a "res-
toration of all things"—the same that Christ calls
23.24). Its language is bold, popular, figurative,
the palingenesla—but, in the same breath, we are
intense; the essential idea is to be held fast, but what is said cannot be taken as a directory to all
told of those who will not hearken, and will be de-
stroyed (Mt 19 28; Acts 3 21.23). We read of
that is to transpire in the ages upon ages of an unending duration. God's methods of dealing with
Christ drawing all men unto Him (.In 12 32) ; but we are not less clearly told that at His coming Christ
sin in the eternities may prove to be as much above our present thoughts as His dealings now are with men in grace. In His hands we must be content
will pronounce on some a tremendous condemna-
tion (Mt 7 23; 25 41); we read of aU things being
to leave it, only using such fight as His immediate
gathered, or summed up, in Christ, of Christ sub-
revelation yields.
duing all things to Himself, etc; but representative
As respects the nature of the punishment of sm,
exegetes like Meyer and Weiss show that it is far
it cannot be doubted that in its essence it is spirit-
from Paul's view to teach an ultimate conversion
ual. Everything can be adopted here
or annihilation of the kingdom of evil (cf Meyer
2. Nature which is said by Maurice and others
on 1 Cor 15 21.28 and Eph 1 10; Weiss, Bib.
of Punish- —"The eternal punishment is the ment punishment of being without the knowledge of God, who is love, and
Theol., II, 723, 107, 109, ET). We confess, how-
ever, that the strain of these last passages does seem
to point in the direction of some ultimate unity, be
of Jesus Christ who has manifested it; even as
it through subjugation, or in some other way, in
Punishment Punishments THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2504
vator Mundi; F. W. Farrar, Eternal Hope; Mercy and Judgment; A. Jukes, The Second Death and the Restitution of All Things; E. White, Life in Christ; H. Constable, Duration and Nature of Future Punishment. For: Pusey, What Is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment f H. N. Oxenham, Catholic Eschatology; C. Olemance, Future Punishment; Edershelm, Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Appendix, xlx, "On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the NT"; The Future Life, A Defence of the Orthodox "View, by the Most Eminent American Scholars; S. D. F. Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 'Boo]s.Yl; Orr, Christian View of God, lecture Ix; Luthardt, Saving Truths CET), lecture x. See also the various works on Dogmatic and Bib. Theology.
eternal life is declared to be the having the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ" (Theological Essays, 450). The supreme penalty of sin is unquestionably the loss of God's life and love—the being sinful. Environment, indeed, may be expected to correspond with character, but the hell
is one the sinner essentially makes for himself, and,
like the kingdom of God, is ivilhin. The fire, the worm, the stripes, that figure its severity, are not physical. Even should the poena sensus (were that conceivable) be utterly removed, the poena damni would eternally remain.
James Orb PUNISHMENTS, pun'ish-ments QV , 'aw5n,
It is a sound principle that, in His deaUng with sin in the world to come, God's mercy will reach as
"fault," "iniquity," "punishment for iniquity," "sin" [Gen 4 13; Lev 26 41; Job 19 29; Ps 149
far as ever it can reach. This follows
7; Lam 4 22; Ezk 14 10 m; Am 1 3.6.9.11.13;
3. Range of from the whole Scriptural revelation Divine of the character of God. What may Mercy be included in it, it is impossible for anyone to say. It should be noticed that those of whom it is said that they shall not see
2 1.4.6], IBJy, 'onesh, "tribute," "fine," "punishment" [Lam 3 39], HXpn, hatd'ah, or nXBn,
halta'ih, "sin" and its retribution, "penalty," "expiation" [Zee 14 19); KdXoo-is, kdlasis, "punishment," "torment" [Mt 25 46], €iriTi|i£a, epitimia, "poll tax," hence "penalty" [2 Cor 2 6], Ti|i<DpCo,
life, but the wrath of God abideth on them, are those who "obey not" the truth (Jn 3 36)—who actively and consciously disregard and oppose it. But all do not belong to this class. It may be assumed that none will be lost who can in consistency with holiness and love be saved. The most germinal goodness, which is the implantation of His own Spirit, God will acknowledge and develop. The problem of undeveloped character may receive a solution we do not wot of with the entrance into the eternal light—not in change of character, but rather, as said before, in the revelation of character's inmost bent. In this sense, the entrance into eternity may be to many the revelation of a love and grace which had not been understood or appreciated as it should have been on earth, but with which it is in essential kinship. There are at least many shades and degrees of character, and God may be intrusted to take the most just, yet most merciful, account of all.
iimoria, "vindication," hence "penalty" [He 10
29], IkSCkiio-is, ekdlkesis, "vindication," "retribution" [1 Pet 2 14 AV]): A court could inflict for a crime against the person, a sentence of (1) death in the form of stoning, burning, beheading, or strangling, etc; (2) exile to one of the cities of refuge in case of manslaughter (Nu 36) ; or (3) stripes, not to exceed 40, in practice 39 or less (Dt 25 3; 2 Cor 11 24). Offences against property
(theft, fraudulent conversion of deposit, embezzlement, robbery) were punished by exacting more than the value of the things taken (Lk 19 8), the excess going to the injured party, thus differing from a
fine, which goes into the treasury of the community.
The housebreaker was liable to be slain with impunity (Ex 22 2). A fine in the modern sense is unknown in the Scriptures, unless Lev 5 6-19 be interpreted as referring to such.
The fullest weight must further be given to what the Scripture so expressly says of gradation of punishment, even of the unsaved. It
The earliest theory of punishment seems to have been that of retaliation—"blood for blood"—and to some extent this principle appears
4. Gradais not the case that the lot of all who tion of fail of the eternal life in Christ is all Pimishment of one grade. There are the "few stripes" and the "many stripes" (Lk 12 47.48); those for whom it will be "more tolerable" than for others in the day of judgment (Mt 11 20.24). Even "Sodom and her daughters" will be mercifully dealt with in comparison with others
1. History even in the Law of Moses (Lev 24 19. of the He20; Mt 5 38). Early in the history brew Law of the race, punishment was adminconcerning istered for sin and crime. Adam and PunishEve were driven from the Garden, and ment Cain, the first murderer, though not executed in retaliation for his deed, had a mark set on him. The words of Lamech (Gen 4 24) indicate that death was regarded as the fitting punishment for murder, and the same thought apparently was in the minds of the brethren of Joseph (42 21). Judah, as head of his family, seems to have had power of life and death (38 24), and Abimelech threatens his people with the extreme punishment in case they injure or insult Isaac or his wife (26 11). Similar power is ascribed to Pharaoh (41 13). LTnder the Law of Moses, the murderer was to be put to death without mercy. Even if he took refuge at the altar in a sanctuary or in
(Ezk 16 48.49.53.55.61). There will be for everyone the most exact weighing of privilege, knowledge and opportunity. There is a vast area here for the Divine administration on which no light at all is afforded us.
There remain those passages already alluded to which do seem to speak, not, indeed, of conversion
or admission into the light and fellow-
6. God "All ship of Christ's kingdom, but still of a in All" final subjugation of the powers of evil, to the extent, at least, of a cessation of active opposition to God's will, of some form of ultimate unification and acknowledgment of Christ as Lord. Such passages are Eph 1 10; Phil 2 9-11; above all, 1 Cor 15 24-28. God, in this final vision, has become "all in all." Here, again, dogmatism is entirely out of place, but it is permissible to believe that these texts foreshadow such a final persuasion of God's righteousness in His judgment and of the futility of further rebellion as shall bring about an outward pacification and restoration of order in the universe disturbed by sin, though it can never repair that eternal loss accruing from exclusion from Christ's kingdom and glory. Literature.—Against: Maurice. Theological Essays, "Eternal Life and Eternal Death"; S. Cox, Sal-
2. The an asylum city, he would not be imMosaic Law mune from arrest and execution, and concerning the same principle was applied in the Punishment case of an animal (Ex 21 12.14.23. 28.36 II). But punishment under the Mosaic Law was not to be entailed or transmitted (Dt 24 16), as was the case among the Chaldaeans (Dnl 6 24) and the kings of Israel (1 K 21; 2 K 9 26).
It has been noted that capital punishment is extensively prescribed by the Mosaic Law, and undoubtedly the Law was carried out. This circumstance has been explained by reference to the
2505 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Punishment Punishments
fact that the nation consisted of newly emancipated slaves, and therefore required harsh measures to keep them in check.
these cases, there are some of assassination rather than of punishment.
(5) Strangling as a form of punishment has no Scripture authority, but according to tradition was frequently employed, and is said to have been performed by immersing the convict in clay or mud, and then strangling him by a cloth tied around the neck.
Under the Mosaic Law, the offences that made one liable to the punishment of death were: (1) striking or revihng a parent (Ex 21 15.17); (2) blasphemy (Lev 24 14.16.23; 1 K 21 10; Mt 26 65.66); (3) Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31 14; 35 2; Nu 15 32-36); (4) witchcraft and false pretension to prophecy (Ex 22 18; Lev 20 27; Dt 13 5; 18 20; 1 S 28 9); (5) adultery (Lev 20 10; Dt 22 22); (6) unchastity: (a) before marriage, but detected afterward (Dt 22 21), (b) in case of a woman with someone other than her betrothed (Dt 22 23), (c) in a priest's daughter (Lev 21 9); (7) rape (Dt 22 25); (8) incestuous and unnatural connections (Ex 22 19; Lev 20 11.14. 16); (9) man-steaUng (Ex 21 16); (10) idolatry, actual or virtual, in any form (Lev 20 2; Dt 13 6; 17 2-7); (11) false witness in capital cases (Dt 19 16.19). A large number of offences come under the law of punishment by cutting off from the people, the meaning of which expression has led to some controversy. It may signify excommunication or death, and occurs in connection with the following offences: (1) breach of morals, such as wilful sin in general (Nu 15 30.31); incestuous or unclean connections (Lev 18 29; 20 9-21); (2) breach of covenant, brought about through uncircumcision (Gen 17 14; Ex 4 24), neglect of Passover (Nu 9 13), Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31 14), neglect of Atonement Day (Lev 23 29), work done on the Atonement Day (Lev 23 30), children offered to Molech (Lev 20 3), witchcraft (Lev 20 6), anointing an ahen with holy oil (Ex 30 33) ; (3) breach of ritual, committed by eating leavened bread during Passover (Ex 12 15.19), eating fat of sacrifices (Lev 7 25), eating blood (Lev 7 27; 17 14), eating sacrifices while unclean (Lev 7 20.21; 22 3.4.
Besides these, which are to be regarded as the ordinary capital punishments, we read of some that
were either of foreign introduction or of
3. Punishan irregular kind, such as: (1) cruments of cifixion (q.v.); (2) drowning (Mt 18 Foreign 6 || ) ; (3) sawing asunder or crushing Origin (2 S 12 31; He 11 37); (4) torturing (1 Ch 20 3; He 11 35); (5) precipitation (2 Ch 25 12; Lk 4 29); (6) suffocation
(2 Mace 13 4-8). The Persians are said to have
filled a high tower a great way up with ashes, and then to have thrown the criminal into it, and continually stirred up the ashes by means of a wheel till he was suffocated (Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchy, III, 246). See also Herod, II, 100. Secondary forms of punishment not heretofore mentioned are to be noted as follows:
(1) Blinding or putting out of eyes in the case of captives (Jgs 16 21; 1 S 11 2; 2 K 25 7).
(2) Chaining by means of manacles or fetters of copper or iron, similar to our handcuffs fastened on the wrists and ankles and attached to each other by a chain (Jgs 16 21; 2 S 3 34; 2 K 25 7); also alluded to in the life of Paul (Acts 28 20; Eph 6 20; 2 Tim 1 16); and in the case of Peter (Acts 12 6).
(3) Confiscation of property that had fallen under the ban, i.e. had been singled out for destruction by the special decree of Jeh, as in Nu 21 2; Josh 6 17; or had been reserved for the use of the army (Dt 2 35; 20 14; Josh 22 8); or given over to the priesthood (Josh 6 19). The term may be extended to include all things vowed or sanctified and those irrevocably devoted or consecrated to God (Lev 27 21.28). The idea is applied with special emphasis to those things which, because of their uncleanness, must not be used by the Israelites, though, through their warfare with the heathen, they might have come into possession of them (Dt7 26; IS 15 16-23).
9), offering too late (Lev 19 8), making holy ointment for private use (Ex 30 32.33), making perfume for private use (Ex 30 38), general neglect of purification (Nu 19 13.20), not bringing offering after slaying a beast for food (Lev 17 9), slaying the animal at a place other than the tabernacle door (Lev 17 4), touching holy things illegally (Nu 4 15.18.20). Of capital punishments that are properly regarded as of Hebrew origin, we note
(4) Dashing in pieces (Ps 2 9; Isa 13 18).
(1) Stoning, which was the ordinary mode of .execution (Ex 19 13; Lev 20 27; Josh 7 25; Lk 20 6; Acts 7 58; 14 5). The witnesses, of whom there were at least two, were required to cast the first stone (Dt 13 9 f ; Jn 8 7). If these failed to cause death, the bystanders proceeded to complete the sentence, whereupon the body was to be suspended until sunset (Dt 21 23).
(5) Divine visitation. See Visitation.
(6) Exposure to wild beasts (Lev 26 22; IS 17 46; Dnl 6).
(7) Flaying {Rstwlinson, Ancient Monarchy, I, 478; Nineveh and Babylon; mentioned figuratively in Mic 3 3).
(2) Hanging is mentioned (Nu 25 4; Dt 21
22), probably not as a mode of execution, but rather of exposure after death. It may have been a Canaanitish punishment, since it was practised by the Gibeonites on the sons of Saul (2 S 21 6.9).
(8) Forfeiture (Ezr 10
8).
(9) Gallows in the modern sense probably were unknown to the ancients. Where the word occurs in Est (5 14; 6 4; 7 9.10; 9 13.25), it probably refers to a beam or pole on which the body was impaled and then elevated to a height of 50 cubits as an object of warning to the people (see "Hanging").
(3) Burning, before the age of Moses, was the punishment of unchastity (Gen 38 24). The Law prescribes it as a punishment in the case of a priest's daughter (Lev 21 9), and in case of incest (Lev 20 14), but it is also mentioned as following death by other means (Josh 7 25), and some believe it was never used excepting after death. That it was sometimes used as a punishment on living persons among the heathen is shown by Dnl 3.
Hanging.
Aaayrian Sculptures (Brit, Mua.).
(4) The sword or spear as an instrument of punishment is named in the Law (Ex 19 13; 32 27; Nu 26 7ff). It occurs frequently in monarchic and post-Bab times (Jgs 9 5; 1 S 15 33; 2 S 20
(10) Imprisonment is frequently referred to in both the OT and the NT, indicating that this was a common mode of punishment among both the
22; 1 K 19 1; Jer 26 23; Mt 14 8.10), but among
Israelites and other nations (Gen 40 3; 42 17;
Punites Purity THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2506
Lev 24 12; Nu 15 34; 1 K 22 27; Jer 37 15.21; Lk 3 20; Acts 4 3.10; 23 10; and the Epp. of Paul). See Prison.
PURE, pur, PURELY, pOr'li, PURITY, pu'ri-ti: This group of words has in the OT and the NT an almost exclusively ethical significance, though the word "pure" is of course used also in its literal sense
(11) Indignilies.—In this term may be included
of freedom from alloy or other ahen matter (Ex 25
all those outbursts of vengeance or other evil dispositions that were practised in times or under circumstances when liberties with the prisoner were permitted on the part of bystanders or those who had charge beyond the execution of the judicial decree. Instances are found in the life of Christ (Mt 26 59.67; Lk 22 63 ff; Jn 18 22); also in the hfe of Paul (Acts 23 2).
11, etc). "Pure" in the OT represents many Heb
words, most frequently lIHa , ta-hor; "purely,"
occurs once only in AV, as the tr of "13
, bor, properly "that which cleanses" (cf Job 9 30, RVm "Heb 'cleanse my hands with lye,' " i.e. alkali for soap)
in Isa 1 25, RV "thoroughly [m "as with lye," AV "purely") purge away thy dross"; "pureness"
(12) Mutilation {Jgs 1 6.7; Ezk 23 25; 2 Mace
is the AV tr of the same word in Job 22 30, RV "cleanness." In the NT "pure" is the tr chiefly
7).—The Law was opposed to thus treating any
Israelite, and Samuel, when referring to the arbitrary power of the future king (1 S 8 10 ff), does not say that he would thus treat "their sons." It was a barbarous custom of the East (see Eunuchs; Polygamy), evidently regarded, among the Hebrews, as a heinous practice (Dt 23 1). The only act authorizing mutilation (except in retaliation) is mentioned in Dt 25 11.
of KadapSs, katkaros (Mt 5 8, "Bl&ssed are the pure
in heart," etc), but also of a7>'i5s, hagnds (Phil 4
8; 1 Tim 5 22; Jas 3 17; 1 Jn 3 3—always in an ethical sense). A different word (eilikrines) is used in 2 Pet 3 1, RV "sincere." "Purity" (hagneia) occurs only in AV in 1 Tim 4 12; 5 2; in RV in 2 Cor 11 3 (as the tr of tts hagnotetos). See Clean; Purity. W. L. Walker
(13) Plucking off the hair is alluded to as a mode
of punishment in Neh 13 25; Isa 50 6.
PURGE, pArj: A number of words in both the OT and the NT are so rendered in AV and RV, although frequently in RV the older Eng. word "purge" is displaced by the more applicable modern terms "cleanse" and "purify," since the emphatic and medical senses of the word, as we now use it, are not justified by some of the Heb and Gr originals. In older Eng. the word was broader in meaning, today it is specific. Occurrences in AV, with the changes made in RV, are as follows:
(14) Prison garments were in vogue to mark the convicts (Jer 52 33).
(15) Restitution has been alluded to in the general introduction to this topic.
(16) Retaliation was recognized by Moses as a principle, but the application of it was left to the
.judge (Lev 24 19-22). A fine example of it is found in the law of Dt 19 19.
(17) Scorpions, chastising with.—Probably the use of thongs armed with pointed pieces of lead or other metal (1 K 12 11; 2 Ch 10 14). See Scorpions.
(1) int3 M/ier.lit. "to beclean," used of the puttingaway of idolatry from Judah by Josiah (2 Ch 34 .3.8), is trd "purge" in all VSS, but, in Ezk 24
1 T til 13, ARV changes to "cleanse." (2) i{X3n
(18) Scourging. See separate article.
y-jqi tidtd', lit. "to make a sin offering" (Ps 51 ^^ 7).* is changed without improvement to "purify" in ARV, while "purge" is retained in ERV. (3) ^S3 kdphar, "to Cover" or "to make atonement," occurs in Ps 65 3; 79 9: Ezk 43 20.26: in the two passages in Pss, RV has "forgive" (the "expiate" of m is still better), and in Ezk the even more accurate "make atonement." In both (4) Cin^E QdTaph, "to refine" (Isa 1 25), and (5) n^^ du^/i.
(19) Slavery. See separate article.
(20) Slocks. See Prison.
Frank E. Hirsch PUNITES, pu'nits CJIE, puni, probably "dark"): Descendants of Puvah, of the tribe of Issachar (Nu 26 23; of Gen 46 13; Jgs 10 1; 1 Ch 7 1).
PUNON, pu'non Ci-^^ > pUnon): A desert camp of the Israelites, the second after leaving Mt. Hor
Ut. "to rinse" (Isa 4 4), "purge" is well retained in RV. (6) T13 bdrar, lit. "to be shining," RV retains
(Nu 33 42.43). Eusebius (Onom 299 85; 123 9) mentions an Idumaean village, N. of Petra, in the desert, where convicts were mining copper, called Phinon or Phainon. These are doubtless identical. See Wanderings of Israel.
in Ezk 20 38, but in Dnl 11 3.5 changes to "purify."
(7) ppT zdkak, "to pour down" as molten metal (Mai
3 3), also becomes "purify" in RV,
These occurrences are all in the figurative sense, and apply to sin, uncleanness, idolatry, etc. Most noteworthy is the ARV change of the familiar Ps 51 7. The Gr words rendered "purge" in AV of the Apoc and NT are Kadalpiii, kathairo, and KaSapV^w, katharizo,
PUR, pur (Est 3 7; 9 26). See Purim.
PURAH, pu'ra (ITIE, purah, "branch"): Gideon's "servant," lit. "young man," i.e. armor-bearer (Jgs 7 10 f, AV "Phurah").
and their compounds and derivatives.
2. In the In all passages except four, RV more NT properly translates "cleanse'* (Mt 3 12; Mk7 19;Lk3 17; Jn 15 2; He 9 14.22; 10 2). In He 1 3 "when he had by himself purged our sins" is changed to "had made purification of." But in the case of the vb. compounded with the preps. dTTo, api>, and iK, ek, i.e. apokathairo and ekkathairo (Job 12 9; 1 Cor 5 7; 2 Tim 2 21), with strong signification to "cleanse out," RV properly retains "purge." Most worthy of note
PURCHASE, pflr'chas: In modern Eng., "to acquire by payment," in EUzabethan Eng., "to acquire" by any means. In the OT, AV has used "purchase" to represent T^'2p^ , kdnah, and its derivatives (vb. and noun), except in Lev 25 33, where thewordis bs^, ga'al (RV "redeem"). In the NT the noun does not occur and the vb. is used for
KTdoiJ.ai, ktdotnai, in Acts 1 18; 8 20, and -rrepiTToUw, peripoied, in Acts 20 28; 1 Tim 3 13. But none of these words connotes the payment of a price, so that RV has kept the word only in Acts 20 28
is the change of the famiUar verse in Jn, "Every branch, that beareth fruit, he purgeth" to "Every branch .... he cleanseth" (15 2). Edward Mack PURIFICATION, pu-ri-fi-ka'shun. See Purge; Purity; Unclean.
(m "acquired"), changing it into obtain" in Acts 1 IS; 8 20, and "gain" in 1 Tim 3 13. In the OT, RVm has "gotten" in Ex 15 16 and ARV has (very properlv) introduced the same word into the text' of Ps 74 2; 78 54. Burton Scott Eahton
, purlm, "lots"; LXX
PURIM, pu'rim (Dil.lB
"i>poiipa(, Phrourai), PUR, pilr: The name of a
2507 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Punites
Purity
to remind them of the persecutions of Haman as to make the festival of a triumph over such persecutions both attractive and most significant to them. Experiences in Syria, Egypt, Rome, Russia and elsewhere have not been lacking in suggestion of the original occasion of Purim. The 13th day has been observed by fasting in commemoration of Esther's prayer and fasting before she approached the king;
Jewish festival celebrated on the 14th and l.'jth days of the month Adar, the final month of the Bib. year,
corresponding to February-March. The
1. Scripture origin of the festival is narrated in the References Book of Est, and indeed is the motive of the book, as the time, reason and manner of its celebration are given in detail (Est 3 7; 9 24ff). Reference also is made to it in apocryphal literature (Ad Est 10 10-13; 2 Mace 15 36) and in Jos (Ant, XI, vi, 13). No reference
in the evening, at the beginning of the 14th day, the Jews repair to the synagogues where the Book of Est, one of the m'ghilldth, is read with interpretations, execrations bursting out at the reading of Haman's name, accompanied by noise of rattles and stamping of feet, other persecutors and foes also sometimes coming in for a share of execration. The names of Mordecai and Esther receive blessings. On the following morning of the 14th synagogue services are again held, at which, in addition to the repetition of the E.st reading, Ex 17 8-16, which records the destruction of the Amalekites (cf Est 3 1), is also read as the lesson from the Law, presents are given to the poor and to friends, and the
is made to this feast in the NT, as it was celebrated locally, and is therefore not to be connected with any of the festal pilgrimages to Jerus. For this reason the supposition of some that the feast of Jn 5 1 was Purim is to be rejected, mention of it being immediately followed by the words, "And Jesus went up to Jerus."
For the complete account of the institution of Purim reference must be made to the Book of Est.
Only a brief statement is po.ssible here.
2. History Haman, son of Hammedatha the of InstiAgagitb (q.v.; cf 1 S 15 8.32), who had tution been made prime minister by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), bitterly hated the Jews, some of whom, as Mordecai, were rising to prominence in the empire. After Queen Vashti had been put away from her royal position for cause
rest of the day, as also the 15th, observed with feasting and rejoicing, even exces.ses being condoned
in the exuberance of national spirit.
Many attempts have been made to trace the origin of Purim in pagan or ccsniic festivals, but to the present
(1 9-12), a Jewess named Esther, kinswoman and adopted daughter of Mordecai, was chosen to become the royal consort. This only increased the hatred of Haman, who in his jealous fury soon began to seek an opportune day to work his hate upon Mordecai and the whole Jewish people, and therefore resorted to the casting of the lots for the auspicious time: "They cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar" (3 7). Beginning with the 1st month, all the days and months were tried with unfavorable
time without success, without approach 4 Theories ^ven to probability. Supposed connec-
• • tions with nature myths, national festivals, 01 Ungm polytheistic legends have all found advocates. The word itself has suggested the possibility of identification with words of similar form or sound in other languages. But the ease of finding such similarities for any word casts doubt upon the reliabihty of any identification. (1) It has been traced to the Assyr purU, and identified with the Assyr New Year when officials entered upon their term of service. (2) The Bab puhru, new year festival, has also been claimed as the origin of Purim; Mordecai becomes Marduli, Esther is Ishtar, while Haman, Vashti and Zeresh are Median gods. (.3) The most popular attempts at identification are in the Pers field, where bahr, "lot,"
t f^
is claimed as the source of Pur, or rurdighdn, "new year," or farwardighan, the feast of departed souls. (4) Origin also in a Gr bacchanalian occasion has been sought.
result, until the last. At Haman's request Ahasuerus caused his scribes to send into all the realm on the 13th day of the 1st month a decree that all Jews should be put to death on the 13th day of the 12th month (3 12 ff). As the narrative shows, the wisdom of Mordecai, E.sther's heroism, and fasting and prayer availed to foil the dastardly scheme of Haman, who had already built the gallows on which
(.5) Others suggest origin in other .Jewish experiences than that claimed by the Book of Est itself, such as a captivity in Edom, or a persecution under the Ptolemies in Egypt, or the victory of Judas Maccabaeus over Nicanor in 161 BC (1 Mace 7 49). No one of all these theories has sufficient probabihty to secure for itself anything like general acceptance; the Book of Est remains as the most reasonable account; the difficulties met in it are not so great as those of the explanations sought in other languages and religions.
his hated rival should be hanged. Haman was himself hanged on this gallows, while Mordecai was honored yet more (7 10; 8 1.2). A second decree was issued on the 23d day of the 3d month that on the 13th day of the 12th month (8 9.12), the day appointed in the first decree for their extermination, the Jews should gather together and defend themselves against their foes. On that
Literature.—Bible diets., esp. HDB, EB and Jew Enc: Paton, comm. on "Est" in ICC\ particularly pp. 77-94. Edward Mack PURITY, pu'ri-ti: The Bible bears witness to the long struggle over and in man to secure physical, mental, and. moral cleanliness. The various forms
fateful day not only did the Jews successfully resist
of purity have relation to each other.
the malice of their enemies, but the public officials
We have a common proverb that "cleanliness is akin to godliness." Cleanliness and aesthetics are certainly nigh neighbors. But cleanliness and ethics do not dwell farther apart. When one realizes that by uncleanness of person or property he may endanger tlie health or life of family, or even of society about him as in keeping conditions that develop typhoid fever—he begins to realize that there is a close tie between cleanliness and morals. "Ought" comes in on the sphere of cleanliness, and then the whole realm of ethics is open. So near are the departments of physical and ethical cleanliness that now if one hears the word "shun" without explanation, he cannot tell whether it relates to filth or sin.
also, seeing that the royal favor was with the Jews, espoused their cause. In Shushan, the royal city,
a second day, the 14th, was granted the Jews for vengeance on their foes (9 11-16). In view of so
great a deliverance "Mordecai wrote these things
.... unto all the Jews .... to enjoin them
that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same,
yearly, as the days wherein the Jews had rest from
their enemies" (9 20-22).
„ , ,t i Already as early as the times of the Maccabees
The perception of this relationship is of very ancient date. Though it is Isaiah who says (52
(2 Mace 15 36), the festival was observed, the 14th day being called "Mordecai's
11), "Cleanse yourselves, ye that bear the vessels
3. Manner day." Jos refers to it as continuously
of Jeh," and Mk 7 3.4, "All the Jews, except they
of Oband widely observed down to his time:
wa,sh their hands diligently, cat not, holding the
servance "For this cause the Jews still keep the forementioned days, and call them days
tradition of the elders; and when they come from
the marketplace, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many otlier things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups.
of Purim" [Ant, XI, vi, 13). In succeeding cen-
turies as the Jews have passed from one civilization
or empire to another, so many causes have arisen
Purity Purple THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2508
and pots, and brasen vessels," yet such statements are but summaries of directions distributed here and there throughout the whole Levitical Law. We can read therein what sounds hke the hygienic orders of a general to his soldiers on the march, or like the rules of the board of health to preserve a city from pestilence. And these Levitical directions for cleanliness are connected inseparably with the worship of Jeh, as though physical purity were to that an essential. The Psalmist blends these two elements, the physical and the ethical, in the familiar question and answer (24 3-5), "Who shall ascend into the hill of Jeh ? and who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto falsehood, and hath not sworn deceitfully. He shall receive a blessing from Jeh, and righteousness from the God of his salvation."
prophets were passionate monotheists. The}' wanted above all things that Israel should be true to Jeh and to Him alone. To the prophets, worship of other gods was treason to Jeh. One prophet
after another, and over and over again, illustrates
this highest of crimes by infidelity in the marriage
relation. That shows in what estimate the family was held. To put any other in the place of Jeh was "to go a-whoring after other gods," or "to play the
harlot." That shows as nothing else could how deep in the heart was sunk regard for pure family
life. Infidelity was high treason there, or it never would have furnished language to describe high treason to God.
Prov 5 and 7 indicate the attitude of the book on purity. We may let the book make its own case.
The wiles of "the strange woman" and
3. The the stupid folly and destruction of her Proverbs victim are specially set forth in the chapters mentioned. In the last chap-
The ceremonial cleansings called for. by the Law had meaning and influence. They were interpretative of something spiritual—were a parable way of illustrating the necessity of purity of heart in order to gain acceptance with God. If in after-days the thing symbohzed was forgotten in the symbol, that was owing to "bhndness of mind." The darkness was not necessary.
ter of the book we have a portraiture of a "virtuous woman" in whom domesticity in purity has reached a high stage. "Let her own works praise her in the gates."
It is pleasant to turn from the tense severity of law, since it must deal largely with crime and sin, to the idealism of poetry. In the Pss and the 4 The Sonp Prophets the relation of husband and wife, ^ '^""6 of bridegroom and bride, of lover and loved or bongs are always treated with tenderness and reverence. Here is familiar Scripture (Ps 19): "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course." That does not betray any lack of sympathy with the exuberant spirit of a lover. So Isa 62 4.5: "For Jeh delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a yoimg man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Language cannot more clearly disclose delight in the joy of those who are adjusting themselves under -the "primal eldest" riile over sex: "Therefore shall a raian leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen 2 24).
But the main subject in respect to which we shall
in this art. seek light on purity from the Bible will
not be hygiene or aesthetics, but morals.
1. The Sex When we turn to that department Relation we shall at once realize the fact that the sex relation is the most primitive and comprehensive of all the human relations.
The family.—The attitude of the Bible in respect to that relation is unmistakable. From the vision
of the Garden of Eden to that of the New Jerusalem, the Bible rings true to the ideal of purity in family
life and in the relations of the sexes to each other. This is remarkable, for it is a vast history over which its narrative sweeps, and in it every species of hterature is represented. It sets forth the acts and views of a people in all the stages of civiliza-
tion, from wandering nomads to dwellers in cities embelhshed by architecture and every device of man to set forth riches and splendor. It sets forth
It is sometimes thought strange that the Song of Songs should be in the Scripture Canon. But why should there be such doubt? It is but a more particular elaboration of what is boldly brought to notice in the quotations above. There is no more necessity of reading impurity into it than there is of reading it into the quotations above. The poem ia illustrative of an experience as widely known as any in the life of the human race—an experience in which sin is no necessity. One must go out of his way who imputes sin to a single act or thought that comes to expression in the poem. The maiden
their crime, shame and sin, as well as their virtues, but its tone is approbative of the virtues and reprobative of the crime, shame and sin. In the Magna Charta of the Heb people—the Ten Commandments—there stands in equal rank with any other principle, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The sanction of reUgion and law was thus given to the integrity and purity of family life. The minute regulations against marriage with relatives, and the severe punishments inflicted for disregard of the restrictions (Lev 18 and 20), were a powerful force in the same direction. The adultery of married persons was to be punished by the death of both the parties (Lev 20 10; Dt 22 22).
is guileless and the lover ia manly. The poem ia said to be erotic. But the eroa is ideahzed. It may be sensuous, but it ia not sensual. It is not
selfish. The passion of each finds expression in careful thoughtfulness for the other. It does not turn back to itself in coarse brute craving of lust for its own self-indulgence. The refrain of the poem is—
Such laws may sometimes seem severe. Doubtless they are primitive and date from the time of nomadism. In primitive conditions, penalties for infraction of law are to be severe and swift. Pioneers the world over and through time, for very self-preservation's sake, coiild show little favor or tolerance to lawlessness. Be these laws severe, they show the intense earnestness of a people to have a pure family life in which children bom should be genuine to it. These Ijevitical restrictions upon intermarriage with relatives fit the sense of propriety and right of civilized people, even to this day.
"I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem
That ye stir not up, nor awake my love." —Cant 2 7; 3 5; 8 4. The watchfulness is as tender as that for an infant. Where will the law lay its indictment of sin against such thoughts and feehngs? The lovers are under the charm that has been and is to be from everlasting to everlasting with the human race upon the earth.
There is no question about the attitude of the prophets on purity. They were in harmony with the Law. They had no tolerance for
2. The corrupt morals or manners leading to Prophets impurity or suggesting it. An illustration sometimes has the light of the sun in it. What it is that is illustrated is frequently best seen by looking at the illustration itself. The
Christ at His strictest did not set Himself against the charm of love. He said it should be eternally single and true in spirit. The maiden in the song goes forth in the night, in the simplicity of her heart, to And her beloved
(3 2ff). In the same simplicity, Evangeline wandered all the night of her life to find the object of her aflection.
2509 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Purity Purple
From the same charm in the beginning came the faithfulness of Enoch Arden. Out of the love that springs from purity has come the integrity that has endured to the end. The exuberance of the charm, lllce every other spring of life and action, needs regulation, but the charm itself is not to bo treated as sin.
Into tho desert alone rode he, Alone with the Infinite Purity; And bowing his soul to its tender rebuke. As Peter did to the Master's look. He measured his path with prayer of pain For peace with God and nature again." There Is a recognition of the burning with fire that Is infolded in tho word "purity."
Paul has said, "Ye are not under law, but under grace" (Rom 6 14). But that depends upon the conditions to which it is applied. 5. Christ We may not be under the Levitical, and Purity ceremonial Law, but we are under the wide realm of ethical law always, even when we are under grace. What grace does is to idealize and spiritualize and make attractive and beautiful what before was perhaps hard, repellent statute and rule. Christ is sometimes thought to have relaxed the severity of "the reign of law." But six times even in the Sermon on the Mount He added to its strictness. Take the idea of the purity of the family as secured by its unity. Under the Mosaic legislation, certain not onerous forms of legal proceeding intervening, the termination of marriage might be said to be optional with the parties. All this liberty is swept away in one sentence: "I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Mt 19 9). That is a law sentence. It was uttered in the realm of law. It was intended to have effect in law. No wonder, considering the liberty that had been allowed in the Law up to that time, that the disciples as soon as they got breath said, "If the case of a man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." They knew that a new law for Christ's disciples was put over marriage. Even the exception confirmed His rule. If the exception is not allowed, polyandry or polygamy is established. No other sentence of human speech has done more for the purity of family life (see Divorce). But Christ did not stop with the utterance of law protective of purity physically; He went behind all acts and laid down law for the thoughts and intents of the heart: "But I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Mt 5 28).
Paul is like his Master. He seeks for purity in this relation after marriage as. well as before purity of mind. In 1 Cor 7 we see 6. Paul how carefully and kindly Paul discoursed about all the compUcations in matters pertaining to sex. Then again, if Paul has exhorted wives to obedience to husbands, he has also called for equal self-surrender on the part of husbands (Eph 5 22-32): "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it." Can there be any self-surrender greater than that which Christ made? Here let attention rest on the fact that in his catalogue of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5 22), if he has put "love" in the first place of emphasis among the nine, he has put "self-control" in the last.
We have only space for a glance at a few departments of action and thought to see what the world has gained in purity from tho religion of the Bible. The age of chivalry ought to have a word put to its credit. The knights took the vow of chastity before the tribunals of the church. Take art—compare a Venus and a Madonna. Not only spirituality, but even intellectuality is wanting in a Venus. There is not a suggestion in a Venus that does not inhere in flesh and sense. Of what would she or could she speak if she were to open her mouth 7 To judge from her appearance, the utterance would be so "fiat, stale and unprofitable" that even the charm of her physical beauty would disappear. In the Madonna you scarce see the physical. If she were to speak, her words would picture the peace and cahn joy of a heavenly realm. If her countenance is suggestive of something far away, it is of something far above.