pre-to'-ri-an: "My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other, places" (Phil 1:13 the King James Version). This verse is translated in the Revised Version (British and American), "My bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest," and is noteworthy.
1. Pretorium in Philippians--Usual View:
It has been usual to connect the words, "the soldier that guarded him," Acts 28:16, with this statement in Phil 1:13, that the apostle's bonds were manifest in the whole praetorium, and to understand that the former was the cause of the latter; that the result of Paul's making the gospel known in his own hired house to those soldiers to one of whom he was chained by the wrist day and night, was that it became known in all the praetorian regiment that his bonds were endured for Christ's sake, that it was for conscience' sake that he was suffering wrongfully, that he was no wrongdoer but a prisoner of Jesus Christ. In this way the gospel would spread through the whole of the praetorian guard in that regiment's headquarters which were situated in a permanent camp established by Tiberius in Rome, outside the Colline Gate, at the Northeast of the city. This verse would also mean that the gospel had been proclaimed in the same way to those members of the praetorian guard who were on duty as the bodyguard of the emperor and who were lodged in one of the buildings which adjoined the emperor's palace on the Palatine Hill.
2. Lightfoot on Interpretations:
Thus, Lightfoot, discussing the meaning of the phrase "in the whole praetorium" (Commentary on Philippians, 99 ff), reviews the different interpretations which have been given of the word, and shows (1) that no instance is to be found of its signifying Nero's palace on the Palatine Hill; (2) that there is no authority for the interpretation which would make it mean the praenterinn barracks on the Palatine; (3) that neither is there any authority for making it mean the praetorian camp outside the walls of Rome. In Lightfoot's words (op. cit., 101), "All attempts to give a local sense to `praetorium' thus fail for want of evidence." Lightfoot accordingly defends the interpretation, "the praetorian guard," and the Revised Version (British and American), above cited, follows him in this.
3. View of Mommsen and Ramsay:
One of the meanings of "praetorium" is a council of war, the officers who met in the general's tent (See PRAETORIUM ). Lightfoot is very decided in interpreting "praetorium" to mean the praetorian regiment, the imperial guards, and he adds, "in this sense and in this alone can it be safely affirmed that the apostle would hear the word praetorium used daily," and that this sense is in all respects appropriate. But the other meaning, though not appropriate here, namely, a council of war composed of the officers and their general, is much nearer to that which is now accepted by such authorities as Mommsen and Sir W.M. Ramsay, who hold that in this passage "praetorium" means a council, not of war, however, but the council of judgment, the emperor's court of appeal in which he was assisted by his legal assessors (see Mommsen, Berlin Akad. Sitzungsber., 1895, 501; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and the Rein Citizen, 357; Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, 35). Over this court there presided the emperor or his delegate, the prefect of the praetorian guard, and associated with him were twenty assessors selected from the senators. Formerly their votes were taken by ballot, but Nero preferred to receive from each a written opinion and on the next day to deliver his judgment in person. Such, it is now believed, is the praetorium to which Paul refers.
The meaning, therefore, of the words, "My bonds in Christ are manifest in the whole praetorium," will be that when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians his first Roman trial was already so far advanced that he had been able to impress upon his judges, the twenty assessors and their president, the fact that he was no evildoer, but that the sole cause of his imprisonment was his loyalty to Christ. It was manifest to all the members of the emperor's court of appeal that Paul was enduring his long imprisonment, suffering wrongfully, but only for the sake of Jesus Christ.
4. Bearing on Paul's Captivity and Trial:
The important bearing will be seen which this signification of "praetorium" in this passage has on the question of the order in which Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon--the epistles of Paul's captivity in Rome--were written. On subjective evidence Lightfoot concludes that Philippians is the earliest of them, basing his opinion largely on the resemblance which exists in many particulars between the thoughts and expressions in Philippians and in the Epistle to the Romans, making Philippians, as it were, a connecting link between Paul's earlier and his later epistles. See Lightfoot, Philipplans, 42 f; he writes: "These resemblances suggest as early a date for the Epistle to the Philippians as circumstances will allow," earlier, that is, than Colossians and Ephesians. But Lightfoot's argument is set aside by the new light which has been thrown upon the real meaning of "praetorium." Sir W.M. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 357) writes: "The trial seems to have occurred toward the end of AD 61. Its earliest stages were over before Paul wrote to the Philipplans, for he says, `The things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the progress of the Good News; so that my bonds became manifest in Christ in the whole Pretorium, and to all the rest; and that most of the Brethren in the Lord, being confident in my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.' This passage has been generally misconceived and connected with the period of imprisonment; and here again we are indebted to Mommsen for the proper interpretation. The Praetorum is the whole body of persons connected with the sitting in judgment, the supreme Imperial Court, doubtless in this case the Prefect or both Prefects of the Praetorian Guard, representing the emperor in his capacity as the fountain of justice, together with the assessors and high officers of the court. The expression of the chapter as a whole shows that the trial is partly finished, and the issue as yet is so favorable that the Brethren are emboldened by the success of Paul's courageous and freespoken defense and the strong impression which he evidently produced on the court; but he himself, being entirely occupied with the trial, is for the moment prevented from preaching as he had been doing when he wrote to the Colossians and the Asian churches generally."
5. Bearing on Date of Epistle:
Thus, the correct meaning of "praetorium" enables us to fix the date of the Epistle to the Philippians as having been written close to the end of Paul's first Roman imprisonment. That this inference is correct is confirmed by various other facts, such as his promise to visit that city, and the fact that in Phil 2:20 f the King James Version he says regarding Timothy, "I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." We could not conceive of Paul writing like this if Mark, Tychicus, Aristarchus, and especially if Luke had been with him then, and yet we know (Col 4:7,10,14) that each and all of these companions of the apostle were with him in Rome when he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians. They had evidently, along with others, been sent on missions to Asia or other places, so that Paul now had only Timothy "likeminded" when he wrote to Philippi.
See PAUL ,THE APOSTLE ;PHILIPPIANS ,THE EPISTLE TO THE .
All these facts and considerations confirm us in accepting the signification of "praetorium" as the emperor's supreme court of appeal, before which Paul when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians had so conducted his defense as to produce a most favorable impression, from which he inferred that he might soon be liberated from imprisonment. And his liberation, as the event proved, soon followed.
John Rutherfurd
pre-to'-ri-um praitorion, Mt 27:27 (the King James Version "common hall"); Mk 15:16; Jn 18:28,33; 19:9 (in all margins "palace," and in the last three the King James Version "judgment hall"); Acts 23:35, (Herod's) "palace," margin "Praetorium," the King James Version "judgment hall"; Phil 1:13, "praetorian guard" (margin "Greek `in the whole Pretorium,' " the King James Version "palace," margin "Caesar's court"):
1. Governor's Official Residence:
The Pretorium was originally the headquarters of a Roman camp, but in the provinces the name became attached to the governor's official residence. In order to provide residences for their provincial governors, the Romans were accustomed to seize and appropriate the palaces which were formerly the homes of the princes or kings in conquered countries. Such a residence might sometimes be in a royal palace, as was probably the case in Caesarea, where the procurator used Herod's palace (Acts 23:35).
The Pretorium where Jesus was brought to trial has been traditionally located in the neighborhood of the present Turkish barracks where once stood the Antonia and where was stationed a large garrison (compare Acts 21:32-35), but the statements of Josephus make it almost certain that the headquarters of the procurator were at Herod's palace. This was a building whose magnificence Josephus can hardly sufficiently appraise (Wars, I, xxi, 1; V, iv, 4). It was in this palace that "Florus, the procurator took up his quarters, and having placed his tribunal in front of it, held his sessions and the chief priests, influential persons and notables of the city appeared before the tribunal" (Wars II, xiv, 8). Later on, "Florus .... brought such as were with him out of the king's palace, and would have compelled them to get as far as the citadel (Antonia); but his attempt failed" (II, xv, 5). The word translated "palace" here is aule, the same word as is translated "court" in Mk 15:16, "the soldiers led him away within the court (aule), which is the Pretorium." There is no need to suppose that Herod Antipas was in the same palace (Lk 23:4 ff); it is more probable he went to the palace of the Hasmoneans which lay lower down on the eastern slope of this southwest hill, where at a later time Josephus expressly states that Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice were living (Wars, II, xvi, 3).
The palace of Herod occupied the highest part of the southwest hill near the northwest angle of the ancient city, now traditionally called Zion, and the actual site of the Pretorium cannot have been far removed from the Turkish barracks near the so-called "Tower of David." It is interesting to note that the two stations of the Turkish garrison of Jerusalem today occupy the same spots as did the Roman garrison of Christ's time. It is needless to point out how greatly this view of the situation of the Pretorium must modify the traditional claims of the "Via Dolorosa," the whole course of which depends on theory that the "Way of Sorrow" began at the Antonia, the Pretorium of late ecclesiastical tradition.
See also GABBATHA .
With regard to the expression en holo to praitorio in Phil 1:13, there is now a general consensus of opinion that "Praetorium" here means, not a place, but the imperial praetorian guard, ten thousand in number, which was instituted by Augustus. Paul was allowed to reside in his private house in the custody of a praetorian soldier. As these were doubtless constantly changed, it must have become "manifest" to the whole guard that his bonds were for the sake of Christ. See also preceding article.
E. W. G. Masterman
praz (tehillah, "psalm," "praise," todhah, "confession" "thanksgiving," shabhach, "to praise" "glorify," zamar, yadhah, "to stretch out the hand," "confess"; aineo, epaineo, (epainos):
The word comes from the Latin pretium, "price," or "value," and may be defined generally as an ascription of value or worth. Praise may be bestowed upon unworthy objects or from improper motives, but true praise consists in a sincere acknowledgment of a real conviction of worth. Its type may be seen in the representation given in the Apocalypse of the adoration of God and of the Lamb, which is inspired by a sense of their worthiness to be adored (Rev 4:11; 5:12).
Man may be the object of praise, and may receive it either from God or from his fellow-men. In the former case (Rom 2:29; 1 Cor 4:5) the praise is inevitably just, as resting on a divine estimate of worth; in the latter case its value depends upon the grounds and motives that lie behind it. There is a praise which is itself a condemnation (Lk 6:26), an honor which seals the eyes in unbelief (Jn 5:44), a careless use of the epithet "good" which is dishonoring to God (Lk 18:19). This is the "praise of men" which Jesus warned His followers to shun as being incompatible with the "praise of God" (Mt 6:1-4; compare Jn 12:43; Gal 1:10; 1 Thess 2:6). On the other hand, there is a praise that is the instinctive homage of the soul to righteousness (Lk 23:47), the acknowledgment given to well-doing by just government (Rom 13:3; 1 Pet 2:14), the tribute of the churches to distinguished Christian service (2 Cor 8:18). Such praise, so far from being incompatible with the praise of God, is a reflection of it in human consciousness; and so Paul associates praise with virtue as an aid and incentive to holy living on which the mind should dwell (Phil 4:8).
In the Bible it is God who is especially brought before us as the object of praise. His whole creation praises Him, from the angels of heaven (Ps 103:20; Rev 5:11) to those lower existences that are unconscious or even inanimate (Ps 19:1-4; 148:1-10; Rev 5:13). But it is with the praises offered to God by man, and with the human duty of praising God, that the Scriptures are principally concerned. In regard to this subject the following points may be noticed:
Sometimes God is praised for His inherent qualities. His majesty (Ps 104:1) or holiness (Isa 6:3) fills the mind, and He is "glorified as God" (Rom 1:21) in view of what He essentially is. More frequently He is praised for His works in creation, providence, and redemption. References may be dispensed with here, for the evidence meets us on almost every page of the sacred literature from Genesis to Revelation, and the Book of Psalms in particular, from beginning to end, is occupied with these themes. When God's operations under these aspects present themselves, not simply as general effects of His power and wisdom, but as expressions of His personal love to the individual, the nation, the church, His works become benefits, and praise passes into blessing and thanksgiving (Pss 34; 103; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3).
True praise of God, as distinguished from false praise (Isa 29:13; Mt 15:8), is first of all an inward emotion--a gladness and rejoicing of the heart (Ps 4:7; 33:21), a music of the soul and spirit (Ps 103:1; Lk 1:46 f) which no language can adequately express (Ps 106:2; 2 Cor 9:15). But utterance is natural to strong emotion, and the mouth instinctively strives to express the praises of the heart (Ps 51:15 and passim). Many of the most moving passages in Scripture come from the inspiration of the spirit of praise awakened by the contemplation of the divine majesty or power or wisdom or kindness, but above all by the revelation of redeeming love. Again, the spirit of praise is a social spirit calling for social utterance. The man who praises God desires to praise Him in the hearing of other men (Ps 40:10), and desires also that their praises should be joined with his own (Ps 34:3). Further, the spirit of praise is a spirit of song. It may find expression in other ways--in sacrifice (Lev 7:13), or testimony (Ps 66:16), or prayer (Col 1:3); but it finds its most natural and its fullest utterance in lyrical and musical forms. When God fills the heart with praise He puts a new song into the mouth (Ps 40:3). The Book of Psalms is the proof of this for the Old Testament. And when we pass to the New Testament we find that, alike for angels and men, for the church on earth and the church in heaven, the higher moods of praise express themselves in bursts of song (Lk 2:14; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Rev 5:9; 14:3; 15:3). Finally, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, the spirit of song gives birth to ordered modes of public praise. In their earlier expressions the praises of Israel were joyful outbursts in which song was mingled with shouting and dancing to a rude accompaniment of timbrels and trumpets (Ex 15:20 ff; 2 Sam 6:5,14 ff). In later times Israel had its sacred Psalter, its guilds of trained singers (Ezr 2:41; Neh 7:44), its skilled musicians (Pss 42; 49, etc.); and the praise that waited for God in Zion was full of the solemn beauty of holiness (Ps 29:2; 96:9). In the New Testament the Psalter is still a manual of social praise. The "hymn" which Jesus sang with His disciples after the Last Supper (Mt 26:30) would be a Hebrew psalm, probably from the Hallel (Pss 113 through 118) which was used at the Passover service, and various references in the Epistles point to the continued employment of the ancient psalms in Christian worship (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Jas 5:13). But the Psalter of the Jewish church could not suffice to express the distinctive moods of Christian feeling. Original utterance of the spirit of Christian song was one of the manifestations of the gift of tongues (1 Cor 14:15-17). Paul distinguishes hymns and spiritual songs from psalms (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16); and it was hymns that he and Silas sang at midnight in the prison of Philippi (Acts 16:25 the Revised Version (British and American)). But from hymns and songs that were the spontaneous utterance of individual feeling the development was natural, in New Testament as in Old Testament times, to hymns that were sung in unison by a whole congregation; and in rhythmic passages like 1 Tim 3:16; Rev 15:3 f, we seem to have fragments of a primitive Christian hymnology, such as Pliny bears witness to for the early years of the 2nd century, when he informs Trajan that the Christians of Bithynia at their morning meetings sang a hymn in alternate strains to Christ as God (Ep. x.97).
See PERSECUTION .
Praise is everywhere represented in the Bible as a duty no less than a natural impulse and a delight. To fail in this duty is to withhold from God's glory that belongs to Him (Ps 50:23; Rom 1:20 f); it is to shut one's eyes to the signs of His presence (Isa 40:26 ff), to be forgetful of His mercies (Dt 6:12), and unthankful for His kindness (Lk 6:35). If we are not to fall into these sins, but are to give to God the honor and glory and gratitude we owe Him, we must earnestly cultivate the spirit and habit of praise. From holy men of old we learn that this may be done by arousing the soul from its slothfulness and sluggishness (Ps 57:8; 103:1), by fixing the heart upon God (Ps 57:7; 108:1), by meditation on His works and ways (Ps 77:11 ff), by recounting His benefits (Ps 103:2), above all, for those to whom He has spoken in His Son, by dwelling upon His unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15; compare Rom 8:31 ff; 1 Jn 3:1).
See also WORSHIP .
J. C. Lambert
prar (deesis, proseuche, (enteuxis; for an excellent discussion of the meaning of these see Thayer's Lexicon, p. 126, under the word deesis; the chief verbs are euchomai, proseuchomai, and deomai, especially in Luke and Acts; aiteo, "to ask a favor" distinguished from erotao, "to ask a question," is found occasionally): In the Bible "prayer" is used in a simpler and a more complex a narrower and a wider signification. In the former case it is supplication for benefits either for one's self (petition) or for others (intercession). In the latter it is an act of worship which covers all soul in its approach to God. Supplication is at the heart of it, for prayer always springs out of a sense of need and a belief that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6). But adoration and confession and thanksgiving also find a It place, so that the suppliant becomes a worshipper. It is unnecessary to distinguish all the various terms for prayer that are employed in the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the fact should be noticed that in the Hebrew and Greek aloe there are on the one hand words for prayer that denote a direct petition or short, sharp cry of the heart in its distress (Ps 30:2; 2 Cor 12:8), and on the other "prayers" like that of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10), which is in reality a song of thanksgiving, or that of Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, in which intercession is mingled with doxology (Eph 3:14-21).
The history of prayer as it meets us here reflects various stages of experience and revelation. In the patriarchal period, when `men began to call upon the name of the Lord' (Gen 4:26; compare 12:8; 21:33), prayer is naive, familiar and direct (Gen 15:2 ff; 17:18; 18:23 ff; 24:12). It is evidently associated with sacrifice (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 26:25), the underlying idea probably being that the gift or offering would help to elicit the desired response. Analogous to this is Jacob's vow, itself a species of prayer, in which the granting of desired benefits becomes the condition of promised service and fidelity (Gen 28:20 ff). In the pre-exilic history of Israel prayer still retains many of the primitive features of the patriarchal type (Ex 3:4; Nu 11:11-15; Jdg 6:13 ff; 11:30 f; 1 Sam 1:11; 2 Sam 15:8; Ps 66:13 f). The Law has remarkably little to say on the subject, differing here from the later Judaism (see Schurer, HJP ,II , i, 290, index-vol, p. 93; and compare Mt 6:5 ff; 23:14; Acts 3:1; 16:13); while it confirms the association of prayer with sacrifices, which now appear, however, not as gifts in anticipation of benefits to follow, but as expiations of guilt (Dt 21:1-9) or thank offerings for past mercies (Dt 26:1-11). Moreover, the free, frank access of the private individual to God is more and more giving place to the mediation of the priest (Dt 21:5; 26:3), the intercession of the prophet (Ex 32:11-13; 1 Sam 7:5-13; 12:23), the ordered approach of tabernacle and temple services (Ex 40; 1 Ki 8). The prophet, it is true, approaches God immediately and freely--Moses (Ex 34:34; Dt 34:10) and David (2 Sam 7:27) are to be numbered among the prophets--but he does so in virtue of his office, and on the ground especially of his possession of the Spirit and his intercessory function (compare Ezek 2:2; Jer 14:15).
A new epoch in the history of prayer in Israel was brought about by the experiences of the Exile. Chastisement drove the nation to seek God more earnestly than before, and as the way of approach through the external forms of the temple and its sacrifices was now closed, the spiritual path of prayer was frequented with a new assiduity. The devotional habits of Ezra (Ezr 7:27; 8:23), Nehemlab (Neh 2:4; 4:4,9, etc.) and Daniel (Dan 6:10) prove how large a place prayer came to hold in the individual life; while the utterances recorded in Ezr 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; 9:5-38; Dan 9:4-19; Isa 63:7 through 64:12 serve as illustrations of the language and spirit of the prayers of the Exile, and show especially the prominence now given to confession of sin. In any survey of the Old Testament teaching the Psalms occupy a place by themselves, both on account of the large period they cover in the history and because we are ignorant in most cases as to the particular circumstances of their origin. But speaking generally it may be said that here we see the loftiest flights attained by the spirit of prayer under the old dispensation--the intensest craving for pardon, purity and other spiritual blessings (Ps 51; 130), the most heartfelt longing for a living communion with God Himself (Ps 42:2; 63:1; 84:2).
Here it will be convenient to deal separately with the material furnished by the Gospel narratives of the life and teaching of Christ and that found in the remaining books. The distinctively Christian view of prayer comes to us from the Christ of the Gospels. We have to notice His own habits in the matter (Lk 3:21; 6:12; 9:16,29; 22:32,39-46; 23:34-46; Mt 27:46; Jn 17), which for all who accept Him as the revealer of the Father and the final authority in religion immediately dissipate all theoretical objections to the value and efficacy of prayer. Next we have His general teaching on the subject in parables (Lk 11:5-9; 18:1-14) and incidental sayings (Mt 5:44; 6:5-8; 7:7-11; 9:38; 17:21; 18:19; 21:22; 24:20; 26:41 and the parallels), which presents prayer, not as a mere energizing of the religious soul that is followed by beneficial spiritual reactions, but as the request of a child to a father (Mt 6:8; 7:11), subject, indeed, to the father's will (Mt 7:11; compare 6:10; 26:39,42; 1 Jn 5:14), but secure always of loving attention and response (Mt 7:7-11; 21:22). In thus teaching us to approach God as our Father, Jesus raised prayer to its highest plane, making it not less reverent than it was at its best in Old Testament times, while far more intimate and trustful. In the LORD'S PRAYER (which see). He summed up His ordinary teaching on the subject in a concrete example which serves as a model and breviary of prayer (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:2-4). But according to the Fourth Gospel, this was not His final word upon the subject. On the night of the betrayal, and in full view of His death and resurrection and ascension to God's right hand, He told His disciples that prayer was henceforth to be addressed to the Father in the name of the Son, and that prayer thus offered was sure to be granted (Jn 16:23,24,26). The differentia of Christian prayer thus consists in its being offered in the name of Christ; while the secret of its success lies on the one hand in the new access to the Father which Christ has secured for His people (Jn 17:19; compare Heb 4:14-16; 10:19-22), and on the other in the fact that prayer offered in the name of Christ will be prayer in harmony with the Father's will (Jn 15:7; compare 1 Jn 3:22 f; 5:13 f).
In the Acts and Epistles we see the apostolic church giving effect to Christ's teaching on prayer. It was in a praying atmosphere that the church was born (Acts 1:14; compare 2:1); and throughout its early history prayer continued to be its vital breath and native air (Acts 2:42; 3:1; 6:4,6 and passim). The Epistles abound in references to prayer. Those of Paul in particular contain frequent allusions to his own personal practice in the matter (Rom 1:9; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:9; 1 Thess 1:2, etc.), and many exhortations to his readers to cultivate the praying habit (Rom 12:12; Eph 6:18; Phil 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17, etc.). But the new and characteristic thing about Christian prayer as it meets us now is its connection with the Spirit. It has become a spiritual gift (1 Cor 14:14-16); and even those who have not this gift in the exceptional charismatic sense may "pray in the Spirit" whenever they come to the throne of grace (Eph 6:18; Jude 1:20). The gift of the Spirit, promised by Christ (Jn 14:16 ff, etc.), has raised prayer to its highest power by securing for it a divine cooperation (Rom 8:15,26; Gal 4:6). Thus Christian prayer in its full New Testament meaning is prayer addressed to God as Father, in the name of Christ as Mediator, and through the enabling grace of the indwelling Spirit.
See PRAYERS OF CHRIST .
J. C. Lambert
See HABAKKUK ;BETH-HORON ,THE BATTLE OF .
See MANASSES ,THE PRAYER OF .
See HOURS OF PRAYER .
See LORD'S PRAYER , THE .
prarz:
1. The Lord's Prayer
2. Christ's Doctrine of Prayer: Sacredness, Importunity, Conditions
3. Prayers Offered by Christ
(1) The High-priestly Prayer
(2) The Prayer in Gethsemane
(3) The Prayers on the Cross
(4) Prayer after the Resurrection
(5) General Conclusions
In the history and doctrine of prayer, nothing is more important than the light shed upon the subject by the prayers of Jesus. These are to be studied in connection with His teaching concerning prayer found in the model of the Lord's Prayer, and general statements and hints to His disciples.
This model of prayer is given in two forms (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:2-4). The differences of form show that exactness of similarity in words is not essential. The prayer includes adoration, supplication for the Kingdom, for personal needs, for forgiveness, for deliverance from temptation and the ascription of glory. It is at once individual and universal; it sets the recognition of divine things first, and yet clearly asserts the ethical and social relations of life.
See LORD'S PRAYER , THE .
2. Christ's Doctrine of Prayer: Sacredness, Importunity, Conditions:
That men should pray is taken for granted (Mt 6:5). Its sacredness is involved in the command for privacy (Mt 6:6); its importunity (Lk 11:5-9; 18:1-8); its necessary conditions of humility, absence of self righteousness (Lk 18:9-14), of display and repetition (Mt 6:7); necessity of faith and a forgiving spirit (Mk 11:24-26); of agreement in social prayer (Mt 18:19); submission to the will of Christ, "in my name" (Jn 14:13).
In Mt 11:25,26 the King James Version, Christ thanks God: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." This language shows the essence of prayer to be not the mere expression of need and request for what is required, but resort to God. The prayer gives us insight into the deeper experience of the Son with the Father, and His perfect submission to the Father's will, with thanksgiving even for what might seem inexplicable. It thus illustrates the truth that the highest form of prayer is found in the serenity of the soul.
Mt 14:23 narrates the retirement of the Lord to a "mountain apart to pray." No word of what the prayer was is given, but the record is suggestive. Following a day of severe toil and probably excitement, Jesus betakes Himself to prayer. The reality, the true humanity of the Christ, are here revealed. The former prayer may almost be regarded as that of the Son of God addressed to the Father in the sublime communion of the Godhead. This passage emphatically is a prayer-scene of the Son of Man. The association of this incident of prayer in Christ's life with the miracle of walking on the sea (an example of miracle in the person of the Lord Himself, and not performed on another) opens up an interesting question of the relation of the supernatural and the natural. Here perhaps lies an explanation of the true significance of the miraculous. The communion of the Lord with a supreme Father had filled the physical nature of Jesus with spiritual forces which extended the power of the spirit over the material world beyond the limits by which man is bound in his normal and sinful condition (see Lange, Commentary on Mt; Mt 15:36; compare 14:19). Christ's recognition of God as the Giver of food, in thanks at the meal, or "asking a blessing," should be noted as an example which in modern times is largely ignored or followed as a mere formality. But it is significant; it expresses that intense and all-compelling sense of the divine which ever dwelt in Him; of which prayer is an expression, and which is evoked so naturally and becomingly at a social meal. In Mt 17:21, our Lord's reference to prayer as a necessary condition of miraculous power, in the light of Mk 7:34, where "looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him (the deaf man), Ephphatha," may imply His own prayer in connection with the exercise of miraculous energy. This is apparently indicated in Jn 11:41,42, although, as above, it is the expression of the intimate relation between Christ and the Father, which is the essence of prayer, and in which relation He ever exercised the fullest power of God Himself. Mt 19:13 records that little children were brought to Him that He should put His hands on them and pray. That He prayed is not related, but 19:15 relates that He laid His hands on them and, presumably, with the imposition, prayed. The scene is most suggestive, in the light of our Lord's words. In Mt 19:14 and in 26:26 Our Lord blesses the bread or gives thanks at the institution of the Supper, and has set the mode of celebration universally adopted, even giving the term Eucharist ("giving of thanks") to the service.
This prayer (Jn 17) is the special prayer of the Lord, and may be regarded as the sole example furnished by the evangelists of our Lord's method of prayer. The thanksgiving in Mt 11:25 is the only other instance of any extent in the report of the prayers of Jesus, but even that is brief compared to what is here furnished. The fullness of this prayer clearly shows that it was uttered in the hearing of the disciples. Their relation to it is remarkable. Auditors, they yet could not share in it. At the same time, it was a profound revelation to them both of the relation of the Master to God, and the character of the work which He had come to perform, and the part which they were to take in it. John gives us no hint as to the place in which it was spoken; 14:31 indicates a departure from the upper room. But apparently the prayer was offered where the discourses of John 15 and 16 were delivered. It has been suggested by Westcott that some spot in the temple courts was the scene of John 15; 16 and 17. It has been generally supposed that the ornament of the Golden Vine would naturally suggest the figure of the Vine and Branches which our Lord employs. Jn 18:1 shows that the prayer was offered before the Lord and His disciples had passed over the brook Kidron. The determination of the exact spot is certainly impossible, except the probability that the words were spoken in the vicinity of the temple.
The first part of the prayer (Jn 17:1-5) is an expression of profound communion between the Son and the Father, and the prayer that the Father should glorify the Son, but with the supreme end of the Father's own glory. The absolutely unique character of Christ's relation to God is the calm assertion of Jn 17:4. Its consciousness of completeness in the work which He had received from God, impossible for the children of men, marks the supreme nature of the Son of God.
In the second part of the prayer (Jn 17:6-19), our Lord prays for His disciples, to whom He has revealed Himself and His relation to God (Jn 17:7,8). He prays that they may be kept by the Father, and for their unity. Their separation from the world is declared (Jn 17:14), and our Lord prays that they may be kept from the evil that is in the world, which is alien from them as it is from Him.
In the third portion of the prayer Christ's relation to His ultimate followers is referred to. Their unity is sought, not an external unity, but the deep, spiritual unity found by the indwelling of Christ in them and God in Christ. The prayer closes by the declaration that Christ's knowledge of the Father is revealed to His people, and the end and crown of all is to be the indwelling of God's love in man by the dwelling of Christ in him.
This prayer is unique, not merely among the prayers of our Lord, but also among the prayers of humanity. While it is distinctly a petition, it is at the same time a communion. In one or two places our Lord expresses His will, thus setting Himself upon a level with God. The fact of this prayer of triumph in which every petition is virtually a declaration of the absolute certainty of its realization, immediately preceding the prayer of Gethsemane, is both difficult and suggestive. The anomaly is a powerful argument for the historic reality. The explanation of these contrasted moods is to be found in the depth of our Lord's nature, and especially in the complete consistency of His dual nature with the spheres to which each nature belongs. He is most divine; He is most human. In the fullness of the reach of the prayer and its calm confidence, the believer may find a ceaseless and inexhaustible source of comfort and encouragement. Attention might be called to the remarkable forecast of the history and experience of the church which the prayer furnishes.
This is recorded by the three Synoptics (Mt 26:36-44; Mk 14:22-40; Lk 22:39-46), and is probably referred to in Heb 5:7. Brief though the prayer is, it exhibits most clearly recognition of God's infinite power, a clear object sought by the prayer, and perfect submission to God's will. All the elements of prayer, as it can be offered by man, are here except the prayer for forgiveness. It is to be noted that the prayer was three times repeated. This is not to be regarded as inconsistent with our Lord's prohibition of repetition. It was vain repetition which was forbidden. The intensity of the prayer is expressed by its threefold utterance (compare Paul's prayer in regard to the thorn in 2 Cor 12:8).
In Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34, Christ uses the prayer of Ps 22:1. In the moment of complete desolation, the Sufferer claimed His unbroken relationship with God. This is the victory of the atoning sacrifice. Lk 23:34 records the prayer of intercession for those who crucified Him; in 23:46 is the calm committal of His spirit to the Father. Prayer here again assumes its highest form in the expression of recognition and trust. Thus the three prayers on the cross not only reveal the intimate relation of our Lord to the Father, but they also illustrate prayer such as man may offer. They represent supplication, intercession, communion. Prayer thus expresses our relation to God, to others, to ourselves; our trust, our love, our need. In all things He was made like unto His brethren, except without sin (See POINTS ). His prayers on the cross illustrate His high-priestly office. It rises at that intense crisis to its supreme manifestation and activity.
(4) Prayer after the Resurrection.
It is to be observed that after His resurrection there is no record of any prayer, offered by Christ. In the supper at Emmaus He "blessed" the bread (Lk 24:30); and the ascension took place in the midst of blessing (Lk 24:51), suggestive of the course of the church as ever beneath the benediction of the Lord, to be ended only at the final consummation. The act of eating the fish and honeycomb (Lk 24:43) seems to have been unaccompanied by any act of specifically religious form. Mark, with characteristic regard to details, records Christ's "looking up to heaven" (Mk 6:41; 7:34); Jn 11:41 refers to a similar act, and adds the Lord's words of thanksgiving that God had heard Him (see also Jn 17:1). The gesture was usual in association with Christ's prayers; it is appropriate and suggestive. Luke narrates that Christ prayed at His baptism (Lk 3:21); that He spent a night in prayer before choosing the Twelve (Lk 6:12,13); that the transfiguration was preceded by prayer (Lk 9:29); and records the prayer in the garden (Lk 22:41-45). The third evangelist thus in addition to the notes of our Lord's prayers in retirement, which the other evangelists record, adds these instances of the special relation of prayer to events of critical importance.
The following conclusions as to prayer may be drawn from the records of Christ' prayers: (1) Prayer is the highest exercise of man's spiritual nature. (2) It is natural to the soul even in perfect accord with God. (3) It is not only the expression of need, the supply of which is sought of God, but by the example of Christ it is the highest expression of trust, submission and union with God. (4) It is to be used both in solitude and in society; it is personal and intercessory. (5) It may be accompanied by the plea of Christ's name, and for Christ's sake. These are the laws which should direct it; that is to say, it should be based upon the merit and the intercession of Christ, and should be addressed to God under the limitations of the Kingdom of the Lord and His purposes for good, both for the interest of the suppliant and others, under the conditions of the interest of the whole Kingdom.
L. D. Bevan
prech'-er, prech'-ing (qoheleth, "preacher" (Eccl 1:1), basar, "to bring or tell good tidings" (Ps 40:9; Isa 61:1), qara', "to call," "proclaim" (Neh 6:7; Jon 3:2), qeri'ah, "cry," "preaching" (Jon 3:2); kerux, "crier," "herald" (1 Tim 2:7), kerusso, "to cry or proclaim as a herald" (Mt 3:1; Rom 10:14), euaggellizo, "to announce good news" (Mt 11:5)):
1. Definition
2. The Preacher's Limitations
3. A Man with a Message
4. Preaching a Necessary Agency
5. Biblical Terms and Their Meanings
6. The Hebrew Prophets
7. Christ as a Preacher
8. The Apostles as Preachers
9. Fundamental Postulates
(1) Preach the Word
(2) "We Are Ambassadors"
In the New Testament sense a preacher is a man who has the inner call from the Holy Spirit and the external call from the church the witnessing body of Christ on earth, and has been duly set apart as an accredited and qualified teacher of the Christian religion. His vocation is that of addressing the popular mind and heart on religious truth, as that truth is set forth in the sacred Scripture, for the spiritual profit of the hearer as its end. The preacher, recognized as such by the church, speaks as a personal witness of God's saving truth, explaining it and applying it as the circumstances of the people and the time may require. The gravity and importance of this vocation, as set forth in the sacred Scriptures and amply illustrated in the history of the church, surpass those of any other calling among men. Luther said, "The Devil does not mind the written word but he is put to flight whenever it is preached aloud."
2. The Preacher's Limitations:
The preacher, in the sense indicated above, is with all other Christians a sharer in the freedom that is in Christ. But as a recognized teacher and leader of the church, he is not an unattached and entire unrestricted teacher. He is not to speak as his own, but as the mouthpiece of the church whose apprehension of the gospel he has voluntarily confessed. The faith of the church is, by his own assent, his faith, and her doctrine is his doctrine. He is not expected to give his own, as distinct from or opposed to the faith of the church in whose name he has been set apart to proclaim the gospel. Both the personal and the representative or official are united in him and his preaching.
His work is always to be related to the Old Testament and New Testament. His sermon is under the creed of his church as the creed is under the word. The preacher is a man with a message, and the preacher who has no message of the particular kind indicated above is in no true sense a preacher. It has been well expressed in one of the valuable Yale series of lectures on the subject, "Every living preacher must receive his communication direct from God, and the constant purpose of his life must be to receive it uncorrupted and to deliver it without addition or subtraction." When he presents the message of his divinely-appointed ambassadorship in its integrity, he speaks with that peculiar kind of "authority" which has been pronounced "the first and indispensable requisite" in giving a message from God. He manifests thereby a "high celestial dogmatism," and "human weakness becomes immortal strength." The true preacher preaches from a divine impulsion. He says with Paul, "Necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel" (1 Cor 9:16; compare Jer 20:9). He says with Peter, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19,20). The message of the preacher is greater than the man, because it is from God. It largely makes the man who preaches it in its fullness and power. Whatever be his own gifts or whatever the alleged gift conferred in the laying on of hands, without the sense of the message he is not chosen of God to proclaim His word. Destitute of that, he does not have the sustaining impulse of his vocation to enlist his entire personality in his work and give him mastery over the minds and hearts of men.
4. Preaching a Necessary Agency:
No agency of religion is older than preaching. It is as old as the Bible itself (2 Pet 2:5). It is a necessary adjunct of a religion that is communicated to man by means of an objective and authoritative revelation, such as we have in the sacred Scriptures. It is an entirely natural agency of the forms of religion revealed in the Old Testament and New Testament. It is strictly in harmony with those ideas that obtain in both testaments regarding the method of propagating the faith, set forth through the agency of holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That faith is disseminated by means of teaching through argument, explanation, motive and exhortation. The agency for the spread of a religion of persuasion must be preaching.
5. Biblical Terms and Their Meanings:
In the Biblical usage of the terms which have reference to the subject, preaching means the proclamation of religious truth. It is that continuous and public testimony which the church is always giving, through discourses by men set apart for such work, to her own living faith as that faith is rooted in and sustained by the written word of God. In this sense "to call," "proclaim," "cry aloud" are used frequently of the prophetic message under the various aspects of denunciation, as in Jon 1:2; of the relation of the divine, as in Jer 11:6, and of Messianic promise, as in Isa 61:1. The term for "preaching" is also used to designate a political propagandism set forth by the prophet (Neh 6:7). In two passages (Ps 68:11, "publish"; Isa 61:1) another word for preaching means "to declare good news." In the case of Jonah's preaching at Nineveh, the word used to designate what it was means strictly "proclamation" and corresponds to the New Testament word used to define our Lord's "proclamation" as a herald of the advent of the Kingdom of God (Mt 4:17), which in its initial stages particularly was closely associated with the preaching of John the Baptist (Mt 3:1,2).
Thus, while preaching belongs especially to Christianity, it has well-defined antecedents in the Old Testament. Under both the old and the new dispensations the subject takes the church for granted and utters the testimony, not simply of a solitary believer, but of a divinely-founded society, whether it be of Jews or Christians. The older books in the Canon have in them the beginnings and some of the features of the preacher's office and of the high function of preaching. In them we find a special class of men set apart and separated unto that particular work, as we find in the Christian church, from its beginnings, the same divinely instituted office. The Hebrew prophet had a message direct from God, which frequently came with supernatural knowledge in the power of prediction. The mission of the prophet, however, was simply or chiefly to forecast the future, but to declare a present message from the Lord to the people. The prophet of the Old Testament was the forerunner in office and the prototype of the ambassador of Christ. With the development of the synagogue as the center of Hebrew worship, application as well as interpretation of the Law became essential.
Moses, the most commanding figure in Hebrew history, was a prophet, and no messages in the Old Testament are more imbued with power, sublimity and pathos than those uttered by the great lawgiver. He became the guide Israel, not so much by his rod as by the word he delivered to the people. There are numerous indications that after Moses there was a continuous class of religious teachers whose work it was to instruct men and inspire the people, as is indicated in the cases of Joshua, in the history of Deborah and Barak, and in the days of solemn assembly which are inconceivable without men who spoke and other men who listened. In the time of Samuel there was a distinct advance made in the work of the prophets, and the prophetic office had become a fixed institution. There were schools of the prophets at Bethel, Jericho and Gilgal, the very seats of heathen idolatry. Under the Old Testament dispensation the whole course of progress was toward presenting divine truth in its simplicity and power, by bringing it to bear upon the popular mind and heart. One of the marks of the new era beginning with John the Baptist was a revival of prophetic preaching (Mt 11:9), which again resumed its old character and meaning.
The words meaning "to proclaim as a herald" and "preaching," are frequent in the New Testament. The mission of our Lord was essentially one of proclaiming good tidings concerning the Kingdom of God (Mt 4:17). He at once, on His entrance upon His ministry, gave to preaching a spiritual depth and practical range which it never had before. At that time preaching had manifestly become a fixed part of the synagogue worship, and was made one of the chief instruments in the spread of the gospel. our Lord constantly taught in the synagogue (Mt 4:23; Mk 1:21; Jn 6:59). He thus read and interpreted and applied the Law and the Prophets (Mk 1:39; Lk 4:16). Christ's testimony about Himself was that He came "to bear witness to the truth." The spoken word became His great power in His life and ministry. Throughout His life Jesus was above all things a preacher of the truths of His kingdom. Telling men what He was in Himself, what in His relation to man and his salvation and what to God the Father, formed a large part of His public work.
The preaching of the apostles was essentially prophetic in character, and bore testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus and His early return to judgment (Acts 2:24,32,36; 1 Cor 15:15). The sermons of the apostles which are reported with much fullness are those of Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), his address in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10), and the counsels of James to the brethren at Jerusalem, as to what ordinances should be imposed on Gentile Christians. In the early church preachers were first of all witnesses to what Jesus had said and done, and to the significance to be attached to the great facts of the redemptive history. With the spread of the gospel and the passing of time, this office was taken up by others, especially such as were endued with "the word of wisdom" and "of knowledge" (1 Cor 12:8).
Upon the basis of what is taught in the word of God there are two fundamentally important postulates concerning preaching and the preacher.
The first note of preaching is that it be the word of God (2 Tim 4:2). Out of the Bible must the life of every generation of Christians be fed. To Holy Scripture, therefore, ought the pulpit to abide faithful, for out of its treasures the preacher fulfils his double office of edifying believers and subjugating the world to Christ. There must always be an organic connection between the word in the text and the sermon.
(2) "We Are Ambassadors."
The work of preaching is the fulfillment of a divinely instituted ambassadorship (2 Cor 5:20). The gospel is put into the hands of men for a distinct purpose, and is to be administered in accordance with the plan of its author. The preacher is in a very distinct sense a trustee. "But even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God who proveth our hearts" (1 Thess 2:4). Those who have accepted the responsibility imposed upon them by this divine commission are enjoined to exercise their office so as to warrant the approbation of Him who has appointed them to a specific work. The homiletic practice of taking theme of every sermon from a passage of Holy Writ has been an almost invariable rule in the history of the church. It is the business of the preacher to present the truth embodied in the text in its integrity. In the exercise of his divinely-appointed ambassadorship he is to administer God's word revealed to Christian faith, not human opinions or speculations.
David H. Bauslin
pre'-sept: A commandment, an authoritative rule for action; in the Scriptures generally a divine injunction in which man's obligation is set forth (Latin praeceptum, from praecipere, "to instruct").
Four words are so rendered in the King James Version: (1) mitswah, very frequently (168 times) translated "commandment," but 4 times "precept" (in the Revised Version (British and American) only Jer 35:18; Dan 9:5); (2) from the same root is tsaw, or tsaw (Isa 28:10,13); (3) piqqudhim, only in the Psalms (21 times in Ps 119, e.g. verses 4,15,27; also the Revised Version (British and American) Ps 19:8; 103:18; 111:7); (4) in the New Testament, entole, generally in the King James Version translated "commandment" (68 times), but twice "precept" (Mk 10:5; Heb 9:19; in both cases the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "commandment").
See COMMANDMENT .
D. Miall Edwards
presh'-us (stands for 17 different words, chief of which are yaqar; timios): (1) Generally in the literal sense, "of great price," "costly," "expensive," of material things (e.g. Prov 1:13; Jer 20:5; Mk 14:3 the King James Version), especially of precious stones (2 Sam 12:30; 2 Ch 3:6; 1 Cor 3:12 the King James Version, etc.). (2) Sometimes "of great moral (non-material) value." "Precious in the sight of Yahweh is the death of his saints" (Ps 116:15); "his precious and exceeding great promises" (2 Pet 1:4); compare Ps 139:17; 2 Pet 1:1. The literal and the moral senses are both involved in the expression, "knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, .... but with precious blood" (1 Pet 1:18,19). "Preciousness" (time) occurs in 1 Pet 2:7 the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version, for the King James Version "precious."
D. Miall Edwards
pre-sip-i-ta'-shun.
See PUNISHMENTS ,III , (5).
pre-des-ti-na'-shun (prothesis, prognosis proorismos):
1. Predestination as a Biblical Question
2. Its Fundamental Importance
3. The Nature of Predestination
4. The Doctrine in Scripture
5. Historic Rise and Development of the Doctrine
6. The Doctrine in the Middle Ages
7. Predestination in the Reformed Theology
8. Predestination in Lutheranism
9. The Arminian View
10. Wesleyanism on Predestination
11. Present Needs and Values of the Doctrine
LITERATURE
1. Predestination as a Biblical Question:
Predestination can be, and has sometimes been, regarded as a philosophical question rather than a Biblical one. It is with predestination as a Biblical question, however, that we are here mainly concerned. It is possible to urge, and it has been urged, that the philosophical question--whether all that occurs is foreordained--is not discussed and decided by Scripture. Theology, starting from God in its interpretation of all things, has arrived at universal foreordination by a species of deductive reasoning. But we must not argue the matter from any abstract principles, but deal with the actual facts as set forth in Scripture and as found, inductively, in the experience of man.
2. Its Fundamental Importance:
It must first be asserted, however, in view of much loose modern thinking, that predestination is a category of religious thought of fundamental importance. No category of religious thought could go deeper, for it reaches down to the Infinite Will in relation to the universe of finite wills, and lays stress on will as the core of reality. The philosophy of our time may be said to have received, from the time of Schopenhauer, an impact toward will-emphasis, alike in respect of will in the universe and in man. But the relation of the Absolute Will to the universe, and to mankind, is precisely that with which we are concerned in predestination.
Predestination is that aspect of foreordination Whereby the salvation of the believer is taken to he effected in accordance with the will of God, who has called and elected him, in Christ, unto life eternal. The divine plan of salvation must certainly be conceived under this aspect of individual reference. To understand and set forth the nature, and ethically justifiable character, of such a foreordaining to life eternal, is our purpose. For doctrine has need to be purged of the historic inconsistencies, and fatal illogicalities, with which, in its older forms of presentation, it was often infected. This, especially, in order that the doctrine may appear as grounded in reason and righteousness, not in arbitrariness and almighty caprice.
To begin with, it must be said that there seems to be no evading the doctrine of an election by grace, as found both in the letter and the spirit of Scripture. The idea of predestination is set forth, with great power and clearness, in Rom 8:29,30, and with its elements or parts articulated in natural and striking form. The idea recurs in Eph 1, where it is finely said (1:4,5) that God hath chosen us in Christ "before the foundation of the world," having predestinated or "foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ"; and where it is said, further, that our salvation imports "the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure" (1:9), which He purposed in Christ. This "eternal purpose" to save men through Christ is again referred to in Eph 3:11. This helpful mode of viewing predestination as in Christ, and never outside Him, had a place in religious thought at the Reformation time, as the famous "Formula of Concord," to be referred to below, shows. The predestined certainty of God's gracious work in Christ was not meant to perplex men, but to encourage and reassure all who trust in His grace. In Rom 9:14-25, the absolute sovereignty of God is put in a form whereby election is made to originate in the divine will apart from all human merit, whether actual or foreseen. But from this assertion of God's free supremacy we can derive no concrete theodicy, or do more than infer that God is just and wise in His exercise of free grace, even when His doings are most perplexing to us.
5. Historic Rise and Development of the Doctrine:
The needful thing is to understand, so far as may be, the nature of the cooperation that takes place between the divine and the human factors or elements, which latter factors include natural capacity, disposition and development, working under grace. It must be carefully observed that nothing in Scripture points to any personal and inexorable predestination to reprobation, in any sense corresponding to the personal election to salvation just spoken of. A non-election there may be, of course, but not in any sense that annuls full personal responsibility for coming short of life everlasting. The appeal of Scripture from first to last is to men as free. Calvin's strange way of putting the matter was, "Man therefore falls, God's Providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault." This idea of reprobation was first introduced by Gottschalk, a monk of the 9th century, long after the predestination doctrine had received its first full and positive exposition by Augustine. Augustine, following upon the indecision shown by the fathers in the first three centuries of the church, made the doctrine of a special predestination his foundation for special grace, in opposition to Pelagius. Augustine gave new prominence in his theory to the absolute will of God: he made divine grace the only ground of man's salvation; it was to him the irresistible power working faith within the heart, and bringing freedom as its result. It was to him God's absolute predestination that determined who were believers. But Augustine held predestination as an inference from his conception of the Fall and of grace, rather than as a metaphysical principle.
6. The Doctrine in the Middle Ages:
In the Middle Ages, Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Aquinas, followed the Augustinian views only to a certain extent. Aquinas admits that predestination implies a relation to grace, but holds that grace is not of the essence of predestination. Predestination is, to Aquinas, a part of Providence, and it presupposes election in the order of reason. Though divine goodness in general be without election, Aquinas thinks the communication of a particular good cannot be without election. Predestination has, for him, its foundation in the goodness of God, which is its reason. Aquinas thinks predestination most surely takes effect, but not as from necessity; the effect takes place under the working of contingency. From such views we are recalled to the idea of a rigorous predestination, by Thomas Bradwardine and John Wycliff, in pre-Reformation times. We are thus brought up to the decretal system--so called from Calvin's making predestination consist of the eternal decree of God--which became, in its metaphysical principle, the fundamental position of the whole Reformed theology after the Reformation.
7. Predestination in the Reformed Theology:
The theology of the Reformed church adopted the Calvinistic doctrine of the decree of predestination and election. Calvin, however, simply carried the Augustinian theory to its logical and necessary conclusion, and he was the first to adopt the doctrine as the cardinal point or primordial principle of a theological system. Zwingli, it must be remembered, was, even before Calvin, of consistent deterministic leanings, as part of his large speculative views, which were not without a tendency to universalism. Salvation was, to Calvin, the execution of a divine decree, which was supposed to fix the extent and conditions of such salvation.
Reprobation was, for Calvin, involved in election, and divine foreknowledge and foreordination were taken to be identical. Calvin's mode of defining predestination was as the eternal decree of God, by which He has decided with Himself what is to become of each and every individual. For all, he maintains, are not created in like condition; but eternal life ordained for some, eternal condemnation for others. Calvin confesses that this is a "horrible decree," and it is not surprising to find competent theologians in our time denying such a form of predestinarianism any place in the teachings of Paul, who never speaks of reprobation.
(2) Theology Advanced by Calvin.
It is generally overlooked, however, that theological advance registered by Calvin is to be seen by study of the views of the Middle Ages, and on to the Reformation, not by viewing Calvinism in our post-Reformation lights. It was love--"the fatherly love of God," as he terms it--the efficiency of saving love--which Calvin insisted upon, above all, in his teaching about God. But Calvin also heightened men's ideas as to the certitude of personal salvation. It is but fair to Calvin to remember--for superficial acquaintance with his teachings is far from rare--that he, in the strongest manner, maintained divine sovereignty to be that of divine wisdom, righteousness, and love, and expressly rejected the notion of absolute power as, in this connection, a heathenish idea. The Calvinistic doctrine was not absolute, but mediated in Christ, and conditioned upon faith.
8. Predestination in Lutheranism:
Luther and the Lutheran church at first shared the doctrine of predestination and election, Luther in his treatment of free will reproducing the Augustinian form of the doctrine in a strict manner. The predestination of Luther and Melanchthon proceeded, not from their conception of God, but rather from the doctrine of sin and grace. Melanchthon was less disposed than Luther to press the doctrine of absolute predestination, and, in his "synergistic" tendencies, laid increasing stress on human freedom, until he at length rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination. He was blamed by strict Lutheranism for yielding too much to Pelagianism. But the Lutheran "Formula of Concord," prepared in 1577, was not a very logical and consistent presentation of the case, for, opposed at points to Augustinianism, it fell back, in the end, on election in the Augustinian spirit. Or, to put the matter in another form, the "Formula of Concord" may be said to have held with Augustinianism, but to have differed by maintaining a Universal call along witha particular election, and it rejected the decree of reprobation. Later Lutheranism adopted a moderate form of doctrine, wherein predestination was often identified with prescience. But Lutheranism ought not, in strictness, to be identified, as is sometimes done, with the Arminian theory. The Lutheran doctrine of predestination was further developed by Schleiermacher, who emphasized the efficiency of grace, while adopting its universality in the Lutheran sense.
Arminianism, in its earliest assertion, maintained simply universal grace and conditional election. But in the five articles it formulated its opposition to Calvinism, although Arminius does not appear to have been more than moderately Calvinistic, as we would account it. Arminius gave grace supreme place, and made it, when welcome, pass into saving grace. He made election depend on faith, which latter is the condition of universal grace. Arminianism rejects the so-called common grace of the predestination theory, and its effectual grace for the elect, for, in the Arminian view, saving grace can in no case be missed save by resistance or neglect. Arminianism holds the awakened human will to cooperate with divine grace, in such wise that it rests with the human will whether the divine grace is really accepted or rejected. It is the claim of Arminianism to do more justice than Calvinism to faith and repentance, as conditions of personal salvation, and precedent thereto. The Arminian standpoint admits the foreknowledge of God, but denies foreordination, though it must seem difficult to reduce the foreknowledge of God to such a bare knowledge of the future. But it is, of course, freely to be granted that foreknowledge in God, simply as knowledge, does not carry any causal energy or efficiency with it. But it may still be doubted whether the prescience of God can be nothing more fruitful and creative than such a position implies, and whether its relation to predestination may not be a more necessary one. The theory seems to fail of giving satisfactory account of the divine activity in its relation to human activity, in the sphere of grace. The shortcoming of Arminianism lies in its failing also to do justice to the spirit of Scripture with its emphatic assertion of the doctrine of God as the one absolute will, which, in its expression, is the sole originative power of the universe.
See also PROVIDENCE .
10. Wesleyanism on Predestination:
Wesleyanism, or Methodist Arminianism, maintains, like Calvinism, the will of God to be supreme. But it distinguishes between the desires and the determinations of God. It takes divine foreknowledge to precede the divine volitions. It makes God's prescience purely intuitional, and regards that which He knows as nowise necessitated by such knowledge, a conception of God which differentiates the Wesleyan type of thought from Calvinism. God is held to have left events in the moral sphere contingent, in an important sense, upon the human will. Hence, human probation is based upon this position, as to man's free choice. Influence of God upon man's will is postulated, for its right guidance and direction, but not in any coercive sense, as Augustinianism seems to Wesleyanism to imply. Thus, it is hoped to preserve just balance, and maintain proper responsibility, between the divine and the human factors in this spiritual cooperation.
When we come to the present needs and values of the predestination doctrine, we have to remark the primal need of a thoroughly ethicized conception of God. The past few decades have witnessed a lessened interest in this doctrine, largely because of the increasingly ethical conceptions of Deity.
11. Present Needs and Values of the Doctrine:
That is to say, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God's will has ceased to be taken, as often in the older presentations, as mere almightiness, or arbitrary and resistless will. Calvin expressly taught that no cause or ground but God's unconditioned will was to be sought; but he feebly tried to save divine will from sheer omnipotence by saying that God is law to Himself; and the notion of sovereignty continued to be presented in ways quite absolute and irresponsible. But God we now regard as the absolute and eternal reason, no less than the supreme will, and as both of these in the one indivisible and absolute personality. We have passed from an abstract predestinationism to maintain God in living and ethical relations to the world and to man. Such an ethical sovereignty we hold to be necessary, over against that lax humanitarian spirit, which, in its recoil from the older Calvinism, invests the Deity with no greater powers of moral determination than may be implied in His love, when viewed as a mere golden haze of good will.
See ELECTION ;FOREORDAIN .
LITERATURE.
The relative works of Augustine, Aquinas, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, Arminius, Wesley, Rothe, Dorner, Luthardt; W. Cunningham, The Reformers, and the Theology of the Reformation, 1862; James Orr, article "Calvinism," in Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; and the various Histories of Christian Doctrine.
James Lindsay
pre-em'-i-nens: Superiority, especially in noble or excellent qualities. The word stands for: (1) mothar, "what is over and above," "excellence"; "Man hath no preeminence above the beasts" (Eccl 3:19); (2) proteuo, "to be first"; "That in all things he (= Christ) might have the preeminence" (Col 1:18); (3) ho philoproteuon, is translated "who loveth to have the preeminence," literally "who loveth to be first" (of Diotrephes, 3 Jn 1:9).
pre-fur': Does not always have the general meaning "to choose before another." In Ps 137:6, it does have this sense and the two versions agree; in Est 2:9, the Revised Version (British and American) has "removed" where the King James Version has "preferred"; in Dan 6:3, "distinguished" takes its place; in Jn 1:15,30, "become" is substituted for "preferred"; in 1:27, "preferred" drops out entirely; in Rom 12:10, the versions agree.
prep-a-ra'-shun: The concordances indicate that the word "preparation" occurs only twice in the Old Testament, once in 1 Ch 22:5, where it is used in the ordinary sense "to make preparation," and once in Nah 2:3, "in the day of his preparation," both of them translating the same Hebrew root and requiring no special elucidation. In Eph 6:15 the apostle speaks of the equipment of the Christian as including the "feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace," which means, according to Thayer, "with the promptitude and alacrity which the gospel produces."
The word occurs with technical significance ("the Preparation") in the gospel narratives of the crucifixion, translating the Greek paraskeue (Mt 27:62; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:14,31,42). It is used as a technical term indicating the day of the preparation for the Sabbath, that is, the evening of Friday. This is its use in Josephus, Ant, XVI, vi, 2, and presumably in the Synoptics. Later its use seems to have been extended to denote regularly the 6th day (Friday) of each week. So in the Didache, viii and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, vii.
The addition of the phrase tou pascha, "of the passover," in Jn 19:14, and of the phrase "for the day of that sabbath was a high day," in 19:31, seems to indicate that the author of the Fourth Gospel regarded the Passover as occurring on the Sabbath in the year of the crucifixion. This is clearly the natural interpretation of the words of John's Gospel, and if it were not for the seeming contradiction to the narrative of the Synoptics it is very doubtful whether any other interpretation would ever have been put upon them. This question is discussed in the articles on the date of the crucifixion and the Lord's Supper, and it will be necessary only to allude to it here.
It is possible that the phrase the "Preparation of the passover" in Jn 19:14 may mean it was the preparation day (Friday) of the Passover week (see Andrews, Life of our Lord, 451 ff; and most recently Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 1908, 637 ff). This method of harmonizing seems to the present writer to be forced, and it therefore seems wiser to give to the words of Jn 19:14 their natural interpretation, and to maintain that, according to the author of the Fourth Gospel, the Passover had not been celebrated at the time of the crucifixion. There seems to be reason to believe that the ordinary view that the Lord's Supper was instituted in connection with the Passover, based upon the narrative in Mark (14:12 ff), does not have the unanimous support of the Synoptic Gospels.
LITERATURE.
In addition to references in the body of the article, the commentaries, especially Plummer, Cambridge Bible, "St. John," Appendix A; Allen, ICC, "St. Matthew," 270-74; Godet, Commentary on the New Testament; Gospel of John, English translation, New York, 1886, II, 378, 379; and the significant articles on the interpretation of Lk 22:15,16 by Burkitt and Brooke, Journal of Theological Studies, IX, 569 ff, and by Box, ib, X, 106.
Walter R. Betteridge
prez'-bi-ter, pres'-bi-ter, prez'-bi-ter-i, pres'-bi-ter-i (presbuteros, presbuterion):
1. Words Used in the New Testament:
This latter word occurs in the New Testament once (1 Tim 4:14), so rendered in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American). But the original Greek occurs also in Lk 22:66, in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "the assembly of the elders," in the King James Version simply "the elders"; and in Acts 22:5, translated in English Versions of the Bible "the estate of the elders"; in both of which occurrences the word might more accurately be translated "the presbytery," just as it is in 1 Tim 4:14. Besides these three occurrences of the neuter singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders," is often used to indicate the same organization or court as the former, being applied earlier in New Testament history to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Mt 27:1; 28:12; Lk 9:22; Acts 4:5,8), and later in the development of the church to its governing body, either in general (Acts 15:2,4,6,22 f), or locally (Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17; Tit 1:5, etc.). It is sometimes used of the body, or succession, of religious teachers and leaders of the nation's past (Mt 15:2; Heb 11:2). The word "presbyter" has been contracted by later ecclesiastical usage into the title "priest," although in the New Testament they are by no means identical, but on the contrary are often explicitly distinguished (Mk 14:43; Acts 23:14).
2. Based on the Synagogue Plan:
The local synagogue of the Jewish church was under the care and control of a body of representative men called "the elders" (Lk 7:3). Naturally the Christian church, beginning at Jerusalem and formed on the lines of the synagogue, took over the eldership into its own organization (Acts 11:30; 15:2; 1 Pet 5:1, etc.); so also in all the cities in which the missionary activities of the apostles made church organization necessary, the local synagogues readily suggested and supplied a feasible plan for such organization (Acts 14:23; Tit 1:5). The mother-church at Jerusalem, formed after the pattern of the synagogue, might well have offered to the churches formed elsewhere under apostolic preaching the only conceivable plan. We do not know from the New Testament passages how these elders were selected; we must infer that they were elected by the membership of the churches, as under the synagogue plan; they were then installed into their office by apostles (Acts 14:23), or by apostolic helpers (Tit 1:5), or by "the presbytery" (1 Tim 4:14), or by both together (2 Tim 1:6; compare 1 Tim 4:14). So early as the Pauline letters the office of presbyter seems already to have borne the distinction of two functions: teaching and ruling (1 Tim 5:17; compare Acts 20:17,28; 1 Thess 5:12,13; 1 Pet 5:2).
3. Principle Found in the New Testament:
In the New Testament history and epistles it does not appear that the various churches of a district were already organized into an ecclesiastical body known as "the presbytery," having some basis of representation from the constituent churches. But the absence of such mention is far from being final proof that such district organizations did not exist; little dependence can be placed on mere negative arguments. Moreover, the council of apostles and elders in Jerusalem, to which Paul and Barnabas appealed (Acts 15), is positive evidence of the principle of representation and central authority. The various district organizations would quickly follow as administrative and judicial needs demanded; such development came early in the growth of the church, so early that it is unmistakably present in the post-apostolic age.
In Revelation the 24 elders occupy a conspicuous place in the ideal church (Rev 4:4,10; 5:6, etc.), sitting for those they represent, as an exalted presbytery, close to the throne of the Eternal One. "The four and twenty elders occupying thrones (not seats) around the throne are to be regarded as representatives of the glorified church; and the number, twice twelve, seems to be obtained by combining the number of the patriarchs of the Old Testament with that of the apostles of the New Testament" (Milligan on Rev 4:4 in the Expositor's Bible).
4. In the Presbyterian Church:
Presbytery is the court, or representative body, in the Presbyterian Church next above the Session of the local church. The Session is composed of the ruling elders, elected by the membership of a particular church, with the minister as moderator or presiding officer. The Presbytery is composed of all the ordained ministers, or teaching elders, and one ruling elder from the Session of each church in a given district or community. To it now, as in New Testament times (1 Tim 4:14), is committed the power of ordination; as also of installation and removal of ministers. It has supervision of the affairs which are general to the churches in its jurisdiction, and the power of review in all matters concerning the local churches (see Form of Government, Presbyterian Church in U.S.A., chapter x). The Presbytery elects the representatives composing the General Assembly, which is the highest court of the Presbyterian Church.
In ecclesiastical architecture the presbytery is that part of the church structure which is set apart for the clergy, usually the space between altar and apse; sometimes used of the whole choir space, but ordinarily the word is more restricted in its meaning.
See further,BISHOP ;CHURCH ;ELDER ;GOVERNMENT .
Edward Mack
prez'-ens: In the Old Testament nearly always the rendition of panim, "face" (Gen 3:8; Ex 33:14 f; Ps 95:2; Isa 63:9, etc.); occasionally of `ayin, "eye" (Gen 23:11; Dt 25:9; Jer 28:1,11, etc.); and in 1 Ki 8:22; Prov 14:7, "the presence of" represents the preposition neghedh, "before"; compare also Aramaic qodham, in Dan 2:27 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "before"). In Greek, "presence" has an exact equivalent in parousia, but this word is rendered "presence" only in 2 Cor 10:10; Phil 2:12; the Revised Version (British and American); Phil 1:26 (the King James Version "coming"). Elsewhere parousia is rendered "coming," but always with "presence" in the margin. Otherwise in the New Testament "presence" represents no particular word but is introduced where it seems to suit the context (compare e.g. Acts 3:13 the King James Version and Acts 3:19).
See PAROUSIA .
Burton Scott Easton
prez'-ent.
See GIFT .
prez'-ent-li: The strict meaning is of course "at the present moment," "instantly," and the modern force "after a short interval" is due simply to the procrastinating habits of mankind; hence, the Revised Version (British and American) modifications of the King James Version use of the word into "immediately" (Mt 21:19), "even now" (Mt 26:53), and "forthwith" (Phil 2:23). In Prov 12:16, the uncertainty of the meaning (margin "openly," Hebrew "in the day") has led to the retention of the King James Version word.
prez'-i-dent (carakh): Used only in Dan 6:2-7. Probably a Persian derivative from sar, "head," and the Aramaic equivalent for Hebrew shoter. The meaning is self-evident and refers to the appointment of Daniel by Darius to be one of the three princes who had rule over the satraps of the empire.
pres: As a verb is used in the Revised Version (British and American) as a translation of no less than 13 Greek and Hebrew words (rather more in the King James Version). All the Revised Version (British and American) uses are modern. In the King James Version may be noted The Wisdom of Solomon 17:11, "pressed with conscience" (the Revised Version (British and American) "pressed hard by"); 2 Macc 14:9, "pressed on every side" (the Revised Version (British and American) "surrounded by foes"); Acts 18:5, "pressed in the spirit" (the Revised Version (British and American) "constrained by"). As a noun, the King James Version uses "press" in Mk 2:4 for ochlos, "crowd" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). For wine press See VINE ;WINE .
pres'-fat (Hag 2:16 in the King James Version, the English Revised Version "winefat," the American Standard Revised Version "winevat").
See WINE .
PRESUME; PRESUMPTUOUS; PRESUMPTUOUSLY
pre-zum', pre-zump'-tu-us, pre-zump'-tu-us-li: "To presume" ("to take or go beforehand") is to speak or act without warrant or proudly. In the Old Testament the words are for the most part the translation of zudh, and zidh, "to boil up" (as water), and derivatives; hence, to act proudly, to speak unauthorizedly, etc. (Dt 18:20,22, of the prophet; Ex 21:14; Dt 1:43; 17:12,13; Ps 19:13, "presumptuous sins" (zedh, "proud"); compare Ps 86:14; 119:21, etc.; Prov 21:24, etc.). Other words are male', "to fill," "to be full" (Est 7:5, "presume"); `aphal, "to lift oneself up" (Nu 14:44); beyadh ramah, "with a high hand" (Nu 15:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "with a high hand"); in 2 Pet 2:10 tolmetes, "bold," "daring," is translated "presumptuous," the Revised Version (British and American) "daring"; in 2 Macc 3:24; 5:15 we have katatolmao; thrasus, is rendered "presumption" in 2 Macc 5:18, the Revised Version (British and American) "daring deed."
W. L. Walker
pre-vent' (qadham; prophthano, phthano): "Prevent" occurs in the King James Version in the literal but obsolete sense of "to come or go before," "to anticipate," not in the sense of "to hinder." It is the translation of qadham, "to be sharp," "to be in front," "to be beforehand" (2 Sam 22:6,19, the Revised Version (British and American) "came upon" Job 3:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "receive"; 30:27, "are come upon"; 41:11, "first given"; Ps 18:5,18, "came upon"; 21:3, the American Standard Revised Version "meetest"; 59:10, the American Standard Revised Version "meet"; 79:8, the American Standard Revised Version "meet"; 88:13, "come before"; 119:147,148, the American Standard Revised Version "anticipated"; Isa 21:14, "did meet"; Am 9:10, the American Standard Revised Version "meet"). In the New Testament prophthano, with same meaning, is translated "prevent" (Mt 17:25, "Jesus prevented him," the Revised Version (British and American) "spake first to him"); phthano (1 Thess 4:15, "shall not prevent," the Revised Version (British and American) "shall in no wise precede"). "Prevent" in the above sense occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 6:13, the Revised Version (British and American) "forestalleth" (phthano); 16:28, "we must prevent the sun to give thee thanks," the Revised Version (British and American) "rise before."
W. L. Walker
pra (baz, Tereph, shalal): "Prey" is frequent in the Old Testament, chiefly as the translation of baz, "spoil," "plunder" (Nu 14:3,11; Dt 1:39; Isa 10:6, etc.); of Tereph, "prey of wild beasts," "torn thing" (Gen 49:9; Nu 23:24; Job 4:11, etc.); of malqoah, "a taking" (Nu 31:11, etc.; Isa 49:24,25); of shalal, "spoil" or "booty" (Jdg 5:30 twice; 8:24,25; Isa 10:2, etc.). Maher-shalal-chash-baz (the Revised Version margin "The spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth") was the symbolical name given to a son of Isaiah (Isa 8:1,3). "Prey" does not occur in the New Testament, but is found in the Apoc: 1 Esdras 8:77, "for our sins .... were given up .... for a prey" (pronome); Judith 9:4; 16:5; 1 Macc 7:47; Ecclesiasticus 27:10 (thera); Judith 5:24 (katabroma).
In the Revised Version (British and American) shalal is generally translated "spoil" (Jdg 5:30; 8:24,25; Isa 10:2, etc.), while, conversely, "prey" (noun and verb) is occasionally substituted for "spoil," "booty" (Nu 31:32, ere).
W. L. Walker
pris: Represents various words in the Old Testament; time, is the usual Greek word for "price" in the New Testament. "Of great price" is polutimos, in Mt 13:46, and poluteles, in 1 Pet 3:4. The verb occurs in Zec 11:13 the King James Version and the English Revised Version as "prised." The spelling "prized" in the American Standard Revised Version and some editions of the King James Version is due to a confusion with "prize." For "price of a dog" (Dt 23:18 the King James Version) See DOG .
prik: As a noun (= any slender pointed thing, a thorn, a sting) it translates two words: (1) sekh, a "thorn" or "prickle." Only in Nu 33:55, "those that ye let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes," i.e. "shall be a source of painful trouble to you." (2) kentron "an iron goad" for urging on oxen and other beasts of burden: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (the King James Version of Acts 9:5, where the Revised Version (British and American) omits the whole phrase, following the best manuscripts, including Codices Sinaiticus, A, B, C, E; the King James Version of Acts 26:14, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "goad," margin "Greek: `goads' "), i.e. to offer vain and perilous resistance. See GOAD . As a verb (= "to pierce with something sharply pointed," "to sting"), it occurs once in its literal sense: "a pricking brier" (Ezek 28:24); and twice in a figurative sense: "I was pricked in my heart" (Ps 73:21); "They were pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37, katanusso, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) compungo; compare English word "compunction").
D. Miall Edwards
prest (kohen, "priest," "prince," "minister"; hiereus archiereus; for hiereus megas, of Heb 10:21, see Thayer's Lexicon, under the word hiereus:
I. NATURE OF THE PRIESTLY OFFICE
II. THE TWO GREAT PRIESTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, MELCHIZEDEK AND AARON
III. PRIESTLY FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTER
3. The High Priest's Qualifications
IV. CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS (EXODUS 29; LEVITICUS 8)
LITERATURE
A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar, and who acts as mediator between men and God. In the New Testament the term is applied to priests of the Gentiles (Acts 14:13), to those of the Jews (Mt 8:4), to Christ (Heb 5:5,6), and to Christians (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6). The office of priest in Israel was of supreme importance and of high rank. The high priest stood next the monarch in influence and dignity. Aaron, the head of the priestly order, was closely associated with the great lawgiver, Moses, and shared with him in the government and guidance of the nation. It was in virtue of the priestly functions that the chosen people were brought into near relations with God and kept therein. Through the ministrations of the priesthood the people of Israel were instructed in the doctrine of sin and its expiation, in forgiveness and worship. In short, the priest was the indispensable source of religious knowledge for the people, and the channel through which spiritual life was communicated.
I. Nature of the Priestly Office.
The Scriptures furnish information touching this point. To them we at once turn. Priesthood implies choice. Not only was the office of divine institution, but the priest himself was divinely-appointed thereto. "For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God. .... And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron" (Heb 5:1,4). The priest was not elected by the people, much less was he self-appointed. Divine selection severed him from those for whom he was to act. Even our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, came not into the world unsent. He received His commission and His authority from the fountain of all sovereignty. At the opening of His earthly ministry He said, "He anointed me. .... He hath sent me" (Lk 4:18). He came bearing heavenly credentials.
It implies the principle of representation. The institution of the office was God's gracious provision for a people at a distance from Him, who needed one to appear in the divine presence in their behalf. The high priest was to act for men in things pertaining to God, "to make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb 2:17). He was the mediator who ministered for the guilty. "The high priest represented the whole people. All Israelites were reckoned as being in him. The prerogative held by him belonged to the whole of them (Ex 19:6), but on this account it was transferred to him because it was impossible that all Israelites should keep themselves holy as became the priests of Yahweh" (Vitringa). That the high priest did represent the whole congregation appears, first, from his bearing the tribal names on his shoulders in the onyx stones, and, second, in the tribal names engraved in the twelve gems of the breastplate. The divine explanation of this double representation of Israel in the dress of the high priest is, he "shall bear their names before Yahweh upon his two shoulders for a memorial" (Ex 28:12,19). Moreover, his committing heinous sin involved the people in his guilt: "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people" (Lev 4:3). The Septuagint reads, "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to make the people sin." The anointed priest, of course, is the high priest. When he sinned the people sinned. His official action was reckoned as their action. The whole nation shared in the trespass of their representative. The converse appears to be just as true. What he did in his official capacity, as prescribed by the Lord, was reckoned as done by the whole congregation: "Every high priest .... is appointed for men" (Heb 5:1).
3. Implies Offering Sacrifice:
It implies the offering of sacrifice. Nothing is clearer in Scripture than this priestly function. It was the chief duty of a priest to reconcile men to God by making atonement for their sins; and this he effected by means of sacrifice, blood-shedding (Heb 5:1; 8:3). He would be no priest who should have nothing to offer. It was the high priest who carried the blood of the sin offering into the Most Holy Place and who sprinkled it seven times on and before the mercy-seat, thus symbolically covering the sins of the people from the eyes of the Lord who dwelt between the cherubim (Ps 80:1). It was he also who marked the same blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering in the Court of the Tabernacle, and on those of the golden altar, that the red sign of propitiation might thus be lifted up in the sight of Yahweh, the righteous Judge and Redeemer.
It implies intercession. In the priestly ministry of Aaron and his sons this function is not so expressly set forth as are some of their other duties, but it is certainly included. For intercession is grounded in atonement. There can be no effective advocacy on behalf of the guilty until their guilt is righteously expiated. The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy-seat served to cover the guilt from the face of God, and at the same time it was an appeal to Him to pardon and accept His people. So we read that after Aaron had sprinkled the blood he came forth from the sanctuary and blessed Israel (Lev 9:22-24; Nu 6:22-27).
II. The Two Great Priests of the Old Testament, Melchizedek and Aaron:
These were Melchizedek and Aaron. No others that ever bore the name or discharged the office rank with these, save, of course, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom they were distinguished types. Of the two, Melchizedek was the greater. There are two reasons why they are to be considered chiefs: first, because they are first in their respective orders. Melchizedek was not only the head of his order, but he had no successor. The office began and terminated with him (Heb 7:3). The ordinary priests and the Levites depended for their official existence on Aaron. Apart from him they would not be priests. Second, the priesthood of Christ was typified by both. The office is summed up and completed in Him. They were called and consecrated that they might be prophecies of Him who was to come and in whom all priesthood and offering and intercession would find its ample fulfillment. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the priesthood of both these men is combined and consummated in Christ. But let it be noted that while He is of the order of Melchizedek He exercises the office after the pattern of Aaron. He perfects all that Aaron did typically, because He is the true and the real Priest, while Aaron is but a figure.
III. Priestly Functions and Character.
1. A Strictly Religious Order:
These are minutely prescribed in the Law. #In the institution of the office the Lord's words to Moses were, "Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office" (Ex 28:1 the King James Version). Their duties were strictly religious. They had no political power conferred upon them. Their services, their dependent position, and the way in which they were sustained, i.e. by the free gifts of the people, precluded them from exercising any undue influence in the affairs of the nation. It is true that in process of time the high office degenerated, and became a thing of barter and sale in the hands of unscrupulous and corrupt men, but as originally appointed the priesthood in Israel was not a caste, nor a hierarchy, nor a political factor, but a divinely-appointed medium of communication between God and the people.
The Hebrew priests in no wise interfered with the conscience of men. The Hebrew worshipper of his own free will laid his hand on the head of his sacrifice, and confessed his sins to God alone. His conscience was quite free and untrammeled.
3. The High Priest's Qualifications:
There were certain duties which were peculiar to the high priest. He alone could wear the "garments for glory and for beauty." To him alone it pertained to enter the Most Holy Place and to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering on the mercy-seat. To him alone it pertained to represent the congregation before the Lord as mediator, and to receive the divine communications. He was to be ceremonially pure and holy. He must be physically perfect. Any defect or deformity disqualified a member of the priestly family from performing the duties of the office (Lev 21:17-21). The Law spoke with the utmost precision as to the domestic relations of the high priest. He could marry neither a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor one polluted, nor a harlot; only a virgin of his own people, a Hebrew of pure extraction, could become his wife (Lev 21:14,15). Nor was he to come in contact with death. He must not rend his clothes, nor defile himself, even for his father or his mother (Lev 21:10,11). His sons might defile themselves for their kin, but the high priest must not. For he was the representative of life. Death did not exist for him, in so far as he was a priest. God is the Ever-Living, the Life-Giving; and His priest, who had "the crown of the anointing oil of his God upon him," had to do with life alone.
Adolph Saphir believes there is deep significance in the miracle of Aaron's rod that budded and bare almonds (Nu 17). It was a visible sign of the legitimacy of Aaron's priesthood and a confirmation of it, and a symbol of its vitality and fruitfulness. The twelve rods of the tribes were dead sticks of wood, and remained dead; Aaron's alone had life and produced blossoms and fruit. It was the emblem of his office which correlated itself with life, and had nothing to do with death.
IV. Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (Exodus 29; Leviticus 8).
The process of the consecration is minutely described and is worthy of a more detailed and careful study than can here be given it. Only the more prominent features are noticed.
(1) Both the high priest and his sons were together washed with water (Ex 29:4). But when this was done, the high priest parted company with his sons. (2) Next, Aaron was arrayed in the holy and beautiful garments, with the breastplate over his heart, and the holy crown on his head, the mitre, or turban, with its golden plate bearing the significant inscription, "Holy to Yahweh." This was Aaron's investiture of the high office. (3) He was then anointed with the precious oil. It is noteworthy that Moses poured the oil on his head. When he anointed the tabernacle and its furniture he sprinkled the oil, but in Aaron's case there was a profusion, an abundance in the anointing (Ps 133:2). (4) After the anointing of the high priest the appointed sacrifices were offered (Ex 29:10 ff). Up to this point in the ceremony Aaron was the principal figure, the sons having no part save in the bathing. But after the offerings had been made the sons became prominent participants in the ceremonies, sharing equally with the high priest therein.
(5) The blood of the offering was applied to the person of father and sons alike (Ex 29:20,21). On the tip of the right ear, on the thumb of the right hand, and on the great toe of the right foot was the consecrating blood-mark set.
The significance of this action should not escape the reader. The whole person and career of the priest were thus brought under power of the blood. He had a blood-stained ear that he might hear and obey the divine injunctions, that he might understand the word of Yahweh and interpret it to the people. His will was brought into subjection to the will of His Lord that he might be a faithful minister in things pertaining to God. He had a blood-stained hand that he might execute, rightly and efficiently, the services of the sanctuary and the duties of his great office. He had likewise a blood-stained foot that he might walk in the statutes and commandments of the Lord blameless, and tread the courts of the Lord's house as the obedient servant of the Most High. Sacrificial blood, the blood of atonement, is here, as everywhere else, the foundation for saints and sinners, for priests and ministers alike, in all their relations with God.
The priests of Israel were but dim shadows, obscure sketches and drafts of the one Great Priest of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Without drawing out at length the parallelism between the type and the archetype, we may sum up in a few brief sentences the perfection found in the priestly character of Christ: (1) Christ as Priest is appointed of God (Heb 5:5). (2) He is consecrated with an oath (Heb 7:20-22). (3) He is sinless (Heb 7:26). (4) His priesthood is unchangeable (Heb 7:23,24). (5) His offering is perfect and final (Heb 9:25-28; 10:12). (6) His intercession is all-prevailing (Heb 7:25). (7) As God and man in one Person He is a perfect Mediator (Heb 1; 2).
See CHRIST ,OFFICES OF , sec. V.
LITERATURE.
Smith, DB; HDB; P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, II; Soltau, Exposition of the Tabernacle; the Priestly Garments and the Priesthood; Martin, Atonement; A.B. Davidson, Hebrews; Moorehead, Mosaic Institutions.
William G. Moorehead
See CHRIST ,OFFICES OF .
(ha-kohen, ho hiereus; ha-kohen ha-mashiach, ho hiereus ho christos; ha-kohen ha-gadhol, ho hiereus ho megas; kohen ha-ro'sh, ho hiereus hegoumenos; New Testament archiereus):
I. INSTITUTION OF THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD
4. The Duties of High-Priesthood
II. HISTORY OF THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD IN ISRAEL
LITERATURE
I. Institution of the High-Priesthood.
Temples with an elaborate ritual, a priesthood and a high priest were familiar to Moses. For a millennium or two before his time these had flourished in Egypt. Each temple had its priest or priests, the larger temples and centers having a high priest. For centuries the high priest of Amon at Thebes stood next to the king in power and influence. Many other high-priesthoods of less importance existed. Moses' father-in-law was priest of Midian, doubtless the chief or high priest. In founding a nation and establishing an ecclesiastical system, nothing would be more natural and proper for him than to institute a priestly system with a high priest at the head. The records give a fairly full account of the institution of the high-priesthood.
Aaron, the brother of Moses, was chosen first to fill the office. He was called "the priest" (ha-kohen) (Ex 31:10). As the office was to be hereditary and to be preserved in perpetuity in the family of Aaron (Ex 29:9,29), he is succeeded by his son Eleazar (Nu 20:28; Dt 10:6), and he in turn by his son Phinehas (Nu 25:11). In his time the succession was fixed (Nu 25:12,13). In Lev 4:3,5,16; 6:22 he is called "the anointed priest." Three times in the Pentateuch he is spoken of as "great priest" or "high priest" (Lev 21:10; Nu 35:25,28). The first of these passages identifies him with the anointed priest.
The ceremonies by which he was installed in his office are recorded in Ex 29:29 ff. Seven days of special solemnities were spent. The first consecration was by Moses; it is not said who performed the others. There was special washing and anointing with oil (Ps 133:2). Each new high priest must wear the holy garments, as well as be specially anointed (Lev 21:10). Every day a bullock for a sin offering must be offered for atonement; the altar also must be cleansed, atoned for, and anointed, the high priest offering a sacrifice or minchah for himself (Lev 6:24 ff).
Besides the regularly prescribed dress of the priests, the high priest must wear the robe of the ephod, the ephod, the breastplate and the mitre or head-dress (Lev 8:7-9). The robe of the ephod seems to have been a sleeveless tunic, made of blue, fringed with alternate bells and pomegranates (Ex 28:31-35; 39:22-26). The ephod seemed to be a variegated dress of the four colors of the sanctuary, blue, purple, scarlet and fine linen interwoven with gold (Ex 28:6-8; 39:2-5). This distinguishing ephod of the high priest was fastened at the shoulders by two clasps of shoham stone, upon each of which was engraved the names of six tribes of Israel (Ex 28:9-14; 39:6,7). Over the ephod and upon his breast he wore the breastplate, a four-cornered choshen suspended by little chains. Set in this in four rows were twelve precious stones, having engraved upon them the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. This breastplate must have contained a pocket of some kind inside, for in it were deposited the Urim and Thummim, which seemed to be tangible objects of some kind (Ex 28:15-30; 39:8-21). The mitre or head-dress was of fine linen, the plate of the crown of pure gold, and inscribed upon it the words, "Holy to Yahweh" (Ex 28:36-38; 39:30,31). When entering the Holy of Holies he must be dressed wholly in linen, but in his ordinary duties in the dress of the priests; only when acting as high priest he must wear his special robes.
See PRIEST .
4. The Duties of the High-Priesthood:
In addition to his regular duties as a priest, the high priest was to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3,15,33,34). He must also officiate at the ceremony of the two goats, when one is sent into the wilderness to Azazel, and the other slain to make atonement for the sanctuary (Ex 30:10; Lev 16:8-10). He alone could make atonement for the sins of the people, the priests and his own house (Lev 4:3 ff; 9:8 ff; 16:6; Nu 15:25). He must offer the regular meal offering (Lev 6:14,15). He must share with the priests in the caring for the lamp that burned continually (Ex 27:21), He must assist in arranging the shewbread (Ex 25:30). When he carried the breastplate with the names of the tribes inscribed thereon he acted as mediator between Israel and God (Ex 28:29). He alone could consult the Urim and Thummim before Yahweh, and according to his decision Israel must obey (Nu 27:21).
An office so important required certain special regulations. He must be free from every bodily defect (Lev 21:16-23). He must marry only a virgin of Israel, not a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor a profane one (Lev 21:14). He must not observe the external signs of mourning for any person, and not leave the sanctuary when news came of the death of even a father or mother (Lev 21:10-12). He must not defile himself by contact with any dead body, even father or mother (Lev 21:11); and is forbidden to let his hair grow long or rend his clothes as a sign of mourning (Lev 21:10). If he should bring guilt upon the people, he must present a special offering (Lev 4:3 ff). Sins affecting the priesthood in general must be expiated by the other priests as well as himself (Nu 18:1). He must eat nothing that died of itself or was torn by beasts (Lev 22:8). He must wash his feet and hands when he went to the tabernacle of the congregation and when he came near to the altar to minister (Ex 30:19-21). At first Aaron was to burn incense on the golden altar every morning when he dressed the lamps and every evening when he lighted them (Ex 27:21), but in later times the common priests performed this duty. He must abstain from holy things during his uncleanness (Lev 22:1-3), or if he should become leprous (Lev 22:4,7). He was to eat the people's meat offering with the inferior priests in the holy place (Lev 6:16). He must assist in judging the leprosy in the human body and garments (Lev 13:2-59), and in adjudicating legal questions (Dt 17:12). When there was no divinely-inspired leader, the high priest was the chief ruler till the time of David and again after the captivity.
See PRIEST ;PRIESTHOOD .
The emoluments were not much greater than those of the priests in general. He received no more inheritance among the tribes than any other Levite, but he and his family were maintained upon certain fees, dues and perquisites which they enjoyed from the common fund. In Nu 18:28 the priests were to receive a tithe of the tithe paid in to the Levites. Josephus says this was a common fund (Ant., IV, iv, 4), but the high priest was probably charged with the duty of distributing it. In general the family of the high priest was well-to-do, and in the later period became very wealthy. The high priest and his family were among the richest people of the land in the time of Christ, making enormous profits out of the sacrifices and temple business.
The importance of the high priest's office was manifest from the first. The high priest Eleazar is named in the first rank with Joshua, the prince of the tribes and successor of Moses (Nu 34:17 f; Josh 14:1). He with others officiated in the distribution of the spoils of the Midianites (Nu 31:21,26). His sins were regarded as belonging to the people (Lev 4:3,12). He acted with Moses in important matters (Nu 26:1; 31:29). The whole congregation must go or come according to his word (Nu 27:20 ff). His death was a national event, for then the manslayer was free to leave the City of Refuge (Nu 35:25,28). He had no secular authority, but was regarded generally as the leading religious authority. Later, he became also the leading secular as well as religious authority.