International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

TR

trak-o-ni'-tis: Appears in Scripture only in the phrase tes Itouraias kai Trachbnitidos choras, literally, "of the Iturean and Trachonian region" (Lk 3:1). Trachonitis signifies the land associated with the trachon, "a rugged stony tract." There are two volcanic districts South and East of Damascus, to which the Greeks applied this name: that to the Northwest of the mountain of Bashan (Jebel ed-Druze) is now called el-Leja', "the refuge" or "asylum." It lies in the midst of an arable and pastoral country; and although it could never have supported a large population, it has probably always been inhabited. The other is away to the Northeast of the mountain, and is called in Arabic es-Safa. This covers much the larger area. It is a wild and inhospitable desert tract, remote from the dwellings of men. It was well known to the ancients; but there was nothing to attract even a sparse population to its dark and forbidding rocks, burning under the suns of the wilderness. It therefore plays no part in the history. These are the two Trachons of Strabo (xvi.2, 20). They are entirely volcanic in origin, consisting of lava belched forth by volcanoes that have been extinct for ages. In cooling, the lava has split up and crumbled into the most weird and fantastic forms. The average elevation of these districts above the surrounding country is about 30 ft. Es-Safa is quite waterless. There are springs around the border of el-Leja', but in the interior, water-supply depends entirely upon cisterns. Certain great hollows in the rocks also form natural reservoirs, in which the rain water is preserved through the summer months.

El-Leja' is roughly triangular in shape, with its apex to the North. The sides are about 25 miles in length, and the base about 20. The present writer has described this region as he saw it during two somewhat lengthened visits: From Zor`a our course lay Northeast by East .... What a wild solitude it is! Far on every hand stretched a veritable land of stone. The first hour or two of our march no living thing was seen. .... Wherever we looked, before or behind, lay wide fields of volcanic rock, black and repulsive, .... with here and there a deep circular depression, through which in the dim past red destruction belched forth, now carefully walled round the lip to prevent wandering sheep or goat from falling in by night. The general impression conveyed was as if the dark waters of a great sea, lashed to fury by a storm, had been suddenly petrified. .... At times we passed over vast sheets of lava which in cooling had cracked in nearly regular lines, and which, broken through in parts, appeared to rest on a stratum of different character, like pieces of cyclopaean pavement. Curious rounded rocks were occasionally seen by the wayside, like gigantic black soap bubbles blown up by the subterranean steam and gases of the active volcanic age; often, with the side broken out as if burst by escaping vapor, the mass, having cooled too far to collapse, remained an enduring monument of the force that formed it. Scanty vegetation peeped from the fissures in the rocks, or preserved a precarious existence in the scanty soil sometimes seen in a hollow between opposing slopes. In a dreary waterless land where the cloudless sun, beating down on fiery stones, creates a heat like that of an oven, it were indeed a wonder if anything less hardy than the ubiquitous thistle could long hold up its head. .... When the traveler has fairly penetrated the rough barriers that surround eI-Leja' he finds not a little pleasant land within--fertile soil which, if only freed a little from overlying stones, might support a moderate population. In ancient times it was partly cleared, and the work of the old-world agriculturists remains in gigantic banks of stones built along the edges of the patches they cultivated" (Arab and Druze at Home, 30 ff).

In some parts, especially those occupied by the Druzes, fair crops are grown. Where the Arabs are masters, poverty reigns. They also have an evil reputation. As one said to the present writer, "They will even slay the guest." 'Arab el-Leja' anjas ma yakun is a common saying, which may be freely rendered: "Than the Arabs of el-Leja' greater rascals do not exist." Until comparatively recent years there were great breadths of oak and terebinth. These have disappeared, largely owing to the enterprise of the charcoal burners. The region to the Northeast was described by a native as bass wa`r, "nothing but barren rocky tracts" (compare Hebrew ya`ar), over which in summer, he said, not even a bird would fly. There are many ruined sites. A list of 71 names collected by the present writer will be found in PEFS, 1895, 366 ff. In many cases the houses, strongly built of stone, are still practically complete, after centuries of desertion.

There may possibly be a reference to the Trachons in the Old Testament where Jeremiah speaks of the charerim, "parched places" (17:6). The cognate el-Charrah is the word used by the Arabs for such a burned, rocky area. For theory that el-Leja' corresponds to the Old Testament "Argob," See ARGOB .

The robbers who infested the place, making use of the numerous caves, were routed out by Herod the Great (Ant., XV, x, 1 ff; XVI, ix, 1; XVII, ii, 1 f). Trachonitis was included in the tetrarchy of Philip (viii, 1; ix, 4). At his death without heirs it was joined to the province of Syria (XVIII, iv, 6). Caligula gave it to Agrippa I. After his death in 44 AD, and during the minority of his son, it was administered by Roman officers. From 53 till 100 AD it was ruled by Agrippa II. In 106 AD it was incorporated in the new province of Arabia. Under the Romans the district enjoyed a period of great prosperity, to which the Greek inscriptions amply testify. To this time belong practically all the remains to be seen today. The theaters, temples, public buildings and great roads speak of a high civilization. That Christianity also made its way into these fastnesses is vouched for by the ruins of churches. Evil days came with the advent of the Moslems. Small Christian communities are still found at Khabab on the western Luchf, and at Sur in the interior. The southeastern district, with the chief town of Damet el-'Alia, is in the hands of the Druzes; the rest is dominated by the Arabs.

W. Ewing

TRADE

trad:

I. GENERAL

1. Terms

2. Position of Palestine

3. Trade Products of Palestine

4. Palestinian Traders

5. The Exile and After

LITERATURE

I. General.

1. Terms:

For a full list of the commercial terms used in the Old Testament, reference must be made to EB, IV, cols. 5193-99. Only the more important can be given here.

For "merchant" the Hebrew uses almost always one of the two participial forms cocher, or rokhel, both of which mean simply "one who travels." There is no difference in their meaning, but when the two are used together (Ezek 27:13 ff) the Revised Version (British and American) distinguishes by using "trafficker" for rokhel. The verb cachar, from which cocher is derived, is translated "to trade" in Gen 34:10,21 and "to traffic" in Gen 49:34, with numerous noun formations from the same stem. The verb rakhal from which rokhel is derived does not occur, but the noun formation rekhullah in Ezek 26:12 (the Revised Version (British and American) "merchandise"); 28:5,16,18 (the Revised Version (British and American) "traffic") may be noted. In Ezek 27:24 the Revised Version (British and American) has "merchandise" for markoleth, but the word means "place of merchandise," "market." The participle tarim, from tur, "seek out," in combination with 'aneshe, "men," in 1 Ki 10:15, is translated "merchant men" by the King James Version, "chapmen" by the English Revised Version and "traders" by the American Standard Revised Version; in 2 Ch 9:14, the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "chapmen" and the American Standard Revised Version "traders." The text of these verses is suspected. In Ezek 27 (only) "merchandise" represents ma`arabh, from `arabh, "to exchange," translated "to deal," margin "exchange," in 27:9 the American Standard Revised Version, with "dealers," margin "exchangers," in 27:27 (the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "occupy," "occupiers"). kena`an, and kena`ani "Canaanite," are sometimes used in the sense of "merchant," but it is often difficult to determine whether the literal or the transferred force is intended. Hence, all the confusion in English Versions of the Bible; in the Revised Version (British and American) note "merchant," Job 41:6; "merchant," margin "Canaanite," Prov 31:24; "trafficker," Isa 23:8; "trafficker," margin "Canaanite," Hos 12:7; "Canaan," margin "merchant people," Isa 23:11; Zeph 1:11, and compare "land of traffic," margin "land of Canaan," Ezek 17:4.

See CHAPMAN ;OCCUPY .

In Apocrypha and New Testament "merchant" is for emporos (Sirach 26:29, etc.; Mt 13:45; Rev 18:3,11,15,23). So "merchandise" is emporion, in Jn 2:16 and emporia, in Mt 22:5, while emporeuomai, is translated "make merchandise of" in 2 Pet 2:3 and "trade" in Jas 4:13 (the King James Version "buy and sell"). But "to trade" in Mt 25:16 is for ergazomai (compare Rev 18:17), and Lk 19:13 for pragmateuomai, the King James Version "occupy"; while "merchandise" in Rev 18:11,12 is for gomos, "cargo" (so the Revised Version margin; compare Acts 21:3). Worthy of note, moreover, is metabolia, "exchange" (Sirach 37:11).

2. Position of Palestine:

Any road map of the ancient world shows that Palestine, despite its lack of harbors, occupied an extremely important position as regards the trade-routes. There was no exit to the West from the great caravan center Damascus, there was virtually no exit landward from the great maritime centers Tyre and Sidon, and there was no exit to the North and Northeast from Egypt without crossing Palestine. In particular, the only good road connecting Tyre (and Sidon) with Damascus lay directly across Northern Palestine, skirting the Sea of Galilee. In consequence, foreign merchants must at all tames have been familiar figures in Palestine (Gen 37:25,28; 1 Ki 10:15; Neh 13:16; Isa 2:6; Zeph 1:11, etc.). As a corollary, tolls laid on these merchants would always have been a fruitful source of income (1 Ki 10:15; Ezek 26:2; Ezr 4:20), and naturally Palestine enjoyed particular advantages for the distribution of her own products through the presence of these traders.

3. Trade Products of Palestine:

Of these products the three great staples were grain, oil and wine (Hos 2:8; Dt 7:13, etc.). The wine of Palestine, however, gained little reputation in the ancient world, and its export is mentioned only in 2 Ch 2:10,15; Ezr 3:7, while Ezek 27:18 says expressly that for good wine Tyre sent to Damascus. Grain would not be needed by Egypt, but it found a ready market in Phoenicia, both for consumption in the great cities of Tyre and Sidon and for export (1 Ki 5:11; Ezr 3:7; Ezek 27:17, etc.). A reverse dependence of Palestine on Tyre for food (Isa 23:18; compare Gen 41:57) could have occurred only under exceptional circumstances. Oil was needed by Egypt as well as by Phoenicia (Hos 12:1; Isa 57:9), but from Northern Israel was probably shipped into Egypt by way of Phoenicia. Hos 2:5,9 mentions wool and flax as products of Israel, but neither could have been important. Flax was a specialty of Egypt (Isa 19:9) and is hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, while for wool Israel had to depend largely on Moab (2 Ki 3:4; Isa 16:1). Minor products that were exported were "balm .... honey, spicery and myrrh, pistachio-nuts and almonds" (Gen 43:11 margin; see the separate articles, and compare "pannag and .... balm" in Ezek 27:17). These were products of Gilead (Gen 37:25). "Oaks of Bashan" had commercial value, but only for use for oars (Ezek 27:5), and so in small logs. Palestine had to import all heavy timbers (1 Ki 5:6, etc.). Despite Dt 8:9, Palestine is deficient in mineral wealth. The value of Pal's manufactured products would depend on the skill of the inhabitants, but for the arts the Hebrews seem to have had no particular aptitude (1 Ki 5:6; compare 1 Sam 13:19 ff).

4. Palestinian Traders:

In comparison with the great volume of international trade that was constantly passing across Palestine, the above products could have had no very great value and the great merchants would normally have been foreigners. A wide activity as "middlemen" and agents was, however, open to the inhabitants of Palestine, if they cared to use it. Such a profession would demand close contact with the surrounding nations and freedom from religious scruples. The Canaanites evidently excelled in commercial pursuits of this time, so much so that "Canaanite" and "merchant" were convertible terms.

II. History.

1. To David:

The Israelites entered Canaan as a nomadic people who had even agriculture yet to learn, and with a religious self-consciousness that restrained them from too close relations with their neighbors. Hence, they were debarred from much participation in trade. The legislation of the Pentateuch (in sharp distinction from that of Code of Hammurabi) shows this non-commercial spirit very clearly, as there are no provisions that relate to merchants beyond such elementary matters as the prohibition of false weights, etc. (Dt 25:13; Lev 19:36; Covenant Code has not even these rules). In particular, the prohibition of interest (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19, etc.) shows that no native commercial life was contemplated, for, without a credit-system, trade on any extensive scale was impossible. All this was to be left to foreigners (Dt 23:20; compare 15:6; 28:12,44). The Jewish ideal, indeed, was that each household should form a self-sufficient producing unit (Prov 31:10-27), with local or national exchange of those commodities (such as tools and salt) that could not be produced at home. And this ideal seems to have been maintained tolerably well. The most northerly tribes, through their proximity to the Phoenicians, were those first affected by the commercial spirit, and in particular the isolated half-tribe of Dan. In Jdg 5:17 we find them "remaining in ships" at the time of Barak's victory. As their territory had no seacoast, this must mean that they were gaining funds by serving in the ships of Tyre and Sidon. Zebulun and Issachar, likewise, appear in Dt 33:19 as the merchants of Israel, apparently selling their wares chiefly at the time of the great religious assemblages. But the disorders at the time of the Judges were an effectual bar against much commerce. Saul at length succeeded in producing some kind of order, and we hear that he had brought in a prosperity that showed itself in richer garments and golden ornaments for the women (2 Sam 1:24; See MONEY ). David's own establishment of an official shekel (2 Sam 14:26) is proof that trade was becoming a matter of importance.

2. Solomon:

Under Solomon, however, Israel's real trade began. The writer of Ki lays special stress on his imports. From Tyre came timber (1 Ki 5:6, etc.) and gold (1 Ki 9:11). From Sheba came gold and spices (1 Ki 10:10, "gave" here, like "presents" elsewhere, is a euphemism). From Ophir and elsewhere came gold, silver, precious stones, almug trees, ivory, apes and peacocks (1 Ki 10:11,22,25). According to Massoretic Text 1 Ki 10:28 f, horses and chariots were brought from Egypt and re-sold to the North.

But the text here is suspected. Egypt had no reputation as a horse-mart in comparison with Northern Syria and Western Armenia (See TOGARMAH ). So many scholars prefer to read "Musri" (in Northwestern Arabia) for "Egypt" (mtsr for mtsrym--see the comms., especially EB, III, cols. 3162-63). Yet the change does not clear up all the difficulties, and Egypt was certainly famous for her chariots. And compare Dt 17:16.

In exchange Solomon exported to Tyre wheat and oil (1 Ki 5:11; 2 Ch 2:10,15 adds "barley .... and wine"). What he sent to the other countries is not specified, and, in particular, there is no mention of what he exchanged for gold. 1 Ki 5:11; 9:11, however, indicate that Hiram was the intermediary for most of this gold traffic, so that at the final settlement of accounts Solomon must have been heavily in Hiram's debt. 1 Ki 9:11 proves this. Solomon had undertaken a larger task than the resources of Palestine could meet, and in payment was obliged to cede Northern Galilee to Hiram. (The writer of 1 Kings explains that `the cities were worthless,' while Chronicles passes over the unedifying incident altogether, if 2 Ch 8:2 is not a reversal of the case.)

3. Maritime Trade:

Among Solomon's other activities sea-commerce was not forgotten. David's victory over Edom gave access to the Red Sea at Eziongeber, and this port was utilized by Hiram and Solomon in partnership (1 Ki 9:26 ff), Hiram, apparently, supplying the ships and the sailors (1 Ki 10:11). After Solomon's death, Edom revolted and the way to the sea was closed (1 Ki 11:14). It was not recovered until the time of Jehoshaphat, and he could do nothing with it, "for the ships were broken at Eziongeber" (1 Ki 22:48), i.e. in the home harbor. Either they were badly built or incompetently manned. The Hebrews had no skill as sailors.

See SHIPS AND BOATS .

4. To the Exile:

After the time of Solomon the commerce established by him of course continued, with fluctuations. Samaria became so important a city from the trade standpoint that Ben-hadad I forced Baasha to assign a street there to the merchants of Damascus, while Ahab succeeded in extracting the reverse privilege from Ben-hadad II (1 Ki 20:34). The long and prosperous contemporary reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah evidently had great importance for the growth of commerce, and it was the growing luxury of the land under these reigns that called forth the denunciations of Amos, Hosea and Isaiah. Amos complains of the importation of expensive foreign luxuries by the rich (compare Isa 3:18-23), who wasted the natural products of Palestine (Isa 6:3-6; 3:12,15). Grain, the chief article of value, was extorted from the poor (Isa 5:11), and the grain-dealers were notoriously dishonest (Isa 8:4-6); Isa 8:6c in English Versions of the Bible suggests the sale of adulterated grain. The meaning of the Hebrew, however, is obscure, but of course adulteration must have existed, and it is doubtless not without significance that the labels on the recently discovered Samaritan jar-fragments emphasize the purity of the contents (Harvard Theological Review, 1911, 138-39). The extent of commercialism so overwhelms Hosea that he exclaims `Ephraim is become a Canaanite!' (12:7 margin). The most unscrupulous dealing is justified by the plea, "Surely I am become rich" (12:8). Isaiah is shocked at the intimate contracts made with foreigners, which prove so profitable to the makers, but which bring in idolatry (2:6-8). It was in the time of Isaiah that Assyrian influence began to make itself felt in Judah, and the setting up in the Temple of a pattern of an Assyrian altar (2 Ki 16:10 f) must have been accompanied with an influx of Assyrian commodities of all descriptions. (Similarly, the religious reaction under Hezekiah would have been accompanied by a boycott on Assyrian goods.) Data for the following pre-exilic period are scanty, but Ezek 26:2 shows that Jerusalem retained a position of some commercial importance up to the time of her fall. Of especial interest are Isa 23 and Ezek 26; 27 with their descriptions of the commerce of Tyre. Ezekiel indeed confines himself to description, but Isaiah characterizes the income of all this trade as "the hire of a harlot" (23:17,18), a phrase that reappears in Rev 18:3,9--a chapter couched in the genuine old prophetic tone and based almost exclusively on Isaiah and Ezekiel. But it is important to note that Isaiah realizes (23:18) that all this enterprise is capable of consecration to Yahweh and is therefore not wrong in itself.

5. The Exile and After:

The deportation into Babylon brought the Jews directly into the midst of a highly developed commercial civilization, and, although we are ignorant of the details, they must have entered into this life to a very considerable extent. Indeed, it is more than probable that it was here that the famed commercial genius of the Jews made its appearance. Certain it is that exiles acquired great wealth and rose to high position (Zec 6:10 f; Neh 1:11; 5:17, etc.), and that when an opportunity to return to Palestine was opened, most of the exiles preferred to stay where they were (See EXILE ). As a matter of fact, the Palestinian community was beggarly poor for years (Zec 8:10; Hag 1:6; Neh 1:3; Mal 3:10-12, etc.) and could not even prevent the sale of its children into slavery (Joel 3:6). Such trade as existed was chiefly in the hands of foreigners (Joel 3:17; Zec 14:21), but the repeated crop-failures must have forced many Jews into commerce to keep from starving. The history of the 4th century is very obscure, but for the later commercial history of the Jews the foundation of Alexandria (332 BC) was a fact of fundamental importance. For Alexandria rapidly became the commercial center of the world and into it the Jews, attracted by the invitations of the Ptolemies, poured in streams. Alexandria's policy was closely copied by Antioch (on the period see Ant, XII , i, iii; compareALEXANDRIA ;ANTIOCH ), and Ant, XII , iv, shows that the ability of the Jews was duly recognized by the Gentiles. But this development was outside Palestine. Sirach does not count commerce among the list of trades in 38:24-30 (note, however, the increased importance of artisans) and his references to commerce throughout are not especially characteristic (5:8; 8:13, etc.; but see 42:7). But even the trade of Palestine must have been increasing steadily. Under the Maccabees Joppa was captured, and the opening of its port for Greek commerce is numbered among Simon's "glories" (1 Macc 14:5). The unification of the trade-world under Rome, of course, gave Palestine a share in the benefits. Herod was able to work commercial miracles (Ant., XV, vi, 7; viii, 1; ix, 2; xi, 1; XVI, v, 3, etc.), and the Palestine of the New Testament is a commercial rather than an agricultural nation. Christ's parables touch almost every side of commercial life and present even the pearl merchant as a not unfamiliar figure (Mt 13:45). Into the ethics of commerce, however, He entered little. Sharp dealings were everywhere (Mk 12:40; Lk 16:1-12, etc.), and the service of Mammon, which had pushed its way even into the temple (Mk 11:15-17 and parallel's), was utterly incompatible with the service of God (Mt 6:19-34, etc.). In themselves, however the things of Caesar and the things of God (Mk 12:17 and parallel's) belong to different spheres, and with financial questions pure and simple He refused to interfere (Lk 12:13 f). For further details and for the (not very elaborate) teaching of the apostles See ETHICS .

LITERATURE.

The appropriate sections in the HA's and Biblical diets., especially G. A. Smith's indispensable article "Trade" in EB, IV, cols. 5145-99 (1903); for the later period, GJV4, II, 67-82 (1907), III, 97-102 (1909). Compare also Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juderi des Alterthums2 (1894).

Burton Scott Easton

TRADES

tradz.

See CRAFTS .

TRADITION

tra-dish'-un: The Greek word is paradosis, "a giving over," either by word of mouth or in writing; then that which is given over, i.e. tradition, the teaching that is handed down from one to another. The word does not occur in the Hebrew Old Testament (except in Jer 39 (32):4; 41 (34):2, used in another sense), or in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha (except in 2 Esdras 7:26, used in a different sense), but is found 13 times in the New Testament (Mt 15:2,3,6; Mk 7:3,5,8,9,13; 1 Cor 11:2; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).

1. Meaning in Jewish Theology:

The term in the New Testament has apparently three meanings. It means, in Jewish theology, the oral teachings of the elders (distinguished ancestors from Moses on) which were reverenced by the late Jews equally with the written teachings of the Old Testament, and were regarded by them as equally authoritative on matters of belief and conduct. There seem to be three classes of these oral teachings: (a) some oral laws of Moses (as they supposed) given by the great lawgiver in addition to the written laws; (b) decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters; (c) interpretations of great teachers (rabbis) which came to be prized with the same reverence as were the Old Testament Scriptures.

It was against the tradition of the elders in this first sense that Jesus spoke so pointedly to the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 15:2 f; Mk 7:3 f). The Pharisees charged Jesus with transgressing "the tradition of the elders." Jesus turned on them with the question, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" He then shows how their hollow traditionalism has fruited into mere ceremonialism and externalism (washing of hands, vessels, saying "Corban" to a suffering parent, i.e. "My property is devoted to God, and therefore I cannot use it to help you," etc.), but He taught that this view of uncleanness was essentially false, since the heart, the seat of the soul, is the source of thought, character and conduct (Mk 7:14 f).

2. As Used in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians:

The word is used by Paul when referring to his personal Christian teachings to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). In this sense the word in the singular is better translated "instruction," signifying the body of teaching delivered by the apostle to the church at Thessalonica (2 Thess 3:6). But Paul in the other two passages uses it in the plural, meaning the separate instructions which he delivered to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica.

3. As Used in Colossians:

The word is used by Paul in Col 2:8 in a sense apparently different from the two senses above. He warns his readers against the teachings of the false teachers in Colosse, which are "after the tradition of men." Olshausen, Lightfoot, Dargan, in their commentaries in the place cited., maintain that the reference is to the Judaistic character of the false teachers. This may be true, and yet we must see that the word "tradition" has a much broader meaning here than in 1 above. Besides, it is not certain that the false teachings at Colosse are essentially Jewish in character. The phrase "tradition of men" seems to emphasize merely the human, not necessarily Jewish, origin of these false teachings.

The verb paradidomi, "to give over," is also used 5 times to express the impartation of Christian instruction: Lk 1:2, where eyewitnesses are said to have handed down the things concerning Jesus; 1 Cor 11:2,23 and 15:3 referring to the apostle's personal teaching; 2 Pet 2:21, to instruction by some Christian teacher (compare 1 Pet 1:18).

LITERATURE.

Broadus, Allen, Meyer, commentaries on Mt 15:2 f; Swete, Gould, commentaries on Mk (7:3 f); Lightfoot, Meyer, commentaries on Gal 1:14; Lightfoot, Olshausen, Dargan (American Commentary), commentaries on Col 2:8; Milligan, commentary on 1 and 2 Thess (2 Thess 2:15 and 3:6); Weber, Jewish Theology (Ger., Altsyn. Theol.); Pocock, Porta Mosis, 350-402; Schurer, HJP, II, i, section 25; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, chapter xxxi; Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 6.

Charles B. Williams

TRAFFIC, TRAFFICKER

traf'-ik, traf'-ik-er (kena`-an, micchar, cachar, rekhullah): (1) Kena`an = "Canaan," and, as the Canaanites were celebrated merchants, came to mean "merchant," and so "traffic" (See CANAAN ). Ezek 17:4 refers to the great eagle who "cropped off the topmost of the young twigs (of cedar) thereof, and carried it unto a land of traffic; he set it in a city of merchants." (2) Micchar means "trade," and so "traffic"; comes from a root meaning "to travel round," e.g. as a peddler. 1 Ki 10:15 reads: "Besides that which the traders brought, and the traffic of the merchants." This refers to the income of Solomon. (3) Cachar means "to go about," "occupy with," "trade," "traffic," "merchant," and so the business of the moving merchant or peddler. Joseph said to his brothers: "So will I deliver you your brother, and ye shall traffic in the land" (Gen 42:34). He evidently meant that they should have license to become, throughout Egypt, traveling traders. (4) Rekhullah, from a root meaning "to travel for trading," and so a peddled traffic, as in spices, etc. Ezekiel speaks against the prince of Tyre: "By thy great wisdom and by thy traffic hast thou increased thy riches" (28:5); and against the king of Tyre: "in the unrighteousness of thy traffic," etc. (Ezek 28:18).

See MARKET ;MERCHANDISE ;SHIPS AND BOATS ,II , 2, (2);TRADE .

William Edward Raffety

TRAGACANTH

trag'-a-kanth: For "spicery" in Gen 37:25, the Revised Version margin gives "gum tragacanth or storax."

See SPICE ;STORAX .

TRAIN

tran (verb chanakh, "educate" (Prov 22:6), with adjective chanikh (Gen 14:14)): In 1 Ki 10:2 the Queen of Sheba's "train," the noun is chayil, the usual word for "force," "army." But in Isa 6:1 the "train" (shul, "loose hanging garment") is that of God's robe (the Revised Version margin "skirts").

TRAIN; TRAINED

tran, trand: The word is used in two places in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), namely, Gen 14:14, where it means "drilled," "prepared for war," and Prov 22:6. "Train up a child" means more than to teach, and includes everything that pertains to the proper development of the child, especially in its moral and spiritual nature. In this broader sense also the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "train" for the "teach" of the King James Version in Tit 2:4 (sophronizo).

TRANCE

trans (ekstasis): The condition expressed by this word is a mental state in which the person affected is partially or wholly unconscious of objective sensations, but intensely alive to subjective impressions which, however they may be originated, are felt as if they were revelations from without. They may take the form of visual or auditory sensations or else of impressions of taste, smell, heat or cold, and sometimes these conditions precede epileptic seizures constituting what is named the aura epileptica. The word occurs 5 times in the King James Version, twice in the story of Balaam (Nu 24:4,16), twice in the history of Peter (Acts 10:10; 11:5), and once in that of Paul (Acts 22:17). In the Balaam story the word is of the nature of a gloss rather than a translation, as the Hebrew naphal means simply "to fall down" and is translated accordingly in the Revised Version (British and American). Here Septuagint has en hupno, "in sleep" (See SLEEP ,DEEP ). In Peter's vision on the housetop at Joppa he saw the sail (othone) descending from heaven, and heard a voice. Paul's trance was also one of both sight and sound. The vision on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3-9) and that recorded in 2 Cor 12:2-4 were also cases of trance, as were the prophetic ecstasies of Saul, Daniel and Elisha, and the condition of John in which he says that he was "in the Spirit" (Rev 1:10).

The border line between trance and dream is indefinite: the former occurs while one is, in a sense, awake; the latter takes place in the passage from sleep to wakefulness. The dream as well as the vision were supposed of old to be channels of revelation (Job 33:15). In Shakespearean English, "trance" means a dream (Taming of the Shrew, I, i, 182), or simply a bewilderment (Lucrece, 1595).

In the phenomena of hypnotic suggestion, sometimes affecting a number of persons simultaneously we have conditions closely allied to trance, and doubtless some of the well-authenticated phantom appearances are similar subjective projections from the mind affecting the visual and auditory centers of the brain.

Alex. Macalister

TRANSFIGURATION

trans-fig-o-ra'-shun (metamorphoomai, "to be transformed"): Used only with reference to the transfiguration of Christ (Mt 17:2; Mk 9:2) and the change wrought in the Christian personality through fellowship with Christ (Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18).

(1) About midway of His active ministry Jesus, accompanied by Peter, James and John, withdrew to a high mountain apart (probably Mt. Hermon; see next article) for prayer. While praying Jesus was "transfigured," "his face did shine as the sun," "and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them." It was night and it was cold. The disciples were drowsy and at first but dimly conscious of the wonder in progress before their eyes. From the brightness came the sound of voices. Jesus was talking with Moses and Elijah, the subject of the discourse, as the disciples probably learned later, being of the decease (exodus) which Jesus was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. As the disciples came to themselves, the figures of Moses and Elijah seemed to withdraw, whereupon Peter impetuously demanded tents to be set up for Jesus and His heavenly visitants that the stay might be prolonged and, if possible, made permanent. Just then a cloud swept over them, and out of the cloud a voice came, saying, "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him." In awe the disciples prostrated themselves and in silence waited. Suddenly, lifting up their eyes they saw no one, save Jesus only (Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9:2-13; Lk 9:28-36).

Such is the simple record. What is its significance? The Scripture narrative offers no explanation, and indeed the event is afterward referred to only in the most general way by Peter (2 Pet 1:16-18) and, perhaps, by John (Jn 1:14). That it marked a crisis in the career of Jesus there can be no doubt. From this time He walked consciously under the shadow of the cross. A strict silence on the subject was enjoined upon the three witnesses of His transfiguration until after "the Son of man should have risen again from the dead." This means that, as not before, Jesus was made to realize the sacrificial character of His mission; was made to know for a certainty that death, soon and cruel, was to be His portion; was made to know also that His mission as the fulfillment of Law (Moses) and prophecy (Elijah) was not to be frustrated by death. In His heart now would sound forever the Father's approval, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The scene, therefore, wrought out in Jesus a new fervor, a new boldness, a new confidence of ultimate victory which, as a source of holy joy, enabled Him to endure the cross and to despise the shame (Heb 12:2). In the disciples the scene must have wrought a new faith in the heavensent leadership of Jesus. In the dark days which were soon to come upon them the memory of the brightness of that unforgettable night would be a stay and strength. There might be opposition, but there could be no permanent defeat of one whose work was ratified by Moses, by Elijah, by God Himself. Indeed, was not the presence of Moses and Elijah a pledge of immortality for all? How in the face of such evidence, real to them, however it might be to others, could they ever again doubt the triumph of life and of Him who was the Lord of life? The abiding lesson of the Transfiguration is that of the reality of the unseen world, of its nearness to us, and of the comforting and inspiring fact that "spirit with spirit may meet."

The transfigured appearance of Jesus may have owed something to the moonlight on the snow and to the drowsiness of the disciples; but no one who has ever seen the face of a saint fresh from communion with God, as in the case of Moses (Ex 34:29-35) and of Stephen (Acts 6:15), will have any difficulty in believing that the figure of Jesus was irradiated with a "light that never was on sea or land." See Comms. and Lives of Christ; also a suggestive treatment in Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.

(2) The transfiguration of Christians is accomplished by the renewing of the mind whereby, in utter abandonment to the will of God, the disciple displays the mind of Christ (Rom 12:2); and by that intimate fellowship with God, through which, as with unveiled face he beholds the glory of the Lord, he is "transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:18).

Charles M. Stuart

TRANSFIGURATION, MOUNT OF

trans-fig-u-ra'-shun (referred to as the "holy mount" in 2 Pet 1:18): Records of the Transfiguration are found in Mt 17:1 ff; Mk 9:2 ff; Lk 9:28 ff. From these narratives we gather that Jesus went with His disciples from Bethsaida to the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, where Peter's memorable confession was made. Some six or eight days later Jesus went up into a high mountain to pray, taking with Him Peter, James and John. There He was transfigured before them. Descending the next day, He healed a demoniac boy, and then passed through Galilee to Capernaum.

1. Not Olivet or Tabor:

It is quite evident that the tradition placing the scene on the Mount of Olives must be dismissed. Another tradition, dating from the 4th century, identifies the mountain with Tabor. In the article on TABOR, MOUNT, reasons are stated for rejecting this tradition. It was indeed possible in the time indicated to travel from Caesarea Philippi to Tabor; but there is nothing to show why this journey should have been undertaken; and, the mountain top being occupied by a town or village, a suitable spot could not easily have been found.

2. Mt. Hermon:

In recent years the opinion has become general that the scene must be placed somewhere on Mt. Hermon. It is near to Caesarea Philippi. It is the mountain paragraph excellence in that district (Lk 9:28). It was easily possible in the time to make the journey to Chasbeiyah and up the lofty steeps. The sacred associations of the mountain might lend it special attractions (Stanley, S and the Priestly Code (P), 399). This is supported by the transient comparison of the celestial splendor with the snow, where alone it could be seen in Palestine (ibid., 400).

It seems to have been forgotten that Mt. Hermon lay beyond the boundaries of Palestine, and that the district round its base was occupied by Gentiles (HJP, II, i, 133 f). The sacred associations of the mountain were entirely heathen, and could have lent it no fitness for the purpose of Jesus; hos chion, "as snow," in Mk 9:3, does not belong to the original text, and therefore lends no support to the identification. It was evidently in pursuance of His ordinary custom that Jesus "went up into the mountain to pray" (Lk 9:28). This is the only indication of His purpose. It is not suggested that His object was to be transfigured. "As he was praying," the glory came. There is no hint that He had crossed the border of Palestine; and it is not easy to see why in the circumstances He should have made this journey and toilsome ascent in heathen territory. Next morning as usual He went down again, and was met by a crowd that was plainly Jewish. The presence of "the scribes" is sufficient proof of this (Mk 9:14). Where was such a crowd to come from in this Gentile district? Matthew in effect says that the healing of the demoniac took place in Galilee (Mt 17:22). The case against Mt. Hermon seems not less conclusive than that against Tabor.

3. Jebel Jermuk:

The present writer has ventured to suggest an identification which at least avoids the difficulties that beset the above (Expository Times, XVIII, 333 f). Among the mountains of Upper Galilee Jebel Jermuk is especially conspicuous, its shapely form rising full 4,000 ft. above the sea. It is the highest mountain in Palestine proper, and is quite fitly described as hupselon ("high"). It stands to the West over against the Safed uplands, separated from them by a spacious valley, in the bottom of which runs the tremendous gorge, Wady Leimun. It is by far the most striking feature in all the Galilean landscape. The summit commands a magnificent view, barred only to the Southwest by other mountains of the range. It rises from the midst of a district which then supported a large population of Jews, with such important Jewish centers as Kefr Bir`im, Gishcala, Meiron, etc., around its base. Remote and lonely as it is, the summit was just such a place as Jesus might have chosen for prayer. It was comparatively easy to reach, and might be comfortably climbed in the evening. Then on His descent next day the crowd might easily assemble from the country and the villages near by. How long our Lord stayed near Caesarea Philippi after the conversation recorded in Mt 16:21 ff we do not know. From Banias to Gishcala, e.g. one could walk on foot without fatigue in a couple of days. If a little time were spent in the Jewish villages passed on the way, the six days, or Luke's "about eight days," are easily accounted for. From this place to Capernaum He would "pass through Galilee" (Mk 9:30).

W. Ewing

TRANSFORM

trans-form' (Rom 12:2; the Revised Version (British and American) 2 Cor 3:18 for metamorphoomai, and the King James Version 2 Cor 11:13,14,15 for metaschematizo, the Revised Version (British and American) "fashion"): The commentaries often explain the former word as connoting a change of nature, while the latter refers only to the appearance, but this distinction is probably fanciful.

TRANSGRESSION

trans-gresh'-un: From "transgress," to pass over or beyond; to overpass, as any rule prescribed as the limit of duty; to break or violate, as a law, civil or moral; the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command; offense; crime; sin. In the Old Testament pesha`, occurs 80 times, rendered in all versions by "transgression." Its meaning is "rebellion"; See REBELLION . The word "rebellion" differs from this word in that it may be in the heart, though no opportunity should be granted for its manifestation: "An evil man seeketh only rebellion" (Prov 17:11). Here the wise man contemplates an evil heart, looking for an excuse or opportunity to rebel.

The New Testament uses parabasis, "trespass": "The law .... was added because of transgressions" (Gal 3:19); "Where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Rom 4:15); "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant" (Heb 9:15).

David Roberts Dungan

TRANSLATION

trans-la'-shun: The verb "translate" is found once in the Old Testament (2 Sam 3:10 the King James Version, in the sense of "to transfer") and 3 times in the New Testament (Col 1:13, methistemi, where it means "to transfer"; twice in Heb 11:5, where it has the quasi-technical sense of removing one from the earthly to the heavenly state without the intervening experience of death).

The noun "translation" occurs only in Heb 11:5, metathesis, where it refers to the transition, the general nature of which has just been described in connection with the verb. With their customary reserve in regard to such matters, the Scriptures simply record the fact of Enoch's translation without commenting either upon the attendant circumstances, or upon the nature of the change involved in his experience. Doubtless what Paul says in 1 Cor 15:51,52 applied in the case of Enoch and also in that of Elijah (2 Ki 2:11).

W. M. McPheeters

TRAP

(moqesh; thera, literally, "hunting," used metaphorically in Psalms and Romans as "trap"): Any of the methods for taking birds; See SNARE ;NET ;GIN , etc. It is probable that a trap was more particularly a hole in the ground covered with twigs, concealed by leaves and baited with food. Such devices were common in taking the largest animals and may have been used with birds also. Trap is mentioned frequently in connection with snare and in such manner as to indicate that they were different devices: "Know for a certainty that Yahweh your God will no more drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap unto you" (Josh 23:13). Another such reference will be found in Ps 69:22:

"Let their table before them become a snare;

And when they are in peace, let it become a trap."

This is quoted in Rom 11:9:

"Let their table be made a snare, and a trap,

And a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them."

An instance where a trap alone is referred to can be found in Jer 5:26: "They set a trap, they catch men." Isa 42:22 uses this expression, "snared in holes." This might mean that a snare was placed in a hole, or that the hole was the snare to lure bird or animal to its death. The former proposition is sustained by Job, who says, "A noose is hid for him in the ground, and a trap for him in the way" (18:10). This translation appears as if it were reversed and should read, "A trap is hid for him in the ground and a noose in the way."

Gene Stratton-Porter

TRAVAIL

trav'-al (yaladh (Gen 35:16, etc.), chul, chil (properly "writhe," Job 15:20, etc.); odin (classical odis) (Mt 24:8, etc.), odino (Sirach 19:11, etc.; Gal 4:19, etc.)): "Travail" and its derivatives are used in the primary sense of the labor of childbirth, descriptive of the actual cases of Rachel (Gen 35:16), Tamar (Gen 38:27), Ichabod's mother (1 Sam 4:19), and the apocalyptic woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:2). In the majority of passages, however, "travail" is used figuratively, to express extreme and painful sorrow (9 times in Jeremiah), "as of a woman in travail." It is also employed in the sense of irksome and vexatious business (6 times in Ecclesiastes, where it is the rendering of the word `inyan). In the same book "travail" is used to express the toil of one's daily occupation (Ecclesiastes 4:4,6), where it is the translation of `amal. In three places (Ex 18:8; Nu 20:14; Lam 3:5) where the King James Version has "travel" the Revised Version (British and American) has changed it to "travail," as in these passages the word tela'ah refers to the sense of weariness and toil, rather than to the idea of journeying (in the King James Version the spellings "travel" and "travail" were used indiscriminately; compare Sirach 19:11; 31:5). The sorrows which are the fruits of wickedness are compared to the pain of travail in Job 15:20 (chul) and Ps 7:14 (chabhal), the word used here meaning the torture or twisting pains of labor; see also the fanciful employment of "travail" in Sirach 19:11.

In the New Testament the travail of childbirth is used as the figure of the painful and anxious struggle against the evils of the world in the soul's efforts to attain the higher ideals of the Christian life (Jn 16:21 (tikto); Rom 8:22; Gal 4:27); twice, however, it is the rendering of mochthos, the ordinary word for "toil," "hardship" or "distress" (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8).

See BIRTH ;LABOR .

Alex. Macalister

TRAVELLER

trav'-el-er: Jdg 5:6 for halakh nethibhah, "goers on paths"; 2 Sam 12:4 for helekh, literally, "a going"; Job 31:32 for 'arach, participle of a verb meaning "to wander"; Sirach 26:12; 42:3 for hodoiporos, "one making a way."

See WAYFARING MAN .

TREAD

tred.

See WINE PRESS .

TREASON

tre'-z'-n: The translation of qesher, in English Versions of the Bible 1 Ki 16:20; 2 Ki 11:14 parallel 2 Ch 23:13. Qesher (from qashar, "to bind") means "a conspiracy" (2 Sam 15:12; 2 Ki 12:20, etc.), and the translation "treason" is due to the King James Versions' love of variety.

TREASURE; TREASURER; TREASURY

trezh'-ur, trezh'-ur-er, trezh'-ur-i (otsar, genaz, genez, ganzakh, chocen matmon, mickenah, mikhman, `athudh, saphan; gaza, thesauros):

I. In the Old Testament.

1. Treasure

The English word "treasure" has in the Old Testament at least five somewhat distinct meanings as expressed in the words: "treasure," genaz (Aramaic) or genez (Hebrew), usually meaning "the thing stored"; translated "treasures" in Ezr 6:1, but in 5:17 and 7:20 translated "treasure-house": "search made in the king's treasure-house." In Est 3:9; 4:7 the Hebrew form is translated "treasury," as is ganzakh in 1 Ch 28:11.

2. Storehouse:

"Storehouse," not the thing stored but the place of storage; 'otsar means depository, cellar, garner, armory, store or treasure-house. In several places it ought to be translated by some of these words. It is the most frequent word for treasure. the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version both translate in some instances by other words, e.g. 1 Ki 7:51, "treasuries of the house of Yahweh," so also 2 Ch 5:1; "treasury" in Neh 7:70,71, "gave to the treasury a thousand darics of gold"; in Job 38:22, "treasuries of the snow" (compare Prov 8:21; Jer 10:13; 51:16; Ezr 2:69).

3. Hidden Riches:

"Treasure" or something concealed. There are 3 Hebrew words with this meaning and all in the King James Version translated "treasure." (1) Matmon, which literally means "a secret storehouse" and so a secreted valuable, usually money buried, and so hidden riches of any kind, hid treasures: "treasure in your sacks" (Gen 43:23); "dig for it more than for hid treasures" (Job 3:21); "search for her as for hid treasures" (Prov 2:4); "We have stores hidden in the field, of wheat," etc. (Jer 41:8). (2) Mikhman, treasure as hidden, used only in Dan 11:43: "have power over the treasures of gold and silver." (3) Saphan, meaning hidden treasure or valuables concealed: "hidden treasures of the sand" (Dt 33:19).

4. Strength:

Perhaps the strength of riches and so treasure, the Hebrew word being chocen, from a root meaning to hoard or lay up: "In the house of the righteous is much treasure" (Prov 15:6); "They take treasure and precious things" (Ezek 22:25).

5. Something Prepared:

"Something prepared," made ready, the Hebrew word being `athudh, meaning "prepared," "ready," therefore something of value and so treasure: "have robbed their treasures," fortifications or other things "made ready" (Isa 10:13).

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word most often translated "treasure" is 'otsar. It occurs in the sing. as follows: Dt 28:12; 1 Ch 29:8; Neh 10:38; Ps 17:14; 135:4; Prov 15:16; 21:20; Eccl 2:8; Isa 33:6; Dan 1:2; Hos 13:15; in the pl.: Dt 32:34; 1 Ki 14:26; 15:18; 2 Ki 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 20:13,15; 24:13, etc.

The same word is in the King James Version translated "treasuries" in 1 Ch 9:26; 28:12; 2 Ch 32:27; Neh 13:12,13; Ps 135:7; and "treasury" in Josh 6:19,24; Jer 38:11.

II. In the New Testament.

1. Gaza:

There are two words translated "treasure": Gaza is of Persian origin, meaning "treasure." Found only once in Acts 8:27 concerning the Ethiopian "who was over all her (Queen Candace's) treasure." In the compound gazophulakion, "guarding of gaza," the same word appears and the compound is translated "treasury" in Mk 12:41,43 parallel Lk 21:1; Jn 8:20.

See TEMPLE ;TREASURY (OF TEMPLE ).

2. Thesauros:

The word thesauros means literally, a "deposit," so wealth and treasure. Evidently throughout the New Testament it has a twofold usage as describing (1) material treasure, either money or other valuable material possession, and (2) spiritual treasure, e.g. "like unto treasure hid in a field" (Mt 13:44); "good treasure of the heart" (Mt 12:35). Other references to material treasure are Mt 6:21; 13:52; Lk 12:21,34, etc. References to spiritual treasure are Mt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 6:45; 12:33; 18:22; plural Mt 6:20; Col 2:3.

In Mt 27:6 the word for "treasury" is korbanas; compare the Revised Version margin.

See CORBAN .

TREASURER

('atsar, gedhabhar, gizbar, cakhan; oikonomos): (1) 'Atsar, meaning primarily "to store up," and hence, one who lays up in store, i.e. a "treasurer": "I made treasurers over the treasuries" (Neh 13:13). (2) Gedhabhar (Aramaic), used only in Dan 3:2,3: "treasurers," named with judges and counselors as recognized officials. (3) Gizbar, used in Ezr 7:21 (Aramaic) and equivalent in Ezr 1:8 (Hebrew): "treasurers beyond the river" and "Mithredath the treasurer." (4) Cakhan, primarily meaning "one who ministers to," and hence, a keeper of treasure, treasurer: "Get thee unto this treasurer" (Isa 22:15). Perhaps the idea of steward is here intended. (5) Oikonomos, by the King James Version translated "chamberlain," more properly in the American Standard Revised Version translated "treasurer": "Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you" (Rom 16:23).

William Edward Raffety

TREASURY, (OF TEMPLE)

trezh'-ur-i ('otsar, usually; ganzakh, 1 Ch 28:11; gazophulakion, korbanas):

1. Origin of the Treasury:

The need of a "treasury" in connection with the house of Yahweh would early be felt for the reception of the offerings of the people, of tithes, and of the spoils of war dedicated to Yahweh. Already in Josh 6:19,24, therefore, we read of a "treasury of the house of Yahweh," into which "the silver and gold, and vessels of brass and iron," taken at Jericho, were brought. In the reign of David, and in his plans for the future temple, great prominence is given to the "treasuries." In 1 Ch 26:20 ff are given the names of those who were over "the treasures of the house of God," and over "the treasures of the dedicated things" ("the spoil won in battles," 26:27), the latter being applied "to repair the house of Yahweh."

2. The Solomonic Temple:

In David's plans for Solomon the "treasuries" (ganzakkim) are mentioned with the "porch," "the houses," the "upper rooms," the "inner chambers" of the Temple (1 Ch 28:11); and the same distinction is made of "the treasuries ('otsroth) of the house of God," and "the treasuries of the dedicated things" (1 Ch 28:12). In the accounts of the actual building of the Temple, "treasuries" are not mentioned, but subsequent notices give ample evidence of their existence. In the narratives of the repeated plunderings of the Temple (See TEMPLE ), constant allusion is made to the carrying away of "the treasures of the house of Yahweh" and "the treasures of the king's house" or palace (1 Ki 14:26; 15:15,18; 2 Ki 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 24:13). In the episode of Jehoash's repair of the Temple (2 Ki 12; 2 Ch 24), we have a refreshing glimpse of the presence and uses of the treasury; but this brighter gleam is soon swallowed up again in darkness. Of the larger store-chambers we get a glance in Jeremiah, where we are told that "the house of the king" was "under the treasury" (38:11), i.e. on a lower level under the south wall.

3. The Second Temple:

The Book of Neh introduces us to treasury-chambers in the second temple--now used for the voluntary offerings (tithes) of the people--grain, and wine, and oil (Neh 13:4 ff; compare Mal 3:10). A certain Meshullam had repaired the city wall "over against his chamber" (Neh 3:30), and he, with other Levites, kept "the watch at the storehouses of the gates" (Neh 12:25). These gates were probably gates of exit on the southern side, as in the Herodian temple.

4. Herod's Temple in the New Testament:

In Herod's temple the name "treasury" was specially given to the "court of the women" (See TEMPLE ,HEROD'S ), where were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for the reception of the offerings of the worshippers. It was here that Jesus saw the poor widow cast in her two mites (Mk 12:41; Lk 21:1-4), and the court is expressly named the "treasury" in Jn 8:20: "These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple." It is a legitimate deduction that this court was the ordinary scene of the Lord's ministry when teaching in the temple.

See also TREASURE ,TREASURER ,TREASURY .

W. Shaw Caldecott

TREATY

tre'-ti (berith, karath berith, "make a covenant," "league," "treaty"): Although the Israelites were forbidden to make treaties, or enter into covenant, with the Canaanites because of the risk thereby involved of religious apostasy and moral contamination (Ex 23:32; 34:12; Dt 7:2; Jdg 2:2), they were so situated in the midst of the nations that treaty relations of some sort with their neighbors were from time to time inevitable. After the rise of the monarchy, treaties were common. David and Solomon had friendly relations with Hiram, king of Tyre (1 Ki 5:15 ff); Asa, to rid himself of the hostile approaches of Baasha, king of Israel, entered into a league with Ben-hadad of Syria, which the prophet Hanani denounced (2 Ch 16:1 ff); Ahab entered into a similar compact with Ben-hadad's son and successor, and set him at liberty when he was his prisoner of war (1 Ki 20:34); and at a later time Jehoshaphat joined Ahab in an expedition against Ben-hadad II to Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab lost his life (1 Ki 22). Sometimes with Syria and neighboring states against the terrible Assyrian power, and sometimes with Egypt against Assyria or Babylon, the kings of Israel and Judah entered into treaty to resist their advances and to preserve their own independence (2 Ki 17:4; Hos 7:11; Isa 30:1). Against such alliances the prophets raised their testimony (Isa 31:1; Jer 27:3 ff).

See also TAX ,TAXING .

Frank E. Hirsch

TRIBUTE MONEY

(to nomisma tou kensou (Mt 22:19), "the coin used in payment of the imperial taxes"): Lit. "the lawful money of the tax," which, in the case of the poll tax, had to be paid in current coin of the realm (See Mt 17:27).

TRICLINIUM

tri-klin'-ti-um (Latin from Greek triklinion, from tri and kline, "a couch"): A couch for reclining at meals among the ancient Romans, arranged along three sides of a square, the fourth side being left open for bringing in food or tables, when these were used. In the larger Roman houses the dining-rooms consisted of small alcoves in the atrium arranged to receive triclinia. In early Old Testament times people sat at their meals (Gen 27:19; Jdg 19:6; 1 Sam 20:5; 1 Ki 13:20). Reclining was a luxurious habit imported from foreign countries by the degenerate aristocracy in the days of the later prophets (Am 2:8; 6:4). Still, we find it common in New Testament times (Mt 9:10; 26:7; Mk 6:22,39; 14:3,18; Lk 5:29; 7:36,37; 14:10; 17:7; Jn 12:2; in these passages, though English Versions of the Bible read "sat," the Greek words are anakeimai, sunanakeimai, anapipto, katakeimai and anaklino, all indicating "reclining"; compare Jn 13:23; 21:20; here the King James Version translates these words "lean," probably with reference to the Jewish custom of leaning at the Passover feast). In Jn 2:8,9 the ruler or governor of the feast is called architriklinos, that is, the master of the triclinium.

See MEALS ,III .

Nathan Isaacs

TRIM

The only non-modern use is in Jer 2:33, "How trimmest thou thy way to seek love!" used for yatabh, "to make good," here "to study out," and the whole phrase means "to walk in an artificial manner," "like a courtesan."

TRINE IMMERSION; TRIUNE IMMERSION

trin tri'-un i-mur'-shun:

I. LINGUISTIC BASIS

1. Immersion

2. Triple Action

II. DOCTRINAL ARGUMENT

III. HISTORICAL PRACTICE

LITERATURE

The meaning of the word baptizo, is "to dip repeatedly," "to sub-merge" (Thayer, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). It is probably the frequentative of bapto, "to dip," meaning "to dip repeatedly." The word baptizo (and baptisma) in the New Testament is "used absolutely, `to administer the rite of ablution,' `to baptize' " (same place) . It is "an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin," etc. (same place) ; "Baptizo, to dip in or under water" (Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon).

2. Triple Action:

The threefold immersion is based upon the Trinity into which the believer is to be baptized "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (eis to onoma tou patros kal tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos, Mt 28:19). (On the genuineness of this passage see Plummer, Commentary on Matthew.)

II. Doctrinal Argument.

Whether Jesus spoke the words of Mt 28:19 as a baptismal formula or not does not affect the question. The passages in Acts, "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38; 10:48), and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16; 19:5), are not baptismal formulas, but mean the confession of Christ with all that Christ stands for, namely, the fullness of God and His salvation. The idea of the Trinity pervades the New Testament and many of the earliest writings (compare 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 2 Thess 2:13-15; Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 3:23,24; 4:2; Jude 1:20,21; Rev 1:4,5). "Baptized into Christ" has the same religious content as Mt 28:19. Triune immersion is the symbol of baptism into the Triune God. All believers in the Trinity should see the consistency of this symbol. Baptism is the symbol (1) of a complete cleansing, (2) of death, (3) of burial, (4) of resurrection, and (5) of entering into full union and fellowship with the Triune God as revealed by Christ. Triune immersion is the only symbol that symbolizes all that baptism stands for. Note the words of Sanday on Rom 6:1-14 (comm. on Rom, ICC, 153): "Baptism has a double function: (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may fitly be described as personal union with Him. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). Emergence = Resurrection. All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ." Hence, the psychological need of a true symbol, triune immersion, to teach and impress the significance of the new life.

III. Historical Practice.

1. The Jews:

The Jews received proselytes by circumcision, baptism (complete immersion) and sacrifice (Schurer, HJP, II, 2, pp. 319 f; Edersheim, LTJM, II, 745, and I, 273). John the Baptist, baptized "in the river Jordan" (Mt 3:6) and "in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (Jn 3:23).

2. John the Baptist:

Philip and the eunuch "both went down into the water" and they "came up out of the water." All New Testament baptisms were by immersion (see also Rom 6:1-11).

3. The Didache:

The Didache (100-150 AD) chapter vii: "Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm" (baptisate eis to onoma tou patos kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos en hudati zonti). "But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice (tris) upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Here the triple action is maintained throughout, even in clinical baptism, while immersion is the rule.

Justin Martyr (Apology i.61) describes baptism which can only be understood as triune immersion.

4. Justin Martyr:

Tertullian (De Corona, iii) says, "Hereupon we are thrice immersed" (dehinc ter mergitamur). Again (Ad Praxeam, xxvi), "And lastly he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into a unipersonal God.

5. Tertullian:

And indeed it is not only once but three times that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names" (nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulos, tinguimur).

6. Eunomius:

Eunomius (circa 360) introduced single immersion "into the death of Christ." This innovation was condemned. Apostolical Constitutions, 50, says, "If any presbyter or bishop does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed." Single immersion was allowed by Gregory the Great (circa 691) to the church in Spain in opposition to the Arians who used a trine (not triune) immersion (Epis., i.43). This was exceptional.

7. Greek Church:

The Greek church has always baptized by triune immersion. The historical practice of the Christian church may well be summed up in the words of Dean Stanley: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism--the very meaning of the word--was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost monstrous case. .... A few drops of water are now the western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing river or the wide baptisteries of the East" (History of Eastern Church, 28). "For the first three centuries the most universal practice of baptism was .... that those who were baptized, were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water" (Christian Institutions, p. 21).

See further,BAPTISM ;LITERATURE ,SUB-APOSTOLIC ,II , 5.

LITERATURE.

James Quinter, Triune Immersion as the Apostolic Form of Christian Baptism; C. F. Yoder, God's Means of Grace, Brethren Pub. House, Elgin, Ill., U.S.A.; Smith, Dict. of Christian Antiquities; Hastings, ERE; Bible Dicts.; Church Fathers; Church Histories, and Histories of Baptism.

Daniel Webster Kurtz

TRINITY, 1

trin'-i-ti

1. The Term "Trinity"

2. Purely a Revealed Doctrine

3. No Rational Proof of It

4. Finds Support in Reason

5. Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament

6. Prepared for in the Old Testament

7. Presupposed Rather Than Inculcated in the New Testament

8. Revealed in Manifestation of Son and Spirit

9. Implied in the Whole New Testament

10. Conditions the Whole Teaching of Jesus

11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses

12. Spirit in Johannine Discourses

13. The Baptismal Formula

14. Genuineness of Baptismal Formula

15. Paul's Trinitarianism

16. Conjunction of the Three in Paul

17. Trinitarianism of Other New Testament Writers

18. Variations in Nomenclature

19. Implications of "Son" and "Spirit"

20. The Question of Subordination

21. Witness of the Christian Consciousness

22. Formulation of the Doctrine

LITERATURE

1. The Term "Trinity":

The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

2. Purely a Revealed Doctrine:

In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the divine being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris. Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all. Sometimes, as in the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being, Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener). It is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e.g. Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo's neo-Stoical doctrine of the "powers," especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham's three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.

3. No Rational Proof of It:

As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the God head. Among these there are two which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for their very existence an object over against which the self stands as subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated, however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.

The former of them, for example, is developed by a great 17th-century theologian--Bartholomew Keckermann (1614)--as follows: God is self-conscious thought; and God's thought must have a perfect object, existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God; and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph (section 73) of Lessing's The Education of the Human Race. Must not God have an absolutely perfect representation of Himself--that is, a representation in which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that arguments like this prove too much. If God's representation of Himself, to be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses, it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the eternal objective coexistence of all that God can conceive is given in the very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must, of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God's case, would be between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis--the Holy Spirit--remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only a very artificial solution.

The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love. Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer--possibly it was Valentinus himself--who reasoned--perhaps he was the first so to reason--that "God is all love," "but love is not love unless there be an object of love." And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of "the lover," "the loved" and "the love itself," and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God's case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God's equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two divine substances, these two divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, confine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Grutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God's own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.

Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear, in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at that time, he would be twice at once: "The idea he has of himself would be himself again." This now is the case with the Divine Being. "God's idea of Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like Him in every respect. .... But that which is the express, perfect image of God and in every respect like HIm is God, to all intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity." The Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances. "The Godhead being thus begotten of God's loving (having?) an idea of Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other. .... The Deity becomes all act, the divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, namely, the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will." The inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not, therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God's perfect idea of Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there is nothing in the Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in its image of itself, it is enough to respond--except the Deity itself. What is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.

4. Finds Support in Reason:

Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is, it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and elevates all our thought of God. It has accordingly become a commonplace to say that Christian theism is the only stable theism. That is as much as to say that theism requires the enriching conception of the Trinity to give it a permanent hold upon the human mind--the mind finds it difficult to rest in the idea of an abstract unity for its God; and that the human heart cries out for the living God in whose Being there is that fullness of life for which the conception of the Trinity alone provides.

5. Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament:

So strongly is it felt in wide circles that a Trinitarian conception is essential to a worthy idea of God, that there is abroad a deep-seated unwillingness to allow that God could ever have made Himself known otherwise than as a Trinity. From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the Trinity. Accordingly, I. A. Dorner, for example, reasons thus: "If, however--and this is the faith of universal Christendom--a living idea of God must be thought in some way after a Trinitarian fashion, it must be antecedently probable that traces of the Trinity cannot be lacking in the Old Testament, since its idea of God is a living or historical one." Whether there really exist traces of the idea of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it. The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the divine name 'Elohim, the occasional employment with reference to God of plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image," Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8), or of plural verbs (Gen 20:13; 35:7), certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God (Gen 19:27; Ps 45:6,7; 110:1; Hos 1:7), threefold liturgical formulas (Dt 16:4; Nu 6:24,26; Isa 6:3), a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom (Prov 8), and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh (Gen 16:2-13; 22:11,16; 31:11,13; 48:15,16; Ex 3:2,4,5; Jdg 13:20-22). The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very "organism of revelation" in the Old Testament, in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion "that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause," both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference to the second creation. Passages like Ps 33:6; Isa 61:1; 63:9-12; Hag 2:5,6, in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought together, co-causes of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g. Gen 1:3; Ps 33:6; 107:20; 119:87; 147:15-18; Isa 55:11); and, especially in Ezekiel and the later Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e.g. Gen 1:2; Isa 48:16; 63:10; Ezek 2:2; 8:3; Zec 7:12). Suggestions--in Isaiah for instance (7:14; 9:6)--of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to. And if the occasional occurrence of plural verbs and pronouns referring to God, and the plural form of the name 'Elohim, are not insisted upon as in themselves evidence of a multiplicity in the Godhead, yet a certain weight is lent them as witnesses that "the God of revelation is no abstract unity, but the living, true God, who in the fullness of His life embraces the highest variety" (Bavinck). The upshot of it all is that it is very generally felt that, somehow, in the Old Testament development of the idea of God there is a suggestion that the Deity is not a simple monad, and that thus a preparation is made for the revelation of the Trinity yet to come. It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those connected with the descriptions of tile Angel of Yahweh, no doubt, but also even of such a form of expression as meets us in the "Let us make man in our image" of Gen 1:26--for surely 1:27: "And God created man in his own image," does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus, the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

6. Prepared for in the Old Testament:

It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being "setters forth of strange gods." To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (Jn 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Yahweh, as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Yahweh as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Yahweh as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations. Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is; and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the Old Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in their minds.

7. Presupposed Rather Than Inculcated in the New Testament:

The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that "the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture." It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already "in full completeness" (vollig fertig), leaving no trace of its growth. "There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought," says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, "than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle--and without controversy--among accepted Christian truths." The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament.

8. Revealed in Manifestation of Son and Spirit:

We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word but in deed. It was made in the incaration of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two Testaments to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it, and in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much as to say that the revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin; and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men. Those who knew God the Father, who loved them and gave His own Son to die for them; and the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved them and delivered Himself up an offering and sacrifice for them; and the Spirit of Grace, who loved them and dwelt within them a power not themselves, making for righteousness, knew the Triune God and could not think or speak of God otherwise than as triune. The doctrine of the Trinity, in other words, is simply the modification wrought in the conception of the one only God by His complete revelation of Himself in the redemptive process. It necessarily waited, therefore, upon the completion of the redemptive process for its revelation, and its revelation, as necessarily, lay complete in the redemptive process.

From this central fact we may understand more fully several circumstances connected with the revelation of the Trinity to which allusion has been made. We may from it understand, for example, why the Trinity was not revealed in the Old Testament. It may carry us a little way to remark, as it has been customary to remark since the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, that it was the task of the Old Testament revelation to fix firmly in the minds and hearts of the people of God the great fundamental truth of the unity of the Godhead; and it would have been dangerous to speak to them of the plurality within this unity until this task had been fully accomplished. The real reason for the delay in the revelation of the Trinity, however, is grounded in the secular development of the redemptive purpose of God: the times were ripe for the revelation of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead until the fullness of the time had come for God to send forth His Son unto redemption, and His Spirit unto sanctification. The revelation in word must needs wait upon the revelation in fact, to which it brings its necessary explanation, no doubt, but from which also it derives its own entire significance and value. The revelation of a Trinity in the divine unity as a mere abstract truth without relation to manifested fact, and without significance to the development of the kingdom of God, would have been foreign to the whole method of the divine procedure as it lies exposed to us in the pages of Scripture. Here the working-out of the divine purpose supplies the fundamental principle to which all else, even the progressive stages of revelation itself, is subsidiary; and advances in revelation are ever closely connected with the advancing accomplishment of the redemptive purpose. We may understand also, however, from the same central fact, why it is that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the New Testament rather in the form of allusions than in express teaching, why it is rather everywhere presupposed, coming only here and there into incidental expression, than formally inculcated. It is because the revelation, having been made in the actual occurrences of redemption, was already the common property of all Christian hearts. In speaking and writing to one another, Christians, therefore, rather spoke out of their common Trinitarian consciousness, and reminded one another of their common fund of belief, than instructed one another in what was already the common property of all. We are to look for, and we shall find, in the New Testament allusions to the Trinity, rather evidence of how the Trinity, believed in by all, was conceived by the authoritative teachers of the church, than formal attempts, on their part, by authoritative declarations, to bring the church into the understanding that God is a Trinity.

9. Implied in the Whole New Testament:

The fundamental proof that God is a Trinity is supplied thus by the fundamental revelation of the Trinity in fact: that is to say, in the incarnation of God the Son and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. In a word, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the fundamental proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is as much as to say that all the evidence of whatever kind, and from whatever source derived, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, is just so much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; and that when we go to the New Testament for evidence of the Trinity we are to seek it, not merely in the scattered allusions to the Trinity as such, numerous and instructive as they are, but primarily in the whole mass of evidence which the New Testament provides of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit. When we have said this, we have said in effect that the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity. For the New Testament is saturated with evidence of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit, Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and of the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and o