Help PreviousNext

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

SO


SO

so (co', although the Hebrew might be pointed cewe'; Assyrian Sib'u; Septuagint Segor, Soa; Manetho, Seuechos; Latin Sevechus; Herodotus (ii. 137 ff), Sabakon): In all probability the "Sabaeo" of Herodotus, the Shabaka, who founded the Ethiopian dynasty, the XXVth of Egyptian kings. His date is given as 715-707 BC (Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 281 ff), but we may suppose that before his accession to the throne he was entitled to be designated king, as being actually regent. To this So, Hoshea, king of Israel, made an appeal for assistance to enable him to throw off the yoke of the Assyrian Shalmaneser IV (2 Ki 17:3 ff). But Hoshea's submission to So brought him no advantage, for Shalmaneser came up throughout all the land and laid siege to Samaria. Not long after the fall of Samaria, So ventured upon an eastern campaign, and was defeated by Sargon, the successor of Shalmaneser, in the battle of Raphia in 720 BC.

LITERATURE.

Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 281 ff; McCurdy, HPM, I, 422; Schrader, COT, I, 261.

T. Nicol.


SOAP

sop (borith; the King James Version sope): Borith is a derivative of bor, "purity," hence, something which cleanses or makes pure. Soap in the modern sense, as referring to a salt of a fatty acid, for example, that produced by treating olive oil with caustic soda, was probably unknown in Old Testament times. Even today there are districts in the interior of Syria where soap is never used. Cooking utensils, clothes, even the body are cleansed with ashes. The ashes of the household fires are carefully saved for this purpose. The cleansing material referred to in Jer 2:22 (compare Septuagint at the place, where borith is rendered by poia = "grass") and Mal 3:2 was probably the vegetable lye called in Arabic el qali (the origin of English alkali). This material, which is a mixture of crude sodium and potassium carbonates, is sold in the market in the form of grayish lumps. It is produced by burning the desert plants and adding enough water to the ashes to agglomerate them. Before the discovery of Leblanc's process large quantities of qali were exported from Syria to Europe.

For washing clothes the women sprinkle the powdered qali over the wet garments and then place them on a flat stone and pound them with a wooden paddle. For washing the body, oil is first smeared over the skin and then qali rubbed on and the whole slimy mixture rinsed off with water. Qali was also used in ancient times as a flux in refining precious metals (compare Mal 3:2). At the present time many Syrian soap-makers prefer the qali to the imported caustic soda for soap-making.

In Susanna (verse 17) is a curious reference to "washing balls" (smegmata).

James A. Patch


SOBER; SOBRIETY; SOBERNESS

so'-ber, sa-bri'-e-ti, so'-ber-nes (Greek adjective sophron, and its related nouns, sophrosune, sophronismos; verbs sophroneo and sophronizo; adverb sophronos, "of sound mind," and sophronizo; "self-possessed," "without excesses of any kind," "moderate and discreet"): In Mk 5:15; Lk 8:35, "sane," said of one out of whom demons had just been cast. In the Pastoral Epistles, this virtue is especially commended to certain classes, because of extravagances characterizing particular periods of life, that had to be guarded against, namely, to aged men, with reference to the querulousness of old age (Tit 2:2); to young men, with reference to their sanguine views of life, and their tendency to disregard consequences (Tit 2:6); enjoined upon young women, with reference to extravagance in dress and speech (Tit 2:5; 1 Tim 2:9); and, in a similar manner, commended to ministers, because of the importance of their judgment and conduct, as teachers and exemplars (1 Tim 3:2). "Words of soberness" (Acts 26:25) are contrasted with the "mania," "madness," that Festus had just declared to be the explanation of Paul's eloquence (Acts 26:24).

In a few passages, the Greek verb nepho and its derivative adjective nephalios are used in the same sense. The word originally had a physical meaning, as opposed to drunkenness, and is thus used in 1 Thess 5:6,8, as the foundation of the deeper meaning. Used metaphorically also in the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter, as sometimes in the classics, for "cool," "unimpassioned." Ellicott, on 1 Tim 3:2,11, distinguishes between the two words by regarding sophron "as pointing to the outward exhibition of the inward virtue" implied in nephalios.

H. E. Jacobs


SOCHO

so'-ko: Occurs in 1 Ch 4:18, the Revised Version (British and American) "Soco."

See SOCOH .


SOCKET

sok'-et ('edhen): The tabernacle in the wilderness being constructed as a portable building without permanent foundation, its stability was attained by the use of "sockets" into which the pillars and boards forming its walls were sunk. The word therefore is used solely in relation to the tabernacle, except in one poetic passage (Song 5:15), where the legs of the beloved are compared to "pillars of marble set upon sockets of fine gold." In all, the tabernacle with its court rested upon 165 bases or sockets, apportioned thus: (1) silver sockets, each a talent (circa 95 lbs.) in weight (Ex 38:27), namely, 96 to support the 48 boards of the tabernacle (Ex 26:19 ff); 4 for the pillars supporting the veil (Ex 26:32) = 100; (2) bronze sockets, weight not given, namely, 50 to support the 50 standards on which were hung the curtains of the tabernacle on North, South and West (Ex 27:10 ff), 10 to support 10 pillars on the E. (Ex 27:13 ff), and 5 to support the 5 pillars upholding the screen at the tabernacle entrance (Ex 26:27) = 65. The site for the tabernacle being chosen and leveled, these sockets would be "laid" upon it (Ex 40:18), and the tenons of the boards, or projecting base of the pillar, inserted into holes made for the purpose.

W. Shaw Caldecott


SOCOH; SOCO

so'-ko (sokkhoh, "branches"), (sokho (in Chronicles only); Socho, most usual, but many forms in Septuagint and in the King James Version: Socoh, Shochoh, Shoco, Shocho):

(1) A city in the Shephelah of Judah mentioned along with Jarmuth, Adullam, Azekah, etc. (Josh 15:35); the Philistines "gathered together at Socoh, which belongeth to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah" (1 Sam 17:1); it is mentioned as one of the districts from which Solomon drew his supplies (1 Ki 4:10, the King James Version "Sochoh"); the association of Socoh in this verse with Hepher is worth noticing in connection with 1 Ch 4:18 ("Heber"). Soco (the King James Version "Shoco") was one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam for the defense of Judah (2 Ch 11:7); it was captured by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz (2 Ch 28:18). The site is, without doubt, Khirbet esh Shuweikeh (Shuweikeh is a diminutive of Shaukeh, "a thorn"), a rounded, elongated hilltop, showing clear traces of ancient city walls. The situation is one of considerable natural strength on the south side of the Vale of Elah just where the Wady ec Cur makes a sweep to the West and becomes the Wady es Sunt. Like so many such ancient sites, the hill has very steep slopes on 3 sides (South, West, and North), and is isolated from the ridge of higher ground to the East by a narrow neck of lower ground. In the valley to the Southwest is a plentiful spring. The site was known to Jerome in the 4th century. He described it as 8 or 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) (PEF, III, 53, 125, Sh XVII, BR, II, 21). The Sucathites (1 Ch 2:55) were probably inhabitants of Soco.

(2) A city of Judah in the South, associated (Josh 15:48) with Shamir and Jattir. This is doubtless Khirbet Shuweikeh, a large ruin occupying a low hill, 10 miles Southwest of Hebron; there are many caves and rock-cut cisterns as well as drafted stones. Cheyne doubtfully locates the Socoh of 1 Ki 4:10 here. See PEF , 404, 410, ShXXV ;B R , I, 494.

E. W. G. Masterman


SOD, SODDEN

sod'-'-n.

See SEETHE .


SODA

so'-da.

See NITRE .


SODERING

sod'-er-ing (debheq): the King James Version in Isa 41:7, the Revised Version (British and American) "soldering," of smith work.


SODI

so'-di (codhi): One of the spies, representing the tribe of Zebulun (Nu 13:10).


SODOM

sod'-um (cedhom; Sodoma) One of the 5 CITIES OF THE PLAIN (which see), destroyed by fire from heaven in the time of Abraham and Lot (Gen 19:24). The wickedness of the city became proverbial. The sin of sodomy was an offense against nature frequently connected with idolatrous practices (see Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia). See SODOMITE . The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is used as a warning to those who reject the gospel (Mt 10:15; 11:24; 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 1:7). The word is used in a typical sense in Rev 11:8. Sodom was probably located in plain South of the Dead Sea, now covered with water. The name is still preserved in Jebel Usdum (Mt. Sodom).

See ARABAH ;CITIES OF THE PLAIN ;DEAD SEA .

LITERATURE.

Dillmann. Genesis, 111 f; Robinson, BR, II, 187 ff; G. A. Smith, HGHL, 505 ff; Blanckenhorn, ZDPV, XIX, 1896, 53 ff; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine, 143; Buhl, GAP, 117, 271, 274.

George Frederick Wright


SODOM, VINE OF

(gephen cedhom):

"For their vine is of the vine of Sodom,

And of the fields of Gomorrah:

Their grapes are grapes of gall,

Their clusters are bitter" (Dt 32:32).

This must be distinguished from the "Apples of Sodom" (which see), described by Josephus (BJ, IV, viii, 4), which appear to have been an actual species of fruit, probably either the colocynth or the fruit of the Usher tree, Calotropis procera. It would appear, however, from the above, the only passage referring to the Vine of Sodom, that this expression is metaphorical and does not refer to any particular plant.

E. W. G. Masterman


SODOMITE

sod'-om-it (qadhesh, feminine qedheshah): Qadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and "consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahweh's land could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (Dt 23:17 f): The presence of Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboam's time (1 Ki 14:24). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (1 Ki 15:12), and Jehoshaphat routed them out (1 Ki 22:46). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were actually "in the house of the Lord" (2 Ki 23:7). The feminine qedheshah is translated "prostitute" in Gen 38:21,22; Hos 4:14; in Dt 23:17 "prostitute" (the King James Version margin "sodomitess," the Revised Version margin transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice.

W. Ewing


SODOMITISH; SEA

sod'-om-it-ish.

See DEAD SEA .


SODOMY

sod'-o-mi.

See SODOM ;SODOMITE ;CRIMES ;PUNISHMENTS .


SOJOURNER

soj'-er-ner, so'-jur-ner, suj'-er-ner.

See STRANGER AND SOJOURNER .


SOLDERING

sod'-er-ing.

See SODERING .


SOLDIER

sol'-jer.

See ARMY .


SOLEMN ASSEMBLY (MEETING)

See CONGREGATION ;FASTS AND FEASTS ;SOLEMN ,SOLEMNITY .


SOLEMN, SOLEMNITY

sol'-em, so-lem'-ni-ti: The word "solemn" had (1) at first the meaning "once in the year," through its derivation from Latin sollus, "whole," annus, "year." As, however, a regular annual occurrence is usually one of particular importance, the word took on (2) the meaning "ceremonious." From this is derived (3) the usual modern force of "grave" in opposition to "joyous." This last meaning is not in Biblical English, and the meanings of "solemn" in English Versions of the Bible are either (1) or (2). Nor is there any certain case of (1), for the word is always a gloss in English Versions of the Bible and, although frequently introduced in references to annual events (Lev 23:36, etc.), it is even more often used where "annual" is foreign to the passage (2 Ki 10:20; Ps 92:3, etc.). The use of the word in the King James Version is unsystematic. It is always (except in Jer 9:2) found in conjunction with "assembly" when (10 times) the latter word represents atsarah ('atsereth) (Lev 23:36, etc.) (retained by the Revised Version (British and American) with margin "closing festival," Lev 23:36; 2 Ch 7:9; Neh 8:18). the King James Version uses "solemnity" or "solemn day," "feast," etc., 17 times for the very common word mo`edh ("appointed" time, etc.).

See FEASTS .

RV's treatment of these passages defies analysis. "Solemnity" is kept in Isa 33:20; Ezek 46:11, and "solemn" in Lamentations (4 times); Hosea (3 times); Zeph 3:18. In Ezek 36:38; 45:17; 46:9 it is replaced by "appointed," elsewhere (and for mo'adhoth, 2 Ch 8:13) by "set." The margins further complicate the renderings. the King James Version also uses "solemn" with chagh, "feast," 4 times, and with chaghagh, "keep a feast," in Dt 16:15. The word is dropped by the Revised Version (British and American), except the English Revised Version in Ps 81:3. Finally, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "solemn sound" for higgayon, in Ps 92:3. The context, however, demands "resounding melody." And 11 times the Revised Version (British and American) has introduced "solemn" to represent the intensive in the form shabbath shabbathon (Ex 16:23, etc.), where the King James Version has simply "sabbath" or "sabbath of rest." the Revised Version (British and American) here has imitated the adverbial "solemnly" in the similar intensified expressions in Gen 43:3; 1 Sam 8:9.

The Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha translates en hemerais kairou, "in the days of the season" (Baruch 1:14), by "on the days of the solemn assembly" (the King James Version "solemn days"), and both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "solemn feast days" for dies festos (2 Esdras 1:31). Otherwise the King James Version's use of "solemn" is dropped by the Revised Version (British and American).

Burton Scott Easton


SOLOMON

sol'-o-mun (shelomoh; New Testament Solomon):

I. EARLY LIFE

1. Name and Meaning

2. Sources

3. Birth and Upbringing

4. His Accession

5. Closing Days of David

II. REIGN OF SOLOMON

1. His Vision

2. His Policy

3. Its Results

4. Alliance with Tyre

5. Alliance with Egypt

6. Domestic Troubles

III. HIS BUILDINGS

1. The Temple

2. The Palace

3. Other Buildings

4. The Corvee

IV. HIS CHARACTER

1. Personal Qualities

2. His Wisdom

3. His Learning

4. Trade and Commerce

5. Officers of State

6. Wives

7. Revenues

8. Literary Works

LITERATURE

I. Early Life.

Solomon was the son of David and Bath-sheba, and became the 3rd king of Israel.

1. Name and Meaning:

He was so named by his mother (2 Sam 12:24, Qere; see TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ;TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ), but by the prophet Nathan, or by his father (Vulgate), he was called Jedidiah--"loved of Yahweh." The name "Solomon" is derived from the root meaning "to be quiet" or "peaceful," and Solomon was certainly the least warlike of all the kings of Israel or Judah, and in that respect a remarkable contrast to his father (so 1 Ch 22:9). His name in Hebrew compares with Irenaeus in Greek, Friedrich in German, and Selim in Arabic; but it has been suggested that the name should be pronounced shillumah, from the word denoting "compensation," Bath-sheba's second son being given in compensation for the loss of the first (but see 3, below).

2. Sources:

The oldest sources for the biography of Solomon are doubtless the "Annals of Solomon" referred to in 1 Ki 11:41, the "history of Nathan the prophet," the "prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite" and the "visions of Iddo the seer," mentioned in 2 Ch 9:29, all which may be merely the relative sections of the great book of the "Annals of the Kings" from which our Books of Kings and Chronicles are both derived. These ancient works are, of course, lost to us save in so far as they have been embodied in the Old Testament narrative. There the life of South is contained in 2 Sam 12:24 f; 1 Ki 1 through 11; 1 Ch 22 through 2 Ch 9. Of these sources 2 Sam 12:24 f and 1 Ki 1; 2 are much the oldest and in fact form part of one document, 2 Sam 9 through 20; 1 Ki 1; 2 dealing with the domestic affairs of David, which may well be contemporary with the events it describes. The date of the composition of the Books of Chronicles is about 300 BC--700 years after the time of Solomon--and the date of the Books of Kings, as a completed work, must, of course, be later than the exile. Nothing of importance is gained from citations from early historians in Josephus and later writers. Far and away the best source for, at least, the inner life of Solomon would be the writings ascribed to him in the Old Testament, could we be sure that these were genuine (see below).

3. Birth and Upbringing:

The children of David by Bath-sheba are given in 1 Ch 3:5 as Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. Compare also 2 Sam 5:14; 1 Ch 14:4, where the same persons evidently are named. It would thus appear that Solomon was the 4th son of Bath-sheba, supposing Shimea to be the child that died. Otherwise Solomon would be the 5th son. There are therefore some events omitted in 2 Sam 12:24 f, or else the names Shobab and Nathan are remains of some clause which has been lost, and not proper names. Like the heir apparent of a Turkish sultan, Solomon seems to have spent his best years in the seclusion of the harem. There he was doubtless more influenced by his mother than by his father, and in close intimacy with his mother was the prophet Nathan, who had given him his by-name of fortunate import (2 Sam 12:25).

4. His Accession:

It was not until David lay on his deathbed that Solomon left the women's quarters and made his appearance in public. That he had been selected by David, as the son of the favorite wife, to succeed him, is pre-supposed in the instructions which he received from his father regarding the building of the Temple. But as soon as it appeared that the life of David was nearing its end, it became evident that Solomon was not to have a "walk over." He found a rival in Adonijah the son of Haggith, who was apparently the eldest surviving son of his father, and who had the support of Joab, by far the strongest man of all, of Abiathar, the leading, if not the favorite, priest (compare 2 Sam 15:24 ff), and of the princes of the royal house. Solomon, on the other hand, had the support of his mother Bath-sheba, David s favorite wife, of Nathan the court prophet, of Zadok who had eclipsed Abiathar, of Benaiah, the son of a priest, but one of the three bravest of David's soldiers, and captain of the bodyguard of Cherethites and Pelethites, and of the principal soldiers. It is especially noted that Shimei and Hushai (so Josephus) took no active part at any rate with Adonijah (1 Ki 1:8). The conspiracy came to nothing, for, before it developed, Solomon was anointed at Gibeon (not Gihon, 1 Ki 1:33,38,45), and entered Jerusalem as king.

5. Closing Days of David:

The age of Solomon at his accession is unknown. The expression in 1 Ki 3:7 is not, of course, to be taken literally (otherwise Ant, VIII, vii, 8). His reign opened, like that of many an oriental monarch, with a settlement in blood of the accounts of the previous reign. Joab, David's nephew, who had brought the house within the bounds of blood revenge, was executed. Adonijah, as soon as his father had breathed his last, was on a nominal charge put to death. Abiathar was relegated to his home at Anathoth (1 Ki 2:26). Conditions were imposed on Shimei which he failed to keep and so forfeited his life (1 Ki 2:36 ff). These steps having been taken, Solomon began his reign, as it were, with a clean slate.

II. Reign of Solomon.

1. His Vision:

It was apparently at the very beginning of his reign that Solomon made his famous choice of a "hearing heart," i.e. an obedient heart, in preference to riches or long life. The vision took place at Gibeon (2 Ch 1:7, but in 1 Ki 3:4 f the ancient versions read "upon the altar that was in Gibeon. And the Lord appeared," etc.). The life of Solomon was a curious commentary on his early resolution. One of the first acts of his reign was apparently, in the style of the true oriental monarch, to build himself a new palace, that of his father being inadequate for his requirements. In regard to politics, however, the events of Solomon's reign may be regarded as an endorsement of his choice. Under him alone was the kingdom of Israel a great world-power, fit almost to rank beside Assyria and Egypt. Never again were the bounds of Israel so wide; never again were north and south united in one great nation. There is no doubt that the credit of this result is due to the wisdom of Solomon.

2. His Policy:

Solomon was by nature an unwarlike person, and his whole policy was in the direction of peace. He disbanded the above-mentioned foreign legion, the Cherethites and Pelethites, who had done such good service as bodyguard to his father. All his officers seem to have been mediocre persons who would not be likely to force his hand, as Joab had done that of David (2 Sam 3:39). Even the fortification of Jerusalem and of the frontier towns was undertaken with a view to repel attack, not for the purposes of offense. Solomon did, no doubt, strengthen the army, especially the cavalry arm (1 Ki 4:26; 10:26), but he never made any use of this, and perhaps it existed largely on paper. At any rate Solomon seems to have been rather a breeder of and dealer in horse-flesh than a soldier. He appears also to have had a fine collection of armor (1 Ki 10:25), but much of it was made of gold (1 Ki 10:16 f) and was intended for show, not for use. Both in his reputation for wisdom and in his aversion to war Solomon bears a striking resemblance to King James VI of Scotland and I of England, as depicted by the hand of Sir Walter Scott. It was fortunate for him that both the neighboring great powers were for the time in a decadent state, otherwise the history of the kingdom of Israel would have ended almost before it had begun. On the other hand, it has been remarked that if Solomon had had anything like the military genius of David and his enthusiasm for the religion of Yahweh, he might have extended the arms of Israel from the Nile to the Tigris and anticipated the advent of Islam. But his whole idea was to secure himself in peace, to amass wealth and indulge his love of grandeur with more than oriental splendor.

3. Its Results:

Solomon, in fact, was living on the achievements and reputation of his father, who laid the basis of security and peace on which the commercial genius of Solomon could raise the magnificent structure which he did. But he took the clay from the foundations in order to build the walls. The Hebrews were a military people and in that consisted their life. Solomon withdrew their energies from their natural bent and turned them to cornmerce, for which they were not yet ripe. Their soul rebelled under the irksome drudgery of an industry of which they did not reap the fruits. Solomon had in fact reduced a free people to slavery, and concentrated the wealth of the whole country in the capital. As soon as he was out of the way, his country subjects threw off the yoke and laid claim to their ancient freedom. His son found himself left with the city and a territory as small as an English county.

4. Alliance with Tyre:

Solomon's chief ally was Hiram, the king of Tyre, probably the friend and ally of David, who is to be distinguished from Hiram the artificer of 1 Ki 7:13 ff. Hiram the king entered into a treaty with Solomon which was to the advantage of both parties. Hiram supplied Solomon with cedar and pine wood from Lebanon, as well as with skilled artisans for his building. Tyrian sailors were also drafted into the ships of Solomon, the Hebrews not being used to the sea (1 Ki 9:26 f), besides which Phoenician ships sailed along with those of Solomon. The advantages which Hiram received in return were that the Red Sea was open to his merchantmen, and he also received large supplies of corn and oil from the land of Israel (1 Ki 5:11 corrected by Septuagint and 2 Ch 2:10). At the conclusion of the building of the palace and Temple, which occupied 20 years, Solomon presented Hiram with 20 villages (1 Ki 9:11; the converse, 2 Ch 8:2), and Hiram made Solomon a return present of gold (1 Ki 9:14; omitted in 2 Chronicles).

5. Alliance with Egypt:

Second to Hiram was the Pharaoh of Egypt, whose daughter Solomon married, receiving as her dower the town of Gezer (1 Ki 9:16). This Pharaoh is not named in the Old Testament. This alliance with Egypt led to the introduction of horses into Israel (1 Ki 10:28 f), though David had already made a beginning on a small scale (2 Sam 8:4). Both these alliances lasted throughout the reign. There is no mention of an alliance with the eastern power, which was then in a decadent state.

6. Domestic Troubles:

It was probably nearer the beginning than the end of Solomon's reign that political trouble broke out within the realm. When David had annexed the territory of the Edomites at the cost of the butchery of the male population (compare 2 Sam 8:14; Ps 60, title) one of the young princes of the reigning house effected his escape, and sought and found an asylum in Egypt, where he rose to occupy a high station. No sooner had he heard of the death of David and Joab than he returned to his native country and there stirred up disaffections against Solomon (1 Ki 11:14 ff; see HADAD ), without, however, restoring independence to Edom (1 Ki 9:26). A second occasion of disaffection arose through a prophet having foretold that the successor of Solomon would have one of the Israelite tribes only and that the other ten clans would be under Solomon's master of works whom he had set over them. This officer also took refuge in Egypt and was protected by Shishak. He remained there until the death of Solomon (1 Ki 11:26 ff). A third adversary was Rezon who had fled from his master the king of Zobah (1 Ki 11:23), and who established himself at Damascus and rounded a dynasty which was long a thorn in the side of Israel. These domestic troubles are regarded as a consequence of the falling away of Solomon from the path of rectitude, but this seems to be but a kind of anticipative consequence, that is, if it was not till the end of his reign that Solomon fell into idolatry and polytheism (1 Ki 11:4).

III. His Buildings.

1. The Temple:

The great undertaking of the reign of Solomon was, of course, The TEMPLE (which see), which was at first probably considered as the Chapel Royal and an adjunct of the palace. The Temple was begun in the 4th year of the reign and finished in the 11th, the work of the building occupying 7� years (1 Ki 6; 7:13 ff). The delay in beginning is remarkable, if the material were all ready to hand (1 Ch 22). Worship there was inaugurated with fitting ceremony and prayers (1 Ki 8).

2. The Palace:

To Solomon, however, his own palace was perhaps a more interesting undertaking. It at any rate occupied more time, in fact 13 years (1 Ki 7:1-12; 9:10; 2 Ch 8:1), the time of building both palace and Temple being 20 years. Possibly the building of the palace occupied the first four years of the reign and was then intermitted and resumed after the completion of the Temple; but of this there is no indication in the text. It was called the House of the Forest of Lebanon from the fact that it was lined with cedar wood (1 Ki 7:2). A description of it is given in 1 Ki 7:1-12.

3. Other Buildings:

Solomon also rebuilt the wall of the city and the citadel (see JERUSALEM ;MILLO ). He likewise erected castles at the vulnerable points of the frontiers--Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer (1 Ki 9:15), lower Beth-horon and BAALATH (which see). According to the Qere of 1 Ki 9:18 and the ancient versions as well as 2 Ch 8:4, he was the founder of Tadmor (Palmyra); but the Kethibh of 1 Ki 9:18 reads Tamar (compare Ezek 47:19). Some of the remains of buildings recently discovered at Megiddo and Gezer may go back to the time of Solomon.

4. The Corvee:

Solomon could not have built on the scale he did with the resources ordinarily at the command of a free ruler. Accordingly we find that one of the institutions fostered by him was the corvee, or forced labor. No doubt something of the kind always had existed (Josh 9:21) and still exists in all despotic governments. Thus the people of a village will be called on to repair the neighboring roads, especially when the Pasha is making a progress in the neighborhood. But Solomon made the thing permanent and national (1 Ki 5:13-15; 9:15). The immediate purpose of the levy was to supply laborers for work in the Lebanon in connection with his building operations. Thus 30,000 men were raised and drafted, 10,000 at a time, to the Lebanon, where they remained for a month, thus having two months out of every three at home. But even when the immediate cause had ceased, the practice once introduced was kept up and it became one of the chief grievances which levi to the dismemberment of the kingdom (1 Ki 12:18, Adoram = Adoniram; compare 2 Sam 20:24), for hitherto the corvee had been confined to foreign slaves taken in war (1 Ki 9:21). It is said the higher posts were reserved for Israelites, the laborers being foreigners (1 Ki 9:22), that is, the Israelites acted as foremen. Some of the foreign slaves seem to have formed a guild in connection with the Temple which lasted down to the time of the exile (Ezr 2:55-57; Neh 7:57-59).

See NETHINIM .

IV. His Character.

1. Personal Qualities:

In Solomon we have the type of a Turkish sultan, rather than a king of Israel. The Hebrew kings, whether of Israel or Judah, were, in theory at least, elective monarchs like the kings of Poland. If one happened to be a strong ruler, he managed to establish his family it might be, for three or even four generations. In the case of the Judean dynasty the personality of the first king made such a deep impression upon the heart of the people that the question of a change of dynasty there never became pressing. But Solomon would probably have usurped the crown if he had not inherited it, and once on the throne he became a thoroughgoing despot. All political power was taken out of the hands of the sheiks, although outward respect was still paid to them (1 Ki 8:1), and placed in the hands of officers who were simply creatures of Solomon. The resources of the nation were expended, not on works of public utility, but on the personal aggrandizement of the monarch (1 Ki 10:18 ff). In the means he took to gratify his passions he showed himself to be little better than a savage and if he did not commit such great crimes as David, it was perhaps because he had no occasion, or because he employed greater cunning in working out his ends.

2. His Wisdom:

The wisdom for which Solomon is so celebrated was not of a very high order; it was nothing more than practical shrewdness, or knowledge of the world and of human nature. The common example of it is that given in 1 Ki 3:16 ff, to which there are innumerable parallels in Indian, Greek and other literatures. The same worldly wisdom lies at the back of the Book of Proverbs, and there is no reason why a collection of these should not have been made by Solomon just as it is more likely that he was a composer of verses than that he was not (1 Ki 4:32). The statement that he had breadth of heart (1 Ki 4:29) indicates that there was nothing known which did not come within his ken.

3. His Learning:

The word "wisdom," however, is used also in another connection, namely, in the sense of theoretical knowledge or book leaning, especially in the department of natural history. It is not to be supposed that Solomon had any scientific knowledge of botany or zoology, but he may have collected the facts of observation, a task in which the Oriental, who cannot generalize, excels. The wisdom and understanding (1 Ki 4:29) for which Solomon was famous would consist largely in stories about beasts and trees like the well-known Fables of Pilpai. They included also the "wisdom" for which Egypt was famous (1 Ki 4:30), that is, occult science. It results from this last statement that Solomon appears in post-Biblical and Arabian literature as a magician.

4. Trade and Commerce:

Solomon was very literally a merchant prince. He not only encouraged and protected commerce, but engaged in it himself. He was in fact the predominant, if not sole, partner in a great trading concern, which was nothing less than the Israelite nation. One of his enterprises was the horse trade with Egypt. His agents bought up horses which were again sold to the kings of the Hittites and the Arameans. The prices paid are mentioned (1 Ki 10:29). The best of these Solomon no doubt retained for his own cavalry (1 Ki 10:26). Another commodity imported from that country was linen yarn (1 Ki 10:28 the King James Version). The navy which Solomon built at the head of the Gulf of Akaba was not at all for military, but purely commercial ends. They were ships of Tarshish, that is, merchant ships, not ships to Tarshish, as 2 Ch 9:21. They traded to OPHIR (which see), from which they brought gold; silver, ivory, apes and peacocks, the round voyage lasting 3 years (1 Ki 9:26 ff; 10:22). Special mention is made of "almug" (1 Ki 10:11) or "algum" (2 Ch 9:10 f) trees (which see). The visit of the Queen of Sheba would point to the overland caravan routes from the Yemen being then open (1 Ki 10:15). What with direct imports and the result of sales, silver and cedar wood became very plentiful in the capital (1 Ki 10:27).

5. Officers of State:

The list of Solomon's officers of state is given in 1 Ki 4:2 ff. These included a priest, two secretaries, a recorder, a commander-in-chief, a chief commissariat officer, a chief shepherd (if we may read ro`eh for re'eh), a master of the household, and the head of the corvee. The list should be compared with those of David's officers (2 Sam 8:16 ff; 20:23 ff). There is much resemblance, but we can see that the machine of state was becoming more complicated. The bodyguard of foreign mercenaries was abolished and the captain Benaiah promoted to be commander-in-chief. Two scribes were required instead of one. Twelve commissariat officers were appointed whose duty it was to forward from their districts the supplies for the royal household and stables. The list of these officials, a very curious one, is given in 1 Ki 4:7 ff. It is to be noted that the 12 districts into which the country was divided did not coincide with the territories of the 12 tribes. It may be remarked that Solomon seems as far as possible to have retained the old servants of his father. It will be noticed also that in all the lists there is mention of more than one priest. These "priests" retained some of their original functions, since they acted as prognosticators and diviners.

6. Wives:

Solomon's principal wife was naturally the daughter of Pharaoh; it was for her that his palace was built (1 Ki 3:1; 7:8; 9:16,24). But in addition to her he established marriage relations with the neighboring peoples. In some cases the object was no doubt to cement an alliance, as with the Zidonians and Hittites and the other nationalities (1 Ki 11:1), some of which were forbidden to Israelites (Dt 7:3). It may be that the daughter of Pharaoh was childless or died a considerable time before Solomon, but his favorite wife was latterly a grand-daughter of Nahash, the Ammonite king (1 Ki 14:21 Septuagint), and it was her son who succeeded to the throne. Many of Solomon's wives were no doubt daughters of wealthy or powerful citizens who wished by an alliance with the king to strengthen their own positions. Yet we do not read of his marrying an Israelite wife. According to the Arabian story Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon (1 Ki 10:1 ff),. was also married to him. He appears to have had only one son; we are not told of any other than Rehoboam. His daughters were married to his own officers (1 Ki 4:11,15).

7. Revenues:

Solomon is said to have started his reign with a capital sum of 100,000 talents of gold and a million talents of silver, a sum greater than the national debt of Great Britain. Even so, this huge sum was ear-marked for the building of the Temple (1 Ch 22:14). His income was, for one year, at any rate, 666 talents of gold (1 Ki 10:14), or about twenty million dollars. This seems an immense sum, but it probably was not so much as it looks. The great mass of the people were too poor to have any commodities which they could exchange for gold. Its principal use was for the decoration of buildings. Its purchasing power was probably small, because so few could afford to buy it. It was in the same category as the precious stones which are of great rarity, but which are of no value unless there is a demand for them. In the time of Solomon there was no useful purpose to which gold could be put in preference to any other metal.

8. Literary Works:

It is not easy to believe that the age of Solomon, so glorious in other respects, had not a literature to correspond. Yet the reign of the sultan Ismail in Morocco, whom Solomon much resembles, might be cited in favor of such a supposition. Solomon himself is stated to have composed 3,000 animal stories and 1,005 songs (1 Ki 4:32). In the Old Testament the following are ascribed to him: three collections of Proverbs, 1:1 ff; 10:1 ff; 25:1 ff; The Song of Songs; Psalms 72 and 127; Ecclesiastes (although Solomon is not named). In Prov 25:1 the men of Hezekiah are said to have copied out the following proverbs.

LITERATURE.

The relative portions of the histories by Ewald, Stanley (who follows Ewald), Renan, Wellhausen and Kittel; also H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen; and the commentaries on the Books of Kings and Chronicles.

Thomas Hunter Weir


SOLOMON'S PORCH

See PORCH ,PORTICO ,SOLOMON'S .


SOLOMON'S SERVANTS

('adbhedhe shelomoh; douloi Salomon): "The children of Solomon's servants" constituted a company or guild of the Jewish exiles who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylonia to Jerusalem in 537 BC, pursuant to the decree of Cyrus; they are mentioned 5 times (Ezr 2:55,58 parallel Neh 7:57,60; Neh 11:3). As the prime purpose of the returning exiles was the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Yahweh's worship (Ezr 1:2,3), it was important that those who held the privileges of sanctuary service as a family heritage should go back to their duties. This included, besides priests and Levites, the NETHINIM (which see) and Solomon's Servants. In every reference to them, Solomon's Servants are connected with the Nethinim, who had been "given" or dedicated (nethinim or nethunim is pass. participle of nathan, "to give," "to appoint") by David "for the service of the Levites (Ezr 8:20); so Solomon's Servants traced their official beginning back to Solomon's appointment, as their name indicates. In the joint references they always fall into the natural chronological order, i.e. following the Nethinim. It is possible, therefore, that they are referred to in Ezr 7:24 also, under the title "servants of this house of God," which immediately follows "Nethinim" in the list of those exempt from taxation and tolls.

What their duties in the house of God may have been is not stated in the records. These must have been more or less menial, the more formal and honorable duties being reserved for "the priests and Levites, the singers, (and) porters" (Ezr 7:24). When the ark was brought to Jerusalem by David and the ceremonial of the sacrificial system was more strictly observed, the services of priests and Levites were greatly increased, and to meet the needs of the new order David appointed the Nethinim (Ezr 8:20; compare 1 Ch 9:2). Likewise the much greater increase in such duties on the completion of Solomon's Temple was the occasion for the dedication of an additional number of these assistants to the Levites.

The number of those who returned with Zerubbabel was not great, together with the Nethinim being only 392. This does not appear to have been sufficient for the needs of the sanctuary, since Ezra, in preparation for his expedition in 458 BC, made special appeal for Nethinim to go with him, of whom 220 responded (Ezr 8:15-20). No doubt at the first their service was considered to be lowly; but by the time of the exile, certainly after it, their position had developed into one of considerable honor and constituted them a privileged class in the nation. While many of the people were required by Nehemiah to live in Jerusalem, they were allowed to dwell in their possessions "in the cities of Judah" (Neh 11:3).

A question of some interest and of difference of opinion is whether Solomon's Servants were Levites or non-Israelites. The latter view is the more generally held, for the following reasons; (1) After the completion of the Temple and his other great buildings a large body of workmen, whom Solomon had drafted from the non-Israelite population, were without occupation, and might well have been assigned to the menial duties of the Temple (1 Ki 9), their name in Septuagint (douloi) properly indicating such a class; (2) Ezekiel excludes non-Israelites from the service of his ideal temple, as though they had been allowed in the preexilic Temple (44:9); (3) they are always clearly distinguished from the Levites in the lists of religious bodies.

But, on the other hand, equally strong arguments favor their Levitical descent: (1) Levites also are called douloi in 1 Esdras; (2) it is more probable that Ezekiel refers to the abuses of Athaliah, Ahaz and Manasseh than to the institutions of David and Solomon; (3) Ezra specifically classifies the Nethinim as Levites (8:15-20); (4) there is not the slightest intimation in the text of 1 Ki 9:15-22 that the Gentilebondservants were assigned to temple-service after completion of the great building operations; such an interpretation is wholly inferential, while, on the contrary, it is more probable that such an innovation would have been mentioned in the narrative; and (5) it is not probable that Ezra and Nehemiah, or Zerubbabel, with their strict views of Israelite privilege (compare Ezr 2:62), would have admitted non-Israelites to sacred functions, the less so in view of Ezekiel's prohibition. There is more ground, then, for holding that Solomon's Servants, like the porters and singers, were an order of Levites.

Edward Mack


SOLOMON, ODES OF

See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE , sec. B, III, 2.


SOLOMON, POOLS OF

See POOLS OF SOLOMON .


SOLOMON, PSALMS (PSALTER) OF

See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE , sec. B, III, 1.


SOLOMON, SONG OF

See SONG OF SONGS .


SOLOMON, WISDOM OF

See WISDOM OF SOLOMON .


SOMEIS

so'-me-is (Someeis; the King James Version Samis): One of the Israelites, who put away their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34) = "Shimei" in Ezr 10:38.


SOMETIME

sum'-tim: In modern English means "occasionally," and is so used in Sirach 37:14 for eniote. Otherwise the word means "at some past time," and is the translation of pote. the Revised Version (British and American) changes to "aforetime" in The Wisdom of Solomon 5:3; 1 Pet 3:20; to "once" in Eph 2:13; 5:8; to "in time past" in Col 1:21; while in Col 3:7 the English Revised Version has "aforetime," the American Standard Revised Version "once." the King James Version does not distinguish between "sometime" and "sometimes."


SON OF GOD, THE

(ho huios theou):

1. Use of Title in the Synoptists

2. Meanings in the Old Testament

3. Sense as Applied to Jesus

4. Physical Reason

5. Alleged Equivalence to "Messiah"--Personal Sense Implied

6. Higher Use by Jesus Himself

7. The "Son" in Matthew 11:27

8. The "Son" in Mark 13:32

9. The "Son" in Matthew 28:18-20

10. Apostolic Doctrine: Deity Affirmed

11. The Fourth Gospel: Deity, Preexistence, etc.

LITERATURE

1. Use of Title in the Synoptists:

While the title "the Son of man" is always, except once, applied by Jesus to Himself, "the Son of God" is never applied by Jesus to Himself in the Synoptists. When, however, it is applied to Him by others, He accepts it in such a way as to assert His claim to it. Now and then He Himself employs the abbreviated form, "the Son," with the same intention; and He often speaks of God as "the Father" or "my Father" or "my Father who is in heaven" in such a manner as to betray the consciousness that He is the Son of God.

2. Meanings in the Old Testament:

While to the common mind "the Son of man" is a title designating the human side of our Lord's person, "the Son of God" seems as obviously to indicate the divine side. But scholarship cannot take this for granted; and, indeed, it requires only a hasty glance at the facts to bring this home even to the general reader, because in Scripture the title is bestowed on a variety of persons for a variety of reasons. First, it is applied to angels, as when in Job 2:1 it is said that "the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh"; they may be so called because they are the creatures of God's hands or because, as spiritual beings, they resemble God, who is a spirit. Secondly, in Lk 3:38 it is applied to the first man; and from the parable of the Prodigal Son it may be argued that it is applicable to all men. Thirdly, it is applied to the Hebrew nation, as when, in Ex 4:22, Yahweh says to Pharaoh, "Israel is my son, my first-born," the reason being that Israel was the object of Yahweh's special love and gracious choice. Fourthly, it is applied to the kings of Israel, as representatives of the chosen nation. Thus, in 2 Sam 7:14, Yahweh says of Solomon, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son"; and, in Ps 2:7, the coronation of a king is announced in an oracle from heaven, which says, "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." Finally, in the New Testament, the title is applied to all saints, as in Jn 1:12, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name." When the title has such a range of application, it is obvious that the Divinity of Christ cannot be inferred from the mere fact that it is applied to Him.

3. Sense as Applied to Jesus:

It is natural to assume that its use in application to Jesus is derived from one or other of its Old Testament uses; and the one almost universally fixed upon by modern scholarship as that from which it was derived is the fourth mentioned above--that to the Jewish kings. Indeed, it is frequently asserted that in the Jewish literature between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it is found already coined as a title for the Messianic king; but the instances quoted by Dalman and others in proof of this are far from satisfactory.

4. Physical Reason:

When we come to examine its use in the New Testament as applied by others to Jesus, the facts are far from simple, and it is not applied in a uniform sense. In Lk 1:35, the following reason for its use is given, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God." This is a physical reason, akin to that on account of which the angels or the first man received the title; but it is rather curious that this point of view does not seem to be adopted elsewhere, unless it be in the exclamation of the centurion at the foot of the cross, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Mt 27:54). As a pagan this soldier might be thinking of Jesus as one of those heroes, born of human mothers but divine fathers, of whom the mythology of his country had so much to tell (compare the margin).

5. Alleged Equivalence to Messiah--Personal Sense Implied:

(1) Baptism, Temptation.

It has been contended, not without plausibility, that for Jesus Himself the source of the title may have been the employment of it in the voice from heaven at His Baptism, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mt 3:17). By these words, it is usually assumed, He was designated as the Messiah; but in the adjective "beloved," and the words "in whom I am well pleased," there is something personal, beyond the merely official recognition. The same may be said of the voice from heaven in the scene of the Transfiguration. Milton, in Paradise Regained, makes Satan become aware of the voice from heaven at the Baptism; but this is also implied in the terms with which he approached Him in the Temptation in the wilderness, "If thou art the Son of God" (Mt 4:3, etc.); and, if this was the sense in which the prince of devils made use of the phrase, we may conclude that in the mouths of the demoniacs who hailed Jesus by the same title it must have had the same meaning.

(2) At Caesarea Philippi.

When, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus evoked from the Twelve their great confession, this is given by two of the synoptists in the simple form, "Thou art the Christ" (Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20); but Mt adds, "the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). It is frequently said that Hebrew parallelism compels us to regard these words as a mere equivalent for "Messiah." But this is not the nature of parallelism, which generally includes in the second of the parallel terms something in excess of what is expressed in the first; it would be quite in accordance with the nature of parallelism if the second term supplied the reason for the first. That is to say, Jesus was the Messiah because He was the Son of God.

(3) Trial before Sanhedrin.

There is another passage where it is frequently contended that "the Christ" and "the Son of God" must be exactly parallel, but a close examination suggests the reverse. In the account of the ecclesiastical trial in the Gospel of Lk, He is charged, "If thou art the Christ, tell us"; and, when He replies, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God," they all say, "Art thou then the Son of God?" and, when He replies in the affirmative, they require no further witness (Lk 22:67-71), Matthew informing us that the high priest hereupon rent his garments, and they all agreed that He had spoken blasphemy and was worthy of death (Mt 26:65 f). The usual assumption is that the second question, "Art thou .... the Son of God?" implies no more than the first, `Art thou the Christ?'; but is not the scene much more intelligible if the boldness of His answer to the first question suggested that He was making a still higher claim than to be the Christ, and that their second question applied to this? It was when Jesus affirmed this also that their angry astonishment knew no bounds, and their sentence was immediate and capital. It may be questioned whether it was blasphemy merely to claim to be the Messiah; but it was rank and undeniable blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God. This recalls the statement in Jn 5:18, "The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God"; to which may be added (Jn 10:33), "The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

6. Higher Use by Jesus Himself:

Naturally it is with the words of Jesus Himself on this subject that we are most concerned. He speaks of God as His Father, and to the disciples He speaks of God as their Father; but He never speaks to them of God as their common Father: what He says is, "My Father and your Father" (Jn 20:17). H. J. Holtzmann and others have attempted to make light of this, and even to speak of the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father who art in heaven," as if Jesus might have uttered them in company with the disciples; but the distinction is a vital one, and we do not agree with those who can believe that Jesus could have uttered, for Himself along with others, the whole of the Lord's Prayer, including the petition, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."

7. The "Son" in Matthew 11:27:

Of the passages in the Synoptists where Jesus speaks about God as "the Father" and Himself as "the Son," a peculiar solemnity attaches to Mt 11:27 parallel Lk 10:22, "All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." There is a Johannine flavor in these words, and they reveal an intimacy of the Son with the Father, as well as a power over all things, which could not have been conferred by mere official appointment, unless there had been in the background a natural position warranting the official standing. Not infrequently has the word "Messianic" been allowed by scholars to blind them to the most obvious facts. The conferring of an office on a mere man could not enable him to do things beyond the reach of human powers; yet it is frequently assumed that, if only Jesus was Messiah, He was able for anything, even when the thing in question is something for which a mere man is wholly incompetent.

8. The "Son" in Mark 13:32:

There is a saying of Jesus (Mk 13:32) about His own Sonship which may seem to refute the church doctrine on the subject, as in it He confesses ignorance of the date of His Second Coming: "Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Yet, while there is much in this passage fitted to produce sane and sober views as to the real manhood of Jesus, there are few sayings of His that betray a stronger consciousness of His being more than man. Four planes of being and of knowledge are specified--that of men, that of angels, that of Himself, and that of God. Evidently the Son is above not only men but angels, and, if it is confessed that He is ignorant of anything, this is mentioned as a matter of surprise.

9. The "Son" in Matthew 28:18-20:

The conclusion would seem to be that He is a being intermediate between the angels and God; but this impression is corrected by the greatest of all the sayings in which He calls Himself the Son (Mt 28:18-20), "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Here the Son is named along with the Father and the Holy Spirit in a way suggesting the equality of all three, an act of worship being directed to them jointly. By those who disbelieve in the Deity of Christ, the most strenuous attempts have been made to get rid of this passage, and in certain quarters it is taken for granted that it must have been an addition to the text of this Gospel. But for this there is no ground whatever; the passage is the climax of the Gospel in which it occurs, in the same way as the confession of Thomas is the climax of the Gospel of Jn; and to remove it would be an intolerable mutilation. Of course to those who disbelieve in the bodily resurrection of our Lord, this has no more substance than the other details of the Forty Days; but to those who believe in His risen glory the words appear to suit the circumstances, their greatness being congruous with the entire representation of the New Testament.

10. Apostolic Doctrine: Deity Affirmed:

Indeed, it is the Son of God, as He appears in this final scene in the First Gospel, who dominates the rest of the New Testament. Thus, in Acts 9:20, the beginning of Paul's testimony as a Christian is given in these words, "And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God"; and what this meant to Paul may be gathered from his own statement in the opening of Romans, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1:1-4). In He the equality of the Son with the Father is theme throughout the entire book; and in Rev 2:18, "the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire," speaks from the right hand of power to the church.

On this subject there was no division of opinion in the apostolic church. On many other questions the followers of Jesus were divided; but on this one they were unanimous. For this the authority of Paul is often assumed to be responsible; but there was a prior and higher authority. This was the self-testimony of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Though this may not have been put in literary form till all the other books of the New Testament had been completed, it was active and influential in the church all the time, affecting Paul and the other New Testament writers.

11. The Fourth Gospel: Deity, Preexistence, etc.:

There is no real disharmony between the expression of our Lord's self-consciousness in the Synoptists and that in John; only in the latter it is far ampler and more distinct. Here Jesus is not only called "the Son of God" by others, but applies the title to Himself in its full shape, as well as in the abbreviated form of "the Son." He further calls Himself the "only begotten Son of God" (3:16,18), that is to say, He is Son in a sense in which no others can claim the title. This seems expressly to contradict the statement, so often made, that He makes others sons of God in the same sense as Himself, or that His Sonship is ethical, not metaphysical. No doubt it is ethical--that is to say, He is like the Father in feeling, mind and will--but it does not follow that it is not at the same time metaphysical. In fact, the perfection of ethical unity depends upon that which is metaphysical. Between a dog and a man there may be deep sympathy, yet it is limited by the difference of their natures; whereas between a woman and a man there is perfect sympathy, because they are identical in nature.

Another feature of Sonship in the Fourth Gospel is preexistence, though, strange to say, this is more than once connected with the title "Son of man." But the strongest and most frequent suggestions as to what is implied in Sonship are to be found in the deeds attributed to the Son; for these are far beyond the competence of any mere man. Thus, He executes judgment (Jn 5:22); He has life in Himself and quickeneth whom He will (Jn 5:26,21); He gives eternal life (Jn 10:10), and it is the will of the Father that all men should honor the Son, even as they do the Father (Jn 5:23). Nevertheless, the Son does nothing of Himself, but only what He hath seen the Father do (Jn 5:19); and only that which He hath heard of the Father does He speak (Jn 14:10). In short, God is not only His Father, but His God (Jn 20:17). To statements such as these a merely official Sonship is not adequate; the relation must be ethical and metaphysical as well; and to a perfect Sonship all three elements are essential.

LITERATURE.

See the books on the Theology of the New Testament by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon; and on the Teaching of Jesus by Bruce, Wendt, Dalman; Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God, Bampton Lectures, 1891, and Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation; Robertson, Teaching of Jesus concerning God the Father; full bibliography in Stalker, Christ's Teaching concerning Himself.

James Stalker


SON OF MAN, THE

(ho huios tou anthropou) :

1. Use in the New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus

2. Questions as to Meaning

I. SOURCE OF THE TITLE

1. The Phrase in the Old Testament--Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel

2. "Son of Man" in Daniel 7--New Testament Allusions

3. Expressive of Messianic Idea

4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch

II. WHY JESUS MADE USE OF THE TITLE

1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah

2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret

3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny

4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected (Dalman, etc.)

LITERATURE

1. Use in New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus:

This is the favorite self-designation of Jesus in the Gospels. In Matthew it occurs over 30 times, in Mark 15 times, in Luke 25 times, and in John a dozen times. It is always in the mouth of Jesus Himself that it occurs, except once, when the bystanders ask what He means by the title (Jn 12:34). Outside the Gospels, it occurs only once in Acts, in Stephen's speech (Acts 7:56), and twice in the Book of Revelation (1:13; 14:14).

2. Questions as to Meaning:

At first sight it appears so apt a term for the human element in our Lord's person, the divine element being similarly denoted by "the Son of God," that this was supposed to be its meaning, as it still is by the common man at the present day. As long as it was assumed that the meaning could be elicited by merely looking at the words as they stand and guessing what they must signify, this was substantially the view of all, although this common conception went in two directions--some noting especially the loftier and more ideal elements in the conception, while others emphasized what was lowly and painful in the human lot; and both could appeal to texts in support of their view. Thus, the view "that Christ by this phrase represented Himself as the head, the type, the ideal of the race" (Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah), could appeal to such a saying as, "The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (Mk 2:28); while the humbler view could quote such a saying as, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Mt 8:20).

The more scientific investigation of the phrase began, however, when it was inquired, first, what the source was from which Jesus derived this title, and, secondly, why He made use of it.

I. Source of the Title.

1. The Phrase in the Old Testament--Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel:

That the phrase was not one of Jesus' own invention is manifest, because it occurs often in the Old Testament.

Thus, in Ps 8:4 it is used as an equivalent for "man" in the parallel lines,

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

And the son of man, that thou visitest him ?"

This passage has sometimes been regarded as the source whence Jesus borrowed the title; and for this a good deal might be said, the psalm being an incomparable exposition both of the lowliness and the loftiness of human nature. But there is another passage in the Psalms from which it is far from incredible that it may have been derived: in Ps 80:17 occur the words,

"Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,

Upon the son of man whom thou maddest strong for thyself."

This is an appeal, in an age of national decline, for the raising up of a hero to redeem Israel; and it might well have kindled the spark of Messianic consciousness in the heart of the youthful Jesus.

There is a book of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs no fewer than 90 times. This is the Book of Ezekiel, where it is always applied to the prophet himself and designates his prophetic mission. In the words of Nosgen (Christus der Menschenund Gotlessohn): "It expresses the contrast between what Ezekiel is in himself and what God will make out of him, and to make his mission appear to him not as his own, but as the work of God, and thus to lift him up, whenever the flesh threatens to faint and fail." Thus there was one before Jesus of Nazareth who bore the title, at least in certain moments of his life; and, after Ezekiel, there arose another Hebrew prophet who has put on record that he was addressed from the same high quarter in the same terms; for, in Dan 8:17, it is written, "So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man"--words then following intended to raise the spirit of the trembling servant of God. By Weizsacker and others the suggestion has been made that Jesus may have borrowed the term from Ezekiel and Daniel to express His consciousness of belonging to the same prophetic line.

2. "Son of Man" in Daniel 7--New Testament Allusions:

There is, however, in the same Book of Daniel another occurrence of the phrase, in a totally different sense, to which the attention of science is more and more being drawn. In 7:3 ff, in one of the apocalyptic visions common to this prophet, four beasts are seen coming out of the sea--the first a lion with eagle's wings, the second a bear, the third a fourheaded leopard, and the fourth a terrible monster with ten heads. These beasts bear rule over the earth; but at last the kingdom is taken away from them and given to a fifth ruler, who is thus described, "I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan 7:13,14). Compare with these words from Dan the words of Jesus to the high priest during His trial, "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64), and the echo of the Old Testament words cannot be mistaken. Equally distinct is it in the great discourse in Mt 24:30, "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

3. Expressive of Messianic Idea:

The use of this self-designation by Jesus is especially frequent and striking in passages referring to His future coming to judgment, in which there is necessarily a certain resemblance to the apocalyptic scene in Daniel. In such utterances the Messianic consciousness of Jesus is most emphatically expressed; and the passage in Daniel is also obviously Messianic. In another considerable series of passages in which this phrase is used by Jesus, the references are to His sufferings and death; but the assumption which explains these also most easily is that they are Messianic too; Jesus is speaking of the fortunes to which He must submit on account of His vocation. Even the more dignified passages, expressive of ideality, are best explained in the same way. In short, every passage where the phrase occurs is best understood from this point of view, whereas, from any other point of view, not a few appear awkward and out of place. How little, for example, does the idea that the phrase is expressive of lowliness or of brotherhood with suffering humanity accord with the opening of the judgment-scene in Mt 25:31, "But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory"!

4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch:

The son of man, or rather "one like unto a son of man" mentioned in Daniel, is primarily the Hebrew people, as is expressly noted in the prophecy itself; but Jesus must have looked upon Himself as the representative of the people of God, in the same way as, in the Old Testament generally, the reigning sovereign was regarded as the representative of the nation. But the question has been raised whether this transference of the title from a collective body to an individual may have been mediated for Him through postcanonical religious literature or the prevalence among the people of ideas generated through this literature. In the Book of Enoch there occur numerous references to the son of man, which bear a remarkable resemblance to some of the sayings of Jesus. The date usually assigned to this production is some 200 years BC; and, if these passages in it actually existed as early as this, the book would almost require to be included in the canonical Scriptures, though for other reasons it is far from worthy of any such honor. The whole structure of the Book of Enoch is so loose and confused that it must always have invited interpolation; and interpolations in it are recognized as numerous. The probability, therefore, is that the passages referring to the son of man are of later date and of Christian origin.

II. Why Jesus Made Use of the Title.

The conclusion that this title expresses, not the personal qualities of Jesus as a man, but His functions as Messiah, may be disappointing; but there is a way of recovering what seems to have been lost; because we must now inquire for what reasons He made use of this term.

1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah:

The first reason, of course, is, that in Daniel it expressed Messiahship, and that Jesus was conscions of being the Messiah. In the Old Testament He was wont all His days to read His own history. He ranged over all the sacred books and found in them references to His own person and work. With divinatory glance He pierced into the secrets of Scripture and brought forth from the least as well as the best-known portions of the ancient oracles meanings which are now palpable to all readers of the Bible, but which He was the first to discover. From the passage in Daniel, or from some other passage of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs, a hint flashed out upon Him, as He read or heard; and the suggestion grew in His brooding mind, until it rounded itself into the fit and satisfying expression for one side of His self-consciousness.

2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret:

Another reason why He fixed upon this as His favorite self-designation may have been that it half concealed as well as half revealed His secret. Of the direct names for the Messiah He was usually shy, no doubt chiefly because His contemporaries were not prepared for an open declaration of Himself in this character; but at all stages of His ministry He called Himself the Son of man without hesitation. The inference seems to be, that, while the phrase expressed much to Himself, and must have meant more and more for those immediately associated with Him, it did not convey a Messianic claim to the public ear. With this accords well the perplexity once manifested by those listening to Him, when they asked, "Who is this Son of man?" (Jn 12:34); as it also explains the question of Jesus to the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" or, as it is in the margin, "that I the Son of man am?" (Mt 16:13). That He was the Son of man did not evidently mean for all that He claimed to be the Messiah.

3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny:

But when we try to realize for what reasons Jesus may have picked this name out from all which presented themselves to Him in His intimate and loving survey of the Old Testament, it is difficult to resist the belief that a third and the principal reason was because it gave expression to His sense of connection with all men in sympathy, fortunes and destiny. He felt Himself to be identified with all as their brother, their fellow-sufferer, their representative and champion; and, in some respects, the deepest word He ever spake was, "For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45 parallel).

4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected (Dalman, etc.):

In 1896, Hans Lietzmann, a young German scholar, startled the learned World with a speculation on the "Son of man." Making the assumption that Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus, he contended that Jesus could not have applied to Himself the Messianic title, because there is nothing corresponding with it in Aramaic. The only term approximating to it is barnash, which means something very vague, like "anyone" or "everyman" (in the sense of the old morality play thus entitled). Many supposed Lietzmann to be arguing that Jesus had called Himself Anyone or Everyman; but this was not his intention. He tried to prove that the Messianic title had been applied to Jesus in Asia Minor in the first half of the 2nd century and that the Gospels had been revised with the effect of substituting it for the first personal pronoun. But he failed to show how the manuscripts could have been so universally altered as to leave no traces of this operation, or how, if the text of the New Testament was then in so fluid a state as to admit of such a substitution, the phrase should not have overflowed into other books besides the Gospels. Although the hypothesis has secured wide attention through being partially adopted by Wellhausen, whose view is to be found in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, and at p. 66 of his Commentary on Mark, it may be reckoned among the ghosts which appear for an hour on the stage of learning, attracting attention and admiration, but have no permanent connection with the world of reality. Dalman, the leading authority on Aramaic, denies the foundation on which the views of both Lietzmann and Wellhausen rest, and holds that, had the Messianic title existed, the Aramaic language would have been quite capable of expressing it. And in 1911 Wellhausen himself explicitly admitted this (Einleitung in die drei eraten Evangelien(2), 130).

LITERATURE.

See the books on New Testament Theology by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Stevens, Sheldon; and on the Teaching of Jesus by Wentit, Bruce, Dalman; Abbott, The Son of Man, 1910; very full bibliography in Stalker, The Teaching of Jesus concerning Himself.

James Stalker


SON-IN-LAW

See RELATIONSHIPS ,FAMILY .


SON; SONS

sun, sunz: (1) In Biblical language the word "son" is used first of all in its strictly literal sense of male issue or offspring of a man or woman. In a few cases in the Old Testament, as in Gen 3:16; Josh 17:2; Jer 20:15, the Hebrew word ben, is translated correctly in the English by the word "child" or "children" as it includes both sexes, as in Gen 3:16, or is limited to males by the use of the modifying term "male." Closely connected with this meaning of direct male issue or of children is its use to denote descendants, posterity in the more general sense. This usage which, as in the case of the sons (children) of Israel, may be regarded perhaps as originating in the conception of direct descent from the common ancestor Israel, came in the course of time to be a mere ethnographic designation, so that the term "the children of Israel" and "the children of Ammon" meant no more than Israelites or Ammonites, that is, inhabitants of the lands of Israel or Ammon respectively. An extension of this usage is to be found in the designation of a people as the sons or children of a land or city; so in Am 9:7 "children of the Ethiopians," or Ezek 16:28, where the literal rendering would be "sons of Asshur," instead of the Assyrians, and "the children of Jerus" in Joel 3:6.

See BAR (prefix);BEN- .

(2) More characteristic of Biblical usage is the employment of the word "son" to indicate membership in a class or guild, as in the common phrase "sons of the prophets," which implies nothing whatever as to the ancestry, but states that the individuals concerned are members of the prophetic guilds or schools. In the New Testament the word "sons" (huioi) in Lk 11:19, rendered "children" in Mt 12:27 the King James Version, means, not physical descendants, but members of the class or sect; according to Mt the Pharisees, who were attacking Christ.

(3) The word "son" is used with a following genitive of quality to indicate some characteristic of the person or persons described. In the English the word "son" is usually omitted and the phrase is paraphrased as in 2 Sam 3:34, where the words translated "wicked men" in the King James Version mean literally, sons or children of wickedness. Two examples of this usage may be cited: the familiar phrase "sons of Belial" in the Old Testament (Dt 15:13 the King James Version, and often), where the meaning is simply base or worthless fellows (compare Nu 24:17, margin "children of Sheth" (Expository Times, XIII, 64b)); and in the New Testament the phrase "sons of thunder," which is given in Mk 3:17 as the explanation of the epithet "Boanerges." This use is common in the New Testament, as the phrases "children of the kingdom," "children of light," etc., indicate, the general meaning being that the noun in the genitive following the word children indicates some quality of the persons under consideration. The special phrases "Son of man" and "Son of God" are considered in separate articles.

See also RELATIONSHIPS ,FAMILY .

Walter R. Betteridge


SONG

(shir, shirah): Besides the great collection of sacred songs contained in the Psalter, as well as the lyric outbursts, marked by strong religious feeling, on great national occasions, it is natural to believe, and we have evidence to show, that the Hebrews possessed a large number of popular songs of a secular kind. Song of Songs (which see) of itself proves this. Probably the very oldest song or fragment of song in the Old Testament is that "To the well" (Nu 21:17).

W. R. Smith (Religions of the Semites, 167) regards this invocation of the waters to rise as in its origin hardly a mere poetic figure. He compares what Cazwini 1, 189, records of the well of Ilabistan: "When the water failed, a feast was held at its source with music and dancing, to induce it to flow again." If, however, the song had its origin in an early form of religious belief, it must have been secularized later.

But it is in the headings of the Psalms that we find the most numerous traces of the popular songs of the Hebrews. Here there are a number of words and phrases which are now believed to be the names or initial words of such lyrics. In the King James Version they are prefaced with the prep. "on," in the Revised Version (British and American) with "set to," i.e. "to the tune of." We give a list: (1) Aijeleth Shahar the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) Aijeleth hash-shahar, 'ayyeleth ha-shachar. The title means (Revised Version, margin) "The hind of the morning," but whether the original song so named was a hunting song or a morning serenade it is useless to conjecture. See HIND OF THE MORNING . (2) Al-taschith (the King James Version), Al-tashheth (Revised Version), 'al-tashcheth, i.e. "Destroy not," Psalms 57 through 59; 75, is apparently quoted in Isa 65:8, and in that case must refer to a vintage song. (3) Jonah elem rehokim or Yonath'elem rechoqim (Ps 56), the Revised Version margin "The silent dove of them that are afar off," or--with a slightly different reading--"The dove of the distant terebinths." (4) Machalath (Ps 53) and Machalath le`annoth (Ps 88). Machalath may mean "sickness," and be the first word of a song. It might mean, on the other hand, a minor mode or rhythm. It has also been held to designate a musical instrument. (5) Muthlabben (Ps 9) has given rise to many conjectures. Literally, it may mean "Die for the son," or "Death of the son." An ancient tradition referred the words to Goliath (death at the hand of the son [?]), and they have been applied to the fate of Absalom. Such guesses need only be quoted to show their worthlessness. (6) Lastly, we have Shoshannim = "Lilies" (Psalms 45; 69), Shushan `Edhuth = "The lily of testimony" (Ps 60); and Shoshannim `Edhuth = "Lilies, a testimony" (Ps 80), probably to be explained like the others.

The music to which these songs were sung is irretrievably lost, but it was, no doubt, very similar in character to that of the Arabs at the present day. While the music of the temple was probably much more elaborate, and of wider range, both in notes and expression of feeling, the popular song was almost certainly limited in compass to a very few notes repeated over and over in long recitations or ballads. This is characteristic of the performances of Arab minstrels of today. The melodies are plaintive, in spite of the majority of them being in major keys, owing to the 7th being flattened, as in genuine Scottish music. Arabic music, further, is marked by great variety and emphasis of rhythm, the various kinds of which have special names.

See SPIRITUAL SONGS .

James Millar


SONG OF SONGS

(shir hashirim; Septuagint Asma; Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Asma asmaton; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Canticum Canticorum):

I. CANONICITY

II. TEXT

III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

IV. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

1. The Allegorical Interpretation

2. The Typical Interpretation

3. The Literal Interpretation

V. CLOSING HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

LITERATURE

The full title in Hebrew is "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's." The book is called by some Canticles, and by others Solomon's Song. The Hebrew title implies that it is the choicest of all songs, in keeping with the dictum of Rabbi `Aqiba (90-135 AD) that "the entire world, from the beginning until now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to Israel."

I. Canonicity.

Early Jewish and Christian writers are silent as to the Song of Songs. No use is made of it by Philo. There is no quotation from it in the New Testament, nor is there any clear allusion to it on the part of our Lord or the apostles. The earliest distinct references to the Song of Songs are found in Jewish writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (4 Esdras 5:24,26; 7:26; Ta`anith 4:8). The question of the canonicity of the Song was debated as late as the Synod of Jamnia (circa 90 AD), when it was decided that Canticles was rightly reckoned to "defile the hands," i.e. was an inspired book. It should be borne in mind that the Song of Songs was already esteemed by the Jews as a sacred book, though prior to the Synod of Jamnia there was probably a goodly number of Jewish teachers who did not accept it as canonical. Selections from Canticles were sung at certain festivals in the temple at Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by Titus in 70 AD (Ta`anith 4:8). The Mishna pronounces an anathema on all who treat Canticles as a secular song (Sanhedhrin, 101a). The latest date for the composition of the Song of Songs, according to critics of the advanced school, is toward the close of the 3rd century BC. We may be sure that it was included in the Kethubhim before the ministry of our Lord, and so was for Him a part of the Scriptures.

II. Text.

Most scholars regard the text of Canticles as comparatively free from corruption. Gratz, Bickell, Budde and Cheyne have suggested a good many emendations of the traditional text, a few of which commend themselves as probable corrections of a faulty text, but most of which are mere guesses without sufficient confirmation from either external or internal evidence. For details see Budde's able commentary, and articles by Cheyne inJQR and Expository Times for 1898-99 and in the The Expositor, February, 1899.

III. Authorship and Date.

The title in the Hebrew text ascribes the poem to Solomon. That this superscription was prefixed by an editor of Canticles and not by the original writer is evident from the fact that the relative pronoun employed in the title is different from that employed throughout the poem. The beauty and power of the book seemed to later students and editors to make the writing worthy of the gifted king, whose fame as a composer of both proverbs and songs was handed on to later times (1 Ki 4:32). Moreover, the name of Solomon is prominent in the Song of Songs itself (1:5; 3:7,9,11; 8:11 f). If the traditional view that Solomon wooed and won the Shulammite be true, the Solomonic authorship may even yet be defended, though the linguistic argument for a later date is quite strong.

The question in debate among recent critics is whether the Song was composed in North Israel in preexilic days, or whether it is post-exilic. The author is at home in Hebrew. His vocabulary is extensive, and the movement of the poem is graceful. There is no suggestion of the use of lexicon and grammar by a writer living in the period of the decadence of the Hebrew language. The author is familiar with cities and mountains all over Palestine, especially in the northern section. He speaks of the beauty of Tirzah, the capital of North Israel in the 10th century BC, along with the glory of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah (Song 6:4). The recollection of Solomon's glory and pomp seems to be fresh in the mind of the writer and his contemporaries. W.R. Smith regarded Canticles as a protest against the luxury and the extensive harem of Solomon. True love could not exist in such an environment. The fidelity of the Shulammite to her shepherd lover, notwithstanding the blandishments of the wealthy and gifted king, stands as a rebuke to the notion that every woman has her price. Driver seems inclined to accept a preexilic date, though the arguments from vocabulary and philology cause him to waver in his opinion (LOT, 8th edition, 450). An increasing number of critics place the composition of Canticles in the post-exilic period, many bringing it down into the Greek period. Among scholars who date Canticles in the 3rd century BC we may name Gratz, Kuenen, Cornill, Budde, Kautzsch, Martineau and Cheyne. The chief argument for bringing the Song into the time of the early Ptolemies is drawn from the language of the poem. There are many Hebrew words that are employed elsewhere only in later books of the Old Testament; the word pardec (Song 4:13) is a Persian loan-word for "park"; the word for "palanquin" may be Indian, or possibly Greek. Moreover, the form of the relative pronoun is uniformly that which is found in some of the latest books of the Old Testament. The influence of Aramaic is apparent, both in the vocabulary and in a few constructions. This may be accounted for on theory of the northern origin of the Song, or on the hypothesis of a post-exilic date. The question of date is still open.

IV. History of Interpretation.

1. The Allegorical Interpretation:

All interpreters of all ages agree in saying that Canticles is a poem of love; but who the lovers are is a subject of keen debate, especially in modern times.

First in point of time and in the number of adherents it has had is theory that the Song is a pure allegory of the love of Yahweh and His people. The Jewish rabbis, from the latter part of the 1st century AD down to our own day, taught that the poem celebrates a spiritual love, Yahweh being the bridegroom and Israel the bride. Canticles was supposed to be a vivid record of the loving intercourse between Israel and her Lord from the exodus on to the glad Messianic time. The Song is read by the Jews at Passover, which celebrates Yahweh's choice of Israel to be His spouse. The Targum interprets Canticles as an allegory of the marital love of Yahweh and Israel. Origen made the allegorical theory popular in the early church. As a Christian he represented the bride as the church or the soul of the believer. In more recent centuries the Christian allegorical interpreters have favored the idea that the soul of the believer was the bride, though the other type of the allegorical view has all along had its advocates.

Bernard of Clairvaux wrote 86 sermons on the first two chapters of Canticles; and a host of writers in the Roman church and among Protestants have composed similar mystical treatises on the Song. Devout souls have expressed their fervent love to God in the sensuous imagery of Canticles. The imagery could not become too fervid or ecstatic for some of these devout men and women in their highest moments of beatific vision. Whatever may be the final verdict of sane criticism as to the original purpose of the author of the Song, it is a fact that must not be overlooked by the student of Canticles that some of the noblest religious souls, both Hebrew and Christian, have fed the flame of devotion by interpreting the Song as an allegory.

What justification is there for theory that Canticles is an allegory of the love between Yahweh and His people, or of the love of Christ and the church, or of the love of the soul of the believer and Christ? It must be frankly confessed that there is not a hint in the Song itself that it is an allegory. If the modern reader of Canticles had never heard of the allegorical interpretation, nothing in the beginning, middle or end of the poem would be likely to suggest to his mind such a conception of the poet's meaning. How, then, did the early Jewish interpreters come to make this the orthodox interpretation of the Song? The question is not easy to answer. In the forefront of our answer we must recall the fact that the great prophets frequently represent the mutual love of Yahweh and Israel under the symbolism of marriage (Hosea 1 through 3; Jeremiah 3; Ezekiel 16; 23; Isa 50:1; 54:5,6). The Hebrew interpreter might naturally expect to find some echo of this bold imagery in the poetry of the Kethubhim. In the Torah the frequent command to love Yahweh might suggest the marital relation as well as that of the father and son (Dt 6:5; 7:7-9,13; 10:12,15; 30:16,20), though it must be said that the language of Dt suggests the high ethical and religious teaching of Jesus in the matter of love to God, in which the sexual does not appear.

Cheyne suggests (EB, I, 683 f) that the Song was too joyous to be used, in its natural sense, by the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence, they consecrated it by allegorical interpretation. The suggestion may contain an element of truth.

It is an interesting fact that the Psalter has so few expressions in which love to Yahweh is expressed (Ps 31:23; 97:10; 145:20; compare 18:1; 42:1; 63:1). In this manual of devotion one would not be suprised to find the expansion of the image of wedlock as expressive of the soul's relation to God; but we look in vain for such a poem, unless Ps 45 be capable of allegorical interpretation. Even that beautiful song of love and marriage contains no such highly sensuous imagery as is found in Canticles.

Christian scholars found it easy to follow the Jewish allegorical interpreters; for the figure of wedlock is employed in the New Testament by both Paul and John to represent the intimate and vital union of Christ and His church (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-33; Rev 19:7-9; 21:2,9 ff).

The entire body of true believers is conceived of as the bride of Christ. Naturally the purity of the church is sullied through the impure conduct of the individuals of whom it is composed. Hence, the appeal to individuals and to local churches to live pure lives (2 Cor 11:1). To the unmarried believer the Lord Jesus takes the place of the husband or wife as the person whom one is most eager to please (1 Cor 7:32 f). It is not difficult to understand how the fervid, sensuous imagery of Canticles would appeal to the mind of a man like Origen as a proper vehicle for the expression of his passionate love for Christ.

Sober inquiry discovers no sufficient justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. The pages of the mystical commentators are filled with artificial interpretations and conceits. Many of them practice a familiarity with Christ that is without example in the Biblical devotional literature.

2. The Typical Interpretation:

The allegorical interpreters, for the most part, saw in the Song of Songs no historic basis. Solomon and the Shulammite are introduced merely as figures through whom God and His people, or Christ and the soul, can express their mutual love. In modern times interpreters have arisen who regard the Song as primarily the expression of strong and passionate human love between Solomon and a beautiful maiden, but by virtue of the typical relation of the old dispensation, secondarily, the fitting expression of the love of Christ and the church.

The way for this modern typical interpretation was prepared by Lowth (Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lectionaries XXX, XXXI) in his modified allegorical view, which is thus described by Canon Driver: "Bishop Lowth, though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the poem, while describing the actual nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, contained also an allegoric reference to Christ espousing a church chosen from among the Gentiles" (LOT, 451). Few interpreters have been found to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia and Lowth in their view that the Song celebrates the marriage of Solomon and an Egyptian princess; and Lowth's notion of a reference to the espousal of a church chosen from among the Gentiles is one of the curiosities of criticism. Of the typical interpreters Delitzsch is perhaps the ablest (Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs).

The typical commentators are superior to the allegorical in their recognition of Canticles as the expression of the mutual love of two human beings. The further application of the language to Yahweh and His people (Keil), or to Christ and the church (Delitzsch), or to God and the soul (M. Stuart) becomes largely a matter of individual taste, interpreters differing widely in details.

3. The Literal Interpretation:

Jewish interpreters were deterred from the literal interpretation of Canticles by the anathema in the Mishna upon all who should treat the poem as a secular song (Sanhedhrin, 101a). Cheyne says of Ibn Ezra, a great medieval Jewish scholar, he "is so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful whether he is serious when he proceeds to allegorize." Among Christian scholars Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted Canticles as a song in celebration of the marriage of Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. This strictly literal interpretation of the Song was condemned at the second council of Constantinople (553 AD). For the next thousand years the allegorical theory reigned supreme among Christian interpreters. In 1544 Sebastian Castellio revived the literal theory of the Song, though the allegorical view remained dominant until the 19th century.

Herder in 1778 published a remarkable little treatise entitled Lieder der Liebe, die altesten und schonsten aus dem Morgenlande, in which he advanced theory that Canticles is a collection of independent erotic songs, about 21 in number, which have been so arranged by a collector as to trace "the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in wedlock" (Cheyne). But the greatest and most influential advocate of the literal interpretation of Canticles was Heinrich Ewald, who published the 1st edition of his commentary in 1826. It was Ewald who first developed and made popular theory that two suitors compete for the hand of the Shulammite, the one a shepherd and poor, the other a wise and wealthy king. In the Song he ascribes to Solomon 1:9-11,15; 2:2; 4:1-7; 6:4-13 (quoting the dialogue between the Shulammite and the ladies of the court in 6:10-13); 7:1-9. To the shepherd lover he assigns few verses, and these are repeated by the Shulammite in her accounts of imaginary or real interviews with her lover. In the following passages the lover described is supposed to be the shepherd to whom the Shulammite had plighted her troth: 1:2-7,9-14; 1:16 through 2:1; 2:3-7,8-17; 3:1-5; 4:8 through 5:1; 5:2-8; 5:10-16; 6:2 f; 7:10 through 8:4; 8:5-14. The shepherd lover is thus supposed to be present in the Shulammite's dreams, and in her waking moments she is ever thinking of him and describing to herself and others his many charms. Not until the closing scene (Song 8:5-14) does Ewald introduce the shepherd as an actor in the drama. Ewald had an imperial imagination and a certain strength of mind and innate dignity of character which prevented him from dragging into the mud any section of the Biblical literature. While rejecting entirely the allegorical theory of Canticles, he yet attributed to it an ethical quality which made the Song worthy of a place in the Old Testament. A drama in praise of fidelity between human lovers may well hold a place beside Ecclesiastes and Proverbs in the Canon. Many of the ablest Old Testament critics have followed Ewald in his general theory that Canticles is a drama celebrating the loyalty of a lowly maiden to her shepherd lover. Not even Solomon in all his glory could persuade her to become his queen.

Within the past quarter of a century the unity of Canticles has been again sharply challenged. An account of the customs of the Syrian peasants in connection with weddings was given by the Prussian consul at Damascus, J. G. Wetzstein, in 1873, in an article in Bastian's Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 270 ff, on "Die syrische Dreschtafel," in which he illustrated the Old Testament from modern Syrian customs. Driver thus describes the customs that are supposed to throw light upon Canticles: "In modern Syria, the first seven days after a wedding are called the `king's week'; the young pair play during this time king and queen; the `threshing-board' is turned into a mock-throne, on which they are seated, while songs are sung before them by the villagers and others, celebrating them on their happiness, among which the watsf, or poetical `description' of the physical beauty of the bride and bridegroom, holds a prominent place. The first of these watsfs is sung on the evening of the wedding-day itself: brandishing a naked sword in her right hand, and with a handkerchief in her left, the bride dances in her wedding array, lighted by fires, and surrounded by a circle of guests, half men and half women, accompanying her dance with a watsf in praise of her charms" (LOT, 452). Wetzstein suggested the view that Canticles was composed of the wedding-songs sung during "the king's week." This theory has been most fully elaborated by Budde in an article in the New World, March, 1894, and in his commentary (1898). According to Budde, the bridegroom is called King Solomon, and the bride Shulammith. The companions of the bridegroom are the 60 valiant men who form his escort (Song 3:7). As a bride, the maiden is called the most beautiful of women (Song 1:8; 5:9; 6:1). The pictures of wedded bliss are sung by the men and women present, the words being attributed to the bride and the bridegroom. Thus the festivities continue throughout the week. Budde's theory has some decided advantages over Ewald's view that the poem is a drama; but the loss in moral quality is considerable; the book becomes a collection of wedding-songs in praise of the joys of wedlock.

V. Closing Hints and Suggestions.

Having given a good deal of attention to Canticles during the past 15 years, the author of this article wishes to record a few of his views and impressions.

(1) Canticles is lyric poetry touched with the dramatic spirit. It is not properly classed as drama, for the Hebrews had no stage, though much of the Old Testament is dramatic in spirit. The descriptions of the charms of the lovers were to be sung or chanted.

(2) The amount that has to be read between the lines by the advocates of the various dramatic theories is so great that, in the absence of any hints in the body of the book itself, reasonable certitude can never be attained.

(3) The correct translation of the refrain in Song 2:7 and 3:5 (compare 8:4) is important for an understanding of the purpose of Canticles. It should be rendered as follows:

`I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,

By the gazelles, or by the hinds of the field,

That ye stir not up, nor awaken love,

Until it please.'

Love between man and woman should not be excited by unnatural stimulants, but should be free and spontaneous. In Song 8:4 it seems to be implied that the women of the capital are guilty of employing artifices to awaken love:

`I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,

Why do ye stir up, or awaken love,

Until it please?'

That this refrain is in keeping with the purpose of the writer is clear from the striking words toward the close of the book:

"Set me as a seal upon thy heart,

As a seal upon thine arm:

For love is strong as death;

Jealousy is cruel as Sheol;

The flashes thereof are flashes of fire,

A very flame of Yahweh.

Many waters cannot quench love,

Neither can floods drown it:

If a man would give all the substance of his house for love,

He would utterly be contemned" (Song 8:6 f).

(4) Canticles discloses all the secret intimacies of wedded life without becoming obscene. The imagery is too sensuous for our taste in western lands, so that words of caution are often timely, lest the sensuous degenerate into the sensual; but I have been told by several Syrian and Palestinian students whom I have had the privilege of teaching, that Canticles is considered quite chaste among their people, the wedding-songs now in use among them being more minute in their description of the physical charms of the lovers.

(5) Canticles is by no means excluded from the Canon by the acceptance of the literal interpretation. Ewald's theory makes it an ethical treatise of great and permanent value. Even if Canticles is merely a collection of songs describing the bliss of true lovers in wedlock, it is not thereby rendered unworthy of a place in the Bible, unless marriage is to be regarded as a fall from a state of innocency. If Canticles should be rejected because of its sensuous imagery in describing the joys of passionate lovers, portions of Proverbs would also have to be excised (Prov 5:15-20). Perhaps most persons need to enlarge their conception of the Bible as a repository for all things that minister to the welfare of men. The entire range of man's legitimate joys finds sympathetic and appreciative description in the Bible. Two young lovers in Paradise need not fear to rise and meet their Creator, should He visit them in the cool of the day.

LITERATURE.

C. D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, with a Commentary, Historical and Critical, 1857; H. Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundes, III, 333-426, 1867; F. C. Cook, in Biblical Commentary, 1874; Franz Delitzsch, Hoheslied u. Koheleth, 1875 (also translation); O. Zockler, in Lange's Comm., 1875; S. Oettli, Kurzgefasster Kommentar, 1889; W. E. Griffis, The Lily among Thorns, 1890; J. W. Rothstein, Das Hohe Lied, 1893; K. Budde, article in New World, March, 1894. and Kommentar, 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger u. Hoheslied, 1898; A. Harper, in Cambridge Bible, 1902; G. C. Martin, in Century Bible, 1908; article on "Canticles" by Cheyne in EB, 1899.

John Richard Sampey


SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN

|| 1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Author and Date

5. Original Language

6. Text and Versions

LITERATURE

For general remarks concerning the Additions to Daniel see BEL AND THE DRAGON .

1. Name:

This Addition has no separate title in any manuscript or version because in the Septuagint, Theod, Syriac and Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate) it follows Dan 3:23 immediately, forming an integral portion of that chapter, namely, The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:24-90 in the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is the only one of the three Additions which has an organic connection with Daniel; as regards the others see preliminary remarks toBEL AND THE DRAGON . The title in English Versions of the Bible is "The Song of the Three Holy Children," a title describing its matter as formerly understood, though a more rigid analysis shows that in the 68 verses so designated, we have really two separate sections. See 3, below.

2. Canonicity:

See introductory remarks toBEL AND THE DRAGON . The order in which the three "Additions to Daniel" are found in the (Separate Protestant) Apocrypha is decided by their sequence in the Vulgate, the Song of the Three Children forming part of chapter 3, Susanna of chapter 13, and Bel and the Dragon of chapter 14 of Daniel.

3. Contents:

Though the English and other Protestant versions treat the 68 verses as one piece under the name given above, there are really two quite distinct compositions. These appear separately in the collection of Odes appended to the Psalter in Cod. A under the headings, "The Prayer of Azarias" (Proseuche Azariou, Azariah, Dan 1:6 f) and "The Hymn of Our Fathers" (Humnos ton pateron hemon); see Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, 3804 ff, and Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 253 f. Luther with his usual independence makes each of these into a separate book under the titles, "The Prayer of Azaria" (Das Gebet Asarjas) and "The Song of the Three Men in the Fire" (Der Gesang der drei Manner im Feuerofen).

(1) The Prayer of Azarias (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:1-22) (Daniel 3:24-48).

Azariah is the Hebrew name of Abed-nego (= Abednebo, "servant of Nebo"), the latter being the Babylonian name (see Dan 1:7; 2:49, etc.). This prayer joins on to Dan 3:23, where it is said that "Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego (Azariah) fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." [?] (the version of Theodotion; see "Text and Versions" below) adds, "And they walked (Syr adds "in their chains") in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord." This addition forms a suitable connecting link, and it has been adopted by the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and in modern versions which are made from [?] and not from the Septuagint, which last was lost for many centuries (see BEL AND THE DRAGON ,III ). In the Septuagint the words with which the Prayer was introduced are these: "Thus therefore prayed Hananias, and Azarias and Misael and sang praises (hymns) to the Lord when the king commanded that they should be cast into the furnace." The prayer (offered by Azarias) opens with words of adoration followed by an acknowledgment that the sufferings of the nation in Babylon were wholly deserved, and an earnest entreaty that God would intervene on behalf of His exiled and afflicted people. That this prayer was not composed for the occasion with which it is connected goes without saying. No one in a burning furnace could pray as Azarias does. There are no groans or sighs, nor prayer for help or deliverance of a personal nature. The deliverance sought is national.

(2) The Song of the Three Holy Children (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:28-68) (Dan 3:51-90).

This is introduced by a brief connecting narrative (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27). The king's servants continued to heat the furnace, but an angel came down and isolated an inner zone of the furnace within which no flames could enter; in this the three found safety. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 175) is inclined to think that this narrative section (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) stood between Dan 3:23 and 3:24 in the original Hebrew text. The "Song" is really a psalm, probably a translation of a Hebrew original. It has nothing to do with the incident--the three young men in the furnace--except in The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 (EV) where the three martyrs call upon themselves by name to praise and bless the Lord for delivering them from the midst of the furnace. This verse is an interpolation, for the rest of the Song is a long litany recalling Ps 103 and especially Psalms 136; 148, and Sirach 43. The Song, in fact, has nothing to do with the sufferings of the three young men, but is an ordinary hymn of praise. It is well known from the fact that it forms a part of the Anglican Prayer-book, as it had formed part of many early Christian liturgies.

4. Author and Date:

(1) Author.

We know nothing whatever of the author besides what may be gathered from this Addition. It is quite evident that none of the three Additions belong to the original text of Daniel, and that they were added because they contained legends in keeping with the spirit of that book, and a song in a slight degree (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Version of the Bible) adapted to the situation of the three Hebrew youths in the furnace, though itself of an independent liturgical origin.

For a long time the three Additions must have circulated independently. Polychronius says that "The Song of the Three Holy Children" was, even in the 5th century AD, absent from the text of Daniel, both in the Peshitta and in the Septuagint proper. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 176) contends that the Additions formed a part of the Septuagint from the beginning, from which he infers that they were all composed before the Septuagint was made. What was the date of this version of Daniel? Since its use seems implied in 1 Macc 1:54 (compare Dan 11:31; 12:11), it would be safe to conclude that it existed about 100 BC.

(2) Date of the Prayer of Azarias.

In The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:15 (English Versions of the Bible) it is said that at the time the prayer was offered, there was no prince, prophet or leader, nor sacrifice of any kind. This may point to the time between 168 and 165 BC, when Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) profaned the temple. If written in that interval, it must have been added to Dan at a much later time. But on more occasions than one, in later times, the temple-services were suspended, as e.g. during the invasion of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king, Ptolemy IV (Philopater).

(3) Date of the Song.

We find references in the Song (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:62 f English Versions of the Bible) to priests and temple-servants, and in The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:31 to the temple itself, suggesting that when the Song was written the temple-services were carried on. This, in itself, would suit a time soon after the purification of the temple, about 164 BC. But the terms of the Song are, except in verse 66 (English Versions of the Bible), so general that it is impossible to fix the date definitely. On the date of the historical connecting narrative (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) see 3, (2), above.

5. Original Language:

(1) Romanist scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in das Altes Testament, IV, 24 f; Einleit. in die apok. Schriften, 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, De Habacuci, 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that the original language was Hebrew. The evidence, which is weak, is as follows: (a) The style is Hebraistic throughout (not more so than in writings known to have been composed in Alexandrian Gr; the idiom kataischunesthai + apo = bosh min (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:44 English Versions of the Bible; the Septuagint 1:44), "to be ashamed of," occurs in parts of the Septuagint which are certainly not translations). (b) The three Hebrew martyrs bear Hebrew names (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Versions). This only shows that the tale is of Hebrew origin. (2) Most modern non-Romanist scholars hold that the original language of the Song (and Prayer) was Greek. So Keil, Fritzsche, De Wette, Schurer, Konig, Cornill, Strack, etc.

Some grounds: (1) The Hebraisms are comparatively few, and those which do exist can be paralleled in other writings composed in Hellenistic Greek (2) It can be proved that in Daniel and also in Bel and the Dragon (see Introduction to Bel in the Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles), Theodotion corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew (lost in the case of Bel); but in Three, Theodotion corrects according to Greek idiom or grammar. It must be admitted, however, that the evidence is not very decisive either way.

6. Text and Versions:

As to the text and the various versions of the Song, see what is said in the articleBEL AND THE DRAGON . It is important to note that the translations in English Versions of the Bible are made from Theodotion's Greek version, which occurs in ancient versions of the Septuagint (A B V Q dc) instead of the true Septuagint (Cod. 87).

LITERATURE.

See the articleBEL AND THE DRAGON ; Marshall (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible,IV , 754); W. H. Bennett (Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles, 625 ff).

T. Witton Davies


SONGS OF DEGREES

See DEGREES ,SONGS OF ;DIAL OF AHAZ , 7.


SONS OF

See SON ,SONS .


SONS OF GOD

(Old Testament) (bene ha-'elohim, "sons of God" (Gen 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1); bene 'elohim, "sons of God" (Job 38:7); bene 'elim, "ye mighty," the King James Version; "ye sons of the mighty," King James Version margin, the Revised Version (British and American); "sons of God" or "sons of the gods," the Revised Version margin (Ps 29:1); "sons of the mighty," the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); "sons of God" or "sons of the gods," the Revised Version margin (Ps 89:6 (Hebrew 7)); Septuagint huioi tou theou, hoi aggeloi tou theou (Gen 6:2); huioi tou theou (Gen 6:4); hoi aggeloi tou theou (Job 1:6; 2:1); aggeloi mou (Job 38:7); huioi theou (Ps 29:1; 89:6; compare Dan 3:25)):

1. Job and Psalms:

This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or angels. In Job the "sons of God" are represented as appearing before the throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral reference. These heavenly beings are called "sons of God" or "sons of the 'elohim" simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the 'elohim, just as "sons of the prophets" denotes those who belong to the prophetic order (see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on Job 1:6).

2. Genesis 6:2,4:

Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Gen 6:2,4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."

See GIANTS ;NEPHILIM .

(1) "Sons of God" is interpreted as referring to men, (a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is justified by the use of 'elohim in the sense of "judges" (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f, etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of 'elohim here, for when 'adham, "men," is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted with 'ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Hebrew 3), not with 'elohim. When contrasted with 'elohim it signifies the human race. (b) Some commentators hold that by "sons of God" is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by "daughters of men" the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Gen 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare Dt 14:1; 32:5; Hos 1:10 (Hebrew 2:1)). They consider the restricted meaning they put upon "men" as warranted by the contrast (compare Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term "daughters" expresses actual descent, it is natural to understand "sons" in a similar sense. The phrase "took wives," they contend also, supports the ethical view, being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot, therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after flesh. On this view Gen 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (6:5). It is held that nothing is said in 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world (6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.

(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret "sons of God" as referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the expression in the other passages. They hold that Dt 14:1, etc., cannot be regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to "men" in Gen 6:2 than to "men" in 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general. This passage (Gen 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (6:5-8). The intention of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after "strange flesh" is compared with that of the angels (compare 2 Pet 2:4 ff). (See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Driver.)

See ANTEDILUVIANS , 3;CHILDREN OF GOD ;GIANTS ;NEPHILIM ;REPHAIM .

James Crichton


SONS OF GOD (NEW TESTAMENT)

1. New Testament Terms:

Two Greek words are translated "son," teknon, huios, both words indicating sonship by parentage, the former indicating that the sonship has taken place by physical descent, while the latter presents sonship more from the legal side than from the standpoint of relationship. John, who lays special emphasis on sonship by birth, uses teknon, while Paul, in emphasizing sonship from the legal side, as referring to adoption, which was current among the Romans but scarcely if at all known to, or if known, practiced by, the Jews, uses the word huios (Jn 1:12; Rom 8:14,16,19; Gal 4:6,7; 1 Jn 3:1,2).

2. New Testament Doctrine:

Men are not by nature the sons of God, at least not in the sense in which believers in Christ are so called. By nature those outside of Jesus Christ are "children of wrath" (Eph 2:3), "of disobedience" (Eph 2:2), controlled not by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:14), but by the spirit of disobedience (Eph 2:2-4). Men become sons of God in the regenerative and adoptive sense by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (Jn 1:12 f; Gal 3:26). The universal brotherhood which the New Testament teaches is that brotherhood which is based on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the divine and only Saviour of the world. And the same is true of the universal Fatherhood of God. It is true that all men are "his offspring" (Acts 17:28 f) in the sense that they are God's created children; but that the New Testament makes a very clear and striking distinction between sonship by virtue of creation and sonship by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, there can be no reasonable doubt.

Sonship is the present possession of the believer in Christ (1 Jn 3:2). It will be completed at the second coming of our Lord (Rom 8:23), at which time the believer will throw off his incognito, by reason of which the world may not have recognized his sonship (1 Jn 3:1,2), and be fully and gloriously revealed as the son of God (2 Cor 5:10). It doth not yet appear, it hath not yet appeared, what we shall be; the revelation of the sons of God is reserved for a coming day of manifestation.

The blessings of sonship are too numerous to mention, save in the briefest way. His sons are objects of God's peculiar love (Jn 17:23), and His Fatherly care (Lk 12:27-33). They have the family name (Eph 3:14 f; 1 Jn 3:1); the family likeness (Rom 8:29); family love (Jn 13:35; 1 Jn 3:14); a filial spirit (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6); a family service (Jn 14:23 f; 15:8). They receive fatherly chastisement (Heb 12:5-11); fatherly comfort (2 Cor 1:4), and an inheritance (Rom 8:17; 1 Pet 1:3-5).

Among the evidences of sonship are: being led by the Spirit (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18); having a childlike confidence in God (Gal 4:5); having liberty of access (Eph 3:12); having love for the brethren (1 Jn 2:9-11; 5:1), and obedience (1 Jn 5:1-3).

William Evans


SOOTHSAYERS

sooth'-sa-erz.

See ASTROLOGY , 1;DIVINATION .


SOP

sop (psomion): A thin, wafer-like piece of bread dipped into the common dish as a sort of improvised spoon, is thus designated in Jn 13:26 ff.

See MORSEL .


SOPATER

so'-pa-ter, sop'-a-ter (Sopatros): the Revised Version (British and American) the son of Pyrrhus; the King James Version omits. A man of Berea who is mentioned with some Thessalonians and others as accompanying Paul as far as Asia on his return to Jerusalem after his 3rd missionary journey (Acts 20:4). He is probably the same as the "Sosipater" of Rom 16:21.


SOPE

sop.

See SOAP .


SOPHERETH

so-fe'-reth, sof'-e-reth, so'-fe-reth (cophereth): One of the remnant returning from captivity (Ezr 2:55 the King James Version; Neh 7:57). In the Revised Version (British and American) of Ezr 2:55 it is "Hassophereth," the definite article being transliterated.


SOPHONIAS

sof-o-ni'-as Septuagint Sophonias): The form in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) of 2 Esdras 1:40 for Zephaniah the prophet.


SORCERER; SORCERY

sor'-ser-er, sor'-ser-i.

See ASTROLOGY , 1;DIVINATION ;MAGIC ;WITCHCRAFT .


SORE

sor (substantive) (negha`; helkos, verb helkoomai): In the account of the appearance of leprosy (Lev 13:42 f) the spot on the skin is called by this name, which in the King James Version is translated "sore," but in the Revised Version (British and American) "plague"; similarly in the Dedication Prayer (2 Ch 6:28 f) the Revised Version (British and American) has altered the rendering of negha` for "sore" to "plague" as it has done also in Ps 38:11. The word literally means a "stroke" or "blow," and so is applied to a disease or infliction from God. makkah Teriyah, in the King James Version is rendered "putrifying sores," the English Revised Version "festering sores," the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version margin "fresh stripes." See STRIPES . In the only other text in the Old Testament in which "sore" is used as a substantive in the King James Version (Ps 77:2), the word used is yadh, which literally means the "outstretched hand," hence, the Revised Version (British and American) renders the text: "My hand was stretched out in the night and slacked not." In the New Testament the ulcers on the limbs of Lazarus which were the result of poverty and hardship (Lk 16:20), and were licked by the pariah dogs (Lk 16:21), are called "sores." Sores also which are called noisome and grievous, were the result of the outpouring of the first of the seven bowls of the wrath of God (Rev 16:2-11).

Alex. Macalister


SOREK, VALLEY OF

so'-rek (nachal soreq, "the valley of the choice (soreq) vine" (see VINE ); sorech): "(Samson) loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah" (Jdg 16:4). Jerome (OS, 153 f, 6) mentions a Capharsorec which was near Saraa (ancient ZORAH (which see)); this latter is undoubtedly the village of Sura`h, high up upon the northern slopes of the great Wady es Surar. About 3/4 of a mile West of this is Khurbet Surik, which is certainly the site referred to by Jerome, and possibly marks that of a more ancient town which gave its name to the whole valley. This valley is of importance in the historical geography of Palestine out of all proportion to its scanty mention in the Old Testament (HGHL, 218 ff). The Wady es Surar is an expansion of the ravine Wady Isma`in (which itself is formed by the junction of the great Wady Beit Chanineh, which rises near Bereh, and the Wady es Sikkeh, which drains the "Plain of Rephaim" near Jerusalem). The Jerus-Jaffa Railway traverses successively the Wady es Surar, the Wady Ismai`n and the Wady es Sikkeh to reach the Jerusalem plateau. The Valley of Sorek is a name which probably belonged only to the open, fertile valley, well suited for vineyards, which traverses the Shephelah. It is now given over almost entirely to the cultivation of wheat, barley and maize (durra). The valley passes between the lofty hill of Sara`h (Zorah) to the North and `Ain Shems (Beth-shemesh) and Tibneh (Timnah) on the South. Standing on the ruins of Beth-shemesh, one can watch the modern railway train winding for miles up the valley along almost the very road from Ekron (now `Akiv), upon which came the strange sight of the milch kine dragging the ark (1 Sam 6:12). Very probably it was in this valley that the Philistines were defeated (1 Sam 7:5-14) (PEF, III, 53, Sh XVII).

E. W. G. Masterman


SORREL

sor'-el: the Revised Version (British and American) in Zec 1:8 for "speckled."

See COLORS .


SORROW

sor'-o (chebhel, yaghon, makh'obh, etc.; lupe): The Old Testament has very many words translated "sorrow," those named being the most frequent; in the New Testament "sorrow" is usually the translation of lupe (Lk 22:45; Jn 16:6; 2 Cor 2:3,7, etc.). Penthos, translated "sorrow" in Rev 18:7; 21:4, is in the Revised Version (British and American) "mourning." Odune, of pain-and distress, is thus rendered in Rom 9:2; 1 Tim 6:10 (compare the verb in Lk 2:48; Acts 20:38). the Revised Version (British and American) frequently gives a more literal rendering of the words used, as "toil" (Gen 3:17), "pangs" (Ex 15:14), "pining" (Dt 28:65), "distress" (Isa 5:30), "lamentation" (Isa 29:2), etc.; sometimes also it uses "sorrow" for other words, as for "grief" (2 Ch 6:29; Ps 31:10; 69:26; etc.; 2 Cor 2:5), "heaviness" (Rom 9:2; 2 Cor 2:1).

Sorrow or grief is necessary for discipline, for the development of the finer feelings and higher nature of the soul and spirit (Eccl 7:3, "Sorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made glad," margin "better"). Sorrow inevitably follows sin, and is its punishment, yet the righteous are not exempt from it. The "Servant of Yahweh" was "a man of sorrows" (Isa 53:3). Christians learn how to be "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing" (2 Cor 6:10; 7:4; Col 1:24; 1 Thess 1:6; etc.). In the New Jerusalem it is predicted that there shall be no sorrow, for sorrow shall have done its work, and the first things have passed away (Rev 21:4).

W. L. Walker


SOSIPATER

so-sip'-a-ter (Sosipatros): Sosipater unites with Lucius and Jason in sending greetings to the Roman Christians (Rom 16:21). He is a "kinsman" of Paul, by which Paul means a Jew (Rom 9:3; 16:11,21). It is the same name as SOPATER (which see). "Sopater of Berea" was one of the companions of Paul on his journey from Philippi after his 3rd missionary journey (Acts 20:4). These two are probably the same person, Paul having with him in Corinth, at the time of writing to the Roman Christians, the two Macedonians, Sopater of Berea and Jason of Thessalonica. The name Sosipater is found on a list of politarchs of Thessalonica.

S. F. Hunter


SOSTHENES

sos'-the-nez (Sosthenes): Chief of the synagogue at Corinth (Acts 18:17). Possibly identical with the co-worker (afterward) of Paul mentioned in 1 Cor 1:1.


SOSTRATUS

sos'-tra-tus (Sostratos, in Codex Venetus Sos-): "The governor of the citadel" of Jerusalem under Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). His duty was to gather the revenues of the city and province for the imperial treasury. He made a new departure in demanding from Menelaus direct the sum promised to the king in 2 Macc 4:27 ff (for Jason had the privilege of sending the money by his own messenger to the king (2 Macc 4:23)). This claim the usurper Menelaus disputed; consequently he and the governor were both summoned to appear before the king. No more is told, and Sostratus is otherwise unknown.

S. Angus


SOTAI

so'-ti, so'-ta-i, so-ta'-i (coTay): One of those who returned from captivity, being descendants of Solomon's servants (Ezr 2:55; Neh 7:57).


SOTTISH

sot'-ish (cakhal "thick-headed"): "They are sottish (stupid, very foolish) children" (Jer 4:22).


SOUL

sol (nephesh; psuche; Latin anima):

1. Shades of Meaning in the Old Testament:

(1) Soul, like spirit, has various shades of meaning in the Old Testament, which may be summarized as follows: "Soul," "living being," "life," "self," "person," "desire," "appetite," "emotion" and "passion" (BDB under the word). In the first instance it meant that which breathes, and as such is distinguished from basar, "flesh" (Isa 10:18; Dt 12:23); from she'er, "the inner flesh," next the bones (Prov 11:17, "his own flesh"); from beTen, "belly" (Ps 31:10, "My soul and my belly are consumed with grief"), etc.

(2) As the life-breath, it departs at death (Gen 35:18; Jer 15:2). Hence, the desire among Old Testament saints to be delivered from Sheol (Ps 16:10, "Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol") and from shachath, "the pit" (Job 33:18, "He keepeth back his soul from the pit"; Isa 38:17, "Thou hast .... delivered it (my soul) from the pit of corruption").

(3) By an easy transition the word comes to stand for the individual, personal life, the person, with two distinct shades of meaning which might best be indicated by the Latin anima and animus. As anima, "soul," the life inherent in the body, the animating principle in the blood is denoted (compare Dt 12:23,24, `Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the soul; and thou shalt not eat the soul with the flesh'). As animus, "mind," the center of our mental activities and passivities is indicated. Thus we read of `a hungry soul' (Ps 107:9), `a weary soul' (Jer 31:25), `a loathing soul' (Lev 26:11), `a thirsty soul' (Ps 42:2), `a grieved soul' (Job 30:25), `a loving soul' (Song 1:7), and many kindred expressions. Cremer has characterized this use of the word in a sentence: "Nephesh (soul) in man is the subject of personal life, whereof pneuma or ruach (spirit) is the principle" (Lexicon, under the word, 795).

(4) This individuality of man, however, may be denoted by pneuma as well, but with a distinction. Nephesh or "soul" can only denote the individual life with a material organization or body. Pneuma or "spirit" is not so restricted. Scripture speaks of "spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb 12:23), where there can be no thought of a material or physical or corporeal organization. They are "spiritual beings freed from the assaults and defilements of the flesh" (Delitzsch, in the place cited.). For an exceptional use of psuche in the same sense see Rev 6:9; 20:4, and (irrespective of the meaning of Ps 16:10) Acts 2:27.

2. New Testament Distinctions:

(1) In the New Testament psuche appears under more or less similar conditions as in the Old Testament. The contrast here is as carefully maintained as there. It is used where pneuma would be out of place; and yet it seems at times to be employed where pneuma might have been substituted. Thus in Jn 19:30 we read: "Jesus gave up his pneuma" to the Father, and, in the same Gospel (Jn 10:15), Jesus gave up His "psuche for the sheep," and in Mt 20:28 He gave His psuche (not His pneuma) as a ransom--a difference which is characteristic. For the pneuma stands in quite a different relation to God from the psuche. The "spirit" (pneuma) is the outbreathing of God into the creature, the life-principle derived from God. The "sour" (psuche) is man's individual possession, that which distinguishes one man from another and from inanimate nature. The pneuma of Christ was surrendered to the Father in death; His psuche was surrendered, His individual life was given "a ransom for many." His life "was given for the sheep"

(2) This explains those expressions in the New Testament which bear on the salvation of the soul and its preservation in the regions of the dead. "Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades" (the world of shades) (Acts 2:27); "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil" (Rom 2:9); "We are .... of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul" (Heb 10:39); "Receive ..... the implanted word, which is able to save your souls" (Jas 1:21).

The same or similar expressions may be met with in the Old Testament in reference to the soul. Thus in Ps 49:8, the King James Version "The redemption of their soul is precious" and again: "God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol" (Ps 49:15). Perhaps this may explain--at least this is Wendt's explanation--why even a corpse is called nephesh or soul in the Old Testament, because, in the region of the dead, the individuality is retained and, in a measure, separated from God (compare Hag 2:13; Lev 21:11).

3. Oehler on Soul and Spirit:

The distinction between psuche and pneuma, or nephesh and ruach, to which reference has been made, may best be described in the words of Oehler (Old Testament Theology, I, 217): "Man is not spirit, but has it: he is soul. .... In the soul, which sprang from the spirit, and exists continually through it, lies the individuality--in the case of man, his personality, his self, his ego." He draws attention to the words of Elihu in Job (33:4): `God's spirit made me,' the soul called into being; `and the breath of the Almighty animates me,' the soul kept in energy and strength, in continued existence, by the Almighty, into whose hands the inbreathed spirit is surrendered, when the soul departs or is taken from us (1 Ki 19:4). Hence, according to Oehler the phrases naphshi ("my soul"), naphshekha ("thy soul") may be rendered in Latin egomet, tu ipse; but not ruchi ("my spirit"), ruchakha ("thy spirit")--soul standing for the whole person, as in Gen 12:5; 17:14; Ezek 18:4, etc.

See PSYCHOLOGY .

J. I. Marais


SOUND

sound: In Isa 63:15 the King James Version has "the sounding of thy bowels," a painfully literal translation of hamon me'eykha, with the similar phrase, "my bowels shall sound like an harp," in Isa 16:11 (compare Jer 48:36). The intestines were considered a seat of emotion, and at times of great excitement were thought (in poetry, at least) to become tense and to give forth a musical sound. The Revised Version (British and American) (following the King James Version in Jer 48:36) substitutes "heart" for "bowels" in Isa 16:11, thus obscuring the figure but preserving the sense. In Isa 63:15 the Revised Version (British and American) paraphrases "the yearning of thy heart" (the English Revised Version "bowels"), a needless change from 16:11.

See also BATH KOL ;SOLEMN ,SOLEMNITY .

Burton Scott Easton


SOUNDINGS

sound'-ingz.

See SHIPS AND BOATS ,III , 2.


SOUR

sour: (1) bocer, "immature," "unripe": "The fathers have eaten sour grapes" (Jer 31:29 f; Ezek 18:2; compare Isa 18:5 the King James Version). (2) cur, "to turn aside," "degenerate": "Their drink is turned sour" (the King James Version margin "gone," the Revised Version margin "Their carouse is over").


SOUTH

south: (1) neghebh, according BDB from [?] naghabh, meaning "to be dry," the word most often used, in the Revised Version (British and American) capitalized (South) in those places where it seems to denote a particular region, i.e. to the South of Judah. (2) yamin, "right hand," "right." The derived meaning, "south," seems to imply an eastern posture in prayer in which the right hand is toward the South; compare Arabic yamin, "right," and yemen, "Yemen," a region in Southwestern Arabia. (3) teman, from the same root as (2) is often used for the south; also for the south wind (Ps 78:26; Song 4:16). (4) yam, literally, "sea" (Ps 107:3). (5) darom, etymology doubtful (Dt 33:23; Ezek 40:24). (6) midhbar, literally, "desert" (Ps 75:6, reading doubtful).

(7) lips, "south west wind" (Acts 27:12). (8) mesembria, literally, "mid-day"; "south" (Acts 8:26); "noon" (Acts 22:6). (9) notos, "south wind" (Lk 12:55; Acts 27:13; 28:13); "south" (1 Macc 3:57; Mt 12:42; Lk 11:31; 13:29; Rev 21:13).

The south wind is often referred to: see Song 4:16; Job 37:9 (compare 9:9); Zec 9:14 (of Isa 21:1); Lk 12:55.

Of the passages where South (neghebh) clearly refers to a particular region between Palestine and Sinai see: "And Abraham journeyed, going on still toward the South" (neghbah) (Gen 12:9; 13:1; Dt 1:7). We read of "the South of the Jerahmeelites," "the South of the Kenites" (1 Sam 27:10); "the South of the Cherethites," "the South of Caleb" (1 Sam 30:14); "the South of Judah" (2 Ch 28:18); "Ramoth of the South" (1 Sam 30:27).

In Ps 126:4, "Turn again our captivity, O Yahweh, as the streams in the South," we have a figurative reference to the fact that, after a long period of drought, the dry watercourses are finally filled with rushing streams. The reference in Ezek 20:46 f to "the forest of the South" is to a condition of things very different from that which exists today, though the region is not incapable of supporting trees if they are only planted and protected.

Alfred Ely Day


SOUTH RAMOTH

See RAMOTH .


SOUTH, CHAMBERS OF THE

The twelve constellations of the Zodiac.

See ASTRONOMY , sec. II, 12.


SOUTH, QUEEN OF THE

(Mt 12:42).

See QUEEN OF SHEBA .


SOUTHEAST

See NORTHEAST .


SOW

sou.

See SWINE .


SOWER; SOWING

so'-er, so'-ing.

See AGRICULTURE .



Placed in the public domain by SpiritAndTruth.org
Report corrections to contact@SpiritAndTruth.org
(Produced: Thu Nov 30 09:18:55 2000)

Help PreviousNext