pu'-a, pu'-va:
(1) pu'ah: One of the Hebrew midwives whom the king of Egypt commanded to kill all male children of the Hebrews at birth. The midwives, fearing God, refused to obey, pretending that the children of the Hebrew women were usually born before they arrived. Their act is spoken of as being meritorious in the eyes of the Lord, who is said to have rewarded them by making "houses" for them (Ex 1:15-20). In the Midrash, Ex Rabba', Puah is identified with Miriam, and Shiphrah, the other midwife, with her mother Jochebed. According to another tradition Puah was a proselyte.
(2) pu'ah, in 1 Ch 7:1; puwwah, in Gen 46:13; Nu 26:23; written also "Pua" the King James Version, and "Puvah" Revised Version: Second son of Issachar, ancestor of the Punites, enumerated in the desert census taken by Moses and Eleazar.
(3) pu'ah: Member of the tribe of Issachar, mentioned (Jdg 10:1) as the son of Dodo and the father of Tola, the judge.
Ella Davis Isaacs
pub'-li-kan.
pub'-li-us (Poplios, from the Latin praenomen Publius, derived from populus, "popular"; according to Ramsay it is the Greek form of the Latin nomen Popilius; the Greek title meaning "first," applied to Publius in Acts 28:7, was an official one, and has been found on an inscription from the island of Gaulus near Malta (compare Bockh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, number 5, 754)): Publius held office under the governor of Sicily. As the leading official in Malta, he was responsible for any Roman soldiers and their prisoners who might land there, but the account in Acts 28:7 implies that he displayed more than ordinary solicitude for Paul and his shipwrecked company, for, according to the writer, he "received us, and lodged us three days courteously" (the King James Version). The Apocryphal "Acts of Paul" (see APOCRYPHAL ACTS , sec. B, I) states also that "he did for them many acts of great kindness and charity" (compare Budge, Centendings of the Apostles,II , 605). On this occasion Paul miraculously healed the father of Publius, who "lay sick of fever and dysentery" (Acts 28:8). The exactitude of the medical terms here employed forms part of the evidence that the writer of Acts was a physician. Tradition relates that Publius was the first bishop of Malta and that he afterward became bishop of Athens.
C. M. Kerr
pu'-denz, pu'-dens (Poudes, literally, "bashful" (2 Tim 4:21)):
One of the Christians in Rome who remained loyal to Paul during his second and last imprisonment there, when most of the members of the church "forsook him." The pressure under which they acted must have been very great, as the apostle's final trial before the supreme court of the empire followed quickly after the Neronic persecution. Their defection from their loyalty to Paul must not be taken as implying that they had also proved untrue to Christ. At this time, however, there were some of the Christians who risked their earthly all, and their lives too, in order to prove their adherence to Paul, and Pudens was one of these.
Writing the last of all his letters, the Second Epistle to Timothy, Paul sends greeting from "all the brethren" who were then with him. Among these he names Pudens. There are three other names associated by the apostle with that of Pudens: Eubulus, Linus and Claudia. There is an interesting conjecture regarding Pudens and Claudia, that their were husband and wife, and that Claudia was of British birth, a daughter of a British king, called Cogidunus. King Cogidunus was an ally of the Romans, and assumed the name of the emperor Tiberius Claudius, who was his patron. In this way his daughter would be named Claudia. But this identification of the British princess with the Claudia who sends salutation to Timothy is only a supposition; it lacks both evidence and proof.
See CLAUDIA and Code of Hammurabi (St. P), chapter xxvii.
In modern Rome, however, the tourist is still shown a building which is called the house of Pudens, in the same way as "Paul's hired house" is also shown. The authenticity in both cases is lacking.
Pudens is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament.
John Rutherfurd
pu'-hits (puthi).
See PUTHITES .
pul:
(1) An Assyrian king (2 Ki 15:19).
See TIGLATH-PILESER .
(2) An African country and people (Isa 66:19).
See PUT .
pool'-pit: Neh 8:4, "Ezra the scribe stood upon a mighdol of wood." Mighdol is one of the commonest words in the Old Testament and means simply a high object--here a scaffolding or platform (bema, 1 Esdras 9:42). "Tower" (so the Revised Version margin) gives an entirely wrong picture.
puls (zero'-im (Dan 1:12 margin, "herbs"), zere'onim (Dan 1:16); compare zerua`, "sowing seed" (Lev 11:37), and zeru'im, "things sown" (Isa 61:11)): (1) In Dan 1:12,16, it must mean herbs or vegetables grown from seeds; a vegetable diet is what is implied. (2) In 2 Sam 17:28, "pulse" after "parched" is not in the original, but is probably more correct than the translation in (1), as "pulse" usually implies leguminous plants, peas, beans, etc.
pun'-ish-ment:
3. Conscious Suffering in Future
1. Old Testament and Jewish Conceptions
III. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS--RIVAL HYPOTHESES
IV. NATURE, CONDITIONS AND ISSUES
LITERATURE
(For "everlasting," where used in the King James Version as the rendering of aionios, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "eternal.") It is assumed in this article that Scripture teaches the survival of the soul after death, the reality of retribution and of judgment to come, and a shorter or longer period of suffering for sin in the case of the unredeemed in the world beyond. Only a few words need be said, therefore, in preliminary remark on these assumptions.
Whatever view may be taken of the development of the doctrine of immortality in the Old Testament (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ), it will scarcely be doubted that it is throughout assumed in the New Testament that the souls of men, good and bad, survive death (seeIMMORTALITY ). Two passages only need be referred to in proof: one, Christ's saying in Mt 10:28: "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Gehenna); the other, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31: Lazarus is carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom; the rich man lifts up his eyes in Hades, being in torments. The whole doctrine of the future judgment in the New Testament presupposes survival after death.
Retribution for sin is a cardinal point in the teaching of both the Old Testament and New Testament. The doctrine of judgment, again, in the New Testament, with Christ as judge, turns on this point. The following passages are decisive: Isa 3:10,11; Mt 11:22,24; 12:41,42; Rom 2:5,12; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 6:7,8, etc.
See RETRIBUTION .
3. Conscious Suffering in Future:
The conscious endurance of punishment for sin in the future state is already implied in the preceding. The parable of the Rich Man speaks of it as following immediately on death in Hades; all the descriptions of the judgment imply pain and anguish as the result of condemnation (compare Rom 2:5,12). This does not settle the nature or duration of the punishment; but it excludes the idea that physical death is the extinction of being, or that annihilation follows immediately upon death or judgment.
These things being assumed, the questions that remain are: Is the period of suffering for sin eternal, or is it terminable? May it be cut short by repentance or by annihilation? Is there any final solution of the discord it implies in the universe? It is maintained here that the punishment of sin, in the case of the finally impenitent, is everlasting.
The doctrine that the punishment of sin is everlasting is sustained by many plain testimonies of Scripture.
1. Old Testament and Jewish Conceptions:
The doctrine of future punishment is not prominent in the Old Testament, where rewards and punishments are chiefly connected with the present life. In a few passages (Ps 49:14,15; 73:18,19; compare Isa 24:21,22; 66:24), Dr. Charles thinks that "Sheol appears as the place of punishment of the wicked" (Eschatology, 73-76, 156). If so, there is no suggestion of escape from it. In Dan 12:2, some that sleep in the dust are represented as awaking to "shame and everlasting contempt" (the word for "everlasting" is the usual one, `olam). In the Jewish literature of the century before Christ, "Sheol is regarded," says Dr. Charles, "as the place of final eternal punishment, that is, it has become hell" (op. cit., 236).
See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT .
In the New Testament, the strongest language is used by Jesus and the apostolic writers on the certainty and severity of the punishment of sin in the future state, and always in a manner which suggests that the doom is final.
The word "eternal" (aionios) is repeatedly applied to the punishment of sin, or to the fire which is its symbol. A principal example is Mt 25:41,46, "eternal fire," "eternal punishment" (kolasis aionios). Here precisely the same word is applied to the punishment of the wicked as to the blessedness of the righteous. Other instances are Mt 18:8; Jude 1:7; compare Rev 14:11; 19:3; 20:10. In 2 Thess 1:9, we have, "eternal destruction." The kindred word aidios, "everlasting," is in Jude 1:6 applied to the punishment of the fallen angels.
The reply made by Maurice (Theological Essays, 442 ff) that aionios in such passages denotes quality, not duration, cannot be sustained. Whatever else the term includes, it connotes duration. More pertinent is the criticism of other writers (e.g. Cox, Salvator Mundi, 96 ff; Farrar, Eternal Hope, Pref., xxxiv, pp. 78 ff, 197 ff; compare his Mercy and Judgment, passim) that aionios does not necessarily mean "eternal" (according to Cox it does not mean this at all), but is strictly "age-long," is therefore compatible with, if it does not directly suggest, a terminable period. Cox allows that the term is "saturated through and through with the element of time" (p. 100,), but he denies its equivalence with "everlasting." The sense, no doubt, is to be determined by the context, but it can hardly be questioned that "the eons of the eons" and similar phrases are the practical New Testament equivalents for eternity, and that aionios in its application to God and to life ("eternal life") includes the idea of unending duration (compare Jn 10:28,29 for express assertion of this). When, therefore, the term is applied in the same context to punishment and to life (Mt 25:46), and no hint is given anywhere of limitation, the only reasonable exegesis is to take the word in its full sense of "eternal."
The meaning "eternal" is confirmed by the use of equivalent expressions and of forms of speech which convey in the strongest manner the idea of finality. Such are the expressions, "the unquenchable fire," the "worm" that "dieth not" (Mt 3:12; Mk 9:43-48; compare Mt 13:42,50), with those numerous references to "death," "destruction," "second death," on which the advocates of conditional immortality build their arguments for final extinction. Such is the dictum of Jesus: "He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth (remains) on him" (Jn 3:36; the opposite of "life" is "perishing," 3:16); or that in Rev 22:11, "He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still." Finality is the note in all Christ's warnings--"the outer darkness" (Mt 8:12; 22:13); "The door was shut .... I know you not" (Mt 25:10,12; compare 7:23), as in those of the Epistles (e.g. Heb 2:3; 6:6,8; 10:27,31; 12:25,29). Jesus speaks of the blasphemy against the Spirit as a sin which shall not be forgiven, "neither in this world, nor in that which is to come" (Mt 12:32; not as implying that other sins, unforgiven in this life, may be forgiven in the next), a passage which Mark gives in the remarkable form, "hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mk 3:29). The Rich Man in Hades found an impassable gulf fixed between himself and Lazarus (Lk 16:26). See GULF . It adds to the terribleness of these sayings that, as before remarked, there is nothing to put against them; no hint or indication of a termination of the doom. Why did Jesus not safeguard His words from misapprehension, if behind them there lay an assurance of restoration and mercy? One may ask with Oxenham, in a reply to Jukes, "whether if Christ had intended to teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, He could possibly have taught it in plainer terms."
The New Testament doctrine of the last judgment leads to the same conclusion. Two things seem plainly taught about this judgment: the first, that it proceeds on the matter of the present life--"the things done in the body" (Mt 25:31-46; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12); and the second, that it is decisive in its issues. Not a single suggestion is given of a reversal of its decisions in any future age. Such silence is inexplicable if the Scriptures meant to teach what the opponents of this doctrine so confidently maintain.
In corroboration of this Scriptural view analogy might be pleaded. How constantly even in this life is the law illustrated of the tendency of character to fixity! The present is the season of grace (2 Cor 6:2), yet what powers of resistance to God and goodness are seen to lie in human nature, and how effectually, often, does it harden itself under the influences that seem most fitted to break down its rebellion! What likelihood is there that eternity will alter this tendency, or make conversion more easy? Eternity can hardly be thought of as more really a scene of grace than time is for those to whom the gospel has already come. Its characteristic mark is said to be "judgment" (Heb 9:27). Like the photographer's bath, may its effect not be to develop and fix existing character, rather than to change it? If so, the state in which judgment finds the soul may be presumed to be one that will remain.
III. Difficulties and Objections--Rival Hypotheses.
What, it will now be asked, of the tremendous difficulties which inhere in this doctrine, with their undeniable effect in alienating many generous minds from it and from Christianity? The lurid rhetorical picturings of the sufferings of the lost, too frequent in the teaching of the past, may be discounted; it is not necessary to go beyond the inexpressibly solemn words of Christ Himself and His apostles. But even with this limitation, does it not seem as if, by this doctrine, a reflection was cast on the righteousness and mercy of God in creating such multitudes of the human race, as, on any showing, are outside the pale of Christ's salvation--the countless generations of the heathen, with the masses even in Christian lands who have not received or do not obey the light--only to doom them to endless misery? Before attempting a positive answer, it is proper that a glance be taken at the rival theories put forth in alleviation of the difficulty.
The most comprehensive solution propounded is that of universal salvation--of a final restitution of all souls to God's favor and to blessedness. This tempting speculation--for it is no more--advocated by Origen in the early church, by Schleiermacher in the last century, has been urged by many writers in modern times. One of its best known advocates was Samuel Cox, in his book Salvator Mundi. It is noticeable that not a few who favor this theory (e.g. Maurice, Farrar) decline to commit themselves to it as more than a "hope," and admit the possibility of human souls continuing to resist God endlessly (Maurice, Theological Essays, 476; Farrar, Eternal Hope, Pref., xv, xvi; Mercy and Judgment, I, 485, "In this sense there may be for some souls an endless hell"). It must, however, be evident that, be the number greater or smaller--and who shall give assurance of its smallness?--if there are any such souls, the difficulty in principle remains, and the passages alleged as teaching universal restoration are equally contradicted. The deeper objection to this theory is that, springing, not from real knowledge, but from men's hopes and wishes, it has, as already shown, the tremendous stress of Scripture testimony against it; nor do the passages commonly adduced as favoring it really bear the weight put upon them. We read, e.g., of a restoration of all things"--the same that Christ calls the palingenesia--but, in the same breath, we are told of those who will not hearken, and will be destroyed (Mt 19:28; Acts 3:21,23). We read of Christ drawing all men unto Him (Jn 12:32); but we are not less clearly told that at His coming Christ will pronounce on some a tremendous condemnation (Mt 7:23; 25:41); we read of all things being gathered, or summed up, in Christ, of Christ subduing all things to Himself, etc.; but representative exegetes like Meyer and Weiss show that it is far from Paul's view to teach an ultimate conversion or annihilation of the kingdom of evil (compare Meyer on 1 Cor 15:21,28 and Eph 1:10; Weiss, Biblical Theology, II, 723, 107, 109, English translation). We confess, however, that the strain of these last passages does seem to point in the direction of some ultimate unity, be it through subjugation, or in some other way, in which active opposition to God's kingdom is no longer to be reckoned with.
The view favored by another class is that of the annihilation of the finally impenitent. The type of doctrine called "conditional immortality" includes other elements which need not here be discussed (see IMMORTALITY ). The annihilation theory takes different forms. So far as the annihilation is supposed to take place at death, it is contradicted by the Scriptures which support the soul's survival after death; so far as it is believed to take place after a longer or shorter period of conscious suffering (which is White's theory), it involves its advocates in difficulties with their own interpretations of "death," "destruction," "perishing," seeing that in Scripture this doom is uniformly represented as overtaking the ungodly at the day of judgment, and not at some indefinite period thereafter. The theory conflicts also with the idea of gradation of punishment, for which room has to be sought in the period of conscious suffering, and rests really on an unduly narrowed conception of the meaning of the Scriptural terms "life" and "death." Life is not bare existence, nor is "death" necessarily extinction of being. Assaid earlier, the language of many parts of Scripture implies the continued existence of the subjects of the divine wrath.
It is significant that on the side alike of the advocates of restoration and of those of annihilation (e.g. E. White), refuge from the difficulties is frequently sought in the hypothesis of an extended probation and work of evangelization beyond death. This theory labors under the drawback that, in marked contrast with Scripture, it throws immensely the larger part of the work of salvation into the future state of being. It is, besides, apart from the dubious and limited support given to it by the passage on Christ's preaching to "the spirits in prison" (1 Pet 3:19,20); destitute of Scriptural support. It has already been pointed out that the final judgment is uniformly represented as proceeding on the matter of this life. The theory is considered elsewhere.
See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT , sec. X.
IV. Nature, Conditions and Issues.
While dogmatisms like the above, which seem opposed to Scripture, are to be avoided, it is equally necessary to guard against dogmatisms of an opposite kind, as if eternity must not, in the nature of the case, have its undisclosed mysteries of which we here in time can frame no conception. The difficulties connected with the ultimate destinies of mankind are truly enormous, and no serious thinker will minimize them. Scripture does not warrant it in negative, any more than in positive, dogmatisms; with its uniformly practical aim, it does not seek to satisfy an idle curiosity (compare Lk 13:23,24). Its language is bold, popular, figurative, intense; the essential idea is to be held fast, but what is said cannot be taken as a directory to all that is to transpire in the ages upon ages of an unending duration. God's methods of dealing with sin in the eternities may prove to be as much above our present thoughts as His dealings now are with men in grace. In His hands we must be content to leave it, only using such light as His immediate revelation yields.
As respects the nature of the punishment of sin, it cannot be doubted that in its essence it is spiritual. Everything can be adopted here which is said by Maurice and others--"The eternal punishment is the punishment of being without the knowledge of God, who is love, and of Jesus Christ who has manifested it; even as eternal life is declared to be the having the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ" (Theological Essays, 450). The supreme penalty of sin is unquestionably the loss of God's life and love--the being sinful. Environment, indeed, may be expected to correspond with character, but the hell is one the sinner essentially makes for himself, and, like the kingdom of God, is within. The fire, the worm, the stripes, that figure its severity, are not physical. Even should the poena sensus (were that conceivable) be utterly removed, the poena damni would eternally remain.
It is a sound principle that, in His dealing with sin in the world to come, God's mercy will reach as far as ever it can reach. This follows from the whole Scriptural revelation of the character of God. What may be included in it, it is impossible for anyone to say. It should be noticed that those of whom it is said that they shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them, are those who "obey not" the truth (Jn 3:36)--who actively and consciously disregard and oppose it. But all do not belong to this class. It may be assumed that none will be lost who can in consistency with holiness and love be saved. The most germinal goodness, which is the implantation of His own Spirit, God will acknowledge and develop. The problem of undeveloped character may receive a solution we do not wot of with the entrance into the eternal light--not in change of character, but rather, as said before, in the revelation of character's inmost bent. In this sense, the entrance into eternity may be to many the revelation of a love and grace which had not been understood or appreciated as it should have been on earth, but with which it is in essential kinship. There are at least many shades and degrees of character, and God may be entrusted to take the most just, yet most merciful, account of all.
The fullest weight must further be given to what the Scripture so expressly says of gradation of punishment, even of the unsaved. It is not the case that the lot of all who fail of the eternal life in Christ is all of one grade. There are the "few stripes" and the "many stripes" (Lk 12:47,48); those for whom it will be "more tolerable" than for others in the day of judgment (Mt 11:20,24). Even "Sodom and her daughters" will be mercifully dealt with in comparison with others (Ezek 16:48,49,53,55,61). There will be for everyone the most exact weighing of privilege, knowledge and opportunity. There is a vast area here for the divine administration on which no light at all is afforded us.
There remain those passages already alluded to which do seem to speak, not, indeed, of conversion or admission into the light and fellowship of Christ's kingdom, but still of a final subjugation of the powers of evil, to the extent, at least, of a cessation of active opposition to God's will, of some form of ultimate unification and acknowledgment of Christ as Lord. Such passages are Eph 1:10; Phil 2:9-11; above all, 1 Cor 15:24-28. God, in this final vision, has become "all in all." Here, again, dogmatism is entirely out of place, but it is permissible to believe that these texts foreshadow such a final persuasion of God's righteousness in His judgment and of the futility of further rebellion as shall bring about an outward pacification and restoration of order in the universe disturbed by sin, though it can never repair that eternal loss accruing from exclusion from Christ's kingdom and glory.
LITERATURE.
Against: Maurice, Theological Essays, "Eternal Life and Eternal Death"; S. Cox, Salvator Mundi; F. W. Farrar, Eternal Hope; Mercy and Judgment; A. Jukes, The Second Death and the Restitution of All Things; E. White, Life in Christ; H. Constable, Duration and Nature of Future Punishment. For: Pusey, What Is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment, H. N. Oxenham, Catholic Eschatology; C. Clemance, Future Punishment; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Appendix, xix, "On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament "; The Future Life, A Defence of the Orthodox View, by the Most Eminent American Scholars; S. D. F. Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, Book VI; Orr, Christian View of God, lecture ix; Luthardt, Saving Truths (English translations), lecture x. See also the various works on Dogmatic and Biblical Theology.
James Orr
pun'-ish-ments ('awon, "fault," "iniquity," "punishment for iniquity," "sin" (Gen 4:13; Lev 26:41; Job 19:29; Ps 149:7; Lam 4:22; Ezek 14:10 margin; Am 1:3,6,9,11,13; 2:1,4,6), `onesh, "tribute," "fine," "punishment" (Lam 3:39), chaTa'ah, or chaTTa'th, "sin" and its retribution, "penalty," "expiation" (Zec 14:19); kolasis, "punishment," "torment" (Mt 25:46), epitimia, "poll tax," hence, "penalty" (2 Cor 2:6), timoria, "vindication," hence, "penalty" (Heb 10:29), ekdikesis, "vindication," "retribution" (1 Pet 2:14 the King James Version)): A court could inflict for a crime against the person, a sentence of (1) death in the form of stoning, burning, beheading, or strangling, etc.; (2) exile to one of the cities of refuge in case of manslaughter (Nu 35); or (3) stripes, not to exceed 40, in practice 39 or less (Dt 25:3; 2 Cor 11:24). Offences against property (theft, fraudulent conversion of deposit, embezzlement, robbery) were punished by exacting more than the value of the things taken (Lk 19:8), the excess going to the injured party, thus differing from a fine, which goes into the treasury of the community. The housebreaker was liable to be slain with impunity (Ex 22:2). A fine in the modern sense is unknown in the Scriptures, unless Lev 5:6-19 be interpreted as referring to such.
1. History of the Hebrew Law concerning Punishment:
The earliest theory of punishment seems to have been that of retaliation--"blood for blood"--and to some extent this principle appears even in the Law of Moses (Lev 21:19,20; Mt 5:38). Early in the history of the race, punishment was administered for sin and crime. Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden, and Cain, the first murderer, though not executed in retaliation for his deed, had a mark set on him. The words of Lamech (Gen 4:24) indicate that death was regarded as the fitting punishment for murder, and the same thought apparently was in the minds of the brethren of Joseph (Gen 42:21). Judah, as head of his family, seems to have had power of life and death (Gen 38:24), and Abimelech threatens his people with the extreme punishment in case they injure or insult Isaac or his wife (Gen 26:11). Similar power is ascribed to Pharaoh (Gen 41:13).
2. The Mosaic Law concerning Punishment:
Under the Law of Moses, the murderer was to be put to death without mercy. Even if he took refuge at the altar in a sanctuary or in an asylum city, he would not be immune from arrest and execution, and the same principle was applied in the case of an animal (Ex 21:12,14,23,28,36 parallel). But punishment under the Mosaic Law was not to be entailed or transmitted (Dt 24:16), as was the case among the Chaldeans (Dan 6:24) and the kings of Israel (1 Ki 21; 2 Ki 9:26).
It has been noted that capital punishment is extensively prescribed by the Mosaic Law, and undoubtedly the Law was carried out. This circumstance has been explained by reference to the fact that the nation consisted of newly emancipated slaves, and therefore required harsh measures to keep them in check.
Under the Mosaic Law, the offenses that made one liable to the punishment of death were: (1) striking or reviling a parent (Ex 21:15,17); (2) blasphemy (Lev 24:14,16,23; 1 Ki 21:10; Mt 26:65,66); (3) Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31:14; 35:2; Nu 15:32-36); (4) witchcraft and false pretension to prophecy (Ex 22:18; Lev 20:27; Dt 13:5; 18:20; 1 Sam 28:9); (5) adultery (Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22); (6) unchastity: (a) before marriage, but detected afterward (Dt 22:21), (b) in case of a woman with someone other than her betrothed (Dt 22:23), (c) in a priest's daughter (Lev 21:9); (7) rape (Dt 22:25); (8) incestuous and unnatural connections (Ex 22:19; Lev 20:11,14,16); (9) man-stealing (Ex 21:16); (10) idolatry, actual or virtual, in any form (Lev 20:2; Dt 13:6; 17:2-7); (11) false witness in capital cases (Dt 19:16,19).
A large number of offenses come under the law of punishment by cutting off from the people, the meaning of which expression has led to some controversy. It may signify excommunication or death, and occurs in connection with the following offenses: (1) breach of morals, such as willful sin in general (Nu 15:30,31); incestuous or unclean connections (Lev 18:29; 29:9-21); (2) breach of covenant, brought about through uncircumcision (Gen 17:14; Ex 4:24), neglect of Passover (Nu 9:13), Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31:14), neglect of Atonement Day (Lev 23:29), work done on the Atonement Day (Lev 23:30), children offered to Molech (Lev 20:3), witchcraft (Lev 20:6), anointing an alien with holy oil (Ex 30:33); (3) breach of ritual, committed by eating leavened bread during Passover (Ex 12:15,19), eating fat of sacrifices (Lev 7:25), eating blood (Lev 7:27; 17:14), eating sacrifices while unclean (Lev 7:20,21; 22:3,4,9), offering too late (Lev 19:8), making holy ointment for private use (Ex 30:32,33), making perfume for private use (Ex 30:38), general neglect of purification (Nu 19:13,20), not bringing offering after slaying a beast for food (Lev 17:9), slaying the animal at a place other than the tabernacle door (Lev 17:4), touching holy things illegally (Nu 4:15,18,20).
Of capital punishments that are properly regarded as of Hebrew origin, we note:
(1) Stoning
Stoning, which was the ordinary mode of execution (Ex 19:13; Lev 20:27; Josh 7:25; Lk 20:6; Acts 7:58; 14:5). The witnesses, of whom there were at least two, were required to cast the first stone (Dt 13:9 f; Jn 8:7). If these failed to cause death, the bystanders proceeded to complete the sentence, whereupon the body was to be suspended until sunset (Dt 21:23).
(2) Hanging
Hanging is mentioned (Nu 25:4; Dt 21:22), probably not as a mode of execution, but rather of exposure after death. It may have been a Canaanitish punishment, since it was practiced by the Gibeonites on the sons of Saul (2 Sam 21:6,9).
(3) Burning
Burning, before the age of Moses, was the punishment of unchastity (Gen 38:24). The Law prescribes it as a punishment in the case of a priest's daughter (Lev 21:9), and in case of incest (Lev 20:14), but it is also mentioned as following death by other means (Josh 7:25), and some believe it was never used except after death. That it was sometimes used as a punishment on living persons among the heathen is shown by Dan 3.
(4) The Sword or Spear
The sword or spear as an instrument of punishment is named in the Law (Ex 19:13; 32:27; Nu 25:7 ff). It occurs frequently in monarchic and post-Bab times (Jdg 9:5; 1 Sam 15:33; 2 Sam 20:22; 1 Ki 19:1; Jer 26:23; Mt 14:8,10), but among these cases, there are some of assassination rather than of punishment.
(5) Strangling
Strangling as a form of punishment has no Scripture authority, but according to tradition was frequently employed, and is said to have been performed by immersing the convict in clay or mud, and then strangling him by a cloth tied around the neck.
3. Punishments of Foreign Origin:
Besides these, which are to be regarded as the ordinary capital punishments, we read of some that were either of foreign introduction or of an irregular kind, such as: (1) crucifixion (which see); (2) drowning (Mt 18:6 parallel); (3) sawing asunder or crushing (2 Sam 12:31; Heb 11:37); (4) torturing (1 Ch 20:3; Heb 11:35); (5) precipitation (2 Ch 25:12; Lk 4:29); (6) suffocation (2 Macc 13:4-8). The Persians are said to have filled a high tower a great way up with ashes, and then to have thrown the criminal into it, and continually stirred up the ashes by means of a wheel till he was suffocated (Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchy, III, 246).
See also HEROD ,II , 100.
Secondary forms of punishment not heretofore mentioned are to be noted as follows:
(1) Blinding or Putting Out of Eyes
Blinding or putting out of eyes in the case of captives (Jdg 16:21; 1 Sam 11:2; 2 Ki 25:7).
(2) Chaining
Chaining by means of manacles or fetters of copper or iron, similar to our handcuffs fastened on the wrists and ankles and attached to each other by a chain (Jdg 16:21; 2 Sam 3:34; 2 Ki 25:7); also alluded to in the life of Paul (Acts 28:20; Eph 6:20; 2 Tim 1:16); and in the case of Peter (Acts 12:6).
(3) Confiscation of Property
Confiscation of property that had fallen under the ban, i.e. had been singled out for destruction by the special decree of Yahweh, as in Nu 21:2; Josh 6:17; or had been reserved for the use of the army (Dt 2:35; 20:14; Josh 22:8); or given over to the priesthood (Josh 6:19). The term may be extended to include all things vowed or sanctified and those irrevocably devoted or consecrated to God (Lev 27:21,28). The idea is applied with special emphasis to those things which, because of their uncleanness, must not be used by the Israelites, though, through their warfare with the heathen, they might have come into possession of them (Dt 7:26; 1 Sam 15:16-23).
(4) Dashing in Pieces (Psalms 2:9; Isaiah 13:18).
See VISITATION .
(6) Exposure to Wild Beasts (Leviticus 26:22; 1 Samuel 17:46; Daniel 6).
(7) Flaying
(Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchy, I, 478; Nineveh and Babylon; mentioned figuratively in Mic 3:3).
(9) Gallows
Gallows in the modern sense probably were unknown to the ancients. Where the word occurs in Est 5:14; 6:4; 7:9,10; 9:13,15, it probably refers to a beam or pole on which the body was impaled and then elevated to a height of 50 cubits as an object of warning to the people (see "Hanging").
(10) Imprisonment
Imprisonment is frequently referred to in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, indicating that this was a common mode of punishment among both the Israelites and other nations (Gen 40:3; 42:17; Lev 24:12; Nu 15:34; 1 Ki 22:27; Jer 37:15,21; Lk 3:20; Acts 4:3,10; 23:10; and the Epistles of Paul).
See PRISON .
In this term may be included all those outbursts of vengeance or other evil dispositions that were practiced in times or under circumstances when liberties with the prisoner were permitted on the part of bystanders or those who had charge beyond the execution of the judicial decree. Instances are found in the life of Christ (Mt 26:59,67; Lk 22:63 ff; Jn 18:22); also in the life of Paul (Acts 23:2).
(12) Mutilation (Judges 1:6,7; Ezekiel 23:25; 2 Maccabees 7).
The Law was opposed to thus treating any Israelite, and Samuel, when referring to the arbitrary power of the future king (1 Sam 8:10 ff), does not say that he would thus treat "their sons." It was a barbarous custom of the East (see EUNUCH ;POLYGAMY ), evidently regarded, among the Hebrews, as a heinous practice (Dt 23:1). The only act authorizing mutilation (except in retaliation) is mentioned in Dt 25:11.
(13) Plucking Off the Hair
Plucking off the hair is alluded to as a mode of punishment in Neh 13:25; Isa 50:6.
(14) Prison Garments
Prison garments were in vogue to mark the convicts (Jer 52:33).
(15) Restitution
Restitution has been alluded to in the general introduction to this topic.
(16) Retaliation
Retaliation was recognized by Moses as a principle, but the application of it was left to the judge (Lev 24:19-22). A fine example of it is found in the law of Dt 19:19.
(17) Scorpions, Chastising with.
Probably the use of thongs armed with pointed pieces of lead or other metal (1 Ki 12:11; 2 Ch 10:14).
See SCORPIONS .
See separate article.
See separate article.
See PRISON .
Frank E. Hirsch
pu'-nits (puni, probably "dark"): Descendants of Puvah, of the tribe of Issachar (Nu 26:23; compare Gen 46:13; Jdg 10:1; 1 Ch 7:1).
pu'-non (punon): A desert camp of the Israelites, the second after leaving Mt. Hor (Nu 33:42,43). Eusebius (Onom 299 85; 123 9) mentions an Idumean village, North of Petra, in the desert, where convicts were mining copper, called Phinon or Phainon. These are doubtless identical.
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL .
See PURIM .
pu'-ra (purah, "branch"): Gideon's "servant," literally, "young man," i.e. armor-bearer (Jdg 7:10 f, the King James Version "Phurah").
pur'-chats: In modern English, "to acquire by payment," in Elizabethan English, "to acquire" by any means. In the Old Testament, the King James Version has used "purchase" to represent qanah, and its derivatives (verb and noun), except in Lev 25:33, where the word is ga'al (the Revised Version (British and American) "redeem"). In the New Testament the noun does not occur and the verb is used for ktaomai, in Acts 1:18; 8:20, and peripoieo, in Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:13. But none of these words connotes the payment of a price, so that the Revised Version (British and American) has kept the word only in Acts 20:28 (margin "acquired"), changing it into "obtain" in Acts 1:18; 8:20, and "gain" in 1 Tim 3:13. In the Old Testament, the Revised Version margin has "gotten" in Ex 15:16 and the American Standard Revised Version has (very properly) introduced the same word into the text of Ps 74:2; 78:54.
Burton Scott Easton
pur, pur'-li, pu'-ri-ti: This group of words has in the Old Testament and the New Testament an almost exclusively ethical significance, though the word "pure" is of course used also in its literal sense of freedom from alloy or other alien matter (Ex 25:11, etc.). "Pure" in the Old Testament represents many Hebrew words, most frequently Tahor; "purely," occurs once only in the King James Version, as the translation of bor, properly "that which cleanses" (compare Job 9:30, the Revised Version margin "Hebrew `cleanse my hands with lye,' " i.e. alkali for soap) in Isa 1:25, the Revised Version (British and American) "thoroughly (margin "as with lye," the King James Version "purely") purge away thy dross"; "pureness" is the King James Version translation of the same word in Job 22:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "cleanness." In the New Testament "pure" is the translation chiefly of katharos (Mt 5:8, Blessed are the pure in heart," etc.), but also of hagnos (Phil 4:8; 1 Tim 5:22; Jas 3:17; 1 Jn 3:3--always in an ethical sense). A different word (eilikrines) is used in 2 Pet 3:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "sincere." "Purity" (hagneia) occurs only in the King James Version in 1 Tim 4:12; 5:2; in the Revised Version (British and American) in 2 Cor 11:3 (as the translation of tes hagnotelos).
W. L. Walker
purj: A number of words in both the Old Testament and the New Testament are so rendered in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), although frequently in the Revised Version (British and American) the older English word "purge" is displaced by the more applicable modern terms "cleanse" and "purify," since the emphatic and medical senses of the word, as we now use it, are not justified by some of the Hebrew and Greek originals. In older English the word was broader in meaning, today it is specific. Occurrences in the King James Version, with the changes made in the Revised Version (British and American), are as follows:
(1) Taber, literally, "to be clean," used of the putting-away of idolatry from Judah by Josiah (2 Ch 34:3,8), is translated "purge" in all VSS, but, in Ezek 24:13, the American Standard Revised Version changes to "cleanse." (2) chaTa', literally, "to make a sin offering" (Ps 51:7): is changed without improvement to "purify" in the American Standard Revised Version, while "purge" is retained in the English Revised Version. (3) kaphar, "to cover" or "to make atonement," occurs in Ps 65:3; 79:9; Ezek 43:20,26; in the two passages in Psalms, the Revised Version (British and American) has "forgive" (the "expiate" of the margin is still better), and in Ezekiel the even more accurate "make atonement." In both (4) tsaraph, "to refine" (Isa 1:25), and (5) duach, literally, "to rinse" (Isa 4:4), "purge" is well retained in the Revised Version (British and American). (6) barar, literally, "to be shining," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in Ezek 20:38, but in Dan 11:35 changes to "purify." (7) zaqaq, "to pour down" as molten metal (Mal 3:3), also becomes "purify" in the Revised Version (British and American).
These occurrences are all in the figurative sense, and apply to sin, uncleanness, idolatry, etc. Most noteworthy is the American Standard Revised Version change of the familiar Ps 51:7.
The Greek words rendered "purge" in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and New Testament are kathairo, and katharizo, and their compounds and derivatives. In all passages except four, the Revised Version (British and American) more properly translates "cleanse" (Mt 3:12; Mk 7:19; Lk 3:17; Jn 15:2; Heb 9:14,22; 10:2). In Heb 1:3 "when he had by himself purged our sins" is changed to "had made purification of." But in the case of the verb compounded with the preps. apo and ek, i.e. apokathairo and ekkathairo (Job 12:9; 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Tim 2:21), with strong signification to "cleanse out," the Revised Version (British and American) properly retains "purge." Most worthy of note is the change of the familiar verse in John, "Every branch, that beareth fruit, he purgeth" to "Every branch .... he cleanseth" (15:2).
Edward Mack
pu-ri-fi-ka'-shun.
See PURGE ;PURITY ;UNCLEANNESS .
pur'-rim, pur (purim, "lots"; Septuagint Phrourai): The name of a Jewish festival celebrated on the 14th and 15th days of the month Adar, the final month of the Biblical year, corresponding to February-March.
The origin of the festival is narrated in the Book of Esther, and indeed is the motive of the book, as the time, reason and manner of its celebration are given in detail (Est 3:7; 9:24 ff). Reference also is made to it in apocryphal literature (Additions to Esther 10:10-13; 2 Macc 15:36) and in Josephus (Ant., XI, vi, 13). No reference is made to this feast in the New Testament, as it was celebrated locally, and is therefore not to be connected with any of the festal pilgrimages to Jerusalem. For this reason the supposition of some that the feast of Jn 5:1 was Purim is to be rejected, mention of it being immediately followed by the words, "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem."
For the complete account of the institution of Purim reference must be made to the Book of Esther. Only a brief statement is possible here. Haman, son of Hammedatha the AGAGITE (q.v.; compare 1 Sam 15:8,32), who had been made prime minister by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), bitterly hated the Jews, some of whom, as Mordecai, were rising to prominence in the empire. After Queen Vashti had been put away from her royal position for cause (Est 1:9-12), a Jewess named Esther, kinswoman and adopted daughter of Mordecai, was chosen to become the royal consort. This only increased the hatred of Haman, who in his jealous fury soon began to seek an opportune day to work his hate upon Mordecai and the whole Jewish people, and therefore resorted to the casting of the lots for the auspicious time: "They cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar" (3:7). Beginning with the 1st month, all the days and months were tried with unfavorable result, until the last. At Haman's request Ahasuerus caused his scribes to send into all the realm on the 13th day of the 1st month a decree that all Jews should be put to death on the 13th day of the 12th month (3:12 ff). As the narrative shows, the wisdom of Mordecai, Esther's heroism, and fasting and prayer availed to foil the dastardly scheme of Haman, who had already built the gallows on which his hated rival should be hanged. Haman was himself hanged on this gallows, while Mordecai was honored yet more (7:10; 8:1,2). A second decree was issued on the 23rd day of the 3rd month that on the 13th day of the 12th month (8:9,12), the day appointed in the first decree for their extermination, the Jews should gather together and defend themselves against their foes. On that fateful day not only did the Jews successfully resist the malice of their enemies, but the public officials also, seeing that the royal favor was with the Jews, espoused their cause. In Shushan, the royal city, a second day, the 14th, was granted the Jews for vengeance on their foes (9:11-16). In view of so great a deliverance "Mordecai wrote these things .... unto all the Jews .... to enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly, as the days wherein the Jews had rest from their enemies (9:20-22).
Already as early as the times of the Maccabees (2 Macc 15:36), the festival was observed, the 14th day being called "Mordecai's day." Josephus refers to it as continuously and widely observed down to his time: "For this cause the Jews still keep the forementioned days, and call them days of Purim" (Ant., XI, vi, 13). In succeeding centuries as the Jews have passed from one civilization or empire to another, so many causes have arisen to remind them of the persecutions of Haman as to make the festival of a triumph over such persecutions both attractive and most significant to them. Experiences in Syria, Egypt, Rome, Russia and elsewhere have not been lacking in suggestion of the original occasion of Purim. The 13th day has been observed by fasting in commemoration of Esther's prayer and fasting before she approached the king; in the evening, at the beginning of the 14th day, the Jews repair to the synagogues where the Book of Esther, one of the meghilloth, is read with interpretations, execrations bursting out at the reading of Haman's name, accompanied by noise of rattles and stamping of feet, other persecutors and foes also sometimes coming in for a share of execration. The names of Mordecai and Esther receive blessings. On the following morning of the 14th synagogue services are again held, at which, in addition to the repetition of the Esther reading, Ex 17:8-16, which records the destruction of the Amalekites (compare Est 3:1), is also read as the lesson from the Law, presents are given to the poor and to friends, and the rest of the day, as also the 15th, observed with feasting and rejoicing, even excesses being condoned in the exuberance of national spirit.
Many attempts have been made to trace the origin of Purim in pagan or cosmic festivals, but to the present time without success, without approach even to probability. Supposed connections with nature myths, national festivals, polytheistic legends have all found advocates. The word itself has suggested the possibility of identification with words of similar form or sound in other languages. But the ease of finding such similarities for any word casts doubt upon the reliability of any identification. (1) It has been traced to the Assyrian puru, and identified with the Assyrian New Year when officials entered upon their term of service. (2) The Babylonian puhru, new year festival, has also been claimed as the origin of Purim; Mordecai becomes Marduk, Esther is Ishtar, while Haman, Vashti and Zeresh are Median gods. (3) The most popular attempts at identification are in the Persian field, where bahr, "lot," is claimed as the source of Pur, or purdighan, "new year," or farwardighan, the feast of departed souls. (4) Origin also in a Greek bacchanalian occasion has been sought. (5) Others suggest origin in other Jewish experiences than that claimed by the Book of Esther itself, such as a captivity in Edom, or a persecution under the Ptolemies in Egypt, or the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor in 161 BC (1 Macc 7:49). No one of all these theories has sufficient probability to secure for itself anything like general acceptance; the Book of Est remains as the most reasonable account; the difficulties met in it are not so great as those of the explanations sought in other languages and religions.
LITERATURE.
Bible dicts., especially HDB, Encyclopedia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia; Paton, commentary on "Est" in ICC, particularly pp. 77-94.
Edward Mack
pu'-ri-ti: The Bible bears witness to the long struggle over and in man to secure physical, mental, and moral cleanliness. The various forms of purity have relation to each other.
We have a common proverb that "cleanliness is akin to godliness." Cleanliness and aesthetics are certainly nigh neighbors. But cleanliness and ethics do not dwell farther apart. When one realizes that by uncleanness of person or property he may endanger the health or life of family, or even of society about him--as in keeping conditions that develop typhoid fever--he begins to realize that there is, a close tie between cleanliness and morals. "Ought" comes in on the sphere of cleanliness, and then the whole realm of ethics is open. So near are the departments of physical and ethical cleanliness that now if one hears the word "slum" without explanation, he cannot tell whether it relates to filth or sin.
The perception of this relationship is of very ancient date. Though it is Isaiah who says (52:11) "Cleanse yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of Yahweh," and Mk 7:3,4, "All the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, except they bathemselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels," yet such statements are but summaries of directions distributed here and there throughout the whole Levitical Law. We can read therein what sounds like the hygienic orders of a general to his soldiers on the march, or like the rules of the board of health to preserve a city from pestilence. And these Levitical directions for cleanliness are connected inseparably with the worship of Yahweh, as though physical purity were to that an essential. The Psalmist blends these two elements, the physical and the ethical, in the familiar question and answer (Ps 24:3-5), "Who shall ascend into the hill of Yahweh? And who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto falsehood, and hath not sworn deceitfully. He shall receive a blessing from Yahweh, and righteousness from the God of his salvation."
The ceremonial cleansings called for by the Law had meaning and influence. They were interpretative of something spiritual--were a parable way of illustrating the necessity of purity of heart in order to gain acceptance with God. If in after-days the thing symbolized was forgotten in the symbol, that was owing to "blindness of mind." The darkness was not necessary.
But the main subject in respect to which we shall in this article seek light on purity from the Bible will not be hygiene or aesthetics, but morals. When we turn to that department we shall at once realize the fact that the sex relation is the most primitive and comprehensive of all the human relations.
The Family.
The attitude of the Bible in respect to that relation is unmistakable. From the vision of the Garden of Eden to that of the New Jerusalem, the Bible rings true to the ideal of purity in family life and in the relations of the sexes to each other. This is remarkable, for it is a vast history over which its narrative sweeps, and in it every species of literature is represented. It sets forth the acts and views of a people in all the stages of civilization, from wandering nomads to dwellers in cities embellished by architecture and every device of man to set forth riches and splendor. It sets forth their crime, shame and sin, as well as their virtues, but its tone is approbative of the virtues and reprobative of the crime, shame and sin. In the Magna Charta of the Hebrew people--the Ten Commandments--there stands in equal rank with any other principle, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The sanction of religion and law was thus given to the integrity and purity of family life. The minute regulations against marriage with relatives, and the severe punishments inflicted for disregard of the restrictions (Lev 18 and 20), were a powerful force in the same direction. The adultery of married persons was to be punished by the death of both the parties (Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22).
Such laws may sometimes seem severe. Doubtless they are primitive and date from the time of nomadism. In primitive conditions, penalties for infraction of law are to be severe and swift. Pioneers the world over and through time, for very self-preservation's sake, could show little favor or tolerance to lawlessness. Be these laws severe, they show the intense earnestness of a people to have a pure family life in which children born should be genuine to it. These Levitical restrictions upon intermarriage with relatives fit the sense of propriety and right of civilized people, even to this day.
There is no question about the attitude of the prophets on purity. They were in harmony with the Law. They had no tolerance for corrupt morals or manners leading to impurity or suggesting it. An illustration sometimes has the light of the sun in it. What it is that is illustrated is frequently best seen by looking at the illustration itself. The prophets were passionate monotheists. They wanted above all things that Israel should be true to Yahweh and to Him alone. To the prophets, worship of other gods was treason to Yahweh. One prophet after another, and over and over again, illustrates this highest of crimes by infidelity in the marriage relation. That shows in what estimate the family was held. To put any other in the place of Yahweh was "to go a-whoring after other gods," or "to play the harlot." That shows as nothing else could how deep in the heart was sunk regard for pure family life. Infidelity was high treason there, or it never would have furnished language to describe high treason to God.
Prov 5 and 7 indicate the attitude of the book on purity. We may let the book make its own case. The wiles of "the strange woman" and the stupid folly and destruction of her victim are specially set forth in the chapters mentioned. In the last chapter of the book we have a portraiture of a "virtuous woman" in whom domesticity in purity has reached a high stage. "Let her own works praise her in the gates."
It is pleasant to turn from the tense severity of law, since it must deal largely with crime and sin, to the idealism of poetry. In the Psalms and the Prophets the relation of husband and wife, of bridegroom and bride, of lover and loved are always treated with tenderness and reverence. Here is familiar Scripture (Ps 19): "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. .... In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course." That does not betray any lack of sympathy with the exuberant spirit of a lover. So Isa 62:4,5: "For Yahweh delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Language cannot more clearly disclose delight in the joy of those who are adjusting themselves under the "primal eldest" rule over sex: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen 2:24).
It is sometimes thought strange that the Song of Songs should be in the Scripture Canon. But why should there be such doubt? It is but a more particular elaboration of what is boldly brought to notice in the quotations above. There is no more necessity of reading impurity into it than there is of reading it into the quotations above. The poem is illustrative of an experience as widely known as any in the life of the human race--an experience in which sin is no necessity. One must go out of his way who imputes sin to a single act or thought that comes to expression in the poem. The maiden is guileless and the lover is manly. The poem is said to be erotic. But the eros is idealized. It may be sensuous, but it is not sensual. It is not selfish. The passion of each finds expression in careful thoughtfulness for the other. It does not turn back to itself in coarse brute craving of lust for its own self-indulgence. The refrain of the poem is--
"I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem
That ye stir not up, nor awake my love."--Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4.
The watchfulness is as tender as that for an infant. Where will the law lay its indictment of sin against such thoughts and feelings? The lovers are under the charm that has been and is to be from everlasting to everlasting with the human race upon the earth.
Christ at His strictest did not set Himself against the charm of love. He said it should be eternally single and true in spirit. The maiden in the song goes forth in the night, in the simplicity of her heart, to find her beloved (Song 3:2 ff). In the same simplicity, Evangeline wandered all the night of her life to find the object of her affection. From the same charm in the beginning came the faithfulness of Enoch Arden. Out of the love that springs from purity has come the integrity that has endured to the end. The exuberance of the charm, like every other spring of life and action, needs regulation, but the charm itself is not to be treated as sin.
Paul has said, "Ye are not under law, but under grace" (Rom 6:14). But that depends upon the conditions to which it is applied. We may not be under the Levitical, ceremonial Law, but we are under the wide realm of ethical law always, even when we are under grace. What grace does is to idealize and spiritualize and make attractive and beautiful what before was perhaps hard, repellent statute and rule. Christ is sometimes thought to have relaxed the severity of "the reign of law." But six times even in the Sermon on the Mount He added to its strictness. Take the idea of the purity of the family as secured by its unity. Under the Mosaic legislation, certain not onerous forms of legal proceeding intervening, the termination of marriage might be said to be optional with the parties. All this liberty is swept away in one sentence: "I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Mt 19:9). That is a law sentence. It was uttered in the realm of law. It was intended to have effect in law. No wonder, considering the liberty that had been allowed in the Law up to that time, that the disciples as soon as they got breath said, "If the case of a man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." They knew that a new law for Christ's disciples was put over marriage. Even the exception confirmed His rule. If the exception is not allowed, polyandry or polygamy is established. No other sentence of human speech has done more for the purity of family life (see DIVORCE ). But Christ did not stop with the utterance of law protective of purity physically; He went behind all acts and laid down law for the thoughts and intents of the heart: "But I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Mt 5:28).
Sometimes it may be thought that there is a look of moral indifference about the way in which Jesus disposed of the woman's case who was taken in adultery (Jn 8:1-11): "Did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way; from henceforth sin no more." But it must first be remembered that it was not her case but that of her accusers that was immediately before the mind of Jesus. They brought her before Him to trap Him, but He turned and put them on trial. He made their moral condition the main issue. Hers was but an incident. But then, Jesus did not leave her without impressing on her mind that she was a sinner. The last words left ringing in her ears were, "Sin no more." And she was left, as all in sin are left, to wrestle out adjustment with the Holy Spirit who leaves no soul without conviction of "sin, righteousness and judgment." The words of Jesus no more than the words of anyone else can explain all things at once. They can cover a point in view, but much must always be left to the understanding that comes from known experience under the moral government of God.
The subsequent psychology of a sinner after the words of Scripture leave him is of deepest interest. Psychological action he must have had; what is it? The question arises, Had the prodigal son completed his repentance till he had asked the forgiveness of his mother and his elder brother? What is the subsequent psychology of a sinner as he disappears from our view? We can interpret here by what we know to be the operations of the Holy Spirit in the soul; just as we know a material object that diappears from view is still under the law of gravitation. Few who have thought on this subject have expressed the truth so well as Whittier in "Our Master," or in "John Underhill" in these words:
"And men took note of his gloomy air
The shame in his eye, the halt in his prayer,
The signs of a battle lost within,
The pain of a soul in the coils of sin.
Into the desert alone rode he,
Alone with the Infinite Purity;
And bowing his soul to its tender rebuke,
As Peter did to the Master's look,
He measured his path with prayer of pain
For peace with God and nature again."
There is a recognition of the burning with fire that is infolded in the word "purity."
Paul is like his Master. He seeks for purity in this relation after marriage as well as before--purity of mind. In 1 Cor 7 we see how carefully and kindly Paul discoursed about all the complications in matters pertaining to sex. Then again, if Paul has exhorted wives to obedience to husbands, he has also called for equal self-surrender on the part of husbands (Eph 5:22-32): "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it." Can there be any self-surrender greater than that which Christ made? Here let attention rest on the fact that in his catalogue of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), if he has put "love" in the first place of emphasis among the nine, he has put "self-control" in the last.
We have only space for a glance at a few departments of action and thought to see what the world has gained in purity from the religion of the Bible. The age of chivalry ought to have a word put to its credit. The knights took the vow of chastity before the tribunals of the church. Take art--compare a Venus and a Madonna. Not only spirituality, but even intellectuality is wanting in a Venus. There is not a suggestion in a Venus that does not inhere in flesh and sense. Of what would she or could she speak if she were to open her mouth? To judge from her. appearance, the utterance would be so "flat, stale and unprofitable" that even the charm of her physical beauty would disappear. In the Madonna you scarce see the physical. If she were to speak, her words would picture the peace and calm joy of a heavenly realm. If her countenance is suggestive of something far away, it is of something far above.
But art is not dead, and spiritual art did not die with the creation of the Madonna. Take Gaudens' "Puritan." Compare that with an Apollo. Again we have the contrast there is between a Madonna and a Venus. We have the physical and the aesthetic in an Apollo, but there is not a gleam of the intellectual. That Apollo thinks is not indicated, much less what he might be thinking about. There is not the faintest suggestion of the ethical. There is no intent and purpose in him. But in the Puritan there is intent and purpose. He means much. He is ethical. That determined bearing can only come from a spirit alive with the sense of right. When it comes to that, you will warrant that the Puritan carries more physical guns than the Apollo, and that if they were to clinch in a tug of wrestling Apollo would fall underneath. That ethical intent and purpose is masterly. You may look through a whole pantheon of Greek gods and meet not a trace of the force concentrated in the Puritan. He is forceful because right makes might. He is in the majority because he knows Who is with him. He is conscious of power because he has subdued the kingdom within. He has won the greatest of all victories--self-control.
C. Caverno
pur-loin'-ing: Lit. "for far off," hence, to carry away or steal; the word is the translation of nosphizomai, "to take away for oneself," "to secrete," "to steal," a word appropriate to those in the position of slaves in a master's service (Tit 2:10, "not purloining").
pur'-p'-l ('argaman; Chaldaic 'argewan (2 Ch 2:7); compare Arabic 'urjuwan, and Persian 'arghawan; porphura, porphureos Septuagint and New Testament)):
Purple dye was manufactured by the Phoenicians from a marine mollusk, Murex trunculus. The shell was broken in order to give access to a small gland which was removed and crushed. The crushed gland gives a milky fluid that becomes red or purple on exposure to the air. Piles of these broken shells still remain on the coast at Sidon and Tyre. The purple gland is found in various species of Murex and also of Purpura.
Purple cloth was used in the furnishings of the tabernacle (Ex 25:4, etc.) and of Solomon's temple (2 Ch 2:14; 3:14); in the palanquin of Solomon (Song 3:10); and in the hangings of the palace of Ahasuerus (Est 1:6). The kings of Midian had purple raiment (Jdg 8:26); the worthy woman of Prov 31:22 has clothing of fine linen and purple. Mordecai was clothed with purple by Ahasuerus (Est 8:15); Jesus by the Roman soldiers (Mk 15:17,20; Jn 19:2,5). The rich man of Lk 16:19 and the scarlet woman of Rev 18:12,16 were arrayed in purple. In Song 7:5 the bride has hair like purple. Purple is in the merchandise of Babylon (Rev 18:12). It is surprising that Ezekiel speaks of the Tyrians as obtaining purple from the isles of Elisha (Ezek 27:7) and from Syria (Ezek 27:16).
Alfred Ely Day
pur'-pus (prothesis (Rom 9:11; Eph 1:11)): The word "purpose" seems to be an equivalent of the word "decree" as used in regard to man's relation to eternity. More correctly stated, it softens the word "decree" and refers back to the cause of the decree as lodged in an intelligent design and forward to an aim consistent with the character of God.
See FOREORDAIN ;PREDESTINATION .
purs.
See BAG .
purs'-lan, joos, jus.
See JUICE .
pur'-te-nans: With the significance of "belongings," this word occurs in the King James Version of Ex 12:9 as the translation of qerebh, "within" "inward," "roast .... with the purtenance thereof," the Revised Version (British and American) "inwards" (compare Lev 1:9; 3:3, etc.).
put (puT; Phoud, in Genesis and Chronicles, variant for Genesis Phout, for Chronicles, Phouth):
In consequence of the identification at the time, the prophets have "Libya" (Libues), except Nab 3:9, where the Greek renders the word as phuge, "flight." The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has "Phut," "Phuth," and in the Prophets "Libyes" and "Libya"; the King James Version "Phut."
In the "Table of Nations" Put is the third son of Ham (Gen 10:6), the first and second being Cush and Misraim, and the fourth Canaan. Put is the only one of the sons of Ham who is not credited with descendants.
In the Prophets, warriors from Put are referred to, principally in connection with the forces of Egypt. They appear as shield-bearers (Jer 46:9: "Cush and Put, that handle the shield; and the Ludim, that handle and bend the bow"). See also Ezek 30:5, where the order in the Hebrew is Cush, Put and Lud. In Nah 3:9 Put is the helper of No-amon (Thebes in Egypt), and in Ezek 27:10 Put appears with Persia and Lydia (Lud) as being in the army of Tyre.
The common identification of Put is the Egyptian Punt (or Pwent) proposed by Ebers. The assimilation of n to a following consonant is common in the Semitic languages, and would occasion no difficulty if the vocalization be found to agree. The final "t" of Punt, however, seems to be the Egyptian feminine ending, whereas the "T" of Put is radical.
Nevertheless, the district would seem to be rightly identified with the tract to the East of Abyssinia (Somaliland), and as it is described as being on both sides of the sea (the Red Sea), Yemen would seem to be included. In connection with this, it is worthy of note that a fragment of a Babylonian tablet referring to Nebuchadrezzar's campaign in Egypt in his 37th year mentions, as though in the neighborhood, the city (here, apparently, standing for the district) of Putu-yaman--probably not "Ionian (Greek) Put" (Lesbos, according to Winckler), but "Put of Yemen." If this be in contra-distinction to the district of Put (Punt) on the African mainland, the latter would be the Putu referred to in the Persian inscription of Naqsh-i-Rustem, which mentions, among the tributary-countries, Kushiya, Putiya and Masiya, in Babylonian (mat) PuTa, ((mat) K)usu, (mat) Massu(?), "the land Put, the land Kush (Ethiopia), the land Massu(?)." The soldiers of Put in the army of Tyre may have been either from the African or the Yemenite Put, in which case there was no northern tract of that name, unless settlements had been made at any time from the original district. See W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa, Leipzig, 1893, 106 ff.
T. G. Pinches
pu-te'-o-li (Potioloi, "sulphur springs" (Acts 28:13, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek), the modern Pozzuoli): A maritime city of Campania, which occupied a central position on the northern shore of a recess in the Gulf of Naples, protected on the West by the peninsula of Baiae and Cape Misenum. It was originally a colony of the neighboring Greek city Cumae.
The earliest event in the history of Puteoli which can be dated definitely was the repulse of Hannibal before its walls by a Roman garrison in 214 BC. The design of the Carthaginian to secure a seaport as base of supplies and communication was thus thwarted (Livy xxiv. 7, 12, 13). A Roman colony was established here in 194 BC, and Puteoli thus became the first Roman port on the Gulf of Naples (Livy xxxiv. 45; Strabo v.245; Velleius, i.15). Its subsequent remarkable prosperity and commercial activity are to be attributed to the safety of the harbor and the inhospitable character of the coast nearer Rome. For Puteoli became the chief seaport of the capital before the creation of an artificial harbor at Portus Augusti by Claudius, and before Trajan made the mouth of the Tiber the principal converging point for the over-sea carrying trade. The imports at Puteoli consisted mainly of Egyptian grain and oriental wares, dispatched from Alexandria and other cities of the Levant (Cicero Pro Rabirio 40; Suetonius, Augustus 98; Strabo xvii. 793; Cicero Pro Caelio 10). The eastern element in the population was very numerous (Petronius 81;
CIL, X, 1797). The harbor was rendered doubly safe by a mole, which is known to have been at least 418 yards in length, consisting of massive piers connected by means of arches constructed in solid masonry (Strabo v.245). Extensive remains of this mole still exist. The shore line devoted to purposes of commerce (emporium) extended for a distance of about 1 1/4 miles westward from the mole. At the height of its prosperity under Claudius and Nero, the town is thought to have contained a population of nearly 100,000.
The region in which the town was situated is of volcanic formation, the name Puteoli being due to the odor of the sulphureous springs or to the wells of a volcanic nature which abound in the vicinity. The volcanic dust, called pozzolana today, was mixed with lime to form a cement of the greatest durability, which was weatherproofing against the influence of seawater.
Extensive remains of an amphitheater, whose axes measure 160 and 126 yards across the space enclosed by the outer facade and 75 and 45 yards within the arena, bear testimony to the former affluence of Puteoli.
The region about Puteoli together with Baiae became the favorite resort of the Roman nobility, and the foundations of many ancient villas are still visible, although partly covered by the sea. Cicero's villa in the territory of Puteoli (Cicero Ad Fam. v.15, 2; Ad Att. xiv. 16, 1; 20, 1) was afterward selected as the place of burial of Hadrian (Spartianus Had. 25). The portion of the bay between Puteoli and Baiae was the scene of the attempt made at the instigation of Nero upon the life of his mother by means of a vessel so contrived that it was to break to pieces while conveying Agrippina toward her villa near the Lucrine Lake (Tacitus, Annals xiv.8).
See NERO .
The apostle Paul found a Christian community at Puteoli, when he arrived there on his way to Rome, and stopped 7 days with them (Acts 28:13,14). At that time the ordinary route to Rome, following the Via Appia from Capua, was 155 Roman, or about 142 1/3 English miles (Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, II, 739). Later, Domitian reduced the distance to 139 Roman miles (about 129 English miles) by laying out the Via Domitia along the coast, joining the Via Appia at Sinuessa (Geog. Raven., IV, 32; Itin. Ant., 122; Tab. Peut.).
George H. Allen
pu'-thits (puthi, "simple"; the King James Version Puhites): One of the families of Kiriath-jearim, grandchildren of Caleb (1 Ch 2:50,53).
pu'-ti-el (puTi'el, "contemned by El"): Father of the wife of Eleazar, Aaron's son, and thus grandfather of Phinehas, Eleazar's son (Ex 6:25).
See PHINEHAS , (3).
pu'-va.
See PUAH .