HEAVEN OURANIOS
1
PARADISE
27
POLIS city of God
31
OIKOS house
45
Mountain - oros
54
Throne -
60
Kingdom
65
Banquet deipnon
83
Marriage-Feast gamos
85
RIVER-Flowing Water
Potamos
90
HEAVEN OURANIOS
οὐρανός, οὐράνιος, ἐπουράνιος, οὐρανόθεν*
† οὐρανός.
Contents: A. Greek Usage: 1. The Basic Idea; 2. οὐρανός in the Cosmological Sense; 3. In the Mythological
Sense: a. The God Uranos; b. The Abode of the Gods; c. Orphic Writings; d. The Magic Papyri; 4,
Gnosticism; 5. Philo. B, The Old Testament: 1. Heaven in the World Picture of Ancient Israel; 2. Yahweh and
Heaven; 3. Heaven as the Place of Salvation. C. The Septuagint and Judaism: I. The Septuagint: 1. Additions;
2. The Plural οὐρανοί. Il. Judaism. D. The New Testament: 1. Heaven and Earth; 2. God in Heaven; 3.
Heaven and Jesus Christ; 4. Heaven Opened; 5. Heaven as the Starting-point of the Event of Revelation; 6.
Heaven and the Blessings of Salvation; 7. Heaven and the Angels; 8. Heaven as the Firmament; 9. Heaven in
the Plural. E. The Post-Apostolic Fathers.
A.
Greek Usage.
1. The Basic Idea.1
οὐρανός,1 in class. Gk. almost without exception2 in the sing., always means “heaven.” The word
always has a double reference. Heaven is the firmament, the arch of heaven over the earth. But it is also
that which embraces all things in the absolute, a θεῖον. In the historical development of the two insights
or ideas the definitions change, but the indissoluble duality remains. We find it in the very ancient view,
preserved in Orphic writings, of a cosmic egg which bursts open. The upper shell becomes the envelope
of the world (→ 500), but it also becomes the God-heaven elevated above the earth and moistening and
fructifying it. We also find the double understanding in Homer’s mythical view of the brazen, iron,
starry heaven which rests on pillars (→ infra), but which also serves as a habitation for the heavenly
beings, especially Ζεὐς οὐράνοις (→ 500). The same duality underlies the use in Plato, who equates
οὐρανός with the πᾶν, the κόσμος, but who also regards it as that which embraces all conceivable life, so
that it is seen to be a figure of the absolute and perfect (→ 499). Plato, then, can have the gods mount up
to the ἐπουράνιος ὁψίς: θεωροῦσι τὰ ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ: to the final perception of pure being. In Aristot.,
too, we find both the cosmological sense and also the use of οὐρανός to express the θεῖον. Further
development does not follow his attempt to differentiate the various aspects in his definitions of the
concept (→ 499). For Stoicism, too, regards heaven both as the physical limit of the aether and also as
τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου.3 Finally, heaven is in Gnosticism ἀήρ and αἰθήρ, and does not lose its
1
1
substantiality, and yet it also expresses the freedom, knowledge and immortality of God, → 501. 4 In the
enlightened imperial age we still find representations of the god Uranos right up to the 3rd cent. (→
500). The reason why the concept οὐρανός cannot be given clearly separated meanings is to be sought in
the fact that it is always an expression both for the natural and physical givenness of what is above and
embracing, and also for corresponding speculative data. The heaven which is the firmament, the heaven
of μετέωρα, is the same as the heaven of the gods, the heaven which can be thought of as idea, direction,
or revelation. It makes no difference to the concept whether the relationship was originally understood in
realistic or in symbolical or figurative terms. For antiquity the term gives expression to the unity of the
world, of the cosmos which is not only physical but also psychical and metaphysical.
2. οὐρανός in the Cosmological Sense.
In Hom. the vault of heaven is a hollow half-globe resting above the earth on pillars and held up by Atlas,
Hom.Od., 1, 53 f.: Aesch.Prom., 348 ff. The solidity of the vault is expressed by such words as brazen
(χάλκεος, Hom.Il., 17, 425 etc.; Pind.Pyth., 10, 27; πολύχαλκος, Hom.Il., 5, 504) or iron (σιδήρεος, Hom.Od.,
15, 329; 17, 565). It is often called starry (ἀστερόεις, Hom.Il., 6, 108; 5, 769; so also Orphic writings, Diels5,
I, 13, 5).5 The antithesis Tartarus-heaven is the supreme one, Hom.Il., 8, 16. The sense is weaker in phrases
like κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει (Hom.Od., 9, 20), οὐρανός (15, 329). When mythical ideas disintegrate,6 the sense of
“firmament” remains. An attempt is now made, however, to understand the origin, constitution and movement
of οὐρανός7 in terms of thought or experience. The equation οὐρανός == ἡ περιφορὰ ἡ ἐξωτάτω τῆς γῆς
comes down from Anaximenes.8 With γαῖα and θάλασσα it is understood as the world (cf. Orph. Fr. (Kern),
16, Diels5, I, 14, 31), and along with four-membered formulae we find the basic γῆ τε καὶ οὐρανός
(Plat.Soph., 232c), πρὶν οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν γενέσθαι (Plat.Euthyd., 296d). Mention should also be made of ὑπὸ
τὸν οὐρανόν == “on earth” (Plat.Ep., 7, 326c). In Parmenides we already find the equation οὐρανός ==
κόσμος, Diels5, I, 225, 13. This is then expanded by Plato (Tim., 28b:9 οὐρανὸς ἢ κόσμος ἣ καὶ ἄλλο ὅ τί
ποτε ὀνομαζόμενος μάλιστ᾽ ἂν δέχοιτο). Heaven is the cause of origination and the prototype of all that is. It
embraces all conceivable life and can be equated with πᾶν and κόσμος, as already in Pythagoras.10 For the
sake of this heavenly perfection there is only εἷς ὅδε μονογενὴς οὐρανὸς γεγονὼς ἔστι τε καὶ ἔτ᾽ ἔσται
(Plat.Tim., 31b, cf. a), and Proclus declares this: ὡς ὁρῶντα τὰ ἄνω καὶ θεώμενον τὸ νοητὸν καὶ ὡς νοερᾶς
οὐσίας μετέχοντα (Procl.Tim., II, 83e), and therewith as τὴν μοναδικὴν αἰτίαν … καὶ τὴν πάντων περιεκτικὴν
τῶν δευτέρων καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅλων ἐπικρατοῦσαν οὐσίαν (II, 139b); it reflects the eternal Apeiron or the Apeiron
of time: the one heaven is the reflection of absolutely all being. Thus for Plato the starry heaven (Plat.Resp.,
VI, 488d; Theaet., 173e) is the heaven of the gods (Resp., VI, 508a; Phaedr., 246e) and the startingpoint of
the contemplation of being and absolute knowledge (Phaedr., 247b). On the other hand, Aristot. (Cael., I, 9, p.
278b, 11 ff.), distinguishing the various senses, attempts the following formulation: ἕνα μὲν οὖν τρόπον
οὐρανὸν λέγομεν τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν τῆς ἐσχάτης τοῦ παντὸς περιφορᾶς, ἢ σῶμα φυσικὸν τὸ ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ
περιφορᾷ τοῦ παντός (== universe), εἰώθαμεν γὰρ τὸ ἔσχατον καὶ τὸ ἄνω μάλιστα καλεῖν οὐρανόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ
τὸ θεῖον πᾶν (== the divine all) ἱδρῦσθαί φαμεν. ἄλλον δ᾽ αὖ τρόπον τὸ συνεχὲς σῶμα τῇ ἐσχάτῃ περιφορᾷ
παντός, ὧν σελήνη καὶ ἥλιος καὶ ἔνια τῶν ἄστρων· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ει᾽ναί φαμεν. ἔτι δ᾽ ἄλλως
λέγομεν οὐρανὸν τὸ περιεχόμενον σῶμα ὑπὸ τῆς ἐσχάτης περιφορᾶς· τὸ γὰρ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν (== totality of
the world and universe) εἰώθαμεν λέγειν οὐρανόν. Stoicism formulates οὐρανός as αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον· ἐξ οὗ
καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι πάντα ἐμφανῶς· περιέχει γὰρ πάντα πλὴν αὑτοῦ, Zeno Fr., 115 (v. Arnim, I, 33, 28) … ἔξω δὲ
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἶναι κενόν, ibid., 96 (v. Arnim, I, 26, 32 f., cf. 34).11 Transposition from the religious to the
philosophical sphere (περιέχειν) finds expression such as this: οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ … τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸν
οὐρανόν, Zeno Fr., 163 (v. Arnim, I, 43, 6). Acc. to the interpretation of Minucius Felix Iovem == caelum,
and in Chrysipp. Fr., 644 (v. Arnim, II, 194, 13) οὐρανός becomes the guiding principle (ἡγεμονικόν). It is
theologically important that along these lines Cicero could find in the aequalitas motus … caeli the fourth
basis for the animis hominum informatae deorum notitiones (Nat. Deor., II, 15), and also that Cl. Al. could
call οὐρανὸν κυρίως πόλιν, Strom., IV, 26, 172, 2.12
3.
In the Mythological Sense.
a. The God Uranos. Uranos (Anth. Pal., 9, 26, 9; Hes.Theog., 176)13 is one of the gods of pre-Homeric
religion: Γαῖα … ἐγείνατο ἶσον ἑατῇ Οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα ἵνα μιν περὶ πάντα καλύπτοι, Hes.Theog., 126 f.;
cf. Hom.Od., 5, 184; Il., 15, 36. Earth brings forth heaven from itself14 to fructify it in the ἱερὸς γάμος.15 In the
myth Uranos was then emasculated and overthrown by his son Cronos, and he in turn by his son Ζεὺς
2
οὑράνιος. The great gods of antiquity16 were then completely crowded out by the Olympian gods.17 How
strong was the impression made by the god Uranos may be seen from his depiction not only on the Pergamon
altar but also in the imperial period, e.g., on the Prima Porta statue of Augustus and above all on the
sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (300 A.D.): on his head are the feet of the youthful Christ, the arched veil of
heaven stretched out above.
b. The Abode of the Gods. Heaven as the abode of the gods is identical with Olympus.18 The Olympian
gods are called Οὐρανίωνες, “dwellers in heaven,” Hom.Il., 1, 570, though there may be a suggestion here of
their descent from Uranos, ibid., 5, 373 and 898. The setting of the gods in heaven means that “the lord of
heaven is the lord of the universe … and hence a universal god.”19 This is esp. true of Zeus.20 Prayer is made
χεῖρ᾽ ὀρέγων εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα, Hom.Il., 15, 371; cf. 24, 307; Od., 9, 527; Pind.Pyth., 538; Aesch.Sept.
c. Theb., 442 f. Oaths are also taken νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν, Aristoph.Pl., 267, 366, cf. μαρτυρόμεθα … τὸν
οὐρανόν, Jdt. 7:28. Crime can also reach to heaven, Hom.Od., 15, 329; 17, 565.
c. Orphic Writings. Here we find a unity of heaven and earth far beyond a mere interrelation, cf. ὡς
Οὐρανός τε Γαῖα τ᾽ ἦν μορφὴ μία, Eur. Fr., 484 (TGF, 511). On this view of the world there is, as it were, the
breaking of an egg, and heaven is constituted of the upper shell.21 The Orphic initiate can recapture this
deepest unity and thus, even as man, become a divine being: Γῆς παῖς εἰμι καὶ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, αὐτὰρ
ἐμοὶ γένος οὐράνιον, Orph. Fr. (Kern), 17 (Diels5, I, 15, 26 f.). Here, too, we find the lofty view of heaven as
the mantle of the world, which is possibly Babylonian in origin: τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν βηλὸν
εἰρηκότων οἷον θεῶν οὐρανίων περίβλημα, Porphyr.Antr. Nymph., 14.22
d. The Magic Papyri. Here, too, οὐρανός is common: as the firmament which includes the heavenly ocean
of οἱ καταράκτοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, cf. the OT, Preis. Zaub., 15, 5; 15b, 2 (Vol. II, p. 204), λέγε … εἰς οὐρανὸν
βλέπων (ibid., XIII, 40), with a picture of Uranos.23 In the initiation of Monos the invocation of the sun-god
is: ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ … ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν δύο φύσεων, οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς (ibid., XIII, 255). We read of the eternal aeon
κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἀνυψωθείς (I, 209). The deity is invoked as οὐράνιος (I, 300), ὁ μέγας ἐν οὐρανῷ (II, 102; III,
130), indeed, as ὁ κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς (IV, 641), cf. Mt. 11:25.24
4.
Gnosticism.
In Hell. Gnosticism as found in the Corp. Herm.25 the—πολυστεφής26—heaven27 is divided into 7 κύκλοι
(Corp. Herm., III, 2b) corresponding to the 7 spheres of the planets. It was created by the demiurge and serves
as his dwelling.28 It is above αἰθήρ, ἀήρ, γῆ29 and in keeping with its fiery nature is ἔκπυρος.30 The θεὸς ἐν
οὐρανῷ31 is evil—the planetary deities became demons. Hence the μυστήρια are shut up in heaven,32 and
there rules the compulsion of necessity, ἀνάγκη and heimarmene in the heavens, which close off the earth:
οὐδεὶς … τῶν οὐρανίων θεῶν ἐπὶ γῆν κατελεύσεται οὐρανοῦ τὸν ὅρον καταλιπών (Corp. Herm., X, 25).
Heaven is distinguished by immutability, freedom, blamelessness, gnosis, the earth closed off by it by the
opposite, for οὐ κοινωνεῖ τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ τοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς.33 This demonic heaven has a demonic soul; those who
dwell in heaven seek to deceive. To be liberated from it man is illumined by φῶς which enables him to see
πρὸς οὐρανόν,34 ὅπως ἐγὼ μόνος αἰητὸς οὐρανὸν βαίνω, as we read in the introduction to the Mithras Liturgy.
It is man: ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος καὶ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβαίνει (Corp. Herm., X, 25). If he begins the heavenly
journey of the soul, man perceives in παλιγγενεσία by the νοῦς: ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰμι (XIII, 11b). As he puts down
the burden of the planets with his own σῶμα—for otherwise εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβῆναι οὐ δύναμαι (XI,
21a)—he can stride through the heavenly spheres: ἀνοιγητε οὐρανοί (XIII, 17). It is thus true of the
somatically dead: ὑμῖν οὐρανὸς … ὁ μισθός.35 In the Corp. Herm. heaven or the heavens are a sign of dualism
and the most profound pessimism. They denote a lost world, and they are the mark of a new world
consciousness.36
5.
Philo.
The decisive pt. in Philo’s use of οὐρανός is that he combines the Platonic doctrine of ideas, Stoic
speculation and biblical statements. Heaven and earth are God’s ἀνάθημα (votive offering), Som., I, 243 ==
πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἱερὸν θεοῦ, Spec. Leg., I, 66. οὐρανός represents in this cosmos τὸ ἀγιώτατον τῆς τῶν ὄντων
οὐσίας μέρος (loc. cit.). Here heaven is the νοητὸς οὐρανός and κυρίως (Stoic) οὐρανός, Spec. Leg., I, 302,
with appeal to Dt. 10:14. It is ἀσώματος or ἰδέα, Op. Mund., 29; Decal., 102. It is quite distinct from the
αἰσθητὸς οὐρανός—the second heaven acc. to Philo’s doctrine of the double creation (→ III, 877 f.)—though
there is a paradigmatic bond between them, Spec. Leg., I, 302. Philosophically, then, it seems to be absurd to
reserve heaven for gods, Virt., 212. In this great typological scheme the second heaven is dependent on the
3
first, and earthly things on heavenly things, Op. Mund., 117. The οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος is also the prototype of
the physical and historical Adam, Leg. All., I, 31. Man himself is as an οὐρανός, Op. Mund., 82—the
Pythagorean and Stoic doctrine of the macrocosm and microcosm. As οὐρανός man carries many star-like
natures as life within himself: πολλὰς ἐν αὐτῷ φύσεις ἀστεροειδεῖς ἀγαλματοφοροῦντα (Op. Mund., 82).
Hence the νοερὸν καὶ οὐράνιον τῆς ψυχῆς γένος πρὸς αἰθέρα … ὡς πατέρα ἀφίξεται, from which come οἵ τε
ἀστέρες καὶ ὁ σύμπας οὐρανός (Rer. Div. Her., 283). Philo can thus call dying εἰς οὐρανὸν στέλλεσθαι (Vit.
Mos., 288). In stark contrast to the Hermetic use, οὐρανός is here a sign of the unity and co-ordination of the
whole cosmos. Indeed, it effects this unity. There are no distinctive features in the usage of Joseph. (always
sing.), which corresponds to the Hellenistic.37
Traub
B.
Old Testament.
The word for heaven, ‫ שָׁ מַ יִם‬in Heb., ‫ שמם‬in Phoenician, šmm (or šmym) in Ugaritic, ‫ שמין‬in Aram., is
obviously from a root šmw (y). The abnormal Heb. plur. (it should be pronounced šamayim) can only be
regarded as a secondary shortening. In Western Semitic the use is plur., in Eastern Semitic sing. The plur. has
been explained as that of “spatial extension.”38 Etym. the word is obscure, though the view that it is a
compound of the nora relativa ša and mayim, i.e., the “place of water,”39 is undoubtedly erroneous.
1.
Heaven in the World Picture of Ancient Israel.
If we seek examples to show precisely what Israel understood by ‫שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬, we first come across statements
which speak of it as something fixed and material: heaven is stretched out,40 it has windows,41 also pillars (Job
26:11) and foundations,42 and can be torn etc.43 This is not just the language of poetry and symbol, for it
seems that ‫ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬is in large measure another word for ‫ע‬
ַַ ‫ ָׁרקִ י‬, “firmament.” This is the huge, luminous bell of
heaven which has above it the heavenly ocean and whose orb arches over the circle of the earth, → 498.44 The
heavenly ocean (‫)מַ ּבּול‬, whose blue may be seen on the firmament from below, was naturally of great
significance both because it blessed the earth (rain) and could also destroy it (flood).45 To what degree ‫שָׁ מַ יִם‬
could be used as a synon. for ‫ע‬
ַַ ‫ ָׁרקִ י‬may be seen in Ps. 148:4–6, which refers to the “waters above the
heaven.” The definition of P in Gn. 1:8 (he called the firmament heaven) pts. in the same direction. Finally the
phrase “shaking of heaven and earth” makes sense only if heaven is regarded as something solid, 2 S. 22:8.
The distinction is that ‫ע‬
ַַ ‫ ָׁרקִ י‬was a technical cosmological term, while ‫ שָׁ מַ יִם‬was in ordinary cultic and
general use, and was thus essentially much more fluid; it had a much bigger range of meaning. Emphasis has
been put on the fact that ‫ שָׁ מַ יִם‬denotes the atmosphere between firmament and earth, as plainly suggested by
the very common “fowls of heaven.”46 But the word was in no sense restricted to this sphere. In very many
instances it has the more general meaning of the cosmic sphere above the earth with no thought of upper
limitation. This is esp. so when the ref. is to God’s dwelling in heaven or to His coming thence.47 In such
cases ‫ שָׁ מַ ים‬is the dimension above the firmament.
Israel seems not to have been acquainted with the idea of many intersecting heavenly spheres. Perhaps
there is an echo of this part of the Babylonian view in the phrase “heaven of heavens,” ‫ ְׁשמֵ יַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬.48 But
though there may be general connections, the phrase could well be regarded in Israel as no more than
rhetorical hyperbole. Sometimes we read of the “four ends of heaven,” Jer. 49:36; cf. Zech. 2:10; 6:5; Da. 7:2;
8:8; 11:4. This is meant horizontally, cf. Dt. 4:32: “from one end to the other.” The height of heaven cannot
be climbed by men, Dt. 30:12; Prv. 30:4.49 Proverbially heaven is also the quintessence of lasting duration, cf.
the “days of heaven,” Dt. 11:21; Ps. 89:29.
The commandment in Ex. 20:4 divides the cosmos into three parts, heaven, earth and the chaotic waters
under the earth. The same division is found in Ps. 115:15–17. The universe is much more frequently
described, however, as heaven and earth, → III, 881. This formula is not based on the sacral picture of the
world, like that of Ex. 20:4, but simply on elementary observation. It seems that there never was a sacrally
canonised view of the world in Israel. The basis of this surprising fact is to be sought in the complete absence
of a myth uniting and quickening the elements. Only occasionally do we find fragmentary mythical ideas, and
these are rather used with poetic freedom as ancient ways of making things vivid, cf. the idea of the two world
4
mountains in Zech. (1:8 textus emendatus; 6:1), which is close to Babylonian as well as Egyptian notions.50
There can be no question of any more comprehensive mythical connections in the world of Israel’s thinking.
Along with such echoes we do, of course, find free poetic imagery. Thus it was easy to present the cosmos as
a house with the balcony (‫ )עֲלִ יָׁה‬as a cover (Ps. 104:3; Am. 9:6), or as an outstretched tent.51 Heaven is also
compared with the stretched out roll of a book (Is. 34:4) on which the stars are obviously the writing.52 In
heaven, i.e., above the firmament (‫ע‬
ַַ ‫) ָׁרקִ י‬, are chambers for snow and hail (Job 38:22), the winds (Jer. 49:36;
Job 37:9, 12; Ps. 135:7), and the water (Ps. 33:7; Job 38:37), which in a cycle, when it has fallen on the earth
as rain, returns thither (Job 36:27; Is. 55:10). In these and other instances we are struck by the wholly nonmythological and rational understanding which has made heaven and its laws the subject of sober
observation.53
Heaven is also the place of special signs54 and calendar points of reference to fix the festivals. Gn. 1:14,
with its emphasis on the purposiveness of the heavenly bodies, is another instance of the cool and almost
rational observation of these things. At all events, there is in P and OT wisdom a complete demythologisation
of this part of the world. It is also plain that only occasionally and on the periphery did the whole sphere of
astrology make assault on the belief in Yahweh, Dt. 18:9 ff.; Is. 47:13; Jer. 10:2.
2.
Yahweh and Heaven.
Yahweh created heaven.55 The different verbs used (‫ )ּבָׁ ָׁראַקָׁ נָׁהַּכּוןַעָׁ שָׁ ה‬are of detailed interest for
the various ideas and circles of tradition (→ κτίζω, III, 1007 ff.), but have no particular importance here.
‫( קָׁ נָׁה‬Gn. 14:19, 22), “to acquire by work,” enshrines a vocabulary which belongs to the world outside
Israel.56
Most of the references to heaven which are important for Israel’s faith speak of Yahweh’s dwelling
in heaven. A simple presentation of the relevant instances, however, would give a very one-sided
picture. For there are in fact other statements which call, not heaven, but the innermost sanctuary of the
temple, or Sinai, or the ark, or other sacral places, the place of the presence or even of the dwelling of
Yahweh, and which cannot be brought under the slogan ‫שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬. In this respect the OT tradition is in fact
very complicated. For after the conquest the ideas of primitive faith in Yahweh, which we find hard to
grasp, combined closely with notions from the Canaanite cult. Furthermore, exposition has in some
cases to take into account the noteworthy distinction between the temple of dwelling and that of
manifestation.
This important distinction has been worked out on the basis of the sacral architecture of Babylonia and
Assyria.57 In temples of dwelling, esp. the ziggurats (towers), the deity dwells in heavenly heights far
removed from the human sphere. In temples of manifestation the deity is embodied in the cultic symbols and
may be found and worshipped by men. We thus have two distinct cultic ideas relating to one and the same
god.58 There does not have to be a ziggurat. In such cases the true dwelling of the god is behind or above the
temple of manifestation. This corresponds to a more developed religion with an inclination to the abstract.59
Naturally these ideas, which developed in a very ancient culture with stable sacral relationships, cannot be
presupposed at once in the primitive faith of Israel which was much more volatile and the history of whose
tradition is so complicated. There is no doubt, however, that, through the medium of the ancient religious
forms of Canaan, belief in Yahweh also came to move in these circles, or that it does at least give evidence
here and there of their influence. Thus the ark in the sanctuaries at Shiloh and Jerusalem, which we have to
think of as an empty throne and perhaps even as a non-Yahwistic processional shrine, is to be interpreted in
terms of this circle of thought. The ark as an empty throne is thus no more than the place of a temporary
presence and manifestation of Yahweh.60 The Bethel story (Gn. 28:10 ff.) also shows plainly that the question
of the dwelling of Yahweh involves more than the traditional alternative of heaven or earth. Jacob says: “Here
is the house of Elohim and here is the gate of heaven.” In the “ladder” (better ‫“ == סלָׁם‬staircase” from ‫סָׁ לַל‬
“to heap up”) there may even be seen a distant recollection of the steps of a ziggurat.61 Thus one may
conjecture that in the original elements of Canaanite tradition the ancient Babylonian idea is more influential
than in the genuine Yahweh traditions, or at least in the traditions which come from the pre-Mosaic religion
of the patriarchal gods.62 But one can hardly go beyond a more or less, for in the literature as we now have it
the traditions are already so closely interfused that it is no longer possible to distinguish them historically. It
5
could be that even the ancient and common oriental idea of the dwelling of deity on the distant and high
mountain of God has in some OT sayings surreptitiously fused with the idea of Yahweh’s dwelling in heaven
when this is not transferred to Zion (cf. Is. or Ps. 48:2) and has not become a belief of central importance.63
Historically, then, we cannot fix a sequence of the different views of Yahweh’s dwelling, least of all
in the sense of showing that the idea of His dwelling in heaven arose only later or is simply the
commutation of a very different notion.64 The vision of Yahweh with a radiant building of sapphire
stones at His feet (Ex. 24:9–11 J) is a very ancient tradition, and it contains already the idea of a God of
heaven enthroned above the firmament. To the same effect is the tradition that Yahweh comes down to
Sinai (Ex. 19:18 J). The concept of Yahweh as the God of heaven is well-known indeed, not merely to J,
but to the traditional material worked over by him (Gn. 11:5, 7; 19:24; 24:3, 7). It is hardly possible to
separate Canaanite material from the original J material at least (until we come to descriptions of the
holy wars). It may be stated, however, that the idea which became so popular in Israel, namely, that of
Yahweh as the heavenly king enthroned in the midst of the heavenly host, may be traced back to the
influence of the Canaanite pantheon.65 In particular, Yahweh in the course of His invasion took over
important functions from the heavenly Baal (‫ )בלְׁ ַשמם‬long since known to us from inscr.66
The idea of Yahweh as the God of heaven is in some sense predominant over others. We have here a
self-contained circle of concepts. Yahweh is the King enthroned over earth in heaven (cf. the stock-title
‫ סֶ לְֶך‬in Is. 6:5; Ps. 29:10). His palace, established over the heavenly ocean (Ps. 104:3), is the heavenly
sanctuary, which is sometimes more the seat of world government, sometimes more a cultic centre.67
The idea is presented particularly vividly in the vision of Micaiah ben Imlah (1 K. 22:19–22) and the
prologue to Job (Job 1:6–12), for here we read also of the host of heaven which is around the throne of
the heavenly King to serve Him and also to share in Yahweh’s government of the world.
Traditions of diverse origin have perhaps combined in this idea of the heavenly host, which is also called
the host of Yahweh. The decisive contribution probably came from the religion of Canaan, for this host is
simply the Canaanite pantheon demoted and adapted to the belief in Yahweh. From Ugarit, too, we have the
ṣbu špš, the “host of the sun,” and also a mlk ṣbu špš, a “king of the host of the sun.”68 The special ref. here, of
course, is to stellar deities. But the OT, too, can speak of the host of heaven with this specific astral
signification, cf. Dt. 4:19.
It is not surprising that these ideas of the host of heaven remain fluid. Sometimes one has to think of
supraterrestrial spirits which Yahweh employs on different errands (1 K. 22:19), sometimes of the host
of stars (Gn. 2:1; Ju. 5:20). The heavenly host is like an earthly army with its leader and fiery horses and
chariots (Jos. 5:14; 2 K. 2:11). Probably under later influences due to political dependence on Assyria a
cult of the host of heaven came in during the later monarchy. This was resisted as a serious transgression
by the belief in Yahweh.69 In Dt. 4:19 alone, in an isolated instance of toleration, is it condoned as a
religious practice for the Gentiles. But according to the understanding of belief in Yahweh only a small
sphere of operation was granted to heavenly beings in the direction of history and destiny, → ἄγγελος, I,
78.
To show how strongly Israel appropriated the idea of Yahweh as the God of heaven one might refer to the
prayer of Dt. 26:15 (“look down from heaven, thy holy habitation”),70 for the prayer formulae of Dt. 26 are
much older than the book itself. Or again one might refer to the uplifting of the hands in oaths (Dt. 32:40) or
their outstretching in prayer (Ex. 9:29, 33), since both point to the same concept of Yahweh dwelling in
heaven.
If in ancient times such ideas were freely accompanied by the thought of Yahweh’s dwelling and
presence on earth71 (which cannot be wholly ruled out even according to the basic understanding of the
ancient Orient), in the Deuteronomic theology we find an open attempt to clarify the problem of
Yahweh’s transcendence and yet of His commitment to Israel along the lines of a precise theological
definition of the relationship. Fundamental for this theological school is the idea that heaven is
Yahweh’s dwelling-place. The need to achieve a more consistent view leads the school, e.g., to
reconstruct the old tradition of the revelation at Sinai. Yahweh did not speak from the mountain (cf. E in
6
Ex. 19:20), but from heaven.72 And when the individual or the congregation lifts up its voice in prayer,
God hears from heaven. With this emphasis on Yahweh’s remoteness from earth is very closely linked
the idea of His relation to the cultic site. Yahweh has set His name there (‫ ) ִשים‬and also made it to dwell
there (‫)לְׁ שַַּכֵן‬, → 256.73 One can hardly describe this theologoumenon of the name present at the cultic
site as a break with the idea of dwelling. It is rather to be regarded as an incisive theological
spiritualising. For the name is in some sense a part of Yahweh, i.e., the side which is turned to man in
revelation, → 257.74 Clearly the ancient distinction between the place of dwelling and the place of
manifestation, which was alien to the most primitive belief in Yahweh, has provided the Deuteronomist
with the material for his theological understanding. The new thing in the Deuteronomic school is not,
then, the idea of Yahweh’s dwelling in heaven as such. It is the rise of powerful reflection in an attempt
at theological clarification. How far the distinction came in practice to be accepted inwardly by the
generality of cultic participants is another question. In the literature available to us it is at all events a
turning-point. For apart from the considerable Deuteronomic writings (including Deuteronomic
redactions), it also affected the work of the Chronicler. The various references to the name of Yahweh in
later cultic lyricism may also be regarded as a powerful popularisation of this Deuteronomic
movement.75 In daily cultic practice, and especially in prophecy, interest in Yahweh’s true dwellingplace had, of course, to yield to concern as to His manifestation, sphere of power etc. Ez. certainly sees
the throne-carriage of Yahweh (Yahweh above the ַַ‫ ָׁרקִ יע‬, 1:25) coming forth from transcendence (the
heavens open, 1:1). But his whole prophetic proclamation is then exclusively concerned with the
revealed and present Yahweh and His dealings with Israel and the Gentiles. In so far as the question is
not so much that of the dwelling-place of Yahweh, but rather of His sphere of power and dominion, the
Deuteronomist, too, must say that “Yahweh alone is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath”
(Dt. 4:39; 10:14), and that “the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain” Him (1 K. 8:27). This
view, with its many tensions, is finely expressed in Ps. 113:5 f.: Yahweh is He “who is enthroned on
high and looks down below, who raiseth up the poor out of the dust.”76 In times of affliction there broke
in on this belief the consoling certainty that Yahweh is always at work in the world too. We find
complaints that He has wrapped Himself impenetrably in the clouds (Lam. 3:44), and prayer that He will
rend the heavens and come down (Is. 63:19). Sometimes, perhaps, there is a certain scepticism. Thus
Eliphaz sees in Job one who thinks that God cannot judge through the cover of clouds which separates
Him from men: “Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he strolleth on the vault of
heaven” (Job 22:13 f.; cf. Ps. 10:4). Ecclesiastes is not far from this dangerous notion in his admonition:
“God is in heaven, and thou upon earth …” (Qoh. 5:2; Ps. 115:16). But such ideas are on the periphery
of the OT belief. If in the post-exilic period the concept of heaven as the habitation of Yahweh was
increasingly confirmed, this is linked almost always with the belief that Yahweh is mightily at work in
this world too. Daniel is an instance of this. He uses the expression “God of heaven,” which came in
during the Persian age. But with it he bears witness to the God who in historical omnipotence controls
the destinies of world empires and carries through His plans for the world.77
3. Heaven as the Place of Salvation.
If, for all the awareness of God’s action in this world, heaven was still regarded as the sphere of
Yahweh in a special sense, it was natural to regard this place, which in any event was the source of all
blessings (Gn. 49:25; Dt. 33:13; 1 K. 8:35), as the setting of the eternal life inaccessible to man, and
indeed as the place where God’s planned salvation is already present prior to its working out on earth.
Obvious here is the influence of distinctive ancient oriental notions of the pre-existence of everything
earthly in heaven. “The view is accepted that according to the law of correspondence between the macrocosm
and the microcosm the prototypes of all lands, rivers, cities and temples existed in heaven in certain
constellations, while these earthly things are only copies thereof.”78 This correspondence, in terms of which
what is below is only a copy of what is above,79 finds expression in the building inscr. of the Sidonian kings
Bodaštart and Ešmunazar, in which šmm rmm (“high heaven”) and šmm ’drm (“glorious heaven”) are used as
names for sections of the city. The earthly Sidon is simply a copy of the heavenly prototype.80 This
7
speculative view of the world was obviously alien to the older belief in Yahweh. Its influence may be seen
only in writings which are clearly later.
The idea of rapture (→ ζωή, II, 848) shows some affinity to this concept. Elijah goes up into heaven
in a whirlwind, 2 K. 2:11. Whenever the OT refers to rapture, it always has in view heavenly chambers
in which men, rescued from death, are set in a state of perpetual nearness to God.81 But the reference
here is only to very isolated events. The statement in Ps. 119:89 goes much further, for here is a word of
salvation which applies to the whole community: “Eternal is, Yahweh, thy word; it is settled in heaven.”
There is a very similar thought in Ps. 89:2: “Grace was built up for ever in heaven, thy faithfulness was
grounded in it.”82 Such doxological and hymnic statements do not permit us to fix their theological
content with precision. But we clearly find the same idea very sharply developed in the P tradition of the
‫תַ בְַׁנִ ית‬, the heavenly model of the earthly tabernacle, which was shown to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai
(Ex. 25:9, 40). Finally we might think of Ez. 2:1 ff., the roll of the book already pre-existent in heaven,
or Is. 34:5.83
The night visions of Zech. should be mentioned in this connection. In the first and last visions Zech.
sees the gate of heaven, that is, the two mountains where the heavenly and earthly worlds meet, to which
the messengers of God return at evening, and from which they come forth in the morning to accomplish
the salvation which God has planned. The content of the vision, which is received during the night
between the return and the going forth of the divine messengers, is that the whole kingdom of God is
already prepared in heaven, that, though the earth still lies in undisturbed and wicked peace, Yahweh is
glowing with zeal, that even down to the last details He has made full provision, that He has indeed
considered all possible contingencies.84 From here the way is fairly direct to the vision of the Son of
Man in Da. (→ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). The question of some Persian influence on the idea of the Son of
Man who comes with the clouds of heaven has not yet been settled. Whether we keep to the vision itself,
which in original form undoubtedly referred to the taking over of world dominion by a single figure, or
whether we prefer the collective interpretation (Da. 7:17 ff.), there can be no doubt that that which
comes down from above “with the clouds of heaven” stands in sharp contrast to the empires which have
come up from below, from the sphere of chaos.
This is no place to enter into a critical discussion of the various ways in which Da. 7:14 can be expounded
or of the conjectural historical background of the statement about the Son of Man. Who is the ‫אנָׁש‬
ֱ ַ‫ּבַ ר‬, the
man, who is so solemnly enthroned in v. 14? The most natural solution is still the theory that for the Jewish
author ancient Messianic ideas were linked with the prophecy, though in a new and distinctive way.85 But
between v. 13 and v. 14 there is an obvious break in both form and content, for in v. 14 we no longer have the
poetic form of the throne vision (Da. 7:9, 10, 13, materially distinct from the vision of the beasts), and the
judgment scene is changed into a translatio imperii. It is thus evident that existing material is here adapted to
a special concern of belief in Yahweh, namely, that of v. 14.86
Since heaven is plainly on the same level as earth in view of its creaturehood. and can very
commonly be mentioned along with it in this respect, reference may sometimes be made to the shaking
of heaven, which is always regarded as an act of judgment by Yahweh. Thus the story of the flood in P
depicts a complete collapse of the structure of the world as God established it in Gn. 1–2:4a. In the
prophets, too, heaven is affected by the divine judgment, cf. Am. 8:9; Jer. 4:23–26. When Dt. Is. says
that heaven “is dispersed like smoke” (Is. 51:6; cf. Job 14:12 textus emendatus), he is obviously
prophesying a universal cosmic catastrophe, a kind of end of the world.87 Tr. Is. goes on to speak of the
creation of a new heaven and a new earth, Is. 65:17; 66:22. Thus heaven is drawn increasingly into
soteriological ideas. On the other hand, one should remember that heaven could not be of central interest
for the faith of Israel. Even it it was sometimes depicted as the place of the salvation prepared for Israel,
this was a salvation which comes to earth. OT Israel did not, of course, regard heaven as the place of the
blessed after death.
The substitution of heaven for the name of God takes place only once in the OT on the very margin of the
Canon (Da. 4:23). It may be asked, however, whether such verses as Ps. 73:9 or Job 20:27 did not prepare the
8
way for the well-known later practice, → III, 93. For swearing by heaven (not in place of the name of God
etc.), cf. the stele of Sudshin (c. 740 B.C.).88
v. Rad
C.
I.
1.
The Septuagint and Judaism.
The Septuagint.
Additions.
In the LXX οὐρανός is used 667 times, almost exclusively for ‫ שָׁ מַ יִם‬or Aram. ‫ ְׁשמַ יָׁא‬. In only a few
instances is it added to the original of the Heb. books.
a. First of all we have additions designed to give greater vividness, Thus εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν is added to the
ascent of the smoke in Jos. 8:21, the cry of Elijah in 3 Βας. 18:36, the stretching out of the hands in Ex. 9:29
A, and of the staff in Ex. 10:13. ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is added to the burning fire in Dt. 9:15 B (cf. 4:11), ἀπ᾽
οὐρανοῦ to the cloud in Job 7:9, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ to the fire which falls in 3 Βας. 18:38, cf. 4 Βας. 1:10, 12. At
Ez. 37:9 A has ἀνέμων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (‫ )רּוחֹות‬instead of πνευμάτων. To fill out the picture ἕως ἄκρου τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ is added to ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in Dt. 30:4, cf. also 2 Εσδρ. 11:9 S (Neh. 1:9) and the τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ added to τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in 2 Ch. 6:23 B, unless this is a scribal error. To make the “all” of ψ 113:11
(Ps. 115:3) more concrete, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ is added, cf. Is. 5:30. On the other hand, the adding
of τοῦ οὐρανοῦ to describe the birds in Gn. 40:17, 19; Is. 18:6; ψ 49:11 is based on the stereotyped formula τὰ
πετεινὰ (ὄρνεα) τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. This is newly brought into the LXX text in Hos. 2:14 (cf. Mas. v. 12); Ez. 34:5
A; 3 Βας. 12:24μ (cf. 14:11). In repetitions as compared with the Mas. οὐρανός occurs in Gn. 1:9; Dt. 5:14 B
(cf. Ex. 20:11); Job 1:6 A (cf. 1:7).
b. Another reason for adding οὐρανός or using it in transl. of more general terms in the original is to make
what is “above” or “on high” more concrete. Thus in Δα. 12:3 LXX ‫ע‬
ַַ ‫ הָׁ ָׁרקִ י‬is rendered τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (as
compared with Θ τοῦ στερεώματος). Is. 8:21 reads εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἄνω for ‫לְׁ מַ עְׁ לָׁה‬, Is. 24:18 ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ, for ‫ ִממָׁ רֹום‬, Is. 24:21 ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ for ‫( בַ מָׁ רֹוָׁםַעַל־צְׁ בָׁ אַהַ מָׁ רֹום‬cf. the addition in
13:10), and Is. 38:14 εἰς τὸ ὕψος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ for ‫לַמָׁ רֹום‬.
Earth as the theatre of human history is regarded in the same concrete way, esp. in Job, as ἡ ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν
(γῆ), so for ‫ אֶ ֶרץ‬Job (1:7); 2:2; 9:6; 18:4; 38:18, 24, 33; 42:15, for ‫ חּוצֹות‬Job 5:10 (ἀποστέλλοντα ὕδωρ ἐπὶ
τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν), for ‫ תֵ בֵ ל‬Job 34:13; Prv. 8:26, for ‫ ְׁתהֹום‬Prv. 8:28 (the sea on which the earth rests); at Job
9:13 ‫יַרהַ ב‬
ָׁ ‫ == עֹ ז ְֵׁר‬κήτη τὰ υπτ᾽ οὐρανόν (addition?). In such instances we do not have a distinctive LXX
view or mode of expression, but usage found already in the Mas., cf. Qoh. 1:13; 2:3; 3:1; Job 28:24; 37:3;
41:3; but also ‫ שֶ מֶ ש‬for ‫שָׁ מַ יִם‬, Qoh. 1:3, 9, 14; 2:11 etc.
c. Finally, the OT belief that God, as Creator of heaven and Ruler of heaven, is linked with heaven, is
itself the occasion for the adding of οὐρανός to the original text. Thus ‫ שַ דַ י‬is rendered ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in
Ps. 91:1. The phrase became the most expressive description of God in Hell. Judaism, cf. 2 Εσδρ. 1:2; 5:11 f.;
6:9f. etc. Witness to God as Creator and Ruler of the world found transcendent expression in it. In Is. 14:13
‫ ִמתַ עַלַלְׁ כֹוכְׁ בֵ י־אֵ ל‬becomes ἐπάνω τῶν ἄστρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, and in Job 22:26 ַַ‫ אֶ ל־אֱלֹוה‬is εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.
Though for no dogmatic reason, there may be seen here an anticipation of the later replacement of the name
of God by the concept of heaven, 1 Macc. 4:10; 12:15; 2 Macc. 7:11 etc., → III, 93. The case is similar with
the ἐν οὐρανῷ of ψ 88:37 for ‫ּבַ שַ בַ ק‬. On the other hand, there may be dogmatic reasons for the fact that in
Ex. 19:3 B God calls to Moses, not from the mount, but ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, since this safeguards the divine
transcendence. In Hos. 13:4 ὁ θεός σου στερεῶν οὐρανὸν κτλ.89 (cf. ψ 32:6; Is. 45:12) is added, and to the
protestation in Dt. 8:19: τόν τε οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (cf. Dt. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28). Additions are also found at 3
Βας. 8:53a: ἐν οὐρανῷ κύριος, Δα. 3:17: θεὸς ἐν οὐρανοῖς, 9:3 ΘΑ: θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. These reflect the Hell.
predilection for the phrase “God of heaven” or “God in heaven.”
2.
The Plural οὐρανοί.
9
In the LXX οὐρανός occurs 51 times in the plur.. This use is almost completely alien to profane Gk. (→
498, n. 2) and came into Gk. usage by way of the LXX. The model of the Heb. plural makes possible it. use in
the transl. of the OT. Finding a basis in the plerophory of hymnic and doxological style, it occurs almost
exclusively in the Ps. or similar pieces, e.g., 1 Βας. 2:10; 2 Βας. 22:10; Hab. 3:3; Dt. 32:43 εὐφράνθητε
οὐρανοί cf. Is. 44:23; 49:13, though 1 Ch. 16:31 sing. Parallelism and poetic considerations determine the
plur. of Job 16:19. The only prose instance—and this is in a prophetic saying—is at 2 Ch. 28:9. In later
writings, even when it does not rest on the transl. the plur. takes its place increasingly alongside the sing, cf. 2
Macc. 15:23; 3 Macc. 2:2; Wis. 9:10,90 16;91 18:15; Tob. 8:5 etc. In its pure use it serves to express the idea of
a plurality of heavens which came in from the Orient, along with the associated speculations. Hence the plur.
in the phrase ἔκτισεν τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὴν γῆν (Jdt. 13:18; cf. 9:12; ψ 68:34; 135:5; Prv. 3:19) is to be
regarded as a true plur.
The phrase ‫יִםַּושמֵ יַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬
ְׁ
ַ‫( הַ שָׁ מ‬Dt. 10:14; 1 K. 8:27; 2 Ch. 2:5; 6:18; Neh. 9:6) is rendered ὁ οὐρανὸς
καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in the LXX (cf. Sir. 16:18); the status constructus construction is copied here in a
way which is not originally Gk. The phrase is also found in the intrinsically incorrect transl. of Ps. 68:34
‫יַשמֵ י־‬
ְׁ ֵ‫ּבֵ ְׁשמ‬, also Ps. 115:16 (ψ 113:24) ‫הַ שָׁ מַ יִםַשָׁ מַ יִ ם‬, and in the plur. ψ 148:4 (cf. also 2 Ch. 6:23 B,
though here the repetition may probably be attributed to a scribal error). Though the concepts may be hazy
and ambivalent in the transl. of the formula, its use presupposes the idea of several heavens, perhaps a
plurality.92 This presupposition, however, did not determine the development of the phrase, but the desire to
express by plerophory the comprehensivehess of the universe.
The fact that the Heb. ‫ שָׁ מַ ים‬was used to express in the same way the same ancient view of the
world as the Gk. οὐρανός made the Gk. term basically well fitted to serve as a rendering of the Heb. The
LXX, however, contributed to the Gk. word the status constructus form and the plural use. Hence it gave
to Hellenistic thought the possibility of expressing more easily and quickly the ideas and speculations of
the Orient about a plurality of heavens.
II. Judaism.
In Judaism93 the further use of ‫שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬94 is characterised on the one hand by burgeoning speculation about
heaven under oriental and esp. Babylonian95 influences, and on the other by the use of heaven as a synon, for
God.
a. In the different systems which sometimes appealed to the same sayings (heaven of heavens, heaven and
heaven of heavens. Dt. 10:14; 1 K. 8:27; 2 Ch. 2:5; 6:18), distinction was made between 2 to 10 heavens. The
notion of 7 heavens, however, was the usual one.96 A biblical basis was sought for each and a corresponding
name developed.97 “All (these) sevens are beloved before God,” Ab RNat, 37 (9d); Pirke R. Eliezer, 154b. A
frequently repeated story tells of the ascent of the divine Shekinah from the 1st to the 7th heaven in aversion
from the sin of men, and then of its descent from the 7th heaven beyond the first to the tabernacle in view of
the piety of the patriarchs and Moses.98 The idea of 2 heavens (more commonly firmaments) occurs in En.
1:3; 71:5, cf. 1 K. 8:27 and Midr. Ps. 114 § 2 (236a); Chag., 12b; Dt. r., 2 (199b) on the basis of Dt. 10:14;
appeal was also made to Ps. 68:34. We also find 3 heavens in 1 K. 8:27; Midr. Ps. 114 § 2; Test. L. 2:9; 3:1–
4; Slav. En. 8 (B). Acc. to this ref. Paradise is in or by the third heaven. There are 5 heavens in Gr. Bar. 1:1,
unless we follow Orig.Princ., II, 3, 6: denique etiam Baruch prophetae librum in assertionis huius
testimonium vocant, quod ibi de septem mundis vel caelis evidentius indicatur. Slav. En. (A) 20:8; 22f. speaks
of 10 heavens. In the uppermost is the throne of God, and hence there is direct access to God there.99 A vivid
depiction of heaven may be found in En. 71:5–10: “Then the spirit caught up Enoch into the heaven of
heavens, and I saw there in the midst of that light a building of crystal stones, and between those stones
tongues of living fire. My spirit saw how a fire ran around that house, on its four sides streams of living fire
which encircled that house. Round about were seraphim, cherubim and ophanim; these are they who never
sleep but guard the throne of his glory. I saw countless angels, thousands of thousands and ten thousands of
ten thousands, around that house. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel and the holy angels up aloft in the
heavens go in and out of that house. From that house came forth Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel, and
innumerable holy angels. And with them came the Ancient of Days; his head white and pure as wool, and his
garment indescribable. Then I fell on my face …” Cf. also in En. 14:9–23 the description of heaven all aflame
to express the fact that “I cannot give any description of its glory and greatness,” v. 16.100 The distance
10
between the individual firmaments, and their individual extent, is said to be a way of 500 years,101 It can also
serve to denote abs. separation, e.g., between man and woman, Ned., 11, 12.
b. Acc. to the Rabb. understanding of the third commandment ‫ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬was used as a paraphrase or
concealing concept for God, → 509.102 The most common phrases are ‫“ מלכותַשמים‬rule of God”; ַ‫מורא‬
‫“ שמים‬respect for God,” Ab., 1, 3; ‫“ כבודַשמים‬honour of God,” Ber., 13a; ‫“ בידיַשמים‬in God’s hand,”
Ber., 33b; ‫“ שםַשמים‬name of God,” Ab., 4, 4 and 11; ‫לצאתַידיַשמים‬, BM, 37a. ‫רעַלשמיםַורעַלברית‬
in BM, 37a recalls Lk. 15:18. As a name for God ‫ שמים‬was later detached from ‫המקום‬.
c. A new creation was expected in the last time. On the one hand this was simply to be a kind of
transfiguration which would leave the substance of the old creation intact: “When heaven and earth and all
their creatures will be renewed (to new life) like the powers of heaven and all the creatures of earth,” Jub.
1:29; when “I shall transform heaven,” En. 45:1. Tg. J., I on Dt. 32:1 specifically rejects any destruction of
heaven, cf. also Lv. r., 29 (127c). On the other hand there is to be a new creation in the strict sense after
complete destruction of the old world: “The first heaven will disappear and pass away, a new heaven will
appear, and all the powers of heaven (== stars, Is. 30:26) will shine sevenfold for evermore,” En. 91:16.103
d. In the Tg. the ‫( צְׁ בָׁ אַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬stars, Is. 34:4) become ‫ֵיַשמַ יָׁא‬
ְׁ ‫( חֵ יל‬angels, Tg. Ps. 96:11).
D.
New Testament.
The word occurs in the NT 284 times (94 plur.), 84 in Mt.104 (plur. 58),105 37 in Lk. (plur. 5),106 26 in Ac.
(plur. 2), 54 in Rev. (plur. 1),107 11 in Hb. (plur. 8), 6 in 2 Pt. (plur. 5), 10 in Paul (plur. 3, or 4 with 2 C.
12:2), thus comparatively rare, 9 in Eph. and Col. (plur. 8),108 no instances in the Past., Phlm., 1,109 2 or 3 Jn.,
19 in Jn., no plur.110 The plur. is common in Mt., Eph., Col., Hb. and 2 Pt. Only in the sing. is the word used
with ὑπό, ἕως, ἄχρι, almost always in the sing. with ἐκ (plur. Mt. 3:17 par.: 1 Th. 1:10), ἀπό (plur. Hb; 12:25)
and εἰς (plur. Ac. 2:34), and only in the plur. with ἐπί and ὑπεράνω. In the Synoptists it is often combined
with ἐν in the plur., and only in the plur. in the Epistles apart from 1 C. 8:5. The common occurrence in Mt. is
due to two formulae, πατήρ μου (σου, ὑμῶν, ἡμῶν only 6:9) ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 15 times111—twice in
Mk.112—and ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν 32 times,113 found only in Mt.,114 → I, 581 f. In both cases the plur. is a
Semitism.115 Esp. to be understood in the plur. are the verses which stand under the linguistic and material
influence of Jewish apocr. and Rabb. writings or Hellenistic Gnosis,116 → 534. It is not necessary to appeal to
the latter for an understanding of the Pauline use117 apart from Eph. 1:10; 4:10; 6:9; Col. 1:16, 20. How far it
may have influenced Hb. 4:14; 7:26; 9:23 is very doubtful. The formula ἐν (τῷ, τοῖς) οὐρανῷ (-οῖς) (ἄνω) καὶ
ἐπὶ (τῆς) γῆς (κάτω)118 is OT and corresponds to LXX usage.119 In the Rabbis, too, it serves to indicate the
world as a totality.120
The use of οὐρανός in the NT is determined on the one side by the view of the world which
dominates the whole of antiquity, though with variations in detail. According to this picture heaven is
the strong, firm vault which secludes the flat earth. Orientals often thought of it as a tent, → 527; 533.
The stars were fastened to it, → 534. On the other side, however, the use is also controlled by the idea,
selfevident to Judaism, Hellenism and primitive Christianity, that God is above and comes down from
thence. Heaven is so much God’s sphere that it can be regarded as a synonym for God, → 512; 521.
There is hardly an οὐρανός reference to which both these dominant factors have not contributed,
οὐρανός in relation to God involves the cosmic meaning, while conversely οὐρανός as a cosmic term
involves the relation to God. In the NT, in continuity with OT usage, οὐρανός is the upper121 and
controlling122 part of the universe, which is always123 described as οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ.124,125 This expression
is not a term for the world not yet understood in cosmological unity. Indeed, the Gk. tt. κόσμος came
into use only hesitantly under Hellenistic influence.126 The integration of heaven and earth is not
regarded as immanent; it is understood to be the work of the divine Creator. Heaven and earth, both in
their relationship and also in the superiority of heaven over earth, are a symbolical representation of the
relation of God as Lord and Creator to His lordship and creation. Thus at no point, not even when used
in the sense of firmament and atmosphere, does the term οὐρανός lose this symbolical character (cf. Is.
55:9), which is very evident in its use for the “home of the divine.”127
11
1. Heaven and Earth.
οὐρανός is used with γῆ in four main groups of statements.
a. With the earth, heaven was created by God:128 ὅς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν, Ac. 4:24; cf. 14:15; 17:24;
Rev. 14:7;129 ὅς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν … καὶ τὴν γῆν, Rev. 10:6;130 cf. also Hb. 1:10 (== ψ 101:25).131 A
notable feature here is that we find the statement only as an OT quotation and only in Ac. and Rev. Thus
Ac. 17:24: ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον …, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος. To the creation of
heaven and earth corresponds, in fulfilment of prophetic promise (Is. 65:17; 66:22 → 509; 512) their
eschatological new creation: οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν, Rev. 21:l; καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν
καινήν, 2 Pt. 3:13, cf. Is. 65:17; 66:22. The word καινός (→ III, 449, 6 ff.) denotes an act of creation
which excludes evolution. The addition in 2 Pt. 3:13: ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ, shows that the present
temporal heaven has been essentially disrupted by the ἀδικία of man and has become old (== πρῶτος,
Rev. 21:1), → 520, 4. This new creation is already achieved in God, i.e., in His saving purpose. The
divine can say εἶδον, and to this corresponds κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ προσδοκῶμεν in 2 Pt. 3:13; cf.
R. 8:21 ff.132 The awaited eschatological consummation does not extend, then, to heaven alone. Along
with heaven it includes earth as well.
b. Not earth alone passes away. With it and before it heaven also passes away: ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ
παρελεύσονται, Mk. 13:31 and par.;133 cf. Rev. 21:1; Hb. 12:26 (== Hag. 2:6; cf. v. 21):134 1:11f. (== ψ
101:26 f.);135 similarly 2 Pt. 3:10, 12.136 Heaven and earth are kept for this destruction (2 Pt. 3:7), and
both experience the eschatological terror of flight from God’s manifestation, Rev. 20:11.137 Mt. 5:18 and
par. shows how much this stock announcement, which is rooted in the OT (→ 509) and Jewish
apocalyptic (→ 512), is taken for granted.138 In the saying here the validity of the Law is linked with the
existence of the πρῶτος οὐρανός and the πρώτη γῆ, while according to Mk. 13:31 only the words of
Jesus cannot be affected by the passing away of heaven and earth.139 Hence the existence of heaven and
earth testifies to man that he cannot escape the demand of the νόμος. The passing away of heaven and
earth shows that it too, being created,140 is subject to the judgment of God as Lord. But what is said
about the passing away of heaven and earth is not the true content of the NT kerygma. It is never more
than the negative background for the true and positive proclamation of that which endures141 and is
unshakable (Hb. 12:27), i.e., of that which comes.142
c. With earth, heaven stands under the same lordship of God. Jesus calls on God as πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, Mt. 11:25 and par.143
Though the expression is uncommon in the OT,144 Gn. 24:3 (J)145 shows that it is old and did not simply
arise under Persian influence.146 Esp. in connection with πατήρ,147 as here, it refers primarily, not to God as
Creator, but to the covenant God as the Lord of the world who brings salvation.148 The emphasis is different
in Ac. 17:24: ὁ θεός ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος (cf.
Is. 42:5). Here the statement about the Lord is bound up with, if not grounded in, that about the Creator. Col.
1:16 (→ n. 131) does not belong to this group; it is to be expounded along with Eph. 1:10; cf. also Eph. 6:9;
Col. 4:1 (→ 517, 5 f.).
With Is. 66:1, Mt. 5:34149 and Ac. 7:49 describe heaven and earth as the absolute sphere of God’s
dominion. His power is manifested at the coming of the Son of Man in the gathering of the elect ἐκ τῶν
τεσσάρων ἀνέμων ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ, Mk. 13:27.
We have here a combination of three current phrases: ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων (Zech. 2:10); ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου
τῆς γῆς (Dt. 13:8; 28:64; Is. 5:26 etc.); ἕως ἄκρου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Dt.4:32; 30:4). As in the OT refs., also Mt.
24:31: ἀπ᾽ ἄκρων οὐρανῶν ἕως (τῶν) ἄκρων αὐτῶν, one would expect either earth both times or heaven both
times. Since the paradox in Mk. is obviously intentional,150 the phrase is simply an emphatic expression for a
gathering which embraces the universe. The end of earth coincides with that of the world.151
d. Through the saving event in Jesus Christ heaven and earth acquire a new relation to one another
expressed in the formula … ἐν (τῷ, τοῖς) οὐρανῷ (-οῖς)—ἐπὶ (τῆς) γῆς.152 In the first instance this can
serve to denote an embracing of heaven and earth, as in Eph. 1:10 and Col. 1:16, 20.
12
Here the formula is added to a preceding → τὰ πάντα153 to show that this is absolutely exhaustive and allcomprehensive. The plerophoric mode of expression is not merely based on the hymnic liturgical style but is
also designed to make the τὰ πάντα more concrete. This is esp. plain in Col. 1:16, where the formula adds to
the spatial description of the universe (== τὰ πάντα) a substantial154 description whose interest centres in the
series εἴτε θρόνοι κτλ. which obviously goes with τὰ ἀόρατα, → 369. Probably the whole series—certainly
the τὰ ἀόρατα—is to be referred to the ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. The ascribing of invisibility to heaven is connected
with its creaturely function of concealing and enveloping, → 523.155 Under Gnostic influence (→ 501) the
heavens of Eph. and Col. are thought to be filled with demonic forces which subjugate man and his destiny,
cf. Eph. 1:20–23. The universe, understood in this concrete way, is in Col. 1:16 f. seen each time (thrice) in
strict relation to Christ. The ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς156 in Col. 1:16, with the
abruptly preceding ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ), is also meant to set creation in the light of salvation history
(cf. 16c: τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται). The basis of the possibility of being of all things in
heaven and on earth is to be found from the very beginning “in Him” through whom—this is the close
connection in the text—the work of reconciliation and peace is absolutely accomplished for the totality: “All
things in heaven and on earth are drawn into the work of reconciliation and peace,” Col. 1:20.157
In these verses the τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς denotes the totality in Christ. The
formula thus serves as a phrase for the σῶμα concept, cf. v. 18. “Everything in heaven and on earth” is
the body of which Christ is the Head.158 The same thoughts are similarly expressed in Eph. 1:10, where
it is proclaimed as the mystery of the saving divine will that τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ. (AG ἐν) τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, are to be gathered together ἐν Χριστῷ as in a head. Everything that exists in
the heavens (cf. the more concrete statement in v. 21) and on earth is integrated as a body whose head is
Christ (cf. v. 22), so that here τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐπὶ κτλ. serves to denote the world of Christ.
1 C. 8:5 f. tells us that before the one God and Lord the θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί … εἴτε ἐν
οὐρανῷ, εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, on the basis of their genesis and entelechy, which means on the basis of the event
of salvation, will become for us no more than λεγόμενοι, i.e., beings without reality. What is in heaven
and on earth is defined for us by the one God and the one Lord. There is no other definition of what is in
heaven and on earth. In Eph. 3:15 the heavens and earth are combined as spheres in which there may be
“families.” Their existence is grounded, not just in God or the Creator, but, with emphasis on the work
of salvation, in the Father of Jesus Christ, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.160 In Rev. 5:3 the seer, taught by the revelation
of Jesus Christ, realists that there is none in heaven or on earth161 who has the power or worth to open
the sealed book, and in 5:13 he hears all creation in heaven and on earth, also under the earth and on the
sea, praising the Lamb who alone is worthy; the Lamb is not one of the all things in heaven and on earth.
The presence of the last days, which began in Christ and was manifested in the outpouring of the Spirit
(Ac. 2:17), displays itself in the fact that creation is filled with signs and wonders: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (here
== in the heavens) ἄνω καὶ … ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω (== Jl. 2:30 LXX, where there is no ἄνω, κάτω). The
inclusion of heaven and earth in the saving event in Jesus Christ means that no entity in heaven or on
earth can possess autonomy: πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ (-οῖς D) καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς (BD, not ‫ א‬R, Θ) γῆς, Mt.
28:18.162 By the resurrection all power has been placed exclusively in the hands of the risen Lord.
Heaven and earth are made more concrete by the text from Da. (7:14) which is taken up in this saying.
To earth belong πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη (LXX) or πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί,γλῶσσαι (Θ), to
heaven is ascribed αἰώνιος ἐξουσία, and excluded is all decay or destruction, i.e., death, in whose
overthrow the power of the resurrection consists.
Not only does the Mt. formula comprehend heaven and earth. It also implies a new interrelation of
heaven and earth effected by God’s saving action. This is reflected in the expression ὡς ἐν164 in Mt.
6:10.165 Heaven is here described as “the creaturely sphere in which the will of God, which we pray
should be done on earth, takes place already, and has always done so.”166 This doing in heaven is an
example; it determines the doing on earth. The formula ὡς ἐν—καὶ ἐπί expresses herewith the new
participation of heaven in earth which in the saving work of Jesus Christ has replaced the division of
heaven and earth. This finds concrete shape in the idea of an eschatological taking up of earth into
heaven, or descent of heaven to earth.167 For all the participation, however, the superiority of heaven
13
over earth is plainly expressed here. But this has a very different basis from the Stoic ἡγεμονικόν of
heaven, → 499. It is grounded first in the fact that God’s will is done in heaven, which is a par. to the
idea of God’s throne in heaven (→ 522); cf. on this Hb. 8:1: ἀρχιερέα … ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and 8:4: εἰ
μὲν οὖν ἦν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὖδ᾽ ἂν ἦν ἱερεύς (→ 528; n. 246). It is also grounded in the fact that the superiority
is designed to reflect God’s relation to creation: ὡς … ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, οὕτως … ἡ ὁδός μου ἀπὸ
τῶν ὁδῶν ὑμῶν, Is. 55:9. Only in appearance is this contradicted168 by the promise: ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὅ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,
Mt. 16:19. According to this, acts performed on earth will have the power and right to have validity in
heaven. Cf. Mt. 18:19: … ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς … γενήσεται … παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς. The
reference here is not to the influencing or control of God’s will in heaven by the will on earth; it is to the
agreement of the two wills. The division between heaven and earth has been set aside, the third petition
is assumed to be granted,169 and here in the community eschatological fulfilment rules, so that what is
found is not power over heaven but right over against the Father through the community. Hence these
promises apply to the eschatological saved community of the heavenly dominion, in which God’s will is
done as in heaven. It should be noted in this connection that the promises are made by Jesus with
reference to His “Father in heaven.” This means that within creation heaven maintains its prerogative
over earth as the starting-point of the divine act of salvation.
The formula εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου in Lk. 15:18, 21 thus resembles the formula ἐν-ἐπί to the
degree that it is meant to comprehend heaven and earth; for earth is represented by the σου, which relates to
the earthly father. In this passage οὐρανός is usually taken as a substitute for God,170 for since εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
is not alone (as, e.g., in Rev. 18:5: αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ἄχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, cf. Ιερ. 28:9: εἰς οὐρανόν), but is
accompanied by ἐνώπιόν σου, one cannot argue for the meaning “up to heaven” on the basis of 2 Εσδρ. 9:6:
ἕως εἰς οὐρανόν,171 or 2 Ch. 28:9: ἕως τῶν οὐρανῶν.172 The meaning “against” rather than “up to” is thus
demanded. Hence it is apparent that heaven is used for God. Nevertheless, even though heaven symbolically
takes the place of the divine Father (→ 521),173 it does not cease to be heaven as the counterpart of earth and
the starting-point of the divine work of salvation. He who sins on earth sins also against this heaven; sin can
disrupt earth and heaven, cf. 2 Pt. 3:13.
2. God in Heaven.
a. God is called ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (strikingly only in Rev. 11:13; 16:11).174 According to this
designation God, who dwells in heaven (Ps. 2:4 → 504), has a strong affinity to it, though heaven does
not have a corresponding affinity to God, since is it God’s work. The meaning of the expression is to be
sought along the lines of the concept of heaven as the starting-point of the divine work of salvation.
Hence it does not just denote divine transcendence, God’s lofty character high above everything
earthly.175 On the contrary, this expression of absolute world dominion176 is used for cosmic rule over heaven
and hence over all the powers which are opposed to God and hostile to man. God as the God of heaven, ruling
over heaven, governs earth from heaven.
The same sense is borne substantially by the formula πατήρ μου (σου, ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν) ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,177
Mt. 5:16, 45, 48 vl.; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19; 23:9 vl.; Mk. 11:25, 26 vl.; Lk.
11:2 vl. It is worth noting that in Lk. 11:13 we find ἐξ instead of ἐν, → 521. But the use of πατήρ for θεός
emphasises more strongly God’s approach to man. The thesis that the name of Father is “a substitute for the
name God”178 does justice neither to the expression nor to the material adduced. In place of the gen. in the
sense of “over” we now have ἐν, and heaven is plur. as in Aram., → 510.179 In two thirds of the instances the
designation of God as Father—this shows its significance—carries with it a mention of heaven.180 More than
half of the other instances are statements of Jesus about His Father (Mt. 11:27; 20:23; 24:36 vl.; 25:34; 26:29,
39, 53), so that there is no need of the addition. The specific sense of “in heaven” as applied to God, namely,
to denote a complete lack of any earthly or spatial restriction,181 may be seen in the Sermon on the Mount,
which uses the formula particularly: “Father who is in heaven,” 5:16, 45, 48 vl.; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; the heavenly
Father, 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; “Father who sees into what is concealed,” 6:4, 6, 18; “Father who knows,” 6:8, 32.
Now the statements obviously cannot be equated, but they agree that “the heavenly Father is the God who,
unhampered by earthly restrictions, knows all things, sees all things, can do all things, and is thus accessible
to all.”182 Hence one may say that what is concealed on earth may be seen from heaven, and that what man
14
needs on earth is known from heaven. It is worth noting in this connection that there is no definition of the
nature of heaven, but a clear definition of its function. Heaven is not defined as a place or state. It is a
dynamic point of departure.
In Solomon’s prayer in the temple one may compare ‫( אֶ ל־הַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬1 K. 8:30, par. 2 Ch. 6:21
‫) ִמן־הַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬, also ‫( ּבַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬v. 32, 34, 36 etc., par. 2 Ch. 6:23, 25, 27 etc. ‫ ) ִמן־השָׁ מַ יִם‬with the LXX 3 Βας.
8:30: ἐν οὐρανῷ, v. 32; 2 Ch. 6:21, 23: ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, though the similarly constructed and closely related
‫ ִממָׁ קֹום‬is rendered by ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. This shows that what is said about God’s activity in heaven could be
understood as action from heaven. The change from ἐν in Mt. 7:11 to ἐκ in Lk. 11:13 is to be explained along
the same lines.
b. In Rabb. writings ‫ )שמיא(ַשמים‬became a substitute for ‫ → יהוה‬I, 571; III, 93.
This use is commonly assumed183 in Lk. 15:18, 21; Mk. 11:30 par.184 The same supposedly applies also to
Mt. 6:20 par.; 5:12 par., also Lk. 10:20. Hence βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Mk. is preferred to the literal βασιλεία
τῶν οὐρανῶν of Mt. But even in the oldest strata NT proclamation gives no hint whatever of any fear of
pronouncing directly the name of God.185 Again, τῶν οὐρανῶν adds a material definition which corresponds
linguistically to the material context, → line 6. Though the missionary preaching of the NT can often use
expressions from the surrounding world, it has still to be asked whether Mt.’s τῶν οὐρανῶν rather than τοῦ
θεοῦ is of no significance in understanding the βασιλεία. This could be true only if οὐρανός were an arbitrary
cipher. But the term not only has its own meaning; it has a meaning which is closely related in content to what
it is seeking to state. This may be seen in the fact that heaven could later be distinguished from the wholly
neutral ‫( הַ מָׁ קֹוָׁם‬also ‫ → הַ שֵ ם‬III, 93). This could not have happened if heaven had adequately screened the
term God against misuse. It is said that heaven itself then became “sacred” as a substitute. But logically the
same should then have happened in the case of the new substitute ‫הַ מָׁ קֹום‬, and it did not. It has thus to be
considered whether heaven did not always and necessarily, since there could be no concealment, relate to the
concept of God in OT and Jewish proclamation. Surely, even before it was a substitute, when the name of
God could be used freely, heaven helped to define the sovereignty of God, cf. Is. 63:15, 19; → 506.186 It has
to be remembered that “what is referred to here is the lordship which comes down from heaven into this
world” (better “on to this earth”).187 Even if the gen. denotes the name of God, the reason for its use in this
sense is palpable. God’s kingdom breaks in from heaven. It sets heaven itself in motion: ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία
τῶν οὐρανῶν, Mt. 3:2 etc.
Thus the use of “heaven” in these verses is more than a substitute. It is a term for God’s name which
refers to God’s dealings and action. God’s work, which is sovereign and which brings sovereignty, is an
active lordship coming down from heaven.
c. In keeping is another idea taken from the fixed proclamation of the OT, namely, that heaven itself
(Mt. 5:34; 23:22; Ac. 7:49 == Is. 66:1 LXX), or in heaven188 (Hb. 8:1),189 is the throne of God.190
But this is not par. to Babylonian, Egyptian or even Gk. ideas, which in various forms are familiar with a
dwelling of God or the gods in heaven. Expression of the sovereign action of God always without exception
underlies this persistent theme.191, 192 The ref. is not to a “being” of God in heaven. Throne means dominion,
and implies that God’s being in heaven is in the full sense His activity in heaven.193 Heaven is His “official
seat.”194 The obedient man will not separate God, His throne and heaven. In his perspective they go together,
Mt. 23:22. This is confirmed by the fact that what the NT says about heaven as God’s throne, or God’s throne
in heaven, has no independent significance. It is always used as a traditional way of proclaiming the
inviolability and absoluteness of the divine lordship.
3. Heaven and Jesus Christ.
a. In the NT kerygma what is said about the sovereign saving action of God characterised by heaven
takes on more concrete shape in statements concerning Christ and heaven. The oldest of these await
Christ Jesus, the risen Lord, from heaven as the manifestation of the end: ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ (sc.
θεοῦ) ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦν …, 1 Th. 1:10 (cf. 4:16; 2 Th. 1:7; Phil.
3:20).
15
In stock apocalyptic images the coming of the Son of Man, which Jesus was believed to be, is also
awaited from heaven μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Mk. 14:62.195 οὐρανός is not to be understood
here as the atmosphere in which the clouds move.196 νεφέλη (→ IV, 907; 909) is not a natural cloud, but
stands for an event of transfiguration, theophany and apotheosis. Hence οὐρανός, too, is regarded as the
absolute starting-point of the apocalyptic process.197 The same is true of the σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου ἐν οὐρανῷ, Mt. 24:30.198 Since the promise is that the Son of Man will come from heaven,
His sign, which in mysterious fashion is identical with Him, will be visible in the heavens.199 The
absence of speculation as to whether this takes place after the heavenly catastrophe shows most
significantly that, though it is still believed that the created heaven will pass away, heaven is very
closely linked to the event of eschatological manifestation. Fulfilment of the prophecy in Da. is
normative here.200 In Mk. 14:62 and par., where Da. 7:13 is connected with ψ 109:1, ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς
δυνάμεως (LXX μου) is the terminus a quo of the ἔρχεσθαι. Since the right hand of God201 is identical
with His throne, this confirms the idea that the Son of Man comes from heaven as in some sense a
localising of the initiative of the divine sovereignty.
In 1 Th. 1:10—probably a community formula202—ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν corresponds to ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν.
That is, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead corresponds to His coming from heaven for the
resurrection of all the dead. This interconnection plainly underlies 1 C. 15. Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ
νεκρῶν (v. 20) involves both ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ in v. 47 and ἐν τῇ παρουσία αὐτοῦ in v.
23, where ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ is a self-evident presupposition (1 Th. 4:16; 2 Th. 1:7).203 Nothing is said here
about an ascension of Jesus. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is the basis of the possibility of His
parousia, which is awaited as a coming from heaven.204 In keeping is the use of ἐκ, which as compared
with the more spatial ἀπό emphasises the idea of origin, coming from, or breaking forth. When it is said
in 1 Th. 4:16 that the Lord, i.e., the risen Lord, comes ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, this again implies: καὶ οἰ νεκροὶ ἐν
Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται.205 Similarly 2 Th. 1:7 says: … ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ
… Here the concept of being concealed in heaven lies behind that of being revealed. What is in heaven
cannot be grasped.206 Heaven conceals. Also in this concealment lies the πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς … ἐξ οὗ
καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Phil. 3:20.207 The coming of Jesus Christ, which
means eschatological manifestation, is regarded in all these passages as a penetration or opening up of
the heaven which conceals, → n. 261.
b. The firm expectation of the primitive community that the Kurios Jesus would come from heaven in
virtue of His resurrection might have led to the formation of a theologoumenon about the Kurios in heaven.208
That this did not happen shows not only the intensity of the expectation but above all the force and
significance of the central and original kerygmatic construct: He is risen, that is, He is coming from heaven.
He is regarded, not as the One who is, but basically as the One who comes; hence ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Only when this
force and intensity began to slacken, and the question of ordered life in the world was raised, do we find in the
household tables, in admonition to earthly κύριοι, the flourish: … εἰδότες ὅτοι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐν
οὐρανῷ, Col. 4:1; cf. Eph. 6:9.209 These exhortations, and the statement about the Kurios, simply adopt the
established ideas of Hellenism or Judaism, so that no distinctive Christian formulation or view is to be found
in the ἐν οὐρανῷ.210 In a weakened sense the ἐν οὐρανῷ probably denotes not more than simply “over you.”
In a more emphatic sense it points to the sway of the Judge who knows and perceives all things from—
because in—heaven, → 520, 30. There is certainly no ref. to place or state; we never find any such elsewhere.
c. When later in the primitive kerygma the resurrection of Jesus was distinguished211 from His
exaltation and the immediate expectation of His coming from heaven, place was found for the
proclamation of the ascension.212 In Ac. the primitive kerygma is still to be seen in Peter’s address at
Pentecost: τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνέστησεν ὁ θείς, 2:32 == τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς, 2:33, with the
elucidation immediately after in v. 34: ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς == κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου (ψ 109:1). The
equation of heaven, δεξιὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and the exaltation213 is maintained, though the ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς
οὐρανούς implies a slight disjunction of the resurrection and the exaltation. Already in Lk. 24:51 vl.: καὶ
ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν,214 there is intimation of the external understanding found in the true
ascension story in Ac. 1, where heaven itself is set in the foreground:215 ἀτενίζοντες … εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν
16
…, (ἐμ- ACRD) βλέποντες εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, … Ἰησοῦς ὁ ὀναλημφθεὶς … εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν (not D) …,
πορευόμενον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, Ac. 1:10 f.216 The disciples look up to where Jesus disappears, to heaven,
which means in effect the sky. It is very hard to think that in the narrow context of two verses οὐρανός
should have a fundamentally different sense the first two times as compared with the last two, esp. as it
is always in the sing.217 The sky, which is as far as the disciples can see Him, is the margin of the heaven
which receives and conceals the ascended Lord. The author saw here no contradiction with Ac. 2:32 ff.,
and rightly so, since the same concept is in the background there too. The primary sense of heaven is
that of the incommensurable created cosmos, and this includes as its limit the firmament, by means of
which it discharges its function of concealment. Throughout, however, there is also a reference to the
direct sphere of God’s sovereignty. Witness to this is borne by the quoting of ψ 109:1, which is applied
to Christ. This also shows that the heavenly dominion is not yet thought to be consummated. The rule of
salvation has still to come down from heaven and be set up on earth (… ἔως ἂν θῶ) …, Ac. 2:35,
materially identical with … ἄχρι χρόνων κτλ., 3:21). Since all speculative interest is set aside by the
intense expectation of Christ, or the consummation of salvation history in Lk. and Ac., the determinative
factor in the ascension story, too, is the understanding of οὐρανός sub specie dexterae Dei, cf. 1 Pt. 3:22;
Mk. 16:19.218
There is a distinctive formulation in Ac. 3:21: Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν … δέξασθαι.219 Jesus is
here220 the obj. of an activity of οὐρανός, which stands under the saving will of God.221 The created cosmic
heaven, as the upper world with no will of its own, has in virtue of its concealing function (ἄχρι χρόνων
ἀποκαταστάσεως) to receive Christ, i.e., His lordship. This statement corresponds materially to the others.
Gnostic ideas are quite remote.222 Cf. Rev. 19:11.
A completely different idea of heaven is found in Eph. 4:9 f. The ἀναβαίνειν, which comes from the
quotation of ψ 67:18,223 is to be taken along with the preceding καταβαίνειν.224 It is high above the many
heavens, indeed, all the heavens (ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν). The heavens are not the goal of the
ascent; they are simply passed through in transit. Coming down from heaven means emerging from the
heavenly zones, not the coming of the divine rule from heaven. The whole picture gives evidence of
Gnostic influence; the plur. is not Semitic, but Hellenistic. The heavenly zones, originally the planetary
spheres and regions of fixed stars, are thought to be dominated by powerful evil forces which determine
destiny and bind man to the earth and to death. These hermetically seal off the earth from God and keep
man captive in their prison. The journey to earth and the ascent through the heavens is a cosmic
shattering of the isolation imposed by these evil powers. This is the work of the Redeemer Christ (Eph.
4:9), who thus mounts up high above the heavens.225 By disarming these powers He can fulfil the whole
(τὰ πάντα == τὰ ἐπὶ [ἐν] τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Eph. 1:10, → 517, 6 ff.). The ascension is here
the triumphant procession of the exalted Christ through all the cosmic zones of heaven which He has
subjugated.226 The same line of thought—ἀναβήσεται—καταβήσεται—shapes the similar rhetorical
question in R. 10:6 f.227
In Jn. 3:13: καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, the idea of
descending and ascending, which is hinted at in Eph. 4:9, finds radical formulation. Only he who has
come down from heaven can mount up to heaven, which is barred off from earth, Jn. 3:31.228 In Jn.
οὐρανός does not belong to the “κόσμος.” It is ἐπάνω πάντων, 3:31. Yet it belongs to creation (1:3?). In
Jn. only the saving will of God and the saving action of the Son of Man characterise the heaven from
which Jesus comes229 and to which He ascends again.230 Hence this divine will and plan are called →
ἐπουράνια in 3:12. According to the Gnostic view the heavenly prototype (εἰκών) of the redeemer
remains in heaven even after the beginning of the earthly journey,231 and he has to be reunited with it
when he ascends again.232 Similarly, the incarnation does not interrupt fellowship with the Father;
heaven, which is normally closed, is open above the Son of Man, 1:51, → 530, 3.233 This opening of
heaven, which denotes Christ’s redemptive work, is seen by the disciples in the form of the ἀναβαίνειν
and καταβαίνειν of angels, which reflects this work.234
17
This continuing fellowship with God is differently expressed by R Θ lat syr235 in the addition to Jn. 3:13:
ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ236 (cf. Da. 7:13). Not the pre-existence or the post-existence but the true and proper
existence of the Son of Man is in heaven. Heaven is where the continuity of existence is maintained for the
Son of Man and for those who belong to Him, cf. Jn. 15:16, 19; 1 Jn. 4:6, → 541, 33 ff.
As the One who has come down from heaven (Jn. 6:42, 38)237 Jesus manifests Himself as the true
ἄρτος ὁ καταβαίνων (καταβὰς) ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (6:41, 50, 51). The originally adverbial ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
(Ex. 16:4) is now used adjectivally.238 As concerns the meaning of οὐρανός in Jn., it is worth noting that
this ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is a negative expression of man’s incapacity (6:32): οὐ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν, while
positively it denotes God’s work in salvation history according to an eschatological understanding: ἀλλ᾽
ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσιν (pres.). ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ can thus be a simple alternative for τοῦ θεοῦ
in v. 33. It serves to characterise the uniqueness and comprehensiveness of Christ as Revealer, like
ἀληθινός in v. 32 and ζῶν in v. 51. He can thus be called also ὁ ἄρτος (ὁ ζῶν, ὁ ἀληθινός) ὁ ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ, with a reference to the Lord’s Supper in v. 58.239
Hb., too, contains similar expressions resting on the thought of a heavenly journey. In these are
combined two theological assertions,240 first, Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of majesty ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς (8:1, cf. 1:3 ἐν ὑψηλοῖς), and secondly, the fulfilment of the high-priestly task of Jesus in the
fact that, having gone through heaven (διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, 4:14), He has there become
ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν (7:26). The σκηνή of 9:11 is also to be understood as heaven (the heavenly
tent, → 514, 3; 533, 29). It is indeed the sanctuary241 through which (διά) He has passed εἰς τὰ ἅγια. Hb.
can also use heaven for this chief sanctuary, the holy of holies: εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (sing.), 9:24.
Different ideas of heaven are to be found here.242 οἱ οὐρανοί are equated with σκηνή. Of them it is said
that they are the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands. They do not belong to this
κτίσις, cf. κτίσις in 4:13 with οὐρανοί in 4:14. The heavenly tent here is not cosmic. Hence these
heavens do not pass away like those in 1:10–12 (12:26). They are thought of in eschatological and
apocalyptic terms. It would be out of place to draw doctrinal conclusions from the fact that they do not
belong to the impermanent κτίσις. In accordance with the concepts of Jewish apocalyptic (cf. Slav. En. 3
ff.; Test. L. 3; Asc. Is. 3) they are conceived of as filled with the liturgical ministries of angels. For this
reason they are a forecourt which has to be traversed to reach the holy of holies,243 in which, according
to the sacrificial theology of Hb., the true offering is made. The spatial concept has to make way for the
metaphysical understanding.
The traversing of heaven in Hb. stands in complete antithesis to Gnostic ideas, where the main point is
liberation from the mortal threat to existence and redemption from absolute tragic lostness, → 501, 13.
ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν in Hb. 7:26 has a radically different sense from the ὐπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν
of Eph. 4:10. For as distinct from the Gnostic idea of a complete sealing off of earth from God, and
investment by the hostile powers of the zones, the heavens of Hb. are full of angels serving God.244 There is
thus no conflict as in Gnostic views.245 Only formally is there a certain similarity to the Gnostic structure in so
far as the true sanctuary (the place of iight) is on the far side of heaven in Hb. too.
Traversing of heaven leads the great High-priest into the true heaven: εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν (== τὰ
ἅγια), 9:24. This is given its true and proper character by the πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ. The figurative
language does not clearly say whether one enters God’s presence in this heaven or whether this heaven
is in some sense identical with God’s presence (cf. Rev. 12:10, → 533, 22). Before God’s face there are
no longer any δείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Hb. 9:23); there is no type or shadow; there is no longer
anything unreal. Here is fulfilment, so that only here can the priestly ministry of heaven be discharged
for the community: ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ … ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 8:1246 (cf. 1:3). In Hb., then, God is high
above the heavens, and yet He is in the heavens.
The def. suggested by the ascension stories, and also by Col. 3:1: τὰ ἄνω … οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ
τοῦ θεοῦ, namely, that heaven is where Christ is,247 is, if we assume that τὰ ἄνω == ὁ (οἱ) οὐρανός (-οί),
correct in so far as the estimation of heaven in the NT is based, not on what heaven is, but on the purpose it
serves, which is to denote the right hand or throne of God. But the def. is in danger of harming the
18
creatureliness and therewith the concept of the spatiality of heaven unless it finds the true sense in a
combination of both aspects within God’s saving action from heaven on behalf of the created world.
In connection with the preaching of the resurrection Paul contrasts the first man, who is ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός
(Gn. 2:7 LXX: τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς)248 with the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, 1 C. 15:47,249
whom he then calls ὁ ἐπουράνοις, → 541, 29 ff. The sharp polemic of v. 46 and the total context make it
clear—quite apart from the other typological Adam-Christ passages250—that Christ is for Paul the ἄνθρωπος
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (== ἔσχατος Ἀδάμ == πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν == ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος). But there is need to
investigate the specific bearing of this expression, the character imparted by the ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, and therewith
also the meaning of οὐρανός in this connection. The phrase ὁ οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος used by Philo251 (→ 502, 7
f.; 537, 23 f.) is like Paul’s. Both undoubtedly presuppose the Gnostic myth of the primal man.252 The origin
of this myth is wrapped in obscurity.253 The resultant terminology became a common legacy. In Philo’s
οὐράνοις ἄνθρωπος it served to link a concept of man’s first estate with the Platonic idea of man. Heaven was
here the mythical primal state or the abs. ideal ἀρχή, → 502, 4. Paul, however, probably encountered the myth
only in a Rabb. or apoc. version, esp. in the form of the Son of Man (Enoch).254 He thus used the concept and
phrase ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, but in a completely altered sense. The sharp inversion in v. 46 is a safeguard
against all myth, for in the context the emphasis rests on the σῶμα or corporeality, not on a fundamentally
secondary position of the man from heaven.255 In Paul, then, the ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ belongs, not to the
primal age, but to the last time,256 or, more accurately, to the eschatological present understood as the last
time. It is worth noting that there is no exegesis of the ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ such as that advanced for the
πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος from Gn. 2:7, → n. 251. Paul, then, is not speaking of a heavenly being or using οὐρανός
mythically to express the primal state or pre-existence of the heavenly man.257 He gives the phrase ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
its content from the primitive kerygma. The train of thought in the chapter—resurrection (v. 20), quotation of
ψ 109:1 (v. 25), πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (v. 45), return (v. 52), with a continuing stress on the σῶμα—shows that
the phrase is selected mainly from the standpoint of heavenly exaltation.258 ἐξ οὐρανοῦ is basically and
primarily controlled, not by the first time, eternity, pre-existence, but by the victory over θάνατος and
σταυρός, the victory which enables the Victor to initiate His manifestation ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Only from this
standpoint, and hence secondarily, is there any ref. to pre-existence. One cannot, then, adopt the mythical
scheme and say that Christ’s story moves from heaven through the world to heaven.259 One has to say that
Christ is He who rose again in a σῶμα, who is awaited from heaven, and who is thus the ἄνθρωπος ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ who already came from heaven in the incarnation. The thesis that He came from heaven has its
meaning and origin in the expectation of His coming from heaven. Both statements about the ἐξ οὐρανοῦ are
rooted in the resurrection as His heavenly exaltation. The ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ is the risen Lord. He is not
the consummator but the “death of natural humanity,” because, as the One ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, He is the Initiator of
the aeon of resurrection.
4. Heaven Opened.
Integral to the story of the baptism of Jesus260 is the statement: ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, Mt. 3:16.261
The opening of heaven, which is now closed,262 corresponds to eschatological expectation,263 and
implies that Jesus is the Messiah and His baptism the beginning of eschatological happenings: God (the
kingdom of heaven) is here (in Him) at hand.264 Thus Jesus says in Jn. 1:51 that heaven is always open
over Him,265 and as a commentary on Gn. 28:12 this means that Jesus, as Messiah, is Bethel, the house
of God,266 the gate of heaven (v. 17b) on earth. That opened heaven makes it possible for faith to see the
δόξα of Jesus267 corresponds in content to Ac. 7:56,268 though here, in correspondence with the structure
of the Synoptic Gospels and Rev.,269 the thought is that of a real opening of the sky which conceals
heaven.270 Decisive is the point that the opening of heaven is grounded in the Messianic work of Jesus
and also serves to bear testimony to it. On this basis the vision of open heaven in Rev. 19:11 is to be
understood as the ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rev. 1:1. Heaven is here a temple (cf. 11:19) to which
the door has been opened271 (Rev. 4:1; cf. 8:1; 11:15; 12:10; 19:1). From this opened Christ-heaven
Peter, too, receives his vision, Ac. 10:11, 16: 11:5.
5. Heaven as the Starting-point of the Event of Revelation.
19
As Christ, the ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, is awaited from heaven, God’s revelations also come from
heaven. At the baptism of Jesus there sounds forth the φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, Mk. 1:11 and par. (Lk.
3:22: ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Cf. 2 Pt. 1:18).
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ does not simply denote the pt. in space where the voice comes from. It is also a rendering
of the Jewish tt. ‫ּבַ תַקֹול‬.272 The phrase is thus meant to denote the authoritative, because divine, character of
the voice from heaven. In the story of the baptism ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ can even indicate God’s own voice from
open heaven, and therewith the commencement of the eschatological aeon.273 The same applies to Jn. 12:28274
(cf. Ac. 11:9; 2 Pt. 1:18), where the φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης (cf. Mk. 9:7 and par.) becomes a φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ, with a reminiscence of the divine saying repeated from the baptismal voice. As in Mk. 11:30 heaven
here denotes divine confirmation and origin. In Rev. a φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is often heard by the divine,
10:4, 8; 11:12; 14:13; 18:4; 21:3.275 Whether in 10:4, 8; 14:13 this is a tt. for the direct voice of God is open to
question.276 18:4; 21:3 certainly cannot be related to God’s voice.277 We have thus to think in terms of angels’
voices—as in 14:2—which the seer hears from heaven but which have divine authority. Hb. 12:25 is probably
a veiled way of referring to God as the One who speaks from heaven. But the special form ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν also
bears witness to the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus Christ in heaven, and to its heavenly content,278 cf. 1 Pt.
1:12.
Like the voice of God, τὸ πνεῦμα also comes from heaven in the story of the baptism in Mk. 1:10
(θεοῦ, Mt. 3:16; τὸ ἅγιον, Lk. 3:22),279 cf. also Jn. 1:32. Since heaven is here presupposed to be torn
apart or opened, the reference cannot be to endowment with the Spirit but to a specific possession of the
Spirit.280
In 1 Pt. 1:12 the Holy Spirit is described as ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ. Though acquaintance with the
account of Pentecost is unlikely here, it should be noted that at the beginning of the occurrence in Ac. 2:2
there is ref. to an ἦχος which comes ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which can hardly be the upper atmosphere in this
instance.281 From heaven denotes origin, i.e., from the dominion of Jesus, who ascended to heaven and is
expected thence.282 John’s baptism was also from heaven, Mk. 11:30 and par.. This origin denotes the divine
dignity, validity and authority of the baptism, with special emphasis on its eschatological form. Though
heaven here is not a direct synonym for God, it intimates God’s saving action from heaven. Not perceiving
that this heaven is in its significatory character something which has to be believed, the Pharisees ask for a
sign ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, (Mk. 8:11; Mt. 16:1 ἐκ τοῦ; Lk. 11:16 ἐξ). Again the φῶς ἐκ τοῦ ουρανοῦ in Ac. 9:3
(ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου, 26:13) is not just from up above, → 542, 36. Under this symbolism it is
heavenly. That is, it shines forth from the Kurios in heaven and is thus an illuminating light which leads to
faith, knowledge and conversion. Jn. 3:27 says generally that it is impossible for a man to receive anything
which is not given him ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. The exclusive formulation ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον is typical in Jn. and
denotes the exclusiveness of God’s (saving) lordship, so Jn. 3:27; 6:65; cf. 19:11, where we have εἰ μὴ ἦν.
Thus ἐκ τοῦ πατρός in 6:65 and ἄνωθεν in 19:11 may be adduced in elucidation of ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. There is
no simple equation of ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ with God as in Jewish usage, though this is close in 6:65. Worth noting
is the difference in emphasis in the differing situations of 6:65 and 19:11. As ἄνωθεν (→ I, 378) is not just
identical with God (or ἐκ or ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός, cf. Jn. 3:3 with 5; Jm. 1:17; Job 3:4), neither is ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
Hence it cannot be personified. It acquires a special sense as a function in God’s action. Basically and
absolutely all giving is from heaven, i.e., from the dominion of the Father of Jesus, which is beyond human
control or influence (ἄνωθεν). Man is under heaven; in principle, then, he can be only a passive recipient.
Heaven here denotes the action of God which embraces the whole world and which controls all men.
R. 1:18 tells us that the wrath of God is included in the event of revelation which goes forth from heaven.
In a plain link with v. 17 (ἀποκαλύπτεται), ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ corresponds to the ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. ωὐαγγελίῳ, v. 16).
The saving power manifested in the Gospel is contrasted with the wrath revealed from heaven, → 426, 30. It
is not as though the Gospel were not also from heaven, cf. 1 Pt. 1:12. But the wrath is not in the Gospel. As
“from heaven” indicated the going forth in revelation of the divine event of salvation, so God’s wrath is also
shown by the repeated ἀποκαλύπτεται to be included in the revelation of salvation from heaven. OT figures of
speech are adopted to present God’s wrath concretely (→ 399, 9 ff.), e.g., πῦρ ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Lk. 9:54;
17:29; Rev. 20:9 vl.; in antichristian imitation ἐκ, Rev. 13:13), θεῖον (Lk. 17:29), χάλαζα (Rev. 16:21).283 The
closed heaven might also be mentioned here; this withholds the blessing of rain and fruitfulness, Lk. 4:25; Jm.
5:18; Rev. 11:6.284
20
6. Heaven and the Blessings of Salvation.
As God’s throne, the destination of the ascension and the point of departure of the returning Christ,
οὐρανός is an integrating focus for the present and future285 blessings of salvation in the new aeon.286
The strongly sublimated concept of its spatiality is a help in this connection.287 The terms used for these
blessings confirm this: → πολίτευμα in Phil. 3:20,288 → οἰκοδομή, οἰκία, οἰκητήριον289 in 2 C. 5:1 f., →
κληρονομία in 1 Pt. 1:4,290 → μισθός291 in Mt. 5:12 and par., → θφησαυρός in Mt. 6:20 and par.,292 also
such verbs as ἔχειν in 2 C. 5:1,293 θησαυρίζειν in Mt. 6:20, τηρεῖν in 1 Pt. 1:4, ἀποκεῖσθαι in Col. 1:5,294
ἐγγράφεσθαι, ἀπογράφεσθαι, in Lk. 10:20; Hb. 12:23.295 These blessings are in heaven, which means
with God or Christ,296 but with the God or Christ with whom believers will also be, or already are in
faith. Heaven here is like a place, but there can be no asking where it is situated, for such a question is
opposed to the whole concept. Heaven means concealment, and this implies incomprehensibility.297 The
same heavenly concealment and reality is assumed for the New Jerusalem which the divine sees coming
down from heaven, Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10.298 The same applies to the God who speaks from heaven, from
Mt. Zion, and from the New Jerusalem, Hb. 12:25, 22.299 Cf. the temple in heaven in Rev. 11:19.
7. Heaven and the Angels.
Heaven (or the heavens) is served by innumerable angels, their hosts and families. It is the sphere of
their existence, Mt. 18:10; Mk. 12:25; 13:32 and par.; Eph. 3:15; Rev. 12:7; 19:1 etc.300 They come from
heaven and return to it either individually (Mt. 28:2 and par.; Lk. 22:43; Gl. 1:8) or in hosts (Lk. 2:15).
The seer of Rev. sees them in the heavens or in opened heaven, Rev. 10:1; 18:1; 20:1; 19:14. Their
origin in heaven,301 whose concealment and mystery they share, indicates their character as divine
servants and their full authority as God’s messengers. But evil powers also seem to live in heaven,302
e.g., 1 C. 8:5; Ac. 7:42;303 cf. → ἐπουράνιος, Eph. 3:10; 6:12; (2:2). Heaven here is to be understood as
the atmosphere (Eph. 2:2 ἀήρ)304 or firmament, cf. Asc. Is. 7:9. A pt. to be considered is whether this
also applies to Satan, who fell from heaven (Lk. 10:18).305 If so, the figure of speech is connected with
the vision in Rev. 12:7 ff.,306 where there is ref. to war ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, whose outcome is materially
similar to the content of the saying of Jesus, since an unexpressed ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (cf. v. 12 κατέβη)
corresponds to the ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν of v. 9f., 13. The idea of Satan in heaven is present already in
later strata of the NT (→ II, 73, 36 ff.),307 though, even if he had a τόπος ἐν οὐρανῷ (Rev. 12:8), there is
no stress anywhere on his heavenly origin. His fall from heaven308—along with the proclamation of the
kingdom of heaven—means that he can no longer stand ἐνώπλον τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. 12:10), so that here “in
heaven” means “in God’s presence.” The exemplary significance of the fact that God’s will is done in
heaven (→ 518, 34 f.) finds expression in the summons to the οὐρανοί to rejoice, Rev. 12:12 == Is.
49:13 LXX; cf. Rev. 18:20 (sing.), similarly Dt. 32:43; Is. 44:23. Here we have, not hypostatisation, but
objectification in hymnic style. Strictly οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκηνοῦντες (Rev. 12:12) are addressed, not angels,
but those made perfect, esp. the martyrs.309 For these are they who mount up into heaven (11:12) and
over whom God sets His tent (7:15; cf. 21:3); the equation of tent and heaven is to be noted.310 Here
heaven, like the New Jerusalem, is defined in terms of the perfect service of God rendered by those who
are perfected.
8. Heaven as the Firmament.
Jesus and men lift up their eyes to this heaven, Mk. 6:41 and par.; 7:34 and Jn. 17:1; Lk. 18:13; Ac.
1:11; 7:55. They look up to the sky. This οὐρανός conceals God’s throne and yet therewith it is also a
sign of God’s ruling presence above men. This is why the publican does not look upwards.311 The
gesture of him who swears corresponds to that of the man who prays toward heaven as toward God,
Rev. 10:5. To be man and to live on earth is to be ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, Ac. 2:5; 4:12; Col. 1:23.312 The
common pagan expression takes on in Christian preaching the character of man’s direction by God.
Heaven is a sign of great height, Mt. 11:23; Rev. 18:5. There is also the thought of God’s nearness. 313 As
the atmosphere it becomes red, Mt. 16:2. The hypocrite does not discern that its face (πρόσωπον, Lk.
12:56) is a sign. There fly in it τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Mt. 6:26; 8:20 and par.; Mk. 4:32 and par.; Lk.
8:5; Ac. 10:12: 11:6.314 On the other hand, νεφέλη in connection with οὐρανός is already a tt. for the
21
halo, → IV, 905, 22; 909, 20).315 The innumerable ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ are affixed to heaven as the
firmament, Hb. 11:12.316 Their falling from heaven is an apocalyptic sign, the breaking up of the
firmament,317 Mk. 13:25; Mt. 24:29;318 Rev. 6:13; 8:10; 9:1; 12:4. The final catastrophe, through it
leaves the earth and men remarkably untouched,319 is described as a collapse of the vault of heaven,
which is awaited as the complete shattering of the δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, Mt. 24:29; αἱ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς, Mk. 13:25.320
9. Heaven in the Plural.
Since there are many reasons for the use of the plur. οὐρανοί in the individual NT writings,321 one
cannot lay down a general rule which applies to the NT as a whole.322 Paul speaks of the heavenly
journey323 of his soul in 2 C. 12:2: εἰς τὸν παράδεισον. In v. 3f., in what are in part verbal repetitions, he
describes this rapture as εἰς τὸν παράδεισον.324 It is hardly possible to say anything more specific on the
nature of the three heavens.325 Even the first can hardly be regarded unreservedly as the firmament, cf.
Asc. Is. 7:9 with v. 13. Only of the third can one say that Paradise and the throne of God are in it or in
close proximity.326 The heavenly function of concealment applies to what is heard there. These are
ἄρρητα. That is, they may not and cannot be uttered, a tt. for the secret of the mysteries327 and in
mathematics for what is irrational.328
The various heavens of Hb., whose number is not given, are thought of as filled with hosts of
ministering angels. If Hb. gives no support for detailed distinction, in terms of the divine action it is
possible to classify these heavens under the concepts: κτίσις, σκηνή, ἅγια,329 → 527, 21. On the heavens
of Eph. → 525, 25.
E.
The Post-Apostolic Fathers.
The use of οὐρανός in the post-apost. fathers is in general the same as that in the NT, and in the strong
appeal to the OT in 1 Cl. it follows specifically that of the LXX. The quotations in 1 Cl. are always in the
sing. except at 27, 7 (LXX plur.). In 20, 1; 33, 3; 36, 2 the plur. shows the authorship and view of the writer.
The heavens are moved by the διοίκησις of God, 20, 1. God has established the heavens by His power
(οὐρανοὺς ἐστήρισεν, 33, 3). There are OT and even, at 20, 1, Stoic echoes in these statements about God’s
work as Creator and Sustainer. On the other hand, at 36, 2 we find popular gnosis in this very ungnostic and
moralising author: διὰ τούτου ἀτενίζομεν εἰς τὰ ἕψη τῶν οὐρανῶν,330 διὰ τούτου ἐνοπτριζόμεθα τὴν … ὄψιν
αὐτοῦ … διὰ τούτου ἠθέλησεν ὁ δεσπότὴ τῆς ἀθανάτου γνώσεως ἡμᾶς γεύσασθαι. Barn. has OT quotations
and also touches on the ascension: ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς (plur.), 15, 9. In Herm.v., 1, 1, 4 heaven (sing.) opens,
and at the end of the manifestation it closes again (v., 1, 2, 1, here plur., though obviously with no special
significance). The unattainable height of heaven plays a role in m., 11, 18; v., 4, 1, 5. We find the phrase
under heaven for on earth, m., 12, 4, 2; s., 9, 17, 4, → 534, 7. Man can also have honour in the heavens (plur.,
v., 1, 1, 8). In Did., 8, 2 we find heaven in the sing. in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:9 plur.). In Did., 16, 6
ἐκπέτασις ἐν οὐρανῷ is an apocalyptic sign; the ref. is to the opening of heaven.331 Gnostic influences in 2 Cl.,
1, 16, 3 (as distinct from 2 Pt. 3:12) are responsible for the restriction τινὲς τῶν οὐρανῶν at their consuming
by fire. In Mart.Pol., 9, 1 Polycarp hears a φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ; this is the voice of the Lord which none of the
bystanders hears. In prayer he lifts up his glance to heaven, 14, 1. In Dg. οὐρανός occurs 12 times, esp. in the
plur. Twice we find ἐπὶ γῆς—ἐν οὐρανοῖς, → 517, 4 f.; Christians pass their time on earth, but ἐν οὐρανῷ
πολιτεύονται, 5, 9 (cf. Phil. 3:20), cf. 10, 7: τότε θεάσῃ τυγχάνων ἐπὶ γῆς, ὅτι θεὸς ἐν οὐρανοῖς πολιτεύεται.
For Christians, who have an immortal soul in a mortal tent, await ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀφθαρσίαν, 6, 8. From heaven
God sets the truth and the holy Logos among men. He sends the Creator of the heavens and not an angel or
archon etc., one to whom the ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοικήσεις are entrusted, 7, 2. In 10, 2 God’s lordship is described
as ἡ ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλεία, cf. Mart.Pol., 22, 3. The word occurs only twice (sing.) in Ign.. We find the formula
ἐπί— ἐν in Sm., 11, 2: your work shall be perfect καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ. In Eph., 19, 2 an ἀστὴρ ἐν
οὐρανῷ cosmically reveals the incarnation of God τοῖς αἰῶσιν by its ineffable appearance.
† οὐράνιος.
“Heavenly,”1 of “what dwells in heaven, comes out of or from it, or appears in it.”2 Like οὐρανός (→ 497
f.) the word has a double ref. to the abode of the gods or the gods themselves, and also to the sky. It thus
acquires two concrete meanings: a. “what is proper to deity,” “deity.” “God,” “divine” (opp. ἀνθρώπινος,
22
ἄνθρωπος, θνητός),3 and b. “what is proper to the firmament or the atmosphere under it” (opp. ἔγγειος,
Plat.Tim., 90a).
It denotes the immortal gods in probably the oldest instance, Hom. Hymn. Cer., 55: τίς θεῶν οὐρανίων ἠὲ
θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων. So Aesch.Ag., 88 ff.: πάντων δὲ θεῶν … τῶν οὐρανίων, also Plat.Leg., VIII, 828c: τῶν
χθονίων καὶ ὅσους αὖ θεοὺς οὐρανίους ἐπονομαστέον. In particular, it characterises Zeus as Ζεὺς ῞Yψιστος
Οὐράνιος, cf. Hdt., VI, 56; Ps.-Aristot.Mund., 7, p. 401a, 25 etc.4 But with him all the Olympian gods bear
this name,5 esp.. Artemis (Eur.Hipp. 59), Eros (CIG, 3157), Hera (CIG, 7034) and Themis (Θέμιν οὐρανίαν,
Pind. Fr., 30, 1; cf. Soph.El., 1064), the daughters of Οὐρανός (Hes.Theog., 135).6 As such they are also
called Ὀλύμπιοι (== οἱ ἄνω == οἱ ὕπατοι); for as Olympus is heaven, it can also be called οὐράνιοσὌλυμπος,
Orph. (Abel) Fr., 104. In particular Aphrodite (Κύπρις) is called Οὐρανία, Pind. Fr., 122, 4; Hdt., I, 105; this
is a distinguishing name (opp. πάνδημος), Xenoph.Sym., VIII, 9; Plat.Symp., 180d.7 Hes.Theog., 188–198
derives it by a strange development from the god Uranos.8 οὐράνιαι is also used generally for goddesses in the
inscr. IG, V, 1, 40: Ἀγαθοκλῆς … γραμματεὺς … καὶ ἱερεὺς Οὐρανίων.9 The proud saying of the Orphic
initiate bears the same sense: Γῆς παῖς εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀρτερόεντος, αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος οὐράνιον. This is
found on the gold plate of Petelia (4th–3rd ¢ B.C.; Diels5, I, 15, 26); the heavenly race is the divine race.10 In a
similar though weaker sense one can read in Aristot. Fr., 43, p. 1483a, 4: ἡ ἁρμονία ἐστὶν οὐρανία τὴν φύσιν
ἔχουσα θείαν, where οὐράνιος and θεῖος are equated. Cf. Aristoph.Ra., 1135: ἡμάρτηκεν οὐράνιον ὅσον, also
Aesch.Pers., 573.
In the pre-Socratics οὐράνιος refers almost exclusively to heavenly phenomena. Thus the sun is φῶς
οὐράνιον, Emped. Fr;, 44 (Diels5, I, 330, 23); Soph.Ant., 944; the milky way, γάλα τ᾽ οὐράνιον, Parm. Fr.,
11, 2 (Diels5, I, 241, 22); the heavenly pole, οὐράνια ὕδατα, Aesch.Prom., 429; cf. Eur. Fr., 839, 11 (TGF,
633), and rain οὐράνια ὕδατα, Pind.Olymp., XI, 2; the star is ἀστὴρ οὐράνιος, Pind.Pyth., III, 75. The courses
of the stars are called οὐράνια σημεῖα in Xenoph.Cyrop., I, 6, 2, and τὰ οὐράνια are phenomena in the
heavens in Xenoph.Mem., I, I, 11. οὐράνια πάθη are astronomical declensions and changes, Plat.Hi., I, 285c11
(cf. on this Theophr. Metaphysica, 320b: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τοῖς οὐρανίοις τὴν φορὰν ζητητέον).
Plato uses the term both scientifically: οὐράνιον ῥεῦμα, Tim. 23a; φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον ἀλλὰ οὐράνιον,
90a,12 and also popularly for the gods, Leg., VIII, 828c. But in him the term also takes on a sense connected
with his doctrine of the ideas. Ἔρως is οὐράνιος, not so much as the descendant of Uranos and son of Urania
(Symp., 180d; cf. CIG, 3157), but as the true and proper Eros, because he is determined by the virtue (Symp.,
185b) which Socrates accepts as ἀληθενς (212a), and this means by true being, the ὄντως ὄν, the idea; cf.
contemplation of supraheavenly space from the highest vault of heaven, Phaedr., 247b. It may thus be said:
ὅτι τὰ … οὐράνια καὶ θεῖα ἀγαπῶμεν, Critias, 107d.
In Gnosticism the οὐράνιοι are heavenly and divine intermediary beings furnished with a σῶμα.13 Under
εἱμαρμένη as the deus summus they stand in the πάντων οὐρανίων τάξις, cf. Corp. Herm., VIII, 4. In the pap.
cf. esp. petitions and oaths which mention the tyche of the ruler: δέομαι τῆς οὐρανίου ὑμῶν τύχης, P. Lips.,
35, 20; 34, 17 etc.; P. Masp., 97, II, 79: κατὰ τοῦ ζῶντος θεοῦ οὐρανίου. The word occurs in the Lord’s
Prayer in BGU, III, 954, 16. It is a mathematical entity in Okkelos, Diels5, I, 440, 15.
Philo is acquainted with the οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος who κατ᾽ εἰκόνα δὲ τετυπῶσθαι θεοῦ, Leg. All., I, 31; he
is the οὐράνιος Ἀδάμ, I, 90. By participation in him each man is an οὐράνιος, a dweller in heaven, since he
draws close to the stars by his visual faculty, Op. Mund., 147. In Philo οὐράνιος is a term which is designed
to express the philosophical concept of the idea and also that of divine origin.14 As there is a heavenly and
earthly man, so also heavenly and earthly virtue, Leg. All., I, 45, and a corresponding moral philosophy, Sacr.
AC., 86. Heavenly or Olympian insights are free from αἴσθησις, Som., I, 84. Thus Philo can speak of an
οὐράνιος λόγος, Plant., 52, of heavenly love, Cher., 20, a heavenly message, wisdom etc., οὐράνιος being
oriented to the pure νοῦς, Gig., 60; Som., I, 146. There is no precise usage in Jos. The pagan gods (Ap., 1,
255) and the theme of philosophy (1, 14) are both οὐράνιος. The term also refers to astronomical processes,
so that σοφία ἡ περὶ τὰ οὐράνια is without religious accent, Ant., 1, 69. But the χῶρος οὐράνιος is the heaven
in which martyrs and righteous men are received, Bell., 3, 374; → 533, 28.
The term hardly found its way into the LXX, and there are few instances in the pseudepigr. When there is
a Heb. or Aram. original we always find ‫ שמים‬or ‫שמיא‬. There are thus the same distinctions of meaning as
for οὐρανός (→ 497 f.; 509 f.). Instead of τὸν θησαυρὸν …, τὸν αὐρανόν Dt. 28:12 A reads: τὸν θησαυρὸν
…, τὸν οὐράνιον in the same sense; heaven is the storehouse from which rain and fruitfulness are promised. It
23
is God Himself who opens the heavenly gates so that radiant angels may descend from heaven, 3 Macc. 6:18.
“Heavenly” is thus used for the space in which the angels hold sway around God’s throne. Their host can also
be called οὐράνιος ατρατός in 4 Macc. 4:11; cf. Lk. 2:13. As heaven can denote God (→ 521, 14), the same
applies to οὐράνιος. Hence the God of Israel can also be called κύριος ὁ οὐράνιος, 1 Εσδρ. 6:14. The ἐξουσία
ἡ οὐράνιος of Δα. ΘΒ 4:26 (A ἐπουράνιος) refers to God’s power. God’s children bear the name οὐράνιοι
παῖδες, 2 Macc. 7:34.15 But this verse also shows that the concept “heavenly” == “divine” always carries with
it a spatial implication, for these children are the martyred brothers (cf. 7:36) who have entered the sphere of
God’s covenant promise to eternal life.16 In 2 Macc. 9:10 οὐράνιος is controlled by the idea of the firmament
as the boundary of the unattainable divine region.
In the NT οὐρανιος is used esp. in the formula in Mt.17 ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος (5:48; 6:14, 26, 32;
23:9) or ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος (15:13; 18:35).18 This is another rendering of the same Jud.-Aramaic
expression elsewhere translated by the Matthean formula ὀ πατήρ μου (σου, ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν) ὁ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς → 520, 17. The vl. at 5:48; 23:9 confirm this. In the context οὐράνιος seeks to emphasise two
things. The first is the heavenly Father’s openness and turning to man, the second His power to achieve
it. The heavenly Father is He who from heaven brings the saving change of the aeons over all nations
and to all men.19 In Lk. 2:13 the στρατιά is called οὐράνιος.20,21 This is designed to show that the
στρατιά consists of servants of God who from heaven proclaim on earth His saving action, the birth of
the σωτήρ, → 533, 8. In Ac. 26:19 the ο᾽πτασία (→ 372, 26 ff.) which initiates Paul’s conversion is
called οὐράνιος. οὐράνιος here is par. to οὐρανόθεν in 26:13 or ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in the other accounts in
9:3; 22:6. It denotes the place from which the appearance comes. The vision is from the κύριος (26:15),
i.e., the risen Lord, and demonstrates His resurrection power. Cf. Ac. 26:16 f.22
In the post-apost. fathers the word occurs only in Mart.Pol., 22, 3, where the βασιλεία (of Jesus Christ) is
called ἡ οὐράνιος, cf. Dg., 10, 2.
† ἐπουράνιος.1
ἐπ- here does not denote “upon” but “at,” i.e., “in heaven,” cf. ἐπι—θαλάσσιος “situated by the sea.” a. It
is used of the heavenly gods who dwell in heaven and come thence. It bears only this sense in Hom.: οὐκ ἂν
ἔγωγε θεοῖσιν ἐπουρανίοισι μαχοίμην, Il., 6, 129; Od., 17, 484: Ζεὺς ἐπουράνιος, P. Flor., 296, 12 (6th cent.
A.D.: Preisigke Sammelbuch, 4166); synon. with God: τὸν γάρ φασι μέγιστον ἐπουρανίων, Theocr.Idyll., 25,
5.2 In the Orph. it is once said of the θεῖος λόγος, under Jewish-Christian influence: ἔστι δὲ πάντῃ αὐτὸς
ἐπουράνιος, καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ πάντα τελευτᾷ ἀρχὴν αὐτὸς ἔχων καὶ μέσσην ἠδὲ τελευτήν, Orph. Fr. (Kern), 247,
33 ff. b. In the sense of “belonging to the divine heaven”: εὐσεβέων ἐπουράνιοι, Pind. Fr., 132, 3.3 In Plato
those who love in chastity traverse the ἐπουράνιος πορεία after death, Phaedr., 256d. They will see the truth,
the ideas, there, c. It is used for the μετέωρα in Plat.Ap., 19b: τά τε ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ τὰ ἐπουράνια (vl. οὐράνια).
In the Herm. writings the θεός is called ἐπουράνιος.4 Along with this general use the ἐπουράνια are more
precisely defined as things quae in caelo sunt, or deos … qui supra … sunt.5 They are also described by
ἀσώματον, ἀγένητον, αὐτεξούσιον, and esp. as not ἀνάγκῃ ὑποκείμενα.6 Abammonis calls them cosmic as
distinct from supracosmic deities; they are indeed among the ἐμπύριοι.7 There is a similar use in the great
Paris magic pap. (Jewish), P. Par., 574, 3042.
Philo can use the term in sense b.: the soul is properly nourished by the ἐπουρανίοις ἐπιστήμαις which
consist in the λόγος (reason) θεοῦ συνεχής Leg. All., III, 168 f. He also has it in sense c.: Abram ==
ἄνθρωπος οὐρανοῦ because among the Chaldeans he was occupied with τὰ μετέωρα καὶ ἐπουπάνια, Gig., 62,
cf. Virt., 12.
The word is rare in the LXX; it is sometimes an alternative for οὐράνιος. In ψ 67:14 it is a rendering of
‫שַ דַ י‬, elsewhere transl. παντοκράτωρ. For God it means the same as κύριος (θεὸς) ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ or οὐρανοῦ,
→ 510, 38; 520, 8. In a second instance it is used for ‫ ְׁשמַ יָׁא‬. In Δα. Θ 4:26 A (Mas. 4:23), also 4 Macc. 4:11;
11:3, it is a vl. for οὐρανός, with the same sense. In 2 Macc. 3:39 the divine name is paraphrased ὁ τὴν
κατοικίαν ἐπουράνιον ἔχων. The context shows that it is meant to denote God’s saving dominion over the
whole earth and all nations so that it corresponds materially to παντοκράτωρ ἐπουράνιος in 3 Macc. 6:28 and
ὁ ἐπουράνιος θεός in 7:6. There is an obvious spatial implication in 2 Macc. 3:39, where it is orientated to
created heaven as God’s throne. This spatial concept is never abandoned in principle.
24
In the NT ἐπουράνιος occurs in Jn. 3:12, and apart from that only in Paul, Eph., 2 Tm. and Hb.8 It is
used both as adjective and noun.
In Eph. we find the formula9 ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις at 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12. A comparison with par.
verses shows the sense. Thus in Eph. 1:20 (cf. 2:6), as regularly in other citations of the same passage
(cf. also the throne of God, → 522, 7), the καθίζειν ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ of ψ 109:1 is represented as in
οὐρανός. This is why the vl. Eph. 1:20 B can have ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς in exactly the same sense. The ἀρχαὶ
καὶ ἐξουσίαι which are ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις acc. to Eph. 3:10; 6:12 are thought of as dwelling in the
οὐρανοί, Col. 1:16; cf. Eph. 3:15 etc. In all these passages ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις is materially a full
equivalent of the simple ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. God Himself and Christ belong to this heavenly world, for the
right hand of God, the throne, the government, is represented as ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. Here the term, like
οὐρανός, has a local nuance.10 But in Eph. we find not only the OT idea of the throne of God in heaven
but also the gnostically influenced view (→ 525, 25) acc. to which Christ, exalted high above the
heavenly world, reigns as its conqueror and ruler, Eph. 4:10. This world itself is regarded as filled with
“non-transparent, incalculable, incomprehensible, superior, anonymous, spiritual potencies which
dominate and constitute this sphere.”11 (3:10; 6:12).12 The Church or Christians share in this dominion
of Christ over the heavenly world (2:6) and are blessed with blessing in the heavenly world ἐν Χριστῷ,13
1:3. That they are set in a position to withstand the conflict against the powers in the heavens 14 means
that they follow their Christ in His victorious traversing of the heavens, 4:9f.15 Herein the mystery of
Christ in the world (the κόσμος) is manifest, 3:10. In these last two verses ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις sets the
cosmic significance of the event of revelation in the foreground. The reason for this use of the
plerophoric expression ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, which is taken from the cultic vocabulary of paganism, is to
be sought in a growing liturgical and apologetic interest. The same applies to the plur. οὐρανοί in Eph.
In Hb. ἐπουράνιος is given its stamp by the idea of the perfect heavenly sanctuary into which the
heavenly High-priest, Christ, enters to finish His work, 8:5; 9:23.16 A distinctive point here is that there
is no specific mention of the heavenly things (or vessels?). So strictly are they related to the appearing of
the High-priest Christ in the true heaven before God’s face (→ 528, 7 ff.) that they seem to be absorbed
therein. They are defined as ἀληθινά (8:2; 9:24) and μέλλοντα (9:11 vl.; 10:1; 11:20; 13:14).17 The
ἐπουράνια are what is truly real, what is eschatologically future. Since they stand for the consummation,
they have no absolute opposite, as, e.g., in 1 C. 15:48 (χοϊκός), Jn. 3:12 ἐπίγεια. There is only
comparison, Hb. 8:5; 9:23; 11:16; cf. 7:19, 22; 10:34; 11:35.18 Thus everything in the OT is only σκιά,
ὑπόδειγμα, ἀντίτυπος to τὰ ἐπουράνια, 8:5; 9:23. The essence of the ἑπουράνια, corresponding to the
αὐτὸς ὁ οὑρανός of 9:24 (→ 528, 8), is the future presence of God, from and to which alone there is
reality, 9:24; cf. Rev. 12:10. To this degree is τὰ ἐπουράνια a strictly eschatological concept in Hb.
When the κλῆσις is described as ἐπουράνιος in Hb. 3:1 (cf. Phil. 3:14 ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις), this denotes its
source and goal; it is to and through the ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, who will rule τὰ ἐπουράνια.
Similarly in Hb. 6:4 the δωρεά which we have tasted is called ἡ ἐπουράνιος. It stands in material relation
to τὰ ἐπουράνια in 9:23. Hence it is to be understood as eschatological salvation (σωτηρία, 9:28).19 The
πατρίς of 11:16 and Jerusalem of 12:22 are also ἐπουράνιος. This characterises them as the final aim for
God’s community.20 Hb. 12:22 paints a broad canvas. To the heavenly world belong tens of thousands
of angels, the festal congregation, the community of the first-born, those who are written in heaven, the
Judge, the God of all men, and the Mediator of the new covenant, Jesus.
In 2 Tm. 4:18 the βασιλεία of Christ is described as ἡ ἐπουράνιος21 with emphasis on the
consummated kingdom of God. The concept of lordship is no longer adequate here. This kingdom is not
only in Christ but with Him in heaven.
In the hymn to Christ used by Paul in Phil, 2:6ff., the πᾶν γόνυ from Is. 45:23 is liturgically
broadened by the addition of ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων.22 This is not just a general
topographical note (in heaven, earth and hell).23 All three members24 refer to ruling spiritual forces.
ἐπουρανίων is used as a noun; whether it be masculine or neuter makes no difference. With powers on
earth and under the earth those in the heavens (plur., Phil. 3:20) are also vanquished and incorporated
25
into the all-encompassing dominion of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10). In Judaism these are angelic
creatures (→ 527, 28 f.), whereas in the Gnostic Hellenistic world they are powers of fate, → 539, 8 ff.
Similarly, though without theological emphasis, ἐπουράνια is used in 1 C. 15:40 in antithesis to ἐπίγεια
to illustrate the difference in σώματα and their δόξα. In material relation to ἐπουράνια Paul goes on to
speak of ἥλιος, σελήνη, ἀστήρ. The reference is not to heavenly bodies in our sense, but to the bodies of
heavenly things, the stars being equated with angelic powers.25 There is a very different use in 1 C.
15:48 f. In v. 47 Paul mentions the ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, the risen, returning and hence pre-existent
Christ (→ 528, 25), ὁ ἐπουράνιος (opp. χοϊκός). He is the πνευματικός of v. 46b;26 in v. 47 vl. P46 He is
this as ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. In us the εἰκὼν τοῦ χοϊκοῦ is separated from that of the ἐπουρανίου. The
subject does not change; it is we who bore and we who bear. But the identity of this subject does not lie
in itself; it resides in the οὐράνιος == Christ, whose εἰκών alone is determinative, ἐπουράνιος here
denotes, not a general quality of life, but given membership in the ἐπουράνιος, the risen Christ.
In Jn. τὰ ἐπουράνια in 3:12 are to be explained in terms of vv. 13–16. They embrace the earthly
journey and reunion of the Son of Man, grounded in the love and saving purpose of God and fulfilled by
the obedience of Jesus.27 They have formally the character of the concealment of the heavenly incurred
by the world. In content, corresponding to the use of οὐρανός in Jn. (→ 526, 14), they express the divine
secret of revelation in the Son.28
In the post-apostolic fathers the plur. noun occurs only in Ign. in the sense of “heavenly spirits” (Sm., 6, 1
== archons and δόξα of angels, Tr., 5, 1 f. == τοποθεσίαι ἀγγελικαί κτλ.) whose nature is contention (Eph.,
13, 2; cf. Pol., 2, 1). In 1 Cl., 61, 2 God is addressed as ἐπουράνιε βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων, and similarly Jesus in
Mart.Pol., 14, 3, also with αἰώνιος. Mart.Pol. Epil. 5, also 20, 2, vl., reads εἰς τὴν ἐπουράνιον αὐτοῦ
βασιλείαν. 2 Cl., 20, 5 speaks of ἐπουράνιος ζωή.
† οὐρανόθεν.
“From heaven,”1 in the various senses of heaven. Common in Hom., of the gods, Il., 11, 184; 17, 545; but
also of the αἰθήρ, 8, 558, the clouds, 23, 189, and night, Od., 5, 294; 9, 69; cf. Hes.Theog., 761: οὐρανόθεν
καταβαίνων, Aristot.Mot. An., I, 4, p. 699b, 37 in a quotation from Hom. Elsewhere the word is
comparatively rare. Since it soon became stereotyped, it needed a strengthening to bring out the sense, either
ἀπό (Hom.Il., 21, 199; Od., 11, 18; Hes. Scutum Herculis, 384), or ἐξ (Hom.Il., 8, 19 and 21; 17, 548). In all
these passages the ref., with no special emphasis, is to the dwelling-place of the gods which is in heaven. The
term occurs only once in Philo in an allegorical exposition of Ex. 22:25, which is referred to the speech which
God δι᾽ ἔλεον τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν εἰς νοῦν τὸν ἀνθρώπινον οὐρανόθεν ἀποστέλλει, Som., I, 112.
In the LXX the word is found only in 4 Macc. 4:10; οὐρανόθεν ἔφιπποι προυφάνησαν ἄγγελοι. Here it
refers to the (inner) heavenly place where the στρατός of angels (4:11) and the martyrs (17:5) are.
There are two instances in the NT, both in Ac. In 14:17 several meanings interfuse: a. the rain comes
from God, which means concretely b. that it comes from His gracious lordship which opens the closed
heavens to men; c. the rain comes from the heavenly ocean, and hence d. it comes from up above, from
the sky.2 In the context the strongest emphasis lies on sense b. οὐρανόθεν is more precise than ἄνωθεν in
Jm. 1:17, cf. Jn. 19:11; 3:27 (→ 514, n. 121; 531, 30). In 26:13 οὐρανόθεν is an alternative to the ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ of 9:3 22:6 (→ 531, 25). Here, too, the meaning is complex. The light shines from the sky, but
this is not described as its source. The οὐρανόθεν is designed to show that this is the light which shines
forth from the Revealer. It is revelation, the halo of the κύριος, which pouring forth from Him pierces
the firmament.
Traub
οὐρανός , ὁ, Dor. and Boeot. ὠρανός Alcm.23.16, Theoc.2.147, 5.144, Corinn.Supp.2.79, Hymn.Is.19;
Aeol. ὄρανος (
A. “ὀράνω” Sapph.37, 64, Alc.34, but “ὠράνω” Sapph.1.11 (s. v.l.), Alc.17 (s. v.l.), and v. Οὐρανία):
—never used in pl. by classical writers, v. 1.4: (v. fin.):
26
I. heaven: in Hom. and Hes.,
1. vault or firmament of heaven, sky, “γαῖα . . ἐγείνατο ἶσον ἑαυτῇ οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα, ἵνα μιν
περὶ πάντα καλύπτοι” Hes.Th.127; “ἔχει δέ τε κίονας αὐτὸς [Ἄτλας] μακράς, αἳ γαῖάν τε καὶ
οὐρανὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι” Od.1.54, cf. A.Pr.351; “χάλκεος” Il.17.425; “πολύχαλκος” 5.504,
Od.3.2; “σιδήρεος” 15.329; wrapped in clouds, Il.15.192, Od.5.303; above the aether, Il.2.458, 17.425,
19.351, cf. Sch.Il.3.3; even Emp. continued to regard it as solid (στερέμνιον), Placit.2.11.2 (Vorsokr.
ip.209); defined as αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον by Zeno Stoic.1.33, cf. Ar.Nu.95 sqq.; ἠέλιος δὲ οὐρανοῦ
ἐξαπόλωλε, of an eclipse, Od.20.357, cf. S.Aj.845; “ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα, τά τ᾽ οὐρανὸς
ἐστεφάνωται” Il.18.485; “Ἕσπερος, ὃς κάλλιστος ἐν οὐρανῷ ἵσταται ἀστήρ” 22.318;
“οὐρανὸς ἀστερόεις” 6.108,al.
2. heaven, as the seat of the gods, outside or above this skyey vault, the portion of Zeus (v. Ὄλυμπος),
15.192, cf.Od.1.67, etc.; “οὐ. Οὔλυμπός τε” Il.1.497, 8.394; Οὔλυμ πός τε καὶ οὐ. 19.128; πύλαι
οὐρανοῦ Heaven-gate, i. e. a thick cloud, which the Ὧραι lifted and put down like a trap-door, 5.749,
8.393; so, later, οἱ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ the gods of heaven, A.Pr.897 (lyr.); οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ θεοί (viz. Sun, etc.)
Pl.R.508a; “εὔχετο, χεῖρ᾽ ὀρέγων εἰς οὐ. ἀστερόεντα” Il.15.371, Od.9.527; νὴ τὸν οὐ. Ar.Pl.267,
366.
3. in common language, sky, “οὐδέ τις ἄλλη φαίνετο γαιάων, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ. ἠδὲ θάλασσα”
Od.14.302; “σέλας δ᾽ εἰς οὐ. ἵκῃ” Il.8.509; κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει, κλέος οὐ. εὐρὺν ἱκάνει, renown
reaches to heaven, ib.192, Od.19.108; so ὀρυμαγδός, κνίση, σκόπελος οὐρανὸν ἷκεν or ἱκάνει,
Il.17.425, 1.317, Od.12.73 (cf. “οὐράνιος” 11, οὐρανομήκης): metaph., ὕβρις τε βίη τε σιδήρεον
οὐ. ἵκει deeds of violence 'cry to heaven', 15.329, 17.565; “γῇ τε κοὐρανῷ λέξαι . . τύχας”
E.Med.57, cf. Philem.79.1; πρὸς οὐρανὸν βιβάζειν τι to exalt to heaven, SOC381; πρὸς τὸν οὐ.
ἥλλοντο leaped up on high, X.Cyr.1.4.11; “πρὸς τὸν οὐ. βλέπειν” Id.Oec.19.9.
4. in Philos., the heavens, universe, Pl.Plt.269d, Ti.32b, Arist.Cael.278b21, Metaph.990a20, al.: pl. in
VT, οἱ οὐρανοί the heavens, LXX Ps.96(97).6, 148.4,al.
5. a region of heaven, climate, Hdt.1.142.
6. Pythag. name of 10, Theol.Ar. 59.
II. anything shaped like the vault of heaven, as,
1. vaulted roof or ceiling, Hsch.
2. roof of the mouth, palate, Arist.HA492a20, PA660a14, Ath.8.344b, AP5.104 (Marc. Arg.).
3. lid, Matro Conv.12.
4. tent, pavilion, Them.Or.13.166b.
III. pr. n., Uranos, son of Erebos and Gaia, Hes. Th.127sq.; but husband of Gaia, parent of Cronos and
the Titans (cf. Οὐρανίδης), ib.106, h.Hom. 30.17, cf. A.Pr.207. (Acc. to Arist.Mu.400a7, from ὅρος
and ἄνω, cf. Pl.Cra.396c. This must be wrong, but the true etym. is doubtful.)
Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by.
Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.
PARADISE
† παράδεισος* → ᾅδης, I, 146, 33 ff.
Contents: A. History of the Word: 1. In Greek; 2. In Hebrew and Aramaic. B. Paradise in the Later Judaism of
the NT Period: 1. Paradise in the First Age; 2. The Return of Paradise in the Last Age; 3. The Hiddenness of
Paradise in the Present Time; 4. The Identity of the Paradise of the First Time, the Last Time, and the
27
Intervening Time. C. Paradise in the New Testament: 1. The First, Hidden, and Last Paradise in the NT; 2.
Paul’s Rapture into the Hidden Paradise (2 C. 12:4); 3. Fellowship with Christ in Paradise (Lk. 23:43); 4.
Paradise and Hades in the Christological Statements of the NT; 5. Jesus. the One who Brings Back Paradise.
A.
History of the Word.
1. παράδεισος is a loan word from old Persian, where the pairi-daēza- (read pari-daiza- or -dēza-) of the
Avesta denotes an enclosure, then the park surrounded by a wall.1 In Gk. it occurs first in Xenoph. for the
parks of the Persian king and nobility.2 Already by the 3rd cent. B.C. it can then be used generally for a
“park.”3 In Jewish Gk., from the LXX on, it is used esp. for the garden of God in the creation story (LXX Gn.
2:8–10, 16 etc.).4 More exactly God’s garden as distinct from secular parks is ὁ παράδεισος τοῦ θεοῦ (LXX
Gn. 13:10; Ez. 28:13; 31:8; cf. ὡς παράδεισος κυρίου, Is. 51:3)5 or ὁ παράδεισος τῆς τρυφῆς (LXX Gn. 2:15
vl.; 3:23f.; Is. 51:3 vl.; Ez. 31:9; cf. ὡς παράδεισος τρυφῆς, Jl. 2:3; ὡς κῆπος τρυφῆς, Ez. 36:35).6 This
involves a notable shift in meaning; the LXX has moved the term from the profane sphere to the religious.
Test. L. 18:10 (→ n. 16) was then the first to give the simple word the technical sense of “Paradise.”7 This
religious use is in the pseudepigr. extended to the intervening hidden Paradise (→ 767, 15 ff.) and the
eschatological reappearance (→ 767, 3 ff.) of Paradise. In Jewish Gk. it seems to have led to the replacement
of παράδεισος in the secular sense by κῆπος.8
2. The Persian term was adopted in Heb. and Aram. too (Heb. ‫פ ְַׁרדֵ ס‬, Aram. ‫ )פ ְַׁרדֵ יסָׁ א‬Here, however, it
kept its profane sense and was used for “garden,” “park.”9 Only once10 does ‫ פ ְַׁרדֵ ס‬have a transf. sense in
older Rabb. literature. In this instance it is used for metaphysical Gnostic speculations which are cosmogonic
in content,11 but the exception is due to Jewish Gk. influence. The consistent Rabb. term for the Paradise of
the first, the intervening, and the last time is Heb. ‫גַןַעֵדֶ ן‬, Aram. ‫אַדעֵדֶ ן‬
ְׁ ָׁ‫גִ נְׁ ת‬.12
B.
1.
Paradise in the Later Judaism of the New Testament Period.13
Paradise in the First Age.
The exclusive starting-point of all later Jewish statements about the Paradise of the first age is the
Paradise story in Gn. 2 f. If this alone offered rich materials for imaginative adornment,14 this tendency was
increased even further by the combination of Paradise with the eschatological hope.
2.
The Return of Paradise in the Last Age.
The hope of a future time of bliss, which is commonly attested in the OT, may be traced back to long
before the Exile. The depiction of this age uses Paradise motifs.15 The last time is like the first. Ez. is the first
explicitly to compare the expected time of salvation with the Paradise of the first age, 36:35; Is. 51:3. Only in
pre-Christian apocalyptic, however, do we find the idea that the Paradise of the last age is identical with that
of the first,16 that the Paradise of the first age reappears in that of the last. The site of reopened Paradise17 is
almost without exception the earth,18 or the new Jerusalem.19 Its most important gifts are the fruits of the tree
of life,20 the water and bread of life,21 the banquet of the time of salvation,22 and fellowship with God.23 The
belief in resurrection gave assurance that all the righteous, even those who were dead, would have a share in
reopened Paradise.
3.
The Hiddenness of Paradise in the Present Time.
Identification of the Paradise of the first age with that of the second necessarily carried with it the further
idea that Paradise exists now in hidden form. This hidden Paradise is first mentioned in Eth. En. Throughout
apocalyptic it is the present abode of the souls of the departed patriarchs,24 the elect and the righteous,25 and
Enoch and Elijah, who were translated thither during their lifetime.26 Whereas according to the older view
sheol received the souls of all the dead, only the ungodly were now sought in sheol and the righteous in
Paradise, → I, 147, 11–16. Hell. ideas about the future life played a normative part in this reconstruction of
the concept of the intermediate state (→ n. 13). It should be noted, however, that both old and new ideas were
still current in the NT period. Either Hades or Paradise (→ I, 147, 22–30) is here the abode of the souls of the
righteous after death. This duality is important for an understanding of the statements about what happened to
Jesus between Good Friday and Easter Day, → 771, 37 ff.
Pre-Christian apocalyptic has no consistent answer to the question where this hidden Paradise is to be
found. a. The older view seeks it on earth, usually in the extreme East (cf. Gn. 2:8),27 also the North (Eth. En.
28
61:1–4; 77:3; cf. Is. 14:13) or Northwest (Eth. En. 70:3 f.), or the extreme West,28 or on a high mountain
reaching up to heaven, cf. Ez. 28:13 f.29 b. Closely related to the notion of a high mountain whose peak
reaches into heaven is the idea, found from the 1st cent. A.D., that after Adam’s fall Paradise was translated to
God (S. Bar. 4:3, 6), and that since then it has been in heaven,30 or more precisely in the third heaven.31
Conceptually statements about the delights of the intervening32 and the eschatological Paradise33 merge into
one another, though the former are not so strong, esp. in apocalyptic literature.
4.
The Identity of the Paradise of the First Time, the Last Time, and the Intervening Time.
That we do not have three distinct entities in the Paradise of the first, the last, and the intervening time,
but one and the same garden of God, may be seen quite indubitably from both the terminology and the content
of the relevant statements. As regards the terms, Paradise in all three ages is παράδεισος in the Gk., ‫ גַןַעֵדֶ ן‬in
the Heb., ‫אַדעֵדֶ ן‬
ְׁ ָׁ‫ גִ נְׁ ת‬in Aram.34 As regards the content, identity is proved esp. by the common mention of the
tree of life in statements about the intervening and the eschatological Paradise.35
C.
Paradise in the New Testament.
In the NT the word παράδεισος—and this can hardly be accidental (→ 772, 33 ff.)—occurs only
three times (Lk. 23:43; 2 C. 12:4; Rev. 2:7), though the thing itself is more common.
1. The First, Hidden, and Last Paradise in the New Testament.
The Paradise of the first age is not mentioned under the term παράδεισος but there are in the NT
repeated refs. to the story of Paradise, → I, 141 ff. In his paradisial state Adam had δόξα (R. 3:23); sin
and death were unknown (R. 5:12; 8:20); there was no divorce (Mt. 19:8b).
In its present concealment Paradise is according to Lk. 23:43 the abode of the souls of the redeemed
in the intermediate state between death and resurrection. Elsewhere, however, the word παράδεισος is
used for the hidden Paradise only in 2 C. 12:4. As later Judaism had no consistent view of the
intermediate state of the righteous, but used many other figures of speech as well as ‫גַןַעֵדֶ ן‬,36 so the NT
has other expressions as well as παράδεισος for the state of the redeemed after death: table fellowship
with Abraham (ἐν τοῖς κόλποις Ἀβραάμ, Lk. 16:23),37 being with the Lord (2 C. 5:8), σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι
(Phil. 1:23 cf. Ac. 7:59; Jn. 12:26), the heavenly kingdom (2 Tm. 4:18), the heavenly Jerusalem (Hb.
12:22), abiding-places in the Father’s house (Jn. 14:2).38 As concerns the location of the hidden
Paradise, it appears from Mk. 13:27 that Jesus sought it in the heavenly world, for the assembling of the
elect from the four winds from the point of earth to the point of heaven is the assembling of the living
and the dead (who dwell in Paradise), → 516, 18 ff.39
Paradise as now concealed points beyond itself to its eschatological return. The first saying to the
victors in Rev. 2:7 refers to this: Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς,40 ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ
παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, → 766, 3 f. That it is really speaking of the eschatological Paradise may be seen
from the fact that all the victor sayings in the seven letters of Rev.41 have an eschatological character,
and also from the fact that the gift of enjoyment of the fruit of the tree of life is an established attribute
of the Paradise of the last time.42 Even though the word “paradise” is not used, the garden of God is in
Rev. the epitome of the glory of the consummation. The Jerusalem of the last time is depicted as
Paradise when ref. is made to the trees of life by the water of life (22:1f., cf. 14, 19), to the destruction of
the old serpent (20:2 cf. 10), and to freedom from suffering, affliction and death (21:4). According to
21:2, 10 the eschatological Paradise is centred on the Jerusalem of the renewed earth.
2. Paul’s Rapture into the Hidden Paradise (2 C. 12:4).
In writing which has all the force of an experience whose strange character is expressed by the use of
the third person, Paul mentions in 2 C. 12:4 a rapture into Paradise, that is, acc. to established usage (→
767, 18 ff.), the place of the righteous departed.43 The reserve which leads him to make only a brief
reference distinguishes his account from the fantastic descriptions of heavenly journeys by
contemporary Hellenistic mystics and Jewish apocalyptists.44 Since we cannot say for certain whether
the rapture to the third heaven in 12:2 is the same as that into Paradise in v. 4,45 we do not know whether
29
Paul located Paradise in the third heaven (→ 534, 25 ff.; 768, 17) or in some other place (→ 768, 10 ff.).
All that can be said for certain is that ineffable revelations (ἄρρητα ῥήματα) were granted to him in
Paradise.
Since Pl. says in the introductory words that he is going to tell about visions of Christ (ὀπτασίας …
κυρίου, 2 C. 12:1), one is tempted to conclude that he saw Christ among the departed in Paradise.46 But
against this is the cogent consideration that 14 years before writing 2 C. Paul still had no specific Christian
pronouncement to make on the intermediate state, → 771, 22 ff. Hence ὀπτασίας κυρίου is to be taken as a
gen. auct. (not obj.), → 357, 19 ff.
3. Fellowship with Christ in Paradise (Lk. 23:43).
According to Lk. the penitent thief prayed to Jesus: “Be graciously mindful of me (→ IV, 677, 6 ff.)
when thou comest again47 as king,”48 i.e., at the last judgment49 (23:42). The answer of Jesus: ἀμήν σοι
λέγω, σήμερον50 μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ (23:43), goes beyond what is asked, for it promises the
thief that already to-day he will enjoy fellowship with Jesus in Paradise. Paradise is here the place which
receives the souls of the righteous departed after death, → 767, 18 ff.51 It is thus the hidden (intervening)
Paradise.52 But in the eschatological → σήμερον there is also expressed the hic et nunc of the dawn of
the age of salvation. In the promise of forgiveness the “one day” becomes the “to-day” of fulfilment.
Paradise is opened even to the irredeemably lost man hanging on the cross. He is promised fellowship
with the Messiah. This shows how unlimited is the remission of sins in the age of forgiveness which has
now dawned.53
In the martyr stories of later Judaism a recurrent feature is that converted Gentiles who (voluntarily or
otherwise) share the destiny of the martyrs will also share their reward. Thus, when the fate of the martyr
Chananiah b. Teradyon (c. 135 A.D.), who was condemned to be burned to death, was announced to a
philosopher, he said: “Tomorrow my portion will be with this man in the future world,” S. Dt. on 32:4 § 307.
It has thus been concluded that the promise to the malefactor represents a special privilege,54 i.e., ordination to
be a companion of the Messiah,55 cf. 4 Esr. 14:9: “Thou thyself wilt be translated, and henceforth thou wilt be
with my servant (the Messiah, → 681, 16 ff.) and with those like thee, until the times are at an end,” cf. 7:28.
But closer to the saying to the thief is Eth. En. 39:4 ff.; 70:1–4, where the Son of Man is with the righteous
departed. The other NT statements about the intermediate state, which extend the promise of fellowship with
Christ after death to all believers, are against a restrictive interpretation which would isolate Lk. 23:43.
The NT consistently represents fellowship with Christ after death as the distinctively Christian view
of the intermediate state. Stephen prays: κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, (Ac. 7:59). Paul in the older
epistles has no authority to pronounce on the intermediate state,56 but he expects the union of the dead
with Christ only after the parousia, 1 Th. 4:17. When he does speak of the intermediate state, however,
fellowship with Christ is its sole content, 2 C. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 2 Tm. 4:18; cf. R. 8:38 f.; 14:7–9. The σὺν
Χριστῷ of Phil. 1:23 is simply the μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ of Lk. 23:43 in the third person. Though Paul was
obviously acquainted with the Paradise traditions (→ 770, 8 ff.), he ignores them and refers the hope
directly to Christ. In exactly the same way Jn. 12:26; 14:2 f. and Rev. 7:9–17 set fellowship with Christ
in the centre. This assurance entails a radical refashioning of ideas about the future by faith in Christ. All
fantastic speculations concerning the hidden Paradise and its delights are set aside.
4. Paradise and Hades in the Christological Statements of the New Testament.57
In the NT statements concerning what happens to Jesus directly after death we find two different views,
namely, that of descent and that of ascent. On the one side the saying to the thief implies the entry of Jesus
into Paradise (Lk. 23:43, cf. v. 46). The Christology of Hb. also gives us a depiction of Jesus offering His
blood in the heavenly sanctuary (Hb. 7:26 f.; 9:11–14). Similarly, the → ὑψοῦσθαι sayings in Jn. (3:14; 8:28;
12:32) interrelate the lifting up on the cross and the exaltation to the heavenly world.58 On the other side we
have statements about the sojourn in → ᾅδης (R. 10:7; Ac. 2:27, 31; Mt. 12:40) and the redemptive work
there (1 Pt. 3:19 f.; 4:6; cf. Rev. 1:18).59 The two conceptions arose independently. Those which imply ascent
are linked to apocalyptic ideas like those in Eth. En. 39:4 ff.; 70:3 f., while those which imply descent are
based on Ps. 16:8–11 (Ac. 2:25–28). The decisive pt. is that the context of both groups of sayings expresses
30
the same assurance of faith, though in different garb. This is the certainty that the atoning efficacy of Christ’s
death is unique, unrestricted, and universal.60
5. Jesus, the One Who Brings Back Paradise.61
In the victor saying in Rev. 2:7 the exalted Lord promises that He will give to eat of the fruit of the
tree of life in the Paradise of God. He is thus shown to be the awaited Messiah who “will open the gates
of paradise, remove the sword which threatened Adam. and give the saints to eat of the tree of life,”
Test. L. 18:10 f. The new thing as compared with the OT and later Judaism, however, is the fact that the
message of the Gospels goes much further when it says that the return of Paradise has come already with
the coming of Jesus. Jesus Himself declared this when in Mt. 11:5 (par. Lk. 7:22) He showed by word
and deed that His proclamation is a fulfilment of the depiction of Paradise in Is. 35:5 f. and when He
accordingly made the divine will in Paradise binding again upon His disciples, Mk. 10:2–12 and par.
The Marcan version of the temptation also depicts Jesus as the one who brings back the garden of God
(ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ, Mk. 1:13),62 and the chorus in Mk. 7:37 extols
Him in quotations from Gn. 1:31 and Is. 35:5 f. According to Jn. Jesus offered in His own person both
the bread and the water of life, the ancient symbols of Paradise.63 All these passages express the
certainty that Jesus is already the one who brings back Paradise.64
In the 2nd century one can see an invasion of Christian writings by sayings about Paradise from
Jewish apocalyptic, cf. the (inauthentic) agraphon which Papias (c. 130) quotes and which has Jesus
depict in fantastic terms the fruitfulness of the last time.65 This relapse perhaps explains why the term
“paradise” is so rare in the NT; it could so easily divert attention to the external aspects. For Jesus and
the primitive Church the garden is not important as an independent entity. What really matters is not the
felicity of Paradise but the restoration of the communion with God which was broken by Adam’s fall.
Joachim Jeremias
✪
πᾰρᾰδεισος, ὁ (also παράδισος SIG463.8 (Crete, iii B.C.)), enclosed park or pleasure-ground,
Oriental word first used by X., always in reference to the parks of the Persian kings and nobles; π. μέγας
ἀγρίων θηρίων πλήρης An.1.2.7; π. δασὺς παντοίων δένδρων ib. 2.4.14; τὰ ἐν π. θηρία Cyr.1.3.14; θῆραι
.. ἐν περιειργμένοις παραδείσοις HG4.1.15, cf. Thphr.HP4.4.1, AJA16.13 (Sardes, 300 B.C.), LXXNe.2.8,
Plu.Art.25.
2. generally, garden, orchard, PRev.Laws33.11 (iii B.C.), PCair.Zen.33.3 (iii B.C.), OGI90.15
(Rosetta, ii B.C.), LXXCa.4.13, Ec.2.5, CIG2694b (Mylasa), PFay.55.7 (ii A.D.), etc.
3. the garden of Eden, LXXGe.2.8.
b. Paradise, the abode of the blessed, Ev.Luc.23.43, 2Ep.Cor.12.4, pl., παραδίζοισι κατοικῶ
AS5.32.24 (N. Phrygia, iv A.D.).
c. expl. of μακάρων νῆσοι, Procl.ad Hes.Op.169.
II. stupid fellow, Com.Adesp.1102. (Persian word, cf. Poll.9.13, Phot., and Avest. pairidaēza‘enclosure’.)
i
POLIS city of God
πόλις, † πολίτης, † πολιτεύομαι, † πολιτεία, † πολίτευμα → Σιών,
Ἰερουσαλήμ.
31
Contents: A. πόλις κτλ. in Non-Biblical Greek: I. Lexicography; II. Ideal Content. B. πόλις κτλ. in the
Septuagint and Later Judaism: I. πόλις: 1. Hebrew Originals; 2. Description of Cities; 3. Importance of Cities;
4. Jerusalem; 5. Jerusalem in the Hope of Later Judaism; II. πολίτης, πολιτεία, πολιτεύομαι, πολίτευμα in the
OT; III. Josephus and Philo. C. πόλις κτλ. in the NT: I. πόλις; 1. Distribution and Secular Use; 2. Jerusalem
the Holy City; 3. The Heavenly Jerusalem; 4. The Translation of πόλις as Civitas in the Vulgate; II. πολιτης,
πολιτεύομαι, πολιτεία, πολίτευμα. D. The Post-Apostolic Fathers.
A.
I.
πόλις κτλ. in Non-Biblical Greek.
Lexicography.
1. πόλις, poetically used subsidiary dialect form of πτόλις (Aeolic, Cyprian, Cretan), is an ancient word.
The etym. is unexplained. “The original meaning of πόλις is close to that of town, the oldest term for a
fortified settlement or a larger settlement in general.”1 A relic of this most ancient sense is to be found in the
fact that even in the days of Thuc. the Acropolis in Athens was simply called πόλις.2 It should be noted,
however, that in its further development the term inclined to the political side, so that the idea of fortification
was no longer essential. Thuc. speaks of πόλεις ἀτείχιστοι (I, 5, 1). Sparta was not a city, but a complex of
four or five open villages, never fortified.3 A ξυνοικισμός,4 which was often the beginning of the πόλεις of
Greece, was unknown there. Life was lived in the old Hellenic fashion κατὰ κώμας (Thuc., I, 10, 2).
Nevertheless, Sparta was a πόλις. “Unfortified towns and even open territories like Laconia are called πόλις
as well as fortified cities.”5
The distinctive element in the word is plain once one notes the distinction from ἄστυ.6 In the class. period
the state is called πόλις rather than ἄστυ because πόλις contained a political sense from the very first while
ἄστυ did not. ἄστυ is the town as a spatially defined place of habitation made up of houses, walls and streets.
The opposite is the surrounding countryside with κῶμαι or δῆμοι “as they are called with ref. to their
inhabitants.”7 πόλις, on the other hand, is the ruling political centre of a given district, or the territory ruled
therefrom.8 The towns subordinate to this are not πόλεις. As a result of geographical relations and historical
development the Gk. states are city states. often very small in size. Hence the πόλις is in the first instance the
city. When the state becomes more extensive, the πόλις embraces a wider area. The Acropolis in Athens is
part of the ἄστυ. But the ἄστυ of the Athenians is also a part of the πόλις.9 Worth noting is Thuc., VI, 44, 2:
παρεκομίζοντο τὴν Ἰταλίαν, τῶν μὲν πόλεων οὐ δεχομένων αὐτοὺς ἀγορᾷ οὐδὲ ἄστει This linguistic
distinction is already plain in Hom. (Il. 6, 287 ff.; 17, 144; Od., 6, 177 f.), though he not infrequently uses the
terms indiscriminately.10 “The political connection of πόλις is already to some degree the core of Homeric
usage.”11
2. Similarly, the πολίτης is one who shares with others in the πόλις as such, in the πόλις in its political
quality, Plat.Prot., 339e; Apol., 37c; Eur. Fr., 360 (TGF, 467, 11 ff.). He is thus a “citizen” (of the town or
state) with all the active and passive privileges appertaining thereto and in distinction from resident aliens and
slaves, Aristot.Pol., III, 1, p. 1275a, 7 and 22. Thus even apart from women and children the citizens are only
one part12 of the total population.
3. πολιτεύω and the more common mid. come from πολίτης as ἱκετεύω does from ἱκέτης.13 The word
does not occur in Hdt. and is found for the first time only in Thuc. Along the lines of verbs in —εύω, esp. the
mid., it means “to be a citizen,” “to live as such,” “to act as such (by taking part in political life),” “to share in
state government,” “to rule the state,” “to prosecute its business,”14 a. Of life as a citizen, Demosth., 18, 184;
Xenoph.Hist. Graec., II, 4, 22; Andoc. orat., II, 10. b. Of life in a specific political order, Xenoph.Cyrop., I, 1,
1; Plat.Resp., VIII, 568b; Demosth., 10, 4: ἐν ἐλευθερίᾳ καὶ νόμοις ἐξ ἴσου πολιτεύεσθαι as compared with
ἄρχειν βίᾳ καὶ δουλεύειν ἑτέρῳ Aeschin.Tim., 5. c. Of political action, Aristot.Pol., VIII, p. 1324a, 41, where
ἰδιῶται are compared with τοῖς τὰ κοινὰ πράττουσι καὶ πολιτευομένοις, cf. Aeschin.Tim., 195 ἰδιωτεύοντες
and πολιτευόμενοι, Thuc., II, 46, 1: ἄνδρες ἄριστοι πολιτεύουσι Epicurus, on the other hand, thought οὐδὲ
πολιτεύσεσθαι τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα, he should not be bothered with politics, men mattered to him as little as flies,
Epict.Diss., I, 23, 6. d. Of the direction of politics, the control and use of political power, Aristot.Pol., IV, 11,
p. 1295b, 40; IV, 6, p. 1292b, 26 f.; III, 6, p. 1279a, 37. In the days of Theseus it could be said of individual
places in Attica ἕκαστοι ἐπολίτευον καὶ ἐβουλεύοντο they pursued their own politics, Thuc., II, 15, 1: The
Lacedaemonians were concerned σφίσιν αὐτοῖς μόνον ἐπιτηδείως ὅπως πολιτεύσωσι θεραπεύοντες instead of
considering the welfare of allies, Thuc., I, 19;15 Ditt. Syll.3, II, 612, 10. e. In the sense “to rule”: πολιτείαν
πολιτεύεσθαι, “to discharge an office,” Epict.Diss., III, 22, 85; also without πολιτείαν, as often in the pap.,
32
where we also find πολιτεύεσθαι πόλεως e.g., Ἀλεξανδρείας or Ἑρμοῦ πόλεως, “to rule a city.”16 The word
always has, then, a constitutional sense.
In Hesych., s.v. we find πράττει, ἀναστρέφεται. For this diluted sense, which is known in the NT (e.g.,
Ac. 23:1) and is common in the fathers, the Platonist Proclus offers an example in the 5th cent. A.D.17 The
meaning “to walk” occurs also in Macc. (→ 526, 34 ff.), Jos. (→ n. 66) and Ep. Ar. (→ n. 65). From the preChristian era outside this sphere, however, only one instance of this usage is known: ἐγὼ γὰρ πιστεύσας σοί
τε καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς, πρὸς οὕς ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως πολιτευσάμενος ἐμαυτὸν ἀμεμψιμοίρητον παρέσχημαι.18 Here,
of course, the ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς πολιτεύεσθαι of the writer of the letter stands in antithesis to
the breach of contract (παραβαίνειν τὰ κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας) by the recipient, who is accused of acting contrary
to εὐσέβεια, whereas the writer was directed by religious reverence in his civic conduct. If we accept the
general sense of “walk” here, this isolated example is rather surprising.19 Epict. does not use the term in this
weak sense, cf. Diss., I, 23, 6; II, 20, 27; III, 9, 9; 22, 83 and 85. Nor do Plut., Polyb.20 or other pap.21 Here the
word can sometimes crop up in commercial dealings; in such instances πολιλεύεσθαι can mean “to have
commercial or business dealings.”22
4. Plut. De unius in republica dominatione, 2 (II, 826c ff.) gives the following meanings for πολιτεία. 1.
μετάληψις τῶν ἐν πόλει δικαίων. 2. βίος ἀνδρὸς πολιτικοῦ καὶ τὰ κοινὰ πράττοντος, 3, μία πρᾶξις εὔστοχος
εἰς τὰ κοινά, 4. τάξις καὶ κατάστασις πόλεως διοικοῦσα τὰς πράξεις. The word thus denotes a. the specific
quality of the πολίτης, i.e., “citizenship,” Hdt., IX, 34 (the only example); cf. Thuc., VI, 104, 2; Ditt. Or., I, 9,
34 of the conferring of citizenship; 9, 6 of conferred titles of citizenship, b. πολιτεία is also the life of the
citizen, life in civil order, esp. participation in state life, political activity in all its forms and stages, Andoc.,
II, 10; Xenoph.Mem., III, 9, 15; Ditt. Syll.3, I, 495, 173. c. The state order in which the citizen lives, i.e., the
constitution: Plat.Resp., VII, 536b; Plat.Tim., 23c; Aristot.Pol., I, 13, p. 1260b, 24; αἱ μεταβολαὶ τῶν
πολιτειῶν, IV, 11, p. 1296a, 6.23 ὀρθαὶ πολιτεῖαι, namely, βασιλεία, ἀριστοκρατία and πολιτεία in the
narrower sense as distinct from παρεκβάσεις, namely, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy, III, 7, p. 1279a,
30ff. On the concept of πολιτεία in the narrower sense cf. III, 6, p. 1279a, 37: ὅταν τὸ πλῆθος πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν
πολιτεύηται συμφέρον, καλεῖται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν τῶν πολιτειῶν. d. The state as such: Aristot.Pol., I,
13, p. 1260b, 19; IV, 6, p. 1293a, 9; Thuc., I, 127, 3; Plat.Resp., VIII, 68b. The individual city can also be
called πολιτεία even though it no longer has any political independence, or has so only in a limited sense,
Ditt. Or., II, 441, 103 (imperial period), e. Walk, conduct, Hesych., s.v.: πολιτεία· ἢ πόλις ἢ βίος καὶ ἡ
ἀναστροφή· καὶ ἡ πρᾶσις. Cf. Athen., I, 19a; Stob.Ecl., I, 395, 22.24 But examples of this use are late and few;
it first occurs in the Gk. of Hell. Judaism and then in Chr. writings. Epict. does not have it, nor do Plut.,
Polyb. or the pap.
5. The word πολίτευμα has many different senses.25 Nouns in —μα usually denote the result of an
action.26 a. πολίτευμα, found from the 5th cent., is first the result of πολιτεύεσθαι and thus denotes individual
“political acts,” “dealings,” or “machinations,” Aeschin.Tim., 86.27 b. πολίτευμα is then used esp. for acts and
departments of the government, Demosth., 18, 109; Plat.Leg., XII, 945d. c. Aristot. likes to use πολίτευμα for
the “government” or for those who hold power or have a share in it. These are οἱ ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι, Pol., V, l,
p. 1301b, 6 ff. ἔστι δὲ πολιτεία (constitution) πόλεως τάξις, τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀρχῶν (authorities, councils) καὶ
μάλιστα τῆς κυρίας πάντων. κύριον μὲν γὰρ πανταχοῦ τὸ πολίτευμα (the government) τῆς πόλεως, πολίτευμα
δὲ ἐστιν ἡ πολιτεία, Aristot.Pol., III, 6, p. 1278b, 9; cf. III, 7, p. 1279a, 25; III, 13, p. 1283b, 30. d. The latter
ref. show the transition to the sense of “constitution,” “state,” “commonwealth.” πόλις, πολιτεία and
πολίτευμα thus merge into one another. Instances may be found esp. in Plut. and Polyb.28 e. “Citizenship” can
also be denoted by πολίτευμα.29 f. A distinctive development in the Hell. period is the use of the term for
“foreign colonies.” Thus the Jews in Alexandria were a πολίτευμα, Jos.Ant., 12, 108; Ep. Ar., 310;30 cf. also
the Jews in Berenice/Cyrenaica.31 We also hear of a πολίτευμα of Cretans in the district of Arsinoe, of
Idumaeans in Memphis, and of Caunians in Sidon.32 These πολιτεύματα are not private associations but
publicly recognised national bodies, foreign colonies with specific political rights. This legal form apparently
developed esp. under the Ptolemies in consequence of the policy of national intermingling pursued by
Alexander and the Diadochi.
II.
Ideal Content.33
The πόλις, or small Gk. state, has been described as “the most typical phenomenon in ancient Hellenic
culture.”34 The significance of the term, however, rested on its ideal content. There was awareness of this. In
Prot., Plat. has the well-known Sophist describe “in mythical form” how through the establishment of the
33
πόλις man emerges from a state of cultural uncertainty and treads the path of higher development.35 This takes
place through free union, but is possible only because, apart from the ἔντεχνος σοφία of Hephaestus and
Athene which Prometheus gives to men, Zeus through Hermes adds reverence and righteousness αἰδῶ τε καὶ
δίκην, ἵν᾽ εἶεν πόλεων κόσμοι τε καὶ δεσμοὶ φιλίας συναγωγοί. These gifts are for all. He who does not have
them is to be eliminated as νόσος πόλεως, Prot., 322. The funeral oration of Pericles in honour of the first
Athenian victims of the Peloponnesian War (Thuc., II, 35–46), the speech in which “the distinctive national
and cultural sense of the Athenians found full literary expression,”36 is sustained by the conviction that the
πόλις which is free, but which stands under the authority of the law voluntarily recognised by all its citizens,
is the presupposition for the development of all spiritual values, of all cultural achievements, and of all wellbeing. The national sense lives on in the free subjection of the citizens to the laws which protect the common
welfare, each citizen having the task of furthering the whole to the best of his ability, He who stands aside,
him οὐκ ἀπράγμονα ἀλλ᾽ ἀχρεῖον νομίζομεν, II, 40, 2. By reason of this national sense, the corresponding
order of state, the related conduct, and the resultant development, Athens feels that it is the intellectual leader
of Hellas. The life of the πόλις finds its consummation in freedom. All the citizens support it, There is a
constant sense of opposition to the tyranny of barbarian peoples, who, being mere objects of the state, obey an
alien will, whereas it is of the very essence of the citizen μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς, Aristot.Pol., III, 1, p.
1275a, 22.37 In this common national life man genuinely comes to himself, to the unfolding of his nature; in
the well-known phrase of Aristot. he is a ζῷον φύσει πολιτικόν, Pol., I, 2, p. 1253a, 3; III, 6, p. 1278b, 19. But
the life of the πόλις is also consummated in subjection to law, whose authority is encircled by religious awe
and cannot be destroyed with impunity. The order of state has a religious sanction. The πόλις is a religious
society. Its νόμος “unites church and state.” It cannot be imagined without religion and the cultus. It is a
“sacral organisation.”38 Its origin is with the supreme God, who not for nothing is called, like Athene,
πολιοῦχος, the protector of the state, whose spouse is Themis and whose daughter is Dike. These are the poles
around which the concept of the πόλις revolves. Hence Aesch. warns that one should not overturn the δόμος
δίκας, the seat of right, but cherish it with the pious awe without which neither the society of the πόλις nor the
individual ἔτ᾽ ἂν σέβοι δίκαν, has regard to the right, Eum., 516 ff. The full ideal is described in Eum., 695–
699:
Let no man live
Uncurbed by law nor curbed by tyranny,
Nor banish ye the monarchy of awe
Beyond the walls; untouched by fear divine
No man doth justice in the world of men.39
The fact that the political reality did not correspond to the ideal content of Gk. thinking on the state, that
rational criticism, such as that of the Sophists, overthrew the religious foundations of this thinking, that
egoistic individualism, the democratic surrender of the state to the masses and their instincts, the war of
parties as the champions of business interests all conspired to destroy the state, since the ruling clique
identified itself with the state, and furthermore that this concept of the state, even in Plat. and Aristot.,
remained confined within the cantonal limits of the city state, this was the tragedy of Gk. history.40
The cantonal limits of this thinking—and beyond these the national limits—were transcended, not by the
theoreticians, but by the march of events, by the gt. historical figures, by Alexander and Rome. Stoicism, and
indeed its founder Zeno, who was born about the year when Alexander came to the throne, provided the
theory for this in his πολιτεία. This interrelation found acceptance already in antiquity. Plut. says that the
much admired πολιτεία of Zeno was designed to overcome national particularism, ἵνα … πάντας ἀνθρώπους
ἡγώμεθα δημότας καὶ πολίτας, εἷς δὲ βίος ᾖ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συννόμου νόμῳ κοινῷ
συντρεφομένης. τοῦτο Ζήνων μὲν ἔγραψεν ὥσπερ ὄναρ ἢ εἴδωλον εὐνομίας φιλοσόφου καὶ πολιτείας
ἀνατυπωσάμενος. ᾽ Αλέξανδρος δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ ἔργον παρέσχεν, Alex. Fort. Virt., I, 6 (II, 329b). Aristot.
advised Alexander to act ἡγεμονικῶς with the Hellenes and δεσποτικῶς with the barbarians, But Alexander
would not do this. He preferred κοινὸς ἥκειν θεόθεν ἁρμοστὴς καὶ διαλλακτὴς τῶν ὅλων νομίζων, … ὥσπερ
ἐν κρατῆρι φιλοτησίῳ. … to mix τοὺς βίους καὶ τὰ ἤθη. πατρίδα μὲν τὴν οἰκουμένην προσέταξεν ἡγεῖσθαι
πάντας, ἀκρόπολιν δὲ καὶ φρουρὰν τὸ στρατόπεδον, συγγενεῖς δὲ τοὺς ἀγαθούς, ἀλλοφύλους δὲ τοὺς
πονηρούς· τὸ δ᾽ ῾ Ελληνικὸν καὶ βαρβαρικὸν μὴ χλαμύδι μηδὲ πέλτῃ, … διορίζειν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ῾ Ελληνικὸν
ἀρετῇ, τὸ δὲ βαρβαρικὸν κακίᾳ τεκμαίρεσθαι (loc. cit.). This is the consistent theory of the ideal world
34
kingdom which transcends all historical and natural limitations. The ideas of Zeno were in keeping herewith,
but in such a way that they left all reality behind and described the state as the fellowship of the wise which is
so ordered by the universal reason which governs all things that it does not need the usual legal and social
institutions—“a pure phantasmagoria.”41 In the unrealistic abstraction of its thought Stoicism hits upon the
most eccentric ideas, and its followers naturally found it difficult to apply them to the concrete work of
politics, Plut.Stoic. Rep., 2 (II, 1033b ff.) even when they did not argue for political withdrawal in the fatal
manner of Chrysipp.: διότι εἰ μὲν πονηρὰ πολιτεύεται, τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπαρέσει· εἰ δὲ χρηστά, τοῖς πολίταις, Fr.,
699 (v. Arnim, III, 174, 26 ff.). There is a complete loss of any relation to the actualities of politics when
cosmopolitanism in the strict sense is advocated by the Stoics. One cannot speak of this in relation to the
thinking mentioned above, which simply extends the limits of the state until a universal state is reached. But it
is present when Stoicism parts company with all empirical politics but still uses the concept πόλις to clarify
the interrelationship of the cosmos as a totality which is governed by a single divine law, and to clarify also
its own position within this totality.42
History had left the ancient Gk. πόλις behind. When the thing itself vanished, the concept lost its
vividness and vitality. It became bloodless, and fell victim to philosophical spiritualising. The very thought
itself dissolved in cosmopolitanism.
B.
πόλις κτλ. in the Septuagint and Later Judaism.
With the move from non-biblical to biblical Gk. there is a pronounced change of climate. This is reflected
in the statistics. πόλις is still found at every turn. But πολιτεία, πολίτευμα, πολιτεύομαι, are found only a few
times in 2–4 Macc., πολίτευμα only once, πολιτεύεσθαι once also in Est. 8:12 p. Except in 2 and 3 Macc.
even πολίτης occurs only half-a-dozen times in various books of the Palestinian Canon, where it is an inexact
term for Heb. words denoting the neighbour or fellow-countryman. The many derivates and compounds in the
Gk. lex.43 do not occur at all apart from πολιορκεῖν and πολιορκία. In respect of πόλις the theoretical content
is unmistakably quite different from what is found in the non-biblical world.
I.
πόλις.
1. Hebrew Originals. In the LXX πόλις is usually the transl. of ‫עִ יר‬. With few exceptions this is always
rendered πόλις.ἄστυ does not occur in the LXX (or the NT). There is no need to differentiate between πόλις
and ἄστυ. In Is. 22:9 ‫ עִ יר־דָׁ וִ ד‬is transl. ἡ ἄκρα Δαυιδ; this is correct, but unusual as compared with the
customary ἡ πόλις Δαυιδ. Occasionally LXX has κώμη, Jos. 10:39; 1 Ch. 27:25; 2 Ch. 14:13; Is. 42:11. The
translators seem to be indicating that the ref. here is not to towns, though they do not take this into account in
every instance where called for. In Jer. 19:15 ‫ עִ יר‬is not transl. κώμη,44 but the LXX found a ref. to villages as
well as towns in its copy; ‫ עִ יר‬is rendered πόλις. ‫ עִ ירַהַ מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬in Jos. 10:2 is (not very accurately) transl.
μητρόπολις. There is no Heb. original for the μητρόπολις of Est. 9:19. In over 100 of its full 1500 occurrences
πόλις is used for other terms than ‫עִ יר‬, esp. ‫ קִ ְׁריָׁה‬and ‫ ְׁשע ִָׁרים‬, cf. Dt. 14:21. As concerns the use of πόλις in
the LXX, however, these and other secondary features are of no significance. The use is controlled by that of
‫עִ יר‬.
This is much more comprehensive than the word “town” and embraces any fortified place. The Israelites
set up high places for sacrifice ‫ירַמבְׁ צָׁ ר‬
ִ ִ‫םַמ ִמגְׁ דַ לַנֹוצְׁ ִריםַעַד־ע‬
ִ ֶ‫ּבְׁ כָׁל־ע ֵָׁריה‬, 2 K. 17:9. The watch-tower is
also a ‫עִ יר‬. Hence the fortress of Zion ‫ ְׁמצֻדַ תַצִ יֹון‬can be described as ‫( עִ ירַדָׁ וִ ד‬ἡ πόλις Δαυιδ 2 S. 5:7, 9).
Such a fortress is also in view in the ‫ עִ ירַעֲמָׁ לֵק‬of 1 S. 15:5, though the LXX has the plur. πόλεις Αμαληκ. In
Nu. 13:19 ‫ ִמבְׁ צָׁ ִרים‬πόλεις τειχήρεις LXX (fortified places) and ‫ מַ חֲנִים‬πόλεις ἀτείχιστοι LXX (camps) seem
to be included in the concept ‫ ע ִָׁרים‬πόλεις. In 1 Ch. 4:32 certain ‫ חֲצֵ ִרים‬ἐπαύλεις (villages or farmsteads) are
later called ‫ ע ִָׁרים‬πόλεις. In 2 S. 12:27 a part of Rabbah is called ‫ עִ ירַהַ מַ יִם‬ἡ πόλις τῶν ὑδάτων (“city of
waters”). Acc. to what became customary usage, however, ‫ עִ יר‬is a walled town. In contrast the country is
‫ שָׁ דֶ ה‬ἀγρός in Dt. 28:3, 16, while the pasture belonging to the town is ‫ ִמגְׁ ָׁרש‬τὰ ἀφωρισμένα in Jos. 21:21 ff.
or τὰ περισπόρια in Jos. 21:36; the surrounding villages are ‫ חֲצֵ ִרים‬κῶμαι or ἐπαύλεις in Jos. 15:32.54, those
related to the μητρόπολις being called “daughters” in Nu. 21:25, 32; 32:42; 2 S. 20:19; Neh. 11:25;45 cf. also
35
‫ירַמבְׁ צָׁ ר‬
ִ ִ‫ ע‬πόλις ἐστερεωμένη as compared with ‫ ּכֹ פֶרַהַ פְׁ ָׁרזְׁי‬in 1 S. 6:18 and ‫ ע ִָׁריםַּבְׁ צֻרֹות‬πόλεις ὀχυραί as
compared with ‫ ע ֵָׁריַהַ פְׁ ָׁרזִי‬in Dt. 3:5, though in both verses the LXX misread the latter phrase as a proper
name and imported the Perizzites into the text (κώμη τοῦ Φερεζαίου or πόλεις τῶν Φερεζαίων. The text,
however, has in view unprotected country places, villages. In 1 S. 27:5 Gath as ‫( עִ ירַהַ מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬πόλις
βασιλευομένη LXX == residence) is contrasted with ‫( ע ֵָׁריַהַ שָׁ דֶ ה‬πόλεις κατ᾽ ἀγρόν LXX == country towns).
2. Description of Cities. Cities are described not only by their names but also acc. to the locality or district
in which they lie (e.g., Gn. 13:12; Nu. 32:26), acc. to the peoples to whose territory they belong (e.g., Nu.
21:25; 31:10; 2 Ch. 17:7), acc. to individuals who reside there (e.g., Gn. 23:10; 1 S. 8:22; cf. 2 Εσδρ. 2:1, 70),
acc. to the clan which has its seat there (1 S. 20:6), or acc. to special features (Dt. 34:3; 1 S. 22:19; Nu. 35:28
or 35:6; 2 Ch. 8:6), but never acc. to the form of constitution.46
3. Importance of Cities. Acc. to the judgment of the Israelites cities were not significant as cultural
centres, nor for the advanced forms of civic government and law developed there, nor because the city is the
basic form of the state. Whereas in Gk. literature the senses “city” and “state” continually intertwine—the
unavoidable result of the political history of Hellas—the question never arises in the OT whether πόλις should
be rendered “state.” For Oriental states are kingdoms, and hence the Jewish word for state is ‫מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬.47 There
is in the OT no trace whatever of the world of ideas which the Gks. associated with πόλις. Paradoxical though
it may sound, πόλις is “de-politicised” in the LXX. Its specific content has been lost, for the thing which the
Gk. had in view when he spoke of the πόλις is no longer present. As one may see from the list of the 31
conquered kings of West Jordan in Jos. 12:7 ff. and from Ju. 9:2 ff., the cities of the Canaanites were political
miniatures dynastically governed. In the cities of Israel power was in the hands of an aristocratic class, the
elders (Ju. 9:2; 8:14; 1 S. 11:3; 16:4; the “lords of the city” ‫[ ּבְׁ עָׁלִ ים‬LXX inaccurately ἄνδρες] Ju. 9:2, 18, 23
f.; 1 S. 23:11, headed sometimes by a ‫ שַ רַהָׁ עִ יר‬ἄρχων τῆς πόλεως Ju. 9:30). The importance of cities lay in
the resistance they could offer to aggressors because of their fortifications, in the protection they could give to
their inhabitants. The terrifying effect of the heaven-high walls of the Canaanite cities on the nomadic tribes
of Israel is plainly to be discerned in Nu. 13:19; Dt. 1:28; 9:1; Jos. 14:12.48 The conquest of strongholds like
Jericho seemed like a miracle to men of a later time (Jos. 6). The fact that in the conquest the πόλεις ἀχυραί,
τείχη ὑψηλά, πύλαι καὶ μοχλοί (Dt. 3:5) could not withstand the Israelites was constantly emphasised with
grateful pride, cf. Nu. 21:25; 31:10; Jos. 11:12; 2 K. 3:19. Steps were soon taken to restore the shattered cities
or to found them afresh, e.g., Nu. 32:16, 24, 34, 38, 42; Ju. 1:26. Even Jericho rose again, 1 K. 16:34. Once
settled in the land, Israel could not do without the protection of cities and placed its confidence in them, Dt.
28:52. Both concepts, the battlemented fortress which is hard to take and the fortress under whose protection
one may feel secure, live on in proverbial expressions. “To walk on the battlements of the city” in Sir. 9:13 is
a figure of speech for the insecurity of an adopted position; he who controls his anger is stronger than he who
takes a city, Prv. 16:32; a wise man scales πόλεις ὀχυράς, Prv. 21:22, cf. Qoh. 9:13 f. Again, a man who does
not act μετὰ βουλῆς is like a πόλις ἀτείχιστος, Prv. 25:28; the rich man feels safe in his possessions as under
the protection of a strong city, Prv. 10:15. In contrast, Job 6:20 LXX insists that of οἱ πόλεσιν καὶ χρήμασιν
πεποιθότες will be confounded. In the great prophetic admonition of Dt. 28 it is declared to disobedient Israel
that even the high and strong walls of its cities, ἐφ᾽ οἷς σὺ πέποιθας ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, will not protect it against
judgment, v. 52. Gn. 11 speaks of the building of the city in the land of Shinar, and of its tower, as a sign of
the ungodly arrogance of man. The righteous man knows, however, that all the attempts of self-reliant man to
find security are in vain: ἐὰν μὴ κύριος φυλάξῃ πόλιν, εἰς μάτην ἠγρύπνησεν ὁ φυλάσσων, ψ 126:1.
4. Jerusalem. The city in view in such ref. is always Jerusalem. This has unique significance among all the
cities of Israel.49 It is the city, Ez. 7:23. It is true that acc. to the saying of Joab, David’s captain, all the cities
of Israel are πόλεις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, 2 Βας. 10:12. Nevertheless, Jerusalem is this in a special sense, for this is
the place which God has chosen to cause His name to dwell there (Dt. 12:5, 11; 14:24), to be the site of
worship and sacrifice, As the LXX puts it, deviating from the Mas. in all 3 passages, God has chosen the
place ἐκεῖ ἐπικληθῆναι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, → V, 256, 17 ff., 263, 22 ff.50 As 2 Ch. 6:38 succinctly says,
Jerusalem is “the city which thou hast chosen.” Hence it is towards this city ὁδὸν τῆς πόλεως ἧς ἐξελέξω ἐν
αὐτῇ that the army of Israel prays when it has gone out to battle, 3 Βας. 8:44. Jerusalem is called the city of
God (Ps. 46:4; 48:1, 8; 87:3; Da. 3:28; 9:16), or the city of the gt. king (Ps. 48:2) or of the κύριος or κύριος
τῶν δυνάμεων (Is. 60:14; ψ 47:9; 100:8) or of the Holy One (Tob. 13:9). It is often described, then, as the
36
holy city, Is. 48:2; 52:1; 66:20: Neh. 11:1; Da. 9:24 Θ; 1 Macc. 2:7; 2 Macc. 1:12; 3:1; 9:14; Jos.Ant., 4, 70;
20, 118; Ap., 1, 282; PhiloSom., II, 246. How well-established this became may be seen from the inscriptions
on coins.51 In Sir. 49:6 cf. 36:12 ἐκλεκτὴ πόλις ἁγιάσματος is used for Jerusalem. For the righteous of the OT
this Jerusalem became more and more the symbol both of religious faith and also of national independence
and greatness, and they set their whole affection on it: πόλις κυρίου Σιων ἁγίου Ισραηλ, Is. 60:14.
Naturally the conduct of the citizens in no way corresponded to the ideal character of the city. As the
cisterns hold its water fresh, so does Jerusalem its wickedness, Jer. 6:7. Thus there are constant prophetic
declarations of judgment on this city of blood-guiltiness and idolatry, Ez. 22:2–4. Its devastation is imminent.
In all the seriousness of judgment, however, there still echoes the confident expectation of a new and better
Jerusalem.52 God established this city εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ψ, 47:9 and He loves this foundation of His more than all
the dwellings of Jacob, Ps. 87:1 f. Though it be destroyed, the time will come καὶ οἰκοδομηθήσεται πόλις τῷ
κυρίῳ, Ιερ. 38(31):38. One day Jerusalem will be called πόλις δικαιοσύνης, μητρόπολις πιστὴ Σιων, Is. 1:26
(Zion in v. 27 Mas.). My people will dwell ἐν πόλει εἰρήνης, Is. 32:18. It will be called πόλις κυρίου Σιων
ἁγίου Ισραηλ, Is. 60:14. καὶ ἔσται Ιερουσαλημ πόλις ἁγία, καὶ ἀλλογενεῖς οὐ διελεύσονται δι᾽ αὐτῆς οὐκέτι,
II. 3:17. The Lord whose glory has left Jerusalem acc. to Ez. 11:23 will come back again and set up His tent
in the midst thereof, and Jerusalem will be called πόλις ἡ ἀληθινή, Zech. 8:3. Only because of the sins of the
inhabitants has God been angry with this city for a brief time, 2 Macc. 5:17. In this concept of a restored
Jerusalem are concentrated all the hopes of salvation, religious, but also national and political, as may be seen
from Jl. 3:17; Is. 60; Zech. 2:9 ff.; Hag. 2:7 ff. If the OT idea of the πόλις does not have the distinctively Gk.
political content, in its focus on the future Jerusalem it combines with eschatological expectations for which
there are no par. in Gk. thought. Gk. thought is bound to immanence in a way which is not true of the
prophetic thought of the OT. The latter can reach beyond history to a final change which is brought about by
the miracle of God. It has a hope, even though this is not yet the hope of the NT.
5. Jerusalem in the Hope of Later Judaism, In later Judaism53 these OT ideas continue to flourish. The
future hope of a restored Jerusalem is sustained by the fourteenth petition of the daily Prayer of Eighteen
Benedictions, which in the Pal. version begins: “In thy great mercy, O Lord our God, have mercy on thy
people Israel and on thy city Jerusalem, on Zion the dwelling-place of thy glory, on thy temple and on thy
dwelling.”54 This petition is regarded as so important that the short prayer of Habhinenu, which served as a
substitute for the long Eighteen Benedictions, refers in both its Pal. and Bab. versions to “all who trust in thee
and rejoice in the building of thy city and the restoration of the house of thy sanctuary.”55 There are similar
statements in contemporary sources. Worth noting is the fact that the restoration of the city is always linked
with that of the temple and its worship. Sir. prays: “Have mercy on the city of thy sanctuary οἰκτίρησον πόλιν
ἁγιάσματός σου, Ιερουσαλημ τόπον καταπαύματός σου, πλῆσον Σιων ἀρεταλογίας σου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης
σου τὸν ναόν σου, 36:12f.56
The more hopeless the present situation seems, the loftier is the expectation. The future Jerusalem is not
built with earthly implements. It comes down from heaven. It is already prepared there from the very
beginning and will be kept in heaven to be manifested already from time to time to selected righteous
individuals during the course of earthly history.
Similarly, in the visions of 4 Esr. Zion is a city of glory which is as yet invisible to the human eye but
which is already built and which will appear and be manifest to all, 7:26; 8:52; 10:27, 54–59; 13:36. The Lord
will “purify in sanctification” (καθαριεῖ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ) this future Jerusalem, as at the first, Ps. Sol. 17:30, 27;
Jub. 50:5. This does not mean only that no one who knows wickedness will dwell therein but that no
ἀπερίτμητος or ἀκάθαρτος will enter the holy city, cf. already Is. 52:1. Ps. Sol. also has in view that πάροικος
καὶ ἀλλογενὴς οὐ παροικήσει αὐτοῖς ἔτι (17:28b)—an expectation of complete exclusiveness which is hardly
compatible with the hope of a conversion of the Gentiles to the God of Israel. In face of this hope, however,
the nationalistic wing had the upper hand.57 In this Jerusalem the Creator will dwell (Sib., III, 787), and the
Rabb. also proclaim that the shƒ khina will find its eternal resting-place in the new Jerusalem, and that all
Israelites will see it.58 This does not mean, however, that there will not be a temple with its worship in this
new Jerusalem of the time of salvation. The only pt. is that this temple will be infinitely more glorious than
was the temple in the historical Jerusalem.59
II.
πολίτης, πολιτεία, πολιτεύομαι, πολίτευμα in the OT.
37
With the exception of πολίτης these words do not occur at all in the OT writings except in 2–4 Macc. and
πολιτεύομαι once in the LXX additions to Est. Here, in the edict of Artaxerxes in favour of the Jews appended
after 8:12 LXX, we read that the Jews are not malefactors but δικαιοτάτοις πολιτευόμενοι νόμοις, v. 12 p.
1. The word πολίτης occurs 9 times in 2 Macc., once in 3 Macc., and only 7 times in the rest of the OT60
It is normally used there for ‫ע‬
ַַ ‫ ֵר‬, the “neighbour” (→ πλησίον 311–318) of one’s own people (Jer. 29:23;
31:34; Prv. 11:9, 12; 24:28), and once each for ‫ ע ִָׁמית‬and ‫ּבְׁ נֵיַע ִַמי‬, again in the sense of compatriot or coreligionist, → 313, 12 ff.61 πολίτης is never a true equivalent of the Heb. original. It has a political and legal
colouring, whereas the Heb. word belongs to the sphere of social ethics and religion. Neither term can
reproduce the specific element in the other. This is naturally no accident. It is based on the fact already
mentioned that the Gk. world of ideas at the heart of which the Gk. words are used is alien to the OT In Macc.
πολίτης corresponds to the ‫ע‬
ַַ ‫ ֵר‬of the 7 OT passages mentioned. It means “fellow-citizen” or, better,
“compatriot” rather than citizen, cf. 2 Macc. 4:5, 50; 14:8; 15:30: with particular clarity 2 Macc. 5:6, where
Jason instigates a slaughter τῶν πολιτῶν τῶν ἰδίων, for which συγγενεῖς and ὁμοεθνεῖς are also used. Only in
2 Macc. 9:19 and 3 Macc. 1:22 does it have the meaning “citizen,” as ἰσοπολίτης means equality of civil
rights in 3 Macc. 2:30. Apart from a few passages the Gk. terms are thus thoroughly Hebraised in these
writings. They also lose their political flavour.
2. Similarly, πολιτεία does not mean civil rights, constitution, or state. The προγονικὴ πολιτεία of 2 Macc.
8:17 is rather the pious order of life which, ordained by the Law of Moses, is inherited from the fathers, and
which Judas Maccabaeus fights to preserve. Antiochus Epiphanes, on the other hand, wanted τὴν Ἑβραίων
πολιτείαν καταλῦσαι, 4 Macc. 17:9. When it is said of the high-priest Jason (2 Macc. 4:11) that he τὰς …
νομίμους καταλύων πολιτείας παρανόμους ἐθισμοὺς ἐκαίνιζεν, newly introduced customs which were against
the Law, the meaning is not that “he abolished legal institutions,”62 e.g., the constitution and civil rights, but
that he undermined the legal orders of practical piety by-promoting Hellenisation. Cf. also 4 Macc. 8:7: The
Jews should hold leading positions in the state ἀρνησάμενοι τὸν πάτριον ὑμῶν τῆς πολιτείας θεσμόν, and
4:19: the high-priest Jason ἐξεδιῄτησεν τὸ ἔθνος καὶ ἐξεπολίτευσεν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν παρανομίαν, i.e., he brought it
about that the people abandoned the previous way of legal piety. In all cases πολιτεία here is a religious and
moral concept rather than a political concept; it denotes the “walk” determined by the Mosaic Law. Only in 3
Macc. 3:21, 23 is πολιτεία used in the sense of civil rights, ἡ πολιτεία Ἀλεξανδρέων, ἡ ἀτίμητος πολιτεία The
πολιτεία of 2 Macc. is ἐμβίωσις in 3 Macc. 3:23.
3. Furthermore in these works πολιτεύομαι always means “to walk” rather than “to be a citizen,” “to rule
the state,” cf. τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ νόμοις πολιτεύεσθαι, 2 Macc. 6:1; 3 Macc. 3:4; πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν
προγόνων αὐτῶν ἔθη, 2 Macc. 11:25; τῷ νόμῳ or κατὰ νόμον πολιτεύεσθαι, 4 Macc. 2:8, 23. Eleazar seeks
θείῳ νόμῳ πολιτεύεσθαι, part of which is not to eat swine’s flesh, 4 Macc. 5:16. Est. 8:12 (→ 525, 43 f.) is
also to be construed thus. The ref. is always, not to political rights, to their distribution and exercise in the
state, but to religion. This religion, however, is a law which by its many precepts regulates both the life of
society and also the conduct of the individual; as a religious order of life it confers a specific character on the
whole “walk.” One may thus understand why the terms πολιτεία and πολιτεύεσθαι lose their flavour at the pt.
where Hellenism and Judaism meet. This is because the society to which the Jew belongs, in consequence of
the totalitarian religious claim, bears a different character from that of the society in which these words have
their true home. Since membership of this society finds expression in the whole of conduct, the words take on
the sense of “walk.” This is a specific feature of Hell. Jewish usage which is also attested in Aristeas and Jos.
and even on inscr. (→ n. 65).
4. πολίτευμα occurs only in 2 Macc. 12:7, where it has the sense of “commonwealth.” Judas Macc. seeks
τῶν Ἰοππιτῶν ἐκριζῶσαι πολίτευμα.
III.
Josephus and Philo.
1. A first difference between Jos.63 and LXX is to be found in the rich use which Jos. makes of the terms
πολιτεία, πολίτευμα, πολιτεύομαι with ref. to the interrelations and history of Israel. God ordained for the
people through Moses διάταζιν πολιτείας or πολιτείας κόσμον, Ant., 4, 45; 3, 84. He gave it a political order,
a constitution. πολιτεία also means civil rights. The Alexandrian Jews have ἴσην πολιτείαν like other residents
(Ant., 19, 281); those living in Antioch are called Ἀντιοχεῖς because Seleucus τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτοῖς ἔδωκεν,
Ap., 2, 39; cf. Ant., 12, 119. Jos. is fond of πολίτευμα as well as πολιτεία. He seeks to depict ἅπασαν τὴν παρ᾽
ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν καὶ διάταξιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος, Ant., 1, 5. What he has in mind is the order of the
38
commonwealth and also life in this commonwealth as controlled by the basic νομοθεσία, cf. Ap., 2, 145. The
Jews thanked Ezra for the setting aside τῶν περὶ τὸ πολίτευμα παρανομηθέντων, of all the things in the social
order which contradicted the Law, Ant., 11, 157. πολιτευμάτων μεταβολαί are revolutions, Ant., 1, 13. The
Jews living in a particular place, e.g., Alexandria, are also a πολίτευμα, Ant., 12, 108. πολιτεύομαι means “to
take part in public life.” Jos. began πολιτεύεσθαι, τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν,64 Vit., 12, cf. Vit.,
262: περὶ τῶν ἐμοὶ πεπολιτευμένων, Ant., 12, 38: the Gk. historians do not take note τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὴν (τὴν τοῦ
Μωϋσέως νομοθεσίαν) πολιτευσαμένων ἀνδρῶν, cf. also Ant., 15, 263; 17, 16. πολιτεύεσθαι can also mean
“to direct the state,” as, e.g., Moses did, Ant., 4, 46. But sometimes the word can lose its political sense and
mean “to conduct oneself,” “to walk.” Though the ref. in Vit., 12 are not examples of this, one may refer to
the expression πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους in Ant., 12, 142. For this has in view only a mode of
life controlled by religious statutes.65
Jos. is a political Hellenist. Expressions taken from the political sphere will, he hopes, help his GraecoRoman public to penetrate the alien world of Israel and Judah. He has a clear sense, however, that the
distinctive elements cannot be properly known in this way. This is shown by the observation in Ap., 2, 164 f.:
ἐξουσία τῶν πολιτευμάτων, power over political societies, is in different hands among the different peoples;
“our lawgiver” however, to use a bold expression, established the state as a theocracy ὁ δ᾽ ἡμέτερος
νομοθέτης, … ὡς δ᾽ ἄν τις εἴποι βιασάμενος τὸν λόγον, θεοκρατίαν ἀπέδειξε τὸ πολίτευμα, θεῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν
καὶ τὸ κράτος ἀναθείς. Among the Jews everything is orientated to εὐσέβεια, ὥσπερ … τελετῆς τινος τῆς
ὅλης πολιτείας οἰκονομουμένης, Ap., 2, 188. The use of terms taken from the political sphere is calculated to
conceal the religious orientation of the political thought of Israel. Connected herewith is the material
deviation of Jos. from the spirit of the OT, which consists in the fact that he suppresses the whole group of
ideas revolving around the hope of a new and better Jerusalem as the mid-point of a religio-political age of
salvation. Jos. sacrificed the Messianic hope for the sake of peace with Rome. He applies to Vespasian the
χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος, the ambiguous oracle about a future world ruler (Da. 2), which played a fateful role on
the outbreak of the Vespasian war, since it had been interpreted of an Israelite, cf. Bell., 6, 312 f.; Ant., 10,
210 and 280. Messianic eschatology was thus transferred to the political present, i.e., it was surrendered. The
vision of the new Jerusalem faded.
2. In a different way the same thing happens in the case of the philosophical Hellenist Philo.66 Though he,
too, is no stranger to the use of the words in the ordinary political sense, this is not the distinctive aspect in
Philo. The distinctive aspect is the philosophical, spiritualising transposition. A passage which is particularly
characteristic of his mode of thought is Op. Mund., 142–144: Adam is not just the first man but also μόνος
κοσμοπολίτης. For the κόσμος was for him οἶκος καὶ πόλις. Hence he abode καθάπερ ἐν πατρίδι μετὰ πάσης
ἀσφαλείας … φόβου μὲν ἐκτὸς ὤν …, ἐν εὐπαθείαις δὲ ταῖς ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀπολέμῳ ζῶν ἀνεπιλήπτως. Every
well-ordered state (πόλις εὔνομος) has, however, a constitution (πολιτείαν). Hence the cosmopolitan lives acc.
to the same constitution (πολιτείᾳ) ᾗ καὶ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος. This is, however, ὁ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθὸς λόγος,
better θεσμός, νόμος θεῖος ὤν, καθ᾽ ὃν τὰ προσήκοντα καὶ ἐπιβάλλοντα ἑκάστοις ἀπενεμήθη This πόλις and
πολιτεία has, however, τινὰς πρὸ ἀνθρώπου πολίτας, οἵ λέγοιντ᾽ ἂν ἐνδίκως μεγαλοπολῖται τὸν μέγιστον
περίβολον οἰκεῖν λαχόντες καὶ τῷ μεγίστῳ καὶ τελειοτάτῳ πολιτεύματι ἐγγραφέντες (they are enrolled in this
state as citizens). These are the λογικαὶ καὶ θεῖαι φύσεις, αἱ μὲν ἀσώματοι καὶ νοηταί, αἱ δὲ οὐκ ἄνευ
σωμάτων, ὁποίους συμβέβηκεν εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας. He who has dealings with these εἰκότως ἐν ἀκράτῳ
διέτριβεν εὐδαιμονίᾳ. The κόσμος νοητός. is the true μητρόπολις of the sage, who has his part in the νοητὴ
πόλις, Conf. Ling., 77 ff.; Som., I, 46. Moving along Stoic lines and building a Platonic superstructure Philo
puts the words πόλις πολίτης, πολιτεία, and πολίτευμα. in the service of his spiritual cosmopolitanism. Adam
is a cosmopolitan. On the other hand this is also true of the ἀσκηταί or ὁμιληταὶ σοφίας who devote
themselves to the φεωρία φύσεως, i.e., esp. the contemplation of the starry heaven, who certainly stand here
below with their bodies but who float in the aether with their souls (αἰθεροβατοῦντες, Spec. Leg., II, 45).
Typical representatives of this attitude are the Therapeutae, Vit. Cont., 90. Also a cosmopolitan is the
representative of the ἀστεῖος τρόπος Moses, ὁ τὸν κόσμον ὡς ἄστυ καὶ πατρίδα οἰκήσας (Conf. Ling., 106), or
the νόμιμος ἀνήρ who shapes his conduct acc. to the Βούλημα τῆς φύσεως, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ὁ σύμπας κόσμος
διοικεῖται (Op. Mund., 3), or the σπουδαῖος ἄνθρωπος who thus οὐδεμιᾷ τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην πόλεων
ἐνεγράφη (as a citizen, Vit. Mos., I, 157). To this world citizen the individual state with its constitution (ἡ
κατὰ δήμους πολιτεία) seems to be of lesser worth both theoretically and practically: theoretically because it
is only an addition (προσθήκη) to φύσις, Jos., 28, 31; practically because political life is the theatre of the
basest passions and the most degrading dependence, as depicted with gt. perspicacity in the tractate on Joseph,
39
the πολιτευόμενος or πολιτικός (Migr. Abr., 159), the type of the politician with his gay coat of many colours
(cf. Plat.Resp., VIII, 561d), cf. also Som., I, 219–224.67 For this reason the ἀσκηταὶ σοφίας avoid τὰς τῶν
φιλοπραγμόνων ὁμιλίας … δικαστήρια καὶ βουλευτήρια καὶ ἀγορὰς καὶ ἐκκλησίας, Spec. Leg., II, 44; Sacr.
AC., 50. This is why the Essenes will not live in cities. They want nothing to do with the usual ἀνομίαι τῶν
πολιτευομένων, Omn. Prob. Lib., 76. This did not prevent Philo himself from living in the gt. city of
Alexandria, nor from taking part in the Legatio ad Gaium (even if only with gt. displeasure, Spec. Leg., III,
3), nor from concerning himself, at least theoretically, with the question of the best constitution. He naturally
thinks this is democracy (cf. e.g., Agric., 45; Abr., 242; Conf. Ling., 108), whose basic principle he finds
controlling world history, since Tyche sees to the constant shifting of all property relationships, Deus Imm.,
176. Oligarchy and mob rule are corrupt forms of government ἐπίβουλοι πολιτεῖαι (Decal., 155),
κακοπολιτεῖαι (Agric., 45). Philo thus follows the main route of Gk. philosophy in its political deliberations.
But he also agrees with the principle of Plato (Resp., V, 473c–d) that it is best if either the rulers are
philosophers or philosophers the rulers, Vit. Mos., II, 2. But these are only theoretical considerations. Philo
has no understanding of the moral dignity of the state or political action as such, though the rule of Augustus
offered an instructive example. He himself is an αἰθεροβατῶν, and hence he cannot appreciate the
significance of actual history. For this reason he has also no understanding of the eschatological hope which
in OT prophecy and later Judaism is linked with the name Jerusalem. He naturally calls Jerusalem the holy
city, Som., II, 246. He quotes Ps. 46:4. But in one instance he has the cosmos in view, in another the soul of
the wise in whom God moves about ὡς ἐν πόλει, Som., II, 248. The name Jerusalem means ὅρασις εἰρήνης.
Hence one should seek τὴν τοῦ ὄντος πόλιν, not ἐν κλίμασι γῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ψυχῇ ἀπολέμῳ, in the peaceful soul
which has chosen the βίος θεωρητικὸς καὶ εἰρηναῖος, 250. Cosmopolitanism, psychology and ethics have
dismissed and dissolved history and eschatology.
C.
πόλις κτλ. in the NT.
NT usage builds on that of the OT, but gives it a new and spiritual focus in terms of hope.
I. πόλις.
1. Distribution and Secular Use.
In the NT as in the OT (→ 522, 6 ff.) there is no trace at all of the aura which attended πόλις and the
whole group for the Greeks.
The word πόλις occurs about 160 times, most commonly in the Lucan writings (half of the instances),
about equally in Mt. (26 times) and Rev. (27), only 4 times each in Paul and Hb., 3 times in the Catholic
Epistles, the rest divided almost equally between Mk. and Jn. The word is thus most common where concrete
relations are depicted, in historical presentations, and in the eschatological images of Rev. On the other hand,
it occurs only occasionally in works of pastoral or dogmatic content.
This is connected with the fact that πόλις never means “state.” In no passage in the NT can this
translation even be considered.
When the NT wants to speak of the state, it refers to the emperor (Mt. 22:17) or king (1 Pt. 2:13, 17; 1
Tm. 2:2) or authorites (R. 13:1) or rulers (Mt. 20:25), but never the πόλις. When the ref. is to cities, there is no
suggestion that they are political organisms. The trinity of ἄρχοντες, βουλή, and δῆμος, which characterises
the Gk. city, does not occur in the NT. The βουλή is never mentioned at all. δῆμος is found in Ac. 12:22;
17:5; 19:30, 33. In all four instances, however, the ref. is to a tumultuous mob rather than a regularly called
popular assembly. ἄρχοντες for city officials occurs only in Ac. 16:19 as a loose expression for what are
called in v. 20, 22, 35, 36, 38 the praetors (στρατηγοί) of the colony of Philippi, cf. the πολιτάρχαι of
Thessalonica in Ac. 17:6, 8.68 Elsewhere ἄρχων is used for Jews in leading positions of various kinds (e.g.,
the leader of the synagogue, Lk. 8:41, the member of the Sanhedrim Lk. 23:13: Jn. 3:1, the judge, Lk. 12:58,
the high-priest, Ac. 23:5 ἄρχων τοῦ λαοῦ), for various rulers, esp. pagan (Mt. 20:25; Ac. 4:26; R. 13:3), for
Christ (Rev. 1:5 6 ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς), also for Satan and demonic powers (e.g., Jn. 12:31; Mk.
3:22; 1 C. 2:6–8). Nowhere, however, is there any interest at all in constitutional questions.
The use of πόλις in the NT is thus completely non-political.69 πόλις simply means an “enclosed place
of human habitation” as distinct from uninhabited areas, pastures, villages and single houses. Sometimes
it can also mean the “population” of the city, Mt. 8:34: ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν, 21:10 ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις
Mk. 1:33 ἡ πόλις ἐπισυνηγμένη. There is no sharp distinction between πόλις and κώμη.
40
This may be seen most clearly from the mixed κωμόπολις of Mk. 1:38, though this is replaced by πόλις in
Lk. 4:43. The word denotes a town-ike place without municipal standing. Nazareth is a πόλις Mt. 2:23; Lk.
1:26; 2:4, 39. Bethany (Jn. 11:1, 30 cf. Lk. 10:38) and Emmaus (Lk. 24:13, 28) are κῶμαι. Bethsaida,
however, is κώμη in Mk. 8:23, 26 and πόλις in Mt. 11:20. Bethlehem, too, is κώμη in Jn. 7:42 and πόλις in
Lk. 2:4, 11. The περιῆγεν τὰς κώμας κύκλῳ of Mk. 6:6 is taken by Mt. to include πόλεις among the κῦμαι, cf.
Mt. 9:35. In general walled towns are πόλεις while open places of habitation are κῶμαι. The κῶμαι mentioned
in the Gospels—the only other occurrence of the term is in Ac. 8:25—are to be regarded as in some way
subordinate to the cities; in districts the whole area is inter-related with the towns. But the only v. where this
official relationship is evident is Mk. 8:27: κῶμαι Καισαρείας.70
Sometimes the context makes it evident which city is in view (cf. Mt. 8:33: city of the Gadarenes; 21:17;
26:18; 28:11: Jerusalem; Ac. 8:5 ἡ πόλις τῆς Σαμαρείας the capital of Samaria). If not, the name is used
(either in the gen. Ac. 16:14; 2 Pt. 2:6 or the same case as πόλις, e.g., Ac. 11:5; 27:8), or various additions are
made to set it in a specific locality (e.g., Lk. 4:31; cf. Jn. 4:5; Ac. 8:5; 14:6; 16:12), or to relate it to the nation
(e.g., Mt. 10:5, 23; Lk. 23:51), the inhabitants (cf. Ac. 19:35; 2 C. 11:32) or individuals (cf. Lk. 2:4, 11; 2:3;
Mt. 9:1; Jn. 1:44). All this is within the sphere of everyday usage.
2. Jerusalem the Holy City.
As in the OT (→ 524, 5 ff.), so also in the NT special significance attaches to passages which speak
of Jerusalem as the holy city or the beloved city (Mt. 4:5; 27:53; Rev. 11:2; 20:9),71 and also to passages
which use the expression “holy city” for the heavenly Jerusalem, or which refer to this generally (Gl.
4:25 f.; Hb. 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:14; Rev. 3:12; 21:9–23; 22:14, 19). In Mt. 4:5; 27:53; Rev. 11:2
Jerusalem is simply called the holy city without any name; this corresponds to the widespread practice
of later Judaism and of a tradition which reaches well back into OT history, → 524, 17 ff. The “beloved
city” is also a term for the historical Jerusalem, Rev. 20:9. This does not actually occur in the OT, but it
is based on the OT idea of the election of Jerusalem by Yahweh (→ 524, 8 ff.) and on passages which
speak of Yahweh’s love for Jerusalem or Zion, cf. Jer. 11:15; Ps. 78:68; 87:2. The fact that these
reminiscences of Israelite and Jewish modes of thought and expression are to be found in Mt. and Rev.
is one of the indications how strongly these books are rooted in Jewish tradition. For the oldest Christian
community, however, these predicates are not just a recollection of the traditions of Israel and Judah.
They are a sign of the particular significance which Jerusalem still had for the faith of this community.
In Paul’s day Jerusalem was the recognised headquarters for all Christianity. The community there
controlled and judged whatever took place in Samaria, Caesarea, and Antioch, and gave directions on matters
of conduct. This can hardly be explained merely by the fact that through its national, political and religious
importance Jerusalem naturally attracted to itself any greater movement in the country and that all important
decisions on matters of faith in Israel had ultimately to be made here. The real religious concern is reflected in
the retaining of the designation of Jerusalem as the holy city in the Chr. circles to which Mt. and Rev. belong.
The seer of Rev. uses this description in 11:2 even though in the same c. Jerusalem is the gt. city ἥτις καλεῖται
πνευματικῶς Σόδομα καὶ Αἴγυπτος, ὅπου καὶ ὁ κύριος αὐτῶν ἐσταυπώθη, v. 8.
It is thus unmistakable that the name Jerusalem has a religious interest for the Chr. community, even
though this be only traditional. The same pt. comes out in the fact that in Rev. 20:7–10 the beloved city is the
site of the battle which destroys the power of Satan at the end of the millennial reign, and that in Rev. 11 the
two martyrs to whom ref. is here made do their work and are put to death and are then raised again in no other
place than Jerusalem.
3. The Heavenly Jerusalem.
The inner bond between the Christian community and Jerusalem has, however, nothing whatever to
do with romantic feelings for the historical city. The destruction of this city is certain, Mk. 13:2; Mt.
24:15 f. Hence expectation is focused on a new Jerusalem which is not a Jerusalem freed from defects
(Rev. 21:2) but which will descend to earth, to a new earth, at the time of the consummation of
salvation, Rev. 21:10. This idea is found in Paul at Gl. 4:25 f., where ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ is contrasted
with τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ. If the latter corresponds to Hagar, then the former must correspond to the free
Sarah, which means that law-free Christianity and the Jerusalem which is above, our “mother,” belong
41
together. The notable thing here is the natural way in which the expected consummation of salvation is
incidentally expressed in the concept of the Jerusalem which is above; the thought obviously must have
been a very familiar one for the apostle.
Hb. takes us a step further. According to 11:10, 16 the patriarchs already knew of the heavenly
Jerusalem. In obedience to God’s command Abraham could leave his home and live as an alien in the
land of promise because he “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God,”
v. 10. This alone would endure. Even the most firmly established of earthly cities are only
encampments. The death of the fathers was a death in faith, for it took place in the certainty of a
heavenly city which was glimpsed only from afar but which was steadfastly longed for, v. 14, 16. On
account of it they regarded themselves during their lifetime as pilgrims and strangers τῆς γῆς, which
according to v. 14 means “on earth” rather than “in the land.” God, however, had fashioned a city for
them, namely, a city in heaven, v. 16. This is the same city as that which in 12:22–24 is called Mount
Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and which is now described more fully, though
again in contrast to Mount Sinai and its terrors, as in Gl. 4:25. This is the future city to which Christians
look forward, having here no abiding city (13:14); as the Shepherd of Hermas later puts it (s., 1, 1):
They dwell here as in an alien city living under other laws in contrast to their own city, to which they
will return if they do not deny its law, → V, 30, 20 ff. This city of Hb., however, is not just future;
already it is a heavenly reality in relation to which the earthly phenomenon is at best, i.e., in the OT
cultus, only a reflection (8:5), a shadow (8:5; 10:1) and a likeness (9:9).72
The continual recurrence of the thought in Hb., and the lofty and solemn, though also loving and grateful
dwelling of the author on the idea of this heavenly Jerusalem, show how important the circle of ideas was for
him. Nevertheless, he had not just taken it from the apocalyptic tradition of the OT and Judaism. It has been
thoroughly Christianised. All national, political and external elements have disappeared without a trace. The
fellowship of all believers of all ages with God, with the pledge of the new covenant, and with the angelic
world—this alone is what fills the wholly purified thought and longing of the author of this strange and
powerful letter, who has completely outgrown and outstripped the Jewish community.
The picture of the Jerusalem which will one day come down from heaven is painted in rich and vivid
colours in Rev. 21. This new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven is “prepared as a bride adorned
for her husband,” 21:2. Indeed, it is “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” 21:9. It is the perfected community
which ineludes all who have come out of the afflictions of persecution as victors and upon whom there
is thus written “the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of
heaven from my God,” 3:12, i.e., who have the privileges of citizenship in it. The image of the heavenly
city is used to depict the blessedness of this perfected community.
Neither from a literary nor a material standpt. does the image constitute a unity. The repetitions in c. 22 as
compared with c. 21 (cf. esp. 22:5 with 21:23–25; 22:3 with 21:27; 22:3 with 21:3) show that it is not a
literary unity. The paradise motif of 22:1f., which is difficult to harmonise with the tower-like city of heaven,
shows that it is not a material unity. When the nations and kings of the earth go through the gates of the new
Jerusalem (21:24), the ref. is obviously no longer to the Jerusalem which is in heaven. Motifs of the most
varied derivation combine in the image. The whole c. is shot through by OT reminiscences, esp. of Jer. and
Ez. (in particular Ez. 48:30–35) and also Gn. 2. The most important contribution is made, however, by the
ancient mythology of heaven. The signs of the Zodiac and the related division of heaven may be seen in the
12 gates73 with their angelic guards, and also in the 12 foundation stones. The street of pure gold is the milky
way, as is also the pure river, clear as crystal. The adornment of precious stones is the glittering starry heaven,
and the comparatively low wall74 of many-coloured jasper is the corona of the night horizon. That the city is
foursquare can hardly be based on the town plan of Babylon75 or other cities: it is to be explained by the ref.
in the astronomy of antiquity to the four corners on which the vault of heaven rested. The cubic shape of the
city is quite understandable in this light.76
The important pt., however, is that in Rev. all these adopted ideas and motifs are only metaphors in an
attempt to depict the blessedness of the perfected community. In spite of promising beginnings, even the
prophecy of Israel, let alone Jewish apocalyptic, could never wholly free itself from specific Israelitish
features. For Ez. a new temple belongs esp. to the new Jerusalem. In the expectation of Rev., however,
42
nothing is more distinctive than that there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, 21:22. There is no further need
of temple, cult, or offering. “The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” The dwelling of
God is not with Israel alone (Zech. 2:14: Ez. 37:27) but “with men,” who will be His → λαός77 (21:3). This
refers, of course, only to those who have washed their clothes (22:14), who have a share in the redeeming
work of Christ. The heavenly city is thus an image of the perfected divine fellowship of the redeemed
community which cannot be disrupted. That the Chr. hope of the future takes this form is a legacy of the
tradition of Israel and Judah. But as the Chr. community, the true Israel, is to be differentiated from “Israel
after the flesh,” so the hope has become essentially different in spite of all the OT reminiscences. This faith is
in fact no longer interested in the replacing of the earthly Jerusalem by a better one. Jerusalem is simply an
inherited traditional name with no concrete spatial reference. Here, too, the principle applies: Lo, I make all
things new.
All attempts to establish a relation between the eschatological language of the apocalyptist, which
transcends history when he speaks of the heavenly city, and the cosmopolitan ideas of the Stoic philosophy of
immanence, even in the Platonising form represented by Philo, are wide of the mark.78 There yawns here the
abyss which separates history from nature.
4.
The Translation of πόλις as Civitas in the Vulgate.
In the Vg NT is always rendered civitas except in Ac. 16:12, 39, where Philippi, previously called civitas,
is referred to as urbs.79 Thus we find civitas, cuius artifex et conditor Deus in Hb. 11:10; civitas Dei viventis,
Ierusalem caelestis in Hb. 12:22; civitas futura in Hb. 13:14; nomen civitatis Dei mei novae lerusalem in Rev.
3:12; sancta civitas lerusalem nova in Rev. 21:2. Civitas Dei or Dei nostri also occurs in Ps. 46:4; 48:1, 8;
87:3 as a rendering of πόλις θεοῦ (ἡμῶν), civitas Domini in Ps. 101:8 for πόλις κυρίου. This rendering of
πόλις involves quite a shift of meaning as compared with the NT, because it gives πόλις a political nuance.
This shift of sense is important because Augustine acc. to his own testimony gave to his masterpiece the title
Civitas Dei on the basis of these biblical ref., cf. Civ. D., 5, 19; 11, 1; 14, 1.80 Almost the only thing that
Aug.Civ. D. links with the ref. is the word. The passages in the Ps. speak of Jerusalem; Aug. disregards the
historical ref. The NT passages speak of the community of the eschatological consummation; Aug. retains this
ref. in Civ. D., but the concept is used in varying senses, so that he can also equate the civitas Dei with the
community of the just or the historical form of the organised Church. The opposite is not earthly Jerusalem
but the civitas terrena, which is sometimes the society of the ungodly and reprobate, sometimes the secular
state.81 The term has thus lost its eschatological and figurative character and become a concept of
ecclesiastical and philosophical thought. This development was made possible only by the inexact rendering
of πόλις as civitas.
II. πολίτης, πολιτεύομαι, πολιτεία, πολίτευμα.
1. There is nothing distinctively theological about πολίτης in the four instances in which it occurs in
the NT. In Hb. 8:11, in a quotation from Jer. 31:31 ff., it means “fellow-citizen,” “compatriot,”
“neighbour,” so that πλησίον can be used instead in one part of the textual tradition, → 311 ff.
συμπολίτης, which is used figuratively in Eph. 2:19, might also have been used. In Ac. 21:39 Paul says
that he is Ταρσεύς, τῆς Κιλικίας οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλεως πολίτης, that he has citizenship in Tarsus. In the
other Lucan ref. the sense is much weaker. It is said of the prodigal son in Lk. 15:15: ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν
πολιτῶν τῆς χώρας ἐκείνης. πολίτης here means an “independent inhabitant” with his own property.
Similarly, in the parable of the pounds in Lk. 19:12 ff. the πολῖται as distinct from the δοῦλοι are
economically and personally “independent inhabitants.” In relation to the ἄνθρωπος εὐγενής they are in
a sense fellow-citizens. But they are not citizens in the Greek sense, since, being under a king, they do
not have any share in κρίσις and ἀρχή, → n. 37. The use of the term thus remains within the confines of
the everyday.
2. The verb πολιτεύομαι occurs only in Ac. 23:1 and Phil. 1:27. In the former Paul declares to the
assembled Sanhedrin in Jerusalem: ἐγὼ πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ πεπολίτευμαι τῷ θεῷ ἄχρι ταύτης τῆς
ἡμέρας. In the latter he admonishes the Philipplans: ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε.
Neither here nor in Ac. 23:1 does the word contain any reference to life in society as such. In both cases
it is used with no political implications of the “walk,” of a walk which is shaped by religion. The usage
43
of Hellenistic Judaism, which is first attested in Maccabees, is thus adopted, → 526, 34 ff. In this way it
came to have an established place in Christian literature.82
3. πολιτεία, too, occurs only twice in the NT. Characteristically it is not used in an abstract sense of
the state or constitution, for the NT has no interest in theories,83 but only in the concrete sense of “civil
rights,” whether meant literally or figuratively. It is used for Roman citizenship in Ac. 22:28. Paul
appeals to the fact that he is an ἄνθρωπος Ῥωμαῖος (a Roman citizen) in order to avoid the threatened
examination by scourging. His statement is the more impressive because he did not buy citizenship like
the tribune of the Antonia guard but inherited it from his father.84 πολιτεία is also used in Eph. 2:12,
which says of the readers that during their pagan period they had been ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας
τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Here the
expression πολιτεία τοῦ Ἰσραήλ does not refer to the state of Israel, which had not existed for a long
time and membership of which the Greeks of Asia can hardly have thought worth seeking. Nor can it
refer to citizenship in the literal sense, since Christian status would be no true counterpart to this. It is
rather used in the figurative sense of the privileged religious position of Israel as the recipient of the
promise. Once excluded from the promise, the readers also now have access to the Father through
Christ.85 They are now no longer ξένοι and πάροικοι but συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων. They share the spiritual
citizenship which belongs to the ἅγιοι, the believers of Israel. They have access to God. They have
become members of God’s household and partake of salvation, 2:19.
4. Finally πολίτευμα occurs in the NT only in Phil. 3:20. The readers are admonished to take Paul as
an example in their walk. The walk of the τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες is the opposite. ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα
ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: The commonwealth to
which Christians belong, their “homeland,” is in heaven. Hence τὰ ἐπίγεια are neither normative nor
attractive for them. Here, as 1 Pt. 2:11 says on the basis of ψ 38:13, they are only πάροικοι καὶ
παρεπίδημοι, with no rights of domicile. They are not citizens rooted here in nature, thought and
interests. Exposition, then, is not to be based on the usage which employed πολιτεύματα for foreign
colonies outside the mother country with certain specified rights. If so, the Christian community would
be a heavenly πολίτευμα in the world. What we have here is rather a figurative use of the term in the
sense of state or commonwealth and with a view to describing the fact that Christians are inwardly
foreigners, not specifically in relation to the earthly state, which is not mentioned at all in the context,
but very generally in relation to the earthly sphere. More positively, the word is used to describe their
membership of the heavenly kingdom of Christ, to which they belong as it were by constitutional right.
The βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν is the πολίτευμα of Christians.86
D.
The Post-Apostolic Fathers.
The usage of the post-apostolic fathers follows closely that of the NT. None of the words in question
gives evidence of any political interest. πόλις is simply a town. Sometimes the word is used in the sense of
Phil. 3:20 for the heavenly world, and as the ἰδία πόλις of the Christian it is contrasted with the temporal
world, Herm.s., 1, 1, 1–6. πολῖται are the inhabitants, sometimes natives as distinct from ξένοι, Dg., 5, 5.
πολιτεία means “conduct,” “walk,” e.g., ἀνεπίληπτος πολιτεία, Mart.Pol., 17, 1. πολιτεύομαι can sometimes
mean “to be a citizen,” “to be a national” (Christians dwell on earth but ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται, Dg., 5, 9),
but in the main it simply means “to walk.” There is an echo of the original constitutional sense when it is said
fig. that God ἐν οὐρανοῖς πολιτεύεται (“rules in heaven”) while the Christian is still a pilgrim on earth, Dg.,
10, 7. The phrase in 1 Cl., 54, 4: πολιτεύεσθαι τὴν ἀμεταμέλητον πολιτείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, is best transl.: “to
conduct oneself in one’s walk as a citizen of God, which will never give occasion for remorse.”
Strathmann
✪
πόλις, Ep. also πτόλις (found sts. in Trag. etc., v. πτόλις), ἡ: Ep. forms, acc. sg. πόληα Hes.Sc.105,
Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.62; gen. πόλιος or πτόλιος, Il.2.811, 4.514, al., πόληος 16.395, al. (also Thgn.757),
πόλεος Il.21.567; dat. πόλει 5.686, al., πτόλεϊ 17.152, πόληϊ 3.50 (also Tyrt.12.15): pl., nom. πόλιες
Od.15.412, πόληες Il.4.45; gen. πολίων 1.125, al.; dat. πολίεσσι Od.21.252; acc. πόλεις Il.2.648, al.,
44
πόληας Od.17.486, Call.Fr.9.70 P. (scanned IG12.826), πόλιας (disyll.) Od.8.560, 574, (trisyll.) Il.4.308
(s.v.l., πόλεας Aristarch.): Ion. forms, gen. πόλεως IG12(8).356 (Thasos), GDI5653 a 13 (Chios), etc.,
also Xenoph.2.9, 22, v.l. in Thgn.1043; written πόλειως GDI5532.19 (Zeleia); πόλεος ib. 5339.41
(Orop.), IG12(7).103 (Amorgos), Thgn.776, etc., πόλιος Hdt.1.26, al., Herod.2.8, al., πόληος Thgn. (v.
supr.), cj. in Hippon.47, cf. An.Ox.1.361; Thess. πόλλιος BCH59.37 (disyll., Crannon), dat. mostly
πόλει, but πόλῑ Hdt.2.60, al., πόληϊ (or -ῃ) SIG169.3 (Iasos, iv B.C.): pl., usu. πόλεις, πόλεων, πόλεσι, but
in Hdt. πόλιες 1.142, al., πολίων ib. 6, al., πόλισι ib. 151, al.; acc. πόλῑς 2.177, al., πόλιας 1.142, 2.102,
al.: Dor. gen. sg. πόλιος SIG615.3 (Delph., ii B.C.); dat. sg. πόλι IG4.839 (Calaurea, iv B.C.); dat. pl.
πολίεσι Pi.P.7.8; πολίεσσι Foed.Lac.Aap.Th.5.77 (v.l. πολίεσι), 79, IG42(1).74.4 (Epid., iii B.C.); Cret.
πόλιθι GDI5019.3: Aeol. gen. πόλιος IG12(2).526 a 8 (πόληος is an Epicism in Alc.Supp.17.6); gen. pl.
πολίων IG11(4).1064 b 20; dat. pl. πολίεσσι ib. 12.(2).1.6: Trag., gen. πόλεως disyll. (as also in Com.,
exc. Ar.Eq.763), thrice πόλεος A.Ag.1167 (lyr.), S.Ant.162, E.Or.897:—Att.Inscrr. earlier than 350 B.C.
sts. have dat. sg. πόλῃ, IG12.108.35, 22.17.10, 42.5, 53.7; Att. dual πόλη Isoc.8.116, πόλη or πόλει
Aeschin.Socr.8 (where Choerob. cites both forms, in Theod.1.314, 136 H.); gen. τοῖν πολέοιν Isoc.4.73:
Elean nom. sg. πόλερ Schwyzer425.16; gen. πόλιορ ib. 20 (iii/ii B.C.):—city, Hom. ll.cc. Hes.Sc.270,
etc.; π. ἄκρη, ἀκροτάτη, = ἀκρόπολις, the citadel, Il.6.88, 20.52; which at Athens also was in early times
called simply, π., while the rest of the city was called ἄστυ, καλεῖται .. ἡ ἀκρόπολις μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ὑπ᾽
Ἀθηναίων π. Th.2.15; ἐν πόλει in treaties, Id.5.23, 47, cf. IG12.372.1, Ar.Lys.245, 758; ἐς πόλιν
IG12.91.4; πρὸς πόλιν Ar.Lys.288 (lyr.); ἐκ πόλεως Id.Eq.1093; but ἐν τῇ πόλει X.An.7.1.27, dub. in
Antipho 6.39; so Ἰνάχου π. the citadel of Argos, E.Fr.228.6; of the Cadmea at Thebes, Plu.Pel.18, cf.
Str.8.6.8; of Alexandria, Eust.239.13; π. ἡ ἁγία, of Jerusalem, LXXNe.11.1: with the name of the city
added in gen., Ἰλίου π., Ἄργους π., the city of .., A.Ag.29, Ar.Eq.813; also in appos., ἡ Μένδη π.
Th.4.130; ἡ π. οἱ Ταρσοί X.An.1.2.26.
2. one’s city or country, πόθι τοι π. ἠδὲ τοκῆες; Od.1.170, etc., cf. πόλιν· τὴν χώραν, Hsch.
3. ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως city governor, OGI113.3, 134.2, al. (Cyprus, ii B.C.), Plb.5.39.3: without Art., ἐπὶ
πόλιος IG7.2809.2 (Hyettus, iii B.C.), etc.; ἐπὶ πόλεως ib. 299.1 (Oropus. iii B.C.); στρατηγὸς πόλεως
OGI743 (Ptol.); στρατηγὸς τῆς π. BGU729.1 (ii A.D.); στρατηγὸς κατὰ πόλιν, = Lat. praetor
urbanus, IG14.951.2 (Rome, i B.C.).
II. country, orig. as dependent on and called after its city, ἀνθρώπων οἳ τὴνδε π. καὶ γαῖαν ἔχουσιν
Od.6.177, cf. Hes.Sc.380, S.OC1533, etc.; esp. of islands peopled by men, Λῆμνον π. Θόαντος
Il.14.230; π. Αἴαντος, = Σαλαμίς, Pi.I.5(4).48, etc.; περιρρύτας π. A.Eu.77, cf. E.Ion294, Ar.Pax251 (v.
Sch.); also διώχληκε π. πολλὰς .., Σικελίαν, Ἰταλίαν, Πελοπόννησον, Θετταλίαν κτλ. Lys.6.6, cf.
Str.8.3.31, Αἴγυπτον καὶ Λιβύην τὼ πόλεε decr.ap.Crater.in Sch.T Il.14.230.
III. community or body of citizens (opp. ἄστυ, their dwellings, Il.17.144, but in δῆμός τε π. τε Od.11.14,
π. denotes the town), ὧν π. ἀνάριθμος ὄλλυται S.OT179 (lyr.): hence,
2. state or community, ξύμπασα π. κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀπηύρα Hes.Op.240, cf. Pi.P.2.88, S.OT22,
E.Ph.947, etc.; π. ἄνδρα διδάσκει Simon.67; esp. free state, republic, S.Ant.738 (cf. 734),
X.Cyr.8.2.28, Arist.Pol.1276a23; τὰ τῆς π. state affairs, government, Pl.Prt.319a; π. ἡ γενῶν καὶ
κωμῶν κοινωνία ζωῆς τελείας καὶ αὐτάρκους Arist.Pol.1280b40; τὴν π. φεύγειν shun one’s public
duties, D.45.66; assembly of citizens, Berl.Sitzb.1927.8 (Locr., v B.C.).
3. right of citizenship, Ar.Ra.718, D.21.106.
IV. πόλιν παίζειν, a game resembling backgammon, Cratin.56, perh. alluded to in Pl.R.422e. (Cf. Skt.
pūr, Lith. pili’s ‘fortress’.)
OIKOS - HOUSE
οἶκος* → οἰκία.
Contents: 1. General Greek and Hellenistic Usage. 2. “House” and “House of God” in the Old Testament. 3.
“House of God” in Jesus and the Gospels. 4. The Heavenly “Father’s House” in Gnosticism and Philo. 5.
45
Early Christian Sayings about the Earthly Temple, and Contacts with Oriental Symbolical Use. 6. “House of
God” as an Early Christian Image for the Community. 7. The Related Symbolism of Later Jewish Apocalyptic
and the Rabbinate. 8. “House” as Family and Race. 9. The “House” as a Group in the Structure of the
Christian Community.
1.
General Greek and Hellenistic Usage.
οἶκος (etym. stem ϝοῖκος, Sanskr. vêcͅas, Lat. vicus) means “house,” “dwelling.”1 The noun is common in
Gk. from the time of Hom.2 and is in current use, cf. Hom.Il., 15, 497 f.: ἀλλ᾽ ἄλοχός τε σόη καὶ παῖδες
ὀπίσσω, καὶ οἶκος καὶ κλῆρος ἀκήρατος. It can also denote the cave of Cyclops (Od., 9, 478) or the chamber
of Penelope (Od., 1,356; 19, 514 and 598). Sometimes specific houses are meant, e.g., a “temple” (Hdt., 8,
143: ἐνέπρησε τούς τε οἴκους καὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα), a “treasure-house,” a “palace,” even “graves” (Diod. S., 1,
51: τοὺς δὲ τῶν τετελευτηκότων τάφους ἀϊδίους οἴκους προσαγορεύουσιν, ὡς ἐν Ἅιδου διατελούντων τὸν
ἄπειρον αἰῶνα). Ditt. Syll.3, 987 tells of the Κλυτίδαι (φρατρία Χίων): Κλυτίδαις εἶναι ἐν τῷ τεμένει τῶν
Κηυτιδῶν οἶκον τεμένιον ἱερὸν οἰκοδομήσασθαι καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ κοινὰ ἐκ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν οἰκιῶν εἰς τὸν κοινὸν
οἶκον ἐνεγκεῖν, θυσαμένοις ἐκαλλιέρησεν (to sacrifice with favourable omens, to get favourable omens)
οἰκοδομήσασθαι καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ κοινὰ ἐκ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν οἰκιῶν εἰς τὸν κοινὸν οἶκον ἐνεγεῖν.3 Very often οἶκος
means a “temple”: ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ Ἂμμωνος (Wilcken Ptol., 79, 4), i.e., “house or temple of Ammon” (transl.
from the Egyptian ?); P. Oxy., XI, 1380, 2: τὴν ἐν τῷ Ἡφαίστου οἴκῳ, probably the main temple of
Hephaestus. It is a common Egyptian practice to call the temple the “house” of a deity.4 οἶκος βασιλέως is
found in Hdt., 5, 31; οἶκος κηρύκων, Ditt. Syll.2, 587, 24: ὁ Σεβαστὸς οἶκος, Ditt. Syll.3, 799, 10; ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ
Δεκελειῶν οἴκου, ibid., 921, 41. οἶκον ἱκάνεται occurs in Hom.Od., 23, 7 (cf. εἱς or πρὸς οἶκον, Aesch.Eum.,
459; Ag., 867). In the pap., too, οἶκος means “house,” “dwelling,” P. Amh., 54, 3: οἶκος καθειρημένος, ἧς
(read οὗ) οἱ τῖχοι περίεισιν, P. Oxy., XIV, 1755, 2: ἐρωτᾷ σε Ἀπίων δειπνῆσαι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Σαραπείου εἰς
κλείνην τοῦ κυρίου Σαράπιδος. οἱ ἐν οἴκῳ (P. Tebt.. 58, 63) are the household, cf. P. Lips., 104, 12; P. Gen.,
51, 35 (ἀσπάζομαί σε καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου); But οἶκος can also mean “domestic affairs,” “wealth,”
“possessions” (P. Lond., 1309, 3: ποιήσατε ἐπ᾽ ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν, “confiscated their whole
property”), also the “family” or “family property”: P. Ryl., 76, 10: κατ᾽ οἶκον εἶναι τὴν διαίρεσιν τῶν
κτημάτων καὶ μὴ κατὰ πρόσωπον, “division should be by families, not by heads.” οἶκος can also be the
“chest”: P. Tebt., 120, 53: καταλείπονται ἐν οἴκῳ δραχμαὶ χ == “there remain in the chest x drachmas.”
Sometimes we find the expression ἀπέχειν διὰ χειρὸς ἐξ οἴκου, which denotes payment from the chest at
home, not from the bank, cf. the examples in Preisigke Wört., 2, 16, 10 ff. οἶκος Καίσαρος, δεσποτικὸς οἶκος,
θεῖος οἶκος means the supervision of the goods of the imperial household, P. Lips., 96, 3; P. Strassb., 23, 75;
P. Lond., 234, 6; P. Masp., 2, 2; P. Soc., 196, 1; 197, 1: 238, 3. A striking sense is the astrological one, “the
station of the planets,” P. Oxy., 235, 8 etc.
2.
“House” and “House of God” in the Old Testament.
In the LXX οἶκος is mostly used for the Mas. ‫ּבַ יִ ת‬, e.g., Gn. 7:1; 12:1, 15, 17, though it is also the
rendering of other terms, e.g., ‫( אֹ הֶ ל‬Gn. 9:21, 27; 24:67), ‫( הֵ יכָׁל‬Da. 1:4), or ‫( לִ ְׁשּכָׁה‬Ἰερ. 43[36]:12, 20, 21).
It is a favourite LXX word.5 Fig. it can denote the “family,” “race” (e.g., Gn. 7:1). Hence the Heb. phrase
‫“( עָׁשָׁ הַבַ יִ ת‬to found a dynasty,” 2 S. 7:11; 1 K. 2:24) is rendered οἶκον οἰκοδομεῖν or ποιεῖν in the LXX.6
οἶκος θεοῦ is a fixed term for the sanctuary in the LXX; it is used for ‫ ּבֵ יתַאֱלהִ ים‬in Gn. 28:17 and for
‫ ּבֵ ית־אֵ ל‬in Gn. 28:19,7 and is quite common (Ju. 17:5; 18:31; 2 S. 12:20), cf. also οἶκος κυρίου (3 Βας. 5:14a;
6:1c). We also find other gen. constr., in biblical Gk., e.g., οἶκος δουλείας (Ex. 13:3, 14; Dt. 6:12); οἶκος τοῦ
δεσμωτηρίου (Ju. 16:21, 25). The expression “houses of high places” (‫ )ּבָׁ תֵ יַּבָׁ מֹות‬finds an equivalent in the
LXX: καὶ ἐποίησεν οἴκους ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλῶν (1 K. 12:31). For ‫ ִמ ְׁשפָׁחָׁ ה‬we find οἶκος πατριᾶς (Ex. 6:17, 19). The
rich use of οἶκος is strengthened by οἰκία, which can also represent the Heb. ‫ּבַ יִת‬.8 Prv. 9:1 refers to the house
which wisdom has built for itself: ἡ σοφία ᾠκοδόμησεν ἑαυτῇ οἶκον … Originally the text speaks fig. of the
way that Lady Wisdom has built her house and adorned it with seven pillars. Similarly Lady Folly sits at the
door of her house high in the street and entices in the honest traveller (9:14). This metaphor leads to the idea
of the house of wisdom, and the similar house of the Torah: “Acc. to the judgment of their fellows, who sit
with the scorners, they will be judged, for they have preached revolt against the statutes and have despised the
covenant which they have established in the land of Damascus—this is the new covenant—and neither they
46
nor their kin shall have a portion in the house of the Torah” (Damasc., 20, 11–13). Is the “house of the Torah”
here a term for the community itself? Unique, too, is Damasc., 3, 18 ff.: “But God … remitted their guilt and
took away their sin, and he built for them a permanent house (‫ )דיתַנאמן‬in Israel.” The expression
“permanent house” is obviously metaphorical, but it carries an allusion to 1 S. 2:35; 2 S. 7:16; 1 K. 11:38. In
the Damasc. teaching there was obviously a specific use of “house,” “house of the Torah,” “permanent
house.” Apocalyptic speaks similarly: “And then will the righteous and elect cause to appear the house of his
congregation” (En. 53:15). This is obviously connected in some way with the NT understanding of the
community as the “house of God” (Hb. 3:1–6).
3. “House of God” in Jesus and the Gospels.
In the NT, too, we find both οἶκος and οἰκία; the gen. τοῦ θεοῦ is usually linked with οἶκος, not οἰκία
(though cf. Jn. 14:2: ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου). As in the LXX, οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ is used in honour of
the earthly sanctuary of Israel. No other sacred or ecclesiastical structure is called by this term in the NT
sphere. But the Christian community itself is the → ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, the οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ (Hb. 3:6; 1 Pt.
4:17; 1 Tm. 3:15) and the οἶκος πνευματικός (1 Pt. 2:5). It may be supposed that this usage was common
to primitive Christianity and became a permanent part of the preaching tradition.
In the Synoptists we find οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ in Mk. 2:26 and par. Jesus is here alluding to the story of
David’s meeting with the priest Ahimelech in Nob (1 S. 21:1–10). It is true that the OT narrative itself does
not refer to an οἶκος τοῦ θεους in Nob, but the NT adds other features too.9 In another tradition Jesus at the
cleansing of the temple taught: “Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?
but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Mk. 11:17 and par.). Jesus is alluding primarily to Is. 56:7 (LXX: ὁ γὰρ
οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν).10 The term “house of prayer” is attested
elsewhere for the temple (Is. 56:7; 60:7 LXX; cf. 1 K. 8:29); it also seems to have been used for Jewish
synagogues.11 Lohmeyer comments on the special significance of Mk. 11:17: “(The temple) is the ‘house of
God’ and is thus holy in all its parts and chambers. But this general description is not based on the fact that a
holy offering is continually made there or priests discharge a holy ministry. It is due to the fact that this is a
‘place of prayer’ where each of the righteous can and should pray to God. Plainly to be seen here is the view
of the Galilean layman who works and lives far from the cultic centre of the Jewish faith, and venerates the
temple merely as the chief synagogue; for ‘house of prayer’ is a fixed expression for the synagogue of the
Jewish congregations. Also to be seen is the ancient prophetic antithesis between prayer and sacrifice,
between a godly and pious life and sacred ministry. But the view is first given its strict significance by the
final definition: ‘of all nations.’ In the ‘forecourt of the nations,’ as one might interpret it, the peoples, let
alone ‘the people,’ must not buy and sell, but ‘all nations’ must ‘worship’ there.”12 In Jn. 2:16 the rebuke of
Jesus runs: “Take these things hence; make not my Pather’s house an house of merchandise.” This form, too,
seems to have arisen out of the situation, but it recalls the prophecy in Zech. 14:21: καὶ οὐκ ἔσται Χαναναῖος
οὐκέτι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ κυρίου παρτοκράτορος ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. Jn. himself refers to Ψ 68(69):9: ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ
οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με. Jn. does not mean that Jesus is consumed by inner zeal for His Pather’s house, but
that His zeal will lead Him to death (hence fur. καταφάγεταί με, cf. Ψ 68:9 in R. 15:3).13
Jesus often spoke of “my Pather’s house.” Sometimes He had in view the earthly temple (Lk. 2:49:
τὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, Jn. 2:16: ὁ οἶκος τοῦ πατρός μου), sometimes the heavenly home (Jn. 14:2: ἡ οἰκία
τοῦ πατρός μου). In Jn.’s imagery the “house” can imply God’s kingdom (8:35).14
4. The Heavenly “Father’s House” in Gnosticism and Philo.
Gnosticism, too, is fond of the picture of the “dwelling” or “house.” In Mandaean writings we often find
the address: “To you I say and declare, you elect and perfect, who dwell in the world.”15 The world itself is a
“dwelling” or “house,” though “lower,” “dark” and “perishable,” and differentiated from the house of
consummation. ‫ )דיתא(ַבאיתא‬is often used in Mandaean writings for the cosmic structure,16 though the
same metaphor is found among the Persians.17 Typically Mandaean is Lidz. Ginza, 499 f.: “When Adam
heard this (the words of the helper, the uthra), he no longer asked concerning the transitory. He no longer
asked concerning those who built the perishable house; he endured and dwellt therein. But soon he flew
upwards and came to his place, the place whence he had been made, the place whence he was made and
where his figure was illumined. Adam rejoiced in his mind, he brightened in his mind: How wonderful is
what my father has said to me, how wonderful what the great life has taught me. Go, go, you planets, be a
47
portion of your own houses. Go, be a portion of your own houses, and your houses be your portion! I rise up
with the root of my father, while the house is left to you.” The believer, too, is admonished to keep in mind
his otherworldly origin: “You were not from here, your root was not from this world. The house in which you
dwell, this house life has not built.”18 The elect are promised: “You will shine in the house of your Father as
the uthras of light shine at the place of light.”19 There is longing for the Father’s house: “When will I put off
the bodily garment and go to the place of life, to the place of the house of good, to the world in which my
house stands? I will set forth and go to my Father’s house, I will not return to my house here.”20
Metaphorically Philo also (Som., 1, 256) can sometimes speak of the return of the soul to the Father’s
house (εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον) to flee the long and unceasing storm abroad. As it was possible for paganism
to speak of a “house of God” (οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ, the house of Aphrodite, Herond.Mim., 1, 26) or “house of the
gods” (οἶκος τῶν θεῶν, W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, Inscr. of Cos [1891], No. 8, 4), so in later Judaism οἶκος
τοῦ θεοῦ remained in use as a name for the temple in Jerusalem (Jos.Bell., 4, 281).21 Philo likes to spiritualise
this as he does ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and to apply it to the individual soul: “Hasten, my soul, to become God’s
house, a holy sanctuary, the most beautiful abode. For perhaps you also will acquire as master of the house
the master whom the whole world has, and who is concerned for his house that it should always be kept safe
and undamaged” (Som., 1, 149). Even plainer is Sobr., 62–64: “It must be considered, however, who is to
dwell in the house of Shem after this blessing; for Holy Scripture does not tell us precisely. One can only say:
the Governor of the universe. Is there then to be found in creation a more worthy house for God than a soul
which is perfectly purified and which regards only the morally beautiful as a good, but counts everything else
which is held to be such only among satellites and subjects? But God’s dwelling in a house is not meant in a
spatial sense—He embraces all things while embraced by none—but in the sense that He lavishes special care
and protection on this place; to every owner of a house there necessarily attaches concern for it. Hence may
everyone upon whom God has poured love for Him as a good pray to God that he may acquire as a resident
the ruler of the world who will raise this paltry building (τὸ βραχὺ τοῦτο οἰκοδόμημα), the soul, from earth up
aloft, and bind it to the ends of heaven.” Widespread in Hell. and Gnostic literature is the movement of
thought from building to builder, work of art to artist, creation to God. In this sense Philo, too, can compare
the cosmos with a house (οἰκία) or city (πόλις). Thus, in order that a house or city may be built, one asks what
must be assembled. A builder, stone, wood and tools are needed. What is the builder (δημιουρψός) but the
author by whom the building is erected? What are stone and wood but the materials from which it is made?
What are the tools but the things by which it is constructed? But for what purpose is the building put up if not
for shelter and protection? Now turn from individual buildings and consider the great dwelling or city, this
world (ἴδε τὴν μεγίστην οἰκίαν ἢ πόλιν, τόνδε τὸν κόσμον). You will recognise as its author God, by whom it
is built, as the material the four elements, from which it is made, as the tool God’s reason. through which it
was constructed, and as the ground the goodness of the Creator (τῆς δὲ κατασκευῆς αἰτίαν τὴν ἀγαθότητα τοῦ
δημιουργοῦ). Cf. PhiloCher., 126 f., also Leg., 3, 99: the same comparison of the cosmos with a house or
city.22 Philo can sometimes quote a philosophical view of life acc. to which the body is the “house” of the soul
(οὐκ οἰκία ψυχῆς τὸ σῶμα; Det. Pot. Ins., 33). But for him the soul, too, can be a house which lodges holy and
pious thoughts (Conf. Ling., 27) or which receives the logos itself (Deu. Imm., 135). In such cases the term
οἰκία is either metaphorical or it comes from another exegetical context in the OT (e.g., Leg. All., 3, 1–3).23
5. Early Christian Sayings about the Earthly Temple, and Contacts with Oriental Symbolical Use.
According to Lk. 11:51 the priest Zacharias was struck down by a godless mob in the temple itself,
between the temple house or entrance (Lk. οἶκος, perhaps ‫ אּולָׁם‬and the altar of burnt offering.24 In
Stephen’s speech in Ac. 7:2 ff. we find a distinction between the tabernacle (σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου) and
Solomon’s temple (οἶκος). David received permission to build for the house of Jacob a dwellingplace
(σκήνωμα) for God, but Solomon built Him a house (οἶκος). God does not dwell in the works of men’s
hands (7:48); what house will you build for me? (7:49). In accordance with the present form of the text
one might ask whether the tabernacle and the dwelling-place of David’s prayer (σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου,
σκήνωμα) are pleasing to God (cf. Hb. 8:2) while the house (οἶκος) is the occasion of false conceptions,
or whether σκήνωμα and οἶκος finally amount to the same and are equally unobjectionable so long as 1
K. 8:27; 2 Ch. 6:18 (God’s transcendence over space) are not forgotten.25 It may be suspected that a
radical antithesis is concealed behind the text (ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ), with an
appeal to Is. 66:1.26 Distinctive is the prophetic threat of Jesus in Mt. 23:38: “Behold, your house will be
48
left unto you desolate.” At a first glance it might appear that the “house” (ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν) refers to the
temple at Jerusalem,27 but it is not impossible that in accordance with prophetic and apocalyptic usage
(En. 89:50ff.; Test. L. 10) the city and people themselves are rushing onward to destruction.
Metaphorical, but linguistically not unusual, is the use in Mt. 12:44; Lk. 11:24. The unclean spirit which
has gone out of a man wanders through dry places, and, finding no rest, says: “I will return to my house from
which I went out,” and when he comes he finds it empty, swept and garnished. That demons pursue their
unnatural activities in shrines and houses finds attestation also in Babylonian and later Jewish texts: the sick
man is the “house” of the evil spirit.28
6. “House of God” as an Early Christian Image for the Community.
In a midrash on Nu. 12:7 LXX: οὐχ οὕτως ὁ θεράπων μου Μωυσῆς· ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός
ἐστιν, Hb. 3:1–6 shows that Moses was a faithful servant in the whole house of God but that Christ as
the Son has been set over the house of God (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, 3:2, 6; 10:21: ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ
θεοῦ). In the OT “my house” refers to Israel itself, so that the NT exegesis reminds us of the equation of
“house of God” and the community. Indeed, the midrash presupposes theologically that the community
is the “house of God.”29 According to Hb. 3:3 the glory of Moses the servant stands in the same relation
to that of Christ the Son as does the glory of the building to that of the builder. It is on the basis, not of
the OT text itself, but of Hellenistic tradition, which likes to link the house with the builder, that the
comparison between Moses and Christ is developed along these lines (3:2). κατασκευάζειν might very
well be taken as a verb in the sense “to erect a building.”30 Christ in His dignity as the Son (υἱός) and
Lord (κύριος) is thus the builder of the OT community of God (οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:3). As the Son He is
set over the house (3:6), and we cannot boast of being God’s house unless we keep the confidence and
boasting of our hope firm to the end (3:6). This train of thought shows on the one side that the equation
of community and God’s house is made quite naturally, and on the other side how developed is the
Christology of Hb. The idea that the community is God’s house is obviously related to, and grows out
of, the early proclamation that the community is God’s temple (1 C. 3:16; 6:19). Here, too, it may be
plainly seen that the NT is not, like Philo, espousing an individualistic piety in which the pure soul of
the individual becomes God’s house. In the NT it is the community as such which is first called God’s
house or temple. In Eph. and 1 Pt. the early motif of the spiritual temple is taken up and expounded
along basically similar lines: “You are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, in whom Jesus Christ is the head of the corner; in him
you are built up to be a dwelling-place of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:19–22). “Come to him (Christ), the
living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, and build up yourselves as living
stones to be a spiritually wrought house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices which are
acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ” (1 Pt. 2:3 ff.). How natural the term is as thus applied to the
community may be seen from 1 Pt. 4:17: “For it is time that judgment begin at the house of God,” and 1
Tm. 3:15: “In case my coming is delayed, you should know what should be the order in the house of
God, that is, in the church of the living God, which is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” One may well say
that this traditional material is an integral part of the primitive Christian κήρυγμα. The motif of the οἶκος
τοῦ θεοῦ is referred to the community, yet it is not really a metaphor for the familia dei, but οἶκος
remains an actual house, a spiritual, supraterrestrial, divine, and heavenly structure. This οἶκος
πνευματικός is contrasted with the stone temple in Jerusalem and the sanctuaries of paganism. Christ is
the living stone (1 Pt. 2:4: λίθος ζῶν) who is on the one side the valuable cornerstone underlying the
whole building (Is. 28:16; Ps. 118:22; Mk. 12:10) and yet on the other the stone of stumbling and rock
of offence (Is. 8:14; R. 9:33). Christians are fitted into the building as living stones (λίθοι ζῶντες, 1 Pt.
2:4 f.; Eph. 2:22); indeed, the metaphor can then change and on an OT basis embrace the priesthood as
well as the sanctified people (1 Pt. 2:5, 9; Hb. 13:15 f.). The series of concepts: heavenly temple, holy
priesthood, acceptable sacrifices, fuses and intermingles, though the roots are different and there is no
material unity.31 The saying in 1 Pt. 4:17 takes up an ancient prophetic idea (Jer. 25[32]:29; Ez. 9:6),
namely, that the divine plagues and judgments will smite the sanctuary and the city first to purify and
sanctify them; they are thus part of the eschatological plan.32 The admonition in 1 Tm. 3:15 obviously
49
seeks to express a fixed catechetical truth, namely, that the Church is the house of God, the support and
stronghold of truth. Though οἶκος can be used in the Greek world not only for a place of meeting but
also for a religious society,33 this verse suggests primarily the spiritual structure, which then attracts
further images to itself (στῦλος, ἑδραίωμα). The Church is the house of God, the pillar, the bastion,
because the Spirit dwells within it, revelation is committed to it, and the tradition is proclaimed by it.34
7. The Related Symbolism of Later Jewish Apocalyptic and the Rabbinate.
The concept of “house” is also fairly common in later Jewish lit. It is a common metaphor in the historical
allegories in En. 83–90, with the special sense of sanctuary. Thus En. 89:36 refers to the tabernacle: “I saw in
this vision until each sheep became a man and the lord of the sheep built a house and caused all the sheep to
enter into the house.” The sheep come to a good place and a pleasant and glorious land, “and that house stood
among them in the pleasant land” (89:40). Sometimes the house can also be Jerusalem, and the tower the
temple: “But that house became big and broad, and a high and tall tower was built for those sheep. That house
was lowly, but the tower was high and lofty, and the lord of the sheep stood on the tower, and there was set
before him a full table” (89:50). “But the sheep fell away and beasts of prey came upon them, so that the lord
of the sheep left their house and their tower, and gave them all up to the lions to tear them to pieces”
(89:56).35 “The lions and tigers ate and consumed the greater part of the sheep, and wild boars ate with them,
and they set the tower on fire and destroyed that house” (89:66). Then three sheep came back and began to
build up again the ruins of the house (89:72).36 A tower was also erected and a table set before the tower, “but
all the bread was spotted and unclean” (89:73). Then the new Jerusalem was put in place of the old: “I stood
up to see until he folded up that house. All the pillars were dismantled and the beams and decorations were
wrapped up with it. It was taken away and set in a place in the south of the land. I saw until the lord of the
sheep brought a new house, bigger and higher than the first, and set it up on the site of the first, which had
been folded up. All its pillars were new, even its decorations were new and greater than those of the first and
old house which he had dismantled; and the lord of the sheep was in it” (90:28f.). Here the concept of the new
house is related to the heavenly Jerusalem in which all the slain and scattered sheep appear (90:32). The
sword which was entrusted to the sheep is laid up in this house (90:19, 34). All the sheep were invited into
this house, but it did not hold them, though it was big and roomy (90:34).37 Tob., too, speaks of the
destruction and rebuilding of the house of God (14:4f.). As the text stands, it seems as if Jerusalem and the
temple were to lie waste until the times of the aeon were fulfilled; only then would come the return from
captivity and the building up of Jerusalem.38 Here, then, there is expected a temple in glory which is ordained
for all peoples. Test. L. 10:5 makes express appeal to En. 89:50ff.: “For the house which the Lord will choose
for himself will be called Jerusalem, as the Book of Enoch the Just has it.” In Rabb. teaching a sevenfold
heaven arches over the earth; the highest heaven is called Araboth and is the dwelling of God, the righteous,
and the angels which serve the Lord (Chag., 12b). Ref. is thus made to a special dwelling of God in the
highest sphere of heaven; cf. the idea of the Mechiza (‫) ְׁמחִ יצָׁ ה‬, BB, 98a.39 A curtain conceals the dwelling,
the throne and the glory of God, and makes the dwelling of God inaccessible, but the righteous dead always
approach and ministerlag angels do so at command, and hear the voice of God behind the curtain, though they
do not see God Himself face to face. Acc. to Chag., 5b the dwelling of God is differentiated as an “inner
chamber” (‫ )בתיַגואי‬from the “outer chamber” of heaven (‫)בתיַבראי‬. Both parts are together called “His
place.”40 In Heb. En. we have an express description of the heavenly household, the upper court of judgment,
and the most important angelic powers. Here, too, there is division into seven spheres, of which the highest is
Araboth. A named angelic power is set over each (16:1).41
8. “House” as Family and Race.
Distinctive Hebrew modes of expression explain the fairly common NT phrase “house of Israel” ==
οἶκος Ἰσραήλ, Mt. 10:6; 15:24; Ac. 2:36; Hb. 8:8, 10. It derives from ‫ּבֵ יתַיִ ְׁש ָׁראֵ ל‬, Ex. 16:31; 2 S. 1:12
(also without art. in the LXX at 3 Βας. 12:21; ψ 113:17). On an OT basis the “house of David” (οἶκος
Δαυίδ) is also used in Lk. 1:27, 69; 2:4. What is meant is the royal race (gens) of David. The term occurs
especially in the story of the nativity (cf. 1 S. 20:16; 1 K. 12:16; 13:2). Two OT quotations speak of the
“house of Jacob” (οἶκος Ἰακώβ) in Lk. 1:33 and Ac. 7:46. The reference is to the whole people of Israel.
Another quotation (from Jer. 31:31 ff.) gives us the “house of Judah” (οἶκος Ἰούδα), which is in the first
instance historical and speaks of the political disruption of the people (note “house of Israel” and “house
50
of Judah” in Jer. 31:31), but which seems to be parallel to “house of Israel” in the NT (Hb. 8:8 ff.). The
statement: “Pharaoh made him (Joseph) governor over Egypt and all his house,” is also reminiscent of
the OT (Ac. 7:10; cf. ψ 104:21).
All these expressions remind us of basic OT ideas. The natio, gens, or familia has an ancestor or leader
from whom the whole group receives its name and after whom it calls itself. Originally the proper name is a
gen. behind οἶκος, but it then becomes the name of the group as such.
9. The “House” as a Group in the Structure of the Christian Community.
Primitive Christianity structured its congregations in families, groups and “houses.” The house was
both a fellowship and a place of meeting. Thus we read of the house of Stephanas in 1 C. 1:16, the house
of Philemon in Phlm. 2, the house of Cornelius in Ac. 11:14, the house of Lydia in Ac. 16:15, the house
of the prison governor at Philippi in Ac. 16:31, 34. Ac. 18:8 also refers to the faith of Crispus and his
whole house. It is also likely that the house of Onesiphorus in 2 Tm. 1:16: 4:19 is a house fellowship of
this kind. In this regard we read expressly in Ac. 2:46 that they broke bread by house (κατ᾽ οἶκον), and
the summary in Ac. 5:42 says that they taught and proclaimed the good news in the temple and in houses
(κατ᾽ οἶκον). It is explicitly emphasised that the conversion of a man leads his whole family to the faith;
this would include wife, children, servants and relatives living in the house.42 The use of οἶκος for
“house,” “family,” is found elsewhere in primitive Christianity. This is especially evident in the fact that
Christian life is lived in this kind of “house.” One has only to think of the directions in the Past. The
bishop must rule his own house well (1 Tm. 3:4), for if he cannot do this, how can he take care of the
whole congregation (1 Tm. 3:5)? Deacons, too, should take good care of their children and houses (1
Tm. 3:12).43 Hence it is no surprise that Tt. 1:11 complains of false teachers leading whole houses astray
and ruining them, while 2 Tm. 1:16 and 4:19 stress the particular relation of the house of Onesiphorus to
the imprisoned apostle. The house and family are the smallest natural groups in the total structure of the
congregation. There is an interesting observation in Ac. 20:20: “And how I kept back nothing that was
profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house
(δημοσίᾳ καὶ κατ᾽ οἴκους).” Along with public preaching the apostle also gave instruction in the house
meetings of the community.
We find the same state of affairs and the same usage in the post-apost. writings. There is an interesting
ref. in Ign.Sm., 13, 1: “I greet the houses of my brothers with wives and children, also the virgins, who are
called ‘widows.’ ” The virgins here are outside the houses of the brothers, and are perhaps not directly
connected with them. In Pol., 8, 2 the bishop greets the widow of Epitropos “with her whole house and
children”; here the wife is head of the household. Herm. likes to use οἶκος for “family.”44 It is striking that
children are specifically mentioned in the post-apost. writings; they are not just included in the οἶκος.
ὀκία → οἶκος.
Originally Gk. distinguished between οἶκος and οἰκία, cf. Xenoph.Oec., 1, 5: οἶκος δὲ δὴ τί δοκεῖ ἡμῖν
εἶναι; ἆρα ὅπερ οἰκία, ἢ καὶ ὅσα τις ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας κέκτηται, πάντα τοῦ οἴκου ταῦτά ἐστιν, Hdt., 7, 224: ὃς
καὶ ἐκδιδοὺς τὴν θυγατέρα Δαρείῳ τὸν οἶκον πάντα τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἐπέδωκε. οἶκος had then a broader range than
οἰκία, being the whole of a deceased person’s possessions, what he leaves behind, whereas οἰκία is simply his
residence. οἰκία occurs from the time of Hdt. (1, 17; 114 etc.) and is in common currency, also inscr, and pap.
Ditt. Syll.3, 306, 16: τᾶν δὲ οἰκιᾶν τιμὰν κομιξέσθω τῶ οἴκω ἑκάστω δύο μνᾶς, τὰν δὲ τιμασίαν ἦναι τᾶν
οἰκιᾶν κατάπερ ἁ πόλις νομίζει. In other places, too, οἶκος is sometimes distinguished from it, P. Tebt., I, 16,
9.1 In the LXX οἰκία is used for ‫ ּבַ יִת אֹ הֶ ל‬etc., but in the same sense as οἶκος.
In the NT οἰκία is used 1. lit. for “house” (Mt. 5:15; 7:24 ff.; 10:12a etc.), then fig. for “family,”
“household” (Mt. 10:12b; 12:25; Mk. 6:4). Worth noting is the precedence given it in Mk. 10:29 f. and
par.: ὃς ἀφῆκεν οἰκίαν ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ μητέρα ἢ πατέρα ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγρούς. It is not impossible
that the first and last in the series (οἰκία-ἀγροί) include the other members, though οἰκία could also mean
the “household” or familia.
At Mt. 24:17: ἆραι τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ, it is probable that a later reading has ousted the original text:
ἆραί τι ἐκ τῆς οἰκιας αὐτοῦ (DQ lat Ir Or, cf. Mk. 13:15).2
51
οἰκία can also mean “possession” (== τὰ ὑπάρχοντα), as shown by a striking expression which is not
uncommon in Gk., namely, κατεσθίειν τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν (Mk. 12:40 and par.).3 In Mk. 13:35 we
find ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας, equivalent to ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης in Mt. 24:43. οἰκία can also be used fig. Thus the
independent parabolic saying in Jn. 8:35 tells us that the servant does not stay in the house eternally, but
the son does. It could be that there is a mysterious reference to the kingdom of God in the ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ.4
According to Mk. 3:24 f. βασιλεία and οἰκία are associated, and in Mt. 12:25, along with βασιλεία, we
have the favourite Hellenistic pair πόλις and οἰκία; the point is to show that a society cannot be inwardly
divided and hence Jesus cannot invade the kingdom of Satan with satanic power. The term οἰκία does
not refer to a ruling house, but simply to a family.5 Mk. 6:4 links three circles which deny recognition to
the prophet, his native city (πατρίς), kin (συγγενεῖς) and family (ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ).6
2. Distinctive is Jesus’ word of revelation in Jn. 14:2 f.: “In my Father’s house (οἰκία τοῦ πατρός
μου) are many dwellings (resting places). If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a
place for you? And when I have gone and prepared a place for you, I will come again and receive you to
myself, that where I am you may be also.” This saying, which would seem to have lost its original form,
is fairly isolated in the context, and is perhaps older than the sayings around it. The expression ἡ οἰκία
τοῦ πατρός μου reminds us of such parallels as the Rabb. mechiza and the Gnostic abode of light.7 As
the earthly temple is an asylum for fugitives, so the Father’s dwelling has places of rest for the afflicted
disciples of Jesus. The same apocalyptic tradition may be clearly seen in Eth. En. 45:3: “Your dwellings
will be without number.”
Acc. to Schlatter8 Jesus is referring to the ascension when He speaks of going away to prepare a place for
them, but the conducting of the disciples into God’s house will take place only at the parousia. The
expression οἰκία τοῦ πατρός cannot be seen in isolation from οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ and ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; hence it can
hardly be heaven in general.
3. New questions are raised by what Paul says in 2 C. 5:1–10. Here the metaphorical οἰκία τοῦ
σκήνους denotes first the corruptible body which we have on earth; its counterpart is οἰκοδομὴ ἐκ θεοῦ,
οἰκία ἀχειροποίητος, αἰώνιος, οἰκητήριον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ which denotes the future heavenly body.
The use of “house” fig. for the body is very common, and it can convey the idea of perishability. Thus Job
complains in 4:19: “And especially the man of a house of clay, mortal man, built of dust …” (τοὺς δὲ
κατοικοῦντας οἰκίας πηλίνας), cf. 1 Cl., 39, 5. In the Rabb. however, ‫ ּבַ יִ ת‬is not commonly used for the body,
though Ber., 44b might be an exception.9 The Lat. domus has rather a different ring in Sen. Epist. Moral., XX,
3, 14: nec domum esse hoc corpus, sed hospitium et quidem breve hospitium … Philo, on the other hand, is
not wholly pessimistic: “For God wished to assign to the virtuous man in reward a well-built house finely
appointed from foundation to roof— the body is indeed the house of the soul, which has grown up in close
association with it (οἰκία δὲ ψυχῆς συμφυεστάτη σῶμα), both with regard to many other things useful and
indispensable to life and also with regard to our spirit purged by perfect expiations” (Praem. Poen., 120). This
picture seems to have been familiar to Philo in this anthropological sense. But only in Gnosticism proper can
it really be worked out. Here the body is the abode of evils, “the abode in which the planets dwell.” The soul
mounts up to its original home and “curses this place of the house of thy guardians” (Lidz. Liturg., 160).
Paul shares to some degree this general idea, espoused especially by Gnosticism: οἰκία δὲ ψυχῆς
σῶμα. Related is 1 C. 6:19. The idea of the tent is only a modification of the general anthropological
conception, and denotes particularly the transitory nature of the earthly body. 10 2 Pt. 1:13 refers to a
σκήνωμα.
This image, too, was common in Hellenism, and is linked with a specific anthropological conception.
There is an early instance already in Is. 38:12: ἐξῆλθεν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὥσπερ ὁ καταλύων σκηνὴν
πήξας, though here σκηνή is only a simile. Cf., however, Wis. 9:15: φθαρτὸν γὰρ σῶμα βαρύνει ψυχήν, καὶ
βρίθει τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος νοῦν πολυφρόντιδα.11
4. According to Phil. 4:22 there are around Paul “slaves from the imperial palace” (οἱ ἐκ τῆς
Καίσαρος οἰκίας). This expression (domus Caesaris, Caesarum, Augusta, Augustana, Augustiana, later
divina) might mean the ruling family with all its members, but the more likely reference is to the staff of
52
the imperial household, both slaves and freedmen. Though the expression alone does not prove that Paul
wrote Phil. from Rome, when taken with other hints in the epistle it suggests a Roman origin. 12
Herm.s., 1, 1 f. and 8 f. demands Christian resolution and the renunciation of the earthly world. The
passage raises objections to Christian possessions in this world (lands, expensive establishments, houses,
perishable dwellings). He who possesses these earthly goods, and on account of them is expelled from the
heavenly city, cannot be happy about these earthly possessions (1, 4). “Thus, seek to win oppressed souls
instead of fields, each according to his abilities, visit widows and orphans and do not neglect them, and direct
all your riches and all your possessions which you have received from God to fields and houses of this kind”
(1, 8). The terms ἀγροί, παρατάξεις, οἰκοδομαί, οἰκήματα, οἰκήσεις, οἰκίαι are here depreciated and parodied;
we are to win fields and houses of another kind.
† οἰκεῖος.
(Adj., in Ion οἰκήϊος), from οἰκεύς, “member of the household,” “household slave.”1 Hence the basic
meaning of οἰκεῖος is “belonging or standing in relation to the household” [Debrunner]. The opp. is
ἀλλότριος. The word occurs as an adj. from Hes., Hdt., cf. also inscr., pap. and LXX. In the LXX we find
such expressions as οἰκεῖα σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (Lv. 18:6); οἰκεία πατρός or μητρός (Lv. 18:12 f.); γείτονες οἰκεῖοι
θεράποντες (Job 19:15 A); ὃς δὲ μισεῖ κρύπτειν, διίστησιν φίλους καὶ οἰκείους (Prv. 17:9); ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων
τοῦ σπέρματός σου οὐχ ἑπερόψῃ (Is. 58:7), cf. Barn., 3, 3. Epict.Gnom. Stob., 11: ὅπερ οὖν σοι φυσικὸν καὶ
συγγενές ὁ λόγος, τοῦτο καὶ οἰκεῖον ἡγησάμενος τούτου ἐπιμελοῦ. The meaning “belonging to the house”2 is
secondary; from it (cf. familiaris: 1. “pertaining to the family,” 2. “intimate,” “familiar”) comes οἰκεῖος
“fitting,” “suitable” [Debrunner], cf. Polyb., 5, 87, 3: οὐκ ἀλλότριος ἦν τῆς ἡσυχίας, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον
οἰκεῖος, 4, 57, 4: ἅτε λίαν οἰκείους ὄντας τῶν τοιούτων ἐγχειρημάτων, 14, 9, 5: πάντα δ᾽ ἦν οἰκεῖα μεταβολῆς
τὰ κατὰ τὴν χώραν, Diod. S., 13, 91: οἰκείους ὄντας ἀλιγαρχίας, 19, 70: ὡς ὄντας οἰκείους τυραννίδος,
Strabo, 1, 1, 11: οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας (cf. 1, 1, 20).
In the NT the adjective, partly used as a noun, is found in the Pauline corpus, and is obviously
controlled by the understanding of the community. This is the οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ in Hb. 3:1–6; hence
Christians are members of the household, the familia Dei Gl. 6:10 demands that good should be done to
all men, but chiefly to the household of faith (πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως). Understanding of the
“neighbour” recognises a particular obligation to fellow-believers.2 πίστις is here obviously objective as
elsewhere in Paul (cf. Gl. 3:2, 25). The gen. dependent on οἰκεῖος is not taken by Zahn in the strict sense
of “intimate with” but in the more general sense of a member of the household “with reference to, or in
the sense of, faith.”3 Eph. 2:19 has a solemn, almost liturgical ring: “Ye are no more strangers (ξένοι)
and foreigners (πάροικοι), but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God (οἰκεῖοι τοῦ
θεοῦ)”; here again the Hellenistic combination of οἶκος and πόλις is worth noting. The image of the
“house of God” (οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ), transferred spiritually to the community, is echoed here and developed
in what follows, 2:20–22. This circle of images is a common motif particularly beloved in primitive
Christianity. Closely related is the Gnostic conception of the heavenly building and the building up of
believers into it.4 The gen. is to be taken as a subj. gen.; Christians are members of the familia Dei Gl.
6:10 and Eph. 2:19 undoubtedly presuppose the concept and metaphor of a spiritual building. οἰκεῖος is
used in a very different and secular sense in 1 Tm. 5:8: “But if any provide not for his own (οἱ ἴδιοι), and
specially for those of his own house (μάλιστα τῶν οἰκείων) …” We have here the didactic style of legal
exposition (εἰ δέ τις …) and ethical admonition, which lends the support of a divine command to a
general moral norm. It is interesting that the term ἴδιοι is broader here, while οἰκεῖοι is taken more
narrowly.5
† οἰκέω.
This word, linked with οἶκος and οἰκία, can mean intrans. “to dwell,” “to live” (from Hom., also inscr.
and pap., cf. Hom.Il., 14, 116; Od., 9, 200, 400; Hdt., 1, 56; 2, 166), and also trans. “to inhabit,” “to take as
one’s abode” (Hom.Il., 20, 218; Hdt., 1, 1 and 175).1 In the LXX it is often used for ‫יָׁשב‬. οἰκεῖν μετά τινος
means “to live with a woman,” cf. Soph.Oed. Tyr., 990: Μερόπης, γεραιέ, Πόλυβος ἧς ᾤκει μέτα. Cf. also 1
C. 7:12: καὶ αὕτη συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, and 7:13: καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτῆς. In a
general sense Dg., 6, 3b can say of Christians: καὶ Χριστιανοὶ ἐν κόσμῳ οἰκοῦσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου
53
(cf. Jn. 17:11, 14), or 5, 5: πατρίδας οἰκοῦσιν ἰδίας ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πάροικοι· μετέχουσι πάντων ὡς πολῖται, καὶ πάνθ᾽
ὑπομένουσιν ὡς ξένοι (note that the stems οἶκος and πόλις are again used together).
More important, however, is the fact that οἰκεῖν is used to describe inward psychological and
spiritual processes. Thus Dg., 6, 3a can say metaphorically: οἰκεῖ μὲν ἐν τῷ σώματι ψυχή, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἐκ
τοῦ σώματος … (as the soul lives in the body, but does not derive from the body, so is the relation of
Christians in the world). Similarly we read in R. 7:18: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)
dwelleth no good thing” (οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί … ἀγαθόν), and 7:20 goes on to say that sin dwells in me (ἡ
οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία). The dwelling of sin in man denotes its dominion over him, its lasting
connection with his flesh, and yet also a certain distinction from it.2 The sin which dwells in me (ἡ
οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία) is no passing guest, but by its continuous presence becomes the master of the
house (cf. Str.-B., III, 239). Paul can speak in just the same way, however, of the lordship of the Spirit.
The community knows (οὐκ οἴδατε, a reference to catechetical instruction, 1 C. 3:16) that the Spirit of
God dwells in the new man (ἐν ὑμῖν οἰκεῖ, 1 C. 3:16; R. 8:9, 11). This “dwelling” is more than ecstatic
rapture or impulsion by a superior power. The spiritual part of man is not set aside, but impressed into
service.3 The use of the same formula πνεῦμα θεοὺ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν in 1 C. 3:16 and R. 8:9, 11 suggests that
it was one of the permanent catechetical and didactic elements in Paul’s theology.
The expression in 1 Tm. 6:16: “God dwells in light inaccessible” (φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον) has an
antique ring.
One is reminded of apocalyptic depictions of the heavenly throne of God, e.g., in En. 14:10ff., where a
sphere of light and glory surrounds God, but the NT description is in comparison very reticent. Acc. to En;
14:10ff. the seer first enters a great house (οἶκος μέγας) built of hailstones: “It was as hot as fire and as cold as
snow; and there was nothing there of the joy of life; fear enveloped me and trembling laid hold of me; and
shaken and trembling I fell down on my face and looked in the vision, And lo, there was another house,
greater than this, and the door wide open before me; and it was built of tongues of fire, and in all its parts so
overpowering in glory and splendour and greatness that I can give no description of its glory and greatness.”
14:21ff.: “And none of the angels could enter into this house and look on his countenance for majesty and
glory, and none who is of flesh could see him. Flaming fire was about him, and a mighty fire stood before
him, and none of those around him approached him. Ten thousand times ten thousand were before him, but he
needed no counsel.” A comparison between 1 Tm. 6:16 and En. 14:10ff. leaves us in some surprise that in this
apocalyptic gnosis δόξα and πῦρ rather than φῶς play the decisive role. It should also be noted, however, that
in its use of φῶς 1 Tm. 6:16 differs from Hellen. and primitive Christian usage elsewhere.4
MOUNTAIN - oros
ὄρος* → Σινᾶ, Σιών.
τὸ ὄρος denotes the (individual) “mountain” or “hill,” Dio C. often of the hills of Rome, e.g., 53, 27, 5: ἐν
τῷ Παλατίῳ ὄρει, and also the “mountain range,” Hdt., I, 104: τὸ Καυκάσιον ὄρος, Demosth.Or., 55, 10:
ὄρους δὲ περιέχοντος κύκλῳ, Xen.An., I, 2, 22; III, 4, 30; Cornut.Theol. Graec., 6: τὴν Ἵδην … μετέωρον
ὄρος. The plur. means “individual mountains,” Xen.An., IV, 1, 11: πυρὰ πολλὰ ἔκαιον κύκλῳ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁρέων,
and also “mountain range,” Xenoph.Cyrop., III, 1, 2: ἔπεμπεν εἰς τὰ ὄρη τὸν νεώτερον υἱὸν Σάβαριν καὶ τὰς
γυναῖκας.
A.
The Mountain in Antiquity.
1. The striking natural phenomenon of the mountain has attracted attention, and awakened religious
concepts,1 in all ages and among all peoples. First, the power of the mountain has caused it to be honoured as
divine, along with rivers, springs, waterfalls, and the earth.2 Then mountains and high places were peopled
with spirits.3 In lofty religions the soaring up of the mountain led to its being viewed as the abode of the gods
or to the cultic worship of higher beings on its peaks. “Above” and “below” in their symbolical content are
54
not interchangeable in religion and mythology. With the upward movement is associated heaven, the world of
light, of day, and of consciousness. Hence the gods of light and the day are connected with the peaks, while
those of death and the unconscious are linked with the inside of the mountain, though also with the nocturnal
darkness of mountain forests or with the mountain wilderness.4 Finally, the mythological concept of the
primal mountain is widespread.5 This is connected with the direct impression that the mountain, being hard
and stony as compared with the soft earth and the changing course of rivers, is the oldest part of the earthly
world. The more detailed ideas attached by individual peoples to hills vary considerably, and are related to the
size and form and the proximity or distance of mountains in the various lands, also to the question whether
they are covered with vegetation, or bare, or mantled by eternal snow. Further differences arise according to
the differing endowment of the peoples and their particular intellectual and religious world.
2. The peoples of Mesopotamia were very conscious of the height and power of mountains.6 This is often
expressed figuratively.7 From this it is only a small step to use “mountain” as a fig. for “power,” and this is
just as firmly established here, and for the same reason, as the use of “horn” in the OT.8 The Accadian shadu
means “mountain,” “refuge” (?), “lord.”9 Adad is called “mountain (i.e., lord), of the four quarters of the
earth,”10 Enmesharra “mountain of the Anunnaki,”11 and we also find “mountain of the Igigi.”12 Ninib carries
among other weapons “a mountain whose power none can escape,”13 and says of himself: “From me, the lord,
the high mountains all flee.”14 Several theophorous personal names are linked with shadi == my mountain.15
Enlil means “mountain” or “great mountain,”16 a name which was transferred also to other gods.17 This fig.
use of “mountain” is not Gk., but occurs among the Mandaeans.18 Since mountains encircled the Babylonian
plain only at a distance, it is understandable that Babylonian lit. should emphasise the remoteness and
inaccessibility of mountains.19 This geographical situation of Babylon led also to the idea of two (twinpeaked)20 mountains in east and west on which the arch of heaven rested and where the sun rose and went
down.21 On the eastern range is found the Kammer Duku == bright mountain, where the gods fix destiny on
New Year’s Day.22 In the west is Mashu, where heaven and the underworld meet23 and where is also the
entrance to the realm of the dead.24 Among the Mandaeans the two pure and the two dark mountains echo
these ideas. There is also an indistinct reminiscence in the Rabb.25 We may also think of the varied notion of
the cedar mountain, the abode of the gods,26 the mountain of the lands where “Ea, Sin, Shamash, Nebo, Adad
and Ninurta were lawfully born,”27 the mountain of assembly where the gods meet,28 the “mountain of the
world,” “bond of heaven and earth,” from which Enlil rules,29 the “mount of winds whose top reaches to
heaven and whose foundation is laid in the pure watery depths.”30 It is not certain whether these mountains
are equated with earthly hills.31 Localisation of the mythical mount of the gods in the north is as little attested
in Babylonian sources as the idea of a mountain of Paradise.32 What notions were originally linked with the
designation of Enlil as “great mountain”33 or of his temple in Nippur as “mountain house”34 it is difficult to
say. In the historical period “great mountain” denotes great power, the great lord, and “mountain house”
became a common name for temple.35 This term, and the bulding of the zigurrat, remind us of the mountain as
the place of divine proximity or abode of the gods.36 The hill of sunset in the west, and its inside, is associated
with the dark side of life, with death and judgment, and here, too, the judgment of the dead will take place.37
3. The natural relation of the Gks. to mountains differs already from that of the Babylonians. Greece is a
land of wooded mountains. If these were dangerous for travellers,38 the Greek extols them as an adornment of
his homeland.39 The unspoiled mountain forests, and the untouched peaks of mountains soaring up into the
regions of eternal snow, gave both Gks. and Romans a sense of divine power.40 Of the many peaks on or in
which gods and nymphs and muses lived41 Olympus soon came to be distinguished as the supreme home of
the gods and was idealised as such42 and equated with heaven (→ οὐρανός).43 This view of Olympus is a
typical expression of the Gk. sense that the upper world is the pure world of stars, aether, and fire, i.e., the
divine, and Olympus soars up into this world.44 Hence this mountain takes on supreme significance for the
Gks. as the symbol of natural and ethical perfection.45 On the other hand we do not find, or find only on the
margin, such mythological ideas as that of the mountain of sunrise and sunset, or the origin of the gods on a
mythological mount of the gods, or the location of this mountain in the north, or the link between the inside of
the mountain and the world of death. Equally absent is the connection between the mountain and harmful
spirits.46
4. In Asia Minor worship of the “great mother,” the “mountain mother,”47 is always associated with a
mountain.48 The mother of nature is here sensed in the storm wind which rages around the mountain and
through the forest. She is experienced in ecstatic dancing by night through the woods. Here the mountain with
55
its forest darkness and night belongs to the dark side of life. This is reflected also in the connecting of the
mother of the gods, Cybele, with mountain caves.49
5. In Syria and Palestine we first find divine honours paid to the mountain itself,50 then cultic worship on
mountain tops and hills.51 The Ras Shamra texts52 show that Zaphon, a hill north of Ras Shamra, was regarded
as an abode of Baal;53 the parallelism equates sitting on Zaphon with “sitting on the throne of glory.”54
Furthermore, there are also hints of mountain myths in these texts. The gods assemble on Mt. Ll,55 and we
read of mountains among which is the entry to the underworld.56 Perhaps the Heb. word for north, ‫צָׁ פֹוך‬, is
related to Mt. Zaphon as the mount of the gods in the north.57 Finally, it is to be noted that “mountain” is used
fig. for power in the Ras Shamra texts too.58
B.
The Mountain in the OT and Judaism.
1. The LXX almost without exception has ὄρος for the Heb. ‫הר‬.59 This means in the sing. a “mountain,”
e.g., Ebal or Gerizim, Dt. 11:29, or Zion, cf. also in the Rabb. ‫רַמ ִשחָׁ ה‬
ְׁ ַ‫ה‬, the Mt. of Olives,60 or Aram. ‫טורא‬
for Mt. Gerizim, → n. 78; Jos.Vit., 188: τὸ Ἰταβύριον ὄρος. But it can also mean a “range”: ‫עֲלִ יתֶ םַאֶ ת־הָׁ הָׁ ר‬
== σαναβήσεσθε εἰς τὸ ὄρος, Nu. 13:17; Aram. ‫טורא‬:‫פוקַלטורא‬, Gn. r., 50, 20 on 19:19 (angel to Lot),
ὄρος in this sense, Sir. 50:26: οἱ καθήμενοι ἐν ὄρει Σαμαρείας, Jos.Ant., 2, 337: τὸ περικλεῖον ἡμᾶς ὄρος, cf.
Ant., 4, 83.61 The plur. denotes either individual mountains or a range. In 2 S. 1:6, 21 the Mas. and LXX
vacillate between the sing. and the plur. to denote Mt. Gilboa.
2. The cartography of Palestine is reflected in the many refs. to hills in the OT. In later days the
mountains, most of which are not much over 3000 ft., were in general denuded of trees. For the earlier period
cf. Jos. 17:18; Ju. 6:2. In the main we find only pasture, Ps. 147:8; Sib., III, 788 f.; 6 Esr. 1 (15):58, Riessler,
322. The hills are thus very suitable for beacons, Is. 13:2; 30:17; the feet of the messengers of peace can also
be seen on the hills from afar, Na. 2:1; Is. 52:7.62 Indeed, the mountains offer extensive views in general, Dt.
34:1 ff.; Ps. Sol. 11:2. The voice also carries in them, Ju. 9:7; 2 S. 2:25 f.; 2 Ch. 13:4; O. Sol. 33:3. But the
mountains of Palestine with their ravines were then, as now, an obstacle to communications, 2 K. 19:23; cf.
Is. 37:24; Jos.Ant., 2, 333 and 337. They are lonely (1 S. 23:14), so that it is a disgrace to be killed and lie
unburied on the mountains (Ἠς. 14:19; Ps. Sol. 2:26). The lonely hills are also a place of refuge, Ju. 6:2; Ἠς.
22:5; ψ 10:1; 1 Macc. 2:28; 4:5; 9:38, 40.
3. In the OT the mountains are particularly mentioned in prophecy and poetry to show the superior
power of God over all things on earth. God is exalted above the bills, the oldest (Ps. 90:2), highest (Ps.
95:4) and most solid things on earth. God establishes the mountains (Ps. 65:6). He weighs them, Is.
40:12; cf. 2 Macc. 9:8. They tremble before Him, Ju. 5:5; Na. 1:5; Jer. 4:24; Sir. 16:19; 43:16. They
break in pieces, 1 K. 19:11; Ez. 38:20; Hab. 3:6. God grinds and crushes them, Is. 41:15. He turns them
around, Job 9:5; Ιωβ 18:4; Jos.Ant., 2, 337. He levels them, Is. 40:4; Jos.Ant., 2, 333. They are
consumed by God’s fire, Dt. 32:22; Ἠς. 10:18; Ep. Jer. 61; Ps. 83:14; 104:32; Sir. 43:4. They melt
before Him, Mi. 1:4; Is. 63:19 f.; Eth. En. 1:6; 4 Esr. 8:23. The solidity of the mountains, which is
important in this connection, finds typical expression in the OT in their being seen as rooted in the earth,
Job 28:9; Jdt. 6:13; 7:12; cf. Herm.s., 9, 30, 1.
In the later prophecies, also the Rabb. and pseudepigr., we find that the mountain is a symbol of power, as
in Babylonian usage and on into the Mandaean writings. In Jer. 51:25 Babylon is described as ‫הַ רַהַ מַ ְׁשחִ ית‬,
i.e., as a destructive (political) force. Cf. Zech. 4:7: “Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou
shalt become as a plain.” In Da. 2:44 the mountain which fills the whole earth (v. 35) is described as the
kingdom which shall not be destroyed to all eternity. Important here is the firm and enduring nature of the
mountain as well as its power.63 In the vision in S. Bar. 36–40 a forest of trees around high and wild
mountains is a figure of the nations of the world and their power.64 In Eth. En. 18:13; 21:3; 108:4 the fallen
angels are represented as burning mountains; the metaphor shows that they are powers. In Cant. 8:14 R.
Simon reads ‫( הָׁ ֵריַכַשָׁ מַ יִ ם‬Mas. ‫ )הָׁ ֵריַכְׁ שָׁ ִמים‬and takes this to refer to angel princes.65 Eth. En. 52:2, 6f.
depicts the power of iron and gold under the metaphor of iron and gold mountains. In Gr. Bar. there flies
before the sun a bird as large “as nine hills.” For a similar use cf. Eth. En. 98:4: “No slave has or will become
as a mountain, no maidservant as a hill, and in the same way sin is not sent on the earth, but men have made it
56
themselves.” In b.Sukka, 52a R. Jehuda shows that the evil impulse is like a great mountain for the righteous;
they ask then: How can we overcome (‫ )ככש‬such a great mountain? Commonly in the Rabb. “mountain” is
used for someone prominent. We once find66 the exegetical principle: ‫אֵ יךַהֶ הָׁ ִריםַאֵ לָׁאַהַ זְׁקֵ נִים‬. “Mountains
of the world” is a title of honour for rabbis.67 Authoritative sayings are also compared with mountains.68
4. The mountainous nature of Palestine is a hindrance to the development of human life. Hence in
the last time, when the nature of beasts of prey will be altered, there is also expected an alteration of
inanimate nature. The hills will then be dripping with wine (Am. 9:12; Jl. 3:18; hyperbolically Test. Job
13:1;69 Book of Elijah 6:4);70 they will be negotiable (Sib., III, 777 f.), or they will disappear from the
earth.71 The levelling of hills and valleys is mostly associated with the return of the exiles, for whom a
way is thus made, Is. 40:4; 45:2; 49:11; Bar. 5:7; Ps. Sol. 11:4. The symbolising of power by the
mountain is found again in the expectation that one day the Mt. of Olives, which overlooks the temple
hill, will disappear (Zech. 14:4; Leqach tob, → n. 71) and Mt. Zion will be higher than all other hills
(Mi. 4:1; Is. 2:2).72 Its influence is also seen in the fact that the destruction of the earth in its present
form is primarily seen as a shaking of the mountains, the most solid and powerful of earthly things, Eth.
En. 1:6; 83:4; Ass. Mos. 10:4; Asc. Is. 4:18.73
5. The OT, too, associates the mountain with a sense of God’s nearness, → Σινᾶ. From Mt. Ebal and
Mt. Gerizim God’s blessing and curse are invoked on the Israelites, Dt. 11:29; 27:12f.; Jos. 8:33. Isaac is
to be offered on a mountain, Gn. 22:2.74 During the battle against the Amalekites Moses prays on the top
of the hill, Ex. 17:9 f. Elijah climbs to the top of Carmel to pray, 1 K. 18:42; Jos.Ant., 8, 344. The
circumcision of the Israelites takes place on the hill Haaraloth, Jos. 5:3. The ark is set on a hill, 1 S. 7:1;
2 S. 6:3. The high-place of sacrifice (‫)ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬75 is for the Israelites in Canaan the oldest cultic site; Samuel
offers there, 1 S. 9:12 ff., 19, 25. In Gibeon was the great high-place of sacrifice, 1 K. 3:4. Here was the
dwelling-place of Yahweh (1 Ch. 16:39) and the altar of burnt offering (1 Ch. 21:29; 2 Ch. 1:3, 13).76
David then captured the fortress of the Jebusites and made it his own residence. On the projecting height
which overlooked it to the north Solomon then built the temple. The hill of Zion gradually became the
only legitimate place of sacrifice and the sign of God’s presence. The prophetic protest against the cult
in the high-places, which led to cultic centralisation in Jerusalem (Dt. 12:2–9), was not directed against
the siting of cultic centres on mountains, but against the Canaanite ideas and acts associated with the
centres. The view that the God of Israel is a mountain God is specifically repudiated in 1 K. 20:23, 28 f.
There remain only two lawful places of revelation in the OT, Mt. Sinai (→ Σινᾶ) and Mt. Zion (→
Σιών). These are not as such sacred mountains. It is not in keeping with the OT view when Philo calls
Sinai ὄρος ὑψηλότατον καὶ ἱερώτατον τῶν περὶ τὸν τόπον,77 or when the Samaritans refer to Mt.
Gerizim as the holy and blessed hill.78 Zion is the mountain which God has chosen.79
There is a similar reduction of the significance of the mountain in prophecy. Balaam comes from the
mountains of the east (Nu. 23:7) and utters his prophetic sayings from a hill (Nu. 22:41; 23:9, 14, 28).
The bands of prophets in Israel come from the high-place (1 S. 10:5)80 and we are given the impression
that Elijah and Elisha live in the hills (2 K. 1:9; 4:25). But we cannot show any connection between the
writing prophets and the mountains.81 The link is plain again in the pseudepigr. In S. Bar. 13:1 Baruch
hears the word of coming judgment on Mt. Zion; in Apc. Abr. 982 God wants to show Abraham the
aeons from a high mountain; in Test. N. 5:1 we read of a vision on the Mt. of Olives; in Test. L. 2:5ff.
Levi is installed in the priestly office on the high mountain Aspis; acc. to Apc. Eliae 2 Elijah has a
revelation on Mt. Seir.83 The same is true of the NT apocrypha.84
6. Nor is there much mountain mythology in the OT. We find many mythical motifs, e.g., the fruitful
primal mountain, perhaps the mount of the gods, Gn. 49:26; Dt. 33:15; Ps. 36:6;85 the divine hill of Bashan,
Ps. 68:15; the idea of a hill of the gods in the extreme north at least reflected in the wording of Ps. 48:2;86
perhaps the twin-peaked mountain of the sunrise behind Zech. 6:1.87 The clearest allusions to mythological
divine mountains, however, are in the related songs in Is. 14:12 ff. and Ez. 28:11–19,88 where the ref. is to the
mount of the gods rather than the mount of Paradise.89 But the decisive pt. is that here the pagan myth is used
ironically in songs mocking the downfall of pagan rulers. Elsewhere pagan mythology is deliberately pushed
57
into the background. The original idea to be deduced, perhaps, from Gn. 2:10–14, namely, that Paradise was
on a hill, is of no consequence whatever to the author of the present account. Again, expectation that the
mountain of the Lord in the last time will be higher than all other mountains does not mean that Mt. Zion will
become Paradise on the mount of God.90 In the OT eastern and western Semitic mountain mythology is all
consciously avoided or set on the margin. In no way does the OT link the inside of the mountain with death,
with the dark side of life, or with hurtful spirits.
The pseudepigr., however, take up again these motifs which had been suppressed in the course of Israel’s
history. In Jub. 4:26 there is ref. to 4 places which belong to God on earth: the Garden of Eden, the Mount of
the East, Mt. Sinai and Mt. Zion; it is fairly obvious that the author located Paradise, too, on a hill. The mount
of God and that of Paradise are also equated in Eth. En. 24f. and 87:3.91 Brief mention may also be made of
other speculations connected in these works with biblical mountains: with Ararat (called Lubar), Jub. 5:28;
6:1; 7:1; with the mountain on which Isaac was offered == Mt. Zion, cf. already 2 Ch. 3:1 HT, not LXX; then
esp. Treasure Cave, but not Apc. Abr. 12 f.; the fall of angels on Mt. Hermon, Slav. En. 18:4; the hiding of
the holy vessels on a mountain, 2 Macc. 2:4 f.; Jos.Ant., 18, 85. If increasingly in the OT the idea that
mountains suggest the suprasensual world fades from the scene, this is not because it is denied or contested.
Mt. Zion is constantly called the holy mountain of God, → Σιών, and there is expectation that it will be higher
than all hills. The battle is not between a sensually related and a purely spiritual view of God. It is not for an
emancipation proceeding from man. What is at issue is an elevation above the world of imagery in relation to
the God who acts in history.92
C.
The Mountain in the NT.
1. As in Gk. generally, and like ‫ הַ ר‬in the OT, ὄρος in the NT means both the single “mountain”
(Gerizim, Jn. 4:20 f., Sinai, Ac. 7:30 etc., Zion, Hb. 12:22 etc.) and also the “mountain range” (Mk. 5:11
etc.). In many instances the plur. is used for a “range” (Mt. 18:12; Mk. 13:14 etc.).
2. The cartography of Palestine is often reflected in the Gospels. More than one concrete illustration
of the city set on a hill could be found in Palestine (Mt. 5:14).93 In the parable of the lost sheep (Mt.
18:12) the shepherd leaves the 99 ἐπιν τὰ ὄρη,94 i.e., in dangerous isolation. The saying about the faith
which moves mountains (Mk. 11:23 and par.; Mt. 17:20) must have been uttered in face of an actual
mountain.95 Lk. 23:30 (Hos. 10:8) also presupposes the topography of Judaea, cf. Rev. 6:15 f.96
Similarly, Hb. 11:38 relates to events in Palestine.97 The injunction of Jesus in Mk. 13:14 and par. to flee
Jerusalem and go into the mountains was carried out with the flight to Pella in 66 A.D.98 The range on
the Gentile east coast of Lake Gennesaret is mentioned in Mk. 5:11. Only this verse tells us that the
demoniac lived in the mountains and not just in the tombs.
Specific mountains are named: Gerizim in Jn. 4:20 f.; the hill on which Nazareth lay, Lk. 4:29;99 the Mt.
of Olives.100 Mention of this in Lk. 19:37 and Mk. 13:3 and par. shows topographical knowledge.101 There is
not sufficient attestation for a Jewish view that the Messiah would manifest himself on the Mt. of Olives.102
With regard to the question whether the Last Supper was the Passover it is not unimportant that one part of
the Mt. of Olives (Bethphage), including Gethsemane, was in the precincts of Jerusalem, so that on the
Passover night even those who had eaten the Passover might go there.103
3. Repeatedly the Gospels tell us that Jesus went εἰς τὸ ὄρος, Mt. 5:1 (8:1); Mk. 3:13 == Lk. 6:12;
Mt. 15:29; Jn. 6:3, 15; Mk. 6:46 == Mt. 14:23; Lk. 9:28. In all these verses the transl. “he went up into
the mountains” is linguistically just as good as “he went up the mountain,” → 475, 479.104 When we are
told that Jesus prayed (Mk. 6:46 == Mt. 14:23; Lk. 6:12; 9:28), the related Mk. 1:35 makes it at least
probable that by going εἰς τὸ ὄρος He was seeking solitude, for which there was plenty of opportunity in
the high country of Galilee or Judah.105 Else-where the picture presented is certainly not that of Jesus
standing alone on a mountain top,106 for there is no hint of this at all. Mt. 28:16 does not expressly say
that He went up the mountain, and nowhere is the κορυφὴ τοῦ οπρους even mentioned, let alone
emphasised. Nor do the Evangelists seem to have attached particular significance to the mountain
because of the events connected with it.107 It could be that Jesus went into the hills for the Sermon on the
Mount because the voice carries well in mountain country, → 480.108 But this would only be a
secondary reason. It is more likely that Jesus went into the mountains because this made the crowds
58
decide whether or not they would follow Him.109 Possibly, too, the psychological effect of leaving
everyday surroundings played some part.110 More important is the fact that Jesus Himself withdraws by
going up εἰς τὸ ὄρος. This is plain in Mt. 5:1 and the par. 8:18.111 Lk. also understood it thus in 6:12.
Solitude plays a part in the transfiguration and also in the last appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee,
Mt. 28:16. It must be seriously asked, and is hard to decide, whether the Evangelists, esp. Mt., had more
in view when they mentioned the mountain. Were they perhaps thinking of specific mountain incidents
in the OT?112 Thus the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount has often raised the question whether
the choice of a mountain by Mt., and indeed by Jesus Himself,113 was intended as an antithetical ref. to
the mount of the Law in the OT, esp. in view of the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount. One is also
tempted to go further and set all the mountain references in Mt. in a systematic relationship.114 But Mt.
himself did nothing to clarify any such connections. As a parallel to Moses one would expect ἀνέβη εἰς
τὴν κορυφὴν τοῦ ὄρους, Ex. 19:20. To a Palestinian ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος could hardly mean any more than
that He went up into the mountains.115 That the ascension took place on the Mt. of Olives is only hinted
at in Lk. 24:50 and Ac. 1:12.
4. The transfiguration took place on Mt. Tabor acc. to an ancient ecclesiastical tradition. In favour of this
is the fact that when He came down not only the crowd but scribes, too, were gathered around the disciples
who had been left behind. But Tabor is not isolated,116 and one would expect an isolated place for the
transfiguration. Nor is it likely that from Caesarea Philippi Jesus would go to Tabor, where He could hardly
expect concealment. If the transfiguration did in fact take place on Tabor, this is not important for the
Evangelists, since they do not give the name of the mountain. It is not for them a holy mountain, as 2 Pt. 1:18
calls it. They find it worth noting that the mountain was high. This suggests that they climbed to the top. Jesus
was not merely seeking solitude; He also wanted to bring the feelings and thoughts of the disciples closer to
the world of God. Jesus is thus using the evocative significance of the mountain. The mount of temptation
mentioned in Mt. 4:8, though not expressly in Lk., is not a mountain which can be localised in the wilderness
of Judah. Indeed, no single mountain in Judah stands out as a ὑψηλὸν λίαν. Surveying all the kingdoms of the
world is naturally represented as looking out from a high mountain.117 The simple ἀναγαγών of Lk. 4:5 is
obviously a more spiritual nuance. Rev. 21:10 (with allusion to Ez. 40:2) is clearly a looking ἐν πνεύματι.
Here the idea of being on a great and high mountain serves to suggest the surveying of an event which
encompasses both heaven and earth. There is no relating of the mountain to prophetic vision; this is
completely absent from Rev.118
5. Important are the sayings about mountains in an eschatological context. Lk. 3:4 f. gives a wider
range to the verses in Is. 40:3 ff., which are also adduced in Mk. and Mt. The reason for this extension is
to be found in the last clause καὶ ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. This is why there is also
quotation of the saying which promises the levelling of the monutains for the return of the exiled
Israelites, → 481. As concerns the “great mountain burning with fire” in Rev. 8:8, there is no need to
look for contemporary events like the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D.119 On the other hand, the formal
analogies in Eth. En. (→ 480) are materially quite different. The mountain expresses power. If it burns
with fire, this means that its power is destructive. Rev. 6:14; 16:20 goes beyond the OT expectation that
the mountains will be levelled. A specific state of the earth is not altered; the shaking of the mountains
and islands in 6:14 announces the approaching shaking of heaven and earth. In 16:20 the mountains and
islands disappear altogether, and the climax comes in 20:11 when heaven and earth perish.120
For the disappearance of heaven and earth there are par. in Persian eschatology (→ n. 71), but not for that
of the islands. Mountains and islands are typical parts of the ancient earth. In the OT the isles symbolise the
Gentiles living far off in ungodly security; the mountains are signs of earthly power, → n. 2; 480. Hence the
shaking of mountains and islands in 6:14 is the shaking of pagan power and security, and their destruction in
16:20 is a symbolical anticipation of judgment on Babylon. The eschatological disappearance of the
mountains in Rev. is not balanced by the appearing of a mountain of God or Paradise. The expectation of Mi.
4:1 f. and Is. 2:2 is not taken up. In view of the many OT echoes in Rev., and its highly symbolical language,
this can hardly be an accident. It may be compared with Jn. 4:20–24, which does not contrast the cultic
worship of God with spiritual worship, but which has in view the eschatological consummation which has
begun on earth in Christ,121 The temple and altar have no place in the new world where God dwells among
59
men (Rev. 21:3) and they may see His face (22:4). But with the temple and altar the mountain also disappears
as the symbol of the worship of the distant God, → n. 36. But since the consummation has still to come, the
evocative character of the mountain is as little disputed as in the OT, → 483. Thus Jesus takes the three
disciples up the mount of transfiguration, → 485 f.
The seven hills of Rome are called ὄρος, → 475. If the seven hills of Rev. refer to these (Rev. 17:9), no
more need be said about the use of ὄρος here. Now 4 Esr. 12:11 says that the 4th beast of Da. 7 is Rome, thus
giving the beast a definite place in temporal history. Rev. 13:2, however, gives the beast the features of all the
beasts in Da. and thus rules out a ref. to temporal history. Within this framework the explanation that the hills
are the hills of Rome does not fit too well. In Rev. statements are constantly made about Babylon which refer,
not to a single empire, but to a power which spans the centuries.122 Emphasis is also placed, not on the
political power of the sword, but on the seductive power of the culture, wealth, earthly self-security and
worldly pleasure-seeking of Babylon. It is also hard to interpret the ten horns of 17:12 historically, → III, 670
f. Hence an understanding of the hills is to be sought in some other direction. In the ancient Orient (→ n. 2;
479), and also in the Rabb. (→ 480), mountain is a common expression for power, including political power.
Since seven is in Rev. the number of fulness and completeness (→ II, 632 f.), the seven hills are seven, i.e.,
the totality of, world powers, and these are identical with the seven kings.123 Rev. 16:20 points in the same
direction, → 486. Babylon symbolises the Johannine κόσμος. The detailed description of Babylon in Rev. 17
f., as noted above, reminds us strongly of 1 Jn. 2:16. The world is enthroned on all the world powers, the hills,
and antichrist, the beast, has the nature of these powers (== ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν, 17:11).124
Foerster
ii
✪
ὄρος (A), εος, τό, gen. pl. ὀρέων (the form propr to Ion. and other dialects) is required by the metre in
E.Ba.719 (iamb.) and freq. in lyr. verse, as S.OT1106, and is alone used in LXX, Ge.8.5, al., cf.
IG7.2225.18 (ii B.C.), Apoc.6.15; but ὀρῶν (the Att. form) is required in A.Pr.719, 811, Fr.342,
E.Ba.791, and occurs in Th.3.24, Pl.Criti.111c, SIG888.120 (Scaptopara, iii A.D.), etc.: the Ep. and Lyr.
forms οὔρεος, οὔρεϊ, οὔρεα, οὔρεσι prob. have οὐρ- metri gr. for ὀρ- (so ὤρεα, ὤρεος metri gr. in Dor.,
Theoc.1.77, 155, 4.35, Hymn.Is.162): the Ion. form is ὀρ-, Od.9.21, al., Anacr.2.5, v. ὄρειος (οὔρεσιν is
an Epicism in Semon.14.1, cf. οὔρη at end of a hexam., IG12(8).445 6 (Thasos)); ὄρος is found in codd.
of Hdt.1.43, 2.8, 12, 7.176 and should perh. be restd. elsewh.:—mountain, hill, ὄρεος κορυφῇσι Il.3.10,
al.; οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃσιν 11.87; ἐν ὄρεσσι 1.235, al.; ἐν οὔρεσιν 24.614, al.; τρέμε δ᾽ οὔρεα μακρά 13.18,
etc.; Γαῖα .. γείνατο δ᾽ Οὔρεα μακρά, θεῶν χαρίεντας ἐναύλους Hes.Th.129.
2. canton, parish, ὄ. Ἀργειατᾶν, ὄ. Ὀγχνιάἱον, etc., Mnemos.42.332 (Argos, iv B.C.).
3. in Egypt, spec. of the infertile hilly terrain bordering the Nile valley, PTeb.383.61 (i A.D.); as place
of burial, POxy.274.27 (i A.D.), PRyl.153.5 (ii A.D.), PGrenf.2.77.22 (iii/iv A.D.).
4. part of the foot, = τὸ ἄνω πρὸ τῶν δακτύλων, Poll.2.197.
5. = ἀμίς, Sch.Ar.Ach.82.
iii
θρόνος*
Contents: A. The Throne outside the New Testament: 1. On the Usage; 2. The Throne in the Greek World; 3.
The Throne in the Old Testament; 4. The Throne in Hellenistic Judaism; 5. The Throne in Palestinian
Judaism. B. The Throne in the New Testament: 1. Heaven as God’s Throne; 2. The Throne of David; 3. The
Throne of Glory; 4. The Throne of Grace; 5. The Throne of God and of the Lamb; 6. The Throne of Satan and
of the Beast; 7. The Throne as a Class of Angels.
60
A.
1.
The Throne outside the New Testament.
On the Usage.
The word θρόνος is related to θρᾶνος, “seat,” “bench,” and θρῆνυς “foot-stool.” It means “in general a
high stool with back and arms, and with an accompanying footstool.”1 As distinct from thronus, which is rare
and is used only for the seat of deity, the seat denoted by θρόνος is only later reserved for kings and gods.
From the time of Plato (Prot., 315c) θρόνος can also be used for the teaching chair of the philosopher
(Philostr.Vit. Soph., I, 23, 1; I, 25, 15; 1, 30, 1; Anth. Pal., IX, 174). The LXX mostly uses θρόνος for ‫ּכִ סֵ א‬.2
Luther in most cases has Stuhl for the Semitic equivalents. In the NT he has Thron only at Col. 1:16, where
the synonyms make this rendering necessary.3 In all other cases we find Stuhl. With reference to Col. 1:16 the
use of the plur. θρόνοι is interesting. In the tragic poets it is used for the power of kings and gods4
(Aesch.Eum., 912; Prom., 220; Soph.Oed. Col., 426), but also for the divinatory throne of Apollo
(Aesch.Eum., 18; 30; 606), along with the sing. (Eur.Iph. Taur., 1254; 1282). We find a figur. use in
Plat.Resp., VIII, 553b/c, where there is reference to a θρόνος in one’s own soul. Peculiar to biblical Gk. are
the many gen. combinations with θρόνος, in which the gen. defines the noun in a logically very general way.5
A list is as follows: θρόνος δόξης, 1 Βας. 2:8; Is. 22:23; Jer. 14:21; 17:12: Sir. 47:11; Wis. 9:10; θρόνος
βασιλείας, 3 Βας. 9:5; 1 Ch. 22:10; 28:5:2 Ch. 7:18; Est. 5:1c (τῆς); Da. 3:54 (τῆς) Θ LXX (acc. to 88 LXX
has θρόνος δόξης τῆς βασιλείας); 4:27 (τῆς) LXX; 5:20 Θ; Bar. 5:6; 1 Macc. 2:57; 7:4; 10:53, 55; 11:52;
θρόνος ἀρχῆς Prv. 16:12; θρόνος ἀτιμίας, Prv. 11:16; θρόνος ἀνομίας, ψ, 93:20; cf. also in the NT: θρόνος
δόξης, Mt. 19:28; 25:31:6 ὁ θρόνος τῆς χάριτος, Hb. 4:16.7 In the linking of → δόξα and → χάρις with
θρόνος, which is only possible in biblical speech, there is also reflected a material distinction between the
world of the Bible and that of Greece.
2. The Throne in the Greek World.
The royal throne was not originally a Greek institution. It “comes from the orient, where the absolute
ruler sat on a magnificently decorated throne, which usually stood on a base with several steps, and
which thus expressed the power of the ruler over his subjects.”8 The divine throne, to which there are
many references in Greek poetry and superstition, is often a prerogative of Zeus. But plastic art also
portrays a double throne for two deities, especially Zeus and Hera. A model for depicting a god on its
throne was the throne of Zeus in Olympia fashioned by Pheidias. Worth noting is the influence of the
Asiatic “custom of representing the throne of an invisible deity without the image of the god.”9
Reference may also be made to the use of thrones in the cult of the dead.10
These facts stand out all the more sharply by comparison with the Bible. On the soil of revelation
there are obviously no divine thrones. The session of the Messiah on the right hand of God is no real
parallel to the session of two deities on a common throne. However, the description of heaven as the
Διὸς θρόνος11 (Aesch.Eum., 229; cf. Theocr.Idyll., 7, 93) does remind us of corresponding statements in
the Bible. Those who believe that the ark was the throne of Yahweh12 naturally think also of the empty
thrones of the gods.13 But this analogy is alien to the OT itself, and there is nothing corresponding to the
use of thrones in the cult of the dead.
3. The Throne in the Old Testament.
In the OT the throne is the privilege of the king (Gn. 41:40). But the word is also used for the seat of
the queen mother (1 K. 2:19) and for the judicial seat of the governor (Neh. 3:7). How closely the king
and the throne are linked may be seen from passages like 25. 14:9 and 1 K. 16:11. The first born son of
Pharaoh shares his throne (Ex. 11:5; 12:29). The throne of Solomon is called the throne of his father
David (1 K. 1:13, 35, 46; 2:12, 24, 33, 45; though cf. also 1 K. 1:37). But the reference here is not so
much to the actual throne constructed by Solomon with unparalleled magnificence (1 K. 10:18–20; 2
Ch. 9:17–19; cf. also 1 K. 7:7) as to the throne as a symbol of government (2 S. 3:10; cf. also Is. 14:13)
which transcends the present occupant of the throne. Thus there are many references to the throne of
David in the sense of the eternal duration of his dynasty promised in 2 S. 7:12 ff. (1 Ch. 17:11 ff.; cf. 1
Macc. 2:57; cf. also 2S. 7:16; Jer. 13:13; 17:25; 22:30; 36:30; Ps. 89:4, 29, 36; 132:11–12). On one
occasion there is a similar reference to the throne of Israel (1 K. 2:4). It is in similar terms that the throne
61
of David is called the throne of the Messiah in Is. 9:6. This throne is distinguished not merely by power
but also by justice (Is. 16:5; Ps. 122:5).14 To the degree that this kingship of the Davidic dynasty implies
the kingship of Yahweh (2 Ch. 13:8; cf. also 9:8), the throne of David on which Solomon is to sit can
also be called “the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel” (1 Ch. 28:5) or “the throne of
Yahweh” (1 Ch. 29:23).15
That the OT conception of the throne of God takes its imagery from the earthly throne is shown by
the intentional juxtaposition of the two in 1 K. 22:10, 19 (cf. 2 Ch. 18:9, 18). When Is. sees the king,
Yahweh of hosts (6:5), in the temple, seated on a high and lofty throne (6:1), when Ez., on the
manifestation of the divine glory above the firmament, sees the likeness of a throne (1:26; 10:1),16 when
in Tr. Is. Yahweh calls heaven rather than an earthly seat His throne (Is. 66:1; cf. also Job 26:9), or when
in the Psalms this throne is to be found in heaven (11:4; 103:19), what is expressed is always the
overwhelming majesty of the divine Ruler. But in self-revelation this majesty has made itself present on
earth. Thus Jeremiah can claim, not only the name and covenant of God, but also the throne of God’s
glory as a sign of His gracious will concerning Israel (14:21). It is in keeping that in the future age of
national salvation Jerusalem is to be called the throne of Yahweh (Jer. 3:17),17 and that in the new
temple the throne of God will be seen as the seat of His abiding presence among the sons of Israel (Ez.
43:7). The transcendent majesty and the immanent presence by revelation are brought together when
Jeremiah ventures the address: “O throne of glory, exalted from the beginning, the place of our
sanctuary, thou Hope of Israel, Yahweh” (17:12f.).
The power of His sacred throne extends over the Gentiles (Ps. 47:8). It is obvious, but it is also
stated, that the throne of God is from eternity (Ps. 93:2) and endures for eternity (Lam. 5:19). As with an
earthly ruler, so with God, the throne is a symbol of judicial power. The righteousness of God’s
judgment is frequently emphasised (Ps. 9:4, 7; 97:2). Once (Ps. 45:6f.) the eternity and the righteousness
of the throne of God are transferred to the throne of the king of Israel in predicates which transcend any
earthly rule. Finally, in the visions of the night in Daniel we have a picture of the four empires and of the
setting up of the Messianic kingdom when “judgment” will be seated on thrones (7:9ff.; cf. Rev. 20:4).
In this connection the throne of the Ancient of Days, by whom judgment is passed on the four beasts, is
described as aflame with fire and encircled by the angelic hosts.
4. The Throne in Hellenistic Judaism.
Hellenistic Judaism finds no place for this eschatological throne of divine judgment. On the contrary,
judgment is executed on the first born of Egypt by the operation of the omnipotent Word of God which comes
down from the throne of God in heaven like a fierce warrior leaping into the land which is doomed to
destruction (Wis. 18:15). Wisdom, too, is described as an “occupant” (πάρεδρος) of the throne (9:4)18 from
which it can be sent to the assistance of men (9:10).19 The throne of the glory of God is synonymous with the
holy heaven. The martyrs extolled in 4 Macc. are near to this divine throne in virtue of their endurance. They
live out there a blessed eternity (17:18). It is noteworthy that there is no description of the divine throne in
Hellenistic Judaism. It is mentioned in Josephus in his account of the cherubim. These are living, winged
creatures which Moses, as he says, saw fastened to the throne (Ant., 3, 137). Schlatter points out that,
although Joseph. follows 1 K. 22 clause by clause, he leaves out vv. 19–22, in which God is seated on His
throne with the council of heaven around him (Ant., 8, 406).20 He avoided the idea of God’s throne as too
anthropomorphic. Similarly, Philo never spoke of the throne of God.21
5.
The Throne in Palestinian Judaism.
By contrast, Palestinian, and esp. Rabbinic, Judaism shows a pronounced interest in the throne of glory.
On the basis of Ps. 93:2 or Jer. 17:12 the throne is one of the pre-cosmic works of God.22 Along the lines of
Daniel there are descriptions esp. in Eth. En. 14:9 ff.; 71:5 ff.; and Slav. En. 20–22. As Billerbeck notes, these
are comparatively rare in older Jewish literature, because “this material belonged to the secret theosophical
doctrines concerning the appearance of the chariot in Ez. 1 and 10 ‫ מֶ ְׁרּכָׁבָׁ ה‬or ‫מַ עֲשֵ הַמֶ ְׁרּכָׁבָׁ ה‬, and public
discussion was not allowed.”23 The throne of glory is borne by four living creatures (‫ )חַ יֹות‬which, in spite of
their proximity to the throne of God, do not know the “habitation of His glory.”24 Acc. to R. Eliezer (c. 90) the
62
souls of the righteous dead are kept under the throne.25 But even they cannot see it because it is surrounded by
a dark cloud as by a curtain.26 The place of the martyrs is closest to the throne of God.27 Of the hosts of angels
who are about the throne, the nearest are the angels of the throne, of whom there were seven (six) according
to one group in the early Synagogue, and four according to another.28 The Rabbis were naturally interested in
exegesis of the plur. “thrones” in Da. 7:9. The final conclusion was that they were reserved for the great men
of Israel with whom God as presiding Judge would judge the nations of the world.29 It is worth noting that the
“sitting of Messiah on the throne of the divine glory is found only in the figurative imagery of the Book of
Enoch, which belongs to the pre-Christian period.”30 Here the essential function of the Son of Man whom
God has chosen is the same as in Da., namely, to execute eschatological judgment (Eth. En. 45:3; 51:3; 55:4;
61:8; 62:2, 3, 5; 69:27, 29) in the name of the “Lord of spirits.” Acc. to Eth. En. 108:12, of those who loved
God’s holy name, only He will finally come to sit on the throne of His glory.
B.
The Throne in the New Testament.
In the NT there is free reference to the throne of God, but with no speculative interpretations. The
stream of Messianic eschatology in the OT issues finally in the saving event of the NT, and is then
orientated to the ultimate consummation. It is typical of the new redemptive situation that there is
another throne alongside the throne of God.
1. Heaven as God’s Throne.
On the basis of Is. 66:1 ff., heaven is for Jesus the throne of God, so that in swearing by heaven we
swear by God as the One who sits on the throne (Mt. 5:34; 23:22). The OT passage which Jesus adduces
with no fear of anthropomorphism is quoted in Stephen’s speech (Ac. 7:49) as prophetic witness to the
fact that God cannot be enclosed in a building made with the hands of men.
2. The Throne of David.
In the NT the only real reference to earthly thrones is in Lk. 1:52.31 The throne of David in Lk. 1:32
is the throne of the Messianic king. God has granted it to the Son of Mary as the throne of David, His
father, that He may exercise eternal dominion over the house of Jacob, according to the prophecy of 2 S.
7:12 ff. (cf. Is. 9:6), which is referred to Him in Ac. 2:30. There is also reference to the throne of the
king of the last days in Ps. 45:6a, which is used in Hb. 1:8 to prove the superiority of the Son over the
angels. What is meant is the sovereign majesty of Him who sits on the throne with God (cf. 1:3). Here
“the idea of the Davidic monarchy achieves its definitive realisation.”32
3. The Throne of Glory
The expression θρόνος δόξης is often found in Synoptic sayings of the Lord. It is used for the
sovereign seat of the Son of Man when He is manifested in His Messianic glory to judge and to rule.
The reference is to His future rule over the twelve tribes of Israel. In this rule the twelve disciples will
have a part. They will sit on twelve thrones and judge (Mt. 19:28).33 There is also reference to the
judgement exercised on all nations by the Son of Man from this throne, though it is not said that others
will share in this judgment (Mt. 25:31 f.). The same distinction is to be found in Rev. At the beginning
of the millennial reign of Christ on earth, the divine sees thrones, and those who sit on them, to whom
judgment is given (20:4; cf. Da. 7:9, 22, 26, and the promise to those who overcome that they will share
the throne with the exalted Lord, Rev. 3:21). At the conclusion of the millennium, however, he sees only
the great white throne of world judgment, and Him that sits thereon (20:11).34
4. The Throne of Grace.
Hebrews calls the throne of God the θρόνος τῆς χάριτος in view of the fact that Jesus, the great
High-priest, having undergone every temptation in the days of His flesh, has now entered heaven (4:14),
and is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty on high (8:1), or of God (12:2). It is called the
throne of grace instead of ‫א־דין‬
ִ ֵ‫ּכִ ס‬, inasmuch as “pardoning grace rather than pitiless judgment now
streams forth from it.”35 Even as the throne of grace the throne of God is still the symbol of His
sovereign majesty.
63
5. The Throne of God and of the Lamb.
As a symbolical expression of God’s sovereign majesty, the throne of God stands at the heart of the
vision of the throne in Rev. (c. 4). It is located in heaven,36 and in the vision it is inseparably linked with
Him that sits on it. The throne as such is not described. Yet everything else in the heavenly throne room
is orientated to it (4:3–7).37 In the vision, the worship of the living creatures (4:8–9) and of the elders
(4:10–11) is concentrated on Him that sits on the throne. This expression is almost a name for God in
terms of His illimitable glory as the Creator (4:9, 10: 5:1, 7, 13; 7:15; 21:5; cf. also 19:4). It is thus the
more significant that the adoration of all creation (5:13) is addressed “unto him that sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb” (cf. also 7:10), as also that the dwellers on earth, in their fear of judgment,
seek to hide “from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (6:16). For
the author of Rev. the exalted Christ shares the throne of God. This is most plainly expressed in the
vision of the new Jerusalem in the last chapter. Whereas in 7:15 the host clothed in white garments is
said to be “before the throne of God,” where “the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed
them” (7:17), in 22:1 the stream of living water proceeds “out of the throne of God and of the Lamb,”
and in 22:3 it is explicitly said of the city of God that “the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it.”
When the throne of God has “descended to earth”38 at the consummation, it is called the throne both of
God and of the Lamb. Already in 3:21 Jesus shares the throne of His Father, and He promises the
fellowship of the throne to those who overcome. But this participation of the company of overcomers in
the throne of Christ is not depicted in the visions of Rev. For the thrones of the 24 elders in 4:4 are the
seats of powers which bear rule in heaven. That their dominion is in no sense autonomous in relation to
the majesty of God as the Creator is overwhelmingly expressed in the fact that they fall down before
Him that sits on the throne and cast their crowns before the throne (4:9, 10). The more telling, then, is
the fact that in the new world of God at the end of the days the seat of God’s rule is also the throne of
the Lamb. This twofold throne, which represents one and the same dominion, has its anti-godly
counterpart.
6. The Throne of Satan and of the Beast.
In the letter to the community at Pergamos, with reference to persecutions which may in some cases
lead to martyrdom, we read of the θρόνος τοῦ σατανᾶ which is found in this city ὅπου ὁ σατανᾶς
κατοικεῖ (Rev. 2:13). This strong expression can hardly refer either to the imperial suzerainty of Rome
(notwithstanding 2:9) or to the Jewish Synagogue. It is also unlikely that the temple of Augustus and
Roma, as the centre of the imperial cult, should be called the throne of Satan, since the headquarters of
this cult in Asia Minor were at Ephesus. More is to be said for the view that there is here a reference to
the characteristic Pergamos cult of the σωτήρ Aesculapius, whose symbol was the serpent, and whose
miraculous cures represented devilish imitations of the saving acts of Jesus.39 Such a place of
pilgrimage, saturated in paganism, was in fact a location for the throne of the adversary of God. If we
are to think of an actual structure in which this hostile Satanic power had its dwelling, the most likely
suggestion is the huge altar to Zeus in the castle at Pergamos.40 It is possible that the expression refers to
the “imposing totality” of these religious symbols.41 That Satan has a throne is presupposed in Rev.
13:2, where the dragon gives to the first beast, i.e., Antichrist, “his power, and his seat, and great
authority.” Similarly, the fifth angel pours out his vial upon the throne of the beast (16:10). That throne
and dominion are closely related here is seen in the sentence which follows: “And his kingdom was full
of darkness.”
7. The Throne as a Class of Angels.
In the christological exposition of Colossians, the invisible powers, which like all other creatures
were created “in him,” i.e., “in the Son of his love,” include not only κυριότητες, ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι,
but also, and first of all, θρόνοι (1:16). This title is found in Slav. En. 20:1 in a list of supraterrestrial
powers which the author sees in the seventh heaven. Similarly, in Test. L. 3 we find in the seventh
heaven θρόνοι (καὶ) ἐξουσίαι, ἐν ᾧ ἀεὶ ὕμνοι τῷ θεῷ προσφέρονται. The reference seems to be to one of
the highest classes of angels,42 though no precise distinction is possible.43 The name might indicate that
64
they have thrones at their disposal like the 24 elders of Rev. 4:4, who are certainly to be regarded as
angelic powers.44
✪
θρόνος, ὁ, seat, chair, Od.1.145, Ath.5.192e, PMasp.6 ii 63 (vi A.D.), etc., of an honorific seat in the
theatre, SEG30.82.7 (Athens, cA.D. 230).
2. throne, chair of state, θ. βασιλήϊος Hdt.1.14, cf. X.HG1.5.3, etc.; Ζηνὸς ἐπὶ θρόνον Theoc.7.93:
metaph., Pl.R.553c: pl., ἐν θρόνοις ἥμενοι A.Ch.975; ἐκ τυραννίδος θρόνων τ᾽ ἄϊστον ἐκβαλεῖν
Id.Pr.910; Διὸς θρόνοι S.Ant.1041, cf. Ar.Av.1732; king’s estate or dignity, σκῆπτρα καὶ θρόνους
S.OC425, cf. 448; [γῆς] κράτη τε καὶ θρόνους νέμω Id.OT237, cf. Ant.166, etc.; in the Prytaneum,
τῷ [Ἀπόλλωνι] θ. ἐξελεῖν IG12.78; θ. ἀνθυπάτων = Lat. sella curulis, SEG33.940 (verse, Ephesus, ?v
A.D.).
b. transf., for the occupant of a seat of authority, Cod.Just.1.3.52.11, Just.Nov.82.1.1; Myc. to-no
(prob. in sense 1 2 = *θόρνος; in compd. also θρονο-, to-ro-no-wo-ko = θρονοϝοργοί).
3. oracular seat of Apollo, E.IT1254, 1282 (both lyr.); μαντικοὶ θ. A.Eu.616, etc.
4. chair of a teacher, Pl.Prt.315c, Philostr.VS2.2, Lib.Ep.819, AP9.174 (Pall.).
5. judge’s bench, Plu.2.807b, Him.Ed.10.9, 13.16.
6. Astrol., = ὕψωμα, PMich. in Class.Phil.22.22 (pl.).
b. favourable combination of planetary positions. Ptol.Tetr.51.
II. a kind of bread, Neanth.1 J.
III. name of a lozenge, Paul.Aeg.3.42, 7.12.
Schneider
βασιλεύς, βασιλεία, βασίλισσα, βασιλεύω, συμβασιλεύω, βασίλειος,
βασιλικός*
A.
βασιλεύς in the Greek World.
βασιλεύς1 denotes the king as the lawful and usually hereditary priestly ruler of the people in the
good sense. In later political practice and theory he was distinguished from the τύραννος as an usurper.2
In the well-known verses in Od., 19, 108 ff. Homer gives us a mythical picture and ἔπαινος of the good
king and associated blessings. For the justice or otherwise of the βασιλεύς works itself out on the people
inasmuch as the people must either suffer or flourish and prosper with him. The power of the king is
traced back to Zeus (τιμὴ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν, Il., 2, 197); this connection is especially denoted by the
common epithet διοτρεφής (Il., 2, 196 etc.), i.e., “sustained by Zeus.” In Hesiod, where the βασιλεύς is
essentially regarded in judicial terms, we are given a developed picture of the royal wisdom which is the
norm of knowledge. Not merely bards but kings as well are inspired by the Muses: Calliope βασιλεῦσιν
ἅμ᾽ αἰδοίοισιν ὀπηδεῖ, Theog., 80. Infallible utterance (ἀσφαλέως ἀγορεύειν, 86) is the ἱερὴ δόσις of the
Muses to kings. Linked with this Greek ideal of kingship is the philosophical discussion of the nature of
the ideal βασιλεύς3 in Plato’s Politicus. Knowledge of the ideas is a royal art, and the man who has it is
the royal man (Polit., 292e; cf. the famous statement in Plat.Resp., V, 473d: ἐὰν μὴ … ἢ οἱ φιλόσοφοι
βασιλεύσωσιν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἢ οἱ βασιλεῖς τε νῦν λεγόμενοι καὶ δυνάσται φιλοσοφήσωσι γνησίως …
οὐκ ἔστι κακῶν παῦλα … ταῖς πόλεσι, δοκῶ δ᾽ οὐδὲ τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ γένει …). Reacting against a long
process of development, Plato is also the forerunner of Hellenism with its very different concept of the
king. “There arises the ideal figure of the benevolent king4 moving god-like above men and sustaining
them as the shepherd his sheep. He knows no law but the personal one of his own will, which is not
subject to a social order; and his will is the norm, not merely of a particular land or state, but of all
65
things in general. The nature and task of the king may be summed up in the fact that he is a benefactor to
the whole world.”5 From these philosophical ideas of the 4th century there developed, under the
dominating impress of Alexander the Great, the monarchy of Hellenism. The early Greek idea of the
divinity of a politically creative personality linked up in Hellenism with the views of divine kingship
current among different civilised peoples of the Orient. Thus βασιλεύς comes to denote the Hellenistic
God-king, who after the Persian pattern might be called βασιλεὺς μέγας or even sometimes βασιλεὺς
βασιλέων, as, for example, Antiochus I of Commagene: βασιλεὺς μέγας Ἀντίοχος θεός …, Ditt. Or.,
383, 1, and later the Roman Emperor.6 The βασιλεία of such rulers is an ἀνυπεύθυνος ἀρχή (Suid., s.v.).
Alongside the use of βασιλεύς for earthly or divinised kings the word is also used of the ancient gods,
esp. of Zeus as the θεῶν βασιλεύς or the βασιλεύς absolutely, Hes.Theog., 886; Op., 668, both as an epithet
and as a cultic name, IG, VII, 3073, 90, Lebadeia; Ditt. Syll.3, 1014, 110, Erythrae. For other βασιλεύς deities
(e.g., Hades in Aesch.Pers., 627; IG, I, 872; Poseidon, Apollo, Dionysus, Heracles), cf. Pauly-W., 82.
Kleinknecht
B.
‫ מֶ לְֶך‬and ‫ מַ לְ כּות‬in the OT.
‫ מֶ לְֶך‬is a common Semitic word from the verb ‫מָׁ לְַך‬. The original meaning of the root is doubtful
(“possessor” or “arbiter”). It is seldom used metaph. in the OT (Job 18:14).
1. It denotes national or civic monarchy. In Israel the monarchy arose under Philistine pressure. Saul,
who in the first instance was a charismatic leader like others before him, was chosen to be king over
Israel. After his death his captain David first became king of Judah and then of Israel, which in his
person was thus united with Judah. David ruled the two kingdoms from his new royal capital of
Jerusalem, and protected the complicated national structure from disintegration by substituting a dynasty
for the previous ad hoc designation of leaders by Yahweh. The definitive religious legitimation of the
house of David he found in the Davidic covenant (2 S. 7 and 23:1–7) which Yahweh had concluded with
himself and his successors. After the dissolution of the personal union with the death of Solomon, there
were only shortlived dynasties in the Northern Kingdom and the designation of the king by Yahweh
again became predominant. In Judah, however, the house of David occupied the throne for 400 years,
and in theory the line was followed even further from the genealogical standpoint.7
The relationship of the monarchy to the world of religious thought in Israel is determined by the
circumstance that the monarchy came at a time when the faith of Israel had already developed strongly
along its own original lines. Thus, in contrast to most oriental peoples, it had not developed the
monarchy as an institution alongside religion. The monarchy was not a basic element in its religion. It
was brought into secondary connection with an established religious heritage. Yahwism brought to bear
upon it an independent criticism and very definite claims, yet also adopted it with some degree of
tension into its faith and especially its hope.
At oriental courts, where a divine-human person stood at the centre, the presuppositions were present
for the fashioning of a distinctive courtly language, i.e., of a style of addressing the king according to
tradition and etiquette, of greeting him on his mounting the throne, of extolling him in exaggerated
felicitations and songs, etc. There thus developed a definite stock of stereotyped titles, comparisons,
epithets and styles of address, and we can see clearly how strongly Israel, too, shared these common
oriental forms.8 If in the so-called Royal Psalms (Ps. 2; 20 f.; 45; 72; 101; 110; 132) divine sonship and
the ends of the earth are assured to the king, if he is magnified as the king with whom a new era of peace
and righteousness dawns, this shows us that Israel has adopted many thoughts and formulations and
incorporated them into its circle of Yahwistic ideas. The king, who according to ancient ideas embodied
the people, was necessarily in Israel a preeminent object of the gracious promises of Yahweh.
Nevertheless, it is an important truth that Israelite religion remained stronger than these adopted forms.
The king was still a man. There is in the OT no hint of the deification which lay at the heart of the courtstyles of Babylon and Egypt.9
66
2. The word is also used for the Redeemer King. A sharp distinction is to be made between even the
most extravagant statements of the courtly language of Israel and faith in the Messiah. None of the
Royal Psalms is Messianic, for the ruler is always conceived to be present, and the reference is to
present enemies. There is no indication of eschatological expectation of a Royal Deliverer. Nevertheless,
as we can now see, the language of court forms the bridge to faith in the Messiah. The whole complex of
religious and political ideas linked with the empirical king; what was expected of him; how he was
addressed; what wonderful deeds were ascribed to him—all these form the soil for Messianic belief. The
connection is natural, for the expected king was of the house of David. Yet it is still a question how the
eschatological element came into the simple language of court. Thus far there has been no satisfactory
explanation of the rise in Israel of this mysterious projection into the ἔσχατον.10 We must never forget
that there is no similar eschatology, no comparable expectation of a Deliverer King at the end of the age,
in Babylon or Egypt, the classical lands of courtly address.
If Messianic belief was formally nourished by the world of courtly formulae, materially the true
point of connection, or starting-point, was the person of David and especially the Davidic covenant (2 S.
7). It was not David who was to build a house for Yahweh; Yahweh would build David a house, and his
monarchy would be for ever. This was a great promise which, it was increasingly seen, still awaited its
full realisation in a manner worthy of Yahweh. It could not fail; if it did not correspond to the present, it
must be projected into the future. Thus the hope of salvation rests on the restoration of the house of
David, which in Amos (9:11) is implicitly linked with the still unfulfilled prophecy of Nathan (2 S. 7).
If David is thus to be seen as the terminus a quo for the awakening of faith in the Messiah, the hope
still has elements whose seeds are not to be found in the empirical monarchy. Already in the difficult
prophecy of Gen. 49:8 ff. there are sounded paradisial motifs, as also in Am. (9:11–15). These are not to
be taken as an unimportant symbolical form, for they occur most strongly of all in the prophet of the
Messiah par excellence, namely, Isaiah. The shoot of the stump of Jesse awaited in Is. 9 and 11
introduces a new aeon11 of righteousness and paradisial peace. This is preceded by the destruction of his
enemies. He is a being endowed with supernatural gifts. A similar expectation of the scion of David who
brings deliverance is found in Micah (5:1ff.).12 Less vivid, but more clearly delineated, is Jeremiah’s
hope for the branch (23:5f.) or Ezekiel’s for the tender twig (17:22ff.; 34:23 f.; 37:24f.). Deutero-Isaiah
regarded the Persian Cyrus (Is. 45:1 ff.) and Zechariah the Davidic Zerubbabel (6:9ff.) as the king of the
last time. This projection of the Messianic belief upon contemporary historical figures denotes an
important change in eschatological conception. With the failure of such hopes, Messianic voices became
very rare; they were hardly heard at all in the postcanonical literature13 and reappeared only in the period
directly prior to the NT.
Apart from the enthusiastic phraseology of courtly style and the specific eschatological element,
both of which characterise Messianic belief in Israel, we have important remnants of mythological ideas
which were certainly not introduced by the prophets and which it is very difficult to trace back to older
Israelite belief. In particular, the notion of the pre-temporal existence of this Redeemer King14 and the
linking of this figure with an aeon of paradisial fruitfulness suggest that non-Israelite mythical15
elements concerning a returning king of the past or the first man of Paradise have fused with the strong
promises of the Davidic covenant. If the expectations linked with the Messiah take many forms, all
witnesses are agreed that the Messiah will be for His own people a figure of peace, and that His
appearance will follow, though rather strangely it will not be related to, the wars and conquests which
precede the Messianic era. The transition to the new aeon will not be won by Him; 16 He will be the
Ruler in a paradisial aeon after the final conflict. Most of the witnesses to the coming of the Messiah
avoid the title ‫“ ;מֶ לְֶך‬it has an irreligious and much too human sound, suggesting force and
suppression.”17 Most of the Messianic statements display hostility to the empirical monarchy.
3. A further concept is that of Yahweh as King. It is easy to see that the hope of a Messiah does not
dominate the OT. Indeed, its appearances are comparatively isolated in relation to the whole. Better
attested is faith in another supraterrestrial kingdom determining the present and the future, namely, that
67
of Yahweh. The relationship of this sequence of thought to belief in a Messianic kingdom is difficult to
reduce to a single formula.18 It will not do to assume two independent traditions, for Isaiah, the most
powerful Messianic prophet, also calls Yahweh a King (6:5), and the same is true of Micah and
Jeremiah. On the other hand, the Psalter, to which the figure of the eschatological King is quite alien,
has the most numerous and important references to the kingship of Yahweh.19
The application of the term ‫ מֶ לְֶך‬to the Godhead is common to all the ancient Orient (cf., in the
immediate environs of Israel, Melkart, Milcom, Chemoshmelech); indeed, this usage is probably preSemitic. One of the best descriptions of the relationship between God and man is that of God as the Lord
who demands obedience but in return gives help and protection. In Israel the emergence of this view
may be fixed with some precision. As is only natural, references are first found only after the rise of the
empirical monarchy; Nu. 33:21; Dt. 33:5; 1 K. 22:19 and Is. 6:5 are among the earliest.
The idea of Yahweh’s kingship, however, is given a very different emphasis in the OT. Some
statements underline the timeless element in the kingly being of Yahweh as this embraces equally both
past and future as well as present (Ex. 15:18; 1 S. 12:12; Ps. 145:11 ff.; 146:10). In others, the accent is
placed on the element of expectation (Is. 24:23; 33:22; Zech. 3:15; Ob. 21; Zech. 14:16 f.). The present
alone cannot meet this claim, and the concept of the kingship of Yahweh is thus drawn increasingly into
the stream of eschatology towards which it has an inherent tendency;20 hope is set on the fact that
Yahweh will show Himself to be the King. Nevertheless, even the most strongly eschatological
utterances do not question the present kingship of Yahweh. There is expectation merely of the final
manifestation of His total kingly power. A third group of statements is found in Psalms 47, 93, 96, 97
and 99, and possibly many others. In these the distinctive feature lies in the use of the verb ‫ מָׁ לְַך‬in
relation to Yahweh (Yahweh has become King). The Psalms are coronation Psalms probably sung in the
middle of a festival to celebrate cultically, and perhaps even dramatically, the enthronement of
Yahweh.21 These Psalms do not proclaim an eschatological event but a present reality experienced in the
cult.
Only the final group contains a truly concrete view of the kingship of Yahweh, and the exponents of
this cultic life may actually have felt that expectation of a King of the last time was incompatible with
their belief. In contrast, the other statements belong to traditional poetic usage and can thus be linked
relatively easily with faith in a coming Messiah. That the two lines of thought, which undoubtedly
developed in original independence, could later come together quite peacefully, may be seen in
Chronicles, which makes powerful use of the as yet unfulfilled promise to David. The meaning of the
Davidic covenant as understood by the later Chronicler is that the Davidic King rules in the malkut of
Yahweh (1 Ch. 17:14; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Ch. 9:8; 13:8).
In what the kingship of Yahweh consists the majority of passages do not tell us more precisely. Most
of the hymnal salutations of Yahweh as King do not even tell us whether He is understood as King of
Israel or King of the world.22 Predominantly in the pre-exilic period He is described as the King of
Israel, and, whether for the present or the future, help, deliverance, righteousness and joy are promised
to His chosen people.23 On the other hand, in the exilic and post-exilic period He is also described as
King of the world.24 The description of Yahweh as King impressively depicts His power, greatness and
readiness to help, but this thought is so general, and so little related to the specific concept of “king,”
that there is little hesitation in combining it with other lines of thought. Thus Micah intermingles the
idea of Yahweh as Shepherd (5:3) and Deutero-Isaiah introduces the parallelism of Creator, Redeemer
and King (43:14f.). The nature of the malkut of Yahweh is seldom delineated with any greater precision.
It may be said, however, that it is always immanent. Even according to later pronouncements like Is.
24:23 and Zech. 14:9, 16 Yahweh rules over the whole earth, is enthroned in Jerusalem and is magnified
by all nations (cf. Ob. 21).
In recent years Martin Buber has dealt with this problem in his well documented work on the kingship of
God.25 His theses are artificial inasmuch as no general theological significance is attached to the attestation of
68
Yahweh as melek in the OT, as he presupposes. Even if we do not follow Eissfeldt,26 who regards Is. 6:5 as
the first example, on the ground that he narrows the field unduly to lexical considerations, the fact remains
that Yahweh is never called melek prior to the monarchy. There is certainly no exegetical basis in the text for
regarding the Sinaitic covenant as a royal covenant. The description of Yahweh as King is usually found in
hymnic flights, so that there is no cause to view it as representative of a basic attitude of faith. Buber contrasts
the malk, the divine Leader, most sharply with Baal. If he had said Yahweh instead of malk, we could agree.
But in all the serious conflict with Baal religion—we think of Hosea and Deuteronomy—where is any use
made of the theological slogan that Yahweh is malk? Buber adduces passages which refer to Yahweh’s
leading of Israel, but this hardly gives us the theologoumenon malk in the accepted sense. The word is simply
deprived of its specific force in the passages where it really belongs, i.e., in the cultic and eschatological
sense.
4. ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬. The noun ‫ מַ לְׁ כּות‬is one of the few older Heb. abstract terms from which the many others
come.27 It is to be rendered “kingdom” or “kingship.” There is a slight departure from the original sense
when it is used with reference to a concrete sphere of power.28
Mostly in the OT the word ‫ מַ לְׁ כּות‬is used in the secular sense of a political kingdom (1 S. 20:31; 1
K. 2:12). Prior to Daniel the religious world made little use of it. In analogy to the description of
Yahweh as a ‫מֶ לְֶך‬, His sphere of power is sometimes called His ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬.29 Small emendations of the
original text in Chronicles form a smooth transition to the eschatological conception which became so
important in the post-canonical writings. If David was confirmed in his ‫ מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬in 2 S. 7:16, ‫מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬
was here meant in a much more secular sense than in 1 Ch. 17:14, where David is shown to be set over
Yahweh’s ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬. Again, in 1 Ch. 28:5 Solomon sits on the throne of the ‫ מַ לְׁ כּות‬of Yahweh.
Nevertheless, this way of speaking is not to be understood eschatologically. The Davidic kingdom is
here conceived of as the ‫ מַ לְׁ כּות‬of Yahweh and the descendants of David sit on the throne of Yahweh (1
Ch. 29:23; 2 Ch. 9:8). Yet the nuance is significant, for the Chronicler, who belonged to an age when the
Davidic kingdom was only a distant memory, thereby displays a true, though not an eschatological,
interest in the realisation of Yahweh’s ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬.
The sharp apocalyptic distinction between the present and the future aeon, first apparent in Daniel,
carries with it a much more precise delineation of the kingdom of God. If in Da. 7 the kingdom which
comes from above is described as ‫ מַ לְׁ כּו‬the term has a particular stamp when applied to the final
kingdom of the saints. God can give the ‫ מַ לְׁ כּו‬to whom He will (Da. 2:44; 4:22); He gives it to His
people and thus establishes an eternal kingdom (Da. 7:27). Yet the reference is not to God’s ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬, nor
is He the king in question. The reference is to a succession of human kingdoms until finally the ‫ מַַלְׁ כּו‬of
the saints—this is how the coming Son of Man is interpreted (Da. 7:16 ff.)—is inaugurated. This
strongly nationalistic hope of the ‫ מַ לְׁ כּו‬frequently recurs in later apocalyptic30 literature (Eth. En. 84:2;
90:30; 92:4; 103:1; Ass. Mos. 10:1 ff. etc.).31
von Rad
C.
‫ מַ לְ כּות שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬in Rabbinic Literature.32
1. The later Jewish term ‫ מלכותַשמים‬owes its origin to the general tendency of later Judaism to
avoid verbal statements about God such as we find in the OT, and to replace them by abstract
constructions. It is closely related to the term ‫שכינה‬. As this is a simple substitute for the OT saying
‫שָׁ כַןַיהוה‬: “God dwells,” “God is present,”33 so later Judaism uses ‫ מלכותַשמים‬for “God is King” (→
568 f.).34
69
Thus the Targumim often replace the OT expression by ‫“ מלכותאַדיי‬the kingdom of God,” e.g., Tg. O.
Ex. 15:18: ‫“( ייַמלכותיהַקאים‬the kingdom of God stands fast”) for the Mas. ‫ ;יהוהַימלך‬Tg. Is. 24:23:
‫“( תתגליַמלכותאַדיהוה‬manifest is the kingdom of God”) for the Mas. ‫ ;מלךַיהוה‬cf. also Is. 31:4; 40:9;
52:7; Mi. 4:7; Zech. 14:9,35 though the OT expression is retained in Ez. 20:33; Ps. 47:8; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1;
146:10.
Since the divine name ‫ יהוה‬was replaced by ‫ אדוני‬in the cultic use of later Judaism, i.e., in the
Synagogue readings, the Targumim consistently have ‫מלכותאַדיהוה‬,36 read as ‫דאדוני‬
֞ ‫ם‬. In freer use, the
divine name is avoided by using ‫“( שמים‬of heaven”) instead. Hence in Rabb. literature outside the Targumim
we always have ‫ ;מלכותַשמים‬the slavishly literal transl. in Gk. is βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt.) but the
material equivalent βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Mk., Lk.). At a later point in Rabbinic usage, probably at the end of
the 1st cent. and beginning of the 2nd., even ‫ שמים‬as a divine name was replaced by the very general
‫המקום‬, “the place” (→ ἄγιος, 98). Only in a few fixed expressions and formulae37 did it continue in use as a
divine name, as in ‫מלכותַשמים‬.
The derivation of the term makes it immediately apparent that ‫ מלכותַשמים‬can never mean the
kingdom of God in the sense of the territory ruled by Him. For the expression denotes the fact that God
is King, i.e., His kingly being or kingship.38 Thus from the very first ‫ מלכותַשמים‬is a purely
theological construction in later Judaism and not an application of the secular concept ‫ מלכות‬to the
religious sphere.39 In Rabb. writings the absol. ‫ מלכות‬always denotes earthly or worldly government,
i.e., the Roman Empire,40 not so much in the sense of the state as of Roman rule or the Roman
authorities as seen from the standpoint of the subject.41 With this secular ‫מלכות‬, the ‫מלכותַשמים‬,
which derived from very different roots, was sometimes contrasted in later writings when it had come to
have a fixed meaning.42 The true and original sense of ‫מלכותַשמים‬, as an abstract construction to
denote the fact that God is King, always persisted, however, in spite of the Rabbis. This is shown in the
fact that in the Rabbis the verses in which God is called King are always known as ‫מלכייות‬, i.e., ‫מלכות‬
or kingship verses.43
2. The development of the term in detail need not be followed in this context, since the whole of the
Rabbinic material has already been collected many times (→ Bibl.). Rather we should seek to present
the essential aspects for an understanding of the range of the concept. It must be emphasised first that in
relation to the whole Rabbinic corpus ‫ מלכותַשמים‬is comparatively infrequent and not by a long way
of such theological importance as in the preaching of Jesus. In the main, the phrase occurs properly only
in two expressions which span the whole compass of its theological significance. The one is ַ‫קיבלַעול‬
‫“ מלכותַשמים‬to accept the yoke of the kingdom of God,”44 i.e., in accordance with the above
definition, “to acknowledge God as one’s King and Lord,” “to confess the one God as the King, and to
forswear all other gods.” The expression thus serves to denote the monotheism of Judaism as daily
declared by every adherent of the Jewish faith in God in the Schƒma’ (Dt. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord
our God is one Lord”). Hence ‫ קיבלַעולַמלכותַשמים‬is often used quite simply for reciting the
Schƒ ma.45
Here, then, ‫ מלכותַשמים‬is something which a man must freely decide either to be for or against.
He always has the possibility of rejecting God as King and Lord (“to throw off the yoke of the kingdom
of God”). This possibility implies that the kingdom is not manifest in the world. For otherwise, willingly
or unwillingly, there could only be recognition of the obvious fact that God is King. Again, real decision
is demanded, i.e., the decision which each must make for himself and which is binding and valid only if
the possibility of decision is limited and therefore finite. This brings us to the second expresson in which
70
‫ מלכותַשמים‬ordinarily occurs. For the boundary or end (‫קֵ ץ‬, → τέλος) which removes the possibility
of accepting or rejecting the kingdom of God by a free decision of the will is the manifestation of the
kingdom of God. This manifestation is a recurrent object of Jewish petition,46 and the Targumim often
speak of the end of time (→ τέλος) when the kingdom of God will be revealed (ַ‫איתגליאתַמלכותא‬
‫)דיהוה‬.47 Hence in the theology of later Judaism ‫ מלכותַשמים‬is a purely eschatological concept in the
strict sense of the word.
3. It should be noted especially that the people of Israel does not figure in this whole train of
thought. National membership, then, is not in any way an element which determines religious position.
At this point man stands before God as an individual who must make his own decision, i.e., simply as
man, and not as the member of a particular people. In Rabbinic theology there is thus developed to its
conclusion a line of thought which commences in the OT prophets. The other line of OT piety, i.e.,
religion which is determined by nationality and finds its vitality especially in the Law and the cultus, has
not entirely disappeared from Rabbinic theology. On the contrary, the Rabbis constantly emphasise the
religious prerogatives of the people of Israel, according to which nationality does determine the position
of a man before God.48 Even in the concept of the ‫ מלכותַשמים‬this thought plays a certain role. Often
in Jewish prayers God is addressed as the King of Israel.49 The same thought is present when it is said
that the progenitor of the people, Abraham, made God King on earth50 as the first to acknowledge the
one God as King and Lord, or when it is said that Israel, i.e., the people as such, “accepted the yoke of
the kingdom of God” at the Red Sea and Sinai with its confession of the true God and its adoption of the
Torah.51
These two lines, religion as determined by nationality and the religion of the individual, are thus
found together in later Judaism. This juxtaposition arises from the fact that both occur in the different
OT writings, so that when the OT was canonised both were the authoritative Word of God for Judaism,
and both with equal force. But the distinctive feature is that nowhere in Rabbinic theology do we find
any attempt to bring together into a unitary theological system these concurrent lines which are
sanctioned by Holy Scripture. The Rabbis apparently see no need to do this. They apparently find no
tension or aporia in the coexistence of these two lines.
In the case of ‫ מלכותַשמים‬any incidental link with the thought of nationality simply denotes a
traditional attachment to the OT statements which emphasise this factor (→ n. 49), whereas the true
vitality and significance of the concept in later Judaism were along the strictly religious lines already
indicated, ‫ מלכותַשמים‬is thus one of the few, if not the only strict and pure concept in later Judaism;
the ἔσχατον of the manifestation of the ‫ מלכותַשמים‬demands an individual decision either to accept or
to reject “the yoke of the ‫מלכותַשמים‬.”
4. This enables us to fix unequivocally the difference between this concept and expectation of the
Messiah King at the end of the age. ‫ מלכותַשמים‬is a purely eschatological concept. It does not emerge
in the course of a historical process. Expectation of the Messiah King, however, develops out of the
originally secular expectation of an Israelite king who will revive the monarchy in all its greatness and
restore the splendour of the idealised Davidic kingdom. This hope becomes a hope for the end of the
age. It is not, therefore, eschatological in the strict sense. The coming of the Messiah precedes the
ἔσχατον in Jewish thinking.52 The difference may be stated as follows. In later Judaism the thought of
the Messiah is always the expression of a hope for the last times which knows God primarily as the King
of Israel, and which consequently links the final establishment of the kingdom of the people of Israel, as
the goal of God’s plan of salvation, with the Messiah as a King to whom all other peoples will be
subject. In ‫מלכותַשמים‬, on the other hand, the purely religious concept of the ἔσχατον achieves its full
stature (God as All in All), so that there is no more place for the special thought of a national link with
Israel.
71
Thus the two concepts are heterogeneous. To be sure, they often appear together as the two things on
which the hope of Israel, both national and religious, is set.53 But they are nowhere brought into an inner
relationship. Nowhere do we have the thought that the kingdom of the Messiah is the ‫מלכותַשמים‬, or
that the Messiah by His operation will bring in the ‫מלכותַשמים‬, or vice versa. Such a link with the
thought of the Messiah is quite impossible in terms of the strict concept of the ‫מלכותַשמים‬.
Kuhn
D.
βασιλεία (τοῦ θεοῦ) in Hellenistic Judaism.
In the few passages in which it speaks of the kingdom of God, the LXX is in essential agreement
with the Heb. or Aram. (Da.) original. Yet there are also some passages in the LXX which are
specifically Greek or Hellenistic, and have no Heb. original in the canonical OT. Thus Wis. 6:20:
ἐπιθυμία σοφίας ἀνάγει ἐπὶ βασιλείαν. This deals comprehensively with the high value and the
accessibility of wisdom. Regard for wisdom leads to dominion. This sixth chapter of the Book of
Wisdom also speaks of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. In 6:4 the kings of the earth will be claimed as the
ὑπηρέται τῆς αὐτοῦ (i.e., God’s) βασιλείας; in 10:10 it is said of wisdom that it has shown the righteous
the kingdom of God. But the absolute use of βασιλεία in 6:20 (cf. 10:14) indicates the dominion of the
wise. In this respect we may also refer to 4 Macc. 2:23: God has given man a law by the following of
which he βασιλεύσει βασιλείαν σώφρονά τε καὶ δικαίαν καὶ ἀγαθὴν καὶ ἀνδρείαν; the βασιλεία is
identified with the four cardinal virtues. This ethicising of the βασιλεία concept in terms of popular
philosophy was carried through more even comprehensively and clearly by Philo. So far as concerns the
general use of βασιλεία, the sense of kingdom, kingship and then lordship is predominant. The actor
assumes the παράσημα (insignia) τῆς βασιλείας in Flacc., 38. This meaning is also found in the plural;
the possessors of military rank are set alongside those who enjoy royal dignity, οἱ τὰς βασιλείας καὶ
ἡγεμονίας ἀναψάμενοι (Plant., 67). Nimrod had Babylon as the ἀρχὴ τῆς βασιλείας (Gig., 66). Philo
gives many definitions. By way of hendiadys it is linked with ἀρχή, Mut. Nom., 15; Vit. Mos., I, 148;
Omn. Prob. Lib., 117; it is set alongside πολιτεία, Plant., 56; it is more than ὀχλοκρατία, Fug., 10;
earthly βασιλεία has two tasks, ποιμενικὴ μελέτη καὶ προγυμνασία, Vit. Mos., I, 60. In addition,
βασιλεία is constantly linked, and even identified, with ἀρχή. The βασιλεία of Moses, as his leadership,
is parallel to his νομοθεσία, προφητεία and ἀρχιερωσύνη in Praem. Poen., 53, to his νομοθετικὴ ἕξις,
ἱερωσύνη and προφητεία in Vit. Mos., II, 187. We can see this also if we refer back to the whole of Bk. I
of the Vita, which makes it evident that the theme of this book is the βασιλεία of Moses (Vit. Mos., I,
333 f.; cf. II, 66). In a special discussion, the distinction between βασιλεία as human monarchy, and
ἀρχιερωσύνη as the high-priesthood, is explained in such a way that the second takes precedence of the
first. For it amounts to a θεοῦ θεραπεία whereas βασιλεία is an ἐπιμέλεια ἀνθρώπων; the distinction is
thus found in the objects, i.e., θεός or ἄνθρωποι (Leg. Gaj., 278; cf. on this Virt., 54). The ἱερωσύνη is
worthy of an εὐσεβὴς ἀνήρ and should be preferred to freedom and even to βασιλεία, Spec. Leg., I, 57.
In a definition of βασιλεία, of which the δόγματα and νόμοι are to be observed, we read: βασιλείαν …
σοφίαν εἶναι λέγομεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸν σοφὸν βασιλέα, Migr. Abr., 197. A similar expression (ἡ τοῦ σοφοῦ
βασιλεία) is to be found in Abr., 261; cf. Som., II, 243 f. Similarly, Saul is to learn from Samuel τὰ τῆς
βασιλείας δίκαια, Migr. Abr., 196. That the first man gives names to the animals is understood as σοφίας
καὶ βασιλείας τὸ ἔργον (a linking of wisdom and power), Op. Mund., 148. The true sense of βασιλεία is
thus defined as simply dominion in the rule of the wise man as the true king, Sacr. AC., 49. In relation to
the wise king Abraham ἀρετή is defined as ἀρχή and βασιλεία, Som. II, 244. In the same way it is said
of νοῦς that its advocates attribute to it τὴν ἡγεμονίαν καὶ βασιλείαν τῶν ἀνθρωπείων πραγμάτων, Spec.
Leg., I, 334. The opposite of all this is τὸ ἡδέως ζῆν, which it is an illusion to regard as ἡγεμονία and
βασιλεία, Ebr., 216.
Is Philo speaking of the kingdom of God, or also of the kingdom of God, in these passages? Does he
ever speak of the kingdom of God? Yes and no! Τοῦ θεοῦ is once found as an attribute when the
dominion of a king is compared with the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, Spec. Leg., IV, 164; and it is once used as a
72
predicate: ἡ βασιλεία τίνοσ; ἆρ᾽ οὐχὶ μόνου θεοῦ; Mut. Nom., 135. There is perhaps an allusion to the
kingdom of God when the building of the tower is regarded as the καθαίρεσις τῆς αἰωνίου βασιλείας,
Som., II, 285. God is invested with the ἀνανταγώνιστος (invincible) and ἀναφαίρετος (impregnable)
βασιλεία, Spec. Leg., I, 207. Abraham as a true king, the king of wisdom, comes from God, because
God τὴν τοῦ σοφοῦ βασιλείαν ὀρέγει, Abr., 261. Moses confronts circumstances as a superior being
directing the world χρώμενον αὐτεξουσίῳ καὶ αὐτοκράτορι βασιλείᾳ, Rer. Div. Her., 301.
The only occasion when Philo looks to a future βασιλεία is in Vit. Mos., I, 290, where he quotes the
LXX of Nu. 24:7 (the Messianic prophecy of Balaam): ἡ τοῦδε βασιλεία καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν πρὸς
ὕψος ἀρθήσεται. Here as elsewhere he construes the kingdom ethically.
Our general assessment of the βασιλεία passages54 in Philo can only be that royal dominion is never
conceived of as an eschatological magnitude. Rather, the βασιλεία constitutes a chapter in his moral
doctrine.55 The true king is the wise man. Thus Philo adds his voice to the ancient chorus in praise of the
wise. The wise man as the true βασιλεύς (→ 565) is distinguished from ordinary earthly kings, and is to
be extolled as divine. This view also determines what Philo has to say philosophically and religiously
concerning the βασιλεία τοῦ σοφοῦ. Materially this term also derives from ancient philosophy, though
formally it comes from the Greek Bible, which Philo interprets as in the LXX passages mentioned. It
should be noted that there were in later Judaism generally certain impulses towards this ethicising and
anthropologising. In spite of an obvious synergism, however, apocalyptic and Rabbinic Judaism
maintained the thought of the kingdom of God which rests on God’s free decision.56 Philo, on the other
hand, has completely reconstructed the original βασιλεία concept, though as an exegete, unlike
Josephus, he is not afraid to speak of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.57
Josephus never uses the expression, Only in Ant., 6, 60 is βασιλεία mentioned in connection with
God. While the Palestinian Judaism from which he came used the phrase ‫מַ לְׁ כּותַשָׁ מַ יִ ם‬, for all its
present reference, in an eschatological sense as well, Josephus uses the word θεοκρατία of the present
constitution of the community in Ap., 2, 165. Instead of βασιλεύς and βασιλεία he has ἡγεμών and
ἡγεμονία; he ascribes ἡγεμονία rather than βασιλεία to the Roman emperor.58 The reason may be that on
the one side Josephus is one of those who avoided referring to the Messianic and eschatological hope of
his people which was linked with the word βασιλεία, and on the other that as a historian living and
writing in Rome he is an adherent of Hellenism and is yet wholly dependent on his sources.59
E. The Word Group βασιλεύς κτλ. in the NT.
† βασιλεύς.
βασιλεύς, “king,” is applied in the NT to men, to gods (or God) and to intermediary beings. From the
standpoint of biblical theology, it is an important fact that in the NT, in close dependence on OT and
Jewish usage and in full agreement with it, God as well as Christ (the Messiah Jesus) bears this title, and
men are restricted and depreciated as kings.
1. a. Earthly kings mentioned in the NT, either generally without name or more particularly by name,
are explicitly or implicitly contrasted with God or the Messiah as King, or at any rate regarded as
subordinate. In the non-biblical world the following are given the title: Pharaoh in Ac. 7:10, who is
followed by another king in 7:18; Hb. 11:23, 27; Herod the Great in Mt. 2:1, 3, 9; Lk. 1:5; also Herod
Antipas, though he was not king in the strict sense, in Mt. 14:9; Mk. 6:14, 22, 25, 26, 27; Herod Agrippa
I, Ac. 12:1, 20; Herod Agrippa II, Ac. 25:13, 14, 24, 26; 26:2, 7, 13, 19, 26, 27, 30; also the Nabataean
king Aretas in 2 C. 11:32. According to oriental usage the Roman emperor is also king60 in 1 Tm. 2:2; 1
Pt. 2:13, 17; Rev. 17:9 f. (cf. 1 Cl., 37, 3). All such kings are kings of the earth or the Gentiles (τῆς γῆς,
Mt. 17:25; Ac. 4:26; Rev. 1:5; 6:15; 17:2, 18; 18:9; 19:19; 21:24; τῶν ἐθνῶν, Lk. 22:25; τῆς οἰκουμένης
ὅλης, Rev. 16:14). The description and evaluation of the kings of the earth are taken from Ps. 2:2, ψ
88:27 and similar passages. As in the OT, divine rank is not ascribed to the earthly king after the manner
of oriental court style; this dignity is ascribed only to Yahweh or His Messiah. In Revelation this
73
distinction is given particular emphasis by the fact that, in contrast to the contemporary style of the
Roman emperors and their oriental predecessors,61 only the one Almighty God is called βασιλεὺς τῶν
ἐθνῶν (Rev. 15:3) and only the Messiah King the βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ κύριος κυρίων (Rev. 19:16; cf.
17:14). The sons of the kingdom of God are set by God or by Christ above earthly kings with their
power. They are strictly taken out of the sphere of earthly power and serve one another as brethren (Mt.
17:25 f.; Lk. 22:25). As the kingdom of God draws near, Christians will be brought to judgment by
ἡγεμόνες καὶ βασιλεῖς for the sake of Christ (Mt. 10:18; Mk. 13:9; Lk. 21:12). Ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν
βασιλέων (vl. βασιλείων) those are at home who wear soft clothing, but not a prophet like John the
Baptist (Mt. 11:8). That which will be revealed to the children of the kingdom is hidden from earthly
kings and even from the prophets (Lk. 10:24). Kings, whose business is war (Lk. 14:31), must hear the
Gospel like Jews and Gentiles (Ac. 9:15; cf. Rev. 10:11). At the end of the days the kings of the East (→
ἀνατολή) will be the scourge of God and will then be destroyed (Rev. 16:12; cf. 16:14; 17:2, 9, 12, 18;
18:3, 9; 19:18f.). On the other hand, there is also the possibility that they will make obedient submission
(Rev. 21:24).
b. No more and no less than an earthly king is an intermediary being like → Ἀβαδδών, the ruler of
the spirits of the underworld (Rev. 9:11).
c. It is another matter that earthly figures like David and Melchisedec are also invested With royal
dignity. As in the period of the Israelite monarchy (cf. Ac. 13:21: “Afterward they desired a king, and
God gave unto them Saul”), so on the NT view David as the ancestor of Jesus Christ is a divinely
recognised king (Mt. 1:6; Ac. 13:22).62 And Melchisedec, by allegorical interpretation, is a type of
Christ as the king of Salem, of peace and righteousness (Hb. 7:1, 2).
2. a. It is thus natural that in the NT Jesus Christ should be regarded as “the King.” As the Messiah
Jesus is first the βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (Mt. 2:2; 27:11, 29, 37; Mk. 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Lk. 23:3, 37 f.;
Jn. 18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 14 f., 19, 21). Yet the usage is somewhat ambivalent. A disinterested
contemporary like Pilate can only accept the designation from the Jewish accusers (Lk. 23:2 f.). For the
hardened Jewish enemies of Jesus, in this case both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the designation is
the blasphemous claim of a false Messianic pretender. According to Jewish opinion Jesus is a man who
makes himself a king (Jn. 19:12). The vacillating mob, detecting but not understanding the Messianic
claim of Jesus, takes the title “King of the Jews” for the most part in a political sense. Even the disciples
taught by Jesus share this view. The people thus wish to make Jesus a king, but do not see what this
really implies (Jn. 6:15). In short, the fact that Jesus is King raises the question in what the Messiahship
of Jesus consists. If the true Messianic claim linked with the royal title is to be underlined, then He
should be called the King of → Ἰσραήλ rather than the Jews. In fact, even though infrequently, we do
find this designation βασιλεὺς (τοῦ) Ἰσραήλ (Mt. 27:42; Mk. 15:32; Jn. 1:49; 12:13). At any rate, the
Jew who really knows the promise given to his people ought to speak of the King of Israel. The promise
of Zech. 9:9: “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee” (Mt. 21:5; Jn. 12:15), is given to the daughter of
Jerusalem as the true Israel. By divine commission this Messiah King will hold the last assize (Mt.
25:34, 40). According to ψ 117:26 Jesus on His entry into Jerusalem is the anointed King who comes in
the name of the Lord (Lk. 19:38). It is only thus that Jesus is the Messiah King (χριστὸς βασιλεύς), in an
antithesis to the Roman emperor which is not understood either by Jews or Gentiles (Lk. 23:2).63 It
seems rather strange at a first glance that apart from the Evangelists the authors of the NT describe Jesus
Christ neither as the King of the Jews nor the King of Israel. This title is lacking in the original kerygma
in Acts, and also in Paul. Yet there is no reason to conclude that the early community, to which the
Evangelists also belong, did not know or use the title. There is a concealed indication that it is not alien
to the kerygma at Ac. 17:7, where the Jews in Thessalonica denounce the Christians for high treason on
the ground that they maintain that there is another king, namely, Jesus. On the other hand, the restraint in
this respect is striking. We may surmise that the difficulty (already mentioned) concerning the
Messiahship of Jesus brought with it some measure of uncertainty and caution. We may also see here an
indication that the whole complex of the Messianic secret, which the early community hesitated to take
74
up, really belongs to the history of Christ on earth, i.e., that Jesus Himself as the King of the Jews or of
Israel understood Himself to be the Messiah of His people. At this point the Fourth Evangelist is in full
agreement with the others, except that in the answer to Pilate’s question he goes on to give a
christological definition of the kingdom of Jesus (Jn. 18:37). A distinctive position is occupied by the
Apocalypse, which gives to the royal title a cosmological implication. The Messiah King of the last time
finally exercises His office in relation to the world. In the so-called Synoptic Apocalypse the case is
materially the same, as also in Paul’s depiction of the judgment by Christ at 1 C. 15:24, where Christ
restores royal dominion to God at the end of the days. It is in this sense that at 1 Tm. 6:15, in line with
the hymnic style of Revelation, Jesus Christ is the βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν
κυριευόντων.
In the post-apostolic fathers Christ is called βασιλεὺς μέγας in Did., 14, 3 after the pattern of Mal. 1:14.
He is preceded by a Messianic and apocalyptic enemy, the βασιλεὺς μικρός, according to Barn., 4, 4; cf. Da.
7:24. If Christ is called King, this helps to confirm the dignity of the Incarnate, who is instituted King by God
the King (Dg., 7, 4). In the light of the results of the incarnation, and the example thereby given, the attribute
σώσας (Mart.Pol., 9, 3) and the title διδάσκαλος (Mart.Pol., 17, 3) are added to His style as βασιλεύς.
b. When royal dominion is restored to God by His Christ, God is described by Paul as God the
Father, the eternal King. This is clearly expressed in 1 Tm. 1:17, where God is called the βασιλεὺς τῶν
αἰώνων (cf. Tob. 13:6, 10; → αἰών). Only in one passage in Mt. is God extolled as the μέγας βασιλεύς
(5:35). It is worth noting that Mt., who follows the OT more closely than the other Evangelists, adduces
this quotation. Similarly, Mt. gives more parables of the kingdom of God than the others. And in the
details of these parables God is the King in His different functions; cf. Mt. 14:9; 18:23; 22:2, 7, 11, 13.
It is in keeping with the piety and theology of the post-apostolic fathers that in them, as in the
philosophically influenced Judaism of the diaspora, more epithets are applied to God than in the NT. As in 1
Tm. 1:17, which almost belongs to this group, so in 1 Cl., 61, 2 God is βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, also δεσπότης
ἐπουράνιος. He is also lauded as ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ μέγας in Herm.v., 3, 9, 8; cf. ψ 47:2; Tob. 13:15. God is also
βασιλεύς in Dg., 7, 4.
c. According to some not too well attested readings of Rev. 1:6; 5:10, Christians, too, may be called
βασιλεῖς. The verbs → βασιλεύω and → συμβασιλεύω are certainly used of Christians.64
† βασιλεία.65
In relation to the general usage of βασιλεία, usually translated “kingdom,” it is to be noted first that it
signifies the “being,” “nature” and “state” of the king. Since the reference is to a king, we do best to speak
first of his “dignity” or “power.” This is true in the oldest known use of the word: τὴν βασιληίην (Ionic for
βασιλείαν) ἔχε τὴν Λυδῶν, Hdt., I, 11. Similarly in Xenoph.Mem., IV, 6, 12: βασιλείαν … καὶ τυραννῖδα
ἀρχὰς μὲν ἀμφοτέρας ἡγεῖτο εἶναι, διαφέρειν δὲ ἀλλήλων ἐνόμιζε (cf. what was said about the difference
between βασιλεύς and τύραννος, → 564, n. 2). Almost spontaneously there then intrudes a richly attested
second meaning; the dignity of the king is expressed in the territory ruled by him, i.e., his “kingdom.” 66 This
transition is no less obvious in the Eng. “principality,” or “empire,” or indeed “dominion.” On the other hand,
it did not wholly replace the original meaning of dignity. Both meanings are present in βασιλεία. In Rev.
17:12 and 17:17 we seem to have the two meanings almost directly alongside one another.67
Investigation of the canonical OT (both Heb. and Aram. originals and the LXX, → 565 ff.), of the
pseudepigraphical and apocryphal liter. (including also the Rabbinic writings, → 571 ff.) and of Hellenistic
authors (esp. Philo, → 574 ff.), shows that the sense of dignity or power is still predominant. This is quite
definitely so in the NT.68
1. The Earthly βασιλεία.
a. To the earthly → βασιλεύς there corresponds the earthly βασιλεία, the kingdom of men. The two
meanings mentioned in the introduction merge into one another at this point, though in certain NT
passages the context enables us to distinguish them. Thus in the parable of the pounds in Lk. 19:12, 15 it
is said of a certain nobleman that he journeyed into a far country λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, and then
returned λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν. The reference here is obviously to royal dignity.69 The same verb is to
75
be found in Rev. 17:12: δέκα βασιλεῖς … βασιλείαν οὔπω ἔλαβον.70 To this there corresponds shortly
afterwards Rev. 17:17: δοῦναι τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θηρίῳ,70 and also 17:18: ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη ἡ ἔχουδα
βασιλείαν ἐπὶ τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς.71 In other passages the reference is no less plainly to the territory.
Thus in Mt. 4:8 == Lk. 4:5, where in the temptation story the devil shows Jesus πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ
κόσμου or τῆς οἰκουμένης, the use of the plural and the assumption of visibility imply kingdoms in the
territorial sense.72 When Jesus in His defence against the Pharisees says: πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽
ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται (Mt. 12:25; cf. Mk. 3:24 and Lk. 11:17), the statement itself, and the comparison with
a πόλις or οἰκία (οἶκος), clearly incline in the same direction. Again, in the apocalyptic discourse:
ἐγερθήσεται ἔθνος ἐπ᾽ ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν (Mt. 24:7 and par.), the link with ἔθνος points
to the territory ruled. The same meaning is found in the promise of Herod to his daughter: ἕως ἡμίσους
τῆς βασιλείας μου (Mk. 6:23), and also in Rev. 16:10: ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ θηρίου)
ἐσκοτωμένη.
Such earthly βασιλεία is almost always seen in emphatic opposition, or at least subjection, to the
βασιλεία of God, just as the κόσμος (Mt. 4:8) or the οἰκουμένη (Lk. 4:5) as the βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου
(Rev. 11:15) is against God, having given itself to “the” hostile king, i.e., the devil. This is seen
particularly in the fact that the world power of the Roman Empire (θηρίον in the Apoc.), understood
apocalyptically and therefore regarded as devilish, seeks to represent the βασιλεία and to spread light,
even though it is in distress and darkness (ἐσκοτωμένη, Rev. 16:10). That the devil raises the claim to
have a βασιλεία may be seen from the fact that as the tempter he seduces the βασιλεῖαι of the world, and
that Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisees of earthly kingdoms in general, then goes on at once to speak
specifically of the βασιλεία of the devil.
b. In this defence there is express reference to the βασιλεία of the devil: πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ
βασιλεία αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ σατανᾶ), whether in the sense of “realm” or “reign” (Mt. 12:26 == Lk. 11:18).
c. Apart from the earthly, human or devilish βασιλεία, there is the βασιλεία of the men or people
elected by God. A legitimate possessor or representative of the βασιλεία is king David: εὐλογημένη ἡ
ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ (Mk. 11:10). Only to Israel as the divine people of the old
and new covenant (Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ πνεῦμα) does there belong this βασιλεία, concerning which the
disciples hopefully ask: κύριε, εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ; (Ac.
1:6).
2. The βασιλεία of Christ.
We have seen already that on the basis of the OT Jesus Christ is the King of the true Israel in the NT.
Hence we must now consider the βασιλεία of Christ. The Son of Man will send His angels and they will
gather ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ all seducers and evildoers (Mt. 13:41). Jesus says that some standing with
Him will not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ (Mt. 16:28). It is
said of the King Jesus Christ: τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ there will be no end (Lk. 1:33). This King promises
His disciples that they shall eat and drink ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου (Lk. 22:30). The thief crucified with Him
asks the suffering and dying Messiah King to remember him when He comes εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου (vl.
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου) (Lk. 23:42). Of the manner of this kingdom Jesus says that ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή is not
of this world (Jn. 18:36). The apostle of Christ attests τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ (2
Tm. 4:1). He knows that his Lord will deliver him εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον (2 Tm. 4:18).
To us Christians entrance is given εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ (2 Pt. 1:11).
This βασιλεία of Jesus Christ is also the βασιλεία of God. In various passages there is reference to
the kingdom of God and of Christ. The unbeliever has no inheritance ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ
θεοῦ (Eph. 5:5). At the end of the times the βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου has become the βασιλεία τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ (our Lord and His Anointed, Rev. 11:15). Thus God and Christ are linked;
sometimes the one is mentioned, sometimes the other. On the other hand, there is no reference to the
βασιλεία of Christ apart from that of God. This is attested by Jesus Himself: My Father hath made over
76
to Me βασιλείαν (Lk. 22:29). It is God who has delivered us εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης
αὐτοῦ (Col. 1:13). Having thus received the kingdom from the Father, at the end of the days Christ gives
it back to Him (1 C. 15:24). He can only give Him what belongs to Him. This brings us to the dominant
NT concept of the βασιλεία (τοῦ) θεοῦ which we have already been discussing implicitly, just as we
shall be explicitly discussing the βασιλεία (τοῦ) Χριστοῦ as well in the section which follows.
3. The βασιλεία of God.
a. As regards the usage, four points are to be noted: 1. the alternative βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν; 2. the
references to βασιλεία in the absolute; 3. the attributive and predicative statements; and 4. the synonyms.
Except for the textually uncertain Jn. 3:5, the expression βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (“kingdom of heaven”)
is found only in Mt. In Ev. Hebr. Fr., 11 it recurs as regnum coelorum. On three occasions Mt. also uses
the term which is customary in Mk., Lk. and elsewhere, i.e., βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (“kingdom of God”). To
these we should probably add a fourth in Mt. 6:33 (though not all the MSS have τοῦ θεοῦ), and perhaps
even a fifth in Mt. 19:24, if we are not to read τῶν οὐρανῶν. The question arises why Mt. has this
double usage. Does he intend a distinction in meaning between his usual τῶν οὐρανῶν and his less
frequent τοῦ θεοῦ? In general, the very fact that the expressions are interchangeable both in the MSS and
in the Synoptic parallels forces us to the conclusion that they are used promiscue and have exactly the
same meaning. It is open to dispute whether Jesus used the one or the other in the original Aramaic. The
possibility must also be taken into account that there is at least a nuance in the kingdom of heaven in so
far as this refers to the lordship which comes down from heaven73 into this world. If so, this gives us two
important insights. The first is a plain reassurance that the essential meaning is reign rather than realm.
The second is the related indication that this reign cannot be a realm which arises by a natural
development of earthly relationships or by human efforts, but is one which comes down by divine
intervention. Since heaven can be substituted for God by later Jewish usage, what is true of βασιλεία
τῶν οὐρανῶν is also true of βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. The same holds good also of βασιλεία τοῦ πατρός
(“kingdom of the Father”) in Mt. 13:43; 26:29 (cf. Mt. 6:10: “Thy kingdom come,” i.e., the kingdom of
“our Father”); 25:34 and Lk. 12:32 (“It hath pleased your Father to give you the kingdom”).
Quite a number of passages speak of the βασιλεία without addition and therefore in the absolute,
namely, Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 13:19; 24:14 (εὐαγγέλιον, or λόγος τῆς βασιλείας); 8:12; 13:38 (υἱοὶ τῆς
βασιλείας); Hb. 11:33 (διὰ πίστεως κατηγ ωνίσαντο βασιλείας); 12:28 (Βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον
παραλαμβάνοντες); Jm. 2:5 (κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας); perhaps also Ac, 20:25 (κηρύσσων τὴν
βασιλείαν).74 It need hardly be proved that in all these passages the reference is to the kingdom of God,
since this is unambiguously shown both by the context and by the specific attributes and predicates. 75
Whether directly by the additton τοῦ θεοῦ or τῶν οὐρανῶν, or indirectly in the absolute use, the
being and action of God supply the necessary qualification. Hence any other direct attributes are
extremely rare. We have referred already to ἀσάλευτος in Hb. 12:28, and to this we may add ἐπουράνιος
in 2 Tm. 4:18 and αἰώνιος in 2 Pt. 1:11. In relation to the kingdom of God, however, such attributes are
largely formal and rhetorical, and add hardly anything from the material or theological standpoint. The
NT is also sparing in direct predicates. Whose is the kingdom ? It is the kingdom of God, and also the
kingdom of men, but only of men who are poor in spirit (Mt. 5:3 == Lk. 6:20) and persecuted for
righteousness’ sake (Mt. 5:10).
More extended attributes and predicates lead us into a sphere of synonyms well adapted to bring out
the complexity of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. In this respect it makes no difference
whether the synon. expressions are introduced by a καί (hendiadys) or as predicates. Again, it makes no
difference in what order they stand or are treated. The reference is always to the manifold yet unitary
being and work of God and His appeal to man and claim upon him. Men are to seek the kingdom of God
and His δικαιοσύνη (Mt. 6:33). This δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη and χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ make up the
kingdom of God (R. 14:17). This does not imply a native quality, or one attained or to be attained, but
the παλιγγενεσία referred to in Mt 19:28 (Jn. 3:3 ff.) where the Lucan parallel has βασιλεία (Lk. 22:30).
77
In this context the writer of Revelation addresses his fellow-Christians as their brother and companion
ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ὑπομονῇ ἐν Ἰησοῦ (Rev. 1:9). There has come to him ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ
δύναμις καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rev. 12:10). In other places,
too, there is allusion to this δύναμις of God in attempted definition of the kingdom of God. It comes ἐν
δυνάμει (Mk. 9:1). It does not consist ἐν λόγῳ (of men), but ἐν δυνάμει (of God) (1 C. 4:20).76 Again, to
the kingdom of God there belongs δόξα as the glory of God (1 Th. 2:12); indeed, βασιλεία and δόξα may
be used interchangeably, as shown by ἐν τῇ δόξῃ σου in Mk. 10:37, where Mt. 20:21 has ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ
σου. The kingdom of Christ as the One sent by God coincides with His ἐπιφάνεια (2 Tm. 4:1). This
βασιλεία ἀσάλευτος is for believers χάρις (Hb. 12:28), or ἐπαγγελία, as MSS ‫ א‬A have for βασιλεία in
Jm. 2:5, or ζωή, into which one enters as into the kingdom in Mt. 18:9; the par. in Mk. 9:47 has
βασιλεία. The Pharisees and scribes have tried to take this kingdom from the men thereto invited by God
according to Mt. 23:13, but the fact that the parallel in Lk. 11:52 speaks of the κλεῖς τῆς γνώσεως shows
us that βασιλεία (θεοῦ) is the same as γνῶσις (θεοῦ).
From all these synonyms we may see that the concern of the βασιλεία as God’s action towards man
is soteriological, so that our explanation of it stands or falls with our explanation of soteriology
generally in the preaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles.
b. The last statement makes it plain that the kingdom of God implies the whole of the preaching of
Jesus Christ and His apostles. If the whole of the NT message is εὐαγγέλιον, this is the εὐαγγέλιον of the
kingdom of God. For → εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ in Mk. 1:14 many MSS have εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας
τοῦ θεοῦ. This summarised account corresponds to many others (cf. Mt. 4:23; 9:35 and also 24:14). Like
εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, too, refers to the kingdom of God (Lk. 4:43; 8:1; 16:16: Ac. 8:12). So, too,
do related verbs like κηθύσσειν (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; Lk. 9:2; Ac. 20:25; 28:31; or διαμαρτύρεσθαι: Ac.
28:23; or διαγγέλλειν: Lk. 9:60; or πείθειν: Ac. 19:8; or λαλεῖν: Lk. 9:11; or finally λέγειν: Ac. 1:3).
Like εὐαγγέλιον, → μυστήριον or μυστήρια (revelation) is also mentioned in relation to the kingdom of
God in Mt. 13:11 and par., or the λόγος in Mt. 13:19, where the par. passages in Mk. 4:15 and Lk. 8:12
simply speak of the λόγος as the Word of God. The whole of this proclamation is expressly attested by
the linking of word and deed which is emphasised in decisive passages. Thus with the direction of Jesus
to His disciples to proclaim the kingdom of God, we also have the direction: καὶ ἰᾶσθαι (Lk. 9:2; cf. Mt.
10:7 f.; Mk. 3:13 f.). Jesus sees in the fact that He expels demons the dawn of the kingdom of God (Mt.
12:28 == Lk. 11:20). Hence we are concerned not merely with the word of the kingdom of God but also
with the coincident act of the kingdom of God. This is expressly stated in the summarised accounts of
the Gospels, following the original kerygma (cf. Mk. 4:23).
c. What is the point of contact for this NT proclamation ? Jesus of Nazareth was not the first to speak
of the kingdom of God. Nor was John the Baptist. The proclamation of neither is to the effect that there
is such a kingdom and its nature is such and such. Both proclaim that it is near. This presupposes that it
was already known to the first hearers, their Jewish contemporaries. This concrete link is decisive. It
gives us a positive relationship of Jesus and the Baptist with apocalyptic and the Rabbinic writings in
which there are points both of agreement and of distinction to these two movements, which for their part
derive from OT prophecy. Details emerge from a comparison with the points already made in sections
on the OT and the Rabbinic writings. For the NT authors, who all wrote in Greek, the Greek translation
of the OT has to be taken into account in this respect. If in Hb. 1:8 we have reference to the ῥάβδος τῆς
βασιλείας αὐτοῦ (LXX: σου) in the middle of a long quotation from the OT, there can be no doubt that
this derives from ψ 44:6.77 On the other hand, as we have seen, there are certain Hellenistic passages in
the LXX, and these form a point of contact for the NT preaching of the kingdom of God. The same
holds good of Philo and Josephus.
d. If, as the linguistic usage has shown, the kingdom of God implies the state of kingly rule, this
emerges logically in the description of this state. The predominant statement is that the kingdom of God
is near, that it has drawn near, that it has attained to us, that it comes, that it will appear, that it is to
come: ἤγγικεν, Mt. 3:2; 4:17 == Mk. 1:15; Mt. 10:7; Lk. 10:9, 11; ἐγγύς ἐστιν, Lk. 21:31; ἐρχομένη,
78
Mk. 11:10; ἔρχεται, Lk. 17:20; ἔφθασεν Mt. 12:28 == Lk. 11:20; μέλλει ἀποφαίνεσθαι, Lk. 19:11;
ἐλθάτω, Mt. 6:10 == Lk. 11:2.
In the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth, which is linked with that of John and which He passes on to
His disciples, the nature of this state of divine kingship is described both negatively and positively, or in
the first instance negatively and therewith positively.78
Negatively, it is opposed to everything present and earthly, to everything here and now. It is thus
absolutely miraculous. Hence we cannot understand it as a summum bonum to which man strives and
gradually approximates. From the direction in the summarised account at the beginning of the
proclamation of the Gospel: μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt. 4:17), there arises
the only question which can be and is relevant. This is not the question whether or how we men may
have the kingdom of God as a disposition in our hearts, or whether we may represent it as a fellowship
of those thus minded. The question is whether we belong to it or not. To try to bring in the kingdom of
God is human presumption, self-righteous Pharisaism and refined Zealotism. From this standpoint, the
supremely hard thing required of man is the patience by which alone may be achieved readiness for the
act of God. We can see this in the preaching of the apostle Paul, for whom the νήφειν and the μὴ
σβεννύναι τὸ πνεῦμα are coincident (1 Th. 5:8, 19). The parables of the kingdom are spoken to drive
home this point. The man who does not display a patient openness for God is like a man who sows, and
then like an impatient and curious child—the seed grows he knows not how—he cannot allow it to
germinate and grow of itself (the parable of the seed which grows of itself, Mk. 4:26–29). A pure
miracle takes place before our eyes when without any co-operation of our own, and beyond all our
understanding, the fruit-bearing head develops out of the tiny seed. That modern man has done
something to solve this riddle does not affect the decisive tertium comparationis. The parables of the
mustard seed (Mt. 13:31 f. and par.) and the leaven (Mt. 13:33 == Lk. 13:20 f.) carry the same lesson. It
is also present, though rather less obviously, in the other parables, except that there is now a second
meaning which we have still to consider, e.g., in the parables of the wheat and the tares in Mt. 13:24–30,
of the treasure hid in the field in Mt. 13:44, of the pearl of great price in Mt. 13:45 f., of the drag-net in
Mt. 13:47–50, of the wicked servant in Mt. 18:23–35, of the labourers in the vineyard in Mt. 20:1–16, of
the marriage feast in Mt. 22:2–14 and of the ten virgins in Mt. 25:1–13. The purpose of all these
parables is to make it plain that the order in God’s kingdom is different from all human order, and that
this kingdom is incalculably and overwhelmingly present within the signs in which it lies enclosed in the
activity of Jesus.
From this standpoint, the kingdom of God is a cosmic catastrophe depicted in certain events which
constitute the eschatological drama of Jewish apocalyptic. Jesus is at one with those of His Jewish
contemporaries whose hope is not set on a visionary political kingdom but who look for the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of heaven (Da. 7:13). Even though the community, in its intoxication with
apocalyptic visions, might have made some addition, esp. in the so-called Synoptic Apocalypse in Mk.
13 and par., there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of eating and drinking in the kingdom of God (Mk.
14:25 and par.). Nevertheless, the decisive point is not that Jesus shared or even surpassed the ideas of
his contemporaries in this respect. The decisive point is that He was far more reserved, and consciously
so. In contrast to genuine Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic, He neither depicted the last things nor
enumerated the signs. The scorn of the Sadducees, who put before Him a problem implied in the
apocalyptic and resurrection hopes which they rejected (as distinct from the Pharisees), was irrelevant
(Mk. 12:25 f.). Particularly striking is His rejection of any enumeration of signs. In the Lucan story in
Lk. 17:20 f. Jesus tells us that the divine kingship does not come with observation, or with “external
show,” as Luther freely but excellently translates οὐ μετὰ παρατηρήσεως. One cannot say, Lo here ! or,
Lo there ! for the reign of God is among you—not “within you,” as in the misleading AV and Luther.
The whole point of this much quoted and much wrested saying is that we are not to look for signs. The
question whether there is an emphasis on the presence of the kingdom of God at the moment of speaking is
irrelevant, since in the original Aramaic there is no copula “is” or “will be.” It has also to be considered that
79
the Syriac translation demands a rendering back of the Greek ἐντός into the cognate Aramaic which would
give us “among you.” The saying of Jesus concerning the dating of the day of the Son of Man (Mt. 24:26f.;
cf. Lk. 17:23 f.) is in full agreement. Those around Jesus had very different views of the signs and nature of
the kingdom of God. Thus the sons of Zebedee, or their mother, ask concerning the best places in the
kingdom, and Jesus answers that this is a matter for God alone (Mk. 10:40 == Mt. 20:23). The apostolic
preaching of Paul also agrees, as in R. 14:17, where he tells us that the kingdom of God does not consist in
eating and drinking etc.
Jesus was also more reserved in another respect. Even where national and political hopes were not to
the fore, but salvation was expected for the whole world in the last time, His contemporaries still
thought it important that there should be a place of privilege for Israel. Israel was to arise with new
glory, and the scattered tribes, and indeed the Gentiles, were to stream towards the new Jerusalem. Jesus
shares this hope. He gives to His disciples, the twelve, as representatives of the twelve tribes of the
people of God, the holy people, judicial and administrative office in the reign of God (Mt. 19:28 == Lk.
22:29 f.). But like the Baptist Jesus also emphasises the negative fact that the Jew as such has no
particular claim before God. In the day of judgment he can and will be ashamed in face of the Gentiles.
The role of the Jew is viewed as it was later by Paul (R. 2: the rejection of Israel; R. 9–11: the salvation
of Israel). This concern for Israel is not directed against Rome. In this respect we should compare the
Jewish Shemone Esre and its fervent nationalism with the Lord’s Prayer and its complete absence of any
such particularism. Similarly, immanence is never preached at the expense of transcendence in the
proclamation of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is beyond ethics. To orientate oneself by
ethics is to think of the individual. In Jesus and the apostles, however, the individual does not stand
under the promise as an individual. It is the community which stands under the promise; the individual
attains to salvation as its member.
The proclamation of the kingdom is misunderstood if we overlook these differences from Judaism. It
is completely misunderstood, however, if we conceive of the differences in Greek terms. The Greek
view, mostly followed to-day, sees in man a self-evolving character in which the bodily and sensual
element withers and the spiritual grows. Individualism cannot be replaced by universalism. This ideal is
alien to Jesus and His apostles, as also to later antiquity. To see the proclamation of the kingdom of God
in the context of this popular philosophy is to sublimate it, substituting a refined humanism for the
phantasy of human apocalyptic and visionary political aspirations. Where God breaks in with His
kingdom, where God speaks and acts, no training of the soul, no mysticism, no ecstaticism, can give
access to Him. The cruder Jewish conceptions of heaven and hell make quite impossible the subtler
human possibilities of communion with God imagined by the Greeks. Anthropomorphic concepts of
God and His kingdom do far less violence to God the Lord in His supraterrestrial majesty than a sublime
philosophy. It has also to be considered that expressions like supraterrestriality, transcendence, cosmic
catastrophe or miracle lose their point if they are used to fashion a higher world. The negative point that
the kingdom of God is a miracle must be maintained in its strict negativity. For this negative, i.e., that
the kingdom of God is wholly other, that it is absolutely above the world and distinct from it, is the most
positive thing that could be said of it. The actualisation of the rule of God is future. And this future
determines man in his present. The call for conversion comes to the man who is set before God and His
rule. Where man responds to this call in faith, i.e., in obedience, he is in touch with the kingdom of God
which comes without his co-operation, and the Gospel is glad tidings for him.
e. Many terms are used to show how man comes to have dealings with this kingdom. The basic note
is that he receives it as the gift of God. God gives His kingdom: εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν
τὴν βασιλείαν (Lk. 12:32). Jesus Christ promises the confessing Peter: δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς
βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt. 16:19). The kingdom is taken from the obdurate Jews and given to
believers: ἀρθήσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς
(Mt. 21:43). Christ makes over the kingdom as the Father has made it over to Him: διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν
καθὼς διέθετό μοι ὁ πατήρ μου βασιλείαν (Lk. 22:29). God calls Christians into His kingdom and glory:
τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν (1 Th. 2:12). God has set us in the
80
kingdom of the Son of His love: μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ (Col. 1:13).
Believers are made worthy of the kingdom of God: καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ (2 Th.
1:5). The Lord will deliver believers into His heavenly kingdom: … ῥύσεταί με ὁ κύριος … σώσει εἰς
τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον (2 Tm. 4:18). God has promised His kingdom: ἐπηγγείλατο (Jm.
2:5). God does not act like the Pharisees who presume to close the kingdom to men: οὐαὶ … ὅτι κλείετε
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Mt. 23:13; cf. Lk. 11:52). To these expressions
there correspond many correlatives on the side of the believer, He receives the kingdom of God like a
child: ὃς ἂν μὴ δέξηται τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς παιδίον (Mk. 10:15 == Lk. 18:17). Joseph of
Arimathea is in the attitude of one προσδεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Mk. 15:43 == Lk. 23:51).
Similarly παραλαμβάνειν at Hb. 12:28. Especially common, and corresponding to the διαθήκη of the
kingdom of God, is the expression κληρονομεῖν, e.g., in Mt. 25:34; 1 C. 6:9, 10: 15:50; Gl. 5:21; also
ἔχει κληρονομίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ … in Eph. 5:5 and κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας in Jm. 2:5. To be thus
distinguished by God is to see the kingdom. Some are privileged to see it before their death (Mk. 9:1 and
par.). Only the regenerate is worthy of this vision (Jn, 3:3). Particularly common, too, is the idea of
entering the kingdom: εἰσέρχεσθαι or εἰσπορεύεσθαι in Mt. 5:20; 7:21; 18:3 and par.; 19:23f. and par.:
23:13, cf. Lk. 11:52; Mk. 9:47; Jn. 3:5; Ac. 14:22; εἴσοδος in 2 Pt. 1:11. In this connection we should
also refer to the passages which speak of ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ … (Mt. 5:19; 8:11 == Lk. 13:28 f.; Mt. 11:11
== Lk. 7:28; Mt. 13:43; 18:1,4; 20:21; 26:29 and par.; Lk. 14:15; 22:16,30; 23:42 [alternative reading:
εἰς]; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 1:9). The publicans and harlots will go into the kingdom before the self-righteous
Pharisees: προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Mt. 21:31). The Jews should be υἱοὶ τῆς
βασιλείας (Mt. 8:12), but because of their hardness of heart they are not (cf. Mt. 13:38). The scribe who
is concerned for the cause of God is οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ (Mk. 12:34). The true
scribe, as God will have him, is μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt. 13:52). Whosoever truly
decides for God is εὔθετος τῆς βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ (Lk. 9:62). If this is so, there is an appeal for true
concern for the cause of God. Like the fellow-workers of Paul, we should be συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν
τοῦ θεοῦ (Col. 4:11). It should be noted that the text does not say: συνεργοὶ τῆς βασιλείας. … Thus in
spite of the phrase there is no real synergism.
Since, however, faith is obedience to the command of God, our concern and effort are demanded.
Through faith we should fight for the kingdom of God like the elect under the old covenant: διὰ πίστεως
κατηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας (Hb. 11:33). In short, we should seek earnestly the divine rule: ζητεῖτε …
πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν (Mt. 6:33 == Lk. 12:31). This ζητεῖν is rather different from the → βίαζεσθαι and
→ ἁρπάζειν of Mt. 11:12 == Lk. 16:16. To whom does the kingdom of God belong? To whom is it
allotted and assigned? To the poor (in spirit) according to Mt. 5:3 (== Lk. 6:20); to those who are
persecuted for righteousness’ sake according to Mt. 5:10; to children according to Mt. 19:14 and par..
These passages make it plain how great and inexpressible is the decision required of us. The invitation to
the kingdom of God must be accepted in μετάνοια. For the sake of it all the other things of this world, its
riches and fame, must be abandoned. We are not to be like those invited to the wedding who pleaded all
kind of obstacles (Mt. 22:1–14 == Lk. 14:16–24). Again there are various parables which emphasise this
with particular sharpness. For the sake of the kingdom of God, which is like the treasure hid in a field or
the goodly pearl for which all else will be exchanged (Mt. 13:44–46), we must pluck out the treacherous
eye or cut off the treacherous hand (M. 5:29f.). The most startling saying is that we must reflect that
many have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God (Mt. 19:12).
In contrast to isolated instances such as that of Origen in the early Church, this is not to be taken as a
moral injunction but as a striking and arresting call to consider what it implies to take seriously the divine
dominion, namely, that it may even demand self-emasculation, which is here neither praised nor blamed, and
certainly not praised. This interpretation is preferable to the weaker, though not impossible, suggestion that
some men, like John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, voluntarily renounce the sexual life.
At any rate, true regard for the kingdom of God requires the most serious decision, the most serious
weeding out of the few from the many (Mt. 22:14).79 A sharp alternative demands a pitiless decision.
“No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:62).
81
This decision is no mere matter of enthusiasm. It is not taken in a wave of emotion. It is a matter for cool
and sober consideration, as when an architect makes his plans before beginning to build or a king
considers his strategy before going to war (Lk. 14:28–32). Those who are invited by God to His
kingdom must reflect whether they can really accept the invitation. Those who do so without realising
what it implies, or who hear without obeying, are like a man building his house on sand (Mt. 7:24–27 ==
Lk. 6:47–49). Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord!” will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but those
who do the will of God (Mt. 7:21). Supreme readiness for sacrifice is demanded, even to the point of
sacrifice of self, or of hatred of one’s own family (Mt. 10:37 == Lk. 14:26). Who is really capable of
this? Who judges that he obeys God thus? No one but Jesus Christ Himself.
f. This brings us to the clamant question of the special and particularly close connection between the
kingdom of God and Jesus Christ Himself. It is not merely that in speaking of the kingdom of God we
also speak of that of Christ (→ 581 f.). Certain passages presuppose the actual identity of the kingdom
with Christ. Thus in Mk. 11:10 the coming kingdom of our father David is extolled, but Mt. 21:9 and
Lk. 19:38 refer only to the person of Jesus Christ (in par. with Mk. 11:9). Even more plain is the
Synoptic comparison of ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Mk. 10:29), ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐμοῦ ὀνόματος
(Mt. 19:29) and εἵνεκεν τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ (Lk. 18:29). The name and message of Jesus Christ, or
Jesus Christ Himself, are thus equated with the kingdom of God. This equation goes rather beyond the
identification of the Son of Man as a representative of the people of God. While Mk. 9:1 (== Lk. 9:27)
speaks of the coming of the kingdom of God in power, the parallel passage in Mt. 16:28 speaks of the
coming of the Son of Man with His kingdom. Christians wait for this Son of Man and Lord as for the
kingdom of God itself; e.g., Mt. 25:1 and Lk. 12:35 f. As parallelisms we have: εὐαγγελιζομένῳ περὶ τῆς
βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ac. 8:12) and: κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
καὶ διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ac. 28:31). Cf. also the parallelism: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ
θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rev. 12:10). There is thus linguistic support for the
obvious material fact that for Jesus the invading kingdom of God has come into time and the world in
His person, as expressed by John in the statement ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (Jn. 1:14). What is still to come
and is still awaited by the Christian is only in Jesus Christ a σήμερον (Lk. 4:21; cf. Mt. 11:5 f. == Lk.
7:22).80 It is on this decisive fact of the equation of the incarnate, exalted and present Jesus Christ with
the future kingdom of God that the christological κήρυγμα depends with its understanding of the mission
of the Messiah as a → ἅπαξ or ἐφάπαξ event, as a unique event which cannot be repeated, as once and
for all (→ 381 ff.). Christ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ, (R. 6:10, cf. Hb. 6ff.; 1 Pt. 3:18). If we seek a brief formula
in which to comprehend this equation, there suggests itself the distinctive αὐτοβασιλεία of Origen (in
Mt. tom. XIV, 7 on Mt. 18:23 [III, p. 283, Lommatzsch]),81 though not necessarily Origen’s own
understanding of it.82 Before Origen Marcion in his emphatic Panchristismus83 had said: In evangelio est
dei regnum Christus ipse (Tert. Adv. Marc;, IV, 33 [III, p. 532, 6 f.]).84 Jesus Christ alone obeyed the
Law and believed (cf. Phil. 2:5 ff.), both preaching the word of the kingdom of God and doing miracles
as its signs (Mt. 11:2 ff. == Lk. 7:18 ff.).
We can thus see why the apostolic and post-apostolic Church of the NT did not speak much of the
βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ explicitly, but always emphasised it implicitly by its reference to the κύριος Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός. It is not true that it now substituted the Church (→ ἐκκλησία) for the kingdom as preached by
Jesus of Nazareth. On the contrary, faith in the kingdom of God persists in the postEaster experience of
Christ.
4. As the NT witness is plain and unequivocal in relation to the αὐτοβασιλεία of Christ, it is
understandably reserved in its linking of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with Christian believers. The only
relevant verse in this connection is Rev. 1:6: Christ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν.85 It hardly need be shown
or proved, however, that in this verse Christians may be understood as βασιλεία only in a derivative
sense, i.e., as linked with Christ.
82
✪
βᾰσίλείᾱ, Ion. -ηΐη, ἡ kingdom, dominion, Hdt.1.11, etc.; παιδὸς ἡ β. Heraclit.52; hereditary
monarchy, opp. τυραννίς, ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς γέρασι πατρικαὶ β. Th.1.13; βασιλείας εἴδη τέτταρα
Arist.Pol.1285b20; ἡ πρώτη πολιτεία μετὰ τὰς β. after the age of monarchies, ib. 1297b17: metaph.,
ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς β. Apoc.1.6; β. τῶν οὐρανῶν Ev.Matt.3.2; τοῦ θεοῦ ib.6.33, etc.
2. kingly office, β. καὶ στρατηγία Arist.Pol.1273a37.
b. position of queen, LXXEs.1.19.
3. at Athens, the office of the archon βασιλεύς, Paus.1.3.1.
II. diadem, D.S.1.47, OGI90.43 (Rosetta).
III. reign, ib. 331.40 (Pergam.), D.S.17.1, POxy.1257.7 (iii A.D.); so αἱ β. the reigns of the Kings, title of
book of VT; accession to the throne, BGU646.12 (ii A.D.).
IV. concrete, His Majesty, LXX4Ki.11.1, &1Ma;6.47, Myc. qa-si-re-wi-ja, precise sense obscure.
βᾰσίλειάω, Desid., aim at royalty, Com.Adesp.958, J.BJ Praef.2, 1.4.1.
✪
βᾰσίλείδης, ου, ὁ, descendant of kings, τῶν δέκα βασιλειδῶν Pl.Criti.116c, S.Ant.941 (cj.).
βᾰσίλείδιον, τό, Dim. of βασιλεύς, tiny king, Plu.Ages.2.
✪
βᾰσίλειον, Ion. -ήϊον, τό, kingly dwelling, palace, X.Cyr.2.4.3, etc.; more common in pl., Hdt.1.30,
178, Arist.Oec.1352a11, etc.
b. seat of empire, capital, Plb.3.15.3, D.S.19.18, Str.1.2.25.
c. dominion, reign, τὴν Τύχην .. τοῦ ἀνεικήτου βασιλείου BCH suppl.8 no. 59 (Maced., iv A.D.).
2. royal treasury, Hdt.2.149: pl., Isoc.3.31.
II. tiara, diadem, LXX2Ki.1.10, Roussel Cultes Égyptiens 233 (Delos, ii B.C.), OGI90.45 (Rosetta),
Plu.2.358d, Porph.ap.Eus.PE3.11, Horap.1.15: metaph., τὸ β. τῆς εὐπρεπείας diadem of beauty,
LXXWi.5.16.
III. = ἃλιμος, Ps.-Dsc.1.91; = λευκόϊον, Id.3.123.
IV. Βασίλεια, τά, festival of Zeus Basileus, in Boeotia, IG7.552, Sch.Pi.O.7.153, IG12(1).78;, later of
festivals founded by Hellenistic kings, IG22.3779.19 (iii B.C.).
iv
BANQUET – DEIPNON
† δεῖπνον, δειπνέω*
In the everyday sense this means “meal” or “chief meal” (Lk. 14:12) or “feast”1 (Mk. 12:39 and par.;
6:21; Jn. 12:2; 1 C. 10:27 D).
In the NT the word takes on theological significance 1. by its cultic use in 1 C. 11:20: → κυριακὸν
δεῖπνον,2 “the meal consecrated to the Lord,” “the Lord’s Supper.”3 The evening table fellowship of the
community constitutes divine service. It is profaned by the separation of individuals to ἴδιον δεῖπνον (v.
21). According to the Pauline tradition (v. 23ff.), the celebration rests on the institution of Jesus on the
night of His betrayal, i.e., after the Last Supper, cf. v. 25 (Lk. 22:20 ℌR): μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι4 (cf. also Jn.
13:2, 4; 21:20). For more general points, → ἀγάπη (I, 55), πάσχα, τράπεζα.
It also takes on theological significance 2. as an eschatological image. The “heavenly banquet of the
last time,” in which the redeemed will participate, is a meaningful expression for perfect fellowship with
God and with Christ in the consummation. Cf. esp. Lk. 14:24, in interpretation of the parable of the
Great Supper, v. 16ff.: οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων τῶν → κεκλημένων → γεύσεταί μου τοῦ δείπνου,
83
and Rev. 19:9: → μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου τοῦ → ἀρνίου κεκλημένοι where the images of
the eschatological banquet and the marriage-feast (→ γάμος) merge into one another, as already in Mt.
22:2 ff. Cf. also Mt. 8:11; 26:29; Lk. 22:29 f., 16, 18.5 The saying of Christ as He knocks at the door in
Rev. 3:20: ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, also points us, in the context of the Revelation Epistles (cf. 2:5, 16, 25;
3:11), to eschatological union with the Friend who is welcomed in, the Lord of the parousia.6 The
dreadful opposite of the final banquet of the blessed is τὸ δεῖπνον τὸ μέγα τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. 19:17, based
on Ez. 39:17 ff.), to which the birds of prey are summoned (cf. Mt. 24:28: Lk. 17:37), the hosts of
Antichrist having been overthrown and destroyed.
δεῖπνον is common for a “cultic meal” in the religious speech of Hellenism,7 e.g., Jos.Ant., 18, 73: an
invitation to the δεῖπνον of Anubis in the temple of Isis in Rome; an Ephes. inscription (BMI, III, 2, 483 B,
10) refers to ἀνάλωμα τοῦ δείπνου in the cult of Artemis;8 an inscription from Notion (BCH, 47 [1923], 375,
6) refers to the δεῖπνον of an Aesculapius fraternity;9 Plut.Ser. Num. Pun., 13 (II, 557 f.): the invitation of
Pindar by a herald to the cultic meal of the Delphic priesthood in the days of Plutarch: Πίνδαρος ἐπὶ τὸ
δεῖπνον τῷ θεῷ;10 similarly AelVar. Hist., 9, 95: the invitation of Homer with Apollo ἐπὶ ξένια in Argos. Cf.
also the δεῖπνα τοῦ κλήρου in the circle of the Gnostic Marcus, Iren., I, 13, 4. Original invitations may be
consulted in P. Oxy., 1755: ἐρωτᾷ σε Ἀπίων δειπνῆσαι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ Σεραπείου εἰς κλείνην τοῦ κυρίου
Σαράπιδος τῇ ιγ ἀπὸ ὥρας θ; P. Oxy., 110; 523; 1484; 1485: ἐρωτᾷ σαι διπνῆσαι ὁ ἐξηγητὴς ἐν τῷ Δημητρίῳ
σήμερον ἥτις ἐστὶν θ ἀπὸ ὣρας ζ. The underlying thought is that of communio, of the union of those who eat
with the deity. So also in the Gr. church, cf. Chrys.Liturg., p. 396, 5 ff.: τοῦ δείπνου σου τοῦ μυστικοῦ
σήμερον υἱὲ θεοῦ κοινωνόν με παράλαβε. On the suspecting of Θυέστεια δεῖπνα or ἀνθρωποφαγία among
Christians, cf. Athenag.Suppl., 3, 1; Tat.Or. Graec., 25, 3.
The image of the eschatological feast (of rejoicing or judgment) goes back to the eschatology of Israel.
Cf. Is. 34:6 ff.; Jer. 46:10; Zeph. 1:7 and esp. Is. 25:6 (the feast of fat things and wine on the lees prepared by
Yahweh on Mount Sion [24:23] for all nations). A grotesque note is first introduced in Ez. 39:17 ff. (→
<34).11 It is used as an image of fellowship with God in the last days in Eth. En. 62:14: “The Lord of spirits
will dwell over them, and they will eat and lie down and rise up to all eternity with that Son of Man”; Slav.
En. 42:5: “At the last coming he will lead out Adam and the patriarchs and bring them (into the paradise of
Eden) that they may rejoice, as when a man invites his friends to eat with him, and they come and speak with
one another before the palace, joyously awaiting his feast, the enjoyment of good things, of immeasurable
wealth and joy and happiness in light and everlasting life.” In Christian apocalyptic cf. 4 (5) Esr. 2:38: videte
numerum signatorum in convivio Domini; Herm.s., 5, 2, 9; 5, 3 (moralised) In Rabb. writings, cf. the parables
in b.Shab., 153a; Midr. Cant. r., 9, 8; also Midr. Est., 1, 4: “The feast of our God, which He will prepare for
the righteous, has no end”;12 Pesikt. r., 41, where Jacob is invited to the feast of redemption ‫; ִסעּודַ תַגְׁ אּולָׁה‬13
cf. Midr. Ps. 14:7: ‫ ְׁמז ֻמָׁ ןַל ְַׁסעּודָׁ ה‬.
Behm
✪
δεῖπνον, τό, meal: in Hom. sts. noonday meal, Il.11.86; sts. = ἄριστον, morning meal, 2.381, 10.578,
19.171 sq., Od.15.94 sq., 500; sts. = δόρπον, evening meal, 17.176, 20.390sq.; later, the midday meal,
σῖτον εἰδέναι διώρισα, ἄριστα, δεῖπνα, δόρπα θ᾽ αἱρεῖσθαι τρίτα A.Fr.182; later, the afternoon meal,
dinner or supper, σοὶ δὲ μελήσει, ὅταν ᾖ δεκάπουν τὸ στοιχεῖον, λιπαρῷ χωρεῖν ἐπὶ δ. Ar.Ec.652: freq.
in pl., S.OT779, El.203 (lyr.); δ. Θυέστου E.Or.1008 (lyr.); ἀπὸ δείπνου straight-way after the meal, ἀπὸ
δ. αὐτοῦ θωρήσσοντο Il.8.54, cf. Antipho 1.17; καλεῖν ἐπὶ δεῖπνον, κεκλῆσθαι ἐπὶ δ., Eub.72, 119.2; δ.
παρασκευάζειν Pherecr.45, 172; παραθεῖναι Id.184; ποιεῖν Dionys.Com.2.4; of animals, etc.,
Hom.Epigr.11, Ael.VH1.12, 12.27.
b. sacrificial meal, IG12(7).515.53 (Amorgos, ii B.C.).
2. generally, food, provender, ἵπποισιν δεῖπνον δότε Il.2.383; ὄρνισι δεῖπνον A.Supp.801;
κοράκεσσιν Epigr.ap.Philostr.Her.19.17.
v
84
GAMOS – MARRIAGE FEAST
γαμέω, γάμος* → (νυμφίος).
γαμεῖν “to marry” and γάμος “marriage,” “wedding,” from the time of Homer. Common in the plur. for
“wedding festivities” (Ditt. Syll.3, 1106, 100). γαμίζειν acc. to the grammarian Apollonius1 means “to give a
maiden or woman in marriage,” though this is the only instance in secular Gk. More common is γαμίσκω, “to
give in marriage,” mid. “to get married.”2 In the LXX the word group is rare, though common in Philo and
Josephus.
1.
Marriage Customs in the NT.
In the writings of the Heb. Canon the LXX has γάμος only 3 times: Gn. 29:22: ἐποίησε γάμον ; Est. 2:18:
ὕψωσεν τοὺς γάμους and Est. 9:22: ἡμέρας γάμων, always for ‫“ ִמ ְׁשתֶ ה‬marriage feast” (orig. “carousal,” Est.
9:22). γάμος is very common in Tobit, e.g., 11:19: καὶ ἤχθη ὁ γάμος Τωβία μετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης, ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας.
The equivalent ‫ משתה‬occurs frequently in Rabb. works,3 e.g., Halla, 2, 7 == S. Nu., 110 on 15:21: ַ‫בעל‬
‫ הביתַשעושהַמשתהַלבנו‬a master of the house who arranges the wedding-feast for his son (cf. also S. Dt.,
343).4
The ancient Jewish custom of extending the marriage over several days (a whole week in the case of
a virgin), and also of celebrating far into the night, is reflected in the parable at Lk. 12:36, where it may
be well after midnight before the κύριος returns ἐκ τῶν γάμων. At Lk. 14:8 Jesus speaks of the marriagefeast and warns: ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάμους, μὴ κατακλιθῇς εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν. Again at Jn.
2:1 ff. the reference is to a wedding (γάμος) in which Jesus Himself took part and revealed τὴν δόξαν
αὐτοῦ by the changing of water into wine (v. 11).
2. The New Ideal of Early Christianity.
The firm starting-point for the early Christian evaluation of marriage is Gn. 2:24, the saying concerning
the henosis of the partners in which the original unity of man and woman is restored. Marriage is the
continuation of the divine work of creation in the history of the human race (cf. also Gn. 1:28).5 This thought
always persisted in the Jewish community.6 Thus Tobias prays with his young wife: σὺ ἐποίησας τὸν Ἀδὰμ
καὶ ἔδωκας αὐτῷ βοηθὸν Εὔαν … καὶ σὺ ἐ͂πας· οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον … καὶ νῦν, κύριε, σὺ
γινώσκεις ὅτι οὐ διὰ πορνείαν λαμβάνω τὴν ἀδελφήν μου ταύτην, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου σου ἐπὶ τῷ
ἐλεηθῆναι ἡμᾶς … καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν, κύριε, τέκνα καὶ εὐλογίαν (Tob. 8:6 ff.; cf. 7:12).7 The Jewish ideal of
marriage, however, reaches its climax in the rich circle of legends which clustered around the marriage of
Akiba and Rahel. Rahel allows Akiba to go to the house of instruction while she remains behind in shame and
poverty. After twice 12 years Akiba returns as a great rabbi with the confession: All that we have we owe to
her. Rahel has sacrificed her hair to make study possible for him. Instead, he brings her a diadem representing
the pinnacles of the holy city which is now so dreadfully destroyed.8 This is the symbol of a marriage which
has led two persons ceaselessly in service of their God and people under the sign of the divine calling and the
historical moment.9
Pointing in the same direction is the ideal of marriage which Zarathustra wins from his dualistic and
eschatological understanding of life. In the marriage liturgy composed by the prophet for the marriage of his
youngest daughter (Yasna, 53),10 marriage is the alliance of two persons who set the will and blessing of
Ahura Mazda above all else and would strengthen their front against the evil forces which threaten
catastrophe: “Soon it will come to pass.” Parseeism maintained this high view of marriage, as may be seen
from the last sentence of the Bundehesh: “He who hath thrice drawn near (to his spouse), cannot be separated
from fellowship with Ahura Mazda and the immortal saints.”11
Jesus sees in marriage the original form of human fellowship. It has its basis and norm in God’s act
of creation. It has a history which divides into three periods. It has its time, and will end with this aeon.
Ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς … καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν, Mk. 10:6
ff. This is the original state in Paradise, i.e., marriage as God intended it. Jesus emphasises the event, the
henosis, which marks it as belonging to creation: οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ, Mk. 10:8b. The
85
practical consequence is clear and is drawn by Jesus Himself in a new word of institution: ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς
συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω, Mk. 10:9 f. To be sure, Jesus realises that the primitive order has
been shattered by the corruption of the human heart. He sees the historical justification and necessity of
the Mosaic law of divorce which introduces the second period in the history of marriage, the period of
compromise: πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην, i.e., the direction to give
a bill of divorcement. Jesus Himself, however, introduces a new period in the history of marriage. This
third and decisive period is characterised by a new conception of the law of divorce, a deepened ideal of
marriage and finally a fourfold reservation in respect of it.
Jesus begins by recalling the original order of creation, thus assuring the elementary unity and
inviolability of marriage, and overthrowing the lax interpretation and practice of the Mosaic law with the
corresponding Jewish Halacha and practice of divorce:12 μὴ χωριζέτω! But Jesus is no fanatic dreaming
of a new Paradise. In all sobriety He creates practical conditions for carrying out the ancient divine order
in the present aeon. In place of Jewish traditions He sets a sharper interpretation of Moses which handles
the problem of divorce according to the principle of the lesser evil, a new Halacha which can sometimes
allow legal divorce but leaves intact the henosis of the marriage partners: ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα
αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ13 ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν. καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ
ἄλλον, μοιχᾶται (Mk. 10:11 ff.). This means quite clearly and unambiguously that dissolution of
marriage may be conceded at a pinch, but that there must be no contracting of a new marriage. The
replacement of one spouse by another is adultery. For it affects the fundamental unity of the partners.
This unity is posited and actualised in accordance with creation. It remains even when human
σκληροκαρδία causes a rift which leads to legal divorce. Hence it must not be violated by any law of
divorce permitting another union.14
Again, Jesus finds the starting-point of marital failure in σκληροκαρδία only with a view to
establishing in the καρδία the base of a new ethos of marriage (Mt. 5:27 f.). It is in the heart that the
decision is taken respecting the continuance of henosis. If it is abandoned in the heart, the marriage is
broken. The meaning of henosis is fulfilled, according to Jesus, only where persons become and remain
one inwardly as well as outwardly, in a fusion which is total and al-comprehensive. Physical fellowship
must have and maintain its centre in moral. Copulation without communion is fornication.
The words of Jesus permit neither free love nor double standards. Yet complete equality is not the ideal of
Jesus. The linguistic usage in Lk. 17:27 etc. proves this (→ n. 15). The husband is the active partner in the
conclusion and direction of marriage. This is self-evident for Jesus.
Finally, Jesus shows that marriage is historically conditioned with a view to making His fourfold
reservation in respect of the present state of things. There are times of threatened judgment in which
careless and self-confident γαμεῖν and γαμίζεσθαι15 indicate a culpable blindness to the seriousness of
the situation and can thus be frivolous and irresponsible. One such time was in the days of the flood;
another such time16 has now dawned (Lk. 17:27). There are situations in which γυναῖκα ἔγημα can be
wrong and obstructive,17 because marriage hampers a man’s unconditional readiness for the call of God
(Lk. 14:20, cf. Mt. 22:14). There are men18 who have the gift and task of refraining from marriage διὰ19
τὴν βασιλείαν (Mt. 19:12).20 And a new age is coming in which there will be no more marrying: ὅταν
γᾶρ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mk. 12:25
and par.). Marriage, too, is one of the forms of life in the present aeon which are to pass away. The
history of marriage will terminate with the end of this age.
Jesus Himself never married. But He is not a pessimist in relation to it like the Christ of the
apocryphal Acts. He does not go into houses to warn against it. He attends weddings. He has a deep joy
in children. He knows the legitimacy, meaning and glory of marriage, as He knows the glory of the lilies
which tomorrow will have faded. One day the form of marriage will pass. But this day has not yet come.
To-day, and especially to-day, the word of institution from the time of creation is still in force (→ 649
on Mk. 10:6 ff.). Hence a general abstinence from marriage would be an anachronism in this aeon.
86
Paul in 1 C. honours all the motifs introduced by Jesus. For him, too, the saying in Genesis
concerning henosis denotes the metaphysical range of every sexual union (1 C. 6:16 f.). Yet the thought
is not developed positively in an understanding of marriage. It is used polemically in an attack on
πορνεία. Free love is sin against the body (6:18b).21 In 1 C. 7 Paul refers expressly to the saying of the
κύριος in his radical rejection of divorce, or at any rate his prohibition of the remarriage of a divorced
wife (10f.).22 Once a marriage is contracted, it must be carried out in full both physically and spiritually.
Periods of withdrawal should be brief (3ff.; cf. 24, 27a and Col. 3:18 f.). The basis given by Paul is,
however, somewhat pessimistic: διὰ … τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἐαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω … ἵνα μὴ
πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς ὁ σαταμᾶς διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν (v. 2, 5).23 If Jesus explained divorce as a necessary evil, Paul
seems almost to see marriage in the same light. He thus presses even more strongly the fourfold
reservation already encountered in Jesus. Marriage can be a hindrance to final dedication to God (v. 5,
32ff.; cf. Lk. 14:20 → 651). Basically, it is not consonant with this καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος (1 C. 7:26, 28
f.); παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (v. 31; cf. Mk. 12:25 → 651). Hence celibacy is the true
demand of the hour διά τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην (1 C. 7:26, 29; cf. Lk. 17:27 → 651). To be sure, Paul
has no use for ascetic experiments, and if they lead to tense situations resolute marriage24 is for him the
lesser evil. Yet it is still an evil. A widow is free to remarry; μακαριωτέρα δέ ἐστιν ἐὰν οὕτως25 μείνῃ
(39f., cf. 8; R. 7:2). Finally; he could wish that all γαμεῖν and γαμίζειν were at an end (1 C. 7:1, 7 f.)—
ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ (v. 7). He himself has the charisma of remaining unmarried for
the sake of his unique situation and commission (cf. 1 C. 9:5, 12, 15 ff.).26 It may be seen that this is no
accident but a demonstration. Paul is conscious of being one of the εὐνοῦχοι διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν (→ 651,
on Mt. 19:12).27
In later writings the battle for the inviolability of marriage is prominent. 1 Cl. warns against the discord
which can even shatter marriage: ζῆλος ἀπηλλοτρίωσεν γαμετὰς ἀνδρῶν καὶ ν̓λλοίωσεν τὸ ῤηθὲν ὐπὸ πατρὸς
ν̓μῶν Ἀδάμ : τοῦτο νῦν … σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου.28 Hb. 13:4 admonishes: τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν, and Ign.
writes in the same vein to Polycarp (5, 1). Hence a Christian marriage should not be contracted without the
blessing of the Church: πρέπει δὲ τοῖς γαμοῦσιν καὶ ταῖς γαμουμέναις μετὰ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τὴν ἕνωσί
ποιεῖσθαι, ἵνα ὀ γάμος ᾖ κατὰ κύριον καὶ μὴ κατ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν. ἁγνεία should not be made a law; it becomes a
curse if it puffs up the ascetic; εἴ τις δύναται ἐν ἀγνείᾳ μένειν εἰς τιμὴν τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ κυρίου, ἒ ἀκαυχησίᾳ
μενέτω (Ign. Pol., 5, 2). And while the thought of mere co-habitation becomes more prevalent (v. Herinv., 1, 1
and esp. s., 9, 11, 3), the Pastorals condemn the shunning of marriage and the questionable activities of young
widows, laying down the principle: βούλομαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαμεῖν (1 Tm. 4:3; 5:11, 14). Here, too, of course,
the principle of the lesser evil lurks in the background, namely, in the motive: μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ
ἀντικειμένῳ. The ideal is again that the widow should manage without a second marriage (5:5ff.). It is
demanded of the bishop in particular that he should remain μιᾶς γυναυχὸς ἀνἠρ (3:2). It is evident that the
demands of Paul are increasingly restricted; they are now limited to bishops as the ecclesiastical successors of
the apostles and charismatics.
Only in one passage in the early Christian treatment does the principle of celibacy find a place,
namely, in the picture given in Revelation of those who followed the Lamb,29 of the 144,000 παρθένοι :
οὗτοί εἰσιν οἳ μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν … οὗτοι οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγῃ.
οὗτοι ἠγοράσθησαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ (Rev. 14:4). There is here no
suggestion either of human impotence on the one side or of successful monkish achievement on the
other. The reference is to the genuine heroism of those who are called for the sake of a unique situation
and commission.
Yet early Christianity does not speak only of the difficulty of marriage in this kairos. It also speaks
in strict and lofty terms of the inviolability of the marriage bond. Jesus in His saying concerning the
heart (→ 650 on Mt. 5:27 f.) laid the new foundation for a positive understanding and ethos of marriage.
The house tables30 of the NT build on this foundation when they base the whole fellowship of marriage
and the family on → ἀγάπη. ἀγάπη and not ἔρως creates marital fellowship. Again, the fellowship of the
family is the organic centre of the actualisation of ἀγάπη, which sustains all fellowship. In the NT,
however, the ground and measure of all human ἀγάπη are to be found in the love of God. The Epistle to
87
the Ephesians carries this thought further. The basis of all marital love is for the Christian the love of
Christ for His community.31 This gives marriage its place in the new world situation. The Christian ideal
of marriage is thus brought into a wider theological context.
3.
The Messianic Wedding and Christian Marriage.
γάμος acquires its greatest religious significance where it is used of the union or close connection
between God and man. The thought of a divine being having sexual intercourse with a human woman is
common in the ancient Orient. It is the presupposition of the ruler ideology of Egypt, of the fertility rites of
the Near East and of the Greek Mysteries both in classical and Hellenistic times. The δρώμενον of Eleusis
represented the ἱερὸς γάμος between Zeus and Demeter, between the lord of heaven and mother earth.32 The
climax of the Feast of Flowers consisted in the γάμος of Dionysus, who came in human form to his earthly
bride.33 Again, the heavenly wedding is a sign set over the marriage of the earthly couple. Thus in the “bridal
chamber” of the Villa Item the wedding of Dionysus and Ariadne is perhaps represented as a model for the
future marriage of devotees.34 In Plato (Resp., V. 459 ff.), where the mythical and cultic realism is less
evident, the idea of the heavenly ἱερὸς γάμος gives both form and meaning to earthly marriage.
In the world of Israel and Judah, too, there is reference to the marriage between God and the land or
people of Israel. The OT, however, has no hint of any actualisation of this relationship in mysteries, or of any
sensually perceptible union with the deity.35 On the contrary, marriage is simply a symbol for the covenant
between God and the people as this is to be kept in all fidelity and renewed with all passion36 (Hos. 2:19; Is.
54:4 ff.; 62:4 f.; Ez. 16:7 ff.).
With the same strictness with which prophecy fought the ancient fertility cults, Hellenistic Judaism damps
the erotic impulse of the Mysteries, e.g., in Wis. 14:23 ff.: ἢ γὰρ τεκνοφόνους τελετὰς ἢ κρύφια μυστήρια ἢ
ἐμμανεῖς ἐξάλλων θεσμῶν κώμους ἄγοντες … οὔτε γάμους καθαροὺς ἔτι φυλάσσουσιν … γάμων ἀταξία,
μοιχεία καὶ ἀσέλγεια.37 Philo uses the imagery of the Hellenistic Mysteries together with the OT stories of
Sarah and Leah to depict in a varied allegory the truth that the ἀγέννητος θεὸς καὶ τὰ σύμπαντα γεννῶν is the
πατήρ who in the ἀρεταί gives birth to beautiful and perfect works.38
Wholly along the lines of the OT the Rabbis extolled the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai as the
marriage of Yahweh with Israel. The Torah is the marriage contract, Moses is the friend of the bridegroom
and Yahweh comes to Israel as a bridegroom to his bride.39 Acc. to Akiba the bride of the Song of Songs is
Israel as the bride of God. “I belong to my friend, and my friend belongs to me. You have no part in him
(God).” Thus speaks the people of God in a great dialogue between Israel and the Gentiles composed by
Akiba on the basis of this text (M. Ex. on 15:2). But the final renewal of the covenant between God and the
people, intimated by the prophets, was expected by the Rabbis in the days of the Messiah. Thus we often find
the view that in these days there will take place the true marriage feast.40 In this connection the present age is
that of engagement, the seven years of Gog will be the period immediately prior to the marriage, the marriage
itself will dawn with the resurrection and the great marriage feast will be eaten in the future world.41
Jesus moves wholly within the circle of ideas of His contemporaries when He expresses the meaning
and glory of the Messianic period in the images of the wedding and wedding feast. The virgins will wait
until a late hour of the night to accompany the bridal pair with lamps to the marriage house, where at a
brightly illuminated table the seven day feast will begin:42 καὶ αἱ ἕτοιμοι εἰσῆλθον μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς
γάμους. So the community of disciples hastens to the coming of the Lord, fully alert: γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι
οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὥραν (Mt. 25:10 ff.). This point, cf. Lk. 12:36 ff., is undoubtedly the
chief one. But the rich imagery is chosen deliberately. This is shown by Mk. 2:19 and par., where Jesus
describes Himself as the Bridegroom.43 Here (and in Jn. 3:29), the days of wedding festivity fall in the
life of Jesus, whereas in Mt. 25:1 ff. they await His return—an obvious tension. Even more important is
another shift in conception. In Jewish eschatological expectation God is the One who renews the
marriage bond with His people. In the NT Christ takes the place of God as the heavenly Bridegroom.
According to Mt. 22:1 ff. He is the King’s Son for whom the βασιλεύς holds the great wedding feast
(ἐποίησεν γάμους). Again, the image can hardly be accidental. Jesus often speaks of the Messianic
feast.44 The βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν is the great Messianic banquet to which the people of God is invited.
But those invited refuse when the γάμος ἕτοιμός ἐστιν. The call δεῦτε εἰς τοὺς γάμους goes out to those
outside, and they hear and stream in (Mt. 22:3 ff.; cf. Lk. 14:8 ff.).
88
Who is the bride in the Messianic feast? In Jewish tradition it is the people of the covenant brought
home to its Lord. In the Synoptic parables, however, the community of disciples is invited as a guest,
and the bride is not mentioned. Yet the thought readily suggests itself that the new community of the
covenant is the bride. The first traces of this view are to be found in Paul, probably in 1 C. 6:14 ff.,
where Paul sees an analogy between pneumatic union with Christ and the henosis of Gn. 2:24. It
emerges more clearly in R. 7:4, and especially in 2 C. 11:2: ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς θεοῦ ζήλῳ, ἡρμοσάμην γὰρ
ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ. Paul here thinks of himself as occupying a
similar role to that of the Moses of the Haggada (→ 654). He is the one who conducts the bride to the
heavenly Bridegroom, presenting the community to Him pure and chaste. The same imagery is found in
Jn. 3:29, where the Baptist has the office of friend and therefore the community must again be the bride
of the Messiah. The image of the bride is most powerfully used in the final visions of the Apocalypse,
which brings together all the varied imagery of the Messianic banquet.45 The bride waits with longing:
ἔρχου! (22:17). But the divine already catches the final Hallelujah which intimates the day of
consummation: ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἐαυτήν; and at the same time a
voice declares: μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου τοῦ ἀρνίου κεκλημένοι (19:7ff.). It may thus be
seen that the thought of the community as the bride includes rather than excludes the further thought that
the individual members are invited to the wedding as guests. The sustaining thought, however, is that of
the community as bride. The words which Trito-Isaiah46 sets in the mouth of the divine bride Jerusalem
as an eschatological hymn are seen by the divine to be fulfilled after the final cosmic upheavals. He sees
the new city of God ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς (21:2).47
In contrast to Jn. 3:29 Jesus is not the bridegroom in the Cana story. The couple is of only subsidiary
interest in this episode.48 Jesus stands at the centre. Again, the conjunction of the wedding and wine is not
mythologically determined in the sense of the Mysteries.49 It simply arises out of the situation. The marriage
as such is not important to the narrator (cf. 4:46), but the σημεῖον which points beyond itself to the δόξα of
the Son. The miracle is a miracle of revelation, like that of the bread (6:26) and all the Johannine miracles. It
is the first step on the way of the historical manifestation of the glory of the Son.
This conception of Christ as the Bridegroom underlies the house table of Ephesians (5:22ff.).
Already in 2 C. 11:3 (cf. 1 C. 6:16 f.) the marriage bond between Christ and the community as His bride
had been set in analogy to the marriage bond between the first human couple. In Eph. 5:31 f. the thought
is worked out typologically, and the Genesis saying50 concerning the impulse of the man to the woman
and the henosis of the two is explained as a μυστήριον μέγα and referred εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν. This relationship between Christ and the community, however, is necessarily normative for
that between husband and wife in a Christian marriage. Thus Eph., developing Pauline motifs (cf. 1 C.
11:3; 6:15 ff.), offers a christological basis for the two main parts of the early Christian marriage
catechism,51 for the subordination of the wife to the husband and the overriding love of the husband for
the wife: ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ ηυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί (5:24,
cf. 22f.). Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἑαυτὸν
παρέβωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, ἵνα … (5:25ff.; cf. 29f.). The tensions in the relationship between husband and
wife, recognised already in Genesis, are resolved ἐν Χριστῷ. For the self-giving of the wife acquires a
new dedication, and the impulse of the husband a new content and standard, in ἀγάπη.52 The wife is no
longer surrendered to the husband; she is entrusted to him. He does not have rights of lordship over her;
he takes responsibility for her. Sometimes the execution of this thought has been as artificial as its
exegetical basis. But the enterprise is magnificent and bold. It is the only attempt of early Christianity to
set marital duty definitely under the sign of the fact of Jesus.
The starting-point is obviously the old idea of the imitation of Jesus which first arose in Judaism as the
imitatio Dei (→ ἀκολουθέω), which then came to control Christian ethics, and which played a great role from
the time of Ignatius. It is no accident that it is in Ign. that the ideas of Eph. 5 find their first echo (Ign. Pol., 5,
1). On the other hand, there is no doubt that the thought of Christian marriage is here referred much more
strongly to that of the ἱερὸς γάμος, to the analogy between heavenly and earthly wedding which is so
important in Gk. thinking.
89
In the later development of early Christian ideas of marriage and celibacy there is much contact and
conflict with Hellenistic motifs. Gnostics speculate on heavenly syzygies, mystics revel in the imagery of the
Song of Songs, ascetics despise the body and ecstatic women experience the union of the soul with the
heavenly Bridegroom. Two texts stand out in the welter of literature. The Jewish legend of Joseph and
Asenath,52 which deals with the marriage of Joseph to a daughter of the Egyptian king, is obviously
interpreted and allegorically exploited in Judaism with reference to the marriage of the Messiah to the city of
God (p. 15; 16; 17; 19); and Christians, too, work it out in the same way, the virgin Asenath being fearfully
opposed to all men until the great stranger comes (υἱὸς θεοῦ, 6; 13) who converts her to the true God and
imparts the Spirit of God to her in a kiss (19). She gives herself to him. She is affianced to him from eternity,
and their marriage bond will last to eternity (21). Similar ideas and motifs recur frequently in the apocryphal
legends of the apostles, esp. the Acts of Thomas. Here, too, there is an evident ascetic tendency. Jesus enters
the bridal chamber and wins the newly espoused for the ideal of continence. A higher marriage takes the place
of carnal union: ἑτέρῳ γάμῳ ἡρμόσθην … ἀνδρὶ ἀληθινῷ συνεζεύξθην (Act. Thom., 14). And an ecstatic
hymn of Thomas lauds the mystical wedding, the dance of the seven male and female attendants and the
eternal joys of the marriage feast (6f.).53 In the story of Joseph and Asenath the reference is still to the
relationship between the Messiah and the community, but here it is to the sensual and supra-sensual
experiences of the individual soul. Mysticism has triumphed.
Stauffer
✪
γάμος [ᾰ], ὁ, wedding, Il.5.429, al.; γάμοι εἰλαπίναι τε 18.491; γάμον τεύχειν furnish forth a wedding,
Od.1.277; γ. δαινύναι 4.3; άρτύειν ib. 770; γάμον ποιεῖν Herod.7.86, Test.Epict.2.19: pl., γάμους διττοὺς
ἑστιᾶν Is.8.9; of a single wedding, οἰκοσίτους τοὺς γ. ποιεῖσθαι Men.450; γάμους ποιεῖν D.30.21,
Ev.Matt.22.2; ἐπιτελεῖν γ. τῆς θυγατρός Arist.Fr.549, cf. D.S.13.84; οἱ κεκλημένοι εἰς τοὺς γ. Diph.17.2;
ἐν τοῖς γ. ἄκλητος εισδεδυκέναι Apollod.Car.24.
II. marriage, wedlock, Il.13.382, etc.; ἄγειν [γυναῖκα] ἐπὶ γάμῳ X.An.2.4.8; ἀγαγέσθαι τινὰ πρὸς γάμον
Plu.Cat.Ma.24; τὸν Οἰνέως γ. the marriage granted by O., S.Tr.792; γ. θεῶν τινος E.Tr.979, cf. IT25; εἰς
γ. τινὸς ἐλθεῖν Id.IA1044 (lyr.); more freq. in pl., A.Pr.558 (lyr.), 739 (lyr.), Ag.1156 (lyr.), etc.; cf.
γαμέω I: also τοῖς μεθημερινοῖς γάμοις, i.e. prostitution, D.18.129; Πανὸς ἀναβοᾷ γάμους, i.e. rape,
E.Hel.190 (lyr.); of unlawful wedlock, as of Paris and Helen, Id.Tr.932; γάμοι ἄρρενες Luc.VH1.1.22; γ.
ἀνδρεῖοι Procop.Arc.16.23:—E.Andr.103, X.Cyr.8.4.19, do not establish the sense of a wife; for
E.Tr.357, v. γαμέω I. 1.
III. ἱερὸς γ. ritual marriage, Men.320, Hsch., EM468.56; as a nickname, Anaxandr.34.2; name of play
by Alc.Com.
IV. Pythag. name for three, Theol.Ar.16; for five, Plu.2.388c; for six, Theo Sm.p.102 H., Theol.Ar.33.
V. Γάμος also at Argos, SEG30.356 (300 B.C.), personified, Philox.13, Lib.Or.5.27.
VI. name of month at Epidaurus, IG4.1485, 1492. (Perh. akin to Skt. jāmís ‘brother or sister’, Lat.
geminus.)
vi
RIVER - Potamos
ποταμός, ποταμοφόρητος, Ἰορδάνης
† ποταμός.
Contents: A. Greek Usage outside the New Testament: 1. Profane Greek; 2. The LXX; 3. Philo; 4. Josephus.
B. The River (or Stream) in the Old Testament and Later Judaism: 1. The OT; 2. The Rabbis. C. ποταμός in
the New Testament: 1. Ordinary Use; 2. ποταμός in the Apocalypse; 3. The Saying of Jesus in Jn. 7:37 f.
90
A.
Greek Usage outside the New Testament.
1. Profane Greek. Etym. related to πέτομαι “to move on with tearing speed,” ποταμός has the primary
sense of “(water) which rushes quickly by.” The word is common in Hom. for “flowing water,” esp. “stream”
or “river.”2 What it denotes is plainly different from the sea into which ποταμοί flow, Plat.Tim., 22d: τῶν
ποταμοῖς καὶ θαλάττῃ προσοικούντων,3 and also from the sources from which they spring, e.g., Eur.Herc.
Fur., 1297: πηγαὶ ποταμῶν. Oceanus, which encircles and streams around the disk of the earth, can be called
ποταμός, Hom.Il., 14, 245 f.: ποταμοῖο ῥέεθρα Ὠκεανοῦ; all the water in the sea, in rivers, springs and wells,
finally derives from it, Hom.Il., 21, 195 ff. In Egypt the word with art. denotes the Nile as the river of the
land,4 a designation adopted in the OT, which often describes the Nile simply as the river of Egypt, Am. 8:8;
9:5: cf. also Gn. 41:1 ff. etc. (→ lines 22 ff.). As in the sea, so in the ποταμός there is violent power in the
κύματα, which can seriously endanger and even destroy the one who enters them, Hom.Il., 21, 268–271, 281
ff. This is why a ποταμός can sometimes be called ὑβριστής like a violent man, Aesch.Prom., 717 f.: ἥξεις δ᾽
ὑβριστὴν ποταμὸν οὐ ψευδώνυμον ὃν μὴ περάσῃς.5
It is perhaps connected with observation of the nature of ποταμοί that they were very early personified. At
any rate river gods6 hold a very prominent place in Gk. religion among personifications and local deities. The
thought and the corresponding cult are already fully developed in Hom.7 It is significant that Hesiod abstains
from urinating in ποταμοί and springs,8 River gods are often personified as bulls,9 possibly because the noise
of rushing masses of water and the way in which rivers toss to and fro whatever falls into them remind of the
behaviour of bulls when they put forth their strength10 The Jordan in Palestine was also personified, though
the only instance, nonJewish and pre-Christian, is on a depiction of Titus’ victory arch in Rome, → 613, 3
ff.11
ποταμός is already used in a transf. as well as the lit. sense in the classical period and its writings. Thus
we read in Aesch.Prom., 367 f.: ἔνθεν ἐκφραγήσονταί ποτε ποταμοὶ πυρὸς δάπτοντες ἀγρίαις … γνάθοις,
“streams of fire which rend with vicious jaws.” Once started, this use was an obvious one when it was desired
to give a vivid picture of violent forces which carry things off with them. Nevertheless, it seems to be
comparatively rare in the pre-Chr. era.
2. The LXX. In the LXX ποταμό́ς is first used for ‫יְׁ אֹ ר‬, ‫יְׁ אֹור‬, which seems to come from the Egyptian
and in the sing. almost always12 denotes the Nile (Gn. 41:l ff.; Ex. 1:22 ete.) and its canals (Ez. 29:3 ff.), so
that in this case ποταμός, like the original, naturally takes the art. → line 1. The other basic term is usually
‫נָׁהָׁ ר‬, which is accompanied by the name of the relevant river, esp. the Euphrates (Jer. 13:7 etc.),13 but also the
Chebar (Χοβαρ Ez. 1:1 ff.), or the Bab. Σουδ (Bar. 1:4). In all these instances the context shows that the idea
of flowing water goes hand in hand with that of a lasting flow, cf. also 2 K. 5:12: ποταμοὶ Δαμασκοῦ. This
latter pt. should not be overlooked when ποταμός is used for the river of Paradise and the primary streams
into which it divides (‫אשים‬
ִ ‫ ָׁר‬, ἀρχαί) (Gn. 2:10 ff.) or for the eschatological river of the prophet Ez. (47:1ff.;
cf. also Jl. 3:18) which flows out of the temple and whose rate of flow is the same both summer and winter,
cf. Zech. 14:8.
From the sense one would expect that ποταμός would be well adapted to denote the wadi with its wild
and dangerous torrents in times of rain. The Heb. ‫( נַחַ ל‬wadi), however, means the stream-bed, which is dry
except in the rainy season, rather than the stream itself, so that it is only seldom transl. ποταμός. Apart from
Ez. 47:1 ff., where the translator changes the HT wadi into a permanent river, which is thus called a ποταμός
(→ 596, 31 f.), and the two verses 2 Ch. 20:16; 32:4, which are both hard to expound, the only instance is 1
K. 8:65 with its mention of the ποταμὸς Αἰγύπτου ((‫לַמצְׁ ַריִ ם‬
ִ ַ‫)נַח‬, the wadi which in Solomon’s time formed
the frontier with Egypt (to-day the Wadi el-Arish). Here, however, it seems from Gn. 15:1814 and esp. Jdt.
1:915 that a fixed formula is used for the southern boundary irrespective of the specific sense of ποταμός.16
The fig. use in the LXX is controlled by the idea of lasting fulness, here combined with ποταμός. In Is.
48:18 the prophet compares to a ποταμός the fulness of εἰρήνη (‫ )שָׁ לֹום‬allotted to the people of God.
Passages like Am. 8:8; 9:5 suggest that the origin of the comparison lies in the fulness of the waters of the
Nile which controlled the life and prosperity of the Egyptians.17 In the apocalyptic visions of Da. there is
mention of a ποταμὸς πυρός proceeding from the divine throne, which for its part can be compared only with
a flame of fire, 7:10 LXX; Θ for ‫רַדי־נּור‬
ִ ַ‫נְׁ ה‬. It can hardly be that this is simply a reminiscence of the fact
91
that God dwells in light, Da. 2:22. Other apocal. passages show that the “stream of fire” is a feature of divine
epiphany, 4 Est. 13:10: fluctus ignis proceeding from the mouth of the Son of Man; Gr. En. 14:19: ποταμοὶ
πυρός come forth from beneath the divine throne; cf. Eth. En. 71:2, 9.18 In Jesus Sirach ποταμός is very
definitely an image of fulness, and indeed in such a way that certain specific rivers, esp. the Nile, fill out the
concept, 47:14;19 cf. 24:25ff.; 39:22 (here God’s εὐλογία ὡς ποταμός).
3. Philo In Philo the ordinary use, in which the Nile naturally plays an important role,20 is accompanied by
a developed transf. use. Thus Philo speaks of the χειμάρρους ποταμὸς τοῦ βίου, Fug., 49.21 The Euphrates,
perhaps because of the similarity of its name to εὐφραίνω,22 becomes the symbol of God’s wisdom as τὸν
μέγαν ὡς ἀληθῶς ποταμόν, χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλημμυροῦντα ἀγαθῶν, Rer. Div. Her.,
315. It can be said of the νοῦς that it διαβαίνει τὸν τῶν αἰσθητῶν ποταμὸν τὸν ἐπικλύζοντα καὶ βαπτίζοντα τῇ
φορᾷ τῶν παθῶν τὴν ψυχήν, Leg. All. III, 18; cf. Det. Pot. Ins., 100. Speech (λόγος) is compared to a
ποταμός, Som., II, 238, 240, 259 f., and so, too, is the divine logos, 243, 245. It should be noted, of course,
that this fig. use is normally in the context of allegories, and that allegories play a gt. role in it, but this in no
way limits the significance of the fact as such.
4. Josephus. In contrast Joseph. has the word only in a literal sense. As in the LXX, the river of Paradise
is for him ποταμός, Ant., 1, 38. For him, too, ποταμοί are rivers with a steady flow of water, esp. the Jordan
(Ant., 5, 16 ff.; 20, 97, commonly with the name), but also the Euphrates (18, 312 etc.), the Nile (2, 249
alongside 244, ποταμός without name for the Nile in 2, 81), the Arnon (4, 85 and 95) etc. That Joseph.
appreciates the strict meaning may be seen from the fact that he calls the Jabbok, which flows into the Jordan,
a ποταμός (4, 95 and 97),23 but quite correctly describes the Kedron or the valley of the Kedron as a
χειμάρρους or wadi (8, 17), cf. also Jn. 18:1, which is equally well-informed on the pt.
B.
The River (or Stream) in the Old Testament and Later Judaism.
1. The OT. For the righteous of the OT God is the Creator of all things. He is thus the Lord of
watercourses too.24 If He wills, He can dry up even rivers which are not dependent on the winter rains,
Is. 44:27; 50:2; Ps. 74:15. Even the mighty Nile is no exception, Is. 19:5; cf. 2 K. 19:24. He can also
change the water of rivers into blood, Ex. 7:14 ff.; Ps. 78:44; cf. Ps. 105:29; Wis. 11:6. Similarly, He
determines where rivers flow (Hab. 3:9), and He can cause waters to break forth and become rivers in
the arid steppes, Ps. 105:41; cf. Is. 43:19. For this reason rivers are among the works of God which
praise Him by their very being, Ps. 98:8. In the Song of the Three Children they can thus be summoned
to participate with all creation in the praise of God, Δα. 3:78. The fact of their being and the nature of
their being are both of God. No more, then, than any other part of creation do they have independent
significance alongside Him.
In the light of this it is self-evident that there is no place for a cult of river gods in the sphere of OT
belief. Thus far we have no evidence that the God of Israel had to contend with such deities when He
came into the land. The command not to worship images of what is in the water under the earth (Ex.
20:4; cf. Dt. 5:8) relates to fish rather than water deities according to the Deuteronomic interpretation
(4:18). No Palestinian model has thus far been discovered for the divine representation of the Jordan on
the arch of Titus in Rome, → Ἰορδάνης, 613, 4 ff. It should not be overlooked, however, that there is a
ruling in the Mishnah dealing with sacrifices ‫ לְׁ שֵ םַנְׁ הָׁ רֹות‬and forbidding the eating of the flesh, Chul.,
2, 8.25 There is also a Tannaitic statute which forbids any form of immolating into seas (‫ )י ִַמים‬or rivers
(‫( )נְׁ הָׁ רֹות‬Chul., 2, 9) in order to avoid even the appearance of offering to an idol, cf. T. Chul., 2, 19.26 It
has thus to be accepted that river gods were at least worshipped by pagans in the land at the beginning of
our era, so that the Rabbis thought it necessary to issue directions against such worship.
All else is hypothesis. Thus an amulet in the form of a fish dating from the Canaanite period has been
found in Gezer.27 This has been made by some28 into the starting-point for the thesis that the amulets found on
fallen soldiers of Judas Maccabeus in 2 Macc. 12:40, and regarded as a reason for their death in battle by the
pious narrator, were fish amulets after the pattern of the idols of Jabneh29 near Gezer (ἱερώματα τῶν ἀπὸ
Ἰαμνείας εἰδώλων), and that they bear witness to an influence of the cult of Atargatis30 on the Jews of the
Maccabean period. But even if this identification of the amulets were sufficiently convincing, in the context it
92
would still be possible to see them primarily as symbols of immortality which only later, if at all, came to be
connected with the cult of Atargatis.31 Certainly they provide no evidence for the cult of a river god. Nor
should it be overlooked that neither later Judaism nor the OT had any doubts about the eating of fish, for the
water animals forbidden in Lv. 11:9 ff. are not fish at all. The NT also takes fishing and the eating of fish for
granted. A Rabb. ruling even allows quite explicitly the eating of imported fish under certain conditions,
Maksh., 6, 3. This seems to be strong evidence that no idolatrous notions were connected with fish as such.
2. The Rabbis. Apart from proverbs and similar sayings (e.g., that every river [‫ ]נהרא‬has its own
course, b.Chul., 18b; 57a), the main concern of the Rabbinate with rivers is religious and legal.
a. Rivers plays an important role in casuistry. They are among the natural forces to which man and his
possessions are often subject. They thus serve as very good examples when it is a matter of laying down rules
for proper conduct in cases of “higher power.”32 Thus the case is discussed of a ‫ נָׁהָׁ ר‬carrying away the asses
of two different owners and one owner can save only the ass of the other while his own beast is lost, BQ, 10,
4. Salvation from death through the overflowing of a river is a reason for granting relaxation of certain
commands and prohibitions, Pes., 3, 7; BQ, 10, 2; RH, 2, 5; Taan., 3, 7; Ned., 3, 1. The damage which
swollen rivers do also plays a role, b.BQ, 117b/118a. The force of the water can be so great that a tree can be
torn up with all its root structure and can then begin to grow again elsewhere, Orla, 1, 3.
b. For the Rabbis the river is not the Jordan but the Euphrates, Challa, 4, 8; cf. Gn. r., 16, 3 on 2:14.
OT usage exerts an influence here, Gn. 31:21 etc. In particular there is expressed the conviction, based
on the OT (the promise to Abraham in Gn. 15:18),33 that the Euphrates is the eastern boundary of the
promised land.34
Possibly related to this estimation of the Euphrates is the fact that the statement in Ber., 9, 2 that the sight
of mountains, hills, seas, rivers and plains leads to benediction of the Creator, is later referred esp. to the
Euphrates so far as the rivers are concerned.35 The Palestinian Amorean Jochanan, who acc. to tradition died
in 279 and whose school produced j Talmud, extolled the Euphrates for the fact that washing in its waters
accounted for there being no lepers in Babylon, b.Ket., 77b. It is not impossible, however, that he owed this
saying to his teacher Chanina (bChama), who came from Babylon.36, 37
c. Rivers and their waters are also important, of course, in the highly developed Rabbinic system of
purification. Without water it is not possible either to be clean or to cleanse oneself. Now in antiquity the
rivers of Palestine played only a modest role in providing water. This is true even of the Jordan,
especially as its valley is poor in tributaries south of Gennesaret, → 610, 22 ff. Nevertheless, it is
astonishing to what extent river waters seem to cause problems in the rules of purity rather than
promoting cleanness.
This is due to the fact that rivers often contain particles of dirt which call in question the results of ritual
bathing, cf. Miq., 9, 1 ff.; b.Shab., 65a–b. There is occasional ref. to ritual bathing in the Euphrates. A teacher
arranges this for his daughter with certain precautions. He puts her on a bathing stand38 so that she may not be
defiled by the mud of the river-bed, b.Shab., 65a. On another occasion it is told that R. Jehuda b. Elai with
exaggerated conscientiousness and to give visual instruction to his pupils took a ritual bath in the Jordan
before their eyes, b.Ber., 22a. This is quite possible, since river water was equivalent to spring water, Miq., 5,
5. On the other hand, the bath of R. Jochanan in the Jordan of which we read in b.BM, 84a seems not to have
been an obligatory bath but simply for refreshment, as was often the case.39 Passages like Maksh., 5, 1; T.
Maksh., 2, 12 probably refer to ordinary bathing rather than to ritual baths in rivers. Of bathing in rivers for
purposes of healing, as prescribed by Gk. doctors e.g., in the temples of Aesculapius in Epidauros and
Pergamon,40 the Rabb. have nothing explicit to say. The total impression is that the difficulty of being sure of
the purity of river-water was strongly felt and was taken into account in practice also. The relation of the
Qumran Community to all this is not yet apparent on the basis of the material thus far available. In 1 QS 3:4f.
ritual washings in seas and rivers seem to be an accepted custom, but this might well be only a rhetorical
expression.
d. Perhaps connected with this fundamentally cautious use of rivers for ritual cleansing is the fact
that, while brooks and rivers could in principle be the site of proselyte baptism, they obviously did not
play any part as such.
93
Fundamentally any water that meets the requirements of the ritual bath may be used in proselyte
baptism.41 This includes river-water (Miq., 5, 5) apart from certain specific exceptions, ibid., 1, 8. But there is
no record of such baptism in rivers. Quite apart from the disputed question of the age of proselyte baptism,42
later Rabb. practice assumes that it will take place in a “bath-house”43 which is used gen. for ritual cleansing44
and is naturally to be distinguished carefully from ordinary baths.45 In the Hell. propaganda of Judaism one
occasionally finds the requirement that non-Jews, when converted to the true God, should wash the whole
body in continuous flowing water.46 It is natural enough to refer this to proselyte baptism, and on this view it
provides an instance of such baptism in ποταμοί Nevertheless, it is odd that there is in the context no ref. to
circumcision, which, as we know,47 took precedence of baptism.48 Spring or well water is used in the “bathhouse.”
C.
ποταμός in the New Testament.
The literal and figurative uses of ποταμός may be found alongside one another in primitive Christian
usage too. The word is rare. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish the following senses.
1. Ordinary Use.
a. In much the same terms Mt. (3:6) and Mk. (1:5) tell how the masses who were ready to repent
streamed out to John the Baptist in the ἔρημος and were baptised by him in the river Jordan (ἐν τῷ
Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ), confessing their sins. The formulation, especially in Mt., suggests that the linking of
ποταμός with the name of the river had some significance for the authors. Purely linguistically they
were, of course, following the usage of antiquity and of some pre-Christian biblical works at this point.
Nevertheless, comparison with this usage shows that for the Evangelists or their source it is important
that Jordan is a “river” both in connection with John’s baptism and also in terms of historical reference.
In 3:5 etc. Mt. mentions the περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου as the home of those who come to John. The
question arises whether it was really necessary in this connection to emphasise that Jordan was a ποταμός and
thereby to emphasise also that as such it was the place of baptism. One should remember that the phrase ὁ
Ἰορδάνης ποταμός is seldom used in the LXX. In the three passages in which it occurs (Nu. 13:29; Jos. 4:7;
5:1), or at least in the last two, it also serves to interpret the HT. In both these instances the original
‫“( מֵ י־הַ י ְַׁרדֵ ך‬the waters of Jordan”) becomes in transl. “the river Jordan.” Hence even the formulation enables
us to understand plainly and vividly what happened when the ark caused the Jordan to stay (Jos. 3:16): at this
moment the Jordan cease to be a ποταμός, i.e., “water which rushes quickly by” → 590, 27 f. This LXX usage
alone cannot explain the expression “the river Jordan” in Mt. and Mk.49
But if this is so, it is not enough simply to refer to secular usage as a par.? Jos. seems to adopt this when
he twice speaks emphatically of the Ἰορδάνης ποταμός (Ant., 20, 97; Vit., 399),50 whereas elsewhere he either
just mentions the name or refers to the Jordan without further definition as ὁ ποταμός. Analysis of the
passages which have both shows that his interest there is in the Jordan as a river and not as the Jordan. Even
these ref., then, are no true par. to the expression in Mt. 3:6 and Mk. 1:5.51
The textual tradition in both verses probably pts. in the right direction. In each case one group of
witnesses has left out the epithet,52 and in each textual evidence forces us to accept its authenticity. There
seem to be two main reasons for the omission of ποταμῷ. Either it is regarded as superfluous (on stylistic
grounds) or it seems to be undesirable (on dogmatic grounds). Consideration of the Lucan par. and of
traditions about John the Baptist and baptism (→ 616, 13 ff.) compels us to suppose that the elimination of
the word rested on a tendency to evade the exegetical and historical basis for linking baptism with running
water. It is a familiar fact that the practice of the early Church vacillated for a long time in this respect until
finally baptisms took place in the baptistery.53 The Did. (7, 1 ff.) would allow other than “living water,” i.e.,
that of a fountain or river, only by way of exception, and many records from the early Church bear witness to
a similar practice or even ground it in apostolic custom and tradition.54 In contrast, Just. (Apol., I, 61, 3)
simply mentions a place where there is water (ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστί) and thus follows a practice which one has to
assume in many of the NT accounts of baptisms, Ac. 2:41; 8:12 f., 16, 36 ff. etc.
It is difficult and to some extent impossible to decide this problem with any finality. One can only say
that the textual witnesses which reject ποταμῷ in Mt. 3:6; Mk. 1:5 must be seen and judged against the
background of the disagreement on the kind of water to be used in baptism. On the other hand caution must
94
be observed in relation to attempts to link Mt. and Mk. themselves with the original reading and to deduce
their own attitude therefrom.
It is most natural to suppose that the uncommon expression used here in Mt. and Mk. does not
express any dogmatic concern but is simply a historical reminiscence. This is of basic significance to the
degree that it introduces into the historical picture of the Baptist a feature which sharply differentiates
his baptism from the washings and baptisms practised by the pious Judaism of the period. The “bathhouse” which he used was the Jordan. When he issued his baptismal summons in the ἔρημος, only the
Jordan was adequate to make baptism possible for the crowds who came.
b. In the We-narratives of Ac. we read in 16:13 that after their arrival in Philippi Paul and his
companions went τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων … ἔξω τῆς πύλης παρὰ ποταμὸν οὗ ἐνομίζομεν προσευχὴν55
εἶναι, sat down, and spoke to the women who had gathered there. Here ποταμός without article denotes a
constant stream close to the town which emptied its waters into the Strymon. Close to this the travellers
found, as expected, a place where those in the town who worshipped the one God were accustomed to
meet for divine service. The situation of the place, probably a house, was determined by proximity to
water, which would make possible the observance of the rules of purity that were so important esp. for
women, → II, 808, 12 ff.
The question discussed in many earlier comm. whether the situation in proximity to a ποταμός
corresponded to a definite Jewish practice56 may now be answered in the negative, since there is no evidence
of any such custom in Rabb. sources.57 Furthermore well water was more correct and important for the
observance of the required washings than river water,58 and this might be expected in proximity to a ποταμός.
Thus the recently excavated synagogue at Caesarea, which is just by the Sea of Galilee, has a room which was
probably a bath-house. Finally, it should not be overlooked in this respect that acc. to tradition59 the ritual bath
supplants the Sabbath, i.e., it is permissible on the Sabbath.
c. According to 2 C. 11:26 Paul had ample experience of the way in which rivers could be
dangerous, especially when swollen by the autumn and winter rains. The same fact lies behind the
concluding parable in the Sermon on the Mount, Mt. 7:24–27; Lk. 6:47–49. At the beginning of the
rainy season rivers are incalculable as well as dangerous. Luke especially with his ποταμός suggests that
the house was newly built by the side of a river which overflowed its banks, whereas Mt. with his
ποταμοί is not depicting the storms and torrential rains of autumn60 but the total mass of water which in
the rainy season pours down all the gullies and will sweep away a house which is not well built.
The fig. content of the double parable agrees with what the Rabb. have to say about the force of the
ποταμοί of the country, → 599, 14 ff. Acc. to its purpose this is to be defined as an eschatological parable.61 It
is easy to understand as such. In this light there is no reason to seek or to conjecture behind the ποταμοί a ref.
to Noah’s flood62 or to the flood of eschatological tribulation.63 Anyone who has heard about or experienced a
winter storm in Jerusalem, which changes every open street, path, terrace and stairway into a raging stream, 64
finds in the ποταμοί of the parable65 a reminder of the sober actuality of the land and its climate,66 esp. when it
is also taken into account that there are winter springs and winter ποταμοί nourished by them.
2. ποταμός in the Apocalypse.
a. Twice in the visionary course of eschatological events as disclosed to the divine severe harm is
done to ποταμοί and πηγαὶ τῶν ὑδάτων. After the opening of the seventh seal and with the sounding of
the third trumpet one third67 of the ὕδατα becomes wormwood68 (8:10f.), while in the vision of the vials
the contents of the third vial turn the ὕδατα completely into blood, 16:4. In both visions the ποταμοί are
ruined as one part of a human world which in biblical fashion is depicted as threefold, being divided into
the earth (γῆ), the sea, and the water under the earth (8:7ff.; 16:1ff.).69 For the seer, then, the form and
constitution of creation, including man, cannot be separated from the existence and non-pollution of
ποταμοί; without them life is not possible.
The question of the origin of the mythological material can be set aside except in so far as it has been
touched on already, → n. 68. Nor need we concern ourselves with typological features taken from the story of
the exodus.70
95
b. The two passages which refer to the Euphrates as ὁ ποταμὸς ὁ μέγας Εὐφράτης (9:14; 16:12) both
adopt an OT designation (Gn. 15:18; Dt. 1:7; Jos. 1:4) and also take up the idea that this river is the
eastern boundary of the divinely chosen land, → 599, 25 ff. This explains why the kings who oppose
almighty God come from beyond the Euphrates to fight against Him, 16:12–14; cf. Ps. 2:2. This is also
why the river’s protective function is shown to be ended when God causes it to dry up. The point of the
figurative expression is that God will withdraw His protection from men who think they are safe against
the attack of hostile powers. The ineluctable consequence is that the divinely chosen land will become
the theatre of the final battle.71
“Great Euphrates” also plays a role in the Mandaean writings,72 but it is not a boundary here, nor is it
regarded as that which separates the world of men from the world of spirits.73 In view of its great size its
drying up is for the Mandaeans, too, the figure of a gigantic disaster.74 As regards its function as a frontier,
one should not forget that it served as the eastern boundary of the empire in the Roman period. In both
passages the expression and outlook suggest that the author or the tradition used by him belonged to Palestine.
Difficulties arise in connection with the name Ἀρμαγεδών as the place of the final battle (Rev. 16:16), for thus
far it is has not been possible to find any convincing site for this in Palestine.75
c. In Rev. 12:15 we read that the dragon poured forth ὕδωρ ὡς ποταμόν after the woman it drove out.
For all its mythical roots76 the concept remains within the sphere of an OT and Jewish fig. use of
‫נָׁהָׁ ר‬/ποταμός, which serves to emphasise existing and unlimited fulness.77
d. The river of the water of life (ποταμὸς ὕδατος ζωῆς) which according to Rev. 22:1 issues from the
throne of God and of the Lamb and flows through the new Jerusalem (22:2), combines in some sense the
primal river of Paradise (Gn. 2:10 ff.) and the eschatological temple river of Ezekiel (47:1ff. → 596, 29
ff.). Here, too, there is undoubtedly combined with the term ποταμός the thought of fulness (→ line 28),
of the fulness of the life which God will give His people. There is a reminiscence of the tree of life (v. 2;
cf. Gn. 2:9) and of the fruits of this tree to which access was barred after the fall of the first man, Gn.
3:22, 24. The consummation of God’s dealings with creation and man thus takes up and transcends what
was given in Paradise, cf. Gn. 3:22 with 2:9, 17. Similarly, what Rev. has to say about the river of the
water of life shows that the end will not merely be a restoration of the beginning in Paradise but will be
something new in which God consummates with unrestricted fulness the works and ways begun at
creation.
It should not be overlooked that the river of the water of life is mentioned only here and in Jn. 7:38, →
lines 28 ff. There are no exact par. in religious history. The material par.78 available, including those in the
Dead Sea Scrolls, speak of the source of life or the water of life, but not, like Rev. and Jn., of the river of the
water of life.79 Of no relevance here is the ref. in Od. Sol. 6 where the river carries away everything with it
(→ n. 66) and hence has nothing to do with the river of life in Paradise,80 vv. 8ff. This river is obviously
describing the triumphant progress of Christianity81 or a (Christian) Gnosticism82 which sweeps everything
before it. If older motifs are adopted, these again are unrelated to the water of life. In the total context of
Johannine theology one has thus to integrate the image of the river of the water of life into the Johannine
concept of completely consummated fulness as this is most plainly expressed in what is said about perfect joy
in the Gospel of John (3:29; 15:11; 16:24; 17:13) and the Epistles of John (1 Jn. 1:4; 2 Jn. 12).83 In relation to
Rev. 22:1 f. it should be noted, of course, that there is no mention of this fulness of joy, though eschatological
joy is by no means alien to Rev. (19:7; cf. 21:3f.), and the same is true of the concept of fulness (3:2; 6:11).
For the fact that the river of the water of life issues forth from the throne of God and of the Lamb there is
a par. statement in the Ginza of the Mandaeans.84 It should also be noted that in the sanctuaries of
Aesculapius, who was for a time the most serious rival of Christianity,85 the associated sacred spring used to
flow forth from under the sanctuary, the throne, and the feet of the god.86 A final religio-historical pt. to
consider is that the river of the water of life in Rev. 22:1 does not divide like the river of Paradise; for this
reason alone it is not to be regarded as a repetition except in some sense at a higher level. Indeed, one has to
take into account the possibility of non-biblical influences on the metaphor.
3.
The Saying of Jesus in Jn. 7:37 f. (→ III, 788, 27 ff.; 991, 10 ff.).
96
On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, with its particularly solemn dispensing of water,87 Jesus,
according to Jn. 7:37 f., cried with a loud voice: ἐάν τις διψᾷ, ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω. ὁ πιστεύων
εἰς ἐμέ, καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος. The Evangelist
adds (v. 39)88 that the reference of Jesus here was to the Spirit whom those who came to faith in Him
should later receive. He does not give the reasons, however, for this interpretation, and the whole
passage is difficult and almost impossible to expound.
Even the division of the verse is not immediately clear. In addition to the traditional punctuation given in
Nestle there is another89 which relates ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ to what precedes and which makes the break only
before καθώς. This is found in the older fathers before Origen. It rests not merely on the rhythm of the saying
but also on its avoidance of the grotesquely comic notion that streams of water will flow forth from the body
of the one who drinks to quench his thirst.90 On this view “he” is naturally the One who gives the water and
the person who drinks merely receives it. Jesus Himself, of course, is the He. In v. 38, then, a statement of
Jesus about Himself (cf. 6:35; 8:12) is simply embedded in a quotation from Scripture (→ lines 21 ff.; 607,
25ff.), and materially the saying stands related to 4:10. On the other hand, the concept herewith rejected is not
so unusual as might at first appear. Jochanan b. Zakkai, the contemporary of the apostle, said of one of his
pupils that he was a spring which gushes forth with ever increasing strength.91 There are higher forms of
praise than this, esp. those which regard it as the chief task of the pupil to guard what has been transmitted to
him by his teacher.92 Yet this does not alter the fact that the image which modern scholars find grotesque93
would not have made this impression on the contemporaries of Jesus. Arguments of this kind are thus without
cogency.94
The question whether the saying is now placed at the right point is still unsettled. There is no need to
pursue this topic here, however, since the logion will have to be regarded as an isolated one in any case.
The use of the formula ἡ γραφή raises difficulties of its own. One solution is that the whole of v. 38 is the
addition of an ecclesiastical redactor.95 Thus far it has not been possible to say what the (apocr.?) Scripture is
(→ I, 753, n. 13; III, 991, 10 ff., 27 ff.). There is always the possibility that the expression is to be understood
collectively. A more recent96 proposal is that we are to think in terms of a kind of florilegium which seems to
have been esp. important for the libation at Tabernacles, Is. 12:3; Ez. 47:1 ff.; Zech. 14:8.97 But the use of ἡ
γραφή (‫ )הַ ּכָׁתּוב‬seems to be against this—at least until the contrary can be proved.
In view of all these difficulties, and also of the fact that the context does not in any case help us to
any particular decision, it is perhaps best to refer to what has been said already about the word ποταμός
in Jn. A survey shows that Jn. 7:37 f. is close to Rev. 22:1. Here the river of the water of life is
associated with the Lamb as well as God. It is not said, however, that the Lamb is also in some sense the
source of the river. The divine is more interested in the nature of the river than its source. It should not
be forgotten that in Jn. 4:10, too, Jesus is not called the source of the water of life; He is the One who
controls and dispenses this water. The same applies in Jn. 7:37 f.
But first another point must be made. There is something to be said for the traditional punctuation. In
particular one may refer to the ancient invitation with which the Feast of the Passover opens even up to our
own times: “Every one who is hungry, let him come and be satisfied! every one who is in need, let him come
and keep the Passover!”98 This applies not least of all to the poor who have no Passover table of their own. It
is hardly necessary to be specific here. The par. to Jn. 7:37 f. is obvious except that the believer has to be
mentioned explicitly because faith is not self-evident.
The Evangelist’s interpretation is also essential. It looks ahead to a time when Jesus Himself will no
longer be there. It expresses certainty that His work will continue. The means by which this is to happen,
or has already happened in the Evangelist’s experience, is the Spirit. The Spirit makes possible the
continuation of the work of Jesus. He continues it in and through the disciples. Naturally the mark of
Jesus’ work is fulness. This again does not come to an end. It remains in the Spirit and is present in His
work after the “transfiguration” of Jesus. In the image of the ποταμός this means that Jesus equips His
disciples in such a way that the forces and fulness of life remain unrestrictedly at work, since the streams
of living water flow via them into the world and are available for the thirsty so long as they believe.
Integrated and understood thus, the logion Jn. 7:37 f. is a disciples-logion which bears witness to the
97
apostolic function of the disciples after Jesus’ “transfiguration” and which uses for this purpose
figurative material employed elsewhere to denote the eschatological function of Jesus Himself. If the
faith of the disciples is a presupposition for the fulfilment of their representative ministry, this shows
how clearly the Fourth Evangelist distinguished the apostles of Jesus from Jesus Himself for all the
authority prescribed to them.
The question of the γραφή (→ 606, 25 ff.) must remain an open one. This is esp. true in attempts to
explain Jn. 7:37 f. Hence there will always be to this extent a strong element of uncertainty in any attempt at
interpretation.
† ποταμοφόρητος.
For a long time unattested outside the NT, this word1 is now shown2 by some pap. texts to have been
familiar in Egypt, though so far only in passages dealing with damage done by the Nile and in the sense
“washed away by the Nile” (P. Amh., II, 85, 16 [78 A.D.]): ἐὰν δέ τι ἄβροχος ἢ καὶ ποταμοφόρητος ἢ
ὕφαμμος ἢ κατεξυσμένη παραγένηται …; P. Tebt., II, 610 (2nd cent. A.D. frequently); P. Ryl., II, 378, 2; P.
Oxy., XVI, 1911, 98 etc. The word is thus Egyptian and is closely related to the use of the word ποταμός for
the Nile, → 596, 22 ff.
Though we do not find a corresponding word, that which it expresses occurs in many of the oldest Rabb.
texts dealing with floods and their effects. Thus Orla, 1, 3 speaks of a tree which a river has carried away
(‫)אילןַשטפוַנהר‬. BQ, 10, 5 of part of a field which was similarly washed away (‫)שדהַשטפהַנהר‬. The
‫ נָׁהָׁ ר‬mentioned here corresponds to the Gk. ποταμός → 595, 26 ff. These and similar ref. occur in a legal
context. If expressions of this kind in the Mishnah were to be put into Gk., ποταμοφόρητος would be the right
word. For the rest, the damage is usually permanent in both cases.
The only NT instance in Rev. 12:15 refers neither to the Nile nor to any other river nor indeed to
damage with legal consequences. We read here that the dragon who drove out the woman sent forth after
her ὕδωρ ὡς ποταμόν, ἵνα αὐτὴν ποταμοφόρητον ποιήσῃ. The meaning is simply that it was the
dragon’s purpose to bring her into a situation where she had lost control of her own destiny, like
someone who is swept away by the fulness and overwhelming strength (→ 596, 3 ff.) of an onrushing
river.
† Ἰορδάνης.*
Contents: 1. The name and Its Meaning: a. The Course of the River; b. The Form of Its name; c. The Meaning
of the Name Jordan; 2. Estimation of the Jordan in the OT and Later Judaism: a. The Geographical Position of
the Jordan; b. Evaluation of the Water of Jordan; 3. The River God Jordan; 4. The Jordan in the NT and
Primitive Christianity; a. General Review of the Usage; b. John the Baptist and the Jordan; c. Jesus and the
Jordan; d. Primitive Christianity and the Jordan; e. The Water of Baptism and the Water of Jordan in the Early
Church.
1.
The Name and Its Meaning.
a. The Course of the River. From Hermon to the Dead Sea the Jordan flows through a portion of the Great
Rift Valley which runs in a north-south direction from North Syria between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon by
way of the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, the Araba, the Gulf of Akaba and the Red Sea to the great lakes of
Africa. The sources of the river are on Mt. Hermon. It empties into the Dead Sea about 400 m. below the level
of the Mediterranean. Even in the southern portion between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea the Jordan is
not navigable.1 It contains fish up to the point where its waters begin to intermingle with those of the Dead
Sea.2
b. The Form of Its Name. The Gk. name (Heb. ‫י ְַׁרדֵ ן‬, in narrative texts with art., not in poetic texts like Ps.
42:6) is usually Ἰορδάνης.3 Ἰόρδανος however, is also found (Jos. 4:9 A; Sib., 7, 67; Paus., V, 7, 4). Jos.
almost always has Ἰόρδανος in Ant., 1–9 (exceptions 1, 170; 4, 168, 176; 8, 36 as variant Ἰαρδάνου), but
always Ἰορδάνης in 13–20 and Bell. (the Jordan does not occur in Ant., 2, 10–11. 16. 19). Philo, too, uses
Ἰορδάνης. While the use of the art. is not uniform in these two authors, ὁ Ἰορδάνης is the regular name in the
NT.4
98
c. The Meaning of the Name Jordan. Various explanations were offered in antiquity. Philo has the
explanation: Ἰορδάνης δὲ κατάβασις ἑρμηνεύεται (Leg. All., II, 89), thus linking the name with the Heb. ‫י ַָׁרד‬
καταβαίνειν.5 This derivation, which he probably adopted in view of his own deficiency in Heb.,6 helps Philo
to see in the crossing of the Jordan by Jacob (Gn. 32:11) a type of the conquest of low spiritual periods by the
patriarchs. Jos. seems to derive the name from Dan, for in his account of Abraham’s journey to Dan to free
Lot from imprisonment there (Gn. 14:14) he adds the note: … περὶ Δάνον, οὕτως γὰρ ἡ ἑτέρα τοῦ Ἰορδάνου
προσαγορεύεται πηγή, Ant., 1, 177, and the only natural meaning of this is that the source called Dan gave its
name to the whole of the river fed therefrom. It may be7 that Jos. is here adopting an explanation which is also
preserved in the Talmud (b.Bech, 55a)8 and which acc. to those who pass on the tradition9 is Palestinian in
origin: ‫אַשמֹו‬
ְׁ ‫דַמדָׁ ןַלָׁמָׁ הַנִ קְׁ ָׁר‬
ִ ‫יּור‬
ֵ ֶ‫“ י ְַׁרדֵ ןַָךַש‬why is it called Jordan? Because it comes down from Dan.”
This is connected with Philo’s explanation but not identical, since Philo does not refer to Dan. The crown of
such attempts at etymology10 is in Jerome when in his work on the sites and names of Hebrew localities11 he
appends to his derivation of Jordan from Dan (here expressly described as viculus) that ior, the first syllable
of the name, means river in Heb., so that the name Jordan is made up of the two Heb. words ‫ יְׁ אֹור‬and ‫דָׁ ן‬, and
means the river of Dan.12
Any modern explanation13 must bear in mind that Jordan is not a unique name. Hom. mentions a Jardanos
in Crete (Od., 3, 292) and another in Elis (Il., 7, 135). There are other examples of the same or closely related
names in Asia Minor, Europe and elsewhere.14 Since the name of the Palestinian Jordan is attested already in
the 13th cent. B.C. on Egypt. records of Ramses II in the form jrdn, i.e., much earlier than there were Iranians
in Asia Minor,15 the suggestion that the name derives from the Iranian and means “the river which flows all
the year”16 is no longer tenable.17 In the present state of scholarship the most one can say is that the name
Jordan is probably a designation from the ancient Mediterranean period18 which lingers on and which then
becomes an appellative, as the regular Heb. use with the art. shows, → 609, 1 f. The rest—even though it be
only a general definition like “the river”—is mere conjecture. This is the more true of the Palestinian Jordan
in that it never came to be regarded as the river of the country.19
2. Estimation of the Jordan in the OT and Later Judaism.
a. The Geographical Position of the Jordan.
In Nu. 34:10 ff. the Jordan is fixed as the eastern frontier of the territory of Israel even though the tribes
of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh were located in the southern part of East Jordan, cf. also
Jos. 13:15 ff. Historically,20 this reflects the division of the land at the conquest acc. to the actual position in
the days of the monarchy, though perhaps the presentation received its definitive form only after the
destruction of Jerusalem. Certainly in the ancient narrative in Jos. 3 ff. the conquest by these tribes from the
desert begins only with the crossing of the Jordan and the taking of Jericho. This account shows vividly that
Jordan had the character of a natural boundary.21 In this respect there has been remarkably little change even
up to our own day.22 This applies to the role of the Jordan at the beginning of our era. In the Gospels the
territory of the rulers in Jerusalem ended at the Jordan.23 The testimony of Joseph. is to the same effect.24 The
customs post at Jericho enhanced the significance of the river as a boundary25 at this time.26 Furthermore,
there were on the banks no places which might have served as a natural bridge between West and East. This is
also true right up to our own day.
Alongside the purely geographical and political evaluation of the Jordan27 there is another which is
controlled by the concept of the land of Israel as depicted in the divine promise to the patriarch Abraham. 28
Here in the framework of a theological eschatological view the Jordan is part of the land and not its frontier.
The eastern frontier is the Euphrates29 and the river of Egypt borders it to the South.30 As one would expect,
this way of looking at things is found esp. in scribal circles and comes to expression in religio-legal
judgments, esp. those which group the territory on the far side of Jordan with Judaea and Galilee.
Nevertheless, caution is needed in respect of some Haggadic material. Thus it is told of the Palestinian
Amoraean R. Zeïra (first decade of the 4th cent. in Tiberias)31 that when, as a native Babylonian, he came to
the Jordan on a journey to Israel his adopted country, finding no ferry there, he crossed the river in his clothes.
This is taken to mean that he wanted to honour Jordan as part of Israel.32 It is more correct, however, to
conclude with the version of the anecdote in b. Talmud33 that he could not and would not curb his impatience
to lay foot on the land. Could he know, if he did not hurry, that there would really be granted to him what was
99
withheld from Moses and Aaron, namely, to enter the land of promise?34 What we have here is thus joy at
reaching the goal and leaving the border behind. There are other stories which express this joy in different but
par. ways.35
The Jordan, for its part, is a unique river. It is sometimes said of it36 that its waters do not intermingle with
those of the Sea of Tiberins through which it flows. It borders but does not separate. What lies beyond Jordan
is not a part of the land of Israel. But it is possible in many statements to group this territory with Galilee and
Judah in such a way that there do not have to be any clear-cut distinctions.37
b. Evaluation of the Water of Jordan.
In the OT the water of Jordan cures Naaman, the Syrian general, of his leprosy. Following the instructions
of Elisha the prophet he dips 7 times in the Jordan and is made whole, 2 K. 5. In an appendix to the story we
are then told that the sons of the prophets in Gilgal set out to build houses for themselves by the Jordan and
asked Elisha to accompany them; when he did, Elisha worked another miracle, 2 K. 6:1 ff. In neither story is
there any high regard for the water of Jordan as such. Elisha is the focus of interest, not the Jordan. The
Jordan is mentioned because it played a role in the life of Elisha, not for its own sake. Neither here nor
elsewhere is there even a hint of any peculiar dignity being ascribed to the water of Jordan. With the other
Elisha stories the two narratives constitute a self-contained complex.38 There is no par. to them in the rest of
the OT. Jewish tradition says that the Euphrates rather than the Jordan protects against leprosy, → ποταμός,
599, 32 ff.39
Later Judaism, like the OT. ascribes no peculiar dignity to the water of Jordan. It has no developed Jordan
myth. Vit. Ad., 6 ff. tells how Adam, after being expelled from Paradise, resolved to spend 40 days standing
and fasting in the Jordan in order to do penance for the fall and perhaps to bring it about that God would be
merciful and open Paradise again, and that he directed Eve to mortify hereself in the same way for 37 days in
the Tigris; he himself carried out his resolve but Eve was seduced by Satan into breaking off her penance
before the time, and she thereby rendered the penance of Adam valueless. In this form the story is probably
the Chr. redaction of a Jewish original.40, 41 The more noteworthy it is, then, that although the Haggada speaks
of a fast of Adam (probably even originally for 40 days)42 in which he stood up to his neck in water, it does
not say that he stood in the Jordan but in the upper Gihon.43, 44 The substitution of the Jordan for this in the
version of the story in Vit. Ad. is thus in all probability the work of a Chr. redactor and is not original.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls thus for published there is nothing to suggest any special relation to the Jordan. In
Cave I fragments of a work called the Dires de Moïse were found and this twice refers to the crossing of the
Jordan before entering the promised land, 1 Q 22: I, 10; II, 2. But this is all. In the Damascus Document, so
far as we have it, there is no mention of the Jordan.
The Rabbis assessed the water of Jordan carefully and critically in relation to their views and
doctrines of the clean and unclean. They roundly denied the suitability of this water for some cultic acts.
Nor can one speak of any special connection of the Jordan with the rites of purification and baptism in
later Judaism.
From Bek., 55a one may infer that there was even discussion among the Rabbis as to what was the Jordan
in the true sense. In T. Bek., 7, 4 it seems to be generally recognised that only from Jericho on45 was the river
regarded hatachically as the Jordan,46 namely, as a frontier which divides.47 This has, of course, nothing to do
with the dignity of the water; it shows, however, that the Rabb. experienced no difficulties in this respect
when they had to make decisions respecting the Jordan.
The Mishnah (Para, 8, 10) mentions the Jordan among rivers whose waters are unsuitable for cleansing
when there is defilement with the dead (‫ ;מֵ יַחַ טָׁ את‬Nu. 19). The reason is that its water is mixed; it is a
mixture of suitable and unsuitable water. This is the more surprising in that the water of the source of the
Jordan at Paneas is explicitly called suitable, Parah, 8, 11; cf. Miq., 1, 8. As concerns the cultic use of its
water, then, the Jordan has to be examined by the Rabb. like any other river or water. Water which cannot be
used for cleansing is also unsuitable for the washing of the leper (after healing) or of the man defiled by a
discharge, Miq., 1, 8. It may be used, however, for normal washings, → ποταμός 600, 1 ff.; for these, then,
the Jordan is theoretically possible.48 Theoretically proselyte baptism may thus be given in the Jordan. In fact,
however, there is no record of such baptism in rivers or specifically in the Jordan. In so far as accounts are
available, there is only one example of the ritual bath of a teacher in the Jordan, → ποταμός 600, 8 ff. Such
100
baths in the Jordan seem to have been an exception, then, and they would be taken only on special occasions
or for special reasons. It should not be overlooked that south of its outlet from the Sea of Galilee the river is
hard of access and also that the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was dangerous, Lk. 10:30. At any rate, neither
before nor after the destruction of the temple did the Jordan play for certain any notable part in the ritual
washings of Judaism.
3.
The River God Jordan.49
In the triumph of Titus depicted on the architrave of the Titus arch facing the Colosseum three Romans
bear the Jordan on a bier in the form of an old man who, sitting to the left, supports himself on an urn. The
depiction corresponds fully to the way in which elsewhere rivers as the personifications of conquered
provinces were represented in the procession of the victor. Thus far it is also the only known instance of a
depiction of the Jordan as a river god on ancient monuments.50 On coins, too, there are no examples of the
Jordan being represented thus.51 Judaism was either unacquainted with this myth, or, more likely, ignored it.
There are isolated ref. in the Rabb. writings which can be understood only as deliberate rejection of water
deities, Chul., 2, 8 f.; T. Chul., 2, 19; b.Chul., 40a–41a; → ποταμός 598, 26 ff. The name Jordan is never
mentioned in this connection. This may be an accident, esp. as the depiction of the river on the Titus arch,
which naturally suggests a comparison with the Rhine, the Rhone and the Nile,52 is an unusual exaggeration.
But it may be intentional. Do we have here one of the reasons why the Rabbinate showed such unmistakable
restraint in relation to the Jordan (→ 612, 11 ff.)?
On the other hand, the personification of the Jordan as found on the arch of Titus was adopted by the
Church. It was adopted thus in three connections, first in relation to the baptism of Jesus, secondly in
relation to the rapture of Elijah, and finally in relation to the story of Joshua. The dominant role is
played by the baptism of Jesus. This applies both to its artistic depiction53 and also to the legendary
embellishment of the Gospel story of the baptism which Jesus received from John the Baptist.54
The number of pictures of baptism in which the Jordan is a person is considerable.55 The oldest seems to
be the mosaic on the cupola of San Giovanni in Fonte at Ravenna (c. 450).56 Close to it in Ravenna there is
another in Santa Maria in Cosmedin (before 526).57 It is not without interest that the older mosaic is in the
baptistery of the orthodox, the later in that of the Arians. Obviously, then, the motif was generally known and
loved. On these depictions, of course, the Jordan is not a god but simply a personification of the river of
baptism designed to express in some way participation in the baptism of Jesus.58 There is no historical link
with the depiction on the arch of Titus. Again, one can only conjecture why the motif became popular.
Perhaps it seemed to offer the possibility of bringing out the fact that the water of baptism is the water of
Jordan, or takes its place. The fact that the motif appears first in baptisteries seems to point in this direction,
→ 623, 17 ff.
4. The Jordan in the NT and Primitive Christianity.
a. General Review of the Usage.
Ἰορδάνης occurs 15 times in the NT (always with art. → 609, 6 f.). These instances are all in the Gospels.
6 are in Mt., 4 in Mk., 2 in Lk. and 3 in Jn. They occur in sayings about the location of the work of the
Baptist, which is sometimes called ἡ περιχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (Mt. 3:5; Lk. 3:3) and sometimes simply πέραν
τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (Jn. 1:28; 3:26; 10:40), or about the place where he baptised (Mt. 3:6; Mk. 1:5) and where Jesus
received baptism (Mt. 3:13; Mk. 1:9; Lk. 4:1), or about the work of Jesus πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (Mt. 19:1; Mk.
10:1; Mt. 4:15, a proof from Scripture), or finally about the fact that many from the territory πέραν τοῦ
Ἰορδάνου came to Jesus (Mt. 4:25/Mk. 3:8).
There are only two ref. in extant remnants of the apocryph. Gospels. The one is in Ev. Eb., 1
(Epiph.Haer., 30, 13; cf. 14) in the story of the baptism of John in a form which associates this use with that
in the Synoptics. On the other hand P. Egerton 2 (Unknown Gospel), 65–67 contains the fragment of a hardly
decipherable and otherwise unknown account of a miracle of Jesus (reminiscent of magic?) [επι του] χειλους
του Ιο[ρδα]νου, possibly with the intention of demonstrating His omnipotence.59 Only by way of appendix to
these two passages may one refer to the Ps.-Matthaei Ev.60 with its two legends, the one (c. 35) about Jesus as
a boy eight years old going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and near the river meeting lions who terrorised
other travellers, the other (c. 36) about the river parting before the boy when He wants to go across with the
lions.61
101
It should be remembered, however, that the post-apost. fathers do not mention the Jordan at all. In this
respect they follow the example of the NT writings apart from the Gospels. Only with the Apologists does the
Jordan begin to appear again, though only in Just., → 619, 29 ff.
Instructive in this respect is not merely what we learn about the word in the earliest Christian
writings but also the obvious and characteristic restraint in usage. Naturally it may be an accident that
neither Ac. (10:37; 13:24; 18:25; 19:3f.) nor Ignatius (Sm., 1, 1) mentions the Jordan in connection with
John’s baptising or the baptism of Jesus. But the reason may be that the works have no basic interest in
the Jordan.
b. John the Baptist and the Jordan.
In the light of the common OT and later Jewish attitude to the Jordan, baptism in the Jordan can be
regarded only as the direct and personal work of John the Baptist. To be sure, the emphatic view has
been espoused that the Jordan, “if it was not wholly kosher for the Rabbis, was probably … venerated
and used cultically in circles outside orthodox Judaism.”62 But this thesis rests on a petitio principii.
Thus far no convincing evidence has been found to support it. Nor is such evidence to be expected in
view of the inaccessibility and inhospitability of the Jordan valley. It must be accepted, then, that the
popular movement initiated by the Baptist probably had at least one of its roots in the novel practice of
baptising in the Jordan. If John was predominantly regarded as the Baptist by his contemporaries, this is
because Josephus (Ant., 18, 116) as well as the Synoptists (→ I, 545, 36 ff.) presented him to his readers
under what was obviously a popular title (→ I, 546, 1 ff.), ὁ βαπτιστής.
In so far as the Gospel accounts make possible at all any geographical reconstruction of the Baptist’s
ministry, the data are so imprecise as to leave the picture very general if not totally obscure. An analysis
of the individual statements does at least enable us to affirm that the Baptist often shifted his location in
the course of his ministry, working sometimes to the east of the Jordan and sometimes to the west. In all
parts of the tradition the Jordan is at any rate the centre of the Baptist’s work. As concerns the practice
of baptising in the Jordan, both Luke and especially John manifest an unmistakable reserve about this
which is obviously less for historical reasons than for reasons of principle.
In Mt. the Baptist appears with his message in the ἔρημος τῆς Ἰουδαίας (3:1), while his baptism takes
place ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ (3:6). Mk. says the same when on the basis of Is. 40:3 he refers very generally
only to the ἔρημος (1:4f.). Lk. sets the call of John in the ἔρημος but then has him come εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν
περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου with his summons to repentance and his baptism, 3:2f. In connection with this he
does not say expressly that the Jordan was either generally or predominantly the place where he administered
baptism. Jn. on three occasions (1:28; 3:26; 10:40) uses πέραν τοῦ Ἰονδάνου for the area where John baptised.
This corresponds to the OT ‫צֵ בֶ רַהַ י ְַׁרדֵ ן‬, and like it signifies East Jordan, esp. the southern part. In 1:28 and
3:23 Jn. also mentions two places which it is no longer possible to locate,63 though acc. to the Evangelist the
first must be on the far side of the Jordan (1:28) and the other on the west bank (3:26).
Hence only Mt. and Mk. tell us precisely that John’s baptism was administered in the Jordan.
Nevertheless, this seems to be presupposed, if not mentioned, in Lk., for acc. to the source which he used
Jesus returned from the Jordan after His baptism, Lk. 4:1; on Ac. → 618, 23 ff. Jn., on the other hand, does
not make even an indirect ref. Indeed, not only does he not mention the Jordan but in relation to the second
site he stresses the fact that ὕδατα πολλὰ ἦν ἐκεῖ, 3:23. If one may infer that the ref. is to the springs and
brooks of ed-dēr,64 Jn. mentions expressly only one place of baptism, and this is not the Jordan. If one asks
why, it should be noted that Jn. is not polemicising against the Jordan. As compared with Mt. and Mk., and
also to some extent Lk., he is simply shifting the emphasis from the baptising of John the Baptist in the Jordan
to his baptising as such. In the first instance, however, historical reasons can hardly have caused him to do
this. With his ref. to the actual places Jn. is making as specific as possible what is generally described in Lk.
as πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, 3:3. Certainly there can be no question of any contradiction between Jn.
on the one side and Mt. and Mk. on the other65 if the latter (esp. Mk. 1:1) have in view only the beginning of
the Baptist’s work whereas Lk. and Jn. consider it in its total compass.66 In the light of such considerations
caution is recommended in relation to attempts to explain Jn. 3:23 in terms of Church development.67 It is
more advisable to accept the insight that in speaking of ὕδωρ rather than the Jordan Jn. is simply following a
102
line already laid down by the Baptist himself in the saying with which he explains his baptism. This saying,
recorded in all the Gospels, shows that baptism with water rather than baptism in the Jordan is the true mark
of the Baptist, Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:26. The emphatic statement regarding the Baptist that he
baptises with water pts. in the same direction, Jn. 1:31, 33.68 In Jn. the obvious interest with respect to the
nature of John’s baptism is in water, not in the Jordan, though he has no thought of excluding the Jordan from
John’s ministry and of thus correcting the historical picture. This means, however, that if the approach is not
accidental—and it cannot be this—then its only possible basis is in principle. That this is actually so may be
seen already to some degree from the accounts which the Gospels give of Jesus’ own relation to the Jordan.
c. Jesus and the Jordan.
Mt. (3:13), Mk. (1:9) and Lk. (4:1) all agree that Jesus was among those baptised by John the Baptist
in the Jordan. There is no good reason why doubt should be cast on the correctness of this record or on
the connection with the Jordan. Jn. indeed shows (1:29ff.) that it was possible to speak quite intelligibly
of the baptism of Jesus without express mention of the Jordan.69 One may assume, then, that when Jesus
was baptised He received baptism in the Jordan as the older Evangelists record or presuppose.
The Lucan account has two peculiar features as compared with Mt. and Mk. On the one side Lk. very
emphatically integrates Jesus’ baptism into the movement initiated by the Baptist; on the other he stresses
Jesus’ own share in the act by a ref. to His praying, which expresses His obedient waiting for the call from
above to take up His ministry, 3:21f. Both features are closely related to the picture of Christ in the 3rd
Gospel.70 The Johannine account (1:32f.) obviously presupposes the Synoptic record, and there also seems to
be a special connection with Lk. 3:2. Here again Jesus stands at the heart of the baptismal movement (1:26),
and here again the event cannot be separated from the mission and call of Jesus (1:29). The way in which
these features are emphasised is rooted again in the kerygmatic concern of the Evangelist. If the two accounts
are set side by side, it is plain that in both the whole focus is on the person of Jesus and that what takes place
in His baptism is wholly subordinated to Him.71 In particular, neither account is interested in the place of
baptism, the Jordan.
In view of the fact that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan, extra attention should be paid to the
fact that this river plays no further part in His life or work as depicted by the tradition. No saying of
Jesus referring to the Jordan has been preserved. It is occasionally mentioned in the narratives, but never
in such a way that some special significance of the river stands in the background. Indeed, there are
some passages in which one might reasonably expect the Jordan to be mentioned but it is not.
Mt. (4:25) and Mk. (3:8), when speaking of the multitudes who came to Jesus, refer to the region πέραν
τοῦ Ἰορδάνου as the home of these people who thronged to Him. Later (Mt. 19:1; Mk. 10:1) they both tell us
that Jesus came and worked in this region on His way to Jerusalem (Mt. ἐθεράπευσεν, Mk. ἐδίδασκεν). But
this is all they have to say about the connection of Jesus with the Jordan.
Only at a first glance does the situation seem to be different in Jn. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus Himself
after His baptism does His first work in the region of Jordan, and indeed in such a way that an impression of
rivalry is left among the adherents of the Baptist, 3:22ff. There is a ref. later to another period spent in East
Jordan, 10:40. Much in these accounts is historically and geographically obscure,72 but one may certainly
gather from them that the Jordan as such played no significant role in the life and work of Jesus after His
baptism. Nowhere does Jesus Himself seem to be personally linked to the river; nowhere is there any
indissoluble connection with it. Not even in passages in which the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus’ own
ministry of baptism, or that of His disciples (3:22ff.; 4:1f.), does the ref. take such a form as to leave the
reader with the impression that Jesus was in any way personally linked to the Jordan. What may be inferred
from this Gospel regarding the relation between the Baptist and the Jordan is duplicated in the case of Jesus’
relation to the Jordan. If one may speak of a relation at all, it is not one of principle but a purely practical
relation which arises only because water is needed for baptism. In particular, there is in the relation of Jesus to
the Jordan here no suggestion that Jesus might have ascribed a special dignity to its water and thus taken up a
corresponding attitude to it.
The picture is the same in Lk. too. Indeed, the situation is esp. clear in his Gospel. One may refer in
particular to the Zacchaeus incident in 19:1ff., for Jesus does not Himself baptise this penitent customs-farmer
of Jericho (→ n. 26) in the nearby Jordan, nor does He instruct him to take a bath of purification in it.73 The
103
Jordan is not even mentioned at any pt. in the passage. Nor does it occur anywhere in the Lucan journey,
9:51–19:27. This is certainly not because the Jordan, like the mountain, lake, plain or desert, was “in a way
peculiar to Luke” merely a “ ‘typical’ locality,”74 which as such enabled him to make a clear distinction
between the Baptist’s sphere of activity and that of Jesus,75 so that they could be mentioned alongside one
another without fear of confusion. If in Lk. the Jordan were not actually76 mentioned in connection with the
ministry of Jesus because this river, with other geographical concepts, had for the author only the significance
of a principle of arrangement within a conception in terms of salvation history,77 then one would expect Lk. to
introduce it quite unambiguously under ποταμός as a geographical type. In so doing he might have followed
the use in Mk. 1:5 (cf. Mt. 3:6) and not just gone back to contemporary usage. But he did not do this. In both
instances in which the Jordan is mentioned (3:3; 4:1) Lk. does not call it πατομός. On the other hand, there is
in the Gospel no solid evidence that Jesus avoided the Jordan as the river of the Baptist.78 If, however, the
absence of any close relation between Jesus and the Jordan in Lk. is due neither to the Jordan’s “typical”
nature as a river nor to its association with the Baptist, if, then, it is not due to any historical circumstance, the
only remaining possibility is that it is a matter of principle, Unfortunately Lk. himself does not tell us what
the reason is any more than Jn. does. In Lk., however, it is at least clear that the reason cannot be stated, for
there is no sign of it whatever.79
This review of the material confirms our earlier conjecture that the reserve of the NT in respect of
the Jordan is obviously a matter of principle. But it is also enables us to arrive at a broader conclusion,
namely, that this reserve in respect of the Jordan characterises the whole of the Gospel tradition and is
closely related to the person of Jesus. This suggests that the principle at issue derives from a specific
understanding of what is “Christian.” Whether this thesis is possible or correct, however, can be proved
only by a survey of the relationship of primitive Christianity to the Jordan in so far as the sources allow
of such an investigation.
d. Primitive Christianity and the Jordan.
Naturally primitive Chr. convictions underlie the passages discussed → 616, 14 ff. But Chr. practice must
also be taken into account. We must ask how this relates to the principial reserve in respect of the Jordan in
order to find out what is the ultimate reason for this. Since the Jordan is the classical place of the baptism of
repentance both in the tradition concerning the Baptist and also in the picture of Jesus in the Gospels, the
question posed thereby lays upon us the task of considering primitive Chr. baptismal practice in relation to the
Jordan.
Acts gives evidence of no relations at all between primitive baptismal practice and the Jordan. This
is true quite irrespective of the question as to the extent of baptism in the very earliest community. That
Christian baptism was very early, and took place even in the first community, can hardly be contested.80
If one or another account may raise general or detailed questions,81 the Jordan is certainly never
mentioned. This is notably true even where it is difficult to say where the baptisms took place.
The account of the mass conversion and baptism on the Day of Pentecost (Ac. 2:37 ff.) raises many
questions.82 But no matters what answers are given,83 there can hardly be any possibility of a baptism in the
Jordan either then or later. The same applies to the conversion and baptism of the Samaritans in Ac. 8:9 ff.
The situation is clear as regards the baptism of the eunuch in Ac. 8:26 ff.; when they reached “water” (ἐπί τι
ὕδωρ) the eunuch who had become a believer was baptised.84 Again in the Cornelius story there is ref. only to
water (ὕδωρ) in connection with baptism, Ac. 10:47 f. In this connection there is no need to go into the
accounts which Ac. gives of baptisms in Gk. missions, which took place far away from the Jordan, 16:14f.;
16:33; 18:8; 19:5.
In this light it is instructive to consider the portrayal of John the Baptist in the few references to him
in Ac. In reminiscences of his baptism either no details are given (1:22; 10:37; 18:25), or it is called a
baptism of repentance (13:24f.; 19:3f.), or there is reference to the fact that John baptised with water
(ὕδατι, 1:5; 11:16 [quotation]). The Jordan is certainly never mentioned in connection with John’s
baptism in Ac.
The NT epistles and Rev. contain no clear references to the baptism of John at all. Even when they
mention Christian baptism they do not speak of the Jordan. This obviously does not mean that the
104
authors knew nothing about it. On the contrary, they would fairly certainly know the tradition that Jesus
was baptised in the Jordan. Their silence thus indicates the more plainly that an immediate interest in the
Jordan was not bound up with recollection of the historical event. Naturally water is needed when
baptism is administered, whether in Palestine or on the Hellenistic mission field. This is so self-evident
that Paul does not find it even necessary to mention water explicitly in R. 6:3 f.; 1 C. 1:13 ff.; 12:13;
15:29; Gl. 3:27 (though cf. 1 C. 10:1 f.). The only point is that this does not have to be any particular
water, not even that of Jordan.85
The freedom expressed here in relation to the ritual also includes the place of baptism in the primitive
Church. Nowhere is baptism tied to a specific locality. The only prerequisite in a place is that there be water
there, Ac. 8:36. This is also the situation in Ign. (Eph., 18, 2),86 Herm. (v., 3, 2, 4 ff.; 7, 3; m., 4, 3, 1; s., 9, 16,
2 ff.) and Barn. (11, 1 ff.). In all these authors ὕδωρ is the important word and immersion is presupposed as
the form of baptism. Once this is asserted there is no need to discuss here what specific ideas were combined
with this way of speaking of the baptismal water. The significant pt. is that the water of Jordan is not
described as the basic type of the water of baptism nor is it renewed in some sense in this water. No such
thoughts are expressed in the post-apost. period.
e. The Water of Baptism and the Water of Jordan in the Early Church.
The Jordan recurs in Justin. Among the Apologists he is alone in this. It may also be noted that the ref. is
restricted to the Dial. c. Tryph. To explain this is by no means easy. The Dial. was written in Rome in the
sixties of the 2nd cent. Thus it is possible that specifically Roman ideas underlie the re-emergence of the
Jordan. In Dial. it is again said quite naturally that John the Baptist worked by the Jordan (49, 3; 51, 2; 88, 3.
7; cf. the quotation of Is. 35:1 ff. in 69, 5). Jesus thus comes to the Jordan to be baptised (88, 8) and His
baptism involves immersion in the Jordan (88, 3; 103, 6). This is all recounted in such a way as to bring out
quite unmistakably the fact that God’s holy history is here enacted. To this belongs everything that happens
when Jesus is baptised in the Jordan, cf. also 88, 3. 6. The more significant, then, is the fact that the Jordan is
subordinate to the concept of water. This may be seen from the way in which Elisha’s miraculous recovery of
the axe-head which fell into the Jordan (2 K. 6:1 ff.) becomes a type of water baptism, 86, 6. Here, then, is no
Jordan myth. In particular baptismal water is not the water of Jordan in a higher sense. We simply have a
reassertion of the temporarily disregarded Synoptic tradition linking both John the Baptist and the baptism of
Jesus with the Jordan. Fresh contact is thus made with the Gospel narrative. In Just. Jesus’ baptism in the
Jordan is also combined with the idea of a general consecration of water by the Lord’s immersion. In many
Manichean liturgies and sermons87 this is plainer than in Just.88 There is thus a greater emphasis on the water
as such. As concerns Just. this may be inferred from another passage which is not constructive but refers to
Chr. baptism and which says that after suitable preparation the candidates ἄγονται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστι
…, Apol., I, 61, 3. Just., then, says nothing more specific about the nature of the baptismal water, but when he
calls the act a λουτρόν (→ IV, 306, 35 f.) this shows that Chr. baptism was for him an immersion with real
effects, Apol., I, 63, 10 ff.; 62, 1. This presupposes the presence of a sizable quantity of water. On the other
hand, it does not say whether any water can be used or only flowing water.
Probably the very silence of Just. on this pt. reflects his position. The matter had certainly been debated.
Did. will permit other than “living” or flowing water only when this is not available, 7, 1 f.;89 only in case of
necessity may threefold aspersion be substituted for the usual immersion, 7, 3. The so-called Church Order of
Hippolytus also prescribes flowing water and allows any other only in case of necessity.90 Ps.-Clem. Hom., 9,
1991 in a statement which reminds us of Sib., 4, 165,92 i.e., an utterance of Jewish propaganda,93 calls for the
water of a constantly flowing river, or a spring, or the sea.94 Hom., 11, 26 bases the requirement of ὕδωρ ζῶν
on a version of Jn. 3:5 which has been tendentiously altered as compared with the original: ἀμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω,
ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζῶντι … οὐ μὰ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Hence Peter in Hom.,
11, 36 baptises in Syr. Antioch in the springs close to the sea there. Similar baptismal anecdotes may be
found, esp. in the apocryphal Acta.95 They all show that there were for a long time in the Church groups
which either regarded flowing water as the only correct baptismal water or were inclined at least to exalt it
above all other water.
The total picture is thus as follows. As regards the question of the baptismal water two opposing
schools developed at a comparatively early period in the Church. The one regarded flowing water as
indispensable or at least more correct and significant. The other made no distinction between one kind of
105
water and another but put all the emphasis upon the administration of baptism as Christian baptism.
Those who advocate flowing water make it apparent that they are following the baptismal tradition of
Judaism.96 They also seem to be bound in a legal way to John the Baptist and his baptism in the Jordan
according to the Synoptic tradition as found in Mt. and Mk. Not least of all they think that Jesus’ own
baptism in the Jordan lays on them an obligation to administer Christian baptism in running water. So
far as the sources enable us to tell, these circles are either on the margin of the main body or outside it.
The water of Jordan with its special qualities as river-water is apparently the shibboleth of certain
legalistic Judaising groups in the early Church.
Tert. confirms this judgment. In his work on baptism, in which he also takes issue with heretical views, he
is expressly referring to John’s baptism in the Jordan when he argues that the kind of water is of no
significance in baptism: Ideoque nulla distinctio est, mari quis an stagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo
diluatur, nec quicquam refert inter eos, quos Ioannes in Iordane et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit. Nisi et ille
spado (eunuch), quem Philippus inter vias fortuita aqua tinxit, plus salutis aut minus retulit, Bapt., 4. In
support of his view Tert. appeals to the fact that through Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan all water is endowed
with the capacity of serving as baptismal water. This must have been denied, however, by the groups which
he had in mind. They thought that flowing or “living” water was alone adapted and suitable for baptism. As
they saw it, their view of the origin of Chr. baptism forced them to this conclusion; it rested on the fact that
John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan.97
So far as the sources enable us to say (→ 619, 29 ff.), the proponents of these views seem to have
had their centre in the Near East.98 There are certainly no convincing references to show that they for
their part are connected with a pre-Christian baptismal movement or sect focused on the Jordan, The
reticence concerning the Jordan in the traditions concerning the Baptist, the accounts of the baptism of
Jesus in the later canonical Gospels and the stories of primitive Christian baptism, leads rather to a
different explanation. If this reticence is based on a conscious decision, then the conviction which it
opposes, namely, that baptism must be in “living” water after the pattern of the Jordan, arose within the
Christian community and in the primitive Christian period. To say more than this is no more possible
than to fix the exact place in the Church except for the formal legal character of the conviction with its
unmistakable tendency towards separation.
Another pointer to the East is the fact that the Mandaeans allow only running water for baptism, and
actually mention the Jordan.99 Quite apart from the question what traditions influenced them and helped to
shape their religion,100 they are dependent at this pt. on the Nestorian Syrians in whose liturgical language the
baptismal spring with its water and also the baptismal basin are called Jordan.101 Whether and how far such
influences affected the Greek Orthodox Churches, in which all consecrated water, esp. that blessed on Jan. 6,
is called Jordan, and the Jordan itself plays an important part in the baptismal liturgy, 102 is a question which
need not be discussed in this context. At any rate the description of the baptismal water as Jordan seems to be
ancient and it also seems not to have been unfamiliar in Egypt.103 Ref. may be made as well to the
undoubtedly obscure Naassene Sermon which equates Oceanos with ὁ μέγας Ἰορδάνης.104 All these instances
lead to groups on the margin of or even outside orthodoxy and hence to groups similar to those which are
concerned about baptism being administered only in flowing water, → 620, 14 ff.
It should be noted that the NT offers no support for the view that the germs of this development are
to be sought in Jewish Christian circles in Jerusalem. The attitude of the NT is also so uniform that it
cannot be explained as a later correction of the picture of Peter in Ac. Thus, even if running water,
symbolised by the Jordan, came to be venerated in Christianity as the proper baptismal water, one must
accept the fact that non-Christian and pre-Christian motifs probably had a hand in the rise of this view.
In the present state of research it is not possible to decide the question whether these motifs were linked
primarily with the running water or the Jordan. The total picture suggests the former. Thus the
possibility has to be taken into account that in liturgical texts which refer to it the Jordan is secondary as
compared with flowing water. Among other things this would correspond to the fact that the John
tradition is secondary in the Mandaean texts.105
106
The Jordan problem in the early Church, and probably in the Christianity of the time when the
canonical Gospels were written, is thus very largely, if not wholly, a problem of Christian baptism as
such, though less from the standpoint of its interpretation than that of its historical basis.106 Does the
Church baptise in continuation of the baptism of John, which Jesus also received, or does it baptise
because Jesus was baptised, and because He took up His office and began His work in direct connection
with His baptism, all under the direction of the Spirit? Once the question was put in this precise form—
and it could hardly be evaded seeing that others also baptised and received baptism—the answer was by
no means self-evident. Later development shows this. Where running water was particularly esteemed,
John the Baptist unmistakably stood at the beginning of Christian baptism too; with him, unavoidably on
the basis of the tradition (Mt./Mk.), the Jordan also demanded notice and respect. R. 6:3 ff. is probably a
milestone in the clarification of the question by the bearers of the apostolic tradition, for here there is
reference not only to the death of Jesus but also to His baptism. Also significant is the way in which Ac.
especially relates baptism and the receiving of the Spirit. The receiving of the Spirit is the decisive thing,
not baptism, or at least not a baptism which is tied to the matter and understood ex opere operato, Ac.
10:44 ff. Paul (R. 8:15; Gl. 4:6) and John (Jn. 3:5 f.) takes the same view. Alongside them, however, are
others, unknown to us, who think and act differently.
In view of their fundamental importance these differences go far beyond baptism itself. Behind them
is the question of the self-understanding of the community of Jesus and its related Christology. To that
degree the problem of the Jordan in the early Church, which was a problem of the second generation if
not already of the first, implies the whole problem of the Christian community as such. Is it only
something different or is it something completely new? It would seem that the separation of baptism
from the Jordan107 is congruent to the corresponding separation of the Lord’s Supper from the Passover
in the sense that both sacraments come to be consistently regarded as autonomously Christian. Hence the
problem of the Jordan may well shed light on central theological questions with which it has at a first
glance little or nothing to do.
It is instructive to consider how things worked out in practice. Thus Hier. still found many being baptised
in the Jordan c. 400.108 Yet then and later there were baptisteries in Jerusalem109 and esp. in the country; esp.
worth nothing is a cave baptistery connected with a monastic institution.110 In this context ref. may again be
made to baptisteries decorated with pictures of the baptism of Jesus, → 613, 26 ff. These pictures are meant to
be more than mere decoration. In them the baptising community confesses that there takes place here the
same as that which took place in the baptism of Jesus, so that for all the differences the true Jordan is present
in the baptismal water here and not where stress is laid on external correspondence in the kind of water, i.e.,
on running water.111
Rengstorf
vii ✪
ποτᾰμός, ὁ, river, stream, Ὠκεανοῖο ἐξ οὗ περ πάντες π. Il.21.196; π. ἁλιμυρήεις, ἀργυροδίνης,
βαθυδίνης, βαθύρροος, δεινός, διιπετής, δινήεις, ἐΰρροος, ἐρίδουπος, εὐρὺ ῥέων, θεῖος, ἱερός, ἴφθιμος,
καλλίροος, κελάδων, λάβρος, πλήθων, χειμάρροος, ὠκύροος, Od.5.460, Il.21.8, 212, 8, 25, 17.263,
Od.11.242, Il.21.130, Od.10.515 (pl.), Il.21.304, Od.11.238, 10.351 (pl.), Il.17.749 (pl.), Od.5.441,
Il.18.576, 21.270, 5.87, 87, 598; νυκτὸς π., of the rivers of hell, Pi.Fr.130.9: prov., ἄνω ποταμῶν, of
extraordinary events, A.Fr.335, etc. (in full, ἄνω π. ἱερῶν χωροῦσι παγαί E.Med.410 (lyr.)); π. οὐκ ἔστιν
ἐμβῆναι δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ Heraclit.91; π. θαλάσσῃ ἐρίζεις, of unequal combats, Suid., etc., in a rallying cry,
τοῦς ἐχθροῦς σου τῷ ποταμῷ SEG34.1056 (Aphrodisias, vi A.D.)
2. metaph., rivers of fire or lava, Pi.P.1.22, A.Pr.370: Com., ζωμοῦ π. κρέα θερμὰ κυλίνδων
Telecl.1.8, cf. Pherecr.108.3; also π. πραγμάτων Porph.Marc.5.
3. artificial stream, canal, Str.16.1.10, Arr.An.7.21.1; οἱ ὀρυχθέντες π. OGI54.23 (Adule, iii B.C.).
107
II. personified, rivergod, Il.20.7, 73, etc.; Ἰερὸς Π. SEG31.933 (Caria, ii A.D.), Mitchell N. Galatia1, 2,
3, al. (Rom.imp.).
III. name of the constellation Eridanus, Eudox.ap.Hipparch.1.2.20, Arat.358, etc.
IV. ἐπὶ τοὺ ἥπατος σημεῖον Hsch.
viii
* οὐρανό ς κτλ. Note: H. Sasse undertook the art. οὐρανός along with the arts. on γῆ and κόσμος. Because of his departure
for Australia he was not able to get the work ready for the press. On the basis of his extensive preparatory labours H. Traub
has written the art. Bibl.: Cr.-Kö., Moult.-Mill., Liddell-Scott, Pass., s.v.; K. Barth, K.D., III, 3 (1950), 426–623 (C.D., III, 3
[19601, 369–531); G. Bertram, “Die Himmelfahrt Jesu yore Kreuz,” Festgabe f. A. Deissmann (1927), 187–217; F. Boll,
Sphaera, Neue gr. Texte u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der Sternbilder (1903); also Aus der Offenbarung Johannis, Hell.
Studien zum Weltbild der Apokalypse (1914), 30–56; F. Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im römischen Heidentum
(1931), 245, 296, n. 70; H. Cremer, Art. “Himmel,” RE 3, 8, 8–84; G. Dalman, Worte Jesu (1930), Index, s.v.; H. Diels,
“Himmels- u. Höllenfahrten von Homer bis Dante.,” N. Jbch. Kl. Alt., 50 (1922), 239–252; R. Elsler, Weltenmantel u.
Himmelszelt (1910); T. Flügge, Die Vorstellung über den Himmel im AT, Diss. Königsberg (1937); H. Gebhardt, “Der
Himreel im NT,” ZWL, 7 (1886), 555–575; H. Gressmann, “Die hell. Gestirnsreligion.” OA Beih., 5 (1925); C. Hönn,
“Studien zur Gesch. d. Himmelfahrt im klass. Altertum,” Programm Mannheim (1910); R. Holland, “Zur Typik der
Himmelfahrt,” ARW, 23 (1925), 207–220; J. Kroll, “Gott u. Hölle,” Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, 20 (1932); W.
Michaelis, “Zur Überlieferung der Himmelfabrtsgeschichte,” ThBl, 4 (1925), 101–109; A. Oepke, “Unser Glaube an die
Himmelfahrt Christi,” Luthertum, 5 (1938), 161–186; E. Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, II (1912), 480–489; A. C.
Rush, Death and Burial in Christian Antiquity, Diss. Washington (1941); Weber, 162–165, 398–400; H. Westphal, “Jahves
Wohnstätten,” ZAW Beih., 25 (1908), 251–273.
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
1 Ionic, Attic, Boeotic: οὐρανός, Doric ὠρανός, Aeolic ὄρανος. The etym. is much contested, cf. Walde-Pok., I, 281; A.
Debrurmer, Indogermanische Forschungen, 53 (1935), 239; F. Specht, Z. Vgl. Spr., 66 (1939), 200 f.
Gk. Greek.
2 We find the plur., e.g., οὐρανοὺς καὶ κόσμους, esp. in some late traditions about Anaximander, cf. Ps.-Plut. Stromateis, 2
(Diels5, I, 83, 29); Hipp.Ref., I, 6, 2 (ibid., I, 84, 5); Aetius De Placitis Philosophorum, I, 7, 12 (I, 86, 13). It also occurs in a
passage in Aristot. referring to Idalos, Cael., IV, 5, p. 303b, 13 (cf. Diels5, II. 51, 11). On the question of the plur. v. F. Torm,
“Der pluralis οὐρανοί,” ZNW, 33 (1934), 48–50; P. Katz, Philo’s Bible (1950), 141–146.
sing. singular.
Aristot. Aristotle, of Stageiros (c. 384–322 B.C.), with his teacher Plato the greatest of the Greek philosophers and the founder
of the peripatetic school, quoted in each case from the comprehensive edition of the Academia Regia Borussica, 1831 ff.
3 Cf. Poseidonios in Diog. L., VII, 139.
4 Exc. 11, 2, 25–29 (Scott, I, 428, 25 ff.; 430, 1 ff.).
Hom. Homer, of Chios (?), the classical Greek epic poet, around whose name were grouped the older epics of the Ionians in
the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., ed. G. Monro and T. W. Allen, 1908 ff.
Od. Odyssey.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz,
1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Prom. Prometheus Vinctus.
Il. Iliad.
Pind.
Pindar, of Cynoscephalae, near Thebes (518–446 B.C.), the most imporrant author of Greek odes, and preacher of the ideal of
nobility still held at the beginning of the 5th century. His most important surviving poems are the Epinicia, in praise of
victors in the national games, ed. O. Schroeder, 1930>
Pyth. Pythia.
Diels5 H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 5th ed. by W. Kranz (1934 ff.).
5 Cf. ἄστρα οὐρανοῦ, Eur.Phoen., 1; ἀστέροι, οἵ εἰσιν οὐρανοῦ σπλάγχνα, P. Lond., I, 121, cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 177.
6 On the destruction of the Homeric world picture by Anaximander, and on further developments, cf. I. L. Heiherg, Gesch.
der Mathematik u. Naturwissenschaften im Altertum == Handbuch AW, V, 1, 2 (1925), 50 ff.
7 For the pre-Socratics cf. Diels5, III, s.v. οὐρανός.
108
8 Doxographi Graeci2 (1926), 339; Diels5. I, 93, 22 f.
Orph. Fr. (Kern) Orphicorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Kern, 1922.
Plat. Plato, of Athens (428/7–348/7 B.C.), ed. J. Burnet, 1905.
Soph. Sophista.
Euthyd. Euthydemus.
Ep. Epistulae.
Tim. Timaeus.
9 → III, 872. On the origin of the equation cf. Diog. L., VIII, 48 (Diels5, I, 225, 13 f.).
10 Pythagoras in Diog. L., VIII, 48 (Diels5, I, 225, 13). Cf. also Anaxim. and Parm. in Aetius De Placitis Philosophorum, II,
11, 1 (Diels5, I, 93, 23). On the applying of number speculation to heaven by Pythagoras cf. Aristot.Metaph., I, 5, p. 986a, 3:
τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀριθμόν, also ibid., I, 5, p. 986a, 21; VII, 6, p. 1080b, 18.
Procl. Proclus, of Constantinople (410–485 A.D.), the last great representative of Neo-Platonism in Athens, his main works
being his Elementary Theology and Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus; there is no complete ed. and for individual works cf.
Liddell-Scott, XXXII.
Tim. in Platonis Timaeum Commentarius.
Resp. Respublica.
Theaet. Theaetetus.
Phaedr. Phaedrus.
Cael. De Caelo.
Fr. Fragmenta (-um).
v. J. v. Arnim, Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta, 1921 f.
11 The μετέωρα could also be regarded here as αὐράνια cf. M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, I (1948), 218; II (1949), 108.
Nat. De Natura Deorum.
Cl. Al. T. Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus, of Athens, but doing his main work in Alexandria (150–215 A.D.), a leading
representative of Christian culture, ed. O. Stählin, 1905 ff.
Strom. Stromata.
12 Cf. esp. the οὐρανός speculations of Plotinus: πᾶσαι (sc. ψυχαὶ) μὲν δὴ καταλάμπουσιν τὸν οὐρανόν, Enn., IV, 3, 17.
Anth. Anthologia Palatina, a collection of minor Hellenistic poetry based on ancient collections of epigrams, assembled by
Konstantinos Kephales in Byzantium in the 10th century A.D., and so called because the only MS. is in Heidelberg Library,
ed. H. Stadtmüller and F. Bucherer, 1906.
Hes. Hesiodus, of Ascra in Boetia (c. 700 B.C.), the oldest Greek poet to emerge as a tangible figure. In his Pastoral Calendar
ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι he proclaims the pastoral ideal of life. His Theogony is a speculative work on the origin and descent of the
gods, ed. A. Rzach, 1913.
Theog. Theogonia.
13 Cf. U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der Glaabe d. Hellenen, I (1931), 342 f.; W. F. Otto, Die Götter Griechenlaods3
(1947), 37 f., 93; E. Peterich, Die Theologie der Hellenen (1938), 119, 195–197; J. Schmidt, Art. “Uranos,” Roscher, VI,
106–116.
14 He is also said to be the son of Erebos.
15 οὐρανῷ καὶ γῇ προτελεῖν τοὐς γάμους, Procl.in Tim., 293c; cf. Eur. Fr., 839 (TGF, 633).
16 There was never a cult of heaven, cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, op. cit., 212, also n. 1. But heaven was mentioned
constantly as chief of the elemental gods, cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 224 f.
17 Peterich, 278.
18 Wilamowitz-Moell, I, 333. Even Emped. Fr., 44 (Diels5, I, 330, 24) substitutes "Ολυμπος for οὐρανός. This equation is
first fully made in the Homeric world. In the ancient Hell. period there is a close connection between the mount of storms and
the storm-god Zeus, cf. Wilamowitz-Moell., I, 224 f.; M. P. Nilsson, Gesch. d. gr. Religion, I == Handbuch AW V, 2, 1
(1941), 330, 490. Ancient and widespread mythological ideas of the mount of the gods are also at work here.
19 Wilamowitz-Moell., I, 334
esp. especially.
20 So also Plato: ὁ μέγας ἡγεμὼν ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεύς, Phaedr., 246e.
Sept. c. Septem contra Thebas.
Aristoph. Aristophanes, of Athens (c. 446–385 B.C.), the main representative of the older Attic comedy, who reached his
height during the Peloponnesian War, ed. V. Coulon and H. van Daele, 1923 ff.
Pl. Plutus.
Eur. Euripides, of Salamis nr. Athens (480–406 B.C.), tragic dramatist and philosopher of the stage, ed. G. Murray, 1901 ff.
TGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck, 1889.
21 Cf. οὗτος ὁ Ἡρακλῆς ἐγέννησεν ὑπερμέγεθες ὠιόν, ὃ συμπληρούμενον ὑπὸ βίας τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ἐκ παρατριβῆς εἰς δύο
ἐρράγη· τὸ μὲν οὖν κατὰ κορυφὴν αὐτοῦ Οὐρανὸς εἶναι ἐτελέσθη, τὸ δὲ κάτω ἐνεχθὲν Γῆ Athenag., 18 (Diels5, I, 12, 26 ff.,
cf. 11, 11 ff. and 20 f.). For further material cf. Eisler, II, 420 f.; O. Kern, Die Religion der Griechen, II (1935), 151; cf. also
109
W. Staudacher, Die Trennung von Himreel u. Erde. Ein vorgr. Schöpfungsmythus bei Hesiod u. d. Orphikern, Diss., 1942,
esp. 61 f.
Porphyr. Porphyrius, of Tyre (232–304 A.D.), Neo-Platonic philosopher, the most important pupil of Plotinus, ed. A. Nauck 2,
1886.
Antr. De Antro Nympharum.
22 Cf. φᾶρος ἶσον οὐρανῷ θεῶν, Aesch. Fr., 216 (TGF, 72).
OT Old Testament.
Preis. Zaub. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1928 ff.
Vol. Volume.
23 Cf. among signs for heaven: Preis. Zaub., XIII, 255, 269, 284 etc. and Ø XIII, 867, also both, II, p. 214, s.v. Cf. XIII, col.
XIX; Vol. II, Ill. 8.
24 On the heavenly letters (ἐπιστολαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τῶν θεῶν προσώπου, Diog. L., VI, 101), also βίβλος … ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, cf. A.
Dieterich, Kleine Schriften (1911), 234–251.
Corp. Herm. Corpus Hermeticum, collection of Hermetic writings (Poimandres and others), late anonymous products of
Hellenistic-Egyptian mysticism, the teachings of which may be found already in the 1st century A.D., ed. W. Scott, 1924.
25 Cf. H. Jonas, Gnosis u. spätantiker Geist, I (1934), 181 f., 344 f. For bibl. on the soul’s heavenly journey cf. A. Dieterich,
Eine Mithrasliturgte (1903), 197–205; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 47.
26 Exc. 23, 2 (Scott, I, 456, 14).
27 Exc. 23, 51 and 68 (Scott, I, 484, 35; 494, 3). Cf. A. Festugière, “La création des âmes dans la Koré Kosmou,” Pisciculi
== Antike u. Christentum, Suppl. Vol. I (1939), 105, n. 17.
28 Exc. 24, 1 (Scott, I, 494, 27).
29 Exc. 23, 11 (I, 462, 24).
30 Exc. 25, 13 (I, 512, 27). There are, however, some minute distinctions here; thus the ἐπουράνιοι are under the ἐμπύριοι,
Scott, IV, 32, 9.
31 Corp. Herm., XIV, 10; θεοί in Exc. 23, 53 (I, 486, 12).
32 Dieterich, op. cit. (→ n. 25), 2, reading as in Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 174.
33 Exc. 11, 2, 25 ff. (I, 428, 25 ff.).
34 Corp. Herm., XVI, 8; Exc. 4b, 4 (I, 406, 19).
35 Exc. 23, 17 (I, 466, 22).
36 It is in this light that we are to see the burial inscr. of Antiochus IV of Commagene: πρὸς οὐρανίους Διὸς Ὠρομάσδου
θρόνους θεοφιλῆν ψυχὴν προπέμψαν, Ditt. Or., 383, 40 ff.
Som. De Somniis.
Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus.
Op. Mund. De Opificio Mundi.
Decal. De Decalogo.
Virt. De Virtutibus.
Leg. All. Legum Allegoriae.
Rer. Div. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres sit.
Vit. De Vita Mosis.
Joseph. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
37 Heaven is God’s creation, Jos.Ant., 8, 107; it belongs to the φύσις τοῦ παντός, 3, 184. God is Judge from heaven, and He
sees all things therefrom, Bell., 1, 630. “Pure and obedient souls … attain (after death) to the most sacred place of heaven,”
Bell., 3, 374.
Traub Helmut Traub, Stuttgart (Vol. 5).
Heb. Hebrew.
Aram. Aramaic.
plur. plural.
38 Ges.-Buhl28, 415.
39 Cf. T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Is. == The Sacred Books of the OT, 10 (1899), 157; H. Bauer-P. Leander, Historische
Grammatik der hbr. Sprache des AT (1922), 621.
40 Is. 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13, 16; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Ps. 104:2; Zech. 12:1.
41 Gn. 7:11; 2 K. 7:2, 19; Mal. 3:10.
42 2 S. 22:8.
43 Is. 63:19.
44 On the orb or circle of heaven and earth (‫ )חּוג‬cf. Is. 40:22; Job 22:14; Prv. 8:27.
45 On ‫ מַ ּבּול‬for the heavenly ocean cf. J. Begrich, “Mabbul,” ZSem, 6 (1928), 135–155.
synon. synonym.
46 Gn. 1:26, 28, 30; 2:19 f.; 6:7; 7:3 etc.; L. Köhler, Theol. d. OT (1936), 139.
110
47 Examples → 505.
48 Dt. 10:14; 1 K. 8:27; Ps. 148:4; Neh. 9:6; 2 Ch. 2:5; 6:18.
49 On the other hand, heaven is not infinitely high above the earth. To build a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven”
(Gn. 11:4) is on the extreme limit of the sphere of human capabilities. Nevertheless, the pt. of the tower story in J is not that
deity is threatened by man. For a correct criticism of this common line of exposition cf. Flügge, 16–19.
50 On the idea of the two world mountains cf. B. Meissner, Babylonien u. Assyrien, II (1925), 108–110. On the so-called
heavenly ladder → 504.
51 Is. 40:22; Ps. 104:2.
52 On the stars as writing cf. Meissner, op. cit. (→ n. 50).
53 Jer. 33:25; Job 38:33 speak of the laws of heaven (‫)חֻּקֹות‬.
54 C. A. Keller, Das Wort Oth als Offenbarungszeichen Gottes (1946).
55 Gn. 1:1; 2:4; Is. 42:5; 45:18; Ps. 33:6; Prv. 3:19; 8:27 etc.
56 Thus the word is found in Ugaritic in this sense, C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook == Analecta Orientalia, 25 (1947),
Glossary, 1800 (p. 267) (qnyt == fem. creator). On the meaning of ‫ קָׁ נָׁה‬cf. L. Köhler, ZAW, NF, 11 (1934), 160.
57 W. F. Andrä, Das Gotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im alten Orient (Studien zur Bauforschung, ed. the
Koldeweygesellschaft, H. 12 [1930]). On the ziggurat cf. T. Dombardt, “Der babylonische Turin,” AO, 29, 2 (1930), and →
477, n. 36.
58 Andrä, 15.
59 Ibid., 16.
60 K. Galling, Bibl. Reallexikon (1937), 343.
61 A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte d. Alten Orients4 (1930), 360–364.
62 A. Alt, Der Gott der Väter == BWANT, III, 12 (1929).
63 On the mountain of God—linked with Paradise in Ez. 28:2, 13 f.—cf. O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios u. der
Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Rote Meer (1932), 1–30.
64 So Westphal, 270.
65 So A. Alt in a duplicated paper “Vom Königtum Gottes im AT.”
66 Cf. the Baal who rides on the clouds in the Ras Shamra texts (rkb ’rpt Gordon, op. cit., 51: III: 11. 18 and V: 122; 67: II:
7) with Dt. 33:26: Ps. 68:4 ‫( רֹ כֵבַּבָׁ ע ֲָׁרבֹות‬also Ps. 18:10; Is. 19:1). Inscr. which refer to the heavenly Baal have been collected
and interpreted by O. Eissfeldt, “Baalšamem u. Jahve,” ZAW, 57 (1939), 1–31.
67 1 K. 22:19–22; Is. 6:1 ff.; Job 1:6 ff.; Da. 7:9 ff.; G. Westphal, “̣ebā haš-šamaim,” Orientalische Studien NöldekeFestschrift. II (1916), 719–728.
68 Gordon, op. cit. (→ n. 56), Glossary, 1709 (p. 264).
69 2 K. 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4 f.; Zeph. 1:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13. Cf. also the repudiation of the cult of the queen of heaven, Ishtar,
Jer. 7:18; 44:17 f.
70 Cf. also 1 K. 8:30; Is. 63:15.
71 Yahweh in the temple, 1 K. 8:12; 2 K. 19:14.
72 Dt. 4:36. In JE Yahweh comes down on to Sinai, Ex. 19:11, 18, 20.
73 Dt. 12:5, 11, 21: 14:23f.; 26:2, 6, 11; 26:2.
74 O. Grether, “Name u. Wort Gottes im AT,” ZAW Beih., 64 (1934), 1–58.
75 For statistics cf. Grether, op. cit., 35–38.
76 The statement that Yahweh is present also in Sheol (Ps. 139:8) is, however, most unusual.
77 The use of ‫ָׁהַשמַ יָׁא‬
ְׁ ‫ ֱאל‬for the name of God itself, not in apposition to Yahweh (cf. Gn. 24:3, 7: ‫)יְׁ הֹוָׁהַאֱֹּלהֵ יַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬, is first
found in Ezr. 5:11 f.; 6:9 f.; 7:12, 21, 23; Da. 2:18 f.,28, 37, 44.
78 Meissner, op. cit., 110.
79 Ibid., 107.
80 O. Eissfeldt, Ras Schamra u. Sanchunjaton (1939), 62–66. 109–127.
81 Gn. 5:24; but also Ps. 73:24. Cf. G. v. Rad, “‘Gerechtigkeit’ und ‘Leben’ in der Kultsprache der Ps.,” Festschr. Bertholet
(1950), 426–437.
82 We do best to read ‫ ּבַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬with the LXX. In exposition cf. B. Duhm, Die Psalmen2 (1922), ad loc.
83 On the “heavenly book” cf. G. Widengren, Literary and Psychological Aspects of the Hebrew Prophets (1948), 74 f.
84 In Zech. 1:8 (cf. 6:1) ‫הָׁ ִרים‬is to be read for ‫הֲדַ ִסים‬. On the night visions as a whole cf. F. Horst in T. H. Robinson-F. Horst,
Die zwölt kleinen Propheten == Handbuch z. AT, I, 14 (1938).
v. verse.
85 Cf. A. Bentzen, Messias-Moses redivivus-Menschensohn (1948), 72–74.
86 Materially the throne vision in Da. 7:9, 10, 13 does not originally constitute a unity with the vision of the beasts (Da. 7:1–
8, 11–12). M. Noth, “Zur Komposition des Buches Da.,” ThStKr, 98/99 (1926), 144–153. On the various derivations of the
concept of the Son of Man from Egyptian, Babylonian, Ionic, Iranian, even Indo-Aryan or purely OT presuppositions, cf. the
survey in W. Staerk, Die Erlouml;sererwartung in d. östlichen Religionen (1938), 422–435; W. Baumgartner, “Ein
Vierteljahrhundert Danielforschung.” ThR, NF, 11 (1939), 217–222.
111
Dt. Is. Deutero-Isaiah.
87 Cf, Is. 13:13; 34:0; 50:3: Jl. 2:30 f.; Hag. 2:6, 21; Ps. 102:26 f. On the destruction of the world in the message of the
prophets cf. E. Sellin, Der at.liche Prophetismus (1912), 122; W. Staerk, “Zu Hab. 1:5–11. Geschichte oder Mythos?” ZAW,
51 (1933), 12.
Tr. Is. Trito-Isaiah.
c. circa.
88 Text ed. H. Bauer, Archiv ür Orientforschung (1932), 8, 1–16. Cf. also J. Hempel, ZAW, NF, 9 (1932), 182.
v. Rad Gerhard von Rad, Leipzig (Vol. 1), Jena (Vol. 2–3), Heidelberg (Vol. 5).
Mas. Masora.
transl. transitive.
89 Cf. Gn. 1:8: the def. οὐρανός == στερέωμα, with 1:14: ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Also Plut. De Placitis
Philosophorum, II. 11 (II, 888b): στερέμνιον … τὸν οὐρανόν.
90 Once σοφία is said to be derived ἐξ ἁγίων οὐρανῶν.
91 Comparison of Wis. 18:15 with 16 raises the question whether the sing. of v. 16 is used for the firmament as the visible
side of the chambers of heaven, which are envisaged and expressed in the plur. in v. 15, cf. Asc. Is. 7. In Wis., which was
originally written in Gk., half the instances of οὐρανός are in the plur.
92 The greatness of the distance was vividly portrayed in later Judaism, Ber., 9, 13a: “R. Levi (c. 300) has said: From the
earth to the firmament is a way of 500 years, and from one firmament to the other (there are 7 altogether) another way of 500
years, and the thickness of each firmament amounts to another way of 500 years” (Str.-B., I, 451). The same view, attributed
to R. Jochanan b. Zakkai (d. c. 80), may be found in Chag., 13a (v. Str.-B., I, 606, 975).
93 Cf. Levy, IV, 574.
94 ‫ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬can also be used for “height” in Judaism, e.g., b.Yom., 53a: “Smoke mounts up on high to the highest rafter,” cf.
Pes., 8b; Ber., 48a.
95 Cf. Bousset-Gressm., 500, n. 1, with bibl.
96 So, e.g., Midr. Ps. 114 § 2 (236a) R. Eliezer; Pesikt. r., 5 (18b) R. Shimeon b. Jochai; Pesikt. r., 17b Shimeon b. Josena;
RH, 32a; Men., 39a; Ex. r., 15 (78a); Pesikt., 7b; Midr. Ps. 92 § 2 (201b); Tanch. ‫ תיומה‬101b; Ab RNat, 37 (9d); Ber., 13a;
Pesikt. r., 20 (98a): “God opened seven heavens to Moses.” Cf. Str.-B., III, 533. Test. L. 2 f.; Slav. En. 8–22.
97 Chag., 12b in Str.-B., III, 532. ‫ שמיה‬as a name for the 1st and 6th heaven in Pesikt., 154b; Lv. r., 29 (127c).
Ab RNat Abot of Rabbi Nathan—an extracanonical Rabbinic tractate (Strack, Einl., 72).
R. Rabbi.
98 So Pesikt. r., 5 (18b). Cf. Tanch. ‫ פקודי‬129b; Tanch. (Buber) ‫ § נשא‬24 (19a, 18); cf. Str.-B., III, 172 f.
Midr. Ps. Midrash on Psalms (Strack, Einl., 215).
Chag. Chagiga, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Feasts (in relation to pilgrimages) (Strack, Einl., 44).
Dt. r. Deuteronomium rabba (Debarim rabba), Homiletic Midrash on Deuteronomy (Strack, Einl., 206).
Test. L. Testament of Levi.
Slav. En. Slavic Enoch, ed. St. Novakovitsch, 1884.
Gr. Bar. The Greek-Slavic Apocalypse of Baruch, a description of Baruch’s journey to heaven (2nd century A.D.), ed. M. R.
James in Greek, 1897 and St. Novakovitsch in Slavic, 1886.
Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 A.D.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of
ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3
Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff.
Princ. De Principiis.
99 Cf. Pesikt., 54b, Bar.; Chag., 13a, Bar.; Chag., 12b (in the 7th heaven).
En. Enoch, patriarch, introduced into many later Jewish writings, the oldest of which date from the 2nd century B.C. (Schürer,
III, 268 ff.).
100 R. Meïr equates blue—sea—firmament—heaven—throne of glory, Sota, 17a, Str.-B., I, 977.
101 jBer., 9, 13a, 15, cf. b.Chag., 13a, Bar., Str.-B., I, 605 f., 975.
Ned. Nedarim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Vow (Strack, Einl., 46).
Rabb. Rabbis,
102 Cf. Str.-B., I, 863 f.; II, 209. One might say much the same of ‫ ;שמיא‬thus ‫ מיליַדשמיא‬means “divine concerns” in Ber., 7b
(Da. 4:8). Perhaps because there is a reason for using heaven as a synon, of God—God dwells in heaven—heaven can also be
regarded as the fixed setting of the reward allotted to the righteous, e.g., 4 Macc. 17:5: καὶ ἐστήρισαι … ἐν οὐρανῷ. Str.-B.,
III, 584 refers in this connection to PhiloExsecr., 6: τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ τάξιν βεβαίαν.
Ab. Pirge Abot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmudtractate Sayings of the Fathers (Strack, Einl., 54).
BM Baba Mezia, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Middle Gate (Legal Questions concerning Movables) (Strack, Einl.,
50).
Tg. Targum, Aramaic translation or paraphrase of the OT.
Lv. r. Leviticus rabba (Wajjikra rabba), Midrash on Leviticus (Strack, Einl., 204).
103 Cf. En. 72:1, also Tg. Ps. 102:27; Tanch. (Buber) ‫ § בראשית‬20 (8a) v. Str.-B., III, 846.
112
NT New Testament.
104 At 16:3 D reads ἀήρ for οὐρανός.
105 In 18:10; 19:21; 24:30 vl. plur.
106 In 10:20; 21:26 vl. sing.; 18:22 vl. plur.
107 12:12 a quotation from Is. 49:13 LXX, cf. 44:23.
108 Apart from Col. 1:23 cf. 4:1 vl. sing., R D G it plur., perhaps under the influence of Eph. 6:9.
Past. Pastoral Epistles.
Phlm. Philemon.
109 Though cf. ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ at 1 Jn. 5:7 in the comma johanneum.
110 At Jn. 3:5 ‫ א‬reads τῶν οὐρανῶν for τοῦ θεοῦ.
par. parallel.
111 Mt. 5:48; 23:9 vl. for → οὐράνιος in RDΘ. In 6:1; 7:21; 10:32, 33 the art., absent elsewhere, is read in RDΘ. At Mt. 23:8
Blass, on the basis of R, conjectures ὁ Χριστός : ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. This is unlikely, since it is construed acc. to 9a and never
occurs elsewhere, cf. Dalman, 155; → II, 537 f.
112 Mk. 11:25 and v. 26 R Θ. The phrase is added to Lk. 11:2 in C R D Θ by textual assimilation to Mr. Lk. 11:13 reads
πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, for which P45 579 have → οὐράνιο.
113 At Mt. 5:10 Cl. Al. reads ἔσονται τέλειοι; 13:11 vl. incorrectly θεοῦ; 19:24 uncertain, λ 33 lot sy read τῶν οὐρανῶν.
114 Elsewhere only Jn. 3:5, where ‫ א‬pc Orig Just erroneously read τῶν οὐρανῶν for θεοῦ. Cf. Ev. Hebr. Fr., 11.
115 Cf. on the βασιλεία formula → I, 571, on the πατήρ formula → πατήρ, Str.-B., I, 395; E. Lohmeyer, Vater Unser2
(1947), 20. Cf. ὁ θεὸς (κύριος) τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, e.g., 2 Εσδρ. 5:11φ.; 6:9f.; 7:12, θεὸς ἐν οὐρανῷ Da. 2:28; θεὸς ἐν οὐρανοῖ Da.
3:17 LXX, cf. 2 Ch. 20:6: σὺ εἶ θεὸς ἐν οὐρανῷ.
116 Cf. Bl.-Debr. § 141, 1.
117 On 2 C. 5:1 and 12:2 cf. Wnd. 2 K., ad loc.; Str.-B., III, 531; → 534 f. 1 Th. 1:10 is a Semitism, cf. the sing. 1 Th. 4:16;
2 Th. 1:7 (→ 522), but there might be Hell. influences at Phil. 3:20, esp. if with Loh. Phil., ad loc. ἐξ οὗ cannot be related to
οὐρανοῖς.
118 Mt. 6:10; 16:19; 18:18 (23:9 οὐράνιος, R D Θ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς); 28:18 (Lk. 2:14 ἐν ὑψίστοις; 19:38 ἐν ὑψίστοις, ἐν
οὐρανῷ; 11:2 C[R]D Θ); Ac. 2:19; 1 C. 8:5; Eph. 1:10 (vl. for ἐπί : ἐν AG 69); 3:15; Col. 1:16, 20; Rev. 5:3, 13. Mt. 16:19;
Eph., Col. in the plur., reverse order in Col. 1:20. At Col. 3:2 we have ἄνω (→ I, 376 f.) for ἐν (τῷ) οὐρανῷ. Cf. Ign.Sm., 11,
2. Note Rev. 5:3 (three-membered like Ex. 20:4; Dt. 5:8; also ἐπουρανίων—ἐπιγέων—καταχθονίων in Phil. 2:10) and 5:13
(four-membered). On the formula in Judaism, cf. Str.-B., I, 744, n. 1.
119 Two forms in Heb.: Dt. 3:24; 1 Ch. 29:11; Ps. 113:6; 135:6; Jl. 2:30: ‫ ּבַ שָׁ מַ יִ םַּובָׁ אָׁ ֶרץ‬Dt. 4:39; Jos. 2:11; 1 K. 8:23; Qoh. 5:1
(‫ץַ)מתָׁ חַ ת‬
ִ ‫םַ)ממַַעַל(ַוְׁ עַל־הָׁ אָׁ ֶר‬
ִ ִ‫ ;ּבַ שָׁ מַ י‬Da. 6:28: ‫ּובְׁ אַ ְׁרצָׁ אַּבִ ְׁשמַ יָׁא‬. In LXX the sing. ἐν (τῷ) οὐρανῷ (ἄνω) … ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (κάτω). Only ψ
112:6; 134:6 do we have the lit. ἐν instead of ἐπί, cf. Eph. 1:10 vl. Cf. Wis. 9:16, v. Str.-B., II, 424.
120 On the absence of art. with οὐρανός cf. Bl.-Debr. § 253, 3.
121 Cf. in Jn. 3:31 ἄνωθεν with ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Jn. 19:11 ἄνωθεν with Jn. 3:27 ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (φ adds ἄνωθεν); Jm. 1:17
ἄνωθεν with Mt. 7:11 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανῖς; Jm. 3:15 ἄνωθεν—ἐπίγειος; on ἄνω cf. οὐρανὸς ἄνω Ac. 2:19 (Rev. 5:3 vl.); cf. ἐγὼ
ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί Jn. 8:23 with ἐγώ εἰμι … ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Jn. 6:51; ἄνω Jn. 11:41 with οὐρανός Jn. 17:1 etc.; ἡ δὲ ἄνω
Ἰερουσαλήμ Gl. 4:26 with Ἰερουσαλὴμ … ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Rev. 21:2; Luther renders the ἄνω of Phil. 3:14 by “heavenly.”
The quotation ψ 109:1 in Col. 3:1 f. shows that ἄνω is identical with οὐρανός; cf. Mt. 26:64; Ac. 2:34; Hb. 8:1 etc. → ἄνω, I,
376; κάτω, III, 640.
122 Usually heaven comes before earth, cf. the typical ὡς of Mt. 6:10, which cannot be omitted with D Tert Cypr. → n. 163.
123 Cf. the three-membered form οὐρανός, γῆ, θάλασσα (Rev. 14:7) with τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ (αὐτῇ) (Rev. 10:6; also 5:3; 21:1; Ac.
4:24; 14:15). The four-membered form οὐρανός, γῆ, θάλασσα, πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς occurs in Ac. 4:24; 14:15; cf. Rev. 5:13.
124 Cf. Mt. 5:18, 34 f.; 11:25 and par.; 24:35 and par.; Lk. 12:56; Ac. 17:24; Hb. 12:26; Rev. 20:11; 21:1 and the formula ἐν
(τῷ) οὐρανῷ [καί] ἐπὶ (τῆς) γῆς → n. 119.
125 τὰ πάντα cannot be regarded as a consistently used NT expression for the universe. It occurs in a modified way in Col.
1:16, 20; Eph. 1:10, 11, 23 (→ 517 f.). We also find it in R. 11:36; 1 C. 8:6, and cf. Hb. 1:3; 2:10; Rev. 4:11.
tt. terminus technicus.
126 Cf. Ac. 17:24: ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος, where the Hell.
κόσμος is defined in OT fashion as οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ. For a similar explanation cf. 1 C. 8:4 and v. 5; → III, 884, 6 ff.; 886, 19
ff.
127 So Pr.-Bauer, s.v. 2.
128 2 Pt. 3:5: οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι᾽ ὕδατος (vl. πνεύματο on the basis of Gn. 1:2) συνεστῶσα τῷ
τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ, cannot be adduced in this connection. The emphasis here is on τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ and the witness is to the
creation of heaven and earth by the Word of the Creator in terms of Gn. 1. In spite of grammatical difficulties συνεστῶσα is
to be preferred to the συνεστῶτα of ‫ א‬Ψ and the συνεστώση of B. We are to see here an attraction so that it embraces the plur.
and masc. οὐρανοί. There is no emphasis on water as the original cosmogonic material; the ref. here is to the primal sea of
Gn. 1:2, 6. On corresponding cosmogonies cf. the material in Kn. Pt., ad loc. and H. Gunkel, Genesis5 (1922) on 1:2 (102–
107).
113
129 Quoting Ex. 20:11; 2 Εσδρ. 19:6; ψ 145:6.
130 Quoting Gn. 14:9; 1 Εσδρ. 6:12; Bel 5.
131 The κύριος (== ‫ )יהוה‬here addressed as Creator is Christ; cf. Col. 1:16: ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. υἱῷ θεοῦ, v. 13) ἐκτίσθη τὰ πὰντα
(τὰ ACR) ἐν τοῖς οὐρνοῖς καὶ (τὰ ACRDG) ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. ἐν αὐτῷ does not describe Christ strictly as Creator, but as “the
possibility in which all being is grounded … which fashions ‘everything’ to the reality of its own purpose, to the entelechy of
its own being,” Loh. Kol., 56 f. As the formula ἐν-ἐπί already shows, this is strictly a saying about salvation rather than
creation, → 517. It bears witness to the NT understanding of creation as the “external basis” of the ecclesia.
132 There is no sea in this new creation. We find neither a first nor a new sea, but only the sea, and since this is a name and
habitation for powers which are hostile to God (Δα. 7:3; Rev. 13:1) it cannot be granted a place in the eschatological
consummation.
133 α omits Mt. 24:35.
134 Hb. omits the two last members of Hag. 2:6 LXX: καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν, and binds the first two, οὐρανός and
γῆ, closer together by μόνον-ἀλλά.
135 αὐτοί == ‫ הֵ מָׁ ה‬in v. 27 is not to be restricted to οὐρανοί but embraces both heaven and earth. In Rev. 6:14 (== Is. 34:4) the
passing away of heaven is described as the rolling up of a scroll, though this, too, is connected with earthly events (σεισμός)
in v. 12.
136 Do the στοιχεῖα represent γῆ here, or is it left out? Cf. v. 10.
137 οὐρανός here is worked into a combined quotation from ψ 113:7 and 3.
138 Acc. to Wellh. Mt., ad loc. the saying Lk. 16:17 is even harsher.
139 Cf. J. Schniewind, Mt. (NT Deutsch), ad loc.
140 Probably the plur. in 2 Pt. 3 is meant to show that heaven is to be understood in its totality, in all its zones.
141 The words of Jesus in Mk. 13:31, Christ (κύριος) in Hb. 1:12b, the θρόνος μέγας λευκός in Rev. 20:11.
142 The verses in 2 Pt. 3 bear witness to the coming again of Christ; Rev. 20:11 prepares the way for 21:1; so also Loh. Apk.,
ad loc.
143 At Lk. 10:21 P 45 and Marcion omit καὶ τῆς γῆς.
144 Cf. κύριον τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τὸν θεὸν τῆς γῆς, Gn. 24:3, 7 LXX (in v. 7 the LXX repetitively adds καὶ κτλ.); ὁ
κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, Tob. 7:17 BA; cf. also Jos.Ant., 4, 40; τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, 2 Εσδρ. 5·11̀ ὁ
θεὸς … δέσποτα τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τῆς γῆς, Jdt. 9:12. Cf. also θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ esp. in Δα. LXX 2:44; 4:31, 34, 37 etc.; Θ
2:18, 19; 2 Εσδρ. 5:12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23; 11:4; 12:4, 20; cf. Tob. 8:15 ‫ ;א‬10:11. κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Δα. LXX 2:37; 4:17;
Tob. 6:18 ‫ ;א‬10:13. κύριος θεσ̀ς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Jon. 1:9; Δα. 4:33α, 37b; Θ 5:23; 9:3 (A); 2 Ch. 36:23; 2 Εσδρ. 1:2; 11:5, v.
Gunkel, op. cit., on 24:3. The refs. in Str.-B., I, 607; II, 176; Schl. Mt., 381 do not fully correspond. But v. Str.-B., I, 173. ὁ
κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆ γῆ, Preis. Zaub., IV, 641.
145 Cf. S. Dt., 313 on 32:10 in Str.-B., I, 173: “Before our father Abraham came into the world God was in some sense king
only over heaven, as it is said in Gn. 24:7: ‘Yahweh, the God of heaven.’ But after our father Abraham came into the world,
he made him king over heaven and earth, v. Gn. 24:3.”
146 Cf. O. Eissfeldt, “Ba’al Ŝamem u. Jahve,” ZAW, 57 (1939), 1–31.
147 Cf. Schl. Mt., ad loc.
148 So also Bousset-Gressm., 313, but not Lohmeyer, op. cit. (→ n. 115), 77. The Rabb. examples in Str.-B., I, 173, acc. to
which God as Creator of the world is called its Lord or King, are not par., since there is no ref. to → πατήρ.
149 Cf. Jm. 5:12 and Mt. 23:22, where Jesus affirms in opposition to Pharisaic casuistry that to swear by heaven is to swear
by God, → 180, 5 ff.
150 The tradition is uniform here. Only a few unimportant MSS have ἄκρου and οὐρανοῦ in the plur. acc. to Mt.
151 Loh. Mk., 279 gives good reasons for a different view: “… the elect are to be assembled on the point of the earth, i.e., its
sacred and lofty centre, and from there conducted to the supreme point of heaven, where God is enthroned.” He renders
ἐπισυνάξει (“to bring together”) by “to conduct.” But cf. Ass. Mos. 10:8: “Thou, Israel, shalt rise up on the neck and wings of
the eagle …, and God will exalt thee and cause thee to float in the starry heaven …, ” cf. also PhiloMigr. Abr., 181: ἀπὸ γῆς
ἐσχάτων ἄχρις οὐρανοῦ περάτων, but conversely Cher., 99; v. also En. 104:2, 6.
152 → n. 118, 119; on Hb. 12:25 (ἐπὶ γῆς—ἐπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ) → 531, 5 f.
153 Cf. Loh. Kol., 57, n. 4.
154 Loc. cit., though we also read there: “The concept of the universe is simply expressed in a loose Jewish formula in which
heaven and earth represent the thought of a spatial order.”
155 The breach of this order is an indication of the incursion of eschatological events, cf. Ac. 7:55; 2 C. 12:2 ff.; Rev. 4:1;
12:1, 7; 15:1; 21:1, → 529. On heaven opened → 530; cf. Loh. Kol., 54, n. 2. Note should be taken of the Nicene use of this
passage.
156 AC R have a τὰ before ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ACRDG before ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
157 Loh. Kol., ad loc. (68). It is worth noting that πᾶς is used 8 times (7 neut.) in the 6 vv. Col. 1:15–20; cf. Eph. 1:21–23 (6
times). In both passages, however, the σῶμα concept is central.
158 E.g., Loh. Kol., 68; cf. loc. cit. “ ‘all things’ the body … the community the body of this aeon which overthrows ancient
chaos,” ibid., 149: “Only because this peace between ‘upper and lower, heavenly and earthly’ is established in Christ and is
114
eternal, i.e., because there is one body, is the believer called to peace in one body.” Cf. ibid., 144 on Col. 3:12. But on the
other hand cf. P. Leid. W., 17, 23 ff. (II, 141) on Serapis: ὧ οὐρανὸς κεφαλή, αἰθὴρ δὲ σῶμα, γῆ δὲ πόδε, τὸ δὲ περὶ σὲ ὕδωρ
… ὁ ἀγαθοδαίμων· σὺ εἶ ὁ ὠκεανός, ὁ γεννῶν ἀγαθὰ καὶ τρέφων τὴν οἰκουμένην.
160 Though the content is the same, i.e., that God’s fatherhood is the only one, the form is very different in Mt. 23:9: …
πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε … ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· εἶς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος (RDΘ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). Here οὐράνιος or ἐν
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is fully a part of the designation of God. The saying that true fatherhood is God’s alone implies that heaven and
earth are not seen together, but are brought into a relation rich in tension, since the Father in heaven is also the true Father for
men on earth. This use of the formula is preponderant in Mt., → line 32. Here ὁ οὐράνιος or ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is also the basis
for the removal of all limitations on God, esp. national.
161 Here three or four-membered formulae are used, → n. 123. ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς may be equated with θάλασσα; in v. 13: ἐπὶ
τῆς θαλάσσης has a different sense. τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς relates to all four members. Cf. Loh. Apk., ad loc.
162 On Mt. 28:18 cf. Bultmann Trad., 169.
164 RDΘ read τῆς; “both nouns are also defined without art.,” Schl. Mt., 210.
165 At Lk. 11:2 ‫ א‬RDΘ it vg add the third petition in the Mt. version, and D has ὡς. One has thus to consider that a scribal
error is perhaps responsible for the omission of ὡς in Mt. 6:10 D. To strengthen the ὡς before καί ‫ א‬adds a οὕτω.
166 K. Barth, op. cit., 519 (ET, 445).
167 Acc. to the meaning of βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν in Mt. we must assume the latter. Cf. Lohmeyer, 87; also Barth, loc. cit.
528; n. Cf. v. 4, so that in some sense there is a use of the formula ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς. He could not be a priest on earth,
since God is absolutely above the heavens. The formula is used here to affirm an abs. antithesis.
168 Lohmeyer, op. cit., 77.
169 In this sense the statements in the two liturgical passages at Lk. 2:14: ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη; 19:38b: ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη may
perhaps be regarded, not as a contradiction, but rather as an elucidation of the fact that in fixing the relation of heaven to earth
the point at issue is the process of salvation in Jesus. Cf. Barth, op. cit., 520 (ET, 446).
170 Cf. Dalman WJ, I, 178; Str.-B., II, 217.
171 Zn. Lk., ad loc.; Str.-B., II, 217.
172 Barth, 0493 (ET, 424).
173 → 512.
174 This phrase, which does not denote the “god of heaven” (the gen. means “over”) cf. also Ac. 7:42, → 533—,is a
favourite one in Jewish apocalyptic. It derives from the OT (J) and with the adoption of Canaanite features (→ n. 146) came
into widespread use under Persian influence. We find ideas of the dwelling of the gods in heaven among the Babylonians (M.
Jastrow, Die Religion Babylons u. Assyriens, I [1905], 218; II [1912], 801; H. Zimmern, Babylonische Hymnen u. Gebete, II
[1905], 5), among the Egyptians (A. Erman, Die Ägyptische Religion [1905], 79; G. Roeder, Urkunden d. Religion d. alten
Ägypten == Religiöse Stimmen d. Völker, 4 [1915], 5–12); Bousset-Gressm., 312, n. 4; → n. 144 and 505, 26 ff.
175 Rabb. exegesis regards the designation “God of heaven” (Gn. 24:7) as a limitation of God’s sovereignty, cf. → n. 145.
The addition καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς γῆς in LXX Gn. 24:7 follows v. 3, but has a material basis.
176 So Bousset-Gressm., 313.
177 Cf. Lohmeyer, 20; on ‫ָׁאַדבִ ְׁשמַ יָׁא‬
ְׁ ‫ אֲבּונ‬cf. Schl. Mt., 151.
vl. varia lectio.
178 Str.-B., I, 394 f.
179 θεὸς ἐν (τῷ) οὐρανῷ is rare in the OT, e.g., Δα 3:17; 4:27; Δα. Θ. 2:28. For the same sense cf. Ps. 2:4 ‫( יֹושֵ בַּבַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬LXX ὁ
κατοικῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς).
180 → οὐράνιο, Mt. 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 15:13; 18:35; 23:9.
181 Acc. to Lohmeyer, 39 f. this is the true meaning as opposed to the “God of Seir” or the “Lord on Zion.” If one might
mention the restriction of the Samaritans to Gerizim, the definition of the Father as “God in heaven” or “the heavenly One” is
par. to the πνεῦμα and ἀλήθεια of Jn. 4:23; cf. ἀληθινός and ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in Jn. 6:32 ff.
182 J. Haussleiter, “Vaterunser,” RE, XX, 436. He points to Jewish usage acc. to which it is the heavenly Father on whom we
rely, and may rely, because He hears Israel’s prayer. Hence we read in the Kaddish: “The prayer and supplication of all Israel
is accepted before their heavenly Father.” Cf. Dalman WJ, I, 153.
183 Kl. Lk., Kl. Mk., ad loc., with ref. also to Mk. 10:21.
184 On Lk. 15:18, → 519. On Mk. 11:30 (→ 531): The origin, basis and authority of Jn.’s baptism are either from men or ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ (D -ῶν), undoubtedly from God. but no less undoubtedly from the God who in this baptism comes down with His
heavenly dominion from heaven. What is at issue is the more precise definition of God which denotes eschatological saving
action. This is why we should transl. “heaven” here rather than “God.”
185 Cf. Zn. Mt., 128.
186 Kuhn → III, 93, n. 148 derives the substitute from the designation of God as ‫ָׁהַשמַ יָׁא‬
ְׁ ‫ ֱאל‬in Da. In this case the implied
ideas and assertions are preserved.
187 Cf. K. L. Schmidt, → I, 582; also art. “Jesus Christus,” RGG, III, 126. Str.-B., I, 181 regards heavenly dominion as
God’s gift to men; hence it comes from heaven as distinct from ‫ מלכותַשמים‬in the Rabb., over against which man has to act.
Cf. Zn. Mt., 126. That God’s lordship is understood as a cosmic event is also established by the concept of heavenly lordship,
115
cf. R. Bultmann, Nt.liche Theologie (1948), 3; K. Barth, 506 (ET, 434): “… He steps down from the heaven created by Him
… and He moves from these heavens in the direction of earth.”
188 Cf. ψ 10:4: ἐν οὐρανῷ ὁ θρόνος αὐτοῦ, also ψ 102:19.
189 Also to be mentioned here are the refs. in Rev. 4:9, 10; 5:1, 7, which are to be taken in the light of 4:1 (“saw … in
heaven”), just as 5:13 is to be understood in terms of 5:11 and 6:16 in terms of 6:12; “I saw” always means “I saw in
heaven.”
190 Cf. ψ 44:6; Song of the Three Children 32 (Δα. 3:54); 4 Esr. 8:20f.; → III, 162, 26 ff.; 164, 18 ff. The idea of God’s right
hand is closely bound up with that of His throne in heaven, cf. the quotation of ψ 109:1 in the NT at Mk. 12:36 and par.;
14:62 and par.; (16:19); Ac. 2:34; (7:55); Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Hb. 1:3, 13; 10:12; (12:2).
191 Cf. H. Gunkel-J. Begrich, Einl. in d. Ps. (1933), 73.
192 Cf. Ps. 11:4; 14:2; 33:13; 53:2; 68:33; 80:14; 102:19; 113:6; 115:3, 16; Am. 9:6; Is. 40:22; 57:15 etc.
193 Cf. Mi. Hb.8, 184.
194 Barth, 510 (ET 438).
195 Da. 7:13 Θ; LXX ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν, so Mt. 26:64; 24:30 → 508, 30 ff.
196 So Pr.-Bauer; the νεφέλαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ are also to be distinguished from the cloud as a vehicle of ascension (Ac. 1:9;
Rev. 11:12).
197 Cf. 4 Esr. 13:3ff.
198 ⋮ with art.: D, on the other hand, has τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς to denote the Son of Man as a heavenly being; cf. 1 C. 15:47: ὁ
δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (G: ὁ οὐράνοις). Hell. ideas have played some part here, → 528, 17.
199 Cf. Rev. 1:7. Cf. Wellh. Mt., ad loc.; J. Schniewind, Mt. (NT Deutsch), ad loc.: “He (Christ) Himself will … be in the
full sense the sign in His coming from heaven …” For other explanations cf. Kl. Mt., ad loc.
200 Cf. Loh. Mk. on 13:24–27.
201 → n. 204 and II, 39, 5 ff.
202 So A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus d. Urchristenheit (1903), 82–85, though cf. Dib. Th., ad loc.
203 παρουσία == ἀποκάλυψις ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, cf. 1 Th. 4:16 with 2 Th. 2:1.
204 Cf. v. 52 with 1 Th. 4:16; in R. 8:34 ἐγερθείς denotes being ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, which in R. 10:6 corresponds to ἐν
οὐρανῷ.
205 It is to be noted that ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ is not to be equated with ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. The texts might suggest that the Messiah comes
only so far out of heaven as to be visible on earth. This would presuppose that the promised renewal of heaven had taken
place already (with the resurrection?). But there are no speculations about this. What is expected is the coming of Christ from
heaven, not the renewal of heaven.
206 Cf. Dib. Th., 245; Barth, 494 ff. (ET, 424): “Heaven is the boundary which is clearly and distinctly marked off for man.”
On the doubtful use of the concept of invisibility cf. Col. 1:16.
207 ἀπεκδέχεσθαι (→ II, 56, 17 ff.) indicates expectation of the parousia. Linguistically the first ref. of ἐξ οὗ must be to the
πολίτευμα (Loh. Phil., G. Heinzelmann, Phil. [NT Deutsch], ad loc., but not K. Barth, Erklärung d. Phil. [1928], 113, who
transl. “from there [heaven]”; Dib. Gefbr., ad loc.: “We are at home in heaven; from thence …”), but there are no material
parallels, and the thought is hard to grasp. At all events we seem to have here a general idea so that, even though the
construction refers only to the first part, the material connection is with both. The plur. here is for the Hebrew-speaking Paul
the Hebrew plur., to be taken in the sing. This is not impossible in Gk. Materially the ἐξ οὗ certainly refers to heaven. The
coming of the Saviour-Lord out of His concealment is awaited.
261 Lk. 3:21: ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανόν (sing.). Cf. Ez. 1:1: ἠνοίχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί. Worth noting is the fact that what is here
prophetic vision becomes the content of apocalyptic expectation: ἐὰν ἀνοίξῃς τὸν οὐρανόν, Is. 63:19c; Mk. 1:10 reads
σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανούς (D lat ἠνοιγμένους), which follows the ‫ קרע‬of Is. 63:19 rather than the ‫ פתח‬of Ez. 1:1. With a ref.
to 15:38 Loh. Mk. on 1:10 sets the holy of holies of the Jewish in temple parallelism with heaven. Cf. Rev. 11:19; Jos.Ant., 3,
123; on the similar thought in Hb. → 527, 19.
208 Naturally Christ dwells in heaven as does God in Rev. 13:6. But there is no emphasis on this insight, perhaps expressed
also in Ac. 3:21.
209 The Lord in heaven is not here, as in Col., the judging Lord, but the Protector of slaves. On the question of the
dependence of Eph. on Col. cf. Dib. Gefbr., Exc. after Eph. 5:14.
210 Cf. Loh. Gefbr. on Col. 4:1.
211 Cf. R. Bultmann, Art. “Urgemeinde,” RGG2, V, 1409.
212 The main influence in the development of this story was neither the Gnostic concept of the redeemer, nor the heavenly
journey of the soul (→ 502), nor the Jewish idea of rapture (Elijah, Enoch and Moses). What Bultmann Trad., 310 calls the
“ascension legend” arose out of a need to link the resurrection and the expectation from heaven once realistic appearances of
the risen Lord were proclaimed. The ascension marks the end of the appearances. Michaelis (ἁράω, → 359) thinks the
appearances of the risen Lord were also from heaven.
213 → n. 190; 528; II, 39, 5 ff.; III, 164, 18 ff.; 442, 16 ff.; IV, 8, 18 ff.
214 ℌRΘ, which Zn. Lk., ad loc. wrongly takes to be original (cf. Kl. Lk., ad loc.), and which, as he sees it, was later omitted
by D only in the light of Ac. 1.
116
215 Bultmann Trad., 310 f. thinks this is the work of a redactor of Ac. He quotes epistola apostolorum (ed. C. Schmidt
[1908], 154): “The heavens opened, and there appeared a light cloud which carried him up.” On the eschatological figure of
the tearing apart of heaven → 529, 33.
216 ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν also in the non-authentic Marcan ending at 16:19 and πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν in 1 Pt. 3:22
suggest kerygmatic formulations of the primitive community which perhaps underlie the account in Ac. as well. Cf. Loh. Mk.
on 16:19; πορευθείς Hell. as the journey of Christ in Kn. Pt., ad loc.
217 This is true even though one argues that the two last refs. come from liturgical formulae whereas the first two belong to
the psychologising depiction of the author.
218 For the ascent to heaven cf. Rev. 11:12; for material cf. Kroll, passim; Loh. Apc., ad loc.
219 Cf. esp. Bau. Ag., 66 f., who thinks that the basis is an ancient Elijah pericope.
220 As against Luther. Cf. Wndt. Ag., ad loc.; δέχεσθαι means “to receive,” → II, 51, 27 ff.
obj. object.
221 δεῖ in this sense is Lucan: Ac. 1:21; 5:29; 9:16; 14:22 etc. → II, 22, 31.
222 Though cf. 1 Pt. 3:22.
223 The referring of the verse to Christ is a Scripture proof in midrash form. The Rabb. refer Ps. 68:18 to Moses. Cf. Str.-B.,
II, 596. Sukka, 5a, Bar.: “Nowhere has the Shekinah descended, but Moses and Elijah have ascended.”
224 Cf. H. Schlier, Christus u. d. Kirche im Eph. (1930), 3; G. P. Wetter, Der Sohn Gottes (1916), 82–101. Bu. J., 107, n. 5.
For the expression cf. Dt. 30:11, 12; Prv. 30:4; Bar. 3:29; 4 Esr. 4:8; → καταβαίνειν, I, 523, 2. On the preceding καταβαίνειν
v. πρῶτον in B it.
225 Cf. Jn. 3:31: ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν (not D); R. 9:5: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός. In respect of the world there is thus equation of
Christ with God. For the expression cf. Corp. Herm., XIII, 17: τῷ ἐπὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν μετεώρῳ.
226 Kroll, 59: “The ascent through the closed spheres is a descent with the reverse sign.” Cf. the enthroned Soter on the
sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (3rd cent. A.D.), which shows the beardless Christ on the throne, His feet on the head of god
Uranos, the veil stretched out above him as the vault of heaven, → 500, 10 ff.
227 Cf. Ltzm. R., ad loc.; → I, 521, 24 ff.
228 The fact that οὐρανός is used in Jn. only in the sing. indicates an absence of Gnostic and Jewish speculation about
heaven. Indeed, it may indicate a basically anti-gnostic trend, even though there is an extensive use of Gnostic sources and
vocabulary. The ἄρχων, or power opposed to God, is said to be τοῦ κόσμου, not in heaven, cf. Jn. 12:31; Eph. 2:2; 1:21.
229 ἐρχόμενος in 3:31 is a Messianic title and denotes the One who has already come.
230 The perf. is to be taken as a pres., Bu. J., 107, n. 3.
231 Ibid., 74, n. 4.
232 Ibid., 108, n. 4.
233 This is not a Johannine form of the Synoptic baptism incident, Mt. 3:17; 4:11, so M. Goguel, Au seuil de l’Evangile. Jean
Baptiste (1928), 289, 219, and on the other side Bu. J., 74, n. 4.
234 Acc. to Bu. J., 68 an addition of the Evangelist to his source.
235 Sys reads ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, syc impf., so also Bau. J., ad loc.: “Who was in heaven,” so that He is now in heaven as
the exalted Lord.
236 Acc. to Bu. J., ad loc. a gloss which indicates post-existence after the ascension, cf. 108, n. 4; also Bau. J., ad loc.
237 ἀπό (AD ἐκ), elsewhere ἐκ, though with no material distinction, suggests another author or, acc. to Bu. J., ad loc., the
Evangelist as distinct from the source.
238 So already ψ 77:24.
239 ἐξ (for ἐκ τοῦ) οὐρανοῦ, hence a different author from the source.
240 “Good Friday and Ascension Day become Christianity’s great Day of Atonement,” Mi. Hb. 8, 202.
241 Cr. Rev. 4:1; 19:11, where heaven is also a sanctuary; in 11:19 the ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is in heaven and is opened, “the holy of
holies of the heavenly temple.” Loh. Apk., ad loc. (Rev. 14:17; 15:5; 16:17 vl. give evidence of a broad identity between
heaven, temple and throne).
242 Mi. Hb. on 9:11 distinguishes between 1. the created transitory heaven, 1:10–12; 2. the heaven through which Jesus
passes == the tent which does not belong to this creation, 9:10–12; 3. heaven as the dwelling-place of God, 9:24, → 535, 9.
Asc. Is. Ascension of Isaiah. Christian version of an originally Jewish legend (Schürer, III, 386f.), ed. R. Charles, 1900.
243 Cf. Jos.Ant., 3, 123: The holy of holies as a type of heaven and like it inaccessible: “This division of the tabernacle is
meant to represent the whole cosmos.” As the sanctuary it does not belong to this κτίσις. Cf. Eisler, 603.
244 Cf. Asc. Is. 7:13 ff.; Test. L. 3 also refers only to ministering creatures in the seven heavens.
245 Only on the margin of heaven (the firmament) is there in Asc. Is. 7:9ff. a battle which typifies the war with evil on earth.
def. Definitiones.
247 Barth, 511 (ET, 438).
248 Cf. Bousset-Gressm., 253 f.; Clemen, 72 f.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 345–350; Ltzm. K., Exc. after 15:46; → I, 142, 4
ff.
249 Marcion has κύριος for ἄνθρωπος; A has both; G, anticipating v. 48, adds ὁ οὐράνιος.
250 R. 5:12 ff.; 1 C. 15:22; → I, 141, 13 ff.
117
251 PhiloOp. Mund., 134: “There is a very gt. distinction between the man who was now (Gn. 2:7) formed and τοῦ κατὰ τὴν
εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονότος πρότερον (Gn. 1:27).” He calls this man ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα ἰδέα τις ἢ γένος ἢ σφραγίς, νοητός,
ἀσώματος … ἄφθαρτος φύσει, cf. Leg. All., I, 31: “There are two kinds of men: ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ
γήϊνος· ὁ μὲν οὖν οὐράνιος” (on the basis of Gn. 1:27), ibid., 42: To him, the spirit created after God’s image and the idea,
there had to be assigned a share in the breath (πνεῦμα) of power, which is strength, as compared with the weak breathing
allotted to him who was formed of matter. In Philo the first man is the idea, the spiritual heavenly man, the logos (Conf.
Ling., 146), while the second is the historical Adam.
252 Cf. R. Bultmann, Art. “Paulus,” RGG2, IV, 1035; M. Dibelius, Art. “Christologie, I,” RGG 2, I, 1600 f.
253 Iranian (Mandaean?); cf. esp. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 168 f.; Ir. Erl., 107–110.
apoc. Apocrypha.
254 Eth. En. 71; 48; v. Bousset-Gressm., 253 f.; cf. also similar ideas in respect of hypostatised wisdom, Prv. 8:22 f.; Wis.
7:25; En. 42.
255 Cf. Col. 1:15, which refers Gn. 1:27 to Christ, → I, 142, 10 ff.
256 Cf. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos2 (1921), 159.
257 So E. Stauffer, Die Theol. d. NT4 (1948), 97. Acc. to Jeremias (→ I, 143, 23 ff.) ἄνθρωπος is simply a form of the bar
nasha which the Corinthians would understand.
258 So Bousset, op. cit., 184, n. 1; 158 f.; 159, n. 1.
259 Cf. Dibelius, op. cit. (→ n. 252), 1600. So G. Bornkamm in G. Bornkamm, W. Klaas, “Mythos u. Evangelium,”
Theologische Existenz heute, NF, 26 (1951), 25.
260 Cf. the Johannine form in 1:51, 32; this verse comes from a redactor acc. to Bu. J., 58, but not Bau. J., ad loc.
262 Cf. also Lk. 4:25; Jm. 5:18; Rev. 11:6: The closing of heaven means drought in acc. with the idea of the closing of the
sluices of the heavenly ocean; but behind is concealed the gracious action of God (blessing, fruitfulness). Heaven has always
to be understood in this twofold way, → 542, 32.
263 The basic ref. is Is. 63:19. Cf. S. Bar. 22:1; 3 Macc. 6:18; Volz Esch., 119, 410, 418. Cf. also Corp. Herm., XIII, 17:
ἀνοίγητε οὐρανοί.
264 So Loh. Mk., ad loc.; also G. Bornkamm, “Die nt.liche Lehre von der Taufe,” ThBl, 17 (1938), 45.
265 Note that in Mk. and Mt. the opened heaven is connected with an ἀναβαίνειν and καταβαίνειν (though of a different
kind), → 525, 25.
266 Cf. Gn. 28:17: ‫וְׁ זֶהַשַ עַרַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬.
267 So Bu. J., 75.
268 One cannot with Bau. Ag., ad loc. adduce Gn. r., 68, 5 (Str.-B., III, 220) as a par., since here the ref. is not to the opening
of heaven but to the divine indication of the reward for the esp. righteous just before death. In particular, Ac. 7:56 refers to
the vision of eschatological consummation, not personal reward. The latter rests on the former.
269 In the ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ of Rev. 12:1, 3 (cf. v. 4) and 15:1 the ref. is to a vision in the heavens. Similarly, the vision of Rev.
12:7, 13 is seen in the sky (not heaven); cf. Asc. Is. 7:9 as against v. 13.
270 ἀτενίζειν in Ac. 7:55 is a plastic term; cf. 1:10. It is peculiar to Lk. Note the sing. in v. 55, the plur. in v. 56.
271 → n. 240: v. Had. Apk., ad loc.
272 Cf. Str.-B., I, 125 f.; II, 128; Schl. Mt., 93.
273 Loh. Mk. on 1:9.
274 So also Bau., Schl. J., ad loc., but not Bu. J., 328, who seeks an explanation in Mandaean texts, but wrongly, since the
refs. adduced speak of a voice in heaven (though also in connection with thunder).
275 The ἄλλη of Rev. 18:4 distinguishes this voice from that of the angel in v. 2; in 21:3 RP sy have οὐρανοῦ, ℌ vg θρόνου;
this shows the connection between the two terms, → 522, 5 f.
276 Cf. the two plain statements about God’s voice in Rev. 16:17; 21:6.
277 Rev. 19:5; cf. Loh. Apk. on 18:4 and 19:5; also Had. Apk., ad loc.
278 Cf. Mi. Hb.8 on 12:25; E. Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk (1939), 29.
279 τὸ πνεῦμα in Mk. (also Jn. 1:32) was, acc. to Dalman, 166, unheard of for God’s Spirit in the Jewish period. But “from
heaven” is added to the plain designation, cf. Bultmann Trad., 268.
280 Loh. Mk. on 1:10.
281 ὥσπερ compares the noise to a wind, cf. Wdt. Ag., ad loc.
282 Cf. Ac. 3:21; → 525, 19.
283 Gn. 19:24; Ex. 9:23 f.; 2 K. 1:10, 12; 2 Ch. 7:1; Job 1:16; Ep. Jer. 61.
284 Lack of rain is an apocalyptic sign in Sib., III, 539 f.; Eth. En. 80:2; 100:11; Gr. Bar. 27:6.
285 In 2 C. 5:1 ff. ἐπιποθοῦντες is set alongside ἔχομεν to express the dialectical eschatological present indicated by the
opened heaven.
286 Paradise as a heavenly place will come down from heaven to earth at the end of the days, cf. Bousset-Gressm., 284.
287 Cf. Plat.Ap., 40c: μετοίκησις τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἐνθένδε εἰς ἄλλον τόπον.
288 πολίτευμα has “also spatial significance,” Loh. Gefbr., ad loc. “Christians belong to a kingdom,” Dib. Gefbr., ad loc.
118
289 Cf. Ltzm. K., ad loc.; Wnd. 2 K., ad loc. οἰκοδομὴ ἐκ θεοῦ is here equated with οἰκία ἐν οὐρανοῖς and οἰκηπήριον ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ. “From God” means concretely “from heaven,” and what is in heaven is significant as that which comes forth from
it. Wnd. 2 K. n., ad loc. pts. out that οἰκοδομή has “greater solidity” than σκηνή.
290 Used thus esp. in relation to the possession of land.
291 Cf. Corp. Herm. Exc. 23, 17 (Scott, I, 466, 22): εὐσταθησάσαις μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν οὐρανὸς ὁ μισθός
292 The term implies saving, keeping, so S. Nu. § 135 on 27:12. Str.-B., I, 232, 429 f.
293 ἔχειν lays special stress on the reality; we are thus to think of real possession.
294 In the part. is “the thought of a substantiality,” Loh. Gefbr., ad loc.; cf. Dib. Gefbr., ad loc., who pts. out that this is a tt.
for the entering of worthy names in the state records.
295 Cf. Ex. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Da. 7:10; 12:1; Eth. En. 47:3; 104:1; 108:7; Jub. 30:20. Cf. Str.-B., II, 169; Dalman, 169, 171.
296 The pt. of the statement is that the goods are not accessible in their eternal state. There is no ref. back to the
inaccessibility of heaven or the question of its creatureliness, which also means its transitoriness. Heaven here is defined in
terms of the lordship of God or Christ.
297 Cf. Barth., 509 (ET, 437).
298 4 Esr. 7:26; (10:54) 13:36; cf. Str.-B., III, 796; Loh. Apk. on 21:2.
299 Mi. Hb., ad loc.
300 The τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς of Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:16, 20 should also be remembered here.
301 Cf. the alternation of ἄγγελος κυρίου, ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ and ἄγγελος τοῦ (τῶν) οὐρανοῦ (-ῶν).
302 On the rise of the idea, esp. common in Gnosticism (→ 501, 12), that stars and evil powers are connected, cf. BoussetGressm., 322.
303 ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, 1 C. 15:24; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; δυνάμεις, 1 C. 15:24; 1 Pt. 3:22; κυριότητες, Col.
1:16; Eph. 1:21; θρόνοι, Col. 1:16; κοσμοκράτορες, Eph. 6:12.
304 Str.-B., IV, 1, 515.
305 So Pr.-Bauer In Rev. 12:3 ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ means in heaven.
306 Cf. Loh. Apk., ad loc. with instances of similar ideas.
307 Job 1:6 ff.; Zech. 3:1; cf. 1 Ch. 21:1. To deduce from this that hell is in the midst of heaven corresponds nowhere to the
NT view. But cf. Slav. En. 8, where hell is alongside Paradise in the third heaven.
308 Cf. on this Lk. 10:18 ff., where the same fig. of speech is behind the saying, whose pt. is proclamation of the
commencing new aeon. In the context of the gospel this v. is linked with the promise of the inscribing of names in heaven;
the same proclamation underlies Rev. 12.
309 Cf. Loh. Apk., ad loc.
310 On the shechina of God cf. Str.-B., III, 805, 848.
311 Surprisingly there is little mention of the attitude of prayer, cf., e.g., ψ 122:1; 120:1; Δα. Θ 4:34; Jos.Ant., 11, 162; Str.B., II, 246; also Lk. 21:28.
312 Qoh. 1:13: 3:1. In Lk. 17:24 γῆ or χώρα should be added to ἐκ τῆς and εἰς τήν. For non-bibl. use → 499, 7.
313 Cf. 1 Εσδρ. 8:72; 4 Esr. 11:43. Cf. Hom.Od., 15, 329.
314 Cf. Luther’s “birds under heaven.”
315 In Rev. 11:12 the cloud is a means of ascent into heaven, as in Ac. 1:9. This idea of the cloud as a vehicle up to and
down from heaven is a common one.
316 vl. D it sy τῶν οὐρανῶν.
317 On the catastrophe in nature cf. Eth. En. 80:4 ff.; 4 Esr. 5:4f.; Bousset-Gressm., 250.
318 Both verses combine Is. 13:10 LXX: ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, and 34:4; the ἐκ τοῦ of Mk. becomes ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
(sing.) in Mt.
319 Cf. Loh. Mk. on 13:24ff.
320 vl. D it sy οὐρανῶν. Cf. Is. 34:4: ‫ּכָׁל־צְׁ בָׁ אַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬. Acc. to → II, 307, 16 ff. the ref. is to the spiritual forces behind the
cosmic orders; their disarming is an eschatological event.
321 On plural heavens under the influence of Hell. Gnosticism cf. the material in A. Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie (1903),
179–220; Str.-B., III, 531 f.
322 Bl.-Debr. § 141, 1: “οὐρανοί == shamayim, though in most authors only in a looser sense as the divine seat (also sing.),
while in the strict sense the sing. predominates, except where several heavens are distinguished acc. to the Jewish view.”
Loh.’s statement, op. cit. (→ n. 115), 78 also does not stand up to examination, e.g., plur. in connection with the earth at Mt.
16:19; 18:10; 24:29; Eph. 1:10; 3:15; Col. 1:16, 20 etc., but there are many instances to the contrary. His rule is that the sing.
is used in connection with the earth, the plur. for heaven in its distinction from everything earthly and its orientation to God.
323 There are no essentially Gnostic traits here, since the ref. is not to a process of redemption but a special → ὀπτασία, →
ἀποκάλυψις granted to him who is already in Christ and an apostle. On the heavenly journey of the soul as an ecstatic state cf.
Rohde, II, 91 f.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 221.
324 For the setting of Paradise in heaven cf. Eth. En. 39:3; 70:3 etc.; Jos.Bell., 3, 374; 4 Esr. 7:36ff.; Slav. En. 8. In the last
verse the third heaven and Paradise are very close together, though it is not clear whether Paradise is in or directly over the
third heaven, cf. Gk. Bar. 4, also Volz Esch., 374; Mi. Hb.8 on 4:14, and refs. in Wnd. 2 K. and Ltzm. K., ad loc.
119
325 E.g., the first heaven, the sky; the second, the heavenly ocean; the third, God’s throne. So Barth., 522 (ET, 448).
326 Rev. 21:3; 7:15: God in the midst of the elect and the martyrs; cf. Eth. En. 61:12; 70:3 etc.
327 Cf. Ltzm. K., ad loc.
328 Plat.Resp., VIII. 546c.
329 Cf. Mi. Hb. on 9:11.
330 For the expression cf. 4 Esr. 4:21: … τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕψους τῶν οὐρανῶν.
Barn. Epistle of Barnabas.
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
v. visiones.
m. mandata.
s. similitudines.
Did. Didache.
331 So Pr.-Bauer,4 s.v. ἐκπέτασις.
Mart. Martyrium.
Pol. Polycarpi.
Dg. Epistle to Diognetus.
Ign. Ignatius.
Sm. ad Smyrnaeos.
Eph. Epistula ad Ephesios.
1 Mostly with three, also with two, and in the NT only two, endings; cf. Bl.-Debr., § 59, 2.
2 Cf. Δ. Δημητράκου μέγα λεξικὸν τῆς ἐλληνικῆς γλώσσης (1933), s.v..
opp. oppositum.
3 Cf. Hom. Hymn. Cer., 55; v. also Philolaos Fr., 11 (Diels5, I, 411, 10 f.), where we have the combination … καὶ θείω καὶ
οὐρανίω βίω, and then the continuation καὶ ἀνθρωπίνω, i.e., divine and heavenly life, also human.
Hom. Hymn. Cer. ad Cererem.
Ag. Agamemnon.
Leg. Leges.
Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian, described as early as Cicero as the father of
history. His work deals with the conflicts between the Greeks and the barbarians from earliest times to the Persian Wars, ed.
H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.
Ps.-Aristot. Pseudo-Aristotle.
Mund. De Mundo, a popular work of philosophy written by a later author under the influence of the Syrian Posidonius of
Apamea (c. 135–51 B.C.), the main representative of Middle Stoicism.
4 U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der Glaube d. Hellenen, I (1931), 333 f.
5 Cf. Aesch.Prom., 164f.: οὐρανίαν γένναν.
Hipp. Hippolytus.
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 1828 ff.
Soph. Sophocles, of Athens (496–406 B.C.), the real poet of the Athens of Pericles, ed. A. C. Pearson, 1924.
El. Electra.
6 On the notable non-Gk. god Αἲξ οὐράνιος, cf. Wilamowitz, I, 130.
Orph. (Abel) Orphica, Orphic hymns, of which 88 have survived, belonging to later antiquity but containing many older
materials, and cultic in character, ed. E. Abel, 1885.
Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical, philosophical and scholarly
works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.
Sym. Symposion.
Symp. Symposion.
7 Acc. to Hes.Theog., 78 Οὐρανία is the name of one of the muses; cf. Plat.Crat., 396bc; cf. also Eur.Phoen., 1729. A
daughter of Oceanos also bore this name, Hom. Hymn. Cer., 423; Hes.Theog., 350.
8 Cf. Wilamowitz, 95, esp. n. 5.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, ed. Preussische Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1873 ff,
9 Cf. Pind.Pyth., II, 38 f.
10 On οὐράνιον προκάλυμμα (Orph.) cf. R. Eisler, Weltenmantel u. Himmelszelt, I (1910), 51.
Ra. Ranae.
Pers. Persae.
Emped. Empedocles, of Acragas in Sicily (c. 495–435 B.C.), a philosopher who with his doctrine of the elements is to be
placed among the physicists and mystics of the 5th century B.C., ed. H. Diels in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I, 1922.
Ant. Antigone.
Parm. Parmenides.
Olymp. Olympia.
120
Cyrop. Cyropaedia.
Mem. Memorabilia Socratis.
Hi. Hippias, I Major, II Minor.
11 A work of Democrit. is called αἰτίαι οὐράνιαι, Diels5, II, 91, 13.
Theophr. Theophrastus, of Eresos on Lesbos (c. 372–287 B.C.), pupil of Aristotle and important scholar, succeeding him as
head of the peripatetic school in Athens, ed. F. Wimmer, 1854 ff.; Charact., ed. O. Immisch, 1923; De Igne, ed. A. Gercke,
1896.
12 There is a reading οὐράνιον ἁψῖδα for ὑπουράνιον, Phaedr., 247b.
Critias
13 Dii celestes inhabitant summa celestia. Ascl., III, 38b (Scott, I, 362, 2).
pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted.
P. Lips. Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig, ed. L. Mitteis, 1906.
P. Masp. Papyrus Grecs d’époque Byzantine, ed. J. Maspéro, 1911 ff.
BGU Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Kgl. Museen zu Berlin, 1895 ff.
14 Cf. Op. Mund., 117; Abr., 69; Plant., 52.
Sacr. AC. De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini.
Plant. De Plantatione.
Cher. De Cherubim.
Gig. De Gigantibus.
Ap. Hymnus ad Apollinem.
Ant. Antiquitates.
Bell. Bellum Judaicum.
pseudepigr. pseudepigraphical.
15 Cf. Rev. 11:12, where God camps among the martyrs.
16 ‫ == בניַשמים‬ἐπουράνιοι, 1 C. 15:48, as a self-designation for a pious sect, → 299, n. 21.
17 At Lk. 11:13 P45 reads οὐράνιος for ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, → 521, 12; cf. the par. Mt. 7:11.
18 At 5:48 Tert. D* and many others, and at 23:9 R (DΘ) read ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς for ὁ οὐράνιος, while at 18:35 CRΘ read
ἐπουράνιος. This shows that οὐράνιος and ἐπουράνιος are taken in the sense not only of ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς but also of ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ, describing God’s action as from heaven, → 521, 5.
19 This, and with it the eschatological belief in Yahweh, is completely missed by v. Wilamowitz, op. cit., I, 334, who notes
concerning Ζεὺς οὐράνιος, the lord of heaven as universal god: “Among the Jews it was the great accomplishment of the
prophets that the old Yahweh, bound to earth and place, was set in heaven … But Yahweh remained the national God, and
the national gods of other nations remained gods alongside Him …, whereas the God whom Jesus proclaims was really the
Father of all men and could thus be fused very well with the god of the Hellenes.”
20 B* D* read οὐρανοῦ, so also Ac. 7:42, but with ref. to the stars worshipped as deities.
21 Cf. 4 Macc. 4:11 οὐράνιος στρατός; 3 Βας. 22:19: ‫ == ;וְׁ כָׁלַצְׁ בָׁ אַהַ שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬πᾶσα ἡ στρατιὰ τοῦ ουρανοῦ; cf. 2 Ch. 18:18. In the
Rabb. all Israel or the tribe of Levi alone can be called heavenly hosts, cf. Str.-B., II, 116.
22 οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος corresponds to the philosophical term for the first or primal man, → 528, 33; 537, 21 f. In 1 C. 15:47
G has the materially equivalent οὐράνιος for ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. This shows that in the NT οὐράιος is never controlled by the sense
of “sky.”
1 In class. Gk. with three endings, in the NT with two.
P. Papyri Florentini, I, ed. G. Vitelli, 1906; II, ed. D. Comparetti, 1908 ff.
Preisigke Sammelbuch F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, 1915 ff.
Theocr. Theocritus, of Syracuse (born c. 305 B.C.), celebrated Hellenistic poet and master of bucolic poetry (the idyll), later at
court in Alexandria under Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus, ed. U. Wilamowitz in Bucolici Graeci, 1905.
Idyll. Idyllia.
2 Cf. also Luc. Dialogi Deorum, 4, 3: ἤδη γὰρ ἐπουράνιος εἶ.
3 Cf. Pind. Fr., 132, 1: ψυχαὶ … ὐπουράνιοι.
Ap. Apologia.
Herm. Hermes, Zeitschrift Für klassische Philologie, 1866 ff.
4 Exc. 12, 1 (Scott, I, 434, 9); Exc. 21, 2 (Scott, I, 454, 2).
5 Ascl., III, 32b (Scott, I, 356, 20 f.).
6 Fr. 26 (Scott, I, 544, 1 f.).
7 Scott, IV, 32, 9.
P. Par. Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits Grecs de ta Bibliothèque Impériale, XVIII, 2 (1865), ed. by W. Brunet de Presle.
8 At Mt. 18:35 vl. C Θ read ἐπουράνιος for οὐράνιος in the same sense in the formula ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος, → 538, 5 ff.
9 Cf. Dib. Gefbr. on Eph. 1:3.
10 Cf. in Phil. 3:20 πολίτευμα, “a solid place in heaven,” and in 4 Macc. 17:5 ἐστήρισαι ἐν οὐρανῷ.
121
11 H. Schlier, Die Kirche nach dem Brief an d. Epheser, Beiträge zur Kontroverstheologie, 1 (1949), 180 f. Cf. Col. 1:16;
Eph. 2:2; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben d. Pls. (1909), 158–164.
12 At Eph. 6:12 R reads τοῦ αἰῶνος for ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. The alteration is an attempt to interpret the concept of the
heavenly world in OT or Jewish fashion solely in terms of the throne or right hand of God, i.e., His lordship. That πνεύματα
τῆς πονηρίας are no longer in heaven is part of the most primitive Christian kerygma, Lk. 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:8. The attempt
confirms the equation of ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις and ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
13 ἐν is to be taken here, as in 2:6, causally and instrumentally rather than somatically, as Schlier, op. cit. understands it.
14 In view of Eph. 2:2 ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις in 6:12 might be construed as the atmosphere
under God’s heaven. But we have here two very different worlds of thought; the expression in 2:2 is also unique.
15 Schlier, op. cit., takes a different view: “In this ‘spiritual’ sphere (formally speaking) the Church is to be found. In the
sphere thus expounded the Christian stays in the Church.”
16 Cf. Mi. Hb.8 on 8:1; 9:23.
17 Ibid. on 8:1.
18 The comparative relation of ἐπουράνια-ὑπόδειγμα, ἀντίτυπος caused Ltzm. Gl. Exc. on 4:26, in exposition of the heavenly
Jerusalem, to misunderstand ἐπουράνια along Platonic lines: “… the heavenly city is the Platonic ‘idea’ Jerusalem.” There
are two formal pars., since Plato can use “heaven” and “heavenly” for the idea, → 537, 11, and the idea of heaven is also in
heaven. Cf. Mi. Hb.8 on 8:1: “The contrast between heavenly and earthly in Hb. is meant Hellenistically, but not
philosophically.” Thus in Hb. heaven, τὰ ἐπουράνια, perfection and the heavenly Jerusalem are ultimately identical; heavenly
things, though naturally only as shadows, also have earthly antitypes and correspondences. Materially, however, the heavenly
things represent all others as a Platonic idea. For in the correspondences of Hb. we are not dealing with a general principle,
but with a specific sign in the ἐπουράνια which is set up only in salvation history and within the chosen people. Hence the
perfection of heaven, and the ἐπουράνια are not an ontic magnitude. They are worked out in the course of the pro- and
transgressus of Christ as High-priest.
19 Similarly Mi. Hb.8 on 6:4, who refers to R. 5:15; 2 C. 9:15. This also brings out the connection with the μέλλων αἰών of
6:5. On the other hand, precisely this heavenly gift is present in once-for-all μετάνοια
20 For this concept cf. 4 Esr. 7:26; 8:52; 10:54; 13:36; S. Bar. 4:3–6 (v. also Eth. En. 53:6; 90:28 f.). Bibl. and examples in
Bousset-Gressm., 239; Volz Esch., 334; R. Knopf, “Die Himmelsstadt,” Nt.liche Studien, Festschr. G. Heinrici (1914), 213–
219; Str.-B., III, 573.
21 Cf. the combinations ἡ ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλεία, Dg., 10, 2; ἡ οὐράνιος βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, Mart.Pol., 22, 3; ἡ ἐπουράνιος αὐτοῦ
βασιλεία, Mart.Pol. Epil., 5 (20, 2 vl.).
22 Cf. Ign.Tr., 9, 1 τῶν ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ ὑποχθνίων for the powers which are simply spectators of the cross.
Obviously general Jewish ideas underlie this; cf. Preis. Zaub., IV, 3041 ff.: καὶ σὺ λάλησον ὁποῖον ἐὰν ἦς ἐπουράνιον ἢ
ἀέριον εἴτε ἐπίγειον εἴτε ὑπόγειον ἢ καταχθόνιον κτλ., and v. on this Deissmann LO, 220, 223, n. 11. Dib. Gefbr. pts. to P.
Oxy., XI, 1380, 164: δ[α]ίμονες ὑπήκοοι σοὶ [γ]ίνο[ν]ται.
23 So Loh. Phil., ad loc.
24 On the threefold division of the cosmos cf. E. Peterson, Εἷς θεός == FRL, NF, 24 (1926), 159.
25 Cf. στρατιὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ → 512, 41 f.; cf. also Philo Op. Mund., 73; Plant., 12; Som., I, 135.
26 Cf. J. Weiss, Der 1 K. (1910), 376.
27 The ref. is not to τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, as in Wis. 9:16; cf. ‫ בשמיא‬in Sanh., 39a, which refers generally to what is in heaven, and
what is hidden as such. Nor is a ref. to 4 Esr. 4:21 relevant: οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κατοικοῦντες τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς συνιέναι μόνον δύνανται,
καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕψους τῶν οὐρα ῶν. Bengel, ad loc., is right, though not very precise: interiores rationes
regni Dei. Bau. J., ad loc. pts. to Lk. 16:11b, and rightly equates ἐπουράνια and ἀληθινά → 520, n. 181; 540, 18. But
ἀληθινά, too, is concrete, not abstract (cf. 6:32, → 527, 10).
28 Cf. Bu. J., 105, n. 2, who pts. to the ἐπουράνια μυστήρια of Gnosticism.
Tr. Troades.
1 Cf. Bl.-Debr. § 104, 1.
Mot. De Motu Animalium.
2 In the OT only ὑετοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Dt. 11:11, though ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν is common, and this presupposes an ἐξ οὐρανοῦ or
οὐρανόθεν.
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
* παράδεισος. Str.-B., I, 207–214; III, 533 f.; IV, 892 f., 965–967, 1020 f., 1118–1165 (basic). Also Deissmann B., 146; Ide
Vuippens, Le paradis terrestre au troisième ciel (1925); Volz Esch., 395 f., 412–419; J. B. Frey, “La vie de l’au-delà dans les
conceptions juives au temps de Jésus-Christ,” Biblica, 13 (1932), 129–168; O. Michel, “Der Mensch zwischen Tod u.
Gericht,” Theologische Gegenwartsfragen, ed. O. Eissfeldt (1940), 6–28; E. Langton, Good and Evil Spirits (1942), Index,
s.v. “Paradise”; K. Galling, Art. “Paradeisos,” Pauly-W., 18, 2 (1949), 1131–1134; J. Jeremias, “Zwischen Karfreitag u.
Ostern,” ZNW, 42 (1949), 194–201; J. Daniélou, Sacramentum futuri (1950), 3–52; H. Bietenhard, D. himmlische Welt im
Urchr. u. im Spätjudt. (== Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen z. NT, 2 [1951]), 161–191.
NT New Testament.
122
1 Pari-daiza-corresponds etym. to a (non-attested) Gk. περίτοιχος, and belongs to the Indo-Europ. root dheigh- “to knead”
(cf. Gk. τεῖχος, τοῖχος, Germ. “Teig,” Lat. fingo), v. Boisacq, 746 f.; J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etym. Wörterbuch (1949
ff.), 244 f.; E. Kieckers in Indogerm. Forschungen, 38 (1917/20), 212 f.; παρα- instead of the etym. corresponding περι- is an
assimilation of the Iranian pari- to the Gk. prep. παρα- [Debrunner].
Gk. Greek.
Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical, philosophical and scholarly
works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.
2 Instances in Liddell-Scott, s.v.; also once in LXX at 2 Εσδρ. 12:8 (Neh. 2:8).
3 Pap. inscr., LXX (Nu. 24:6; Qoh. 2:5 etc.); Apcr. Ez. (in Epiph.Haer., 64, 70. 5–17); Philo; Jos. (Schl. Lk., 451: only in this
sense).
esp. especially.
4 Equivalent in the Heb. OT ‫גַן‬, occasionally ‫ עֵדֶ ן‬as a name for Paradise (Sir. 40:27: Is. 51:3 LXX vl. Σ).
5 Fig. the righteous are ὁ παράδεισος τοῦ κυρίου, τὰ ξύλα τῆς ζωῆς (Ps. Sol. 14:3).
vl. varia lectio.
6 τρυφή is a rendering of the Heb. ‫עֵדֶ ן‬. The LXX (except Sir. 40:27, where παράδεισος) usually has τρυφή for ‫עֵדֶ ן‬, only at Gn.
2:8, 10; 4:16, where the Heb. indicates by prepositions that Eden is meant to be a place-name, does its have the transcription
Εδεμ.
Test. L. Testament of Levi.
16 Test. L. 18:10 f.: “He himself (the priestly Messiah) will open the gates of Paradise, take away the sword which threatened
Adam, and give the saints to eat of the tree of life; then will the spirit of holiness rest upon them”; Test. D. 5:12; Eth. En.
25:4 f.: The tree of life will be planted in the temple; cf. Slav. En. 65:9 A, 10 B; 4 Esr. 7:36, 123; 8:52; Apc. Mos. 13 etc.
Rabb. writings are hesitant and restrained here (Str.-B., IV, 892 f.); this is connected with the Rabb. injunction to treat
eschatological statements as arcanum (ibid., 1151g).
7 As against Deissmann B., 146, who thinks the first use as a tt. is in Paul (2 C. 12:4).
pseudepigr. pseudepigraphical.
8 In the NT the garden is always κῆπος, Lk. 13:19; Jn. 18:1, 26; 19:41 (twice), never παράδεισος.
Heb. Hebrew.
Aram. Aramaic.
9 In the OT only 3 late vv.: Cant. 4:13; Qoh. 2:5 (== park); Neh. 2:8 (forest of the Persian king in Palestine). Later T. Sukka,
2, 3; T. Jom tob, 1, 10; T. Taan., 4, 7 (twice); T. Ar., 2, 8; b.Sanh., 91a b; b.Ar., 14a etc. Aram.: Tg. J. I, Gn. 14:3; J. II, Gn.
21:33; Tg. Ju. 4:5; Tg. Qoh. 2:5; Tg. Job 2:11; b.BM, 73a, 103a etc.
10 Str.-B., IV, 1119 β.
Rabb. Rabbis,
11 T. Chag., 2, 3 par. jChag., 2, 1 (77b); b.Chag., 14b; Midr. Cant. on 1:4. Cf. Bacher Tannaiten, I 2, 332 f.; Str.-B., IV, 1119;
M. Abraham, Légendes juives apocryphes sur la vie de Moïse (1925), 23, n. 2.
12 Cf. Gn. 2:15 (3:23f.).
13 Near Eastern ideas of Paradise (cf. A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte des alten Orients4 [1930], 79–98), and Gk. ideas of the
golden age, the isles of the blessed, the Elysian fields and the garden of Hesperides (cf. on the historico-religious significance
of the garden in the Gk. and Hell. world C. Schneider, “Die griech. Grundlagen d. hell. Religionsgeschichte,” ARW, 36
[1939], 324 f. [Kleinknecht]), exerted no direct influence on the NT. The same applies to Philo’s allegorical interpretation of
Paradise (Daniélou, 45–52), towards which there are tendencies already in Sir. 24:12–33; 40:17, 27 and Ps. Sol. 14:3 (→ n.
5); cf. also → supra.
14 Str.-B., IV, 1118 f., 1120–1130.
OT Old Testament.
15 Great fruitfulness: Hos. 2:24; Am. 9:13; Is. 7:15; Jl. 3:18, esp. abundant water: Is. 35; 41:18 f.; Ez. 47:1–12; Ps. 46:4;
Zech. 14:8, peace between the nations: Is. 2:4; 9:6; Mi. 5:9 f., also between animals: Is. 11:6 f., and between men and
animals: Is. 11:8, cf. Hos. 2:20, longevity: Is. 65:20, 22; no disease: Zech. 8:4, no death: Is. 25:8; 26:19, fellowship with God:
Hos. 2:21 f.; Jer. 31:31–34. Cf. H. Gunkel, Schöpfung u. Chaos (1921), 368; Bousset-Gressm., 282–285; A. Bentzen,
Messias, Mose redivivus, Menschensohn (1948), 37 ff.; Daniélou, 4 f.
17 For this cf. Test. L. 18:10; 4 Esr. 8:52, cf. Sib., 3, 769 f.
18 Only S. Bar. and Slav. En. put the final consummation in heaven. This is because these two works do not distinguish
between the present and the last form of its manifestation, Str.-B., IV, 1145, 1150 f.
19 Eth. En. 25:4 (→ n. 16); 4 Esr. 7:36 (as distinct from γέεννα); for further examples cf. Str.-B., IV, 1151h. Cf. also Rev. 21
f.
20 Test. L. 18:10 f. (→ n. 16); Eth. En. 24:4–25:7; 4 Esr. 7:123; 8:52; Apc. Mos. 28:4 etc.
21 The water of life: Slav. En. 8:5 f. A; Str.-B., III, 854–856; the bread of life, Sib. prooem., 87.
22 Eth. En. 62:14, cf. 60:7 f.; Str.-B., IV, 1146 f., 1154–65.
23 Apc. Mos. 13:4; Str.-B., IV, 1146, 1153 f. Cf. also Slav. En. 65:9 A: “From then on there will be among them neither toil
nor pain nor suffering nor waiting nor distress nor violence nor night nor darkness, but the great light will be among them
123
(and) a great indestructible wall and great incorruptible Paradise; for everything corruptible will pass away, but the
incorruptible will come, and it will be the shelter of an eternal dwelling” (based on the transl. of Bonwetsch).
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
24 Eth. En. 70:4; Apc. Mos. 37:5; Test. Abr. 20 A (→ n. 37). With Enoch, Abel in Paradise (Test. Abr., 10 B, ed. M. R.
James, TSt, II, 2 [1892], 114) holds a judgment of souls after death, ibid. 11 B, James, op. cit., 115 f.
25 Eth. En. 60:7 f., 23; 61:12; 70:4; cf. 32:3; Slav. En. 9:1; 42:3 A: Apc. Abr. 21:6 f.; Moses in Gan Eden after death, b.Tem.,
16a; Shadrach’s soul after death ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἁπάντων, Apc. Shadrach 16, ed. M. R. James, TSt, II, 3
(1893), 137.
26 Enoch: Eth. En. 60:8; 70:3; 87:3 f.; 89:52; Jub. 4:23; Test. Abr. 11:3, cf. 10:2. Elijah: Eth. En. 89:52. Other righteous men
who were translated into Paradise while yet alive are enumerated in Däräk ’äräc zutta, 1 (ed. A. Tawrogi, Diss. Königsberg
[1885], 8 f.).
27 Eth. En. 32:2 f.; Jub. 8:16; cf. 4:26; Slav. En. 42:3 f. A (→ n. 34); b.BB, 84a (the sun is red at morning because it passes
over Gan Eden and reflects the gleam of its roses); Midr. Konen, ed. A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, II (1853), 28, 8.
28 So the Essenes: Jos.Bell., 2, 155 f. (“beyond the ocean”), and perhaps also 4 Esr. 14:9 (the Messiah comes out of Paradise)
compared with 13:3 (out of the sea).
29 Eth. En. 24:3 f.; 25:3 cf. 87:3; Jub. 4:26, → 483, 11 ff.
S. Bar. Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch, originally Hebrew and strongly dependent on 4 Esdras (c. 100 A.D.), ed. R. Charles,
1896.
30 4 Esr. 4:7f.; Vit. Ad. 25:3; Test. Abr. 10 B, M. R. James, op. cit., 114. It cannot be said for certain whether b.Ber., 28b
(Rabban Jochanan b. Zakkai, d. c. 80 A.D.) refers to the intermediate Paradise in heaven (Str.-B., IV, 1034, 1131) or the
eschatological Paradise on earth. b.Chag., 15b (cf. Str.-B., IV, 1119) and Gn. r., 65 on 27:27 par. Midr. Ps. 11 § 7 (ibid., 1130
f.) are the first definite attestations of the idea of a heavenly Paradise in Rabb. literature.
31 Apc. Mos. 37:5; Slav. En. 8:1 (Str.-B., IV, 1137 f.); Gr. Bar. 4:8 (→ 512, 5 ff.). There is a combination of an earthly and a
heavenly location of Paradise in Slav. En. 42:3 A: the intervening Paradise is in the East, but is opened to the third heaven.
32 Str.-B., IV, 1130–1144.
33 → 767, 10 ff.; Str.-B., IV, 1144–1165.
34 Str.-B., IV, 1118–1120, 1130 f. has an excellent review of the terminology, though the statement on 1118 is mistaken:
“The older Synagogue knows a threefold Paradise”; more precisely the ref. ought to be to three stages or forms of the one
Paradise. Vit. Ad. distinguishes between the “Paradise of righteousness” (25:3) and the “Paradise of visitation and the
command of God” (28:3), but the ref. is really to two different spheres of Paradise rather than two Paradises; the former is the
abode of God and the latter the smaller portion of Paradise allotted to the first man, Str.-B., IV, 1119. Slav. En. 8:1–6 A; 42:3
A (Str.-B., IV, 1137 f.) is to be taken in the same way.
35 Str.-B., IV, 1132, 1143 (intervening Paradise); 1146, 1152 k (eschatological Paradise). Acc. to Eth. En. the tree of life is
now on the loftiest of seven hills (24:3f.) and after the judgment of the world it will be planted toward Jerusalem (25:4f.).
36 Str.-B., II, 264–269 mentions the world to come, heaven, the domain of God, the heavenly academy, the throne of God,
the treasure house, the covenant of the living, the land of the living, with the angels, in Abraham’s bosom.
37 That Lk. 16:22–31 refers to the state after death and not after the last judgment may be seen from the use of the word →
ᾅδης in 16:23 (not → γέεννα) and also from comparison with the Egyptian and later Jewish story which Jesus uses, cf. H.
Gressmann, “Vom reichen Mann u. armen Lazarus,” AAB (1918), No. 7, 32; cf. also Test. Abr., 20 A (M. R. James, op. cit.,
103 f.), where God says to the angels after Abraham’s death: “Lead my friend Abraham into Paradise where the tabernacles
of my righteous are and the dwellings of my saints, Isaac and Jacob ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ αὐτοῦ.” That the righteous and the ungodly
may look across to one another in the intermediate state (Lk. 16:23) is a common idea in later Judaism, 4 Esr. 7:85, 93; cf.
Str.-B., II, 228 and IV, 1040 for Rabb. examples.
38 Cf. also the verses which speak esp. of the martyrs, 6:9; 7:9–17; 14:13.
39 Cf. Schl. Mk., ad loc. Whether the abode of Lazarus with Abraham (Lk. 16:23b) is on account of the “gt. gulf” (16:26) to
be sought in the underworld is not so certain as I assumed in → I, 147, 18 f.; 148, 34 ff. in the light of Eth. En. 22 (a bright
place with a source of water in the underworld) and in company with Str.-B., IV, 1019 f. Older and later ideas seem to
interfuse in Lk. 16:23–26 (→ I, 147, 7–15). It is certainly true that later Judaism never set ‫ גַןַעֵדֶ ן‬in sheol, → n. 52.
40 ‫עֵץַהַ חַ יִ ים‬, Gn. 2:9 == the tree of life whose fruit confers eternal life.
41 2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21.
42 Test. L. 18:10 f. (→ n. 16); Eth. En. 25:4 f.; 4 Esr. 8:52; Apc. Mos. 13:2 f.; 28:4; Rev. 22:2, 14, 19. It should be noted,
however, that in “conscious interpenetration” (Loh. Apk., 27) Rev. uses eschatological ideas proleptically to depict the
intermediate state of the martyrs (e.g., 6:11), so that intermediate and eschatological statements are intermingled in what is
said about the martyrs.
43 Schl. K., ad loc.
44 Cf. Wnd. 2 K., ad loc. The closest par. is b.Chag., 14b: ‫ →( ערבעהַנכנסוַלפרדס‬n. 11).
v. verse.
45 The comm. are divided. One experience (because only one ref. to time) is assumed by Bchm., Ltz. K., ad loc., Wnd. 2 K.,
ad loc., Bietenhard, 164 f., H. Traub, → 535, 1 f.; Schl. and H. D. Wendland (NT Deutseh), ad loc. favour two.
124
46 Schl. K. on 2 C. 12:4.
obj. object.
47 The Semitism frequently does not express the nuance “again” when it is indispensable in other languages.
48 Read ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου (‫א‬ACΘR) == ‫“ == ּבְׁ מַ לְׁ כּותָׁ ְך‬as king” (Dalman WJ, I, 109). The reading εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου
(only BL lat) arose when the Semitism was no longer understood and βασιλεία was mistakenly regarded as a spatial
kingdom.
49 The vl. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἐλεύσεώς σου D confirms that the petition refers to the parousia.
50 To obviate contradiction of the doctrine of a descent into Hades (→ 771, 37 ff.) the σήμερον has occasionally been
dropped or related to what precedes (cf. Zn. Lk., ad loc.), though on the latter view it is superfluous. The D reading θάρσει,
σήμερον κτλ. confirms its relation to what follows.
51 Str.-B., III, 534: Zn. Lk., ad loc.; Schl. Lk., ad loc.
52 Lk. 23:43 says nothing about its location. It simply rules out any idea that, to avoid contradiction with the doctrine of the
descent, one can seek it in Hades, so H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu2 (1901), 153; Gan Eden is never set in Hades, Str.-B., II,
227.
53 The ref. of the word παράδεσος to the hidden Paradise in which Jesus stays until the parousia certainly corresponds to the
view of Lk. The question is whether an older. purely eschatological sense lies behind it. If so, παράδεισος is the
eschatological Paradise and the thief is promised a share in the imminent new creation. The σήμερον, after the analogy of the
“three days” of Mk. 14:58, is then fig.
b. ben, when between the personal and family names of rabbis.
c. circa.
S. Dt. Sifre Deuteronomium, Tannaitic Midrash on Deuteronomy (Strack, Einl., 200 f.).
54 M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte d. Ev.2 (1933), 204, n. 1; Dib. Ph.3, 69.
55 Michel, 13, 20 f.
56 Dib. Ph.3, 68. Argument from silence, for otherwise he would not have given the. disturbed Thessalonian church the
teaching about the departed in 1 Th, 4:13–18.
57 Jeremias, 194–201 (with bibl.).
58 G. Bertram, “Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuz aus u. der Glaube an seine Auferstehung,” Festschr. A. Deissmann (1927),
187–217. But for the sake of clarity one should not speak of an “ascension” from the cross, since Lk. 23:43 (unlike Ac. 1:9)
does not refer to a physical ascent.
59 J. Kroll, Gott u. HöIle (1932).
60 Jeremias, 201.
61 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), esp. 19–21, 52 f., 68 f., 74.
par. parallel.
62 → I, 141, 14 ff.; Daniélou, 8 f.
63 The bread of life, Jn. 6; the water of life, Jn. 4:10–14; 7:37. Probably one should also refer to Mk. 7:27–29 in this
connection: The Syrophoenician woman is not approved by Jesus because she is quick witted, but because in her answer
(7:28) she accepts the fact that Jesus dispenses the bread of life. It is an open question whether comparison with Jn. 6 justifies
the conclusion that the one bread of Mk. 8:14 is Jesus. the bread of life.
64 Pl. uses the Adam/Christ typology (→ I, 141 ff.) to depict the concept of the restitution of creation by Christ which the
Gospels express with the help of the symbolism of the garden of God.
65 Iren. Haer., V, 33, 3 f.; cf. J. Jeremias, Unbekannte Jesusworte (1951), 15. The closest par. is in S. Bar. 29:5, though it
goes much beyond this.
Joachim Jeremias Joachim Jeremias, Greifswald (Vol. 1), Göttingen (Vol. 2–7).
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
SIG
SIG = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, editio tertia, Leipzig 1915–24 [Hildesheim 1960]. (SIG2 =
editio altera, 1898–1901.)
X
Xenophon Historicus [X.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
125
ib
ib. = ibidem (i.e. in the same work)
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
Thphr
Theophrastus Philosophus [Thphr.]
iv/iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
AJA
AJA = American Journal of Archaeology, second series, 1897–.
Lxx
Vetus Testamentum Graeca redditum [LXX]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Plu
Plutarchus Biographus et Philosophus [Plu]
i/ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
PRev.Laws
PRev.Laws = B. P. Grenfell, Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford 1896; re-edited by J. Bingen in SB Beiheft 1,
Göttingen 1952.
PCair.Zen
PCair.Zen. = C. C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri, 4 vols. (Catal. gén. des Antiq. égypt. du Musée du Caire, 79) 1925–31: digits
indicating 59(000) omitted in refs., thus 2 = 59002; vol v: O. Guéraud, P. Jouguet, Cairo 1940 nos. (59)801–(59)853
[Hildesheim 1971, all 5 vols.].
OGI
OGI = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1903–5 [Hildesheim 1970].
CIG
CIG = A. Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin 1828–77.
PFay
PFay. = B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, D. G. Hogarth, Fayûm Towns and their Papyri, London 1900.
126
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
pl
pl. = plural
AS
AS = Anatolian Studies, Journal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1951– (Anat.St. in LSJ).
expl
expl., expld. = explanation, explained
Procl.ad Hes
Proclus Philosophus [Procl.]
v A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Com.Adesp
Comica Adespota [Com.Adesp.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Poll
Pollianus Epigrammaticus [Poll.]
ii A.D.(?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Phot
Photius Lexicographus, etc. [Phot.]
ix A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Avest
Avest. = Avestan
i
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996."
(Rev. and augm. throughout /) (Page 1308). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
OT Old Testament.
NT New Testament.
1 Busolt, 153 and n. 2; cf. also C. Schuchhardt, “Hof, Burg u. Stadt bei Germanen u. Griechen,” N. Jbch. Kl. Alt., 11 (1908),
308f. and O. Schrader-A. Nehring, Art. “Stadt,” Reallex. d. indogermanischen Altertumskunde2, II (1929), 433 f.
Thuc. Thucydides, of Athens (c. 460–396 B.C.), the classic historian of the Greeks, who as a contemporary wrote a history of
the Peloponnesian War, ed. C. Hude, 1898 ff.
127
2 Thuc., II, 15, 1–4 explains this on the ground that later Athens was founded by a ξυνοικισμός of the other towns of Attica
enforced by Theseus; the Acropolis was, however, the oldest and at first the only part of the city.
3 Cf. E. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums, III (1937), 271 f.
4 Thuc., II, 15, 2 offers a definition of this word: Theseus καταλύσας τῶν ἄλλων πόλεων τά τε βουλευτήρια καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐς
τὴν νῦν πόλιν ὀ͂σαν, ἓν βουλευτήριον ἀποδείξας καὶ πρυτανεῖον, ξυνῴκισε πάντας Cf. on this R. Pöhlmann, Gr. Gesch.,
Hndbch AW, III, 45 (1914), 59 f.; Busolt, 154–160; Meyer, op. cit., 271, 303.
5 J. H. H. Schmidt, Synonymik d. gr. Sprache, II (1878), 496. Cf. also E. Kornemann, “Polis und Urbs,” Klio, 5 (1905), 77 f.
6 Fabricius, 1983.
class. classical.
7 Meyer, op. cit., 271.
8 This is not to dispute the fact that πόλις was originally the fortified refuge near a manor to which the residents and the
population connected therewith would flee in times of danger, cf. esp. Schuchhardt, op. cit. For this stronghold associated
with the manor was a given political centre. Linguistically, however, the political element became more and more prominent
as compared with the original sense.
Gk. Greek.
9 Schmidt, op. cit., 500.
Hom. Homer, of Chios (?), the classical Greek epic poet, around whose name were grouped the older epics of the Ionians in
the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., ed. G. Monro and T. W. Allen, 1908 ff.
Il. Iliad.
Od. Odyssey.
10 For examples cf. Busolt, 154, n. 7.
11 Schmidt, 498. This is not clear in the older lex. Cf. Etym. Gud., s.v.: πόλις καὶ ἄστυ διαφέρει. πόλις μὲν λέγεται τὸ
οἰκοδόμημα, ἄστυ δὲ ἡ κατασκευὴ τῆς πόλεως. πόλις λέγεται τὸ πολίτευμα, ἄστυ δὲ τὸ τεῖχος.—πόλις καὶ ἄστυ διαφέρει,
πόλις μὲν ὁ τόπος καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες, ἤγουν τῶν συναμφοτέρων· ἄστυ δὲ μόνον ὁ τόπος. Etym. M., s.v.: πόλις σημαίνει
δύο· τὰ κτίσματα … καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸν λαόν.
Plat. Plato, of Athens (428/7–348/7 B.C.), ed. J. Burnet, 1905.
Prot. Protagoras.
Apol. Apologia.
Eur. Euripides, of Salamis nr. Athens (480–406 B.C.), tragic dramatist and philosopher of the stage, ed. G. Murray, 1901 ff.
Fr. Fragmenta (-um).
TGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck, 1889.
Aristot. Aristotle, of Stageiros (c. 384–322 B.C.), with his teacher Plato the greatest of the Greek philosophers and the founder
of the peripatetic school, quoted in each case from the comprehensive edition of the Academia Regia Borussica, 1831 ff.
Pol. Politica.
12 On the numerical proportions cf. Busolt, 165–169.
mid. middle.
13 Cf. Debr. Gr. Wortb., 106 f.; E. Fraenkel, Gr. Denominativa (1906), 183, 197.
Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian, described as early as Cicero as the father of
history. His work deals with the conflicts between the Greeks and the barbarians from earliest times to the Persian Wars, ed.
H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.
esp. especially.
14 Strictly speaking the act., as in other cases and esp. with words in —εύω, denotes a state in which a man finds himself
whereas the mid. denotes the related action or conduct. πολιτεύω “I am a citizen,” πολιτεύομαι “I live and act as a citizen,”
cf. Kühner-Blass-Gerth, II, 1, 112; Schwyzer, II, 239.
Demosth. Demosthenes, of Athens (384–322 B.C.), ed. F. Blass, 1903 ff.
Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical, philosophical and scholarly
works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.
Hist. Historia Graeca.
Andoc. Andocides, one of the ten Attic orators of the end of the 5th century B.C. The most interesting of his four extant
speeches is that On the Mysteries (399 B.C.), ed. F. Blass, 1906; W. J. Hickie, 1915.
Cyrop. Cyropaedia.
Resp. Respublica.
Aeschin. Aeschines, Athenian orator and politician (c. 390–314 B.C.), who gained fame by opposing Demosthenes. The
letters ascribed to him are not authentic, ed. F. Blass, 1896.
Tim. Oratio in Timarchum.
Epict. Epictetus, Phrygian slave of Hierapolis in the days of Nero (50–130 A.D.), freed at the imperial palace, Stoic of the
younger school and preacher of ethics tinged with religion. From his lectures his pupil Arrian collected 8 books of diatribes
which have been preserved, ed. H. Schenkl2, 1916.
Diss. Dissertation.
128
15 Cf. also Wilcken Ptol., I, 482, No. 110, 77 f.
Ditt. Syll. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, 1898 ff.;3, 1915 ff.
pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted.
16 For examples cf. Preisigke Wört., III, 41 f.
Hesych. Hesychius, of Alexandria (5th century A.D.), lexicographer, ed. M. Schmidt, 1858 ff.
s.v. sub voce.
17 Cf. R. Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci (1873), 13: οἶδα μὲν ὡς εὐσεβῶς ζῇς καὶ σεμνῶς πολιτεύῃ καὶ τῇ τῆς ἀνεπιλήπτου
τε καὶ ἁγνῆς πολιτείας ἀρετῇ τὸ περιβόητον αὐτὸ τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοσμεῖς ὄνομα.
66 There are rich materials in Bieder, 70–78; E. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus. Practice and Theory (1938), and
on this G. Bertram, “Philo als politisch-theol. Propagandist des spätantiken Judt.,” ThLZ, 64 (1939), 193–199; cf. also H.
Leisegang, “Der Ursprung der Lehre Augustins von der civitas dei,” Archiv f. Kulturgeschichte, 16 (1925), 127–158.
Ep. Ar. Epistle of Aristeas, apocryphal Jewish account of the origin of the LXX (2nd or 1st century B.C.), ed. P. Wendland,
1900.
65 On the usage cf. Ep. Ar., 31 and the foundation inscr. of the synagogue in Stobi, where it is said of the founder that he is
πολιτευσάμενος πᾶσαν πολιτείαν κατὰ τὸν Ἰουδαϊσμόν. Cf. H. Lietzmann, “Die Synagogeninschr. in Stobi,” ZNW, 32
(1933), 93–95, who dates it in the 2nd or 3rd cent. A.D.; also E. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (1934),
79 f., 81, n. 1: “This expression seems … to have been favoured among Jewish writers for designating Jewish life according
to the Jewish Law.”
18 Cf. Wilcken Ptol., I, 625, No. 144, 12 ff. (2nd cent. B.C.); “πολιτεύεσθαι here refers, not to civic conduct, but to the walk
before the deity,” ibid., 627, ad loc.
19 Wilcken Ptol., I, 627 can give only late instances which were under biblical influence, from the NT, Ep. Ar., 31 and the
fathers.
Plut. Plutus.
Polyb. Polybius, of Megalopolis, in Arcadia (c. 210–120 B.C.), hostage of Rome in 167, general and statesman, and the
greatest historian of Hellenism. In 40 books he depicts in essentials the rise of Roman world dominion in the period 221–168
B.C., ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, 1905.
20 Cf. J. Schweighaeuser, Polybii Historiae, VIII, 2 Lexicon Polybianum (1795), s.v.
21 There are no examples to prove that in the koine πολιτεύεσθαι was often a whittled down expression for private conduct
(Loh. Phil., 74; also Mich. Ph. on 1:27; more cautiously Dib. Ph. on 1:27). The note in Schmidt, Polis, 5, n. 5 that Wettstein
on Phil. 1:27 gives many instances (from Xenoph., Jewish-Hell. authors etc.) of πολιτεύεσθαι in the sense “to live,” “to
walk,” is misleading. All the examples adduced by Wettstein are from the Hell.-Jewish or Chr. sphere. In the only exception
(Xenoph.Cyrop., I, 1, 1) the word does not mean “to walk.” Nor does it mean this in P. Hibeh, I, 63, 11, where the ref. of
πολιτεύεσθαι ἀλλήλοις is to commercial dealings (→ n. 22). Again in the inscr. in Ditt. Syll.3, II, 708, 24 f. (end of the 2nd
cent. B.C.) εὐσεβέστατα καὶ κάλλιστα πολιτεύεσθαι refers, not to general conduct, but to public work for the welfare of the
city Istropolis. There remains only the ref. given in → n. 18, cf. Deissmann B., 211. But here the proof of a pious walk is
found primarily in loyalty to an agreement.
22 Cf. Preisigke Wört. on πολιτεύεσθαι.
Ditt. Or. W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones, 1902 ff.
Mem. Memorabilia Socratis.
Tim. Timaeus.
23 Cf H. Ryffel, Μεταβολὴ τῶν πολιτειῶν. Der Wandel der Staatsverfassnngen. Untersuchungen zn einem Problem der gr.
Staatstheorie, Diss. Bern (1949).
Athen. Athenaeus, of Naucratis, at the end of the 2nd century B.C., whose Feast of Sophists is a formless but valuable hook of
extracts of the type of variegated writing so common in later antiquity, ed. G. Kaibel, 1887 ff.
Stob. Johannes Stobaeus, named after his home-town Stoboi in Macedonia (5th century A.D.), author of an anthology of
extracts from Greek poets and prose writers, ed. C. Wachsmuth and O. Hense, 1884 ff., quoted by the volumes (I–IV) and
pages.
Ecl. Ecloge.
24 The ref. adduced by Pr.-Bauer4 on πολιτεία : ἕως ἀγανακτήσαντα τὰ στοιχεῖα τῷ μονάρχῳ θεῷ ἐντυχεῖν ἐδοκίμαζον ὑπὲρ
τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀγρίου πολιτείας (Stob.Ecl., I, 403, 9 ff.), is not pertinent here. It refers to wars, murders, suppression, so
that πολιτεία means “political action” rather than “walk,” “manner of life.”
25 Cf. Fraenkel, op. cit., 228; W. Ruppel. “Politeuma. Bedeutungsgeschichte eines staatsrechtlichen Terminus,” Philol., 82
(1927), 268–312, 433–454, where the literary and epigraphical material is assembled and discussed. Cf. also L. Fuchs, Die
Juden Aegyptens in ptolemäischer u. römischer Zeit (1924), 79, 86. M. Engers, “Πολίτευμα,” Mnemosyne, 54 (1926), 154–
161 is important for the use in the pap.
26 Cf. Kühner-Blass-Gerth I, 2, 272: Debr. Gr. Wortb., 157; Schwyzer, I, 522: “Later fundamentally nomina rei actae (in
contrast to —υός and —σις), they (neuters in -μα) are already used earlier to denote things as well.”
27 Further examples in Ruppel, op. cit., 289 f., esp. from Plut.
Leg. Leges.
129
Pol. Politicus.
28 Cf. Ruppel, 275–279, 291. Cf. also Ditt. Or., I, 332 (2nd cent. B.C.), 229, 60 and 72 (3rd cent. B.C.).
29 Examples from the lit. and inscr. in Ruppel, 290, 297 f. Cf. also Engers, op. cit., 154, n. 3. The main instance is Ditt.
Syll.3, I, 543, 6 and 32: ἕως ἂν οὖν καὶ ἑτέρους ἐπινοήσωμεν ἀξίους τοῦ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πολιτεύματος and Ῥωμαῖοι … τοὺς
οἰκέτας … προσδεχόμενοι εἰς τὸ πολίτευμα (3rd cent. B.C.).
Jos. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
Ant. Antiquitates.
30 Cf. on this Fuchs, op. cit., 79 and 86.
31 CIG, III, 5361, 21 f.; cf. Schürer, III 4, 79 f.
32 Cf. Ditt. Or., II, 592, 1; 658, 3; 737, 3 and 19. There has been much discussion of the character of these πολιτεύματα, cf.
Engers, 155 and Ruppel, 299–306, with bibl.
33 W. Otto, Kulturgeschichte des Altertums (1925), 90.
34 F. Baumgarten, F. Poland, R. Wagner, Die hell.-röm. Kultur (1913), 13 f.
35 Plato in Resp., II, 369/370 shows how the state grew out of a ξυνοικία which was based on the need and possibility of
mutual help, and how increasing cultural development was the result.
36 Kaerst, 37.
37 Thus for Aristot. the kingdom of Philip was no more a state than that of Darius, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Staat, 25.
38 Pohlenz, Staatsgedanke, 10; J. Heinemann, Philons gr. u. jüd. Bildung (1932), 431, n. 2.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz,
1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Eum. Eumenides.
39 J. G. Droysen and W. Nestle, Aischylos. Die Tragödien u. Fr. (1944), 327. Further examples from the poets and
philosophers cannot be given here. The strong moral content of the Gk. view of the state has been impressively described by
Kaerst. 1–52. Cf. also Bultmann, Verständnis.
40 Cf. R. Pöhlmann, Gesch. d. antiken Kommunismus u. Sozialismus, I (1893), 269–476; A. Dyroff, Ethik der alten Stoa
(1897), 215.
Alex. Fort. Virt. De Alexandri Fortuna aut Virtute.
41 Pöhlmann, op. cit. (→ n. 40), 617; E. Zeller, Philosophie d. Griechen, III, 14 (1909), 302; Dyroff. op. cit., 213–216.
Stoic. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis.
v. J. v. Arnim, Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta, 1921 f.
42 Cf. Clem. Al.Strom., IV, 172, 2; Plut.Comm. Not., 34 (II, 1076 f.); Epict.Diss., II, 5, 26; 10, 3; Sen. De otio, 4, 1; Dio
Chrys.Or., 36, 22 f.; M. Ant., VI, 44. Chrysipp. in H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (1929), 465, 14; on this Dyroff 215 and n. 2.
Heb. Hebrew.
43 For a list cf. Schmidt, Polis, 1–11.
transl. transitive.
44 So Hatch-Redp., s.v. κώμη and s.v. ‫( עִ יר‬Suppl., 254d).
plur. plural.
45 Cf. P. Volz, Bibl. Altertümer (1914), 446–449; R. Kittel, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, II6 (1925), 44–48, 170–178.
46 The words ἀριστοκρατία, δημοκρατία, ὀχλοκρατία do not occur in the LXX. Τυραννίς occurs in the Gk. apocr. a few
times, but not in combination with πόλις.
47 Cf. Heinemann, op. cit., 185.
48 Cf. A. Bertholet, Kulturgeschichte Israels (1919), 34 f.
v. verse.
49 On Jerusalem cf. G. Dalman, “Jerusalem u. sein Gelände,” BFTh, 2, 19 (1930), 284, 285; J. Simons, Jerusalem in the OT
(1952). For the way in which, in defiance of its geographical situation, Jerusalem acquired this (primarily political)
importance through an act of David based on political considerations, cf. A. Alt, “Jerusalems Aufstieg,” ZDMG, 79 (1925),
1–19.
Mas. Masora.
50 With no mention of causing His name to dwell there. But cf. 3 Βας. 9:3: The Lord has sanctified the temple, τοῦ θέσθαι τὸ
ὄνομά μου ἐκεῖ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, and 11:36 ἐν Ιερουσαλημ τῇ πόλει, ἣν ἐξελεξάμην ἐμαυτῷ τοῦ θέσθαι ὄνομά μου ἐκεῖ, and 4
Βας. 21:4 ἐν Ιερουσαλημ θήσω τὸ ὄνομά μου. Yet we find the same deviation from the Mas. in 2 Ch. 12:13.
Ap. Contra Apionem.
Philo Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.–50 A.D.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland.
Som. De Somniis.
51 Str.-B., I, 150; Schürer, I, 762. Worth noting is that Jos. and Philo have ἱερὰ πόλις rather than the ἁγία πόλις of the bibl.
authors. The adj. ἱερός is almost never used in the LXX; it comes in only in the Hell. works 1 Εσδρ. and Macc. Obviously the
LXX translators regarded ἱερός as too freighted with pagan cultic ideas to be a possible rendering of ‫קָׁ דֹוש‬, → ἱερός, III, 226–
229. The usage of Jos. and Philo is to be seen as a Hell. concession.
130
52 Cf. also on what follows A. Causse, “Le mythe de la nouvelle Jérusalem du Dt.-Esaie à la IIIe Sibylle,” RevHPhR, 18
(1938), 377–414.
par. parallel.
53 Cf. Bousset-Gressm., 242–286; Volz Esch., 371–376; Weber, 390–400.
54 W. Staerk, “Altjüd. liturgische Gebete,” KIT, 58 (1910), 13. The form of the text does not force us to assume that it was
composed only after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Cf. on this Bousset-Gressm., 177.
55 Staerk, op. cit., 20.
56 We are to read ναόν with the Syr. (rather than λαόν with the Gk.), cf. V. Ryssel, ad loc. (Kautzsch Apkr. u. Pseudepigr.),
who also refers to 49:12 and 50:5.
Ps. Sol. Psalms of Solomon, Pharisaic collection of the 1st century B.C., consisting of 18 songs, ed. O. Gebhardt, 1895.
57 Examples in Str.-B., III. 144 f., 153–155 on R. 3:9.
Sib. Sibyllines, the Sibylline Oracles in 14 books, collected in the 5th or 6th century A.D. for the propagation of Judaism or
Christianity, composed at various periods, and predominantly Jewish but partly Christian in derivation.
Rabb. Rabbis,
58 Examples ibid., IV, 923–925.
59 Examples ibid., IV, 884 f., 929–937. For further bibl. on the “heavenly Jerusalem” cf. Ltzm. Gl. on 4:25 and Rgg. Hb. on
11:10 and 356, n. 17.
60 In Nu. 4:18 πολιτῶν B* is a slip for Λευιτῶν.
61 It may be expressly noted that the familiar ψ 38:13 (“I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were”)
has the more accurate Gk. transl.: πάροικος (‫ )גֵר‬ἐγώ εἰμι παρὰ σοὶ καὶ παρεπίδημος (‫)תֹושָׁ ב‬.
62 So A. Kamphausen in Kautzsch Apkr. u. Pseudepigr., transl. ad loc.
63 Cf. Schl. Theol. d. Judt., 89 f., 252–263; G. Hölscher, Art. “Jos.” in Pauly-W., 9 (1916), 1934–2000.
64 In Pr.-Bauer4 s.v. πολιτεύομαι this passage is erroneously adduced as an example of “to lead his life,” “to behave,” “to
walk.”
Vit. Vita.
Bell. Bellum Judaicum.
Op. Mund. De Opificio Mundi.
Conf. Ling. De Confusione Linguarum.
Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus.
Vit. Cont. De Vita Contemplativa.
Vit. Mos. De Vita Mosis.
Jos. De Josepho.
Migr. De Migratione Abrahami.
67 Cf. H. Strathmann, Gesch. der frühchr. Askese, I (1914), 141.
Sacr. AC. De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini.
Omn. Prob. Lib. Quod omnis Probus Liber sit.
Agric. De Agricultura.
Abr. De Abrahamo.
Deus Imm. Quod Deus sit Immutabilis.
Decal. De Decalogo.
68 On the position of ἄρχοντες or στρατηγοί cf. J. Weiss, Art. “Macedonien,” RE3, 12 (1903), 39. On πολιτάρχης cf.
Jackson-Lake, I, 4 on Ac. 17:6: “πολιτάρχης is mainly if not exclusively a Macedonian title for the non-Roman magistrates of
a city.” On inscr. the title occurs almost exclusively in Macedonia and neighbouring territories, cf. the collection of materials
in E. D. Burton, “The Politarchs,” American Journal of Theology, 2 (1898), 598–632. The number of politarchs varied from 2
to 6 in individual cities of Macedonia.
69 Antonyms of πόλις are ἐρημία in 2 C. 11:26; ἔρημος τόπος κατ᾽ ἰδίαν in Mt. 14:13; κῶμαι καὶ ἀγροί in Mk. 6:56; κῶμαι in
Mt. 9:35; 10:11; Lk. 8:1; 13:22; τόπος in the sense of “inhabited place” (εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ τόπον οὗ ἤμελλεν … ἔρχεσθαι,
Lk. 10:1); οἰκία in Mt. 10:14; 12:25 cf. Ac. 12:10.
70 Cf. Schürer, II4, 95, 227–229; also K. Galling, Art. “Stadtanlagen,” Bibl. Reallexikon 1937), 496.
71 It need hardly be shown that the ref. in Rev. 11:2 is to the Palestinian Jerusalem.
s. similitudines.
72 This antithesis, however, bears no relation whatever to the pseudo-idealism of Philo. For it is not cosmologically
speculative, as in Philo’s doctrine of the logos. It is eschatological, and oriented to salvation history. The idea that Hb. uses
the image of the heavenly Jerusalem unrestrictedly for the civitas dei in Philo’s sense (Leisegang, op. cit. [→ n. 66], 158)
rests on a misunderstanding.
c. chapter.
73 The figure 12 is schematic so that one need not ask who the twelfth is.
74 The ἐνδώμησις is the material; one need not think in terms of the substructure Pr.-Bauer4, s.v. The θεμέλιοι are the
foundation.
131
75 Cf. D. H. McQueen, “The New Jerusalem and Town Planning,” Exp., IX, 2 (1924), 220–226.
76 On this cf. esp. F. Boll, Aus d. Offenbarung d. Joh., Hell. Studien zum Weltbild d. Apk. (1914). 39 f.; Bss. Apk. on 21:9 ff.;
Had. Apk. on 21:9 ff. These ref. are not discussed in Zn. Apk. Cf. also R. Knopf, “Die Himmelsstadt,” Nt.liche Studien.
Festschr. f. G. Heinrici (1914), 213–219; F. Dijkema, “Het hemelsch Jeruzalem,” Niew Theol. Tijdschrift, 15 (1926), 25–43,
which adds support to the thesis of H. Gunkel that Christianity was a syncretistic religion.
77 To be read rather than λαοί.
78 Leisegang’s view (→ n. 72) overlooks the eschatological character of the NT statements.
Vg Vulgate.
79 Civitas is the ordinary word for town in popular Latin, Thes. Ling. Lat., III, 1232–1234.
Civ. D. De Civitate Dei.
80 Cf. on this Leisegang, op. cit. (→ n. 66), 127–158. Acc. to him Aug. is here dependent on philosophical influences
mediated through Ambrose. W. Kamlah, Christentum u. Geschichtlichkeit. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung d. Christentums
u. zu Augustins “Bürgerschaft Gottes” (1951), 155–174.
Aug. Aurelius Augustinus, of Thagaste, Numidia (354–430 A.D.), ed. in MPL, 32–47, 1845; ed. by different editors in Corpus
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 1887 ff.
81 Cf. F. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte5 (1950), 330–334; R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch d. Dogmengesch., II3
(1923), 472–482.
82 Cf. Jackson-Lake, I, 4 on 23:1. That this usage occurs in the koine as well as Hell. Judaism is often asserted, but thus far
no examples have been adduced.
83 “The NT manifests no ideal of a πολιτεία such as that projected by Gk. philosophy and Stoicism,” Bultmann, Verständnis,
69. It is thus more interested in the state as a concrete phenomenon; one need only refer to R. 13:1–7 and similar passages in
proof of this. Since πόλις is not used for state, however, this aspect need not be discussed here.
84 On the protection of Roman citizens against degrading punishments in Roman penal law cf. O. Holtzmann, Nt. liche
Zeitgeschichte2 (1906), 90 f.; also T. Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht (1899), 31, n. 3, 47: Jackson-Lake, I, 4 on Ac. 22:15 ff.:
Liv.,3, 56; 10, 9 (with ref. to the Leges Porciae et Valeriae); Cic.Verr., II, 5, 62 f., 66. Here we find the frequently quoted
saying: Facinus est vincire civem Romanum, scelus verberare, prope parricidium necare.
85 Cf. Haupt Gefbr., ad loc.
86 The Lutheran transl. “our walk is in heaven,” like the Vg (nostra autem conversatio in caelis est, cf. A.V.) on which it is
based, is philologically unsound. Hence the revisions of 1938 and 1956 rightly replace it by “our homeland is in heaven” (cf.
R.S.V., N.E.B.).
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
Dg. Epistle to Diognetus.
Mart. Martyrium.
Pol. Polycarpi.
Strathmann Hermannn Strathmann, Erlangen (Vol. 2–4, 6).
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
Ep
Ep. = Epice, in the Epic dialect
sts
sts. = sometimes
Trag
Trag. = Tragic, Tragedy, in the language of the Tragic writers
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
v
132
v. = vide; also voce or vocem
acc
acc. = accusative
sg
sg. = singular
Hes
Hesiodus Epicus [Hes.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Call
Callimachus poeta [Call.]
iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Oxy
Oxy. = POxy., q.v. (III)
gen
gen. or genit. = genitive
Il
Ilias [Il.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
al
al. = alibi (i.e. elsewhere in the same author)
Thgn
Theognis Elegiacus [Thgn.]
vi B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
dat
dat. = dative
Tyrt
133
Tyrtaeus Elegiacus [Tyrt.]
vii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
pl
pl. = plural
nom
nom. = nominative
Od
Odyssea [Od.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
IG
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. See Complete Listing.
disyll
disyll. = disyllable
trisyll
trisyll. = trisyllable
s.v.l
s. v. l. = si vera lectio
Aristarch
Aristarchus Grammaticus [Aristarch.]
iii/ii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Ion
Ion. = Ionic
GDI
GDI = Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, ed, H. Collitz et alii, Göttingen 1884–1915.
Xenoph
Xenophanes Poeta Philosophus [Xenoph.]
vi/v B.C.
134
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
v.l
v.l., vv.ll. = varia lectio, variae lectiones
ib
ib. = ibidem (i.e. in the same work)
Hdt
Herodotus Historicus [Hdt.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Herod
Herodas Mimographus [Herod.]
iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cj
cj. = conjecture, conjectured by
Hippon
Hipponax Iambographus [Hippon.]
vi B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
An.Ox
Anecdota Graeca
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Thess
Thess. = Thessalian
BCH
BCH = suppl. 8, 9, v. index IV.
SIG
135
SIG = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, editio tertia, Leipzig 1915–24 [Hildesheim 1960]. (SIG2 =
editio altera, 1898–1901.)
usu
usu. = usually
Dor
Dor. = Doric
Pi
Pindarus Lyricus [Pi.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Foed
Foed. = Foedus
Lac
Laco Epigrammaticus
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
ap
ap. = apud (quoted in)
Th
Thucydides Historicus [Th.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Epid
Epid. = Epidaurus
Cret
Cret. = Cretan
Aeol
Aeol. = Aeolic
Alc
Alcaeus Lyricus, iii p. 147 [Alc.]
vii/vi B.C.
136
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Com
Com. = Comedy, Comic, in the language of the Comic writers
exc
exc. = except
Ar
Aristophanes Comicus [Ar.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
A
Aeschylus Tragicus [A.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
lyr
Lyr. = Lyricus, Lyric poetry
S
Sophocles Tragicus [S.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
E
Euripides Tragicus [E.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Att
Att. = Attic dialect
Inscrr
Inscr. = Inscription
Isoc
Isocrates Orator [Isoc.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Aeschin.Socr
137
Aeschines Socraticus Philosophus [Aeschin. Socr.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Choerob
Choeroboscus Grammaticus [Choerob.]
iv/v A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Schwyzer
Schwyzer = E. Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecarum Exempla epigraphica potiora, Leipzig 1923 [Hildesheim 1960].
Hom
Homerus Epicus [Hom.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
ll.cc
ll. cc. = locis citatis
Id
Id. = Idem
X
Xenophon Historicus [X.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
dub
dub., dub. l., dub. sens. = dubious, dubia lectio, dubio sensu
Antipho
Antipho Sophista [Antipho Soph.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Plu
Plutarchus Biographus et Philosophus [Plu]
i/ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Str
138
Strabo Geographus [Str.]
i B.C./i A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Eust
Eustathius Episcopus Thessalonicensis [Eust.]
xii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Lxx
Vetus Testamentum Graeca redditum [LXX]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Hsch
Hesychius Lexicographus [Hsch.]
v A.D.. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
OGI
OGI = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1903–5 [Hildesheim 1970].
Plb
Polybius Historicus [Plb.]
ii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Art
Art. = Article
BGU
BGU = Berliner griechische Urkunden (Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin), Berlin 1895–1983 (15
vols.), [1–9 Milan 1972]).
Lat
Lat. = Latin
orig
orig. = originally
esp
esp. = especially
139
Sch
Sch. = Scholia; see under several authors Sch.Gen.Il., Sch.min.Il., etc, v. Homerus in index I.
Lys
Lysias Orator [Lys.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
decr
Decr. = Decretum
Crater
Craterus Historicus [Crater.]
iv/iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
opp
opp. = opposed to
Simon
Simonides Lyricus [Simon.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Arist
Aristoteles Philosophus [Arist.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Pl
Plato Philosophus [Pl.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
D
Demosthenes Orator [D.]
384–322 B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Berl.Sitzb
Berl.Sitzb. = Sitzungsberichte (Monatsberichte before 1882) der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin) (cited
by year).
140
Cratin
Cratinus Comicus [Cratin.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
perh
perh. = perhaps
Skt
Skt. = Sanskrit
Lith
Lith. = Lithuanian
* οἶκος. A. Fridrichsen, “Ackerbau u. Hausbau,” ThStKr, 94 (1922), 185 f.; also “Exegetisches zu den Paulusbriefen,”
ThStKr, 102 (1930), 291–301; also in Serta Rudbergiana, Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Supplet., IV (1931), 25f.; A.
Deissmann, Paulus2 (1924); H. Jonas, Gnosis u. spätantiker Geist, I (1934); P. Vielhauer, Oikodome, Das Bild vom Bau in d.
chr. Lit. vom NT bis Cl. Al. (1939).
Lat. Latin, latin.
1 Liddell-Scott, 1204 f.
Gk. Greek.
Hom. Homer, of Chios (?), the classical Greek epic poet, around whose name were grouped the older epics of the Ionians in
the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., ed. G. Monro and T. W. Allen, 1908 ff.
2 On Hom. v. H. Ebeling, Lexicon Homericum, II (1880), 34 f.
Il. Iliad.
Od. Odyssey.
Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian, described as early as Cicero as the father of
history. His work deals with the conflicts between the Greeks and the barbarians from earliest times to the Persian Wars, ed.
H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.
Diod. Diodorus Siculus, of Agyrion in Sicily, in the days of Augustus, author of a popular history of the world in 40 books in
his Historical Library, ed. F. Vogel, 1888.
Ditt. Syll. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, 1898 ff.;3, 1915 ff.
3 Ch.Michel, Recueil d’inscr. Grecques (1900), 786 (No. 997, end of the 4th cent. B.C.).
Wilcken U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit, 1922 ff.
transl. transitive.
P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1898 ff.
4 Grenfell-Hunt, 203 recall that Memphis itself is called Ha-t-ka-ptah, “temple of the divine person of Ptah,” obviously after
the main temple in the city. Cf. A. Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Buch (1890), 47; Wilcken Ptol., 367.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz,
1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Eum. Eumenides.
Ag. T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Apostelgeschichte, 1919 ff.
pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted.
P. The Amherst Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1900 ff.
P. The Tebtunis Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell, A. Hunt and others, 1920 ff.
P. Lips. Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig, ed. L. Mitteis, 1906.
P. Gen. Les Papyrus de Genève, ed. J. Nicole, 1896 ff.
P. Greek Papyri in the British Museum, ed. F. G. Kenyon and others, 1893 ff.
P. Ryl. Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library at Manchester, ed. A. Hunt and others, 1911.
Preisigke Wört. F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, 1925 ff.
P. Strassb. Griechische Papyrus der Kaiserlichen Universitäts u. Landesbibliothek zu Strassburg, ed. by F. Preisigke, I
(1912), II (1920).
P. Masp. Papyrus Grecs d’époque Byzantine, ed. J. Maspéro, 1911 ff.
141
Mas. Masora.
5 Cf. Hatch-Redpath, 973–982.
Heb. Hebrew.
6 The well-known command to Noah in Gn. 7:1 runs: εἴσελθε σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, ὅτι σὲ εἶδον δίκαιον
ἐναντίον μου ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ. The LXX rendering οἶκος seems rather weaker than the Heb. ‫אֹ הֶ ל‬: Gn. 9:21, 27; 31:33; Lv.
14:8; Nu. 9:15 (ἐκάλυψεν ἡ νεφέλη τὴν σκηνήν, τὸν οἶκον τοῦ μαρτυρίου).
7 Gn. 28:19 LXX: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Ἰακὼβ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου οἶκος θεοῦ, 28:22: καὶ ὁ λίθος οὗτος, ὃν ἔστησα στήλην,
ἔσται μοι οἶκος θεοῦ …
constr. construction.
8 Hatch-Redp., 969 f.
Damasc. Damascus Document, a Hebrew work discovered in 1910, partly admonitory and partly legal (Halacha) in content,
possibly originating in Hasmonean or Roman times, ed. S. Schechter, 1910.
NT New Testament.
par. parallel.
OT Old Testament.
9 “David takes and eats the forbidden holy bread, the disciples pluck and eat what is permitted but at a forbidden time” (Loh.
Mk., 64). “The οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ is naturally the tabernacle” (Loh., 64, n. 4).
10 The continuation in Is. 56:8 LXX is not without importance: εἶπεν κύριος ὁ συνάγων τοὺς διεσπαρμένους Ἰσραήλ, ὅτι
συνάξω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν συναγωγήν. As compared with Mt. 21:13; Lk. 19:46, Mk. adopts the πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν of Is. 56:7 LXX.
Bultmann Trad., 36, Joh., 87 conjectures that the original story is expanded in Mk. 11:17.
11 Cf. Loh. Mk., 236, n. 1, referring to Abrahams, Stud., I, c. 11.
12 Loh. Mk., 236.
13 In the LXX (as opposed to Rahlfs) this is already an eschatological prophecy which points back to a tradition.
14 ”The ‘Father’s house’ and ‘the kingdom of God’ cannot be separated. The term ‘house’ corresponds to the name ‘father,’
the term ‘kingdom’ to the name ‘king.’ In 8:35, too, the idea of the ‘house of God’ is par. to God’s kingdom even though not
related to heaven" (Schl. J., 292 f.).
15 Lidz. Joh., 54, 179; Ginza R., 376, 25: “I say and declare to you, you souls, which dwell in the perishable house,” cf. Lidz.
Liturg., 4, n. 3. On Gnostic thinking cf. Jonas, 101: “The stay in this world is a ‘dwelling’—with the implication of
changeability as well as confinement—and the world itself is a ‘dwelling’ or ‘house.’ In antithesis to the dwellings of light it
is the ‘lower dwelling,’ the ‘dark dwelling,’ the ‘perishable house.’ In the idea of dwelling there is the sense of a temporary
sojourn which has come about by destiny or choice and which can be ended in principle—one may leave a dwelling,
exchange it for another, or let it perish behind one—and yet with this impermanent aspect there is also the constitutive aspect,
the importance that the place has for life, the reference of existence to it: Life has to dwell somewhere and is linked with the
Where; this is essential to it; it is determined by the Where, that is, it is itself a spatial phenomenon and lives in terms of its
place. Hence it can only exchange dwelling for dwelling, and even life outside the world is dwelling, i.e., in the habitations of
light and life which are an infinity of circumscribed places outside this world. If, however, ‘life’ settles in the world, it can
lead its established temporal relation thereto to the point of becoming a ‘son of (earthly) life’—the danger of dwelling. But
‘you were not from here, your root was not from this world’ (Lidz. Ginza, 379)” It is hardly possible, however, to understand
the distinctive elements of Jn. 8:35 f. in terms of Gnostic thought.
16 Lidz. Joh., 7, n. 5.
17 Cf. Bundehiš <Justi>, 58, 17.
Lidz. Ginza M. Lidzbarski, Ginza, 1925.
18 Lidz. Ginza, 379, 24–27.
19 Ibid., 20, 21 f.
20 Lidz. Ginza, 560, 4–9; a portion of Ginza is called “The Book of Silmai, ‘the lord of the House.’” The term (‫ )מראַביתא‬has
the same meaning as elsewhere in the Mandaean writings; it refers to the Lord of the earthly world. The Evil One can bear
this designation, and Silmai seems to belong to the underworld.
Som. De Somniis.
Herond. Herondas, Greek poet, probably of Cos (c. 250 B.C.), who gives us realistic scenes from everyday life in his Mimes,
of which eight have recently been discovered on papyri, ed. R. Herzog, 1926.
Mim. Mimiambi.
No. number.
Jos. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
Bell. Bellum Judaicum.
21 “We Idumeans will protect the house of God, put ourselves at the head in the fight for the common fatherland, and resist
both enemies from without and traitors from within” (Jos.Bell., 4, 281).
Sobr. De Sobrietate.
Philo Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.–50 A.D.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland.
142
Cher. De Cherubim.
Leg. Leges.
22 “Similarly when one enters into the great palace of the world, and sees the all-embracing vault of heaven moving in a
circle, the planets and fixed stars with their similar, steady, harmonious and rhythmical movement so beneficial to the
universe, one will surely come to the conclusion that all this has not been made without perfect art, but that God was and is
the Creator of all these things. He who draws this conclusion perceives the deity through the shadow, since he moves on from
the works to the Master” (Leg. All., 3, 99). In Gnostic lit. Lidz. Ginza, 379: “The man who brought me here will tell me why
he has brought me. The house in which I dwell will tell me who built it. The seven who live in it will tell me whence they
come.” Related, yet different, are the statements in Hb. 3:1–6 about the οἶκος and the κατασκευάσας αὐτόν.
Det. Pot. Ins. Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari soleat.
Conf. De Confusione Linguarum.
Deu. Quod Deus sit Immutabilis.
Leg. All. Legum Allegoriae.
23 For Philo the wicked man is homeless (φυγάς), without city and house (ἄπολις καὶ ἄοικος), as shown by the example of
Jacob and Esau. “For wickedness, which follows after the passions and full of unreason pursues to rustic boorishness, cannot
inhabit the city of virtue. But Jacob, full of wisdom, is a full citizen (πολίτης) and inhabits virtue as his dwelling (οἰκίαν τὴν
ἀρετὴν κατοικεῖ), for of him it is said: And Jacob was a simple man, who lived in a house” (Leg. All., 3, 2). The inter-relating
of πόλις and οἶκος should be noted here. Cf. also Deus Imm., 94–95 with its association of cities, houses, wells, vineyards
and oliveyards on the basis of Dt. 6:10 ff.: “The general and specific virtues are symbolically depicted as cities and houses,
for the genus (τὸ γένος) may be compared with a city, since it is presented in broader outline and is common to many,
whereas the species (τὸ εἶδος) is like a house, since it is restricted to a smaller space and excludes generality.”
24 Cf. E. Nestle, “Über Zacharias in Mt. 23,” ZNW, 6 (1905), 198–200: “In a small contribution to the Exp. T., 13, 562 I
have shown with ref. to Ez. 8:16; Joel 2:17; 1 Macc. 7:36; Prot. Ev. Jc.;, 23 that ναός (οἶκος is a transl. of ‫אּולָׁם‬, so that there is
no contradiction with 2 Ch. 24 (on the Syr. ‫ קסטרומא‬v. also Merx, ad loc.).” Ez. 8:16 LXX: καὶ ἐσήγαγέν με εἰς τὴν αὐγὴν
οἴκου κυρίου τὴν ἐσωτέραν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν προθύρων τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν αιλαμ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ
θυσιαστηρίου ὡς εἴκοσι ἄνδρες …
25 Cf. the comm. on Ac.; O. Bauernfeind (1939), 118 f.; earlier Wendt (1913), 149, though his own judgment is that “he is
pointing, not to the valuelessness, but to the purely relative value of the temple.” Yet surely Ac. 7:48 is not so restricted.
26 On Is. 66:1 cf. Mt. 5:34 f.
27 Cf. in this sense Ἰερ. 33:6 (26:6): καὶ δώσω τὸν οἶκον τοῦτον ὥσπερ Σηλωμ καὶ τὴν πόλιν δώσω εἰς κατάραν πᾶσιν τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν πάσης τῆς γῆς, Syr. Bar. 8:2 (a voice from within the temple calls): “He who keeps the house has left it.” Though cf.
Jer. 12:7: ἐγκαταλέγοιπα τὸν οἶκόν μου, where the ref. is to the people; Jer. 22:5: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ποιήσητε τοὺς λόγους τούτους,
κατ᾽ ἑμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα, λέγει κύριος, ὅτι εἰς ἐρήμωαιν ἔσται ὁ οἶκος οὗτος. Cf. esp. the great allegory of the house and the
tower in En. 89:50ff. (→ 128): the house is Jerusalem, the tower the temple. The way is already prepared for the equation of
the house and Jerusalem in some prophetic texts, but it is basically apocalyptic. Cf. Test. L. 10: “For the house which the
Lord will choose for himself will be called Jerusalem, as the book of Enoch the Just has it.” Cf. NT Deutsch (Schniewind)
Mt., 231: “The temple will be destroyed; it is also possible that ‘your house’ means ‘your state and people’ (v. on Mk. 3:24
f.); both interpretations fit in with what actually happened in 70 A.D. According to both the saying views the destruction of
Jerusalem and the last judgment together, as in the address on the return which follows in c. 24.”
Test. L. Testament of Levi.
28 H. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis d. NT (1910), 29: “This is the real point where foreign material
entered Judaism in full flood.” “Demonology, which, as the Synoptics show, plays a great role in the age of Jesus, and which
plainly recalls ancient Babylon …” “The priest-exorcist of Babylon also knows how to cast out demons from the sick, and for
this reason, in what became a well-known conjuration, as I learn from H. Zimmerli, he calls himself: ‘He who destroys the
sanctuaries (shrines) which are in the body of the sick.’ Hence wicked demons set up ‘their temple’ in the body of the sick,
cf. Mt. 12:44 f.; 1 C. 3:16; 2 C. 6:16; Eph. 2:22 etc.” In later Judaism cf. b.Chul., 105b; bGit., 52a: (Satan laments concerning
R. Meïr, or the demon of poverty says): “Woe is me, he has driven me out of my house” (quoted in Str.-B., I, 217; 652, and
Kl. Mt., 113).
29 The older comm., in connection with the ‫ ּבַ יִ ת‬of Nu. 12:7, refer to “the whole complex of institutions set up by Yahweh to
guide His people, or His economy of salvation” (Baentsch [1903], 513), or else they speak of the “nation and kingdom in
which Moses has to arrange and rule everything” (Dillmann [1886], 66). But ‫ ּבַ יִ ת‬can hardly be so greatly spiritualised. The
obvious ref. is to Israel as the possession of God: “When an Israelite spoke of his house, he did not refer only to the four
walls of his dwelling, but rather to his children and grandchildren, to his family. Thus the house of God is His community,
His people, the host of those who are bound to Him and whom He has called to be His possession” (Schl. Erl., III, 270). H.
Windisch refers to the tabernacle, to the community established by the pre-historical Jesus, or to the world created by the Son
(cf. PhiloPost. C., 5; Plant., 50; Som., 1, 185; Wnd. Hb., 29). E. Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk (1939), 97 adduces
Gnostic pars. in explanation of this by no means simple οἶκος concept: “the only pt. is that Hb. does not refer to the body of
the Anthropos, but to his house, which is the same in Gnosticism. Thus myth describes the process of redemption as
143
οἰκοδομή; the Anthropos is the οἰκονόμος, and the host of the redeemed are his ‘house’ in the heavenly home, or
proleptically already on earth.” Cf. also H. Schlier, Christus u. d. Kirche im Eph. (1930), 49 f.
30 κατασκευάζειν == “to establish,” “to set up,” cf. Hb. 9:2, 6; 11:7; 1 Pt. 3:20; κατασκευάζειν in relation to a building “to
erect,” Jos.Vit., 65; Ap., I, 127; 193; 228; II, 12. For the divine creating Is. 40:28; 45:7; Wis. 9:2; 11:24; 13:4; Bar. 3:32; 4
Macc. 2:21; PhiloOp. Mund., 149.
31 Schlier, op. cit., 49, n. 1: “That Christ is the ἀκρογωνιαῖος is often maintained in primitive Christian lit. on the basis of Is.
28:16; Ps. 118:22, cf. Ac. 4:11; 1 Pt. 2:4–7; Barn., 6, 2–4; Act. Pt. Verc., 24. How are we to explain it that a Jewish Gnostic
sect gave the same title to Adam? Cf. the Naassene sermon, c. 14. This passage is not a later interpolation (cf. ReitzensteinSchaeder, Studien zum antiken Synkretismus aus Iran u. Griechenland. 1926, 105). Is, then, a title of the Anthropos
transferred to Jesus by the primitive Christian community? As regards Eph. 2:19 ff. this might well be true so far as
investigation has thus far shown, esp. since Is. 28:16 is not really quoted here, but use is simply made of a traditional term
from it (ἀκρογωνιαῖος). As far as the other passages are concerned I leave it an open question.”50: “The term ‘building,’
‘palace,’ or ‘house’ is common in Mandaean lit. for the human body, cf., e.g., LG, 506, 31; 539, 20; 507, 20; 520, 26 ff.; 537,
30; 590, 15; Joh., 242, 12. We also find here refs. to the building of Adam, cf. RG, 242, 25 ff.; 245, 21. It is beyond my
competence to say whether this goes back to Indian speculations, as alleged by L. Troje, ”Ἀδάμ und ζωή,’ SAH, 17. Abh.
(1916), 27 f. But in the present connection we are dealing, not with the earthly body of man, but with the heavenly body of
the Anthropos.” 50: “To find the explanation we seek, it is necessary to recall the ἀνὴρ τέγειος. This is the Anthropos who
dwells in the heavens and to whom believers attain, or whose σῶμα grows. This ἀνὴρ τέλειος is, however, in Act. Arch., 8, 7
(p. 13) the στῦλος τῆς δόξης or στῦλος τοῦ φωτός, the place of light of saved souls, the heavenly building. But this pillar of
light or splendour is also the cloud of light or splendour which is the abode of heavenly beings and which is called the world
of light generally. Here again, however, the heavenly building is erected, or it is itself the abode of the redeemed to which
they return. One may thus see that in the Act. Arch. the Anthropos (i.e., the σῶμα of the Anthropos) is identified as the
heavenly building.” On the one side the NT writings have some points of contact with Gnostic ideas and concepts, as H.
Schlier and E. Käsemann (→ n. 29) can show. But on the other the lit. which has come down to us presupposes Christian
thought and the tradition of Christian Gnosticism. It is thus very hard to delineate the historical background of the NT so far
as the Gnostic sphere is concerned.
32 Cf. Wnd. Kath. Br., 78; NT Deutseh (Hauck) on 1 Pt. 4:17 (III, 202). Str.-B., III, 767 adduces Rabb. pars., cf. Midr. Qoh.
r., 9, 15 (45a): “The men of his age said to Noah: Where will the punishment begin? It will begin at the house of this man
(i.e., at thy house). When Methuselah died, they said to Noah: Has not his punishment begun at the house of this man?” Test.
B. 10: “The Lord will first judge Israel on account of its ungodliness against him … And then he will judge all the Gentiles.”
b.BQ, 60a: “R. Shemuel b. Nachman (c. 260) has said, R. Jonathan (c. 220) has said, A judgment comes only when there are
ungodly in the world, but it begins only with the righteous first …” Thus the prophetic legacy lives on in the Rabb. as in
apocalyptic, though it is set in a new light by the Christ event of the NT.
33 A. Wilhelm, “Beiträge zur gr. Inschriftenkunde,” Sonderheft d. Österr. Arch. Institutes, VII (1909), 51; M. Fränkel, Rhein.
Museum, 57 (1902), 153, 1; Inschr. von Magnesia, 94, 5 ff.: ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας [ἧς ἔχ]ων διατελεῖ εἴς τε τὸν οἶκον τὸν
ἱερὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ[ν δῆμον].
34 Rightly perceived by B. Weiss, Die Briefe Pauli an Timotheus u. Titus (1902), 152 n.; also Schl. Past., 111 f.
35 En. 89:56 is quoted in Barn., 16, 5: καὶ ἔσται ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, καὶ παραδώσει κύριος τὰ πρόβατα τῆς νομῆς καὶ
τὴν μάνδραν καὶ τὸν πύργον αὐτῶν εἰς καταφθοράν (ἡ μάνδρα: from Soph., also pap., LXX == “hurdle,” “pen,” cf. Pr.Bauer3, s.v.).
36 One cannot be sure who are the three sheep; Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah (or Ezra) are mentioned. Cf. Schürer, III,
199.
37 “En. 90 speaks particularly explicitly of the new ‘house’; the direct divine origin, but not a preceding heavenly existence
of the house, is maintained.” “This house is Jerusalem, not just the temple, since the whole depiction fits the place of the
saved community better than a single building.” “Nevertheless, Jerusalem and the temple merge into a single picture in this
section” (Volz Esch., 373).
38 For an analysis of the text cf. Volz Esch., 26, 75 etc. “Probably the ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος is to be detached
from what immediately precedes and regarded as a direct continuation of, or explanatory addition to, the μέχρι χρόνου of v.
4. Thus the return from captivity and the rebuilding of Jerusalem would take place when the times of the aeon are fulfilled”
(26).
Rabb. Rabbis,
Chag. Chagiga, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Feasts (in relation to pilgrimages) (Strack, Einl., 44).
39 R. Jehuda said in the name of Rab: “He who adorns himself with the mantle of a scribe without being a scribe will not be
brought into the circle of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is written here: He does not dwell, and it is written there (Ex.
15:13): Unto the habitation of thy sanctuary” (bBB, 98a). On this whole section cf. Weber, 162–165. Cf. En. 14:10 (οἶκος
μέγας); 14:15 (οἶκος μείζων) of the dwelling-place of God.
40 “This is no objection, the one refers to the inner rooms and the other to the outer, b.Chag., 5b with ref. to 1 Ch. 16:27:
“Beauty and glory are before him; strength and gladness in his dwelling-place.”
144
41 On the text cf. H. Odeberg. 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (1938). Cf. the concept of the divine household: ‫פמליא‬
== ‫פְׁ מַ לְׁ יָׁא‬, familia. Odeberg translates “heavenly household.” 3 En. 27:2; 28:9; 30:1 speaks of a great synagogue in the highest
heaven (Araboth-Raqia) under the direction of God and made up of the most important angels.
42 It seems to me that the importance of the οἶκος and familia in the structure of the Christian community has not yet been
fully recognised, though there is ref. to it in J. Jeremias, Hat die ältesie Christenheft die Kindertaufe geübi? (1938), 15.
Paul’s admonitions and the household tables call for consideration. J. Weiss, Urchristentum (1917), 486 thinks these house
churches are of the nature of conventicles, but this is not the meaning. We have here a natural growth of congregations which
runs counter to the individualistic process of disintegration.
43 Cf. Dib. Past., 33 f.: “The inference from house to office is also found in Gk. paraenesis, v. Isocrates Ad Nicoclem, 19
(text not very certain): οἴκει τὴν πόλιν ὁμοίως ὥσπερ τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον ταῖς μὲν κατασκευαῖς λαμπρῶς καὶ βασιλικῶς, ταῖς
δὲ πράξεσιν ἀκριβῶς, ἵν᾽ εὐδοκιμῇς ἅμα καὶ διαρκῇς, Ps.-Isoc. Ad Demonicurn. 35: ὅταν ὑπὲρ σεαυτοῦ μέλλῃς τινὶ
συμβούλῳ χρῆσθαι, σκόπει πρῶτον πῶς τὰ ἑκυτοῦ διῴκησεν. ὁ γὰρ κακῶς διανοηθεὶς περὶ τῶν οἰκείων οὐδέποτε καλῶς
βουλεύσεται περὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, cf. also Euphr. Fr., q, III, p, 320, Kock: ὁ γὰρ τὸν ἴδιον οἰκονομῶν κακῶς βίον, πῶς οὗτος
ἂν σώσειε τῶν ἔξω τινά.” At this pt., then, the Past. adopt the widespread popular wisdom of Hellenism.
Ign. Ignatius.
Sm. ad Smyrnaeos.
Pol. Politicus.
Herm. Hermes, Zeitschrift Für klassische Philologie, 1866 ff.
44 Herm.v., 1, 1, 9; 1, 3, 1; 2, 3, 1; s., 7, 1 f.; 7, 5; m., 12, 3, 6; s., 5, 3, 9.
Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical, philosophical and scholarly
works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.
Oec. Oeconomicus.
1 Liddell-Scott, 1203; Moult.-Mill., 441. On the etym. Walde-Pok., I, 231. On the formation of οἰκ-ία (orig. collective?) cf.,
e.g., ν(ε)οσσία “nest with young (νεοσσοί), brood,” v. P. Chantraine, Formation des noms (Paris, 1933), 82; E. Schwyzer,
Griech. Grammatik, I, 469, 4 and 5 [Debrunner].
lit. Literature.
2 ἆραι τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ. Was the clause hellenised? Is D the original: ἀραί τι ἐκ τῆς τῆς οἰκίας οὐτοῦ? Materially, too,
τι is stronger than τά. There can be no question of his trying to take all that is in the house. τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας is par. to the Gk.
of Jos.” (Schl. Mt., 705).
3 Cf. Hom.Od., 2, 237 f.: κατέδουσι βιαίως οἶκον Ὀδυσσῆος, Plut.Aud. Poet., 22d: καὶ γὰρ ῾οἶκον᾽ ποτὲ μὲν τὴν οἰκιαν
καλοῦσιν ῾οἶκον ἐς ὑψόροφον᾽ ποτὲ δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν ῾ἐσθίεταὶ μοι οἶκοσ᾽, καὶ ῾βίοτον᾽ ποτὲ μὲν τὸ ζῆν …
4 So Schl. J., 213.
5 To this saying of Jesus there are many pars. in the popular wisdom of antiquity, e.g., from Derech Erez Zuta, 5: “A house in
which there is disunity will assuredly be destroyed at the last” (Str.-B., I, 635). Soph.Ant., 672: ἀναρχίας δὲ μεῖζον οὐκ ἔστιν
κακόν· αὕτη πόλεις τ᾽ ὄλλνσιν ἠδ᾽ ἀναστάτους οἴκους τίθησιν. Cic.Lael., 7, 23: quae enim domus tam stabilis, quae tam
firma civitas est, quae non odiis et discidiis funditus possit everti?
6 In analysis cf. Bultmann Trad., 30 ff. and Loh. Mk., 111. There is an important par. to the saying of Jesus in P. Oxy., I, 1, 9:
οὐκ ἔστιν δεκτὸς προφήτης ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ ἰατρὸς ποιεῖ θεραπείας εἰς τοὺς γινώσοντας αὐτοῦ.
Rabb. Rabbinic.
7 Lidz. Liturg.’, II Oxford Collect. 10: “This is the prayer and praise which have come to us from the great place of light and
the radiant dwelling,” p. 179. But the world itself is the house acc. to this Gnostic view: “Above the four corners of the house
and above the seven sides of the firmament rests silence, peace and splendour” (Qol., 5, p. 9).
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
8 Schl. J., 292.
9 Ber., 44b: “Woe to the house through which vegetables (λάπαθον) pass,” cf. Levy W.ört;, I, 224, Str.-B., III, 517., In Rabb.
‫ ּבַ יִ ת‬can mean dwelling, temple, school, house of instruction, and it can also denote the relation of pupils to a teacher (the
“school” of Shammal or Hillel), but esp. the wife as the “house” of the husband in a sexual sense.
Sen. L. Annaeus Seneca, of Cordova in Spain (c. 4 B.C.–65 A.D.), politician, poet and moral philosopher of the later Stoa, ed.
C. Hosius and E. Hermes, 1914 ff.
Praem. De Praemiis et Poenis.
Lidz. M. Lidzbarski, Mandäische Liturgien, 1920.
10 Wnd. 2 K., 158: “The pitcher goes to the water until it breaks, and the tent is pulled down as soon as circumstances do not
allow of any longer stay.”
11 Wad. 2 K., 158, Excurs. “Das Bild vom Zelt” mentions Plat.Phaed., 81c as a passage with a Hellenistic feel. But the image
of the σκηνή or σκῆνος is pre-Platonic, Diels, Index. It is common after Plato, cf. Ps.-Plat.Ax., 365e; 366a; Cl. Al.Strom., 5,
94, 3: ὃ γήινόν φησιν ὁ Πλάτων σκῆνος. Corp. Herm., 13, 15: καλῶς σπεύδει λῦσαι τὸ σκῆνος, is important. In Chrlit. cf.
Dg., 6, 8; Tat.Or. Graec., 15, 3.
12 Cf. esp. Zahn Einl.2, I § 31, 389, n. 1: “Though domus Caesaris (Caesarum, Augusta, Augustana, Augustiana, later divina)
commonly denotes the imperial house in our sense of the ruling family with all its members, the expression here (ἐκ τῆς
145
οἰκίας, ex domo) as constantly used does not mean relatives of the emperor—this would be οἱ ἐκ γένους (or πρὸς γένους,
Clem. Hom., 4, 8; 12, 8 and 15) or ἀφ᾽ αἵματος (PhiloLeg. Gaj., 11; Jos.Bell., I, 18, 4) or συγγενεῖς τοῦ Καίσαρος (Acta Pl. et
Thecl., 36)—but persons of lower or higher rank belonging to the imperial household, always slaves or freedmen in earlier
days: PhiloFlacc., 5; Act. Pt. et Pl., p. 104, 9; 106, 15; 193, 5; Hipp.Ref., 9, 12: Inscr. R. Neapol., No. 6912 ex domo
Caesarum libertorum et servorum etc.; CIL, 6, No. 8645; 8653 f.; 10, No. 1745. In the will of Gregory (Migne, 37, 389) ἐκ
τῆς οἰκίας μου γενόμενος is my former slave. It should also be remembered that from an early time οἰκέται, domestici in the
imperial period (Suet. Otho, 10 extr.; Tert. Apol., 7; 39), means “domestics.” Cf. Dib. Ph., 75: “The expression οἱ ἐκ τῆς
Καίσαρος οἰκίας refers to imperial slaves, who were to be found in Rome (cf. the inscr. of the slave Narcissus and his
Christian descendants in de Waal, Röm. Quartalschrift, 26 [1912], 161 ff.), but also throughout the empire.”
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
s. similitudines.
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
Adj. adjective.
Ion Ion
1 Chantraine, Formation des noms (1933), 52; Liddell-Scott, 1202; Moult.-Mill., 440.
opp. oppositum.
Hes. Hesiodus, of Ascra in Boetia (c. 700 B.C.), the oldest Greek poet to emerge as a tangible figure. In his Pastoral Calendar
ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι he proclaims the pastoral ideal of life. His Theogony is a speculative work on the origin and descent of the
gods, ed. A. Rzach, 1913.
Barn. Epistle of Barnabas.
Epict. Epictetus, Phrygian slave of Hierapolis in the days of Nero (50–130 A.D.), freed at the imperial palace, Stoic of the
younger school and preacher of ethics tinged with religion. From his lectures his pupil Arrian collected 8 books of diatribes
which have been preserved, ed. H. Schenkl2, 1916.
Gnom. Gnomologium Stobaei.
2 Later Jewish pars. which simply recognise the privilege and precedence of those who are nearest may be found in Str.-B.,
III, 578.
Polyb. Polybius, of Megalopolis, in Arcadia (c. 210–120 B.C.), hostage of Rome in 167, general and statesman, and the
greatest historian of Hellenism. In 40 books he depicts in essentials the rise of Roman world dominion in the period 221–168
B.C., ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, 1905.
3 Zn. Gl., 276, n. 1.
4 H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Eph. (1930), 49 f.
subj. gen. subjective genitive.
5 On οἰκεῖος cf. also Whitaker, Exp., VIII, Ser. 23 (1922), 76 f.
1 Liddell-Scott, 1202; Moult.-Mill., 440.
Soph. Sophocles, of Athens (496–406 B.C.), the real poet of the Athens of Pericles, ed. A. C. Pearson, 1924.
Oed. Oedipus Tyrannus.
Dg. Epistle to Diognetus.
2 W. Gutbrod, Die paul. Anthropologie (1934), 158 thinks the local use in 7:18 (“in my flesh dwelleth no good thing”) is a
figure of speech, but it could be that there is here not merely a mythological but also a literal signification. The οἰκεῖν of R.
7:17 ff. reminds us of the idea of the οἶκος of demons; the human body is their οἶκος (Mt. 12:43–45). The Paul. οἰκεῖν also
corresponds to the Johannine μένειν (cf. Jn. 8:35), and it has a strong sense, as the later Jewish pars. in Str.-B., III, 239 show.
He who abides has a right to do so; he is not a guest, but master of the house. The Rabb. point out the psychological
development. Sin is first a guest and then becomes the master, Gn. r., 22 (15a). Paul’s thinking is perhaps more mythological
here.
Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
3 Here again Jn.’s μένειν corresponds to Paul’s οἰκεῖν, cf. Jn. 1:33: καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. The new possession of
the Spirit is more than ecstatic.
En. Enoch, patriarch, introduced into many later Jewish writings, the oldest of which date from the 2nd century B.C. (Schürer,
III, 268 ff.).
4 Dib. Past., 56: “The rich styling makes use of both Jewish and Hell. materials. In both Hell. and Christian writings φῶς is
more generally used for the being of God or Christ (as ἀπρόσιτον φῶς, Cl. Al.Exc. Theod., 12, 3) and for the inheritance of
Christians (Col. 1:12; lumen inaccessibile, Act. Pl. cum Simone, p. 66, Lipsius); it is used here of the divine dwelling, cf. the
depiction in En. 14:15ff.” On En. 14:15ff. cf. H. Kittel, “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes,” Beih. ZNW, 16 (1934), 168.
* ὄρος. Chant. de la Saussaye, Index, s.v. “Berg”; G. van d. Leeuw, Phänomenologie d. Religion (1933), 35f.; F. v. Andrian,
Der Höhenkultus asiatischer u. europäischer Völker (1891); J. Jeremias, Der Gottesberg (1919); R. Frieling, D. heilige Berg
(1930); M. Rohrer, Berglieder d. Völker (1928); B. Meissner, Babylonian u. Assyrian, II (1925), 110–112; R. Beer, Heilige
Höhen d. alten Gr. u. Römer (1891); O. Kern, Die Religion der Griechen, I (1926), 74–81; G. Westphal, “Jahves
Wohnstätten nach den Anschauungen d. alten Hebräer,” ZAW Beih., 15 (1908), 98–118.
146
Dio C. Dio Cassius Cocceianus, of Nicea in Bithynia (c. 155–235 A.D.), a high Roman official, the author of a history of
Rome in 80 books from Aeneas to his own time, ed. P. Boissevain, 1894 ff.
Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian, described as early as Cicero as the father of
history. His work deals with the conflicts between the Greeks and the barbarians from earliest times to the Persian Wars, ed.
H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.
Demosth. Demosthenes, of Athens (384–322 B.C.), ed. F. Blass, 1903 ff.
Or. Orati(ones).
Xen. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical, philosophical and scholarly
works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.
An. Anabasis.
Cornut. L. Annaeus Cornutus, ot Leptis in Africa, at the time of Nero, who in his Hellenistic Theology gives us a picture of
later Stoic theology and allegory, ed. A. Nock, 1926.
Theol. Theologia Graeca.
plur. plural.
Cyrop. Cyropaedia.
1 Van d. Leeuw, 35 f.
2 Ibid., 370 f.; Chant. de la Saussaye, I, 174. Cf., e.g., the invocation of “mountains, rivers, springs” etc. in a Hittite treaty, J.
Friedrich, Aus dem hethitischen Schrifttum, 1 (AO, 24, 3) (1925), 18.
3 Hes.Theog., 129 f.: (Γαῖα) … γείνατο δ᾽ οὔρεα μακρά, θεῶν χαρίεντας ἐναύλους Νυμφέων, αἳ ναίουσιν ἀν᾽ οὔρεα
βησσήεντα.
4 Van der Leeuw, 120.
5 Ibid., 36, cf. H. Schärer, Die Gottesidee d. Ngadju-Dajak in Südborneo (1946), acc. to the review in Theol. Zschr., 4
(1948), 57 f.
6 “Mighty” (gashru) is a common name for mountains, C. Bezold, Babylonisch-assyrisches Glossar (1926), s.v. “gaschru; A.
Ungnad, Die Religion d. Babylonier u. Assyrer (1921), 185, lines 6, 19.
7 Istar, “mistress of the field of battle, who casts down the mountains,” Ungnad, 217, line 11; “the pain in the head which like
a mountain does not waver,” 277: “When Adad is angry, … the great mountains fall down before him,” 194; cf. also the god
of pestilence, Irshum, 158; Marduk’s word is “high as the mountains,” 213 f.; he who dreams he carries a mountain on his
head will have no adversary, Meissner, 266.
OT Old Testament.
8 → III, 669 f.
9 K. Tallquist, Akkadische Götterepitheta (1938), 221; J. J. Stamm, “Die akkadische Namengebung,” Mitteilungen d.
vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft, 44 (1939), 82, 198, n. 1. Shadu is thus related to the Heb. ‫ צּור‬in its extension of
meaning.
10 Tallquist, 221.
11 Meissner, 157.
12 Tallquist, 221.
13 M. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens, I (1905), 461.
14 M. Witzel, Der Drachenkämpfer Ninib == Keilinschriftliche Studien, 2 (1920), 82.
15 W. W. Graf Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname, III (1929), 565; Stamm, 82, 211, 226; Jeremias, 31 f.
16 Tallquist, 221, 296, 344.
17 Loc. cit.; also Reallexikon d. Assyriologie, I (1928), 197b; II (1938), 383a.
Gk. Greek.
18 Lidz. Ginza, 82, 14; → n. 25. With the orientation of their thinking to eternal duration, the Egyptians, when they used the
image of the mountain, emphasised esp. its solidity and indestructibility, H. Grapow, Die bildlichen Ausdrücke des
Ägyptischen (1924), 52 f.
19 “Your lord stays there (in the city) no longer, … your lord climbs up with loud roars into the mountains,” Ungnad, 208;
head pains “have come down from the middle of the mountains into the land,” 275; the storm bird Zu flies to the
“inaccessible mountains,” “the far abode,” 153; 154. The inaccessibility and barrenness of mountains made them a refuge for
demons: the “seven demons were born in the mountains of the west,” Meissner, 199; in the myth of the Huluppu tree the bird
Zu flies to the mountains, while Lilith goes into the wilderness (both mountains and desert are here abodes of demons), S. N.
Kramer, Sumerian Mythology (1944), 34; “He caused many spirits of the dead to return to the mountain,” A. Jeremias, Die
ausserbiblische Erlösererwartung (1927), 61.
20 A. Jeremias, Handbuch d. altorientalischen Geisteskultur2 (1929), 132.
21 Ibid., 368; Meissner, 108 ff.; H. Gressmann, Der Messias (1929), 170. Cf. the legend of the birth of Sargon and
Assurbanipal II, Gressmann, 32.
22 Meissner, 111.
23 Ungnad, 89.
147
24 Meissner, 112; K. Tallquist, Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt == Studia Orientalia, V, 4 (1934), 23 ff. “The
god has gone to the mountain” == “he had died,” loc. cit. and Meissner, 98.
Rabb. Rabbis,
25 The dark mountains, Lidz. Ginza, 314, 37–315, 1; 501, 7 f.; the hill of darkness in the sing., Lidz. Joh., 90, 13; 98, 7 and
10; 100, 6; 174, 30; 180, 15; 199, 28. The pure mountains, Lidz. Ginza, 326, 34; 380, 18 f.; 309, 6 f.; Joh., 189, 13; 229, 21;
cf. also Joh., 116, 11 and 184, n. 4. The pure mountains in Mandaean writings remind us of the bright mountains which the
storm demon Pazuzu lays waste, Meissner, 205. The Rabb. speak of the dark mountains which Alexander had to cross when
he wanted to go into Africa, Lv. r., 27 on 22:27; b.Tamid., 32a, cf. b; Gn. r., 33, 1 on 8:1.
26 Gilgamesh Epic, V, 6 (Ungnad, 78).
27 Meissner, 111, 119; Kramer, 72.
28 Meissner, 111.
29 Ibid., 7; Jeremias (→ n. 20), 108.
30 Tallquist, Totenwelt, 31; Epitheta, 221.
31 B. Alfrink, “Der Versammlungsberg im äussersten Norden,” Biblica, 15 (1933), 41–67; A. Deimel, Sumerisches Lexikon,
III, 1, sumerisch-akkadisches Glossar (1934), 18b, s.v. “areli/a”; the mountain of the lands is the atmosphere with the vault
of heaven.
32 T. C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude semietische volken, Diss. Utrecht (1937); cf. Jeremias,
464.
33 → n. 17.
34 Tallquist (→ n. 24), 26; the sanctuary of the temple of Assnr is the “house of the great mountain of the lands,” Meissner,
111.
35 Meissner, 7.
36 There are many comparisons of the temple with a mountain, C. Frank, Studien zur babyl. Religion, I (1911), 187; Chant.
de la Saussaye, I, 524; Vriezen, op. cit., 50 (temple founded as the hill of abundance). The temple is “built toward heaven like
the great world mountain,” Jeremias, 115. The temple tower in Nippur is called the world mountain, ibid., 132. H. J. Lenzen,
Die Entwicklung der Zikurrat-Ausgrabungen d. Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka, 4 (1941), concludes that
“the zigurrats with their high temples were always the altar and abode of the distant god,” 60. “On the basis of their
development I no longer think it possible to regard them as copies of mountains,” 55. But it is hard to separate the idea of the
mountain from an elevated place of sacrifice for the distant god. For the mountain as a place of sacrifice and of divine
proximity cf. Gilgamesh Epic, XI, 157; cf. Ungnad, 107 (offerings of incense on the mountain peak); Meissner, 87; hills as
dwelling-places of the gods, Meissner, 119 f.
37 Meissner, 98; Jeremias, 290, 462.
38 In Artemid.Oneirocr., II, 28 (124, 15), 68 (160c, 2), the mountain with its valleys and ravines is sinister, but cf. Ael. Arist.
on the pax Augusta, Or. 35, 37: οὐ τὰ μὲν ὄρη τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τοῖς ὀδεύουσιν ἥνπερ αἱ πόλεις τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν αὐτὰς ἀσφάλειαν.
Hence this is not self-evident.
39 Cf. the texts in Rohrer, 183–200, esp. Odysseus on his country, Hom.Od., 9, 21 f.; also Soph.Ant., 1127–1136; Eur.Tro.,
1060–1070; Catull., 34, 9–12.
40
Sen. Ep., 41, 3: si quis specus saxis penitus exesis montem suspenderit, non manu factus, sed naturalibus causis in tantam
laxitatem excavatus, animum tuum quadam religionis suspicione percutiet. Silius Italicus, Punica (ed. L. Bauer, I [1890]), III,
500 ff.:
at miles dubio tardat vestigia gressu impia ceu sacros in finis arma per orbem, natura prohibente, ferant divisque
repugnent
(of Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps).
41 Kern, 74; M. P. Nilsson, Gesch. d. gr. Religion, I == Hndbch. AW, V, 2 (1941), 367–374; Chant. de la Saussaye, II, 301 f.,
416; H. Schmidt, Der Heilige Fels in Jerasalem (1933), 93 f.
42
Hom.Od., 6, 43–46 of Olympus:
οὔτ᾽ ἀνέμοισι τινάσσεται οὔτε ποτ᾽ ὄμβρῳ δεύεται οὔτε χιὼν ἐπιπίλναται ἀλλὰ μάλ᾽ αἴθρη πέπταται ἀνέφελος, λευκὴ δ᾽
ἐπιδέδρομεν αἴγλη· τῷ ἔνι τέρπονται μάκαρες θεοὶ ἤματα πάντα.
148
43 In Vergil.Ecl., V, 56 f. the deified Daphnis sees from Olympus sub pedibus … nubes et sidera. J. Schmidt, Art.
“Olympos,” Pauly-W., XVIII (1939), 278 etc. But sometimes they are distinguished later, ibid., 290.
44 Max. Tyr., II, 1 f. ἐπεφήμισαν δὲ καὶ Διῒ ἀγάλματα οἱ πρῶτοι ἄνθρωποι, κορυφὰς ὀρῶν, Ὄλυμπον, καὶ Ἴδην, καὶ εἴ τι
ἄλλο ὄρος πλησιάζει τῷ οὐρανῷ.
45 Schmidt, 300: “It was easy to see in Olympus, the abode of the gods attainable only by supreme virtue, the epitome of an
ideal of the greatest perfection,” also 301: “It is characteristic of the conquering Roman that he uses Olympus for comparison
when speaking of outstanding human deeds, whereas the Gk. sets the ethical and religious aspect to the fore by showing the
distinction between mortals and the eternal gods in Olympus.”
46 Perhaps a remnant of these ideas is to be found in imprecation on hills, though O. Weinreich, “Gebet u. Wunder,”
Genethliakon W. Schmid == Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 5 (1929), 176 regards ἀποπομπὴ εἰς ὀρέων
κεφαλάς as an “indulgent form” in isolated places. For the German sphere cf. Handwörterbuch d. deutschen Aberglaubens,
ed. H. Bächtold-Stäubli, I (1927), s.v. “Berg,” “Bergentrückte,” “Berggeister,” 1043–83.
47 μήτηρ ὀρεία, Eur.Hipp., 144.
48 F. Schwenn, Art. “Kybele,” Pauly-W., XI, 2251–2298; cf. also E. Ohlemutz, D. Kulte u. Heiligtümer d. Götter in
Pergamum (1940), 174–183.
49 Kern, 34, 78. For a similar relation to the mountain cf. the Dionysus cult.
50 Tac. Hist., II, 78: Carmelus, ita vocant montem deumque; Etym. M., s.v., “Libanon”: δοκοῦσι γὰρ αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ὅλον
εἶναι πνεῦμα καὶ θεὸν … ὅθεν καὶ αὐτὸν σέβονται. Eus. Onomastikon, s.v. Ἀερμών (ed. E. Klostermann [1904], 20, 10 f.)
φασὶν δὲ εἰς ἔτι νῦν Ἀερμὼν ὄρος ὀνομάζεσθαι καὶ ὡς ἱερὸν τιμᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν. In the sacrificial lists of Ras Shamra
there is offering to Zaphon himself as well as Mt. Zaphon, C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature == Scripta Pontificii Instituti
Biblici, 98 (1949), 113 f. (Text, 9, 4. 7). Cf. Philo of Byblos in Eus.Praep. Ev., I, 10, 9.
51 O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios u. der Durchzug d. Israeliten durchs Meer (1932), 31 f.; cf. the myth of Krt, 74 ff.
== Gordon, 68 f. In the passage in → n. 50 Jerome’s transl. of Eus. Onomastikon has: dicitur esse in vertice eius insigne
templum, quod ab ethnicis cultui habetur.
52 The quotations are given as in Gordon.
53 Anat., III, 26 f. in Gordon, 19: Baal to Anat.: Come and I shall show it in the midst of the mountain of me, God of Sapan,
in the sanctuary in the mountain of mine inheritance.
54 Text, 76, III, 12–15; Gordon, 51.
55 Text, 137, 14, Gordon, 13: Toward the convocation of the assembly in the midst of the mountain of Ll.
56 Text, 51, VIII, 1–9, Gordon, 37.
Heb. Hebrew.
57 Eissfeldt, op. cit., 16 ff.
58 Text, 127, 31 f., Gordon, 82: Dost thou administer like the strongest of the strong, and govern (like) the mountains?
59 G. Bertram, “Der Sprachschatz d. LXX u. der des hbr. AT,” ZAW, NF, 16 (1939), 88.
sing. singular.
60 → n. 100.
Aram. Aramaic.
78 Dt. r., 3, 8 on 7:14: ‫ ;טוראַקדיש‬Gn. r., 32, 16 on 7:18 == Gn. r., 81, 3 on 35:4: ‫ ;טוראַבריכא‬Jos.Ant., 18, 85: τὸ Γαριζεὶν ὄρος
… ὃ ἁγνότατον αὐτοῖς ὀ̓ρῶν ὑπείληπται. Cf. Volz Esch., 330.
Jos. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
Vit. Vita.
Gn. r. Genesis rabba (Bereshit rabba), Midrash on Genesis (Strack, Einl., 209 ff.).
Ant. Antiquitates.
61 ‫ הַ רַקָׁ ְׁד ִשי‬in Is. 11:9 etc. is used of the land of Canaan. Westphal, 93. Similarly in Arabic to-day the sing. ǧebel is used for
the mountain country round Jerusalem, G. Dalman, “Jerusalem u. sein Gelände,” BFTh, II, 19 (1930), 3.
Mas. Masora.
Sib. Sibyllines, the Sibylline Oracles in 14 books, collected in the 5th or 6th century A.D. for the propagation of Judaism or
Christianity, composed at various periods, and predominantly Jewish but partly Christian in derivation.
62 For the Rabb. use of the passages → II, 715 f.
Ps. Sol. Psalms of Solomon, Pharisaic collection of the 1st century B.C., consisting of 18 songs, ed. O. Gebhardt, 1895.
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
s. similitudines.
pseudepigr. pseudepigraphical.
v. verse.
63 The fig. of the mountain in 4 Esr. 13:6 does not have the same force, since we are referred at once to Mt. Zion.
S. Bar. Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch, originally Hebrew and strongly dependent on 4 Esdras (c. 100 A.D.), ed. R. Charles,
1896.
149
64 Cf. the par. in Test. Sol. 23:1: ὄρη μεταστῆναι and βασιλεῖς καταβαλεῖν.
R. Rabbi.
65 Midr. Cant., 8, 14 in Str.-B., III, 50.
Gr. Bar. The Greek-Slavic Apocalypse of Baruch, a description of Baruch’s journey to heaven (2nd century A.D.), ed. M. R.
James in Greek, 1897 and St. Novakovitsch in Slavic, 1886.
b. Babylonian Talmud when before tractates from the Mishnah.
66 Ex. r., 15, 5 on 12:1f.
67 Midr. Cant., 23b on 7:12; Bacher Tannaiten, I 2, 128, n. 3.
68 jJeb., 3a, 54 f.: “You bring my head between the two high mountains (‫)ההריםַהלכורים‬, between the words of the house of
Shammai and those of the house of Hillel.”
69 Ed. M. R. James, TSt, V, 1 (1897), 111.
70 Riessler, 237.
71 This idea is Iranian (Plut.Is. et Os., 47 [II, 370b]; Gressmann, op. cit., 186; Loh. Apk. on 16:20) and is found also in Sib.,
VIII, 236 and Leqach tob, Nu. 24:17, Str.-B., II, 298.
72 Eissfeldt, op. cit., 16; G. v. Rad, “Die Stadt auf dem Berge,” Evangelische Theologie, 8 (1948/9), 439–447.
73 One might also mention the idea of judgment by molten metal, another Iranian concept, cf. Chant. de la Saussaye, II, 254;
Eth. En. 52:2, 6 ff.; 67:4 (on this cf. Volz Esch., 23).
74 The LXX renders ‫ אֶ ֶרץַהַ מֹ ִריָׁה‬by ἡ γῆ ἡ ὑψηλή, and thus strengthens the idea of height.
75 The etym. of ‫( ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬Accadian bamtu, “height,” “eminence”) is obscure, but the ‫ ּבָׁ מֵ יַבָׁ מֹות‬were mostly on the tops of
mountains and heights, 1 K. 14:23; 2 Ch. 21:11; the LXX often has ὑψηλόν for ‫ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬, → n. 76. A ‫ ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬in the Vale of Hinnom,
Jer. 7:31. Cf. L. H. Vincent, “La notion biblique du haut-lieu,” Rev. Bibl., NS, 55 (1948), 245–278, 438–445.
76 It is worth noting that the LXX does not transl. ‫ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬, but transcribes it as Βαμα, when the ref. is to a legitimate cult of
Yahweh, 1 S. 9:12 ff., 19,25; 1 Ch. 16:39; 21:29; 2 Ch. 1:13. Only at 2Ch. 1:13 does it have ἡ ὑψηλή for ‫ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬, and at 1 K. 3:4
ὑψηλοτάτη καὶ μεγάλη (no subst.) for “the great height.” When, however, ‫ ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬is used for the disowned cultic sites of Israel
and Canaan the LXX transl. τὰ ὑψηλά, βουνός, θυσιαστήριον, στήλη, βωμός etc. and never simply transcribes. It may be
suspected that even the temple site was an ancient Canaanite high-place of sacrifice, Schmidt, 84 f.
77 Vit. Mos., II, 79; Spec. Leg., III, 125.
79 The motif of the holy hill of Zion may be found in Ez. (the navel of the earth in 38:12); cf. also Jub. 8:19 and esp. the
Treasure Cave; also Jos.Bell., 3, 52.
80 Here, too, the LXX transcribes ‫ ּבָׁ מָׁ ה‬as Βαμα.
81 Only in Ez. 40:2 is the prophet in his vision brought to a very high hill from which he can see the new temple. This very
high hill is the elevated temple hill of Is. 2:2 and Mi. 4:1.
Apc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham.
82 G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Apk. Abrahams (1897), 21, 6.
Test. N. Testament of Napthali.
Test. L. Testament of Levi.
Apc. Eliae Apocalypse of Elias.
83 G. Steindorff, Die Apk. des Elias == TU, XVII, 3a (1899), 39.
NT New Testament.
84 Cf. also the Book of Elijah 3, Riessler, 234; Apc. Esr. 6:12, Riessler, 135. NT Act. Andr. et Matth. 21; Act. Petri et
Andreae 1; Act. Joh. 97; Herm.s., 5, 1, 1; 9, 1, 4.
85 The exposition of Ps. 36:6 in Gn. r., 33, 1 on 8:1 == Lv. r., 27, 1 on 22:27 shows that the Rabb. connected supreme height,
depth and fertility with the mountains of God in Ps. 36:6; here at most are echoes of mythological notions.
86 LXX has τὰ πλευρὰ τοῦ βορρᾶ. This rests on another linguistically possible under-standing of the Heb. ‫י ְַׁרּכָׁתַ יִ ם‬. Cf. Nu.
23:7, where ‫ == מֵ הַ ְׁר ֵרי־קֶ דֶ ם‬ἐξ ὀρέων ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν suggests more than the dwelling of Balaam. Similarly Jdt. 16:3 in the song
on the death of Holofernes: ἦλθεν Ασσουρ ἐξ ὀρέων ἀπὸ βορρᾶ. Cf. Gressmann, op. cit., 165. Eissfeldt, 15 refers to Mt.
Zaphon.
87 Gressmann, 170; on the hills of metal → n. 73.
88 It is worth noting that with its rendering ἐν ὄρει ὑψηλῷ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη τὰ ὑψηλὰ τὰ πρὸς βορρᾶν the LXX obscures the
allusion of ‫ ּבְׁ הַ רַמוצֵ דַּבְׁ י ְַׁרּכְׁ תֵ יַצָׁ פֹון‬perhaps intentionally. Cf. Gressmann, 164–170; A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte d. alten
Orients4 (1930), 80, 635; Vriezen, 219–225; A. Bertholet, Hesekiel, Handbuch z. AT, I, 13 (1936) on 28:11–19.
89 O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in d. AT (1934), 36, 108.
90 As against Bousset-Gressm., 283 f. Cf. v. Rad, 481 on Is. 2:2–5: “The vision has full historical immanence and is without
supporting mythology” even though the oriental myth of the mount of God lies behind it.
91 Volz Esch., 415.
HT Hebrew Text.
esp. especially.
Slav. En. Slavic Enoch, ed. St. Novakovitsch, 1884.
92 Cf. M. Schmidt, Prophet u. Tempel (1948), 9–17.
150
93 Str.-B., I, 238. Sepphoris in particular was such a city. It is unlikely that the comparison echoes Is. 2:2 (God’s city on the
mountain), as v. Rad suggests (op. cit., 447).
94 Materially identical with the wilderness of Lk. 15:4, G. Dalman, Orte u. Wege lesu3 (1924), 166 f.
par. parallel.
95 The demonstrative is always found, even in the related saying in Lk. 17:6. Paul alludes to the Lord’s saying in 1 C. 13:2.
96 The wish is for speedy death, so Kl., Schl., Hck. Lk. and K. H. Rengstorf Lk. (NT Deutsch) on 23:30. The thought in Rev.
6:15 (Loh. and Had. Apk., ad loc.) is that of flight from God’s wrathful glance; this is also possible in Lk.
97 The ref. is to affliction in the Syr. persecution, the battles of the Hasmonean period (Ps. Sol. 17:17), or the flight of David
or Elijah, so Rgg. and Mi. Hb., ad loc.
98 Rengstorf, op. cit., on 21:20 ff.
99 The depiction in Jn. 4:20 f. shows first-hand knowledge: “Someone who had not seen the place could not have invented
it,” Schl. J., 124. On Gerizim as the Samaritan place of worship v. Bau. J. and Schl. J., ad loc., also the refs. → n. 78.
Whether the note on Nazareth is first-hand is disputed, cf. Dalman, 83 f.; M. Brückner, “Nazaret, die Heimat Jesu,” PJB, 7
(1911), 82–84.
100 τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν is the form of the name in Mk., Mt. and Jn. 8:1; Lk. 19:37; 22:39; Act. Joh. 97. In Ac. 1:12,
however, we find Ἐλαιών, gen. Ἐλαιῶνος. If this is also present in Lk. 19:29; 21:37, one would expect πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ
καλούμενον Ἐλαιῶνα. But we are to read ἐλαιῶν in these vv.; on the gen. in such constructions cf. Ac. 3:11; 6:9. Test. N. 5:1
has ἐν τῷ ὄρει τοῦ Ἐλαιῶνος. Jos. has the declined proper name in Ant., 7, 202, elsewhere the gen. ἐλαιῶν, Ant., 20, 169;
Bell., 2, 262; 5, 70. 135. 504; 6, 157 (not 137, as in Schl. Mt. on 21:1 and Lk. on 19:29). ‫ֵיתים‬
ִ ‫ הַ רַהַ ז‬is biblical, Zech. 14:4 (cf. 2
S. 15:30), LXX τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν. Older Rabb. ‫הַ רַהַ ִמ ְׁשחָׁ ה‬, Schl. Mt. on 21:1 and Dalman, 278, n. 3; Bl.-Debr.7 § 143, App.
101 Dalman, 275; Schl. Lk., 408.
102 The Mt. of Olives plays a role in certain ritual discussions of the Rabb., Str.-B., I, 841 f.; Dalman, 279 f. Under David
there was a place of worship there (2 S. 15:32); under Solomon a high-place for Chemosh (1 K. 11:7); in Ez. 11:23 the glory
of God alighted there when it had left the temple (cf. Ez. 43:2 and Rabb. speculations on this, Str.-B., I, 841 f.). Zech. 14:4
says that “in that day” God will come forth from the Mt. of Olives. But the hill will be split, and one part will fall into the
Vale of Hinnom (Is. 40:4). Thus the hill which overtops the mount of the Lord will be lowered. One cannot agree with Loh.
Mk. on 11:1 that this is evidence of a Jewish view that the Messiah will appear on the Mt. of Olives. Nor is this view proved
by Jos.Ant., 20, 169 f. == Bell., 2, 261 f. and the Rabb. passages adduced by Lohmeyer.
103 G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua (1922), 87–89; Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu2 (1949), 30; Str.-B., II, 833 f.
transl. transitive.
104 The art. is no obstacle, P. Fiebig, Der Erzählungsstil d. Ev. (1925), 74; examples, ibid., 68 f., 78 f., 106; Zn. Mt.4 (1922),
177, n. 4; J. Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei ersten Ev.2 (1911), 19; Joachim Jeremias, “Die Zinne d. Tempels,” ZDPV, 59
(1936), 206 and n. 3 (with additional bibl.); M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1946), 68–70, and on
this Jeremias, ThLZ, 74 (1949), 530.
105 Jesus, then, does not go to the anonymous mount of God, as Jeremias suggests, op. cit., 143.
106 K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen d. Gesch. Jesu (1919), 109, cf. 194.
107 So Loh. Mk. on 3:13: “The site of this call is ‘the mountain,’ not lust an elevation in ‘the mountains’; it is the theatre of
special divine mysteries and special divine revelation, as already in the OT and also in other ancient religions; it is holy, and
is known by what took place on it.”
108 J. Sickenberger, Leben Jesu nach d. vier Ev. (1932), II, 15: “The mountain as a natural pulpit.” Cf. Mk. 4:1.
109 Schl. Mt., 128 f.
110 Cf. the appearing of the Baptist in the desert.
111 Schl. Mt., 128.
112 L. Goppelt, Typos == BFTh, II, 43 (1939), 84, n. 1: “It seems that Jesus and the Evangelists, in the choice of localities,
had also in view the typological significance of the hour. We have thus to think of the role of the mountain in the stories of
Moses and Elijah, and also in the Gospels.” P. Feine-J. Behm, Einl. in das NT9 (1950), 52.
113 Cf. → A. J. Wilkens, Der König Israels, I, “Die urchr. Botschaft,” 1 (1934), 83.
114 Wilkens, op. cit., 209, 210 f.
115 Cf. Dalman, op. cit. (→ n. 94), 166 f.
116 Dalman, 204; Zn. Mt. and Schl. Mt., on 17:1; but cf. T. Soiron, Das Ev. u. die heiligen Stätten in Palästina (1929), 110.
117 For examples cf. A. Meyer, “Die evangelischen Berichte über d. Versuchung Jesu,” Festgabe f. H. Blümner (1914), 460
f.; S. Bar. 76:3.
118 Gressmann, 166, 181 is wrong when he says that the great and high hill is to uphold the holy city, Jerusalem. There is no
such idea. H. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis d. NT (1910), 49 is also wrong when he says that this
mountain is originally the mount of heaven. Clemen, 404 rightly sees a standard feature; he refers to Luc. Charon, 2.
119 Zn. Apk., ad loc.
120 This progression is emphasised in Had. Apk. on 16:20. Loh. Apk. on 6:14 wrongly suggests the levelling of mountains.
121 Bu. J. on 4:23.
122 14:8: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, cf. also 17:4f.; 18:3; and again 17:6: 18:24.
151
123 On the equation of kingdom and ruler v. W. Foerster, Die Bilder in Offenbarung, 12 f., 17 f.; ThStKr, 104 (1932), 297;
→ n. 64.
124 This means that antichrist does not come during the empire under which the divine lives. This agrees with Paul, Foerster,
op. cit., 300 f.
Foerster Werner Foerster, Münster (Vol. 1–3, 5–7).
ii
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by
Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (Vol. 5, Page 475). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
gen
gen. or genit. = genitive
pl
pl. = plural
Ion
Ion. = Ionic
E
Euripides Tragicus [E.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
iamb
Iamblichus Philosophus [Iamb.]
iv A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
freq
freq. = frequent, frequently
lyr
Lyr. = Lyricus, Lyric poetry
S
Sophocles Tragicus [S.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Lxx
Vetus Testamentum Graeca redditum [LXX]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
152
al
al. = alibi (i.e. elsewhere in the same author)
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
IG
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. See Complete Listing.
Att
Att. = Attic dialect
A
Aeschylus Tragicus [A.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Fr
Fr. = Fragment
Th
Thucydides Historicus [Th.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Pl
Plato Philosophus [Pl.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
SIG
SIG = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, editio tertia, Leipzig 1915–24 [Hildesheim 1960]. (SIG2 =
editio altera, 1898–1901.)
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
Ep
Ep. = Epice, in the Epic dialect
prob
153
prob. = probable, probably
metri gr
metri gr. = metri gratia
Dor
Dor. = Doric
Theoc
Theocritus Poeta Bucolicus [Theoc.]
iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Hymn.Is
Hymnus ad Isim [Hymn.Is.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Od
Odyssea [Od.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Anacr
Anacreon Lyricus [Anacr.]
vi B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
v
v. = vide; also voce or vocem
Semon
Semonides Iambographus [Semon.]
vii/vi B.C. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
hexam
hex. = hexameters
codd
cod., codd. = codex, codices
154
Hdt
Herodotus Historicus [Hdt.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
perh
perh. = perhaps
elsewh
elsewh. = elsewhere
Il
Ilias [Il.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Hes
Hesiodus Epicus [Hes.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Mnemos
Mnemos = Mnemosyne, 1852–.
spec
spec. = specific(ally).
PTeb
PTeb. = Tebtunis Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, J. G. Smyly, E. J. Goodspeed, London & New York, vol. i 1902, vol.
ii 1907, vol. iii pt. i 1933, pt. 2 (ed. A. S. Hunt, J. G. Smyly, C. C. Edgar; London & Univ. of California Press) 1938; iv:
J. G. Keenan, J. C. Shelton, London 1976.
POxy
POxy. = Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, London 1898–.
PRyl
PRyl. = Catalogue of the Greek papyri in the John Rylands Library at Manchester, vol. i 1911, ed. A. S. Hunt; vol. ii 1915,
ed. A. S. Hunt, J. de M. Johnson, V. Martin; vol. iii 1938, ed. C. H. Roberts; vol. iv: Documents of the Ptolemaic, Roman
and Byzantine Periods, C. H. Roberts, E. G. Turner, Manchester 1952 [1965].
PGrenf
PGrenf. 1. = B. P. Grenfell. An Alexandrian erotic fragment and other Greek papyri chiefly Ptolemaic, Oxford 1896.
155
2. = B. P. Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, New Classical Fragments and other Greek and Latin papyri, 1897.
Poll
Pollianus Epigrammaticus [Poll.]
ii A.D.(?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Sch
Sch. = Scholia; see under several authors Sch.Gen.Il., Sch.min.Il., etc, v. Homerus in index I.
Ar
Aristophanes Comicus [Ar.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
iii
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement,
1996." (Rev. and augm. throughout /) (Page 1255). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
* θρόνος. Liddell-Scott, s.v.; Pr.-Bauer3, s.v.; C. Daremberg-E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines,
XV (1919), 278–283; A. Hug, Art. Θρόνος in Pauly-W., VI, A (1935), 613–618.
1 A. Hug, op. cit.
Prot. Protagoras.
Philostr. Flavius Philostratus, of Lemnos, representative of the Second Sophistic School, author as commissioned by the
empress Julia Domna (d. 217), wife of Septimius Severus, of a life, containing many marvellous happenings, of the NeoPlatonic philosopher and thaumaturge, Apollonius of Tyana. His Heroicus is written in the same strain, ed. C. L. Kayser,
1870.
Vit. Vitae Sophistarum.
Anth. Pal. Anthologia Palatina, a collection of minor Hellenistic poetry based on ancient collections of epigrams, assembled
by Konstantinos Kephales in Byzantium in the 10th century A.D., and so called because the only MS. is in Heidelberg
Library, ed. H. Stadtmüller and F. Bucherer, 1906.
2 For more details cf. Hatch-Redp., I, 655 f.
NT New Testament.
3 Cf. Calwer, Bibelkonkordanz (1893), 1142 f.; 1173.
plur. plural.
4 On the throne as a metaphor for political and judicial power in Rabb. Judaism, cf. Str.-B., I, 979.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz,
1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Eum. Eumenides.
Prom. Prometheus Vinctus.
Soph. Sophocles, of Athens (496–406 B.C.), the real poet of the Athens of Pericles, ed. A. C. Pearson, 1924.
Oed. Oedipus Coloneus.
sing. singular.
Eur. Euripides, of Salamis nr. Athens (480–406 B.C.), tragic dramatist and philosopher of the stage, ed. G. Murray, 1901 ff.
Iph. Iphigenia Taurica.
Plat. Plato, of Athens (428/7–348/7 B.C.), ed. J. Burnet, 1905.
Resp. Respublica.
Gk. Greek.
5 Cf. on this pt. O. Schmitz, Die Christusgemeinschaft des Pls. im Lichte seines Genetivgebrauchs (1924), 232, where several
parallels from the LXX are given.
6 For θρόνος in connection with δόξα cf. also Pol., 2, 1 (δόξαν καὶ θρόνον); cf. also θρόνος αἰώνιος in doxologies which
begin with δόξα, Mart.Pol., 21, 1 and 1 Cl., 65, 2.
7 We do not include in this list Hb. 8:1: ὁ θρόνος τῆς μεγαλωσύνης, where the gen. denotes the majesty of God as the One
who sits on the throne, so that μεγαλωσύνη is to be taken as an equivalent of the divine name; cf. Rgg. Hb. 2, 3, 219, n. 7.
Similarly, θρόνος αἰσθήσεως in Prv. 12:23 seems to have in view a throne which is occupied by αἴσθησις. The construction is
156
“formed independently by the LXX with no basis in the Mas. The Mas. has ‫ּכֹ סֶ הַדַ ַעת‬, “conceals the knowledge,” whereas the
LXX reads in ‫[ ״ּכִ סֵ אַדַ ַעת‬Bertram].
8 Pauly-W., VI, n. 613.
9 Ibid., n. 616.
10 On θρόνωσις in the mysteries of the Corybants, in which the initiate became a hypostasis of Dionysus, and on the role of
the throne of Mnemosyne in the Trophonios oracle at Lebadeia, cf. ibid., n. 617.
11 Cf. also F. Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis (1914), 31.
Theocr. Theocritus, of Syracuse (born c. 305 B.C.), celebrated Hellenistic poet and master of bucolic poetry (the idyll), later at
court in Alexandria under Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus, ed. U. Wilamowitz in Bucolici Graeci, 1905.
Idyll. Idyllia.
12 M. Dibelius, Die Lade Jahwes (1906), also F. Münzer, ARW, 9 (1906), 517 f.
13 Cf. W. Eichrodt, Theologie des AT, II (1935), 102: “The earthly counterpart to the heavenly throne … is the ark of
Yahweh with the cherubim; this belongs to the category of empty divine thrones, and as the God of the ark Yahweh bears the
name ‫“ == יֹושֵ בַהַ ּכְׁ רּובִ ים‬he who is seated between the cherubim” (1 S. 4:4; 2 S. 6:2; 2 K. 19:15; Ps. 80:1 etc.).
OT Old Testament.
14 On the general link between the throne and righteousness, cf. Prv. 20:28; 25:5; 29:14 (20:8).
15 → I, 569. On Rabb. exegesis, cf. Str.-B., 24, 979.
16 Cf. W. Eichrodt, op. cit., II, 102: “In the moving throne with the cherubim there is obviously a reminiscence of Yahweh
enthroned on the ark, at least in idealised form. The platform of the throne, called ַַ‫רקִ יע‬,ָׁ is the reflection of the heavenly ַַ‫רקִ יע‬,ָׁ
of the arch of heaven, and it conceals as in a hollow space lightnings and thunders. The one who is throned on this raki’a is a
demuth or mar’eh, a reflection of Yahweh enthroned on the crown of the arch of heaven. There is obviously expressed here
the transcendence of God.”
Tr. Is. Trito-Isaiah.
17 This passage (cf. v. 16) undoubtedly seems to support the view that “in earlier times especially the ark was regarded as the
throne of Yahweh, invisibly present” (v. Rad).
18 Wisdom already has a throne in Sir. 24:4.
19 The thrones of earthly rulers in particular need the counsel of wisdom if they are to endure (9:12; 6:21; cf. also 7:8).
Ant. Antiquitates.
Joseph. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
20 Schl. Theol. d. Judt., 9.
21 Schl. Mt., 182.
esp. especially.
22 Str.-B., I, 974 f.; II, 335, 353.
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
Slav. En. Slavic Enoch, ed. St. Novakovitsch, 1884.
23 Ibid., I, 975.
24 Str.-B., I, 976; III, 799 f.
R. Rabbi.
c. circa.
25 Shab., 152b; cf. Str.-B., I, 977.
26 For examples, v. Str.-B., I, 976; II. 266.
27 Ibid., III, 803; cf. I, 224, 225.
28 Ibid., III, 805 ff.
29 Tanch ‫ קדשים‬1 (36a); cf. Str.-B., IV, 871.
30 Str.-B., I, 978. The remarkable word metatron or metator, which is found in later Jewish lit., has mostly been linked with
θρόνος by Christian theologians from the time of J.H. Maius (Synopsis Theologiae Judaicae [1698]) (μετάθρονος in the sense
of σύνθρονος). It is supposed to denote a heavenly being which shares the throne of God. In reality it is the Lat. metator in
the sense of the one who prepares the way; cf. G. F. Moore, Harvard Theological Review, 15 (1922), 62–85.
31 καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων, cf. Sir. 10:14.
32 Rgg. Hb.2, 3, 22.
33 At Lk. 22:30, in the parting words of Jesus at the Last Supper, this participation of the disciples in the Messianic reign is
linked with the promise of table fellowship with the parting Lord in His coming kingdom.
34 Session on the throne, to which there is reference elsewhere, indicates entry upon His judicial activity.
35 Rgg. Hb.2, 3, 122, and cf. the Jewish par. quoted there in n. 21.
c. chapter.
36 4:2; cf. also 12:5, where the Messianic child is taken up to God and His throne, and 8:2, where the 7 angels stand before
the throne of God; acc. to Str.-B., III, 805 ff. these are “identical with the throne angels of the ancient Synagogue.”
157
37 Cf. E. Peterson, Das Buch von den Engeln (1935), 22 f. Acc. to Peterson, 104, “the detailed description of the heavenly
throne room” is designed “to express the power of dominion” in the symbol of the throne.
38 Loh. Apk., 173.
39 Zn. Apk., 253 ff.; Had. Apk., 48.
40 Loh. Apk., 23. For bibl., cf. Pr.-Bauer3, s.v.
41 R. Kraemer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes in überzeitl. Deutung (1930), 161; E. B. Allo, Saint Jean. L’Apocalgpse2
(1921), 28, 30–31.
Test. L. Testament of Levi.
42 Cf. Str.-B., III, 581 ff. and Loh. Kol., 58, n. 1.
43 Meinertz Gefbr., 21.
44 Instructive for the conception of the thrones is the Gnostically coloured description of the visionary ascent to the seventh
heaven in Asc. Is., esp. 7:14–35; 8:7–9, 16, 26; 9:10–18, 24 f.; 11:40; cf. Hennecke, 309 ff.
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
Od
Odyssea [Od.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Ath
Ath. = Athenaeus
PMasp
PMasp. = Jean Maspéro, Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine, in Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du
Caire, I (Nos. 67001–67124) 1911, II (Nos. 67125–67278) 1913, III (Nos. 67279–67359) 1916. Digits indicating
67(000) omitted in refs., thus, 2 = 67002 (also known as PCair.Masp.).
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
SEG
SEG = Supp.Epigr. in LSJ, q. v. (vols. 1–25, 1923–71); new series, H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud et al., vols. 26–36, Leiden,
Amsterdam 1976–7 [1979]–1986 [1989].
Hdt
Herodotus Historicus [Hdt.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
X
Xenophon Historicus [X.]
v/iv B.C.
158
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Theoc
Theocritus Poeta Bucolicus [Theoc.]
iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
metaph
metaph. = metaphorically, metaphorical
Pl
Plato Philosophus [Pl.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
pl
pl. = plural
A
Aeschylus Tragicus [A.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Id
Id. = Idem
S
Sophocles Tragicus [S.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Ar
Aristophanes Comicus [Ar.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
IG
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. See Complete Listing.
Lat
Lat. = Latin
transf
159
transf. = (in) transferred (sense).
Cod.Just
Codex Justinianus [Cod.Just.]
iv/vi A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Just
Justinianus Imperator [Just.]
vi A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Myc
Myc. = Mycenaean.
prob
prob. = probable, probably
*
* = to denote words not actually extant.
compd
compd. = compound
E
Euripides Tragicus [E.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
lyr
Lyr. = Lyricus, Lyric poetry
Philostr
Philostratus Sophista [Philostr.]
ii/iii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Lib
Libanius Sophista [Lib.]
iv A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
160
AP
Anthologia Graeca
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Pall
Palladas Epigrammaticus [Pall.]
iv/v A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Plu
Plutarchus Biographus et Philosophus [Plu]
i/ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Him
Himerius Sophista [Him.]
iv A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Astrol
Astrol. = in Astrology
PMich
PMich. = University of Michigan papyri, published in Trans.Am.Ph.Ass. liii (1922) p. 134. PMich. I PMich.Zen. q. v. (nos. 1–
120); II: Papyri from Tebtunis I, (= PMich.Teb.) A. E. R. Boak, Ann Arbor 1933 (nos. 121–8); A Papyrus Codex of the
Shepherd of Hermas, C. Bonner, Ann Arbor 1934 (nos. 129–30); III Miscellaneous Papyri, J. G. Winter, Ann Arbor 1933
(nos. 131–221); v: Papyri from Tebtunis II, ( = PMich.Teb.) E. M. Husselman et al., Ann Arbor 1944 (nos. 226–356);
VIII: = Papyri and Ostraka from Karanis ii, H. C. Youtie, J. G. Winter, Ann Arbor 1951 (nos. 464–521); IX: = Papyri
from Karanis III, E. M. Husselman, Cleveland 1971 (nos. 522–76); XI: J. C. Shelton, Toronto 1971 (nos. 603–25); XII: G.
M. Browne, Toronto 1975 (nos. 626–58); XIII: The Aphrodite Papyri in the Univ. of Michigan Papyrus Collection, P. J.
Sijpesteijn, Zutphen 1977; XIV: V. P. McCarren, Chico, Calif. 1980; XV: P. J. Sijpesteijn, Zutphen 1982. Also sts. cited
by inv. no. and publication.
Class.Phil
Class.Phil. = Classical Philology, Chicago 1906–.
Ptol
Ptolemaeus Mathematicus [Ptol.]
ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Neanth
Neanthes Historicus [Neanth.]
iii B.C.
161
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Paul.Aeg
Paulus Aegineta Medicus [Paul.Aeg.]
vii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Schneider Johannes Schneider, Berlin (Vol. 1–2, 8), Berlin/Breslau (Vol. 3), (Vol. 4), Berlin (Vol. 5, 7).
* βασιλεύς κτλ. On A.: Pauly-W., III (1899), s.v. Basileus; E. Lohmeyer, Christuskult und Kaiserkult (1919), 11ff. and n.;
Deissmann LO, 310 f. There is a histor. and systemat. analysis of the 5 different forms of the βασιλεύς or βασιλεία concept in
the class. Gk. period by Aristot. in Pol., III, 14 p. 1284b, 35ff. On B.: H. Gressmann, Der Messias (1929); E. Sellin, Die isr.jüd. Heilandserwartung (1909); Der at.liche Prophetismus (1912); L. Dürr, Ursprung u. Ausbau der isr.-jüd.
Heilandserwartung (1925); S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien II: Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jabwes u. der Ursprung der
Eschatologie (1922); O. Eissfeldt, “Jahwe als König,” ZAW, 50 (1928), 81ff. A. v. Gall, Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (1926); M.
Buber, Königtum Gottes == Das Kommende, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgesch. des messianischen Glaubens, I (1932);
R. Kittel, Die hellenist. Mysterienreligion und das AT (1924); Bousset-Gressm., 222 ff. On C.: Dalman WJ, I, 75–119 (cf.
2
[1930], 375 ff.); Str.-B., I, 172–184 etc.; Moore, I, 401, 432 ff.; II, 346 f.; 371–375. On E.: Cf. the books mentioned. Of the
vast lit., esp. on the NT βασιλεία, we can only mention the most recent works. Naturally the concept of the kingdom of God
plays a decisive role in all studies of early Christianity, and esp. of Jesus. Cf. P. Feine, Theold. NT5 (1931), 73ff. (with full
bibl.); K. L. Schmidt, “Jesus Christus,” RGG 2, III, 110–151. For more specialised lit, cf. W. Mundle, “Reich Gottes,” ibid.,
IV, 1817–1822. In discussion, cf. the report of the first British and German Theological Conference at Canterbury: “Das
Wesen des Reiches Gottes und seine Beziehung z. menschlichen Gesellschaft,” ThBl, 6 (1927), 113ff. (NT contributions by
C. H. Dodd, E. C. Hoskyns, G. Kittel, A. E. J. Rawlinson, K. L. Schmidt). Of recent monographs, cf. G. Holstein, Die
Grundlagen des ev. Kirchenrechts (1928), 5ff.; W. Michaelis, Täufer, Jesus, Urgemeinde, die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche
Gottes vor und nach Pftingsten (1928); J. Köster, Die Idee d. Kirche beim Ap. Pls. (1928); G. Gloege, Reich Gottes und
Kirche ira NT (1929); H. E. Weber, “Eschatologie” und “Mystik” im NT (1930); H. D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie des
Reiches Gottes bei Jesus (1931).
1 It is now generally accepted that βασιλεύς is a loan word from an Aegean, pre-Gk. language, v. Debrunner, Reallex. für
Vorgesch., IV, 2 (1926), 526. For earlier etym. explanations, v. Pauly-W., 55 f.
2 On this contrast cf. Aristot.Eth. Nic., VIII, 12, p. 1160b, 3 and the formulation in Suidas, s.v.: βασιλεὺς μὲν γὰρ ἐκ
προγόνων κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἔχει τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς λαβὼν πέρασι· τύραννος δέ, ὃς τὴν ἀρχὴν βιαίως σφετερίζεται. The
antithesis does not apply to the earlier period, for the two words were often used as synon., and it was only with the
emergence of Gk. democracy and its contrasting of νόμος and τύραννος that τύραννος acquired the bad odour which still
clings to it to-day. Cf. Pindar, who addresses Hieron as βασιλεύς in Olymp., 1, 23; Pyth., 3, 70; and as τύραννος, Pyth., 3, 85.
Cf. K. Stegmann v. Pritzwald, Zur Gesch. der Herrscherbezeichnungen von Homer bis Plato (1930), 93, 136 (Herodot.), 156
f. (Isocrates).
Od. Odyssey.
Il. Iliad.
Theog. Theogonia.
3 On the Platonic ideal, v. G. Heintzeler, “Das Bild des Tyrannen bei Platon,” Tüb. Beitr. z. Altertumswissensch., 3 (1927),
81 ff. and passim.
Polit. Politicus.
Plat. Plato, of Athens (428/7–348/7 B.C.), ed. J. Burnet, 1905.
Resp. Respublica.
4 εὐεργέτης is a favourite and striking name for the Hellenistic kings; Antigonus and Demetrius, for example, are celebrated
as θεοὶ σωτῆρες καὶ εὐεργέται.
5 E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., 12. Cf. again Plat.Polit., 267d and 275b; or Aristotle’s picture of the ideal ruler who cannot be set
under the νόμοι because he himself is νόμος, Pol., III, 13, p. 1284a, 13, and also of the ideal παμβασιλεία, ibid., III, 10, p.
1225b, 32 ff. On this pt., cf. E. Meyer, Kl. Schr., I2 (1924), 289 f.; again Xenoph.Cyrop., VIII, 2, 14, in which the office of
the king is compared with that of the shepherd. For examples of the resultant Stoic and Cynic concept of the king, cf.
Lohmeyer, op. cit., 48 f., n. 28, 29.
Ditt. Or. W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones, 1902 ff.
6 For its use as a title and divine predicate of Hellenistic rulers at the time of the transition from B.C. to A.D., v. Deissmann
LO, 310 f.
Suid. Suidas, author in the 10th century A.D. of the most comprehensive Greek lexicon, ed. G. Bernhardy, 1853; A. Adler,
1928 ff.
s.v. sub voce.
162
esp. especially.
Hes. Hesiodus, of Ascra in Boetia (c. 700 B.C.), the oldest Greek poet to emerge as a tangible figure. In his Pastoral Calendar
ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι he proclaims the pastoral ideal of life. His Theogony is a speculative work on the origin and descent of the
gods, ed. A. Rzach, 1913.
Op. Opera et Dies.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, ed. Preussische Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1873 ff,
Ditt. Syll. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, 1898 ff.;3, 1915 ff.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz,
1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Pers. Persae.
Pauly-W. A. Pauly, Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, rev. ed., commenced by G. Wissowa, ed. W.
Kroll and K. Mittelhaus, 1892 ff.
Kleinknecht Hermann Kleinknecht, Tübingen (Vol. 1–2), Halle (Vol. 3), (Vol. 4), Münster (Vol. 5–6).
metaph. Metaphysica.
OT Old Testament.
7 Cf. A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina, Leipziger Reformationsprogramm (1930).
8 Perhaps through the medium of older traditions from Canaanite Jerusalem, cf. Ps. 110.
9 The one relic of this view which escaped the strict censorship is in Ps. 45:7. The declarations of divine sonship are formulae
of adoption.
10 The best is still that of Dürr, 52 f., namely, that Israel’s unique view of God, its belief in the strong and trustworthy God
who can help Israel, is the root of the religious expectation.
11 ‫ עַד‬is “aeon,” cf. R. Kittel, Hell. Mysterienrel., 73 ff.
12 Here we see plainly opposition to Jerusalem, which is not only not mentioned, but which is to be destroyed, so that the
Davidic dynasty will again originate in Bethlehem.
13 The Messianic hope seems to have displayed remarkable vitality in the Levitical circles which gave rise to the Books of
Chronicles, cf. G. v. Rad, Geschichtsbild des chronist. Werkes (1930), 119 ff. Zech. 9:9 f. is hard to date. In the symbol.
material in Da. 7:13 there is reference to a Messiah, but the author has reshaped it. The Servant Songs of Dt.-Is. do not refer
to a Messiah. For a recent discussion, cf. J. Fischer, Wer ist der Ebed in den Perikopen Jes. 42 …? (1922); ZAW, 47 (1925),
90 ff.; 48 (1926), 242 ff.; 50 (1928), 156 ff.; 51 (1929), 255 ff. In any case, the OT never uses the title ַַ‫ מָׁ ִשיח‬for the King of
the last time.
NT New Testament.
14 Esp. Mic. 5:1; cf. Sellin, Prophetismus, 178 f.
15 R. Kittel (op. cit., 64 ff.) seeks the roots of the Isaianic view of the Messiah in the Egyptian Osiris myth.
16 Is. 11:4 is hardly an exception, for without any weapon He miraculously fights His enemies with the breath of His mouth.
17 W. Caspari, Echtheit, Hauptbegriff u. Gedankengang der messianischen Weissagung Jes. 9 (1908), 14.
18 Unfortunately this question has been almost completely ignored in the present lively discussion of OT eschatology.
Caspari (op. cit., 12 ff.) pertinently notes that the Messianic figure of Is. 9 is not an autonomous Ruler. Both ‫ שַ ר‬and ‫ יֹוצֵ ץ‬show
that He is responsible to a higher figure, and thus a kind of vizier; in Jeremiah (and Ezekiel), however, the Messiah is ‫( מֶ לְֶך‬cf.
Jer. 23:5; Ez. 37:24).
19 Here, as elsewhere, Deuteronomic theology takes an independent line, with no mention either of the kingship of Yahweh
or of a Messianic hope.
20 Eissfeldt, op. cit., 96.
21 Cf. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, II. Mowinckel, however, overestimates the importance of this festival, and the brilliant
deduction of Isr. eschatology from it has been weakened by the more recent discussion in ZAW, 52 (1930), 267, n. 3.
22 Cf. Jer. 46:18; 48:15; 51:57; Ps. 5:2; 24:7 ff.; Da. 4:34.
23 Nu. 23:21; Jer. 8:19; Zech. 3:15; Mi. 2:12 f.; 4:6 ff.; but also Is. 41:21; 43:15; 44:6.
24 Jer. 10:7, 10 ff. (Jer. 10:1–16 hardly seems to be by Jeremiah); Zech. 14:9, 16 f.; Mal. 1:14; Ps. 22:28; 47:2, 7.
25 M. Buber, Königtum Gottes (1932).
26 Op. cit., 104.
Heb. Hebrew.
27 L. Gulkowitsch, Die Bildung von Abstraktbegriffen in den hebräischen Sprachgeschichte (1931), passim. There is here a
discussion of the possible derivation of the word from official Accadian terminology, 130f.
28 ‫ מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬differs only slightly in meaning from ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬, except that there is less yielding of the abstract reference to the
institutional side of monarchy (‫ עִ ירַהַ מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכ ָׁ֥הַּבֵ יתַמַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬for royal city, national temple, 1 S. 27:5; Am. 7:13). In the religious
sense all Israel is required to be a kingdom of priests, esp. in Ex. 19:6, though there is here no particular emphasis on ‫מַ ְׁמ ָׁלכָׁה‬
as such. (Cf. a par. saying in Nu. 11:29: “Would that all the people were prophets!”) However, it certainly means “kingdom.”
In the true religious sense it is found only at Ps. 22:28 and Ob. 21 in relation to Yahweh’s present and final dominion.
29 Ps. 103:19; 145:11, 13; Da. 3:33. Cf. also Ps. 22:28 (‫)מלּוכָׁה‬
ְׁ .
30 On the use of ‫ מַ לְׁ כּות‬in Rabb. Judaism, → infra.
163
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
Ass. Mos. Assumptio Mosis. Jewish apocalypse of the time of the death of Herod the Great (Schürer, III, 294 ff.), ed. R.
Charles, 1897.
31 Cf. Bousset-Gressm., 214 ff.
von Rad Gerhard von Rad, Leipzig (Vol. 1), Jena (Vol. 2–3), Heidelberg (Vol. 5).
32 ‫ מֶ לְֶך‬in Rabb. lit. hardly needs separate treatment, since here, in contrast to the OT, the significance of the word group is
wholly in terms of ‫מַ לְׁ כּות‬. Any important features in the use of ̔ λjμj (God as King or the Messiah King) will be noted in the
next section, so far as they have not been brought out in that on the OT.
33 V. on this pt. Str.-B., II, 314; S. Nu., 1 on 5:3 (K. G. Kuhn, S. Nu. [1933] 12f.) == S. Nu., 161 on 35:34.
34 A third later Jewish abstract construction of the same kind is ‫ימ ָׁראַדיי‬
ְׁ ֵ‫מ‬, which the Targumim use for ‫אָׁ מַ רַיהוה‬,—and
nothing more, no “hypostasis”), v. Str.-B., II, 302 ff.
Tg. O. Targum Onkelos.
Mas. Masora.
Tg. Targum, Aramaic translation or paraphrase of the OT.
35 Cf. Dalman WJ, I, 79 and 83.
36 Or ‫ מלכותאַדיי‬being an abbrev, for ‫( יהוה‬properly ‫י‬, but usually written ‫ יי‬on account of the smallness of the letter, or even or
).
Rabb. Rabbinic.
transl. transitive.
Gk. Greek.
37 Enumerated in Str.-B., I, 172 under A and I, 862 ff.
38 This is also stressed by Dalman WJ, I, 77 (“the rule of a king rather than the territory of a king”). Yet he finds an
empirical reason for this: “An oriental ‘kingdom’ is … not a state in our sense, i.e., a constituted people or country, but a
‘dominion’ comprising a certain territory”—whereas it actually lies in the nature of the term itself. It is better not to put this
in terms of “more” and “less” as in RGG2, IV, 1817 (Mundle): “… denotes less the geographical concept of a kingdom than
the fact of the dominion of a king.”
39 This transference took place much earlier and at a different point, namely, under the Israelite monarchy (terminus a quo,
David) and in relation to ‫ → ;מֶַלֶך‬568.
Rabb. Rabbis,
40 Cf. Str.-B., I, 183 for many examples.
41 It is thus legitimate to use “more or less” (n. 38) in relation to this ‫מלכות‬.
42 In only three passages, all from the 3rd cent. A.D., is ‫ מלכותַשמים‬contrasted with ‫מלכותַהארץ‬: Gn. r., 9 (7b); Pesikt., 51a
(and par.); b.Ber., 58a (Str.-B., I, 175f. under h).
43 So, e.g., RH, 4, 5; S. Nu., 77 on 10:10; v. on this pt. Moore, II, 210, 373.
44 For examples, v. Str.-B., I, 173 ff. passim.
45 For examples, v. Str.-B., I, 177 f. under n.
46 Cf. the two petitions from the tractate Soferim in Str.-B., I, 179. For further examples, ibid., passim.
47 Cf. the passages adduced above (→ 571, mostly transl. in Str.-B., I, 179 under c). Cf. also Moore, II, 374, n. 3; Sib., 3, 47
f. (φανεῖται) and Lk. 19:11 (μέλλει ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναφαίνεσθαι).
48 Sanh., 10:1: All Israel has a part in the future world.
49 Str.-B., I, 175 under e. Also Ps. Sol. 5:18f.; 17:3. Dependence on the cultic piety of the Royal Psalms is here apparent.
50 S. Dt., 313 on 32:10 (Str.-B., I, 173 under c).
51 Str.-B., I, 172 under d and 174; S. Lv., 18:6 (Shim’on ben Jọai).
52 Cf. Str.-B., IV, 968 f.
53 E.g. at the beginning of the Kaddish prayer: “May He set up His royal dominion … and bring His Messiah.” Cf. on this
whole train of thought esp. Moore, II, 371–375.
Kuhn Karl Georg Kuhn, Tübingen (Vol. 1–3), (Vol. 4), Göttingen (Vol. 5), Heidelberg (Vol. 6).
Aram. Aramaic.
Flacc. In Flaccum.
Plant. De Plantatione.
Gig. De Gigantibus.
Mut. Nom. De Mutatione Nominum.
Vit. Mos. De Vita Mosis.
Omn. Prob. Lib. Quod omnis Probus Liber sit.
Fug. De Fuga et Inventione.
Praem. De Praemiis et Poenis.
Leg. Legatio ad Gajum.
Virt. De Virtutibus.
Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus.
164
Migr. Abr. De Migratione Abrahami.
Abr. De Abrahamo.
Som. De Somniis.
Op. De Opificio Mundi.
Sacr. AC. De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini.
Ebr. De Ebrietate.
Rer. Div. Her. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres sit.
54 Cf. H. Leisegang’s Indexes. The ref. V., 142, 1 should read V., 14, 21. In V., 230, 8 we should derive τῶν βασιλείων from
τὰ βασίλεια rather than ἡ βασιλεία.
55 It is striking that in the index to E. Bréhier, Les Idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie (1908), there is
a whole list of references under vertu, but royaume de Dieu is not even mentioned. We gain a similar impression from I.
Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung (1932).
56 As correctly noted by G. Gloege, Reich Gottes und Kirche im Neuen Testament (1929), 19 ff. Philo is not discussed in the
section on later Judaism in this work.
57 Cf. A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (1932), 49, n. 1.
Ant. Antiquitates.
Ap. Contra Apionem.
58 So A. Schlatter, Wit sprach Josephus von Gott? (1910), 11 f.
59 Cf. G. Hölscher in his art. “Josephus” in Pauly-W., IX, 1955: “J. in his presentation of biblical history renounces any
independent use of the biblical text, whether in the Gk. or Heb. form, and creates his material almost completely, and even to
the smaller details, from biblical models.”
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
60 Cf. Deissmann LO, 310 f.
61 Loc. cit.
vl. varia lectio.
62 The difficult incident concerning the Davidic sonship in Mk. 12:35–37 and par. cannot finally affect our judgment at this
point.
63 On the theme of this antithesis in the framework of the Messianic secret there is a good deal of useful material in the
comprehensive work of R. Eisler, Ἰησοῦς βασιλεὺς οὐ βασιλεύσας, I (1929), II (1930), cf. esp. II, 374 and 688. On the other
hand, the detailed presentation, while apparently perspicacious, is often obscure and unreliable. On Eisler as a whole, cf. the
discussions of his book by H. Windisch, Gnomon, 7 (1931), 289–307; H. Lewy, DLZ, 51 (1930), 481–494; W. Windfuhr,
Philol. Wochenschr., 53 (1933), 9 ff.; they unanimously reject Eisler’s methods as unscientific.
Did. Didache.
Barn. Epistle of Barnabas.
Mart. Martyrium.
Pol. Polycarpi.
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
v. visiones.
64 There is a formal analogy to this figur. and improper use of βασιλεύς, in the sense of a distinguished person, in
Philostr.Vit. Soph., II, 10, 2, where Herodes Atticus appears as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν λόγων [Kleinknecht].
65 Against Holstein and Gloege (→ 564, Bibl.), it should be pointed out that a primary lexical investigation of the word as
used, such as is attempted here on the foundation and in development of that of Cr.-Kö., is particularly fruitful in questions of
biblical theology,: esp. when we avoid such dubious modern categories, used esp. by Gloege, as “dynamic,”
“supratemporality” and “otherworldliness.” Neither directly nor indirectly should exegesis make use of such modern
terminology—better though it may be than that which preceded—in attempts to free itself from the long dispute concerning
the transcendence or immanence of the kingdom of God—a dispute which has been inevitably fruitless.
Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian, described as early as Cicero as the father of
history. His work deals with the conflicts between the Greeks and the barbarians from earliest times to the Persian Wars, ed.
H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.
Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical, philosophical and scholarly
works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.
Mem. Memorabilia Socratis.
66 Well expounded by Suid., s.v.: τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ τὸ ἔθνος βασιλευόμενον.
67 In modern Greek βασιλεία means “kingship”, “royal dominion” or “reign”; the word for territorial “kingdom” is
βασίλειον.
68 Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1925), 111, who interprets “God’s rule or sovereignty, the
reign of God”; A. Deissmann, The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of St. Paul (1923), 108 ff. “kingdom or sovereignty, kingly
rule of God”; J. Warschauer, The Historical Life of Christ (1927): “What we translate ‘the kingdom of God’ means thus
rather His ‘kingship,’ His ‘reign’ rather than His ‘realm’.”
165
69 So, e.g., Kl. Lk., ad loc.
70 Loh. Apk., ad loc.: “Königtum.”
71 Ibid., freely rendered: “The great city is queen over the kings of the earth.”
72 Kl. Mt. and Kl. Lk., ad loc.: “Reiche der Welt.”
par. parallel.
Ev. Hebr. Gospel of the Hebrews.
Fr. Fragmenta (-um).
73 The plur. is a Semitism, unlike 2 C. 12:2.
74 To which many MSS add τοῦ [κυρίου] Ἰησοῦ or τοῦ θεοῦ.
75 In the course of centuries such absolute usage has led to a religious or ostensibly religious, but also immanent, worldly
and pseudo-theological way of speaking of the kingdom in the sense of an earthly realm. We find this even in religious
Socialism on the one side and the Third Reich of National Socialism on the other (in connection with the belief in the Holy
Roman Empire, which for its part may be traced back to this absolute usage).
synon. synonym.
76 This saying of Paul is completely misconstrued if we see in it merely the common antithesis between word and work, or
speaking and acting. The reference is not to the fact that men should act rather than speak. It is to the fact that the work of
man is valueless in comparison with the power of God. We catch the sense if we paraphrase: The kingdom of God does not
consist in the power of man but in the Word of God. The whole emphasis falls on the kingdom of God as the dominant and
unambiguously logical subject.
77 The author of Hebrews is a theologian who, arguing from the LXX, writes the best Gk. in the NT.
78 For what follows, cf. R. Bultmann, Jesus (1926), 28–54; K. L. Schmidt, “Jesus Christus” in RGG2, III, 129–132; “Das
iiberweltliche Reich Gottes in der Verkündigung Jesu,” ThBl, 6 (1927), 118–120; “Die Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments
in ihrer Einheit und Besonderheit,” ThBl, 10 (1931), 113ff.
79 Cf. the sayings about the strait gate and the broad way in Mt. 7:13 f. == Lk. 13:23 f.
80 Cf. G. Kittel, “Das innerweltliche Reich Gottes in der Verktündigung Jesu” ThBl, 6 (1927), 122 f.
81 So P. Feine, Theold. NT1 (1910), 100 (5[1931],80); Kittel Probleme, 130 f.
82 Cf. R. Frick, Die Geschichte des Reich-Gottes-Gedankens in der alten Kirche bis zu Origenes u. Augustin (1928), 101, n.
2.
83 Cf. A. v. Harnack, Marcion2 (1924), 223 ff.
84 It is justly observed by R. Frick (op cit., 52, n. 1) that there are no good grounds for deleting Christus ipse as a scribal
error.
85 We may take it that this text—a quotation from the OT—is more certain than the alternatives βασίλειον or βασιλεῖς.
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
Ion
Ion. = Ionic
Hdt
Herodotus Historicus [Hdt.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
Heraclit
Heraclitus [Heraclit.] i A.D.. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
166
opp
opp. = opposed to
Th
Thucydides Historicus [Th.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Arist
Aristoteles Philosophus [Arist.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
ib
ib. = ibidem (i.e. in the same work)
metaph
metaph. = metaphorically, metaphorical
Lxx
Vetus Testamentum Graeca redditum [LXX]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Paus
Pausanias Periegeta [Paus.]
ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
D.S
Diodorus Siculus Historicus [D.S.]
i B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
OGI
OGI = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1903–5 [Hildesheim 1970].
POxy
POxy. = Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, London 1898–.
BGU
167
BGU = Berliner griechische Urkunden (Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin), Berlin 1895–1983 (15
vols.), [1–9 Milan 1972]).
Myc
Myc. = Mycenaean.
Desid
Desiderat. = Desiderative
Com.Adesp
Comica Adespota [Com.Adesp.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
J
Josephus Historicus [J.]
i A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Praef
Appianus Historicus [App.]
ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Pl
Plato Philosophus [Pl.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
S
Sophocles Tragicus [S.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cj
cj. = conjecture, conjectured by
Dim
Dim. = Diminutive
Plu
Plutarchus Biographus et Philosophus [Plu]
i/ii A.D.
168
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
X
Xenophon Historicus [X.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
pl
pl. = plural
Plb
Polybius Historicus [Plb.]
ii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Str
Strabo Geographus [Str.]
i B.C./i A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
BCH
BCH = suppl. 8, 9, v. index IV.
suppl
suppl. = supplement
Maced
Maced. = Macedonia(n).
Isoc
Isocrates Orator [Isoc.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Porph
Porphyrius Tyrius Philosophus [Porph.]
iii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
ap
ap. = apud (quoted in)
Eus
169
Eusebius Caesariensis Scriptor Ecclesiasticus [Eus.]
iv A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Horap
Horapollo [Horap.]
iv A.D. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Ps.-Dsc
Pseudo-Dioscorides medicus [Ps.-Dsc.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Id
Id. = Idem
IG
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. See Complete Listing.
Sch
Sch. = Scholia; see under several authors Sch.Gen.Il., Sch.min.Il., etc, v. Homerus in index I.
Pi
Pindarus Lyricus [Pi.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
iv
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement,
1996." (Rev. and augm. throughout /) (Page 309). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
* δεῖπνον,δειπνέω. Moult.-Mill., 138f.; Pr.-Bauer, 270; Liddell-Scott, 375.
1 On ancient meals and feasts, cf. Pauly-W., IV (1901), 1201 ff.; on Jewish, cf. J. R. Willis, DCG, II, 150 ff.; Str.-B., II, 204
ff.: IV, 611 ff.; I, 914 f.
par. parallel.
NT New Testament.
2 The phrase δεῖπνον κυριακόν might also be used for the stories of the feedings in Mk. 6:35 ff. and par. and the meal with
the seven in Jn. 21:12 ff., although the term δεῖπνον does not actually occur in the Synopt. accounts and ἀριστοῦν is used in
Jn. 21. In both these cases the Lord dispenses food, as He also dispenses wine at the marriage in Cana. Hence these stories
should be set alongside the institution narrative. They were used as symbols of the Lord’s Supper in early Christian art, which
avoided any direct representation. Cf. K. Künstle, Ikonographie der christhchen Kunst, I (1928), 413, with bibl. [Bertram].
3 → κλάσις, κλάω and the related discussions of the Lord’s Supper in the NT.
v. verse.
4 Cf. Joh. W. 1 K., 286; Ltzm. K.3, 58; Sickb. K., 53.
esp. especially.
5 On this pt., cf. J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), 74 ff.
6 Not to a present experience of individuals (Zn. Apk., I, 316, cf. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, I [1920], 101),
nor to the Lord’s Supper (Loh., ad loc.). Cf. Bss., Had., ad loc.; Rohr Off., 127.
170
7 Cf. Ltzm. K..3, 49 ff.; F. Pfister and O. Eissfeldt, RGG2, III, 1854 ff.; K. Völker, Mysterium u. Agape (1927), 212 ff.; H.
Seesemann, Der Begriff κοινωνία im NT (1933), 52 ff.
Jos. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
Ant. Antiquitates.
BMI Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, 1874 ff.
8 Cf. on this pt. H. Oppermann, RVV, 19, 3 (1924), 67 f. On the meals and public feasts organised by the priests of Zeus
Panamaros, ibid., 78 f.; also BCH, 51 (1927), 95, No. 61, 10 and 98, No. 64, 5.
BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1877 ff.
9 On sacred feasts in the cult of Mithras, cf. F. Cumont, Die Mysterien des Mithra3 (1923). 124 and 146 f.; Haas, Bilderatlas,
Lfrg., 15 (1930) (Leipoldt), 18 f., 23 and 46; in the cult of Sabazius etc., cf. F. Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im
römischen Heidentum3 (1931). 56 and 60.
Plut. Plutus.
Ser. Num. De iis qui sero a numine puniuntur.
10 Cf. U. v. Wilamowitz, Pindaros (1922), 129, n. 1.
Ael Claudius Aelianus (c. 175–235 A.D.), Roman author, writing in Greek, of the so-called Second Sophistic school, ed. R.
Hercher, 1864 ff.
Var. Varia Historia.
Iren. Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, bishop of Lyons, martyred 202 A.D. during the persecution under Severus, ed. in MPG, 7,
1882.
P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1898 ff.
Chrys. John Chrysostom, of Antioch (344–401 A.D.), bishop of Constantinople, whose sermons mark the climax of early
Christian homiletics, ed. in MPG, 47–64, 1862 ff.
Liturg. Liturgy of Chrysostom, in Liturgies Eastern and Western, ed. F. E. Brightman, I, 1896.
Athenag. Athenagoras, of Athens, Christian Apologist, who came over from Platonism and wrote a defence of Christianity to
the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in 177, ed. E. Goodspeed in Die ältesten Apologeten, 1914.
Suppl. Supplicatio.
Tat. Tatian, of Syria, won to Christianity in Rome by Justin, author c. 152 of an address to the Greeks in which he sharply
attacks Greek culture, ed. E. Goodspeed in Die Ältesten Apologeten, 1914.
Or. Oratio ad Graecos.
11 On the mythological and religious background of these conceptions, cf. H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung d. israel.-jüd.
Eschatologie (1905), 136 ff.; A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte des alten Orients4 (1930), 982 f., 733 f.
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
Slav. En. Slavic Enoch, ed. St. Novakovitsch, 1884.
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
s. similitudines.
Rabb. Rabbis,
b. Babylonian Talmud when before tractates from the Mishnah.
Shab. Shabbat, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Sabbath (Strack, Einl., 37).
Midr. Midrash, Jewish expositions or homilies on books of the Old Testament (Struck, Einl., 196 ff.).
Cant. r. Canticum rabba, Midrash on Song of Solomon (Strack, Einl., 213).
12 Str.-B., IV, 1154; I, 878 f., with additional material.
Pesikt. r. Pesikta rabbati, collection of homilies (Strack, Einl., 205 f.).
13 Ibid., IV, 1157. Cf. also Dalman WJ, 1, 90 f.
Behm Johannes Behm †, Göttingen (Vol. 1), Berlin (Vol. 2–5).
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
Hom
Homerus Epicus [Hom.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
sts
171
sts. = sometimes
Il
Ilias [Il.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
sq
sq., sqq. = sequens, sequentia
Od
Odyssea [Od.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
A
Aeschylus Tragicus [A.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Ar
Aristophanes Comicus [Ar.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
freq
freq. = frequent, frequently
pl
pl. = plural
S
Sophocles Tragicus [S.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
lyr
Lyr. = Lyricus, Lyric poetry
E
Euripides Tragicus [E.]
v B.C.
172
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
Antipho
Antipho Sophista [Antipho Soph.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Eub
Eubulus Comicus [Eub.]
iv R.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Pherecr
Pherecrates Comicus [Pherecr.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Id
Id. = Idem
Dionys.Com
Dionysius Comicus [Dionys.Com.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
Ael
Aelianus [Ael.]
ii/iii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
IG
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. See Complete Listing.
Epigr
Epigr. = Epigram
ap
173
ap. = apud (quoted in)
Philostr
Philostratus Sophista [Philostr.]
ii/iii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
v
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996."
(Rev. and augm. throughout /) (Page 375). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
* γάμος. H. Preisker, Christentum u. Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (1927); G. Delling, Paulus’ Stellung zu Frau und
Ehe (1931).
plur. plural.
Ditt. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, 1898 ff.;3, 1915 ff.
1 De Constructione, III, 153: ἔστι γὰρ τὸ μὲν πρότερον (== γαμῶ) γάμου μεταλαμβάνω, τὸ δὲ "γαμίζω" γάμου τινὶ
μεταδίδωμι. On the linguistic form, v. Bl.-Debr., § 101, 314.
Gk. Greek.
mid. middle.
2 V. Aristot.Pol., VII, 16, p. 1335a, 20 f.; Preisigke Wört., s.v.; Sickb. K.4, 37 f., which also gives the most recent Roman
Catholic literature.
Heb. Hebrew.
orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 A.D.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of
ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3
Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff.
Rabb. Rabbis,
3 Rich material on Jewish customs is to be found in Str.-B., I, 500 ff., also 45 f.; II, 398 f. The institution of the 7 day feast is
traced back to Moses himself in jKet., 25a, 26.
S. Nu. Sifre Numeri, Tannaitic Midrash on Numbers (Strack, Einl., 201), ed. H. G. Horovitz, 1917.
S. Dt. Sifre Deuteronomium, Tannaitic Midrash on Deuteronomy (Strack, Einl., 200 f.).
4 For further examples, cf. Str.-B., I, 879 on Mt. 22:2; other and less frequent terms for the feast may also be found there.
v. verse.
5 Since the Fall, however, marriage stands under a curse. Genesis refers to tensions in the relationship between man and
woman, and to the indissoluble conflict between the self-giving and surrender of the wife, Gn. 3:16. But Judaism also speaks
of a unique fellowship of the patriarchs under the sign of the commonly incurred curse, e.g., Vit. Ad., 3; 20; 25.
6 Almost always in the Jewish tradition there is exhortation to marry and bear children, together with an attack on exogamy
and licentiousness; e.g., Jub. 25:3; 30:7ff.; Test. L. 9:9ff.; Bodleiana Frag., 16 f. (Charles, Test. XII, p. 247); Ps.-Phocylides,
175–205; Jos.Ap., 1, 31 ff.; 2, 199. On everyday practice, v. the Jewish burial inscription from the catacomb of Monteverde
(Müller-Bees, No. 145; Deissmann LO, 387 ff.).
7 From the same awareness of the henosis and historical function of marriage as rooted in creation there also develops here
and there in Judaism a sense that the destruction of a marriage is a mortal assault on the total life of creation, Pirke R. Eliez.,
34. Certain of the basic concepts of Mt. 5:27 ff. may be seen already in Job 31:1, 7 ff.: ὀφθαλμός, καρδία, γυνή.
8 V. esp. b.Ned., 50a; also the art. “Akiba” in EJ.
9 For the procreation of children as an act of faith, cf. Ps.-Philo Ant. Bibl., 9, 6 ff.; cf. also Is. 8:1 ff.
10 C. Bartholomae, Die Gathas des Avesta (1905), 115 ff.
11 F. Justi, Der Bundehesh (1868), 47.
12 The Jewish law of marriage and divorce is treated in the tractates Git., Kid., Sota and Ket. There are excellent reviews in
Str.-B., II, 372 ff.; I, 303 ff. On the hesitation in basic attitude, v. Kittel Probleme, 98 ff. On the demand for monogamy, v.
Damasc., 4, 20 ff., where there is an attack on the licentiousness of having two wives, and where the basis is found in
creation: “Male and female created he them,” and in the ark: “There went in two and two into the ark,” so that it is written
concerning the prince that he shall not multiply wives to himself (Dt. 17:17). Cf. also Staerk, ad loc. For further details, v. K.
H. Rengstorf, Jebamot (1929), 30 ff.
13 In the LXX cf. Est. 10:6 (F 3): ἣν ἐγάμησεν ὁ βασιλεύς. γαμεῖν occurs without obj. in 4 Macc. 16:9 (οἱ μὲν ἄγαμοι, οἱ δὲ
γαμήσαντες); 2 Macc. 14:25 (γῆμαι καὶ παιδοποιήσασθαι).
14 Lk. 16:18 gives us from the Q tradition a saying with the same meaning in another form: πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα
αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην … γαμῶν μοιχεύει. Mt. uses both Mk. and Q, but in both cases
introduces a qualification which blunts the saying and is obviously designed to justify the practice of the Early Church: Mt.
19:9: μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, and Mt. 5:32: παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. (On → πορνεία, cf. Tob. 8:7: οὐ διὰ πορνείαν ἐγὼ λαμβάνω
174
τὴν ἀδελφήν μου ταύτην sc. to wife). These casuistic clauses can hardly derive from Jesus and were obviously not known to
Pl. in 1 C. 7:10 ff.
15 Jesus keeps closely to the traditional modes of Jewish thought and expression when here and in Mk. 12:25 He uses the act.
(γαμεῖν) for the man and the mid. (γαμίζεσθαι) for the woman. γαμίζειν does not occur in the LXX. Mt. 24:38 has γαμίζοντες
in ‫ א‬D and 33. B, as so often, has a more archaic reading of its own—the more refined γαμίσκοντε; the Byzantines have
ἐκγαμίζοντες. The case is much the same in Lk. 20:35.
16 Cf. also S. Bar. 10:13a: “Ye who are free, do not enter the marriage chamber.”
17 Cf. Mt. 5:29 f. (συμφέρει as in 19:10).
18 The Baptist is obviously one of these. Peter was married acc. to Mk. 1:30, and even if he was alone at the time of Lk.
18:28 and par., he later had an ἀδελφή to wife; the same is true of the other apostles, v. 1 C. 9:5.
19 Cf. Rev. 2:3: ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου.
20 The Evangelist here develops the problem of marriage in exactly the same way as the ensuing problem of judging. The
disciples are roused and startled by the stringent demand of Jesus and say to the Master: εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι, 19:10 (cf. 19:25: τίς ἄρα δύναται σωθῆναι;). Then Jesus reveals a final point to
them in the separate saying: οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἀλλ᾽ οἷς δέδοται … ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω, 19:11f.
(cf. 19:28: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὑμεῖς οἰ ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι …). This is the way of the called: εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες
εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (cf. Mt. 19:29; Lk. 18:29: ὃς ἀφῆκεν οἰκίαν ἢ γυναῖκα … εἵνεκεν τῆς
βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ …). Cf. also T.Jeb., 8, 4.
par. parallel.
21 It is not an occasion for the κοιλία, which is a prey to corruptibility, but an offence against the body, which is given a new
consecration by the πνεῦμα and assured of a new future by the fact of the resurrection (1 C. 6:14, 19). Sin against the body is
thus an offence against the coming life and the ongoing work of divine creation.
22 A new problem is whether marriage with an unbeliever should be dissolved. Paul’s answer is that the initiative should
come only from the ἄπιστος (v. 15; cf. 1 Pt. 3:l f.; for a different view cf. Jer. 8:2 ff.).
23 On a similar basis Akiba (b.San., 76a) advises the marriage of daughters at the right time. Cf. also Sir. 7:25: ἔκδου
θυγατέρα; but cf. 1 C. 7:36 ff. for another aspect.
24 γαμίζειν act. in 1 C. 7:38 (twice) and Mt. 24:38; Lk. 20:35 γαμίζεσθαι (the later Byzant. have ἐκγαμίζω in all four
instances). The meaning of γαμίζειν is consistent throughout the NT, i.e., “to marry” == γαμεῖν and γαμίσκειν. It seems likely
that in 1 C. 7:36 ff. the reference is to mere co-habitation. On the linguistic and material problem, cf. Ltzm., ad loc.: A.
Juncker, Ethik des Paulus, II (1919), 191 ff.
25 Note the οὕυτως. If Paul were a widower, we should expect a ὡς κἀγώ, as in 7:7f. There, however, the ἄγαμοι are to the
fore, so that it is most likely that he himself was an ἄγαμος.
26 On the debated issue whether Paul was a widower, cf. Joach. Jeremias, ZNW, 30 (1929), 321 ff. On the problem “Ehe und
Charisma bei Paulus,” v. W. Michaelis, ZSTh, 5 (1928), 426 ff.; H. Preisker, ibid., 6 (1928), 91 f.
27 Even the συμφέρει of Mt. 19:10 recurs in Paul in order to show the meaning and pre-eminence of celibacy: τοῦτο … πρὸς
… σύμφορον λέγω (1 C. 7:35). It is a technical term for the orientation of ethics to the final goal of calling. Cf. Mt. 5:29 f.; 1
C. 6:12; 10:23; 10:33.
28 γαμετή, the wife, found only here in early Christian literature.
Ign. Ignatius.
v. vide.
esp. especially.
s. similitudines.
29 ἀκολουθοῦντες in Rev. 14:4 as in Mt. 19:28: ἀκολουθήσαντες (→ n. 20 and 214). They form the central corps of the
people of God, cf. ἀπαρχή (Rev. 14:4).
30 Col. 3:18 ff.; Eph. 5:22 ff.; 1 Pt. 2:18 ff.
NT New Testament.
31 On Eph. 5 → 656.
32 V. O. Kern, Die griech. Mysterien d. klass. Zeit (1927), 71 f.
33 V. O. Kern in Pauly-W., s.v. Dionysos, V (1905), 1010 ff.; L. Deubner, “Dionysos u. d. Anthesterien,” Jahrb. Deutsch.
Arch. Inst., 42 (1927), 172 ff. On the sacrament of the bridal chamber, v. Mith. Liturg., 126 f.; on the wedding feast, ibid.,
244.
34 V. M. Bieber, “Das Mysteriensaal der Villa Item,” Jahrb. Deutsch. Arch. Inst., 43 (1928), 298 ff.; 314 f.; 320.
Resp. Respublica.
OT Old Testament.
35 J. Hempel, ZSTh, 9 (1931), 18.
36 H. Schmidt, “Die Ehe des Hosea,” ZAW, 42 (1924), 245 ff.
37 Jos.Ant., 18, 66 ff. gives us a crass example frequently quoted.
38 Cherub., 13. Cf. also γάμος in Abr., 100 f. and Som., I, 200. The wedding of the king with wisdom, Wis. 8:2, 9 (Sir. 15:2).
39 Dt. r., 3 (200d); Pirke R. Eliez., 41; M. Ex. on 19:17 in Str.-B., I, 969 f.; II, 393.
175
M. Ex. Mekilta Exodus, Tannaitic Midrash on Exodus (Strack, Einl., 201). ed. J. Rabin, 1929 ff.
40 V Ex. r., 15 on 12:2; Lv. r., 11 on 9:1 and jShebi., 35c, 25, in Str.-B., I. 517. The image of the eschatological feast, already
found in Is. 25:6, is united with the thought of mother Israel, called back by God to Himself, in the wholly Jewish verses in 4
Esr. 2:15, 38. On the feast as a form and means of fellowship with God, v. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus der Weltvollender (1930),
75 ff.
41 In a typical Rabb. attempt to find a theological origin for even secular marriages, it is suggested that Yahweh is the first
Bridegroom (Gn. r., 18 on 2:22).
42 Cf. b.Sukk., 25b; Pesikt., 20 (95a); 43 (180b); Ter., 11, 10 etc. in Str.-B., I, 504 ff. For the rather different torch procession
leading the bridal couple to their home or to the bridal chamber, cf. M. Est., 1, 4, Str.-B., I, 511; also Str.-B., I, 969 (in the
land of Ishmael) and KI. Mt. on 25:1ff. (in Trans-jordania). Torches are also mentioned in relation to the homecoming of the
bride in M. Bieber, op cit., 318, 6; 320, 1.
43 The same thought is also found in Jn. 3:29, and possibly even in Jn. 2:7 ff. in the original form of the Cana story; so H.
Schmidt, Die Erzählung v. d. Hochzeit zu Kana. Eine rel.-gesch. Untersnchung (1931), 25.
44 v. the par. in Lk. 14:16 ff., and much more concretely in Mk. 14:25 and par.
45 On the harlot Babylon as the opp. of the Messianic bride, cf. Sib., 3, 356 ff.: ὦ χλιδανὴ … παρθένε, πολλάκι σοῖσι
πολυμνήστοισι γάμοισιν οἰνωθεῖσα, (→ n. 53: → Βαβυλών, 515).
46 In the misplaced section 61:10, which must be understood in the light of 62:5.
47 In the Syr. Schatzhöhle (p. 67, Bezold) a bill of divorce is given to the Jewish community after the crucifixion of Jesus.
48 H. Schmidt, op cit., suspects an original form of the Cana story in which Jesus was perhaps the bridegroom.
49 E.g., M. Bieber, op cit., 319. H. Schmidt sees in Jn. 2:1 ff. the reconstruction of a story which originally treated of the
epiphany of a wine-god, op cit., 30, 33. W. Bauer, too, recalls the wine miracles of Dionysus and interprets the story as a rich
allegorising of the wine of the Lord’s Supper, v. Bau. Jn., ad loc. The specifically Johannine impress and character of the
story are especially worked out, and made fruitful for interpretation, by K. L. Schmidt in “Der Johanneische Charakter der
Erzählung vom Hochzeitswunder zu Kana,” Harnackehrung (1921), 32 ff.
50 The Roman Catholic view starts with the application of the term μυστήριον (sacramentum) to the marital relationship
established in Eph. 5:31 == Gn. 2:24, and thus declares marriage to be a sacrament. For further details, cf. Meinertz Gefbr. 4,
ad loc.
Eph. Epistula ad Ephesios.
51 → 650. Cf. 1 C. 14:34; 1 Th. 4:4; Col. 3:18 f.; 1 Pt. 3:1, 7. Cf. also Jos.Ap., 2, 201: γυνὴ χείρων … ἀνδρὸς εἰς ἅπαντα.
τοιγαροῦν ὑπακουέτω, μὴ πρὸς ὕβριν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵν᾽ ἄρχηται. θεὸς γὰρ ἀνδρὶ τὸ κράτος ἔδωκεν. Christian sensibility could not
possibly approve a crude saying like that of Sir. 36:26: πάντα ἄρρενα ἐπιδέξεται γυνή, ἔστιν δὲ θυγαρτηρ θυγατρὸς κρεῖσσον.
52 Ed. P. Batiffol, Studia Patristica, 1 (1889).
Act. Acts of Thomas.
53 Cf. O. Sol. 42:11 f. (wedding couch); 38:9ff. (bride of Satan). Cf. also Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen
(1906), 134 ff.
Stauffer Ethelbert Stauffer, Halle (Vol. 1), Bonn (Vol. 2–3).
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
Il
Ilias [Il.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
al
al. = alibi (i.e. elsewhere in the same author)
Od
Odyssea [Od.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
ib
176
ib. = ibidem (i.e. in the same work)
Herod
Herodas Mimographus [Herod.]
iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Test.Epict
Test.Epict. = Testamentum Epictetae (IG12(3).330, Michel 1001, Schwyzer227); cited by col. and line.
pl
pl. = plural
Is
Isaeus Orator [Is.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Men
Menander Comicus [Men.]
iv/iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
D
Demosthenes Orator [D.]
384–322 B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Arist
Aristoteles Philosophus [Arist.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
D.S
Diodorus Siculus Historicus [D.S.]
i B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Diph
177
Diphilus Comicus [Diph.]
iv/iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Apollod.Car
Apollodorus Carystius Comicus [Apollod.Car.]
iv/iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
etc
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
X
Xenophon Historicus [X.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Plu
Plutarchus Biographus et Philosophus [Plu]
i/ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
S
Sophocles Tragicus [S.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
E
Euripides Tragicus [E.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Id
Id. = Idem
lyr
Lyr. = Lyricus, Lyric poetry
freq
freq. = frequent, frequently
A
178
Aeschylus Tragicus [A.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
i.e
i.e. = id est
Luc
Lucianus Sophista [Luc.]
ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Procop
Procopius Caesariensis Historicus [Procop.]
vi A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
v
v. = vide; also voce or vocem
Hsch
Hesychius Lexicographus [Hsch.]
v A.D.. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
EM
Etymologicum Magnum [EM]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Anaxandr
Anaxandrides Comicus [Anaxandr.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Alc.Com
Alcaeus Comicus [Alc.Com.]
v/iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Pythag
Pythagoras Philosophus [Pythag]
vi/v B.C.
179
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Theol.Ar
Theologumena Arithmeticae [Theol.Ar.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Theo Sm
Theon Smyrnaeus Philosophus [Theo Sm.]
ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
SEG
SEG = Supp.Epigr. in LSJ, q. v. (vols. 1–25, 1923–71); new series, H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud et al., vols. 26–36, Leiden,
Amsterdam 1976–7 [1979]–1986 [1989].
Philox
Philoxenus Epigrammaticus [Philox.]
iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Lib
Libanius Sophista [Lib.]
iv A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
IG
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. See Complete Listing.
Perh
perh. = perhaps
Skt
Skt. = Sanskrit
Lat
Lat. = Latin
vi
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement,
1996." (Rev. and augm. throughout /) (Page 337). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
† † before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
OT Old Testament.
Hom. Homer, of Chios (?), the classical Greek epic poet, around whose name were grouped the older epics of the Ionians in
the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., ed. G. Monro and T. W. Allen, 1908 ff.
esp. especially.
180
2 Examples in the dict.
Plat. Plato, of Athens (428/7–348/7 B.C.), ed. J. Burnet, 1905.
Tim. Timaeus.
3 A Gk. proverb compares unequal combats with a fight between river and sea: ποταμὸς θαλάττῃ ἐρίζεις, Suid., IV, 181, No.
2124.
Eur. Euripides, of Salamis nr. Athens (480–406 B.C.), tragic dramatist and philosopher of the stage, ed. G. Murray, 1901 ff.
Herc. Hercules Furens.
Il. Iliad.
4 Examples in Preisigke Wört. In the pap. ποταμός can also be used for the man-made arm of the Nile or Nile canal. The
precise sense is often hard to fix here.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz,
1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Prom. Prometheus Vinctus.
5 It is a matter of debate whether we are to read ᾽Yβρίστην or ᾽Yβριστήν (so ed. P. Mazon, I [1920]; G. Italie, Index Aesch.
[1955], 308a), i.e., a proper name or, as above, an adj. (cf. the editions and comm., ad loc.).
6 O. Waser, Art. “Flussgötter,” Pauly-W., 16, 2 (1909), 2774–2815 (older bibl.); Nilsson, I2, 236–240.
Gk. Greek.
7 Nilsson, 236 f.
8 Op., 757 f.; cf. Plut.Stoic. Rep., 22 (II, 1045 a–b).
9 Cf. Waser, op. cit. (→ n. 6), 2780–2782.
10 Cf. the depiction of the raging Scamandros in Hom.Il., 21, 234 ff.
11 O. Waser, “Vom Flussgott Jordan u. andern Personifikationen,” Festgabe A. Kaegi (1919), 191–217.
12 Only in Da. 12:5 ff. 4 times of the Tigris.
13 The simple ὁ ποταμός for the Euphrates corresponds to a ‫ הַ נָׁהָׁ ר‬in the HT, Gn. 31:21 etc.
Heb. Hebrew.
HT Hebrew Text.
14 For ‫רַמצְׁ ַריִ ם‬
ִ ַ‫ ִמנְׁ ה‬read perhaps with BHK mψΙρ"ξ’μι λ̓’Ν"μι.
15 This is esp. true of the ‫ א‬reading τοὺς χιμάρρους, τοῦ ποταμοῦ. χειμάρρους, χείμαρρος is the usual and accurate LXX
transl. of ‫“ נַחַ ל‬winter brook,” “winter river,” “wadi.” ‫ א‬thus seems to be deliberately correcting an error.
16 On the question whether incorrect ideas about the specified wadi lie behind the term cf. F. Delitzsch, Neuer Comm. über
die Genesis (1887), 279. If the ref. in v. 18b comes from a glossator (so H. Gunkel, Genesis, Göttinger Handkommentar z.
AT3 [1910], ad loc.) and he really has the Nile in view, this is not to be assumed in the case of the translator.
17 Cf. also Is. 66:12, where there is some divergence between Mas. and LXX so far as the metaphor is concerned.
Gr. En. Greek Enoch. containing 32 chapters of the former in a MS discovered, 1886–7.
Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
18 Streams of fire in the place of punishment, En. 67:7.
19 HT has ‫ ּכַיְׁ אֹ ר‬instead of ὡς ποταμός, and is thus referring to the Nile as in 24:27 and 39:22.
Philo Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.–50 A.D.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland.
20 Cf. the ref. in Leisegang Index, 674.
Fug. De Fuga et Inventione.
21 The context is an allegorical interpretation of the name Mesopotamia.
22 Cf. Leg. All., I 72 and on this E. Stein, “Die allegorische Exegese d. Philo aus Alex.,” Beih. ZAW, 51 (1929), 60.
Rer. Div. Her. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres sit.
Leg. All. Legum Allegoriae.
Det. Pot. Ins. Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari soleat.
Som. De Somniis.
Joseph. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War and
Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.
Ant. Antiquitates.
23 In Ant., 1, 331 the Jabbok is called a χειμάρρους, but there is something wrong with the Gk. form of the name here (cf. the
text; A. Schlatter, “Die hbr. Namen bei Jos.,” BFTh, 17, 3 [1913], 53), so that any deductions must be made with caution.
24 Cf. Ps. 24:1 f. with its threefold picture of the world: the earth, the surrounding sea, and the waters which are beneath the
earth and which break forth from it; cf. also Ex. 20:4 and esp. Ps. 93:1–3 and on this G. Widengren, Sakrales Königtum ira
AT u. im Judt. (1955), 62 f. For ancient motifs in Chr. dress cf. Od. Sol. 39. One may also refer to the Qumran texts, where it
is said of God in 1 QM 10:12f.: ‫הבוראַמקוי … נהרות‬.
Chul. Chullin, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Profane (the killing of non-sacrificial animals) (Strack, Einl., 56).
25 Cf. also b.Chul., 40a–41b. Obviously there is no direct observation on the part of the Amoreans, but this supports the age
of the regulations.
T. Tosefta (Strack, Einl., 74 ff.), ed. G. Kittel-H. Rengstorf, 1933 ff.
181
26 Cf. also S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), 134–136, who pts. out that pagan sacrificial terminology is
used in Chul., 2, 9.
27 Ill. in E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (1953 ff.), III, No. 380.
28 F. J. Döger, ΙΧΘYΣ, II (1922), 205; Goodenough, op. cit., V, 17.
29 On Jamnia/Jabneh cf. S. Klein, “Jabne,” EJ, 8, 724–726.
30 On Atargatis cf. F. Cumont, Die orient. Religionen im röm. Heidentum3 (1931), 94–97.
31 Cf. Goodenough, V, 14 with Ill. 11, also 16. The early widespread view that the Syrian Dagon was a fish-god may now be
regarded as outdated, ibid., 16.
NT New Testament.
Rabb. Rabbis,
Maksh. Makshirin, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate What Qualifies (on becoming unclean) (Strack, Einl., 63).
b. Babylonian Talmud when before tractates from the Mishnah.
32 The concept is Rabb.; cf. the expression ‫ נִ ְׁד ֵריַ ֳאנ ִָׁסים‬for “vows (whose fulfilment is impossible because) of unavoidable
circumstances,” Ned., 3, 3 etc. There are many examples of unavoidable situations which have or might have legal
consequences (‫ )אֹונֶס‬in BM, 8, 9–10; TBM, 8, 15–16. The opp. of ‫ באונס‬is ‫ברצון‬. On ‫ אונס‬cf. ‫אנציקלופדיהַתלמודית‬, I (1947), 168
ff.
BQ Baba Qamma, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate First Gate, (Legal Questions concerning Injuries) (Strack, Einl., 49).
Pes. Pesachim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate The Passover (Strack, Einl., 39).
RH Rosch haschana.
Taan. Taanit, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Fasts (Strack, Einl., 43).
Ned. Nedarim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Vow (Strack, Einl., 46).
Gn. r. Genesis rabba (Bereshit rabba), Midrash on Genesis (Strack, Einl., 209 ff.).
33 Cf. also Dt. 1:7; 11:24; Jos. 1:4; Mi. 7:12; Is. 27:12; Zech. 9:10 etc.
34 This is plain in the pt. of the anecdote in Gn. r., 16, 3 on 2:14, namely, that the land of Israel begins immediately west of
the river. Cf. also J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien im Zeitalter des Talmuds u. des Gaonats (1929), 96.
35 b.Ber., 59b; cf. also Obermeyer, op. cit., 52–61 on the place of the benediction.
Ket. Ketubbot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Rules for Marriage (Strack, Einl., 46).
36 Bacher Pal. Am., I, 1 f.
37 A related saying of his is found in the immediate context and is perhaps a prescription well-known in Babylonia, cf.
b.Sanh., 64a.
Miq. Miqvaot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Plunge Baths (Strack, Einl., 62).
Shab. Shabbat, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Sabbath (Strack, Einl., 37).
38 On such stands, which were used in ritual washings and sprinklings in Egypt, cf. J. Leipoldt, Die urchr. Taufe im Lichte d.
Religionsgeschichte (1928), 50 (bibl.).
R. Rabbi.
b. ben, when between the personal and family names of rabbis.
BM Baba Mezia, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Middle Gate (Legal Questions concerning Movables) (Strack, Einl.,
50).
39 For material cf. S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, I (1910), 212 f.
40 R. Herzog, Die Wunderheilungen v. Epidauros (1931), 94 f., 104.
41 b.Jeb., 47a/b Bar.; cf. Str.-B., I, 109.
42 Cf. J. Jeremias, “Der Ursprung der Johannestaufe,” ZNW, 28 (1929), 312–320, J. Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste en
Palestine et Syrie 150 avant J. Chr.-300 après J. Chr. (1935); Bultmann Theol., 41. Cf. also H. H. Rowley, “Jewish Proselyte
Baptism and the Baptism of John,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 15 (1940), 313–334.
43 Gerim., 1, 3: “When he [the proselyte has solemnly declared that he wants to live in all circumstances as a Jew and] has
taken upon himself [to keep] the Law, they then lead him into the bath-house …” There was a house of this kind in the
temple (Yoma, 3, 2; Sheq., 8, 2; Mid., 1, 9 etc.) and another on the Mt. of Olives (Para, 3, 7), but they would naturally be
found wherever needed, and they were needed everywhere.
44 Cf. b.Jeb., 47a/b and on this Str.-B., I, 109; VI on spring water.
45 So esp. clearly in bYoma, 11a/b.
46 Sib., 4, 165: ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας ἀενάοισιν.
47 For materials cf. Str.-B., I: 103 ff. Cf. also G. Polster, “Der kleine Talmudtraktat über die Proselyten,” Angelos, 2 (1926),
1–38.
48 Cf. also Jos.Ant., 20, 34 ff.: The conversion of king Izates of Adiabene was in the reign of the emperor Claudius (41–54
A.D.) and here circumcision is emphatically enforced on the Jewish side. Since Sib., 4 arose in the last quarter of the 1st cent.
A.D., it is accepted to-day that there is at this pt. a strong tension between the view of Sib. and the story of Jos.
49 Worth noting among other things is that, on the basis of the original, the ποταμός character of the Jordan is preserved in
the Gk. version of the story of Naaman by means of expressions par. to those in the accounts of the Baptist in Mt. and Mk. (4
Βας. 5:10: λοῦσαι ἑπτάκις ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ, 5:14: ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ἑπτάκι).
182
par. parallel.
Vit. Vita.
50 On the usage of Jos. → 597, 31 ff.
51 In spite of Schl. Mt., 64.
52 Mt. 3:6: R Dlat; Mk. 1:6: D Θ it.
53 Cf. T. Klauser, “Taufet in lebendigem Wasser! Zum religions- u. kulturgeschichtlichen Verständnis von Did., 7, 1–3,”;
Pisciculi, Festschr. f. F. J. Dölger (1939), 157–164.
Did. Didache.
54 Cf. Klauser, op. cit., 158–161.
Just. Justin Martyr, executed c. 165 A.D., author of an apology against the attacks on Christians, and also of a discussion with
Judaism in the Dialogue with Trypho, ed. E. Goodspeed in Die ältesten Apologeten, 1914; ed. G. Krüer, 1915.
Apol. Apologia.
55 Acc. to the best attested reading.
comm. commentary.
56 Cf. Jackson-Lake, I, 4, 190 f.
57 Cf. Str.-B., II, 742 and the most recent comm. on Ac.
58 Cf. Miq., 1, 1.6. 7.
59 For a summary cf. S. Ganzfried, Kizzur Schulchan Aruch (no date), c. 86, 3; 162, 7.
60 So J. Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu4 (1956), 164. There is no instance of ποταμός being used in this way. On the meaning
of ποταμός in this parable cf. also Pr.-Bauer4, s.v.
61 Jeremias, op. cit., 164; cf. also Jülicher Gl. J., II, 266.
62 Schn. Mt., ad loc.; Jeremias, loc. cit., also 41, n. 3; 142, n. 1.
63 Jeremias, op. cit., 148.
64 Cf. the descriptions in G. Dalman, Arbeit u. Sitte in Palästina, II, 1 (1928), 203–210.
65 Ab., 3, 8 is not strictly a par. to Mt. 7:24 ff.; Lk. 6:47 ff. (cf. Bultmann Trad., 218 f.).
66 Cf. on this Heracl.Hom. All., 38 (p. 55, 8–10): ὑφ᾽ ὑετοῦ δαψιλοῦς γενομένου καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ Ἴδης ποταμῶν πλημμυράντων
συνέβη καταρριφῆναι. On the basis of Is. 57:20 1 QH 8:14f. refers to “raging streams (‫ ”)נהרותַשוטפים‬and describes them as
“casting their mud at me.” On winter springs cf. Dalman, op. cit., 204 f.
67 This apocal. measure seems to be related to the “round” nature of the number three and is used popularly. Two Chr.
funerary inscr. from Fe–na–n in the Eastern Negeb contain the concluding formula: καὶ ἀπέθανεν τὸ τρίτον τοῦ κόσμου, A.
Alt, “Aus der ’Araba, III: Inschr. u. Felszeichnungen,” ZDPV, 58 (1935), 67–72: also “Bemerkungen zu der neuesten
Sammlung gr. Inschr. aus Palästina,” ZDPV, 62 (1939), 162. Cf. also Rev. 9:15, 18; 12:4.
68 On the name of the star cf. F. Boll, Aus dee Offenbarung Johannis (1914), 41 f. The idea of an eschatological corrupting
of water occurs also in 4 Esr. 5:9.
69 → n. 24 and also Ps. 95:4 f.; 104; Prv. 8:27 ff., also Gn. 1:6 ff.; Phil. 2:10b.
70 On the question whether there is in 8:7f. a ref. to the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. cf. Had. Apk., ad loc.
71 Cf. Schl. Erl., ad loc.
72 Lidz. Ginza, 61, 24 f.; 414, 7 etc.
73 Loh. Apk., 135.
74 Lidz. Ginza, 524, 35, and cf. as a special Jewish par. 4 Esr. 13:43ff.
75 → I, 468 (J. Jeremias).
76 Cf. the comm., ad loc.
77 → 597, 6 ff.
v. verse.
78 Cf. the comm., ad loc.
79 Stressed by Loh. Apk., ad loc.
80 As against Loh. Apk., ad loc.
81 So H. Gunkel, Art. “Salomo-Oden,” RGG2, V, 88.
82 So H. Gressmann in Hennecke, 441.
83 → 297, 28 ff. (G. Delling).
84 Lidz. Ginza, 281, 21 f. (Loh. Apk., ad loc.).
85 F. J. Dölger, “Der Heiland,” Ant. Christ., VI (1950), 241–272; K. H. Rengstorf, Die Anfänge der Auseinandersetzung
zwischen Christusglaube u. Asklepiosfrömmigkeit (1953).
86 For materials cf. Rengstorf, op. cit., 41, n. 81.
87 Cf. the comm., ad loc.
88 So also Bultmann. J., 229.
Nestle Novum Testamentum Graece, curavit E. Nestle, elaboravit Erwin Nestle15, 1932.
183
89 C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953), 349; Bultmann. J., 228; on the Roman Cath. side E. Schick,
Das Ev. nach Johannes, Echter-Bibel (1956), 79. For the history of exposition of Jn. 7:37 f. cf. H. Rahner. “Flumina de
ventre Christi. Die patristische Auslegung von Jn. 7:37 f.,” Bibliea, 22 (1941), 269–302, 367–403.
90 Bultmann. J., 228, n. 6.
91 Ab., 2, 8.
92 Cf. A. Schlatter, “Jochanan Ben Zakkai,” BFTh, 3, 4 (1899), 16.
93 For religio-historical par. cf. Bauer. J., 113 f.
94 On earlier attempts to remove the difficulty by conjectures cf. Bultmann. J., ad loc. The effort of L. Koehler to master the
difficulties and also to locate the hitherto unlocated γραφή of Jn. 7:38 by ref. to Is. 58:11 f. (Kleine Lichter [1945], 39–41)
must be regarded as outdated, esp. now that it is not confirmed by the Is. text in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
v. visiones.
95 Bultmann. J., 216 relates vv. 37–44 to v. 30.
I, 753, n. We cannot be sure whether the reference here is to a combination of OT passages (Schl. J., 200 f.: Moses’
dispensing of water along with Is. 44:3; Ez. 47:1; Zech. 14:8, cf. Akiba, S. Dt., 48 on 11:22), or to a particular verse in the
Canon (Hänel, 13: Tg. Cant., 4, 15), or perhaps even an apocryphal saying. Cf. Bau. J., ad loc.
96 On older proposals cf. Bultmann. J., 229, n. 2.
97 Dodd, op. cit. (→ n. 89), 399, n. 2.
98 At the very beginning of the feast after the introductory benedictions and the saying explaining the mazza: ַ‫ָׁלַדכְׁ פִ יןַיֵיתֵ יַוְׁ ֵיכֻל‬
ִ ‫ּכ‬
‫ָׁלַדצְׁ ִריְךַיֵיתֵ יַוְׁ יִ פְׁ סַ ח‬
ִ ‫ּכ‬. (cf. E. D. Goldschmidt, Die Pessach-Haggada [1937], 2).
1 On the formation v. Bl.-Debr. § 117, 2; L. R. Palmer, A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Pap., I, 1 (1946), 44.
2 For the first ref. cf. A. Wikenhauser, ποταμοφόρητος Apk. 12:15 ua, BZ, 6 (1908), 171, and “Ein weiterer Beleg f.
ποταμοφόρητος Apk. 12:15,” BZ, 7 (1909), 48.
pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted.
P. The Amherst Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1900 ff.
P. Tebt. The Tebtunis Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell, A. Hunt and others, 1920 ff.
P. Ryl. Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library at Manchester, ed. A. Hunt and others, 1911.
P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1898 ff.
* Ἰορδάνης. G. Beer, Art. “Jordanes,” Pauly-W., 9 (1916), 1903–1907; A. Y. Braver in ‫ האנציקלופדיהַהעברית‬6: ‫ארץַישראל‬
(1957), 81–98; H. Conzelmann, Die geographischen Vorstellungen im Lk.-Ev., Diss. Tübingen (1951) == Conzelmann I; also
Die Mitte der Zeit (1954) == Conzelmann II; G. Dalman, Orte u. Wege Jesu3 (1924), 90–107, 249–256; F. J. Dölger, “Der
Durchzug durch den Jordan als Sinnbild d. chr. Taufe,” Ant. Christ., II (1930), 70–79; O. Eissfeldt, Art. “Jordan,” RGG 2, III,
372; N. Glueck, The River Jordan (1946); H. Guthe, Art. “Palästina,” RE3, 14, 573–578; 24, 304 f.; T. Klauser, “Taufet in
lebendigem Wasser !” Pisciculi, Festschr. f. F. J. Dölger (1939), 157–164; S. Klein, Art. “Jordan.” EJ, 9, 293–297; L.
Koehler, “Lexikologisch-Geographisches. 1. Der Jordan,” ZDPV, 62 (1939), 115–120; Lidz. Joh., II, p. XVIII–XX; Lidz.
Liturg., Index, s.v.; Lidz. Ginza, Index, s.v.; H. Lietzmann, “Ein Beitrag zur Mandäerfrage,” SAB (1930), 596–608; P.
Lundberg, “La typologie baptismale dans l’ancienne église,” Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 10 (1942), 146–
166; A. Neubauer, La géographie du Talmud (1868), 29–31: M. Noth, “Der Jordan in d. alten Geschichte Palästinas,” ZDPV,
72 (1956), 123–148: S. Rappaport, Agada u. Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (1930); S. Reinach, “L’arc de Titus,” REJ, 20
(1890), LXV–XCI; R. Reitzenstein, Die Vorgeschichte d. chr. Taufe (1929), and on this H. H. Schaeder, Gnomon, 5 (1929),
353–370; A. Schwarzenbach, Die geogr. Terminologie im Hbr. d. AT (1954), 64, 202; E. Schweizer, EGO EIMI … (1939),
49f., 54f.; W. v. Soden, “Zur Herkunft des Flussnamens Jordan,” ZAW, 57 (1939), 153f.; O. Waser, “Vom Flussgott Jordan
u. andern Personifikationen,” Festg. A. Kaegi (1919), 191–217.
1 The ships of Jordan mentioned in b.Jeb., 116b are only small craft like those on the Madaba chart.
2 G. Dalman, Arbeit u Sitte in Palästina, VI (1939), 343 with n. 2. So correctly Paus., V, 7, 5 and the Madaba chart. For
fishing cf. T.Jeb., 14, 6.
3 So also Strabo, 16, 2, 16. The o in the first syllable might come from the Aram. of the country (‫ יורדנא‬e.g., jShebi. 35c, 19).
Sib. Sibyllines, the Sibylline Oracles in 14 books, collected in the 5th or 6th century A.D. for the propagation of Judaism or
Christianity, composed at various periods, and predominantly Jewish but partly Christian in derivation.
Paus. Pausanias, the Periegete, probably of Magnesia by Mt. Sipylos, author under the emperor Commodus of his Journey
through Greece (Περιήγησις Ἑλλάδοσ̈) in 10 books, ed. J. Schubart, 1881; F. Spiro, 1903 ff.
Bell. Bellum Judaicum.
art. Articles.
4 Bl.-Debr. § 261, 8.
5 The influence of Philo may be seen in the Onomasticum Coislinianum (P. de Lagarde, Onomastica sacra2 [1887], 169, 81):
κατάβασις, κατακυλιστός in Onomastica Vaticana (Lagarde, 176, 45): κατάβασις αὐτῶν, cf. 183, 21 f. in the Glossae
Colbertinae (Lagarde, 203, 98 f.): κατάβασις ἀλαζονείας and in Hier. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde,
7, 20; 64, 27): descensio eorum.
6 I. Heinemann, Philons gr. u. jüd. Bildung (1932), 524 f.
7 Cf. Rappaport, 103.
184
8 It was not used later, for neither Gn. r. on 14:14 nor Rashi in his comm. ad loc. quotes it. Cf. also Neubauer, 30.
9 R. Chiyya ben Abba in the name of Jonathan (Sepphoris; 1st half of the 3rd cent.).
10 These still influence Euseb.: Δάν … ἔνθεν καὶ ὁ Ἰορδάνης ἔξεισιν, Onomastikon, 25 (ed. E. Klostermann, CGS, 11, 1
[1904], 76, 6 ff.).
11 De situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum (Lagarde, op. cit. [n. 5], 117–190).
12 Ibid., 114, 26 ff.: Dan viculus …, de quo et Jordanis flumen ernmpens a loco sortitus est nomen. ior quippe ῥεῖθρον (id est
flluvium sive rivum) Hebraei vocant.
13 Cf. the survey in Koehler, 116–118; Schwarzenbach, 202.
Od. Odyssey.
14 For instances cf. J. R. Harris, “Crete, the Jordan, and the Rhône,” Exp. T., 21 (1909/10), 303–306 Koehler, 118 f. From
the 16th cent. the name jerdan == Rhone is also found in White Russia, M. Vasmer, Russisches etym. Wörterbuch, I (1953),
401.
15 Cf. v. Soden, 154.
16 Koehler, 120.
17 v. Soden, 154.
18 Loc. cit.; J. Hempel, “Westliche Kultureinflüsse auf das älteste Palästina,” PJB, 23 (1927), 64 considers the possibility of a
loan word from ancient Asia Minor.
19 Koehler, 117.
20 Cf. M. Noth, Geschichte Israels3 (1956), 54–82, also the works of A. Alt quoted by him.
21 To cross without friction was possible only as a miracle.
22 Cf. the fact that the Jordan still divides more than unites, Dalman, 93–95; Glueck, 61–82; Noth, 126 f.
23 This is a main reason why John the Baptist began his work east of Jordan.
24 Cf. Bell., 4, 455 ff.
25 So, e.g., b.Ned., 22a/b.
26 Cf. Lk. 19:1 f. This Zacchaeus, a Jew (19:9), was probably in charge of Roman customs in Jericho, cf. Schürer, I, 474–
479; Str.-B., II, 249.
27 Cf. also Ep. Ar., 116 and Hier. De situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum (Lagarde, op. cit. [→ n. 5], 131, 25): Iordanis
fluvius dividens Iudaeum, Arabiam et Aulonem …
28 Cf. esp. Gn. 15:18, but also Ex. 23:31; Dt. 1:7; 11:24; Jos. 1:4; Is. 27:12; Mi. 7:12; Zech. 9:10; Ps. 72:8.
29 → ποταμός 599, 24 ff.
30 → ποταμός 597, 1 ff.
31 jShebi., 35c, 19.
32 Dalman, 94.
33 b.Ket., 112a.
34 Cf. also Bacher Pal. Am., III, 6.
35 Similarly a teacher returning from Babylon, when he arrived in the land, rolled in the dust on the basis of Ps. 102:14,
b.Ket., 112b. Another, R. Jose b. Chanina, kissed at Akko the bank which was then regarded as the frontier and said: The
land of Israel extends to this point, jShebi., 4, 8 (35c, 17 f.); cf. also b.Ket., 112a and the discussion in b.Bech, 55a.
36 Gn. r., 4, 5 on 1:6. The idea is obviously present already in Jos.Bell., 3, 509: (ἡ λίμνη Γεννησάρ …) μέση ὑπὸ τοῦ
Ἰορδάνου τέμνεται.
37 Shebi., 9, 2 f.; Ket., 13, 10; T.Sanh., 2, 3 etc.
38 On the Elisha cycle cf. H. Gunkel, Meisterwerke hbr. Erzählungskunst, I, Elisa (1922).
39 On Elisha in the Haggada cf. H. Guttmann, Art. “Elischa,” EJ, 6, 526–528; M. J. bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, V
(1927), 233–243.
Vit. Ad. Vita Adae et Evae, Latin work from the Jewish-Christian group of writings on Adam (Schürer, III, 396 ff.), ed. W.
Meyer, 1878.
40 Cf. the stone on which Adam and Eve place themselves so as not to touch the riverbed, cf. b.Shab., 65a and → 600, 8 ff.
41 O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in d. AT2 (1956), 786 f.
42 L. Ginzberg, “Die Haggada bei den Kirchenväitern u. in d. apokryphen Lit.,” MGWJ, (1899), 217 f.
43 The ref. is certainly not to the river of Paradise (Gn. 2:13), esp. as this was identified with the Nile (Gn. r., 16, 3, ad loc.),
but to the spring of Shiloah on the east slope of the temple hill (cf. 2 Ch. 32:30 [b.Pes., 56a, Bar.]), whence derives the Heb.
expression ‫גיחוןַהעֹליון‬.
44 PRE1, 20.
Bek. Bekorot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Primogeniture (Strack, Einl., 32).
45 S. Klein, Art. “Beth Jareach bzw. Beth Jerach,” EJ, 4, 405, would read ‫ ביתַירח‬for ‫ ביתַיריחו‬in T. Bek., 7, 4 and refer it to
the ancient place of this name at the outlet of the Jordan from the Sea of Galilee (now excavated), esp. as the old name was
never completely lost.
46 Text T. Bek., 7, 4: ‫איזחוַירדןַמביתַיריחוַולמטח‬.
185
47 The question is raised in Bek., 9, 2 whether a herd of ten head which pastures half on the east and half on the west of the
river is all subject to the tithe. It would not be if the Jordan “separated.”
48 Esp. stressed by I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I (1917), 33.
49 On what follows cf. Reinach and Waser.
50 Waser, 192.
51 Loc. cit.
52 Reinach, LXXX.
53 Waser, 193–209.
54 Cf. A. Jacoby, Ein bisher unbeachteter apokrypher Bericht über die Taufe Jesu (1902), and the texts assembled there.
55 The iconography in Waser, 193–209 contains 50 examples.
c. circa.
56 Cf. O. Waser, “Altchristliches,” ARW, 17 (1914), 661 and n. 1.
57 Cf. J. Kurth, Die Wandmosaiken von Ravenna2 (1912), 73 f., 195 f.
58 For details, which need not be pursued here, cf. Waser, 193–210.
Ev. Eb. Gospel of the Ebionites.
Epiph. Epiphanius, of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus (298–403 A.D.), opponent of 80 Christian,
Jewish and Gnostic heresies in his rich and comprehensive work Πανάριον κατὰ πασῶν τῶν αἱρέσεων, ed. K. Holl, 1922.
Haer. Haereses.
59 Cf. G. Mayeda, Das Leben-Jesa-Fragment Pap. Egerton 2 u. seine Stellung in d. urchr. Literaturgeschichte (1946), esp.
51–57.
Ps. Pseudo, often grouped under the names of the supposed authors, e.g., Ps.- or Pseud.-Plat. under Plato.
60 Evangelia apocrypha, ed. C. de Tischendorf2 (1876), 54–57.
c. chapter.
61 Here a typical Elisha miracle (2 K. 2:8, 14) which proves the prophet to be such (cf. Jos.Ant., 20, 97: Theudas) is
transferred to the boy Jesus.
Sm. ad Smyrnaeos.
62 M. Lidzbarski, “Mandäische Fragen,” ZNW, 26 (1927), 70–75, esp. 72. H. Sahlin, “Studien zum dritten Kapitel des Lk.Ev.,” Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, 1949: 2 (1949), 12 f. thinks the connection of the Jordan with the Baptist is secondary
and attributes it to “the great significance of the Jordan in religious history.”
part. participle.
63 On 1:28 cf. Dalman, 95–99; Bultmann. J., 64, n. 5; on 3:23 Dalman, 250 f.; Bultmann. J., 124, n. 5.
64 G. Dalman, “Jahresbericht des Instituts,” PJB, 8 (1913), 34 f. Cf. on this question C. K. Barrett, The Gospel acc. to St.
John (1955), ad loc.
65 Cf. also J. Schniewind, Die Parallelperikopen bei Lk. u. Joh. (1914), 11.
66 Lk. ends his account of the Baptist before narrating the baptism of Jesus (3:19f.); Jn. has only a brief ref. (3:24) and has no
more about the death of John than does Lk., who takes it for granted later (9:9ff.).
67 K. Kundsin, Topologische Überlieferungsstoffe im Joh.-Ev. (1925), 26: “Aenon near Salim is to be regarded as a centre if
not the centre of the baptismal movement in Palestine in the time of the Evangelist …”; Bultmann. J., 124, n. 5 is rightly less
dogmatic at this pt.
68 Bultmann. J., 63, n. 1 regards the words ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι (1:26) and ἐν (τῶ) ὕδατι of 1:31, 33 as additions of the
redactor for the purpose of assimilation to the Synoptic tradition. Yet the attitude of the Evangelist to the Jordan suggests that
he himself penned the words.
69 The question whether the Synoptic account of the baptism of Jesus was once an independent part of the tradition (K. L.
Schmidt, Der Rahmen d. Geschichte Jesu [1919], 29) is hardly at issue here. On the question of the historicity of Jesus’
baptism cf. Bultmann Trad., 263.
70 One can hardly say that the Lucan account gives evidence of the author’s embarrassment in relation to the tradition about
the baptism of Jesus (Schmidt, op. cit., 30).
71 From the very beginning the account of the baptism of Jesus was obviously passed on as testimony to the divine
authorisation of His Messianic office. The unanimity of the tradition on the pt. supports this.
72 On detailed questions, including that of Jesus’ own baptismal work, cf. the comm.
73 This does not mean that Lk. did not realist how near Jericho is to the Jordan, so Conzelmann II, 11.
74 Conzelmann II, 58.
75 Conzelmann, I, 49; II, 11, cf. 18.
76 Rightly noted in Conzelmann II, 11 etc.
77 Conzelmann II, passim, esp. 10–12.
78 Conzelmann I, 49; Conzelmann II, 11.
79 Only in consequence of a typological exposition of Jos. 3:1 ff. does the Jordan take on here the character of a border river
in the higher, spiritual sense. Cf. Lundberg, 146–166.
186
80 So E. Barnikol, “Das Fehlen der Taufe in den Quellenschriften der Ag. u. in d. Urgemeinden der Hebräer u. Hellenisten,”
Wissenschaftliche Zschr. der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Gesellschafts- u. sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe,
VI (1956/57), 593–610.
81 Barnikol, op. cit., does not allow for any but official accounts in Ac.
82 E.g., as to the place of baptism; cf. → 600, 31 ff. and 623, n. 109.
83 Cf. Haench. Ag., 156.
84 M. Dibelius, “Stilkritisches zur Ag.,” Aufsätze zur Ag.2 (1953), 20 f. thinks v. 36 and v. 38 are part of the original, unlike
Barnikol, op. cit., 599 f.
85 Strongly emphasised by H. G. Marsh, The Origin and Significance of New Testament Baptism (1941), 168.
Ign. Ignatius.
Eph. Epistula ad Ephesios.
86 Acc. to this passage Christ was baptised in order that He τῷ πάθει τὸ ὕδωρ καθαρίσῃ. In Ign. πάθος always refers to
Christ’s passion. The dignity of the water of baptism is thus based on the baptism of the crucified Redeemer. On the spread of
this concept cf. Bau. Ign., ad loc., and on the concept itself (the purification of the water [of rivers] from the unclean demons
resident in them) cf. H. Schlier, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ignatiusbr. (1929), 44–48.
Herm. Pastor Hermae.
m. mandata.
s. similitudines.
Barn. Epistle of Barnabas.
Dial. c. Tryph. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo.
87 For examples cf. Schlier, op. cit., 47 f. (cf. Jacoby, op. cit., 44 f.). Cf. also Tert.Bapt., 4; Adv. Jud., 8.
88 Possibly Sib., 7, 83 (cf. 6, 4 f.; 7, 66 f.) should also be cited in this connection.
89 … ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον.
90 Cf. also W. Till and J. Leipoldt, Der kpt. Text der Kirchenordnung Hippolyts (1954), 16–25.
Ps.-Clem. Hom. Pseudoclementine Homilies, a narrative describing and defending the doctrine of the apostle Peter, ed. P. A.
de Lagarde, 1865.
91 … ἀενάῳ ποταμῷ ἢ πηγῇ ἐπεί γε κἂν θαλάσσῃ ἀπολουσάμενοι … λούεσθαι is also used for the bath in P. Oxy., V, 840,
14. 19. 24 f., 32 (cf. J. Jeremias, “Der Zusammenstoss Jesu mit dem pharisäschen Oberpriester auf dem Tempelplatz. Zu Pap.
Ox., V, 840,” Festschr. A. Fridrichsen, Coni. Neot., 11 [1947], 102.
92 ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας ἀενάοισιν.
93 → ποταμός 600, 34 ff. and cf. J. Geffcken, “Komposition u. Entstehungszeit der Or. Sib.,” TU, 23, 1 (1902), 18–21.
94 Cf. also Ps.-Clem. Recg., 4, 32.
95 For further examples cf. Klauser, 100 f.
96 Cf. on this → 600, 31 ff.
Tert. Q. Septimius Tertullianus Florens, of Carthage (160–220 A.D.), ed. A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa. 1890 ff.
Bapt. De Baptismo.
97 Klauser, 101.
98 This is perhaps true of the Didache, cf. A. Adam, “Erwägungen zur Herkunft der Did.,” ZKG, 68 (1957), 1–47.
99 Furthermore all running water has this name among them, Lidz. Joh.,. II, Intr. XIX; also op. cit. (→ n. 62), 71. In this
practice oriental (Indo-Aryan?) influences may be seen; thus in Hinduism the name Ganges is used generally for rivers and
ponds sacred to Šiva, v. H. W. Schomerus, Sðivaitische Heiligenlegenden (1925), 9, 288, n. 21, also 214 (under 47).
100 V. S. Pedersen, Bidrag til analyse af de mandaeiske skrifter (1940); W. Baumgartner, “Zur Mandäerfrage,” Hebrew
Union College Annual, 28, 1 (1950/51), 41–71; also “Der heutige Stand der Mandäerfrage,” ThZ, 6 (1950), 401–410.
101 Lietzmann, 601 f.; cf. the review by R. Bultmann, ThLZ, 56 (1931), 577 f.
102 A. v. Maltzew, Die Sacramente der Orthodox-kathol. Kirche des Morgenlandes (1898), passim; on the Jordan festival on
Jan. 6 cf. F. Meyer v. Waldeck, Russland, II (1886), 130–134.
103 The Eth. version of the Egypt. Church Order has a prayer for the holy water of the Jordan, which is mixed with incense
(H. Duensing, “Der aeth. Text der Kirchenordnung des Hippolyt,” AGG, III, 32 [1946], 90 f.) before the priest immerses the
candidate into the water of Jordan, 94 f. Cf. also Dölger, 74 (Alexandria).
104 Cf. R. Reitzenstein-H. H. Schaeder, Studien zum antiken Synkretismus aus Iran u. Griechenland (1926), 166.
Reitzenstein thinks the ref. is a Chr. interpolation, but this is questionable in view of ὁ μέγας Ἰορδάνης (μέγας suggests
Gnosticism; v. also Dölger, 73).
105 Lietzmann, 596–601; Bultmann, op. cit. (→ n. 101), 577 f.
106 Cf. Stauffer Theol., 139: “The development of this (sc. established) Chr. practice is a puzzle …” It is then suggested that
the puzzle will be solved “if we finally decide to take the traditions of the missionary command of the risen Lord with
historical seriousness,” but this is too simple a solution, since Mt. 28:19 does not in any case describe the mode of baptism.
As the monuments also suggest, it is more correct to consider the relation of Chr. baptism to Jesus’ own baptism, or to find in
the latter the basis of the Chr. rite, cf. Bultmann Trad., 269 f. But this still leaves many questions unanswered. Above all it
187
shows that the concentration of research on the problem of infant baptism in the last decades has hardly helped to throw light
on the historical problem which Chr. baptism itself poses.
107 Cf. Tert.Bapt., 10 f. and on this W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter d. nt.lichen Apkr. (1909), 104 f.
Hier. Hieronymus (Jerome), of Dalmatia (c. 340–420 A.D.), who after study in Rome lived as a monk in the Near East and
engaged in extensive scholarly work, particularly on the text of the Bible, ed. in MPL 22–30, 1865 ff.; Epistulae, ed. J.
Hilherg, 1910 ff.
108 De situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum (Lagarde, op. cit. [→ n. 5]), s.v. “Betha bara.” Cf. also Dölger, 74.
109 A cistern with a Gk. inscr. referring to the baptismal liturgy in the north-west corner of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
probably was once part of a baptistery, G. Dalman, “Die Grabeskirche in Jerusalem,” PJB, 3 (1907), 36 f.; P. Thomsen, “Die
lat. u. gr. Inschr. der Stadt Jerusalem,” ZDPV, 44 (1921), 8; J. Jeremias, “Das neugefundene Höhlen-Baptisterium bei
Jerusalem,” Von der Antike zum Christentum, Festg. f. V. Schultze (1931), 118.
110 Jeremias, op. cit. (→ n. 109), 109–122.
111 Cf. also Dölger, 75–77, who refers to Ambr. Sermo, 38, 2: Ubique enim nunc Christus, ubique Jordan est, cf. also
Klauser, 161 f.
Rengstorf Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Tübingen (Vol. 1–2), Loccum (Hannover) (Vol. 3), (Vol. 4), Münster (Vol. 6–8).
vii
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by
Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (Vol. 6, Page 595). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
✪̠
= denotes defintions added or revised in accordance with instructions in the Supplement.
Il
Ilias [Il.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Od
Odyssea [Od.]
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
pl
pl. = plural
Pi
Pindarus Lyricus [Pi.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
prov
prov. = proverbially, proverbial
A
Aeschylus Tragicus [A.]
vi/v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
etc
188
etc. = et cetera (i.e. in other authors)
E
Euripides Tragicus [E.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
lyr
Lyr. = Lyricus, Lyric poetry
Heraclit
Heraclitus [Heraclit.] i A.D.. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Suid
Suidas Lexicographus [Suid.]
x A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
SEG
SEG = Supp.Epigr. in LSJ, q. v. (vols. 1–25, 1923–71); new series, H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud et al., vols. 26–36, Leiden,
Amsterdam 1976–7 [1979]–1986 [1989].
metaph
metaph. = metaphorically, metaphorical
Com
Com. = Comedy, Comic, in the language of the Comic writers
Telecl
Teleclides Comicus [Telecl.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
cf
cf. = confer, conferatur
Pherecr
Pherecrates Comicus [Pherecr.]
v B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
189
Porph
Porphyrius Tyrius Philosophus [Porph.]
iii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Str
Strabo Geographus [Str.]
i B.C./i A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Arr
Arrianus Historicus [Arr.]
ii A.D.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
OGI
OGI = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1903–5 [Hildesheim 1970].
Mitchell
Mitchell N. Galatia = S. Mitchell et al., Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor. II: The Ankara District: The
Inscriptions of North Galatia, Oxford 1982.
al
al. = alibi (i.e. elsewhere in the same author)
Rom.imp
Rom.imp. = (of) Roman imperial (date).
Eudox
Eudoxus Astronomus [Eudox.]
iv B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
ap
ap. = apud (quoted in)
Hipparch
Hipparchus Astronomicus [Hipparch.]
ii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Arat
190
Aratus Epicus [Arat.]
iv/iii B.C.
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
Hsch
Hesychius Lexicographus [Hsch.]
v A.D.. (?)
See entry in Author and Works List for specific works.
viii
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement,
1996." (Rev. and augm. throughout /) (Page 1453). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
191