countries. The custom probably had its origin among those men who first
sustained the office of kings or rulers, and who, from the novelty and
perhaps the weakness attached to their situation, chose, rather than
make the hazardous attempt of exacting taxes, to content themselves with
receiving those presents which might be freely offered, 1 Sam. x, 27.
Hence it passed into a custom, that whoever approached the king should
come with a gift. This was the practice and the expectation. The custom
of presenting gifts was subsequently extended to other great men; to men
who were inferior to the king, but who were, nevertheless, men of
influence and rank; it was also extended to those who were equals, when
they were visited, Proverbs xviii, 16. Kings themselves were in the
habit of making presents, probably in reference to the custom in
question and the feelings connected with it, to those individuals, their
inferiors in point of rank, whom they wished to honour, and also to
those who, like themselves, were clothed with the royal authority. These
presents, namely, such as were presented by the king as a token of the
royal esteem and honour, are almost invariably denominated in the
Hebrew, שחד and ברכה, 1 Kings xv, 19; 2 Kings xvi, 8; xviii, 14; Isaiah
xxxvi, 16. The more ancient prophets did not deem it discreditable to
them to receive presents, nor unbecoming their sacred calling, except
when, as was sometimes the case, they refused by way of expressing their
dissatisfaction or indignation, 2 Kings v, 15; viii, 9. In later times,
when false prophets, in order to obtain money, prophesied without truth
and without authority, the true prophets, for the purpose of keeping the
line of distinction as broad as possible, rejected every thing that
looked like reward. Gifts of this kind, that have now been described,
are not to be confounded with those which are called שחד, and which were
presented to judges, not as a mark of esteem and honour, but for
purposes of bribery and corruption. The former was considered an honour
to the giver, but a gift of the latter kind has been justly reprobated
in every age, Exod. xxii, 8; Deut. x, 17; xvi, 19; xxvii, 25; Psalm xv,
5; xxvi, 10; Isaiah i, 23; v, 23; xxxiii, 15. The giver was not
restricted as to the kind of present which he should make. He might
present not only silver and gold, but clothes and arms, also different
kinds of food, in a word any thing which could be of benefit to the
recipient, Gen. xliii, 11; 1 Sam. ix, 7; xvi, 20; Job xiii, 11. It was
the custom anciently, as it is at the present time in the east, for an
individual when visiting a person of high rank, to make some presents of
small value to the servants or domestics of the person visited, 1 Sam.
xxv, 27. It was the usual practice among kings and princes to present to
their favourite officers in the government, to ambassadors from foreign
courts, to foreigners of distinction, and to men eminent for their
learning, garments of greater or less value, Genesis xiv, 22, 23; Esther
viii, 15. The royal wardrobe, in which a large number of such garments
was kept, is denominated in Hebrew בגדים 2 Chronicles xxxiv, 22. It was
considered an honour of the highest kind, if a king or any person in
high authority thought it proper, as a manifestation of his favour, to
give away to another the garment which he had previously worn himself, 1
Sam. xviii, 4. In the east, at the present day, it is expected, that
every one who has received a garment from the king will immediately
clothe himself in it, and promptly present himself and render his homage
to the giver; otherwise he runs the hazard of exciting the king’s
displeasure, Matt. xxii, 11, 12. It was sometimes the case, that the
king, when he made a feast, presented vestments to all the guests who
were invited, with which they clothed themselves before they sat down to
it, 2 Kings x, 22; Gen. xlv, 22; Rev. iii, 5. In oriental countries, the
presents which are made to kings and princes are to this day carried on
beasts of burden, are attended with a body of men, and are escorted with
much pomp. It matters not how light or how small the present may be, it
must either be carried on the back of a beast of burden, or by a man,
who must support it with both his hands, Judges iii, 18; 2 Kings viii,
9.
GIHON, the name of one of the four rivers the source of which was in
paradise, Genesis ii, 13. (See _Eden_.) Reland, Calmet, &c, think that
Gihon is the Araxes, which has its source, as well as the Tigris and
Euphrates, in the mountains of Armenia, and, running with almost
incredible rapidity, falls into the Caspian Sea. Gihon was also the name
of a fountain to the west of Jerusalem, at which Solomon was anointed
king by the high priest Zadok, and the Prophet Nathan, 1 Kings i, 33.
GILBOA, MOUNT, a ridge of mountains on the north of Bethshan, or
Scythopolis, forming in that part the boundary of the plain of Jordan to
the west. It is memorable from the defeat of Saul by the Philistines;
when his three sons were slain, and he himself died by his own hand, his
armourbearer refusing to kill him, 1 Sam. xxxi.
GILEAD, the name given to the monument erected by Laban and Jacob, in
testimony of a mutual covenant and agreement, Gen. xxxi, 47, 48. Hence
the hill upon which it was erected, was called Mount Gilead, Cant. iv,
1; vi, 5; Jer. 1, 19. The mountains of Gilead were part of that ridge of
mountains which extend from Mount Lebanon southward, on the east of the
Holy land; they gave their name to the whole country which lies on the
east of the sea of Galilee, and included the mountainous region called
in the New Testament Trachonitis. The Scripture speaks of the balm of
Gilead, Jer. viii, 22; xlvi, 11; li, 8. The merchants who bought Joseph
came from Gilead, and were carrying balm into Egypt, Gen. xxxvii, 25.
See BALM.
GILGAL, a celebrated place situated on the west of Jordan, where the
Israelites encamped some time after their passage over that river, and
where Joshua pitched twelve stones taken out of Jordan as a memorial. A
considerable city was afterward built there, which became renowned for
many events recorded in the history of the Jews. Gilgal was about a
league from Jordan, and at an equal distance from Jericho. It received
its name from the circumstance of the Hebrews being there circumcised;
for when by divine command that rite had been performed upon them, the
Lord said, “This day have I rolled away from off you the reproach of
Egypt,” Joshua v, 2–4, &c.--The word Gilgal signifies _rolling_. Here
the ark was long stationed, and consequently the place was much resorted
to by the Israelites. It seems to have been the place in which Jeroboam
or some of the kings of Israel instituted idolatrous worship; and hence
the allusions to it by the prophets, Hosea iv, 15; Amos iv, 4. It is
probable that there were idols at Gilgal as early as the days of Ehud,
who was one of the judges; for it is said that, having delivered his
presents to the king, “Ehud went away, but returned again from the
quarries that were by Gilgal,” Judges iii, 19. The margin of our Bibles
reads, “the graven images,” or idols set up by the Moabites, the viewing
of which, it is thought, stirred up Ehud to revenge the affront thereby
offered to the God of Israel. At this same place, the people met to
confirm the kingdom to Saul, 1 Sam. xi, 14, 15. It was at Gilgal, too,
that Saul incurred the divine displeasure, in offering sacrifice before
Samuel arrived, 1 Sam. xiii; and there also it was that he received the
sentence of his rejection for disobeying the divine command, and sparing
the king of Amalek with the spoils which he had reserved, 1 Sam. xv.
It has been supposed that the setting up of stones, as at Gilgal and
other places, gave rise to the rude stone circular temples of the
Druids, and other Heathens. The idea, however, appears fanciful, and
there is an essential difference between stones erected for memorials,
and those used to mark sacred, or supposed sacred, places for worship.
GIRDLE. The girdle is an indispensable article in the dress of an
oriental: it has various uses; but the principal one is to tuck up their
long flowing vestments, that they may not incommode them in their work,
or on a journey. The Jews, according to some writers, wore a double
girdle, one of greater breadth, with which they girded their tunic when
they prepared for active exertions: the other they wore under their
shirt, around their loins. This under girdle they reckon necessary to
distinguish between the heart and the less honourable parts of the human
frame. The upper girdle was sometimes made of leather, the material of
which the girdle of John the Baptist was made; but it was more commonly
fabricated of worsted, often very artfully woven into a variety of
figures, and made to fold several times about the body; one end of which
being doubled back, and sewn along the edges, serves them for a purse,
agreeably to the acceptation of ζώνη, in the Scriptures, which is
translated _purse_, in several places of the New Testament, Matt. x, 9;
Mark vi, 8. The ancient Romans, in this, as in many other things,
imitated the orientals; for their soldiers, and probably all classes of
the citizens, used to carry their money in their girdles. Whence, in
Horace, _qui zonam perdidit_, means one who had lost his purse; and
Aulus Gellius, C. Gracchus is introduced, saying, “Those girdles which I
carried out full of money when I went from Rome, I have, at my return
from the province, brought again empty.” The Turks make a farther use of
these girdles, by fixing their knives and poinards in them; while the
writers and secretaries suspend in them their ink-horns; a custom as old
as the Prophet Ezekiel, who mentions “a person clothed in white linen,
with an ink-horn upon his loins,” Ezek. ix, 2. That part of the
ink-holder which passes between the girdle and the tunic, and receives
their pens, is long and flat; but the vessel for the ink, which rests
upon the girdle, is square, with a lid to clasp over it.
2. To loose the girdle and give it to another was, among the orientals,
a token of great confidence and affection. Thus, to ratify the covenant
which Jonathan made with David, and to express his cordial regard for
his friend, among other things, he gave him his girdle. A girdle
curiously and richly wrought was among the ancient Hebrews a mark of
honour, and sometimes bestowed as a reward of merit; for this was the
recompense which Joab declared he meant to bestow on the man who put
Absalom to death: “Why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and
I would have given thee ten shekels of silver, and a girdle,” 2 Samuel
xviii, 11. The reward was certainly meant to correspond with the
importance of the service which he expected him to perform, and the
dignity of his own station as commander in chief: we may, therefore,
suppose that the girdle promised was not a common one of leather, or
plain worsted, but of costly materials and richly adorned; for people of
rank and fashion in the east wear very broad girdles, all of silk, and
superbly ornamented with gold and silver, and precious stones, of which
they are extremely proud, regarding them as the tokens of their superior
station and the proof of their riches. “To gird up the loins” is to
bring the flowing robe within the girdle, and so to prepare for a
journey, or for some vigorous exercise.
GLASS, ὕαλος. This word occurs Rev. xxi, 18, 21; and the adjective
ὑάλινος, Rev. iv, 6; xv, 2. Parkhurst says that in the later Greek
writers, and in the New Testament, ὕαλος denotes the artificial
substance, _glass_; and that we may either with Mintert derive it from
ἕλη, _splendour_, or immediately from the Hebrew הל, _to shine_. There
seems to be no reference to glass in the Old Testament. The art of
making it was not known. Our translators have rendered the Hebrew word
מראת, in Exodus xxxviii, 8, and Job xxxvii, 18, “looking-glass.” But the
making mirrors of glass coated with quicksilver, is an invention quite
modern. The word _looking-glass_ occurs in our version of Ecclesiasticus
xii, 11, “Never trust thine enemy; for like as iron rusteth, so is his
wickedness. Though he humble himself, and go crouching, yet take good
heed and beware of him, and thou shalt be unto him as if thou hadst
washed a looking-glass, and thou shalt know that his rust hath not been
altogether wiped away.” This passage proves, by its mention of rust,
that mirrors were then made of polished metal. The word ἔσοπτρον, or
_mirror_, occurs in 1 Cor. xiii, 12, and James i, 23. Dr. Pearce thinks
that in the former place it signifies any of those transparent
substances which the ancients used in their windows, and through which
they saw external objects obscurely. But others are of opinion that the
word denotes a mirror of polished metal; as this, however, was liable to
many imperfections, so that the object before it was not seen clearly or
fully, the meaning of the Apostle is, that we see things as it were by
images reflected from a mirror, which shows them very obscurely and
indistinctly. In the latter place, a mirror undoubtedly is meant; “For
if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man
beholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and
goeth his way, and straightway he forgetteth what manner of man he was:”
but in the former, 1 Cor. xiii, 12, semi-transparent glass such as that
which we see in the ancient glass vases of the Romans is obviously
intended. Specimens of Roman glass may be seen in collections of
antiquities, and some have been dug up at Pompeii; but in all it is
cloudy and dull, and objects can only be seen through it with
indistinctness. From this we may fully perceive the force of the
Apostle’s words, “now we see through a glass darkly.”
GLEAN. To glean is properly to gather ears of corn, or grapes, left by
the reapers, &c. The Jews were not allowed to glean their fields, but
were to leave this to the poor, Lev. xix, 10; xxiii, 22; Deut. xxiv, 21;
Ruth ii, 3.
GLORIFY, to make glorious or honourable, or to cause to appear so, John
xii, 28; xiii, 31, 32; xv, 8; xvii, 4, 5; xxi, 19; Acts iii, 13. In this
view it particularly refers to the resurrection of Christ, and his
ascension to the right hand of God, John vii, 39; xii, 16. It also
expresses that change which shall pass upon believers at the general
resurrection, and their admission into heaven.
GLORY, splendour, magnificence. The glory of God in the writings of
Moses, denotes, generally, the divine presence; as when he appeared on
Mount Sinai; or, the bright cloud which declared his presence, and
descended on the tabernacle of the congregation, Exod. xxiv, 9, 10, 16,
17. Moses, with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, went
up to Mount Sinai, and “saw the glory of the Lord.” Now “the glory of
the Lord was, as it were, a burning fire on the mountain; and under his
feet was, as it were, the brightness of the sapphire stone, resembling
heaven itself in clearness.” The glory of the Lord appeared to Israel in
the cloud also, when he gave them manna and quails, Exod. xvi, 7, 10.
Moses having earnestly begged of God to show his glory to him, God said,
“Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live. And
the Lord said, There is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put
thee in the cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I
pass by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts:” (the train, the fainter rays of the glory:) “but my face shall
not be seen,” Exod. xxxiii, 18. The ark of God is called the glory of
Israel; and the glory of God, 1 Samuel iv, 21, 22; Psalm xxvi, 8. The
priestly ornaments are called “garments of glory,” Exod. xxviii, 2, 40;
and the sacred vessels, “vessels of glory,” 1 Macc. ii, 9, 12. Solomon
“in all his glory,” in all his lustre, in his richest ornaments, was not
so beautifully arrayed as a lily, Matt. vi, 29; Luke xii, 27. When the
prophets describe the conversion of the Gentiles, they speak of the
“glory of the Lord” as filling the earth; that is, his knowledge shall
universally prevail, and he shall be every where worshipped and
glorified. The term “glory” is used also of the Gospel dispensation by
St. Paul; and to express the future felicity of the saints in heaven.
When the Hebrews required an oath of any man, they said, “Give glory to
God:” confess the truth, give him glory, confess that God knows the most
secret thoughts, the very bottom of your hearts, Joshua vii, 19; John
ix, 24.
GNAT, κώνωψ, Matt. xxiii, 24, a small-winged insect, comprehending a
genus of the order of _diptera_. In those hot countries, as Servius
remarks, speaking of the east, gnats and flies are very apt to fall into
wine, if it be not carefully covered; and passing the liquor through a
strainer, that no gnat or part of one might remain, became a proverb for
exactness about little matters. This may help us to understand that
passage, Matt. xxiii, 24, where the proverbial expression of carefully
straining out a little fly from the liquor to be drunk, and yet
swallowing a camel, intimates, that the scribes and Pharisees affected
to scruple little things, and yet disregarded those of the greatest
moment.
GNOSTICS, from γνώσις, “knowledge,” men of science and wisdom,
_illuminati_; men who, from blending the philosophy of the east, or of
Greece, with the doctrines of the Gospel, boasted of deeper knowledge in
the Scriptures and theology than others. It was, therefore, not so
properly a distinct sect as a generic term, comprehending all who,
forsaking the simplicity of the Gospel, pretended to be “wise above what
is written,” to explain the New Testament by the dogmas of the
philosophers, and to derive from the sacred writings mysteries which
never were contained in them. The origin of the Gnostic heresy, as it is
called, has been variously stated. The principles of this heresy were,
however, much older than Christianity; and many of the errors alluded to
in the apostolic epistles are doubtless of a character very similar to
some branches of the Gnostic system. (See _Cabbala_.) Cerinthus, against
whom St. John wrote his Gospel; the Nicolaitans, mentioned in the
Revelation, and the Ebionites, (described under that article,) were all
early Gnostics, although the system was not then so completely formed as
afterward. Dr. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, has thus sketched the
Gnostic system:--In attempting to give an account of these doctrines, I
must begin with observing what we shall see more plainly when we trace
the causes of Gnosticism, that it was not by any means a new and
distinct philosophy, but made up of selections from almost every system.
Thus we find in it the Platonic doctrine of ideas, and the notion that
every thing in this lower world has a celestial and immaterial
archetype. We find in it evident traces of that mystical and cabalistic
jargon which, after their return from captivity, deformed the religion
of the Jews; and many Gnostics adopted the oriental notion of two
independent coëternal principles, the one the author of good, the other
of evil. Lastly, we find the Gnostic theology full of ideas and terms
which must have been taken from the Gospel; and Jesus Christ, under some
form or other, of _æon_, emanation, or incorporeal phantom, enters into
all their systems, and is the means of communicating to them that
knowledge which raised them above all other mortals, and entitled them
to their peculiar name. The genius and very soul of Gnosticism was
mystery: its end and object was to purify its followers from the
corruptions of matter, and to raise them to a higher scale of being,
suited only to those who were become perfect by knowledge.
2. We have a key to many parts of their system, when we know that they
held matter to be intrinsically evil, of which, consequently, God could
not be the author. Hence arose their fundamental tenet, that the creator
of the world, or Demiurgus, was not the same with the supreme God, the
Author of good, and the Father of Christ. Their system allowed some of
them to call the creator God; but the title most usually given to him
was Demiurgus. Those who embraced the doctrine of two principles
supposed the world to have been produced by the evil principle; and, in
most systems, the creator, though not the father of Christ, was looked
upon as the God of the Jews, and the author of the Mosaic law. Some,
again, believed that angels were employed in creating the world; but all
were agreed in maintaining that matter itself was not created, that it
was eternal, and remained inactive, till
_Dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,
Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit._
OVID.
[Some God, whoever he was, separated and arranged the mass, and reduced
it, when separated, into elements.]
The supreme God had dwelt from all eternity in a _pleroma_ of
inaccessible light; and beside the name of first Father, or first
Principle, they called him also Bythus, as if to denote the unfathomable
nature of his perfections. This being, by an operation purely mental, or
by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different sexes,
from whom, by a series of descents, more or less numerous according to
different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called
_æons_, from the periods of their existence before time was, or
_emanations_, from the mode of their production. These successive _æons_
or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the preceding; and
their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic scheme, that they might
account for the creation of the world without making God the author of
evil. These _æons_ lived through countless ages with their first father;
but the system of emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric
circles; and they gradually deteriorated, as they approached nearer and
nearer to the extremity of the _pleroma_. Beyond this _pleroma_ was
matter, inert and powerless, though coëternal with the supreme God, and
like him without beginning. At length, one of the _æons_ passed the
limits of the _pleroma_, and, meeting with matter, created the world,
after the form and model of an ideal world which existed in the
_pleroma_ or in the mind of the supreme God. Here it is that
inconsistency is added to absurdity in the Gnostic scheme. For, let the
intermediate _æons_ be as many as the wildest imagination could devise,
still God was the remote, if not the proximate, cause of creation. Added
to which, we are to suppose that the Demiurgus formed the world without
the knowledge of God; and that, having formed it, he rebelled against
him. Here, again, we find a strong resemblance to the oriental doctrine
of two principles, good and evil, or light and darkness. The two
principles were always at enmity with each other. God must have been
conceived to be more powerful than matter, or an emanation from God
could not have shaped and moulded it into form: yet God was not able to
reduce matter into its primeval chaos, nor to destroy the evil which the
Demiurgus had produced. What God could not prevent, he was always
endeavouring to cure: and here it is that the Gnostics borrowed so
largely from the Christian scheme. The names, indeed, of several of
their _æons_ were evidently taken from terms which they found in the
Gospel. Thus we meet with _Logos_, _Monogenes_, _Zoe_, _Ecclesia_, all
of them successive emanations from the supreme God, and all dwelling in
the _pleroma_. At length, we meet with Christ and the Holy Ghost, as two
of the last _æons_ which were put forth. Christ was sent into the world
to remedy the evil which the creative _æon_ or Demiurgus had caused. He
was to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter, or of the evil
principle; and, by revealing to them the true God, who was hitherto
unknown, to fit them, by a perfection and sublimity of knowledge, to
enter the divine _pleroma_. To give this knowledge, was the end and
object of Christ’s coming upon earth; and hence the inventors and
believers of the doctrine assumed to themselves the name of Gnostics. In
all their notions concerning Christ, we still find them struggling with
the same difficulty of reconciling the author of good with the existence
of evil. Christ, as being an emanation from God, could have no real
connection with matter: yet, the Christ of the Gnostics was held out to
be the same with him who was revealed in the Gospel; and it was
notorious that he was revealed as the Son of Mary, who appeared in a
human form. The methods which they took to extricate themselves from the
difficulty, were principally two: they either denied that Christ had a
real body at all, and held that he was an unsubstantial phantom; or,
granting that there was a man called Jesus, the son of human parents,
they believed that one of the _æons_, called Christ, quitted the
_pleroma_, and descended upon Jesus at his baptism.