known, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If,
therefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent
hands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to
avenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with
unceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force
or by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia, and it appears to have
been alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening
to kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the
country, saying, “Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?” Gen.
xxvii, 15. She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the
murderer, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine;
and Isaac was much too partial to Esau for her to entertain any
expectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would
therefore appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the
blood avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the
_goel_ was in use before the time of Moses; and it was probably filled
by the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of redeeming a
mortgage field is given to him. To prevent the unnecessary loss of life
through a sanguinary spirit of revenge, the Hebrew legislator made
various enactments concerning the blood avenger. In most ages and
countries, certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being
asylums; Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the murderer would
flee to the altar, commanded that when the crime was deliberate and
intentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death,
Exod. xxi, 14. But in the case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer
was enjoined to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, which were
appropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was
enacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual
might meet with no impediment whatever in his way, Deut. xix, 3. If the
_goel_ overtook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to
death, he was not considered as guilty of blood; but if the man-slayer
had reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an
inquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and
asylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour’s death
undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was
judicially delivered to the _goel_, who might put him to death in
whatever way he chose; but in the former case the homicide continued in
the place of refuge until the high priest’s death, when he might return
home in perfect security. If, however, the _goel_ found him without the
city, or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of
blood, Numbers xxxv, 26, 27. Farther, to guard the life of man, and
prevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the
receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation,
Numbers xxxv, 31. It would seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or
if he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty
of the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus
we find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and
that Solomon, in obedience to his father’s dying entreaty, actually
discharged it by putting that murderer to death, 1 Kings ii, 5; vi,
28–34. There is a beautiful allusion to the blood avenger in Heb. vi,
17, 18.
The following extracts will prove how tenaciously the eastern people
adhere to the principle of revenging the death of their relations and
friends:--“Among the Circassians,” says Pallas, “all the relatives of
the murderers are considered as guilty. This customary infatuation to
revenge the blood of relations generates most of the feuds, and
occasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for unless
pardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two
families, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding
generations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to
the family of the deceased, this tribute is called _thlil-uasa_, or,
‘the price of blood;’ but neither princes nor usdens accept such
compensation, as it is an established law among them to demand blood for
blood.” “The Nubians,” observes Light, “possess few traces among them of
government, or law, or religion. They know no master, although the
cashief claims a nominal command of the country. They look for redress
of injuries to their own means of revenge, which, in cases of blood,
extends from one generation to another, till blood is repaid by blood.
On this account they are obliged to be ever on the watch, and armed: and
in this manner even their daily labours are carried on; the very boys
are armed.” “If one Nubian,” remarks Burckhardt, “happen to kill
another, he is obliged to pay the debt of blood to the family of the
deceased, and a fine to the governors of six camels, a cow, and seven
sheep, or they are taken from his relations. Every wound inflicted has
its stated fine, consisting of sheep and _dhourra_, but varying in
quantity, according to the parts of the body wounded.” “When a man or
woman is murdered,” says Malcolm, “the moment the person by whom the act
was perpetrated is discovered, the heir-at-law to the deceased demands
vengeance for the blood. Witnesses are examined, and if the guilt be
established, the criminal is delivered into his hands, to deal with as
he chooses. It is alike legal for him to forgive him, to accept a sum of
money as the price of blood, or to put him to death. It is only a few
years ago that the English resident at Abusheher saw three persons
delivered into the hands of the relations of those whom they had
murdered. They led their victims bound to the burial ground, where they
put them to death; but the part of the execution that appeared of the
most importance, was to make the infant children of the deceased stab
the murderers with knives, and imbrue their little hands in the blood of
those who had slain their father. The youngest princes of the blood that
could hold a dagger were made to stab the assassins of Aga Mahomed Khan.
When they were executed, the successor of Nadir Shah sent one of the
murderers of that monarch to the females of his harem, who, we are told,
were delighted to become his executioners.”
GOG AND MAGOG. Moses speaks of Magog, son of Japheth, but says nothing
of Gog, Gen. x, 2. According to Ezekiel, Gog was prince of Magog, Ezek.
xxxviii, 2, 3, &c; xxxix, 1, 2, &c. Magog signifies the country or
people, and Gog the king of that country; the general name of the
northern nations of Europe and Asia, or the districts north of the
Caucasus, or Mount Taurus. The prophecy of Ezekiel, xxxix, 1–22, seems
to be revived in the Apocalypse, where the hosts of Gog and Magog are
represented as coming to invade “the beloved city,” and perishing with
immense slaughter likewise in Armageddon, “the mount of Mageddo,” or
Megiddo, Rev. xvi, 14–16; xx, 7–10.
GOLD, זהב, Gen. xxiv, 22, and very frequently in all other parts of the
Old Testament; χρυσος, Matt. xxiii, 16, 17, &c; the most perfect and
valuable of the metals. In Job xxviii, 15–18, 19, gold is mentioned five
times, and four of the words are different in the original: 1. סגור,
which may mean “gold in the mine,” or “shut up,” as the root signifies,
“in the ore.” 2. כתם, _kethem_, from כתם, _catham_, “to sign,” “seal,”
or “stamp;” gold made current by being coined; standard gold, exhibiting
the stamp expressive of its value. 3. זהב, wrought gold, pure, highly
polished gold. 4. פז, denoting solidity, compactness, and strength;
probably gold formed into different kinds of plate, or vessels. Jerom,
in his comment on Jer. x, 9, writes “_Septem dominibus apud Hebræos
appellatur aurum_.” The seven names, which he does not mention, are as
follows, and thus distinguished by the Hebrews: 1. _Zahab_, gold in
general. 2. _Zahab tob_, good gold, of a more valuable kind, Gen. ii,
12. 3. _Zahab Ophir_, gold of Ophir, 1 Kings ix, 28, such as was brought
by the navy of Solomon. 4. _Zahab muphaz_, solid gold, pure, wrought
gold, translated, 1 Kings x, 18, “the best gold.” 5. _Zahab shachut_,
beaten gold, 2 Chron. ix, 15. 6. _Zahab segor_, shut up gold; either as
mentioned above, gold in the ore, or as the rabbins explain it, “gold
shut up in the treasuries,” gold in bullion. 7. _Zahab parvaim_, 2
Chron. iii, 6. To these Buxtorf adds three others: 1. כתם, pure gold of
the circulating medium. 2. לצר, gold in the treasury. 3. חרצז, choice,
fine gold. Arabia had formerly its golden mines. “The gold of Sheba,”
Psalm lxxii, 15, is, in the Septuagint and Arabic versions, “the gold of
Arabia.” Sheba was the ancient name of Arabia Felix. Mr. Bruce, however,
places it in Africa, at Azab. The gold of Ophir, so often mentioned,
must be that which was procured in Arabia, on the coast of the Red Sea.
We are assured by Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Eusebius, and by
Herodotus, that the Phenicians carried on a considerable traffic with
this gold even before the days of Job, who speaks of it, xxii, 24.
GOLIATH, a famous giant of the city of Gath, who was slain by David, 1
Sam. xvii, 4, 5, &c. See GIANTS.
GOMER, the eldest son of Japheth, by whom a great part of Asia Minor was
first peopled, and particularly that extensive tract which was called
Phrygia, including the sub-divisions of Mysia, Galatia, Bithynia,
Lycaonia, &c. The colonies of Gomer extended into Germany, Gaul, (in
both of which traces of the name are preserved,) and Britain, which was
undoubtedly peopled from Gaul. Among the descendants of the ancient
inhabitants of this island, namely, the Welsh, the words _Kumero_ and
_Kumeraeg_, the names of the people and the language, sufficiently point
out their origin. In fact, under the names of Cimmerii, Cimbri, Cymrig,
Cumbri, Umbri, and Cambri, the tribes of Gomerians extended themselves
from the Euxine to the Atlantic, and from Italy to the Baltic; having
added to their original names those of Celts, Gauls, Galatæ, and Gaels,
superadded.
GOMORRAH, one of the five cities of the Pentapolis, consumed by fire,
Genesis xix, 24, &c. See DEAD SEA.
GOSHEN. This was the most fertile pasture ground in the whole of Lower
Egypt; thence called Goshen, from _gush_, in Arabic, signifying “a
heart,” or whatsoever is choice or precious. There was also a Goshen in
the territory of the tribe of Judah, so called for the same reason,
Joshua x, 41. Hence Joseph recommended it to his family as “the best of
the land,” Gen. xlvii, 11, and “the fat of the land,” Gen. xlv, 18. The
land of Goshen lay along the most easterly branch of the Nile, and on
the east side of it; for it is evident that, at the time of the exode,
the Israelites did not cross the Nile. In ancient times, the fertile
land was considerably more extensive, both in length and breadth, than
at present, in consequence of the general failure of the eastern
branches of the Nile; the main body of the river verging more and more
to the west continually, and deepening the channels on that side.
GOSPEL, a history of the life, actions, death, resurrection, ascension,
and doctrine of Jesus Christ. The word is Saxon, and of the same import
with the Latin term _evangelium_, or the Greek εὐαγγέλιον, which
signifies “glad tidings,” or “good news;” the history of our Saviour
being the best history ever published to mankind. This history is
contained in the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St.
John, who from thence are called evangelists. The Christian church never
acknowledged any more than these four Gospels as canonical:
notwithstanding which, several apocryphal gospels are handed down to us,
and others are entirely lost. The four Gospels contain each of them the
history of our Saviour’s life and ministry; but we must remember, that
no one of the evangelists undertook to give an account of all the
miracles which Christ performed, or of all the instructions which he
delivered. They are written with different degrees of conciseness; but
every one of them is sufficiently full to prove that Jesus was the
promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, who had been predicted by a
long succession of prophets, and whose advent was expected at the time
of his appearance, both by Jews and Gentiles.
2. That all the books which convey to us the history of events under the
New Testament were written and immediately published by persons
contemporary with the events, is most fully proved by the testimony of
an unbroken series of authors, reaching from the days of the evangelists
to the present times; by the concurrent belief of Christians of all
denominations; and by the unreserved confession of avowed enemies to the
Gospel. In this point of view the writings of the ancient fathers of the
Christian church are invaluable. They contain not only frequent
references and allusions to the books of the New Testament, but also
such numerous professed quotations from them, that it is demonstratively
certain that these books existed in their present state a few years
after the conclusion of Christ’s ministry upon earth. No unbeliever in
the apostolic age, in the age immediately subsequent to it, or, indeed,
in any age whatever, was ever able to disprove the facts recorded in
these books; and it does not appear that in the early times any such
attempt was made. The facts, therefore, related in the New Testament
must be admitted to have really happened. But if all the circumstances
of the history of Jesus, that is, his miraculous conception in the womb
of the virgin, the time at which he was born, the place where he was
born, the family from which he was descended, the nature of the
doctrines which he preached, the meanness of his condition, his
rejection, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, with many other
minute particulars; if all these various circumstances in the history of
Jesus exactly accord with the predictions of the Old Testament relative
to the promised Messiah, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be
blessed, it follows that Jesus was that Messiah. And again: if Jesus
really performed the miracles as related in the Gospels, and was
perfectly acquainted with the thoughts and designs of men, his divine
mission cannot be doubted. Lastly: if he really foretold his own death
and resurrection, the descent of the Holy Ghost, its miraculous effects,
the sufferings of the Apostles, the call of the Gentiles, and the
destruction of Jerusalem, it necessarily follows that he spake by the
authority of God himself. These, and many other arguments, founded in
the more than human character of Jesus, in the rapid propagation of the
Gospel, in the excellence of its precepts and doctrines, and in the
constancy, intrepidity, and fortitude of its early professors,
incontrovertibly establish the truth and divine origin of the Christian
religion, and afford to us, who live in these latter times, the most
positive confirmation of the promise of our Lord, that “the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.”
3. The Gospels recount those wonderful and important events with which
the Christian religion and its divine Author were introduced into the
world, and which have produced so great a change in the principles, the
manners, the morals, and the temporal as well as spiritual condition of
mankind. They relate the first appearance of Christ upon earth, his
extraordinary and miraculous birth, the testimony borne to him by his
forerunner, John the Baptist, the temptation in the wilderness, the
opening of his divine commission, the pure, the perfect, and sublime
morality which he taught, especially in his inimitable sermon on the
mount, the infinite superiority which he showed to every other moral
teacher, both in the matter and manner of his discourses, more
particularly by crushing vice in its very cradle, in the first risings
of wicked desires and propensities in the heart, by giving a decided
preference to the mild, gentle, passive, conciliating virtues, before
that violent, vindictive, high-spirited, unforgiving temper, which has
been always too much the favourite character of the world; by requiring
us to forgive our very enemies, and to do good to them that hate us; by
excluding from our devotions, our alms, and all our virtues, all regard
to fame, reputation, and applause; by laying down two great general
principles of morality, love to God, and love to mankind, and deducing
from thence every other human duty; by conveying his instructions under
the easy, familiar, and impressive form of parables; by expressing
himself in a tone of dignity and authority unknown before; by
exemplifying every virtue that he taught in his own unblemished and
perfect life and conversation; and, above all, by adding those awful
sanctions, which he alone, of all moral instructers, had the power to
hold out, eternal rewards to the virtuous, and eternal punishments to
the wicked. The sacred narratives then represent to us the high
character that he assumed; the claim he made to a divine original; the
wonderful miracles he wrought in proof of his divinity; the various
prophecies which plainly marked him out as the Messiah, the great
Deliverer of the Jews; the declarations he made that he came to offer
himself a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind; the cruel indignities,
sufferings, and persecutions to which, in consequence of this great
design, he was exposed; the accomplishment of it, by the painful and
ignominious death to which he submitted, by his resurrection after three
days from the grave, by his ascension into heaven, by his sitting there
at the right hand of God, and performing the office of a Mediator and
Intercessor for the sinful sons of men, till he shall come a second time
in his glory to sit in judgment on all mankind, and decide their final
doom of happiness or misery for ever. These are the momentous, the
interesting, truths on which the Gospels principally dwell.
4. We find in the ancient records a twofold order, in which the
evangelists are arranged. They stand either thus, Matthew, John, Luke,
Mark; or thus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The first is made with
reference to the character and the rank of the persons, according to
which the Apostles precede their assistants and attendants (ἀκολουθοις,
_comitibus_.) It is observed in the oldest Latin translations and in the
Gothic; sometimes also in the works of Latin teachers; but among all the
Greek MSS. only in that at Cambridge. But the other, namely, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, is, in all the old translations of Asia and
Africa, in all catalogues of the canonical books, and in Greek MSS. in
general, the customary and established one as it regarded not personal
circumstances, but as it had respect to chronological; which is to us a
plain indication what accounts concerning the succession of the
evangelists, the Asiatic, and Greek churches, and also those of Africa,
had before them, when the Christian books were arranged in collections.
It is a considerable advantage, says Michaëlis, that a history of such
importance as that of Jesus Christ has been recorded by the pens of
separate and independent writers, who, from the variations which are
visible in these accounts, have incontestably proved that they did not
unite with a view of imposing a fabulous narrative on mankind. That St.
Matthew had never seen the Gospel of St. Luke, nor St. Luke the Gospel
of St. Matthew, is evident from a comparison of their writings. The
Gospel of St. Mark, which was written later, must likewise have been
unknown to St. Luke; and that St. Mark had ever read the Gospel of St.
Luke, is at least improbable, because their Gospels so frequently
differ. It is a generally received opinion, that St. Mark made use of
St. Matthew’s Gospel in the composition of his own; but this is an
unfounded hypothesis. The Gospel of St. John, being written after the
other three, supplies what they had omitted. Thus have we four distinct
and independent writers of one and the same history; and, though
trifling variations may seem to exist in their narratives, yet these
admit of easy solutions; and in all matters of consequence, whether
doctrinal or historical, there is such a manifest agreement between them
as is to be found in no other writings whatever. Though we have only
four original writers of the life of Jesus, the evidence of the history
does not rest on the testimony of four men. Christianity had been
propagated in a great part of the world before any of them had written,
on the testimony of thousands and tens of thousands, who had been
witnesses of the great facts which they have recorded; so that the
writing of these particular books is not to be considered as the cause,
but rather the effect, of the belief of Christianity; nor could those
books have been written and received as they were, namely, as authentic
histories, of the subject of which all persons of that age were judges,
if the facts they have recorded had not been well known to be true.
5. The term Gospel is often used in Scripture to signify the whole
Christian doctrine: hence, “preaching the Gospel” is declaring all the
truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity. This is
termed, “the Gospel of the grace of God,” because it flows from God’s
free love and goodness, Acts xx, 24; and when truly and faithfully
preached, is accompanied with the influences of the divine Spirit. It is
called, “the Gospel of the kingdom,” because it treats of the kingdom of
grace, and shows the way to the kingdom of glory. It is styled, “the
Gospel of Christ,” because he is the Author and great subject of it,
Romans i, 16; and “the Gospel of peace and salvation,” because it
publishes peace with God to the penitent and believing, gives, to such,
peace of conscience and tranquillity of mind, and is the means of their
salvation, present and eternal. As it displays the glory of God and of
Christ, and ensures to his true followers eternal glory, it is entitled,
“the glorious Gospel,” and, “the everlasting Gospel,” because it
commenced from the fall of man, is permanent throughout all time, and
produces effects which are everlasting.
GOVERNMENT OF THE HEBREWS. The posterity of Jacob, while remaining in
Egypt, maintained, notwithstanding the augmentation of their numbers,
that patriarchal form of government which is so prevalent among the
nomades. Every father of a family exercised a father’s authority over
those of his own household. Every tribe obeyed its own _prince_, נשיא,
who was originally the first-born of the founder of the tribe, but who,
in process of time, appears to have been elected. As the people
increased in numbers, various heads of families united together, and
selected some individual from their own body, who was somewhat
distinguished, for their leader. Perhaps the choice was made merely by
tacit consent; and, without giving him the title of ruler in form, they
were willing, while convinced of his virtues, to render submission to
his will. Such a union of families was denominated “the house of the
father;” and “the house of the father of the families,” Num. iii, 24,
30, 35. In other instances, although the number varied, being sometimes
more and sometimes less than a thousand, it was denominated, אלף אלפים,
_a thousand_. “Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your
tribes, and by your _thousands_;” “the thousands of Judah;” “the
thousands of Israel,” &c, 1 Sam. x, 19; xxiii, 23; Judges vi, 15; Num.
xxvi, 5–50. The heads of these united families were designated “heads of
thousands,” Num. i, 16; x, 4. They held themselves in subjection to the
“princes of the tribes.” Both the princes and heads of families are
mentioned under the common names of זקננים, _seniors_ or _senators_, and
ראשי שבטים _heads of tribes_. Following the law of reason, and the rules
established by custom, they governed with a paternal authority the
tribes and united families; and, while they left the minor concerns to
the heads of individual families, aimed to superintend and promote the
best interests of the community generally. Originally, it fell to the
princes of the tribes themselves to keep genealogical tables:
subsequently, they employed scribes especially for this purpose, who, in
the progress of time, acquired so great authority, that under the name
of שוטרים, translated, in the English version, _officers_, they were
permitted to exercise a share in the government of the nation. It was by
magistrates of this description that the Hebrews were governed while
they remained in Egypt; and the Egyptian kings made no objection to it,
Exod. iii, 16; v, 1, 14, 15, 19.