« PreviousContinue »
being at one time stiff and hard, while at another it cracked and discharged fluid (vii. 5); in the offensive breath which drove away the kindness of attendants (xix. 17); in the restless nights, which were either sleepless or scared with frightful dreams (vii. 13, 14; xxx. 17); in general emaciation (xvi. 8); and in so intense a loathing of the burden of life, that strangling and death were preferable to it (vii. 15).
In this, as in most other Biblical diseases, there is too little distinct description of symptoms to enable us to determine the precise malady intended. But the general character of the complaint under which Job suffered, bears a greater resemblance to elephantiasis than to any other disease [LEPROSY].
JOCH'EBED (God-glorified), wife of Amram and mother of Miriam, Moses and Aaron. In Exod. vi. 20, Jochebed is expressly declared to have been the sister of Amram's father, and consequently the aunt of her husband. As marriage between persons thus related was afterwards forbidden by the law (Lev. xviii. 12), various attempts have been made to show that the relationship was more distant than the text in its literal meaning indicates. We see no necessity for this. The mere mention of the relationship implies that there was something remarkable in the case; but if we show that nothing is remarkable, we do away the occasion for the relationship being at all noticed. The fact seems to be, that where this marriage was contracted, there was no law forbidding such alliances, but they must in any case have been unusual, although not forbidden; and this, with the writer's knowledge that they were subsequently interdicted, sufficiently accounts for this one being so pointedly mentioned. The candour of the historian in declaring himself to be sprung from a marriage, afterwards forbidden by the law, delivered through himself, deserves especial notice.
JO'EL (worshipper of Jehovah), one of the twelve minor prophets, the son of Pethuel. Of his birth-place nothing is known with certainty. From the local allusions in his prophecy, we may infer that he discharged his office in the kingdom of Judah. But the references to the temple, its priests and sacrifices, are rather slender grounds for conjecturing that he belonged to the sacerdotal order. Various opinions have been held respect ing the period in which he lived. It appears most probable that he was contemporary with Amos and Isaiah, and delivered his predictions in the reign of Uzziah, between 800 and 780 B.C.
graphic force. There is considerable diversity of sentiment as to the point whether these descriptions are to be understood literally or figuratively. The figurative interpretation has, it must be allowed, the support of antiquity. It was adopted by the Chaldee paraphrast, Ephrem the Syrian (A.D. 350), and the Jews in the time of Jerome (A.D. 400). Ephrem supposes that by the four different denominations of the locusts were intended Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews, in the time of Jerome, understood by the first term the Assyrians and Chaldeans; by the second, the Medes and Persians; by the third, Alexander the Great and his successors; and by the fourth, the Romans. Grotius applies the description to the invasions by Pul and Shalmaneser. Holzhausen attempts to unite both modes of interpretation, and applies the language literally to the locusts, and metaphorically to the Assyrians. It is singular, however, that, if a hostile invasion be intended, not the least hint is given of personal injury sustained by the inhabitants; the immediate effects are confined entirely to the vegetable productions and the cattle.
The prophet, after describing the approaching judgments, calls on his countrymen to repent, assuring them of the divine placability and readiness to forgive (ii. 12-17). He foretels the restoration of the land to its former fertility, and declares that Jehovah would still be their God (ii. 18-26). He then announces the spiritual blessings which would be poured forth in the Messianic age (iii. 1-5, Heb. text; ii. 28-32, Auth. Vers.). This remarkable prediction is applied by the Apostle Peter to the events that transpired on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 16-21). In the last chapter the divine vengeance is denounced against the enemies and oppressors of the chosen people, of whom the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Edomites are especially named.
The style of Joel, it has been remarked, unites the strength of Micah with the tenderness of Jere miah. In vividness of description he rivals Nahum, and in sublimity and majesty is scarcely inferior to Isaiah and Habakkuk.
The canonicity of this book has never been called in question.
JOHA'NAN (God-bestowed); one of the officers who came and recognised Gedaliah as governor of Judæa after the destruction of Jerusalem, and who appears to have been the chief in authority and influence among them. He penetrated the designs of Ishmael against the governor, whom This prophet opens his commission by an- he endeavoured, without success, to put upon his nouncing an extraordinary plague of locusts, guard. When Ishmael had accomplished his deaccompanied with extreme drought, which he sign by the murder of Gedaliah, and was carrying depicts in a strain of animated and sublime poetry away the principal persons at the seat of governunder the image of an invading army. The fide- ment as captives to the Ammonites, Johanan purlity of his highly-wrought description is corro- sued him, and released them. Being fearful, borated and illustrated by the testimonies of however, that the Chaldæans might misunderShaw, Volney, Forbes, and other eminent travel- stand the affair, and make him and those who were lers, who have been eye-witnesses of the ravages with him responsible for it, he resolved to withcommitted by this most terrible of the insect draw for safety into Egypt, with the principal tribe. In the second chapter, the formidable persons of the remnant left in the land. Jeremiah aspect of the locusts-their rapid progress-their remonstrated against this decision; but Johanan sweeping devastation-the awful murmur of their would not be moved, and even constrained the countless throngs-their instinctive marshalling-prophet himself to go with them. They prothe irresistible perseverance with which they ceeded to Taphanes, but nothing further is remake their way over every obstacle and through corded of Johanan. B.C. 588 (2 Kings xxv. 23; every aperture are delineated with the utmost Jer. xl. 8-16; xli.; xlii.; xliii.).
JOHN THE BAPTIST
JOHN THE BAPTIST. The name John denotes grace or favour. In the church John commonly bears the honourable title of forerunner of the Lord.'
His parents were Zacharias and Elisabeth, the latter a cousin of Mary,' the mother of Jesus, whose senior John was by a period of six months (Luke i.). According to the account contained in the first chapter of Luke, his father, while engaged in burning incense, was visited by the angel Gabriel, who informed him that in compliance with his prayers his wife should bear a son, whose name he should call John-in allusion to the grace thus accorded. A description of the manner of his son's life is given, which in effect states that he was to be a Nazarite, abstaining from bodily indulgences, was to receive special favour and aid of God, was to prove a great religious and social reformer, and so prepare the way for the long-expected Messiah. Zacharias was slow to believe these tidings and sought some token in evidence of their truth. Accordingly a sign was given which acted also as a punishment of his want of faith-his tongue was sealed till the prediction should be fulfilled by the event. Six months after Elisabeth had conceived she received a visit from Mary, the future mother of Jesus. On being saluted by her relation, Elisabeth felt her babe leap in her womb, and, being filled with the holy spirit, she broke forth into a poetic congratulation to Mary, as the destined mother of her Lord. At length Elisabeth brought forth a son, whom the relatives were disposed to name Zacharias, after his father-but Elisabeth was in some way led to wish that he should be called John. The matter was referred to the father, who signified in writing that his fame was to be John. This agreement with Elisabeth caused all to marvel. Zacharias now had his tongue loosed, and he first employed his restored power in praising God. These singular events caused universal surprise, and led people to expect that the shild would prove a distinguished man.
The parents of John were not only of a priestly order, but righteous and devout. Their influence, in consequence, in the training of their son, would be not only benign but suitable to the holy office which he was designed to fill. More than thisthe special aids of God's Spirit were with him (Luke i. 66). As a consequence of the lofty in fluences under which he was nurtured, the child waxed strong in spirit. The sacred writer adds that he was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel' (Luke i. 80).
In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius, John made his public appearance, exhibiting the austerity, the costume, and the manner of life of the ancient Jewish prophets (Luke iii.; Matt. iii.). His raiment was camel's hair; he wore a plain leathern girdle about his loins; his food was what the desert spontaneously offered-locusts and wild honey from the rock. The burden of John's preaching bore no slight resemblance to the old prophetic exhortations, whose last echo had now died away for centuries. He called upon the Jewish people to repent, to change their minds, their dispositions and affections, and thus prepared the way for the great doctrine promulgated by his Lord, of the necessity of a spiritual regeneration. That the change which John had in view was by no means of so great or so elevated
JOHN THE BAPTIST
a kind as that which Jesus required, is very probable; but the particulars into which he enters when he proceeds to address classes or individuals (Matt. iii. 7, sq.; Luke iii. 7, sq.), serve fully to show that the renovation at which he aimed was not merely of a material or organic, but chiefly of a moral nature. In a very emphatic manner did he warn the ecclesiastical and legal authorities of the land of the necessity under which they lay of an entire change of view, of aim. and of desire; declaring in explicit and awful terms that their pride of nationality would avail them nothing against the coming wrathful visitation, and that they were utterly mistaken in the notion that Divine Providence had any need of them for completing its own wise purposes (Luke iii. 8, 9). The first reason assigned by John for entering on his most weighty and perilous office was announced in these words-the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' It was his great work to prepare the mind of the nation, so that when Jesus himself came they might be a people made ready for the Lord.
Had we space to develope the moral character of John, we could show that this fine, stern, high-minded teacher possessed many eminent qualities; but his personal and official modesty in keeping, in all circumstances, in the lower rank assigned him by God, must not pass without special mention. The doctrine and manner of life of John appear to have roused the entire of the south of Palestine, and people flocked from all parts to the spot where, on the banks of the Jordan, he baptized thousands unto repentance. Such, indeed, was the fame which he had gained, that people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not' (Luke iii. 15). Had he chosen, John might without doubt have assumed to himself the higher office, and risen to great worldly power. But he was faithful to his trust, and never failed to declare, in the fullest and clearest manner, that he was not the Christ, but merely his harbinger, and that the sole work he had to do was to usher in the day-spring from on high.
The more than prophetic fame of the Baptist reached the ears of Jesus in his Nazarene dwelling, far distant from the locality of John (Matt. ii. 22, 23). The nature of the report-namely, that his Divinely predicted forerunner had appeared in Judæa-showed our Lord that the time was now come for his being made manifest to Israel. Accordingly he comes to the place where John is to be baptized of him, in order that thus he might fulfil all that was required under the dispensation which was about to disappear (Matt. iii. 13). John's sense of inferiority inclines him to ask rather than to give baptism in the case of Jesus, who, however, wills to have it so, and is accordingly baptized of John. Immediately on the termination of this symbolical act, a Divine attestation is given from the opened vault of heaven, declaring Jesus to be in truth the long-looked-for Messiah-This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Matt. iii. 17).
The relation which subsisted between John and Jesus, after the emphatic testimony above recorded had been borne, we have not the materials to describe with full certainty.
It seems but natural to think, when their hitherto relative position is taken into account.
JOHN THE EVANGELIST
that John would forthwith lay down his office of harbinger, which, now that the Sun of Righteousness himself had appeared, was entirely fulfilled and terminated. Such a step he does not appear to have taken. On the contrary, the language of Scripture seems to imply that the Baptist church continued side by side with the Messianic (Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19; Matt. ix. 14; Luke xi.; John iii. 23), and remained long after John's execution (Acts xix. 3). Still, though it has been generally assumed that John did not lay down his office, we are not satisfied that the New Testament establishes this alleged fact. John may have ceased to execute his own peculiar work, as the forerunner, but may justifiably have continued to bear his most important testimony to the Messiahship of Christ; or he may even have altogether given up the duties of active life some time, at least, before his death; and yet his disciples, both before and after that event, may have maintained their individuality as a religious communion. Nor is it impossible that some misconception or some sinister motive may have had weight in preventing the Baptist church from dissolving and passing into that of Christ. It was, not improbably, with a view to remove some error of this kind that John sent the embassy of his disciples to Jesus which is recorded in Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19. No intimation is found in the record that John required evidence to give him satisfaction; and all the language that is used is proper and pertinent if we suppose that the doubt lay only in the minds of his disciples. That the terms employed admit the interpretation that John was not without some misgivings (Luke vii. 23; Matt. xi. 6), we are free to allow. And if any doubt had grown up in the Baptist's mind, it was most probably owing to the defective spirituality of his views; for even of him Jesus has declared, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he' (Matt. xi. 11). Were this the case, it would of itself account not only for the embassy sent by John to Jesus, but also for the continuance and perpetuation of John's separate influence as the founder of a sect.
The manner of John's death is too well known to require to be detailed here (Matt. iv. 12; xiv. 3; Luke iii. 19; Mark vi. 17; Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 5. 2). He reproved a tyrant for a heinous crime, and received his reward in decapitation.
JOHN THE EVANGELIST
she expresses in Matt. xx. 20; and we find that he entered into communion with the Baptist from pure motives. On the banks of the Jordan the Baptist directed John to Jesus, and he immediately became the Lord's disciple, and accompanied him on his return to Galilee. Having arrived there, he at first resumed his trade, but was afterwards called to remain permanently with the Redeemer (Luke v. 5-10). Jesus was particularly attached to John (John xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2; xxi. 7), who was one of the three who were distinguished above the other apostles (Matt. xvii. 1; xxvi. 37; Mark v. 37). After the ascension, John abode at Jerusalem, where Paul met him on his third journey, about the year 52 (Gal. ii. 3-9). Since he had undertaken the care of the mother of Jesus, we cannot well suppose that he left Jerusalem before Mary's death; and, indeed, we find that about the year 58, when Paul was at Ephesus, John was not yet living there. If we consider the great importance of Ephesus among the various churches of Asia Minor, and the dangers arising from false teachers, who were prevalent there as early as the days of Paul (Acts xx. 29), it will appear likely that John was sent to Ephesus after Paul had left that scene, about the year 65. During the time of his activity in Asia Minor he was exiled by the Roman emperor to Patmos, one of the Sporadic isles in the Egean Sea, where, according to Revelations i. 9, he wrote the Apocalypse. Irenæus and, following him, Eusebius state that John beheld the visions of the Apocalypse about the close of the reign of Domitian. If this statement can be depended upon, the exile to Patmos also took place under Domitian, who died A.D. 96. Tertullian relates that in the reign of Domitian John was forcibly conveyed to Rome, where he was thrown into a cask of oil; that he was miraculously released, and then brought to Patmos. But since none of the ancient writers besides the rather undiscriminating Tertullian, relate this circumstance, and since this mode o capital punishment was unheard of at Rome, we ought not to lay much stress upon it. It is, however, likely that John was called to suffer for his faith, since Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing about A.D. 200, calls him martyr.' According to Eusebius, he returned from exile during the reign of Nerva. The three epistles of John, as also the affecting account concerning his fidelity as a spiritual pastor, given by Clemens Alexandrinus, testify that he was the pastor of a large diocese. John's second Epistle, ver. 12, and third Epistle, ver. 14, indicate that he made journeys of pastoral visitation. John died at Ephesus past the age of ninety, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. According to Jerome, he was a hundred years old, and according to Suidas, a hundred and twenty.*
JOIN THE EVANGELIST. This eminent Apostle was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman, and of Salome. It is probable that he was born at Bethsaida, on the lake of Galilee. His parents appear to have been in easy circumstances; at least, we find that Zebedee employed hired servants (Mark i. 20), and that Salome was among the number of those women who contributed to the maintenance of Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 56). We also find that John received Mary into his house after the death of Jesus. Since this house seems to have been situated at Jerusalem, it would appear that he was the owner of two houses. John's acquaintance, also, with the high-priest (xviii. 15) seems to indicate that he lived at Jerusalem, and belonged to the wealthier class. We suppose that from a tender age he nourished religious feelings, since Salome, who evinced so Imuch love for Jesus, probably fostered at an earlier period those hopes of a Messiah which
*Jerome relates that when John had attained a great age he was so feeble that he could not walk to the assemblies of the church; he, therefore, caused himself to be carried in by young men. He was no longer able to say much, but he constantly repeated the words, Little children, love one another.' On being asked why he constantly repeated this one saying, he replied, Because it is the command of the Lord; and enough is done if this is done.'
JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF
JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF. During the eighteenth century and the first ten years of the nineteenth, the Gospel of John was attacked, but with feeble arguments, by some English Deists, and by four German theologians. A similar attack has lately been made by Strauss, who, although in the third edition of The Life of Jesus he manifested an inclination to give up his doubts, yet resolutely returned to them in the fourth edition, principally, as he himself confesses, because without them one could not escape from believing the miracles of Christ.' It is unnecessary, however, to refute his arguments, as they are quite unimportant, and have met with little sympathy even in Germany. It may suffice to observe, that during the lapse of ages up to the conclusion of the eighteenth century, no one ever expressed a doubt respecting the genuineness of John's Gospel, except one small sect, whose scepticism. however, was not based upon historical, but merely upon dogmatical grounds.
John's Gospel differs very much in substance from the first three Gospels. But the most striking difference is that of the speeches; and even here the difference is, perhaps, still more apparent in the form than in the substance of them. The difference of the CONTENTS may be accounted for by supposing that John intended to relate and complete the history of the Lord according to his own view of it. We are led to this supposition from the following circumstances: that, with the exception of the history of his passion and his resurrection, there are only two sections in which John coincides with the synoptic gospels (vi. 1-21; xii. 1); that he altogether omits such important facts as the baptism of Jesus by John, the history of his temptation and transfiguration, the institution of the Lord's supper, and the internal conflict at Gethsemane; and that chapters i. 32, iii. 24, xi. 2. indicate that he presupposed his readers to be already acquainted with the Gospel history. He confined himself to such communications as were wanting in the others, especially with regard to the speeches of Jesus.
The peculiarities of John's Gospel more especially consist in the four following doctrines:
1. That of the mystical relation of the Son to the Father.
2. That of the mystical relation of the Redeemer to believers.
3. The announcement of the Holy Ghost as the Comforter.
4. The peculiar importance ascribed to Love. Although there can be shown in the writings of the other Evangelists some isolated dicta of the Lord, which seem to bear the impress of John, it can also be shown that they contain thoughts not originating with that disciple, but with the Lord himself. Matthew (xi. 27) speaks of the relation of the Son to the Father so entirely in the style of John, that persons not sufficiently versed in Holy Writ are apt to search for this passage in the Gospel of John. The mystical union of the Son with believers is expressed in Matt. xxviii. 20. The promise of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, in order to perfect the disciples, is found in Luke xxiv. 49. The doctrine of Paul with respect to love, in 1 Cor. xiii., entirely resembles what, according to John, Christ taught on the same subject. Paul here deserves our
JOHN, THE GOSPEL OF
particular attention. In the writings of Paul are found Christian truths which have their points of coalescence only in John, viz., that Christ is the image of the invisible God, by whom all things are created (Col. i. 15, 16). Paul considers the Spirit of God in the church, the spiritual Christ, as Jesus himself does (John xiv. 16).
That the speeches of Christ have been faithfully reported may be seen by a comparison of the speeches of the Baptist in the Gospel of John. The Baptist's speeches bear an entirely Old Testament character: they are full of allusions to the Old Testament, and abound in sententious expressions (John iii. 27-30; i. 26-36).
We have already intimated our opinion as to the purport and plan of the Gospel of John. Most of the earlier critics considered the Gospel of John to have had a polemico-dogmatical purport. According to Irenæus, John wrote with the intention of combating the errors of Cerinthus the Gnostic. Others suppose that his writings were directed against the disciples of John the Baptist. It is not improbable that the Evangelist had in view, both in his Introduction and also in ch. xix. 34, 35, some heretical opinions of those times; but it cannot be maintained that this is the case throughout the whole of the Gospel. He himself states (xx. 31) that his work had a more general object.
One of the peculiarities of John is, that in speaking of the adversaries of Jesus, he always calls them the Jews. This observation has, in modern times, given rise to a peculiar opinion concerning the plan of John's Gospel, namely, that the Evangelist has, from the very beginning of dhe Gospel, the following theme before his eyes:-The eternal combat between Divine light and the corruption of mankind, exemplified by the mutual opposition subsisting between the hostile Jewish party and the manifestation of the Son of God, which combat terminates in the victory of light.
The Introduction of the Gospel of John expresses this theme in speaking of the opposition of the world to the incarnate Logos. This theme is here expressed in the same manuer as the leading idea of a musical composition is expressed in the overture. As the leading idea of the whole Epistle to the Romans is contained in ch. i. 17, so the theme of the Gospel of John is contained in ch. i. 11-13. The Gospel is divided into two principal sections. The first extends to ch. xii. It comprehends the public functions of Jesus, and terminates with a brief summary (ver. 44-50). The second section contains the history of the Passion and of the Resurrection. The reader is prepared for this section by ch. xii. 23-32. The leading idea of this speech is, that Destruction is necessary, because without it there can be no Resurrection. With ch. xiii. begins the history of our Lord's Passion. In the third verse the Apostle directs attention to the fact that the suffering would finally lead to glory. In the first section is described how the opposition of the influential men among the Jews was gradually increased until the decisive fact of the resurrection of Lazarus led to a public outburst of their hatred. This description terminates with the official decree of Caiaphas (xi. 49, 50).
The Fathers supposed that the Gospel of John
JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF. For the authenticity of the first epistle very ancient testimony may be adduced. Papias, the disciple of John, quotes some passages from it. Polycarp, also, another disciple of John, quotes a passage from this epistle. So, also, Irenæus.
The author of the first epistle describes himself, at its commencement, as an eye-witness of the life of our Lord. The style and language manifestly harmonize with those of the author of the Gospel of John. The polemics, also, which in ch. ii. 18-26, are directed against the Docetic Gnostics, in ch. iv. 1-3, agree with the sphere of action in Asia Minor in which the Evangelist John was placed. We may, therefore, suppose that the epistle was written to Christian congregations in Asia Minor, which were placed under the spiritual care of the apostle. It is generally admitted that ch. i. 2 refers to the Gospel. If this is correct, the apostle wrote this epistle at a very advanced age, after he had written his gospel. The epistle breathes love and devotion, but also zeal for moral strictness (iii. 6-8; v. 16). There is a remarkable absence of logical connection in the form of separate expressions, and in the transitions from one thought to another. Some writers have been inclined to find a reason for this in the advanced age of the writer. Old age may, perhaps, have contributed to this characteristic, but it is chiefly attributable to the mental peculiarity of the apostle. There has been no subject connected with Biblical literature which has attracted more attention than this epistle, in consequence of the controversies which have existed since the commencement of the sixteenth century, respecting the celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7, 8. We cannot enter here into the history of that controversy, which has continued with more or less of asperity to our own day. We shall merely remark that the disputed passage is found in no Greek manuscript, save only in two, both belonging to the fifteenth century; and that it has not once been quoted by any of the Greek, Latin, or Oriental fathers. It is now, therefore, generally omitted in all critical editions of the New Testament.
that the writer of this epistle calls himself 'the presbyter' or 'elder.' Some writers have been inclined to aseribe these letters to the presbyter John, who is sometimes spoken of in the ancient church, and to whom even the Apocalypse has been attributed; but if the presbyter John wrote these epistles, John's Gospel also must be ascribed to the same person, of whom otherwise so little is known. This, however, is inadmissible. We may suppose that the term presbyter' or elder' expressed in the epistles of John a degree of friendliness, and was chosen on account of the advanced age of the writer. The apostle Paul, also, in his friendly letter to Philemon, abstains from the title Apostle. The cir cumstances and events in the church, to which the second epistle alludes, coincide with tho e which are otherwise known to have happened in John's congregation. Here, also, are allusions to the dangers arising from the Gnostic heresy. The admonition, in verse 10, not to receive such heretics as Christian brethren, agrees with the ancient tradition, that John made haste to quit a public bath after Cerinthus the Gnostic entered it, declaring he was afraid the building would fall down.
The second and third epistles of John were originally wanting in the ancient Syriac translation. From their nature, it may easily be explained how it happened that they were less generally known in ancient Christian congregations, and that the fathers do not quote them so often as other parts of Scripture, since they are very short, and treat of private affairs. The private nature of their contents removes also the suspicion that they could have been forged, since it would be difficult to discover any purpose which could have led to such a forgery.
JOHN MARK. [MARK.]
JOHN HYRCANUS. [MACCABEES.] JOIADA (contraction of JEHOIADA, which see), a high-priest of the Jews, successor to Eliashib, or Joashib, who lived under Nehemiar., about B.C. 434 (Neh. xiii. 28).
JOK'SHAN (fowler), second son of Abraham and Keturah, whose sons Sheba and Dedan appear to have been the ancestors of the Sabæans and Dedanites, who peopled a part of Arabia Felix (Gen. xxv. 2, 3) [ARABIA].
JOK'TAN (small), one of the sons of Eber, a descendant from Shem (Gen. x. 25, 26), and the supposed progenitor of many tribes in Southern Arabia. The Arabians call him Kahtau, and recognise him as one of the principal founders of their nation.
JOK'THEEL (God-subdued). 1. A name given by King Azariah to the city Sela, or Petra, the capital of Arabia Petræa, when he took it from the Edomites (2 Kings xiv. 7) [PETRA]. 2. There was also a city of this name in the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 38).
JON ADAB (God-impelled). 1. A nephew of David, a crafty person, whose counsel suggested to his cousin Ammon the means by which he accomplished his abominable design upon his halfsister Tamar (2 Sam. xiii. 4, 5).
2. A son or descendant of Rechab, the progenitor of those nomadic Rechabites, who held themselves bound by a vow to abstain from wine, and never to relinquish the nomadic life. The principle on which the tribe acted may be considered elsewhere [RECHABITES]. Jonadab was at the head of this tribe at the time when Jehu received his commission to exterminate the house of Ahab, and is supposed to have added to its ancient austerities the inhibition of wine. He was held in great respect among the Israelites generally: and Jehu, alive to the importance of obtaining the countenance and sanction of such a man to his proceedings, took him up in his chariot, when on his road to Samaria to complete the work The third epistle is addressed to Gaius, a he had begun at Jezreel. The terms of the colperson otherwise unknown. It is remarkable | loquy which took place on this occasion are rather
The second epistle is addressed to a lady, called Kuria, which name frequently occurs in ancient writers as that of a woman.