John Searle 1St Edition Edition Barry Smith -

Downloadable PDF 2025

https://ebookfinal.com/download/john-searle-1st-edition-edition-barry-
smith/

Visit ebookfinal.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

John Searle Joshua Rust

https://ebookfinal.com/download/john-searle-joshua-rust/

Making the Social World The Structure of Human

Civilization 1st Edition John Searle

https://ebookfinal.com/download/making-the-social-world-the-structure-
of-human-civilization-1st-edition-john-searle/

Animal signals 1st Edition John Maynard-Smith

https://ebookfinal.com/download/animal-signals-1st-edition-john-
maynard-smith/

Variance Components 2nd Edition Shayle R. Searle

https://ebookfinal.com/download/variance-components-2nd-edition-
shayle-r-searle/
Linear Models 2nd Edition Shayle R. Searle

https://ebookfinal.com/download/linear-models-2nd-edition-shayle-r-
searle/

The Psychology of Nationalism 1st Edition Joshua Searle-

White

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-psychology-of-nationalism-1st-
edition-joshua-searle-white/

Music in Religious Cults of the Ancient Near East 1st

Edition John Arthur Smith

https://ebookfinal.com/download/music-in-religious-cults-of-the-
ancient-near-east-1st-edition-john-arthur-smith/

Bright Stars John Keats Barry Cornwall and Romantic

Literary Culture 2nd ed. Edition Richard Marggraf Turley

https://ebookfinal.com/download/bright-stars-john-keats-barry-
cornwall-and-romantic-literary-culture-2nd-ed-edition-richard-
marggraf-turley/

RAF and the SOE Special Duty Operations in Europe During

World War II 1st Edition John Barry Grehan

https://ebookfinal.com/download/raf-and-the-soe-special-duty-
operations-in-europe-during-world-war-ii-1st-edition-john-barry-
grehan/
John Searle 1St Edition Edition Barry Smith Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): Barry Smith
ISBN(s): 9780521792882, 0521792886
Edition: 1St Edition
File Details: PDF, 1.47 MB
Year: 2003
Language: english
This page intentionally left blank
John Searle
From his groundbreaking book Speech Acts to his most recent studies of con-
sciousness, freedom, and rationality, John Searle has been a dominant and
highly influential figure among contemporary philosophers. This systematic
introduction to the full range of Searle’s work begins with the theory of speech
acts and proceeds with expositions of Searle’s writings on intentionality, con-
sciousness, and perception, as well as a careful presentation of the so-called
Chinese Room Argument. The volume considers Searle’s recent work on social
ontology and his views on the nature of law and obligation. It concludes with
an appraisal of Searle’s spirited defense of truth and scientific method in the
face of the criticisms of Derrida and other postmodernists.
This is the only comprehensive introduction to Searle’s work. As such, it
will be of particular value to advanced undergraduates, graduates, and profes-
sionals in philosophy, psychology, linguistics, cognitive and computer science,
and literary theory.

Barry Smith is Julian Park Professor of Philosophy at the State University of

New York at Buffalo and director of the Institute for Formal Ontology and
Medical Information Science at the University of Leipzig.
Contemporary Philosophy in Focus
Contemporary Philosophy in Focus offers a series of introductory volumes
to many of the dominant philosophical thinkers of the current age. Each vol-
ume consists of newly commissioned essays that cover major contributions of
a preeminent philosopher in a systematic and accessible manner. Comparable
in scope and rationale to the highly successful series Cambridge Companions
to Philosophy, the volumes do not presuppose that readers are already inti-
mately familiar with the details of each philosopher’s work. They thus combine
exposition and critical analysis in a manner that will appeal both to students of
philosophy and to professionals as well as to students across the humanities and
social sciences.

FORTHCOMING VOLUMES :

Paul Churchland edited by Brian Keeley

Ronald Dworkin edited by Arthur Ripstein
Jerry Fodor edited by Tim Crane
David Lewis edited by Theodore Side and Dean Zimmerman
Hilary Putnam edited by Yemima Ben-Menahem
Charles Taylor edited by Ruth Abbey
Bernard Williams edited by Alan Thomas

PUBLISHED VOLUMES :

Stanley Cavell edited by Richard Eldridge

Donald Davidson edited by Kirk Ludwig
Daniel Dennett edited by Andrew Brook and Don Ross
Thomas Kuhn edited by Thomas Nickles
Alasdair MacIntyre edited by Mark Murphy
Robert Nozick edited by David Schmidtz
Richard Rorty edited by Charles Guignon and David Hiley
John Searle

Edited by

BARRY SMITH
State University of New York at Buffalo
and University of Leipzig
  
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521792882

© Cambridge University Press 2003

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of

relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published in print format 2003

-
isbn-13 978-0-511-06310-7 eBook (NetLibrary)
-
isbn-10 0-511-06310-5 eBook (NetLibrary)

-
isbn-13 978-0-521-79288-2 hardback
-
isbn-10 0-521-79288-6 hardback

-
isbn-13 978-0-521-79704-7 paperback
-
isbn-10 0-521-79704-7 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of

s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
 Contents

List of Contributors page ix

1. John Searle: From Speech Acts to Social Reality 1

barry smith
2. From Speech Acts to Speech Activity 34
nick fotion
3. Intentions, Promises, and Obligations 52
leo zaibert
4. Law 85
george p. fletcher
5. Action 102
joëlle proust
6. Consciousness 128
neil c. manson
7. The Intentionality of Perception 154
fred dretske
8. Sense Data 169
brian o’shaughnessy
9. The Limits of Expressibility 189
françois recanati
10. The Chinese Room Argument 214
josef moural
11. Searle, Derrida, and the Ends of Phenomenology 261
kevin mulligan

Further Reading 287

Index 289

vii
 Contributors

FRED DRETSKE has taught at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford

University. He is currently a research Fellow at Duke University. His re-
search has been concentrated in the areas of epistemology and the philos-
ophy of mind. His books include Seeing and Knowing (1969), Knowledge and
the Flow of Information (1981), Explaining Behavior (1988), Naturalizing the
Mind (1995) and, most recently, a collection of essays, Perception, Knowledge,
and Belief (2000).

GEORGE P . FLETCHER is Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia

University Law School in New York. He is the author of eight books,
including Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality
of Relationships (1993), With Justice for Some: Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials
(1995), Basic Concepts of Legal Thought (1996), Basic Concepts of Criminal Law
(1998), and Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism (2002).
His current fields of interest include biblical jurisprudence, nationalism,
and collective guilt, as well as the basic conepts of comparative law and
criminal law.

NICK FOTION is Professor of Philosophy at Emory University. He has au-

thored several books, including John Searle (2000) and Toleration (with
Gerard Elfstrom, 1992). He has also coedited several books, including
Moral Constraints on War (2002) and Hare and Critics (1988). He is the
author of scores of articles, mainly in the areas of the philosophy of language,
ethical theory, military ethics, and medical ethics.

NEIL C . MANSON has studied and taught philosophy in London and Oxford
and has been a junior research Fellow in philosophy at King’s College,
Cambridge, lecturing in both philosophy and history and the philosophy of
science. His main areas of interest are the philosophy of mind, the philoso-
phy of psychology, epistemology, and the philosophical views of Nietzsche,
Freud, and Wittgenstein. He is currently engaged in a bioethics research

ix
x Contributors

project at King’s College, Cambridge, focusing on informed consent and

genetic information.

JOSEF MOURAL is an assistant professor of philosophy at Charles University,

Prague, who works and publishes mainly on ancient philosophy (Socrates,
Plato, skepticism), modernphilosophy (Hume, the reception of skepticism),
classical phenomenology (the later Husserl, the early Heidegger, Patočka),
and Searle’s theory of institutions.

KEVIN MULLIGAN is Professor of Analytic Philosophy at the University of

Geneva. He is the editor of La Philosophie autrichienne: De Bolzano à Musil
(with Jean-Pierre Cometti, 2001) and the author of numerous articles on
ontology, the philosophy of mind, and Austrian philosophy from Bolzano
to Wittgenstein and Musil. He has contributed chapters to The Cambridge
Companion to Husserl and The Cambridge Companion to Brentano.

BRIAN O ’ SHAUGHNESSY has degrees from Melbourne and Oxford and

teaches at King’s College, London. He is the author of many articles in
the philosophy of mind, of a two-volume work on physical action entitled
The Will (1980), and of a large-scale study of consciousness and perception
entitled Consciousness and the World (2000).
JO ËLLE PROUST works in the field of the philosophy of mind as a director of
research at the Institut Jean-Nicod (CNRS, Paris). Her books and articles
are devoted to the philosophical history of logic (Questions of Form, 1989),
to intentionality (Comment l’Esprit vient aux Bêtes, 1997), to consciousness
of agency (both normal and psychopathological), and to animal cognition.
FRAN Ç OIS RECANATI is a research director at the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris. He has published many papers and
several books on the philosophy of language and mind, including Meaning
and Force (1988), Direct Reference (1993), and Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta
(2000). He is a cofounder and past president of the European Society for
Analytic Philosophy.
BARRY SMITH is Julian Park Professor of Philosophy at the State University
of New York at Buffalo and director of the Institute for Formal Ontology
and Medical Information Science
http://ifomis.de at the University of
Leipzig. He is the author of Austrian Philosophy (1994) and of some 300
articles on ontology and other topics in philosophy and neighboring disci-
plines. He is the editor of The Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of
General Philosophical Inquiry.
Contributors xi

LEO ZAIBERT teaches philosophy at the University of Wisconsin at Parkside.

He works in the philosophy of law, social and political philosophy, and the
philosophy of mind and is the author of Intentionality and Blame (forth-
coming). He has also published articles on the philosophical analysis of the
criminal law, on legal ontology, and on the history of the common law.
1 John Searle: From Speech Acts
to Social Reality
BARRY SMITH

It was in the Oxford of Austin, Ryle, and Strawson that John Searle was
shaped as a philosopher. It was in Oxford, not least through Austin’s influ-
ence and example, that the seeds of the book Speech Acts, Searle’s inaugural
magnum opus, were planted.1 And it was in Oxford that Searle acquired
many of the characteristic traits that have marked his thinking ever since.
These are traits shared by many analytic philosophers of his generation:
the idea of the centrality of language to philosophy; the adoption of a
philosophical method centred on (in Searle’s case, a mainly informal type
of ) logical analysis; the respect for common sense and for the results of mod-
ern science as constraints on philosophical theorizing; and the reverence
for Frege, and for the sort of stylistic clarity that marked Frege’s writings.
In subsequent decades, however, Searle has distinguished himself in a
number of important ways from other, more typical analytic philosophers.
While still conceiving language as central to philosophical concerns, he
has come to see language itself against the background of those neurobi-
ological and psychological capacities of human beings that underpin our
competencies as language-using organisms. He has embraced a radically
negative stand as concerns the role of epistemology in contemporary phi-
losophy. And he has braved territory not otherwise explored by analytic
philosophers in engaging in the attempt to build what can only be referred
to as a Grand Philosophical Theory. Finally, he has taken the respect for
common sense and for the results of modern science as a license to speak
out against various sorts of intellectual nonsense, both inside and outside
philosophy.
Searle was never a subscriber to the view that major philosophical prob-
lems could be solved – or made to evaporate – merely by attending to the
use of words. Rather, his study of the realm of language in Speech Acts con-
stitutes just one initial step in a long and still unfinished journey embracing
not only language but also the realms of consciousness and the mental, of
social and institutional reality, and, most recently, of rationality, the self,
and free will. From the very start, Searle has been animated, as he would

1
2 BARRY SMITH

phrase it, by a sheer respect for the facts – of science, or of mathematics,

or of human behaviour and cognition. In Speech Acts, he attempts to come to
grips with the facts of language – with utterances, with referrings and predi-
catings, and with acts of stating, questioning, commanding, and promising.
At the same time, Searle has defended all along a basic realism, resting
not only on respect for the facts of how the world is and how it works,
but also on a view to the effect that realism and the correspondence theory
of truth ‘are essential presuppositions of any sane philosophy, not to men-
tion any sane science’.2 The thesis of basic realism is not, in Searle’s eyes,
a theoretical proposition in its own right. Rather – and in this, he echoes
Thomas Reid – it sanctions the very possibility of our making theoretical
assertions in science, just as it sanctions the attempt to build a comprehen-
sive theory in philosophy. This is because the theories that we develop are
intelligible only as representations of how things are in mind-independent
reality. Without the belief that the world exists, and that this world is rich
in sources of evidence independent of ourselves – evidence that can help
to confirm or disconfirm our theories – the very project of science and of
building theories has the ground cut from beneath its feet.
Searle holds that the picture of the world presented to us by science is,
with a very high degree of certainty, in order as it stands. He correspond-
ingly rejects in its entirety the conception of philosophy accepted by many
since Descartes, according to which the very existence of knowledge itself
is somehow problematic. The central intellectual fact about the contem-
porary world, Searle insists, is that we already have tremendous amounts
of knowledge about all aspects of reality, and that this stock of knowledge
is growing by the hour. It is this that makes it possible for a philosopher
to conceive the project of building unified theories of ambitious scope –
in Searle’s case, a unified theory of mind, language, and society – from
out of the different sorts of knowledge that the separate disciplines of sci-
ence have to offer. We thus breathe a different air, when reading Searle’s
writings, from that to which we are accustomed when engaging with, for
example, Wittgenstein, for whom the indefinite variety of language-games
must forever transcend robust classification.
As concerns the willingness to speak out, John Wayne–style, against
intellectual nonsense, Searle himself puts it this way:
If somebody tells you that we can never really know how things are in
the real world, or that consciousness doesn’t exist, or that we really can’t
communicate with each other, or that you can’t mean ‘rabbit’ when you say
‘rabbit,’ I know that’s false.3
From Speech Acts to Social Reality 3

Philosophical doctrines that yield consequences that we know to be false

can themselves, by Searle’s method of simple reductio, be rejected.
Searle uses this method against a variety of targets. He uses it against
those philosophers of mind who hold that consciousness, or beliefs, or
other denizens of the mental realm do not exist. He directs it against
the doctrine of linguistic behaviourism that underlies Quine’s famous
‘gavagai’ argument in Word and Object4 for the indeterminacy of trans-
lation. As Searle puts it: ‘if all there were to meaning were patterns of
stimulus and response, then it would be impossible to discriminate mean-
ings, which are in fact discriminable’.5 Searle insists that he, like Quine
and everyone else, knows perfectly well that when he says ‘rabbit’ he
means ‘rabbit’ and not, say, ‘temporal slice of rabbithood’. Quine, he
argues, can arrive at the conclusion of indeterminacy only by assum-
ing from the start that meanings as we normally conceive them do not
exist.
When Searle turns his nonsense-detecting weapons against the likes
of Derrida, then the outcome is more straightforward, being of the form:
‘He has no clothes!’ Searle points out what is after all visible to anyone
who cares to look, namely, that Derrida’s writings consist, to the extent
that they are not simple gibberish, in evidently false (though admittedly
sometimes exciting-sounding) claims based (to the extent that they are based
on reasoning at all) on simple errors of logic.

SPEECH ACT THEORY: FROM ARISTOTLE TO REINACH

Aristotle noted that there are uses of language, for example prayers, that are
not of the statement-making sort.6 Unfortunately, he confined the study of
such uses of language to the peripheral realms of rhetoric and poetry, and
this had fateful consequences for subsequent attempts to develop a general
theory of the uses of language along the lines with which, as a result of the
work of Austin and Searle, we are now familiar.
Two philosophers can, however, be credited with having made early
efforts to advance a theory of the needed sort. The first, significantly, is
Thomas Reid, who recognized that the principles of the art of language are

to be found in a just analysis of the various species of sentences. Aristotle

and the logicians have analyzed one species – to wit, the proposition. To
enumerate and analyze the other species must, I think, be the foundation
of a just theory of language.7
4 BARRY SMITH

Reid’s technical term for uses of language such as promisings, warnings,

forgivings, and so on is ‘social operations’. Sometimes he also calls them
‘social acts’, opposing them to ‘solitary acts’, such as judgings, intendings,
deliberatings, and desirings. The latter are characterized by the fact that
their performance does not presuppose any ‘intelligent being in the uni-
verse’ other than the person who performs them. A social act, by contrast,
must be directed to some other person, and for this reason it constitutes a
miniature ‘civil society’, a special kind of structured whole, embracing both
the one who initiates it and the one to whom it is directed.8
The second is Adolf Reinach, a member of a group of followers of
Husserl based in Munich during the early years of the last century who
distinguished themselves from later phenomenologists by their adherence
to philosophical realism. Husserl had developed in his Logical Investigations9
a remarkably rich and subtle theory of linguistic meaning, which the group
to which Reinach belonged took as the starting point for its own philo-
sophical reflections on language, meaning, and intentionality. Husserl was
interested in providing a general theory of how thought and language and
perception hook onto extra-mental reality. His conception of meaning
anticipates that of Searle in treating language as essentially representa-
tional. Husserl’s theory of meaning is, however, internalistic in the follow-
ing special sense: it starts from an analysis of the individual mental act of
meaning something by a linguistic expression as this occurs in silent mono-
logue. The meaning of an expression is the same (the very same entity),
Husserl insists, independently of whether or not it is uttered in public
discourse.
But how are we to analyze, within such a framework, the meanings of
those special kinds of uses of language that are involved in promises or ques-
tions or commands? It was in the effort to resolve this puzzle that Reinach
developed the first systematic theory of the performative uses of language,
not only in promising and commanding but also in warning, entreating,
accusing, flattering, declaring, baptizing, and so forth – phenomena that
Reinach, like Reid before him, called ‘social acts’.10
Reinach presented his ideas on social acts in a monograph published in
1913 (four years before his death on the Western Front) under the title The
A Priori Foundations of the Civil Law. He concentrated especially on the act
of promising, applying his method also to the analysis of legal phenomena
such as contract and legislation and describing the theory that results as
a ‘contribution to the general ontology of social interaction’. His work
comprehends many of the elements that we find in the writings of Austin
and Searle, and even incorporates additional perspectives deriving from
From Speech Acts to Social Reality 5

Reinach’s background as a student of law. Unfortunately, however, Reinach’s

theory of social acts was doomed, like Reid’s theory of social operations
before it, to remain almost entirely without influence.

SPEECH ACT THEORY: FROM AUSTIN TO SEARLE

Anglo-American philosophy during the first half of the twentieth century

was shaped above all by the new Frege-inspired logic. One side-effect of
the successes of this new logic was to consolidate still further the predom-
inance of the Aristotelian conception of language as consisting essentially of
statements or propositions in the business of being either true or false. All
the more remarkable, therefore, is the break with these conceptions that is
represented by the work of Austin and Searle. The beginnings of this break
are documented in Austin’s 1946 paper “Other Minds,”11 in a discussion of
the way we use phrases such as ‘I am sure that’ and ‘I know that’ in ordinary
language. Saying ‘I know that S is P’, Austin tells us, ‘is not saying “I have
performed a specially striking feat of cognition . . .”.’ Rather, ‘When I say
“I know” I give others my word: I give others my authority for saying that
“S is P”’ (Philosophical Papers, p. 99).
And similarly, Austin notes, ‘promising is not something superior, in the
same scale as hoping and intending’. Promising does indeed presuppose an
intention to act, but it is not itself a feat of cognition at all. Rather, when I
say ‘I promise’,
I have not merely announced my intention, but, by using this formula (per-
forming this ritual), I have bound myself to others, and staked my reputation,
in a new way. (p. 99)

Austin’s ideas on what he called performative utterances were expressed

in lectures he delivered in Harvard in 1955, lectures that were published
posthumously under the title How to Do Things with Words.12
Performative utterances are those uses of language, often involving
some ritual aspect, that are themselves a kind of action and whose very
utterance brings about some result. Of an utterance such as ‘I promise
to mow your lawn’, we ask not whether it is true, but whether it is suc-
cessful. The conditions of success for performatives Austin called felicity
conditions, and he saw them as ranging from the highly formal (such as,
for example, those governing a judge when pronouncing sentence) to the
informal conventions governing expressions of gratitude or sympathy in
the circumstances of everyday life. Austin pointed also to the existence of a
further set of conditions, which have to do primarily with the mental side of
6 BARRY SMITH

performatives – conditions to the effect that participants must have the

thoughts, feelings, and intentions appropriate to the performance of each
given type of act.

RULES, MEANINGS, FACTS

By the end of How to Do Things with Words, however, Austin has given up on
the idea of a theory of performatives as such. This is because he has reached
the conclusion that all utterances are in any case performative in nature,
and thus he replaces his failed theory of performatives with the goal of a
theory of speech acts in general. Austin himself focused primarily on the
preliminaries for such a theory, and above all on the gathering of examples.
In “A Plea for Excuses,”13 he recommended as systematic aids to his investi-
gations three ‘source-books’: the dictionary, the law, and psychology. With
these as his tools, he sought to arrive at ‘the meanings of large numbers of
expressions and at the understanding and classification of large numbers of
“actions”’ (Philosophical Papers, p. 189).
Searle’s achievement, now, was to give substance to Austin’s idea of a
general theory of speech acts by moving beyond this cataloguing stage and
providing a theoretical framework within which the three dimensions of
utterance, meaning, and action involved in speech acts could be seen as
being unified together.
It is the three closing sections of Chapter 2 of Speech Acts that prepare the
ground for the full-dress analysis of speech acts themselves, which is given
by Searle in the chapter that follows. These three sections contain Searle’s
general theories of, respectively, rules, meanings, and facts. All three com-
ponents are fated to play a significant role in the subsequent development
of Searle’s thinking.
He starts with a now-familiar distinction between what he calls regulative
and constitutive rules. The former, as he puts it, merely regulate antecedently
existing forms of behaviour. For example, the rules of polite table behaviour
regulate eating, but eating itself exists independent of these rules. Some
rules, on the other hand, do not merely regulate; they also create or define
new forms of behaviour. The rules of chess create the very possibility of
our engaging in the type of activity that we call playing chess. The latter is
just: acting in accordance with the given rules.
Constitutive rules, Searle tells us, have the basic form: X counts as Y in
context C.14 Consider what we call signaling to turn left. This is a product of
those constitutive rules that bring it about that behaving inside moving
vehicles in certain predetermined ways and in certain predetermined
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
etc; and is affirmed by Himself: "Which of you convicteth me of sin?"
(Jn 8 46); and implicitly conceded by His ene 
 Obedience of Christ Observe THE INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2176 mies, since no shadow of
accusation against His character appears. Of His ready, loving, joyful,
exact and eager obedience to the Father, mention will be made later,
but it was His central and most outstanding characteristic, the filial
at its highest reach, limitless, "unto death." His usually submissive
and law-abiding attitude toward the authorities and the great
movements and religious requirements of His day was a part of His
loyalty to God, and of the strategy of His campaign, the action of the
one who wo^ild set an example and wield an influence, as at His
baptism: "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" (Mt 3 15);
the synagogue worship (Lk 4 16, "as his custom was"); the incident
of the tribute money: "Therefore the sons are free. But, lest we
cause them to stumble," etc (Mt 17 24-27). Early, however, the
necessities of His mission as Son of God and institutor of the new
dispensation obliged Him frequently to display a judicial antagonism
to current prescription and an authoritative superiority to the rulers,
and even to important details of the Law, that would in most eyes
mark Him as insurgent, and did culminate in the cross, but was the
sublimest obedience to the Father, whose authority alone He, as full-
grown man, and Son of man, could recognize. Two Scriptural
statements raise an important question as to the inner experience of
Jesus. He 5 8 states that "though he was a Son, 2. Its yet learned
[he] obedience by the Christologi- things which he suffered"
{emathen cal Bearing aph' hon epathen ten hupakoen); Phil 2 6.8:
"Existing in the form of God .... he humbled himself, becoming
obedient, even unto death." As Son of God, His will was never out of
accord with the Father's will. How then was it necessary to, or could
He, learn obedience, or become obedient? The same question in
another form arises from another part of the passage in He 5 9:
"And having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey
him the author [cause] of eternal salvation"; also He 2 10: "It
became him [God] .... to make the author [captain] of their salvation
perfect through sufferings." How and why should the perfect be
made perfect? Gethsemane, with which, indeed. He 5 8 is directly
related, presents the same problem. It finds its solution in the
conditions of the Redeemer's work and life on earth in the light of
His true humanity. Both in His eternal essence and in His human
existence, obedience to His Father was His dominant principle, so
declared through the prophet-psalmist before His birth: He 10 7 (Ps
40 7), "Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to
do thy will, O God." It was His law of life: "I do always the things
that are pleasing to him. I do nothing of myself, but as the Father
taught me, I speak these things" (Jn 8 29.28); "I can of myself do
nothing I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me"
(5 30). It was the indispensable process of His activity as the "image
of the invisible God," the expression of the Deity in terms of the
phenomenal and the human. He could be a perfect revelation only
by the perfect correspondence in every detail, of will, word and work
with the Father's will (Jn 5 19). Obedience was also His life
nourishment and satisfaction (Jn 4 34). It was the guiding principle
which dircctefl the details of His work: "I have power to lay it [life]
down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
received I from my Father" (Jn 10 IS); "The Father that sent me, he
hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I
should speak" (Jn 12 49; cf 14 31, etc). But in the Incarnation this
essential and filial obedience must find expression in human forms
according to human demands and processes of development. As
true man, obedient disposition on His part must meet the test of
voluntary choice under all representative conditions, culminating in
that which was supremely hard, and at the limit which should reveal
its perfection of extent and strength. It must become hardened, as it
were, and confirmed, through a definite obedient act, into obedient
human character. The patriot must become the veteran. The Son,
obedient on the throne, must exercise the practical virtue of
obedience on earth. Gethsemane was the culmination of this
process, when in full view of the awful, shameful, horrifying meaning
of Calvary, the obedient disposition was crowned, and the obedient
Divine-human life reached its highest manifestation, in the great
ratification: "Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done." But just
as Jesus' growth in knowledge was not from error to truth, but from
partial knowledge to completer, so His "learning obedience" led Him
not from disobedience or debate to submission, but from obedience
at the present stage to an obedience at ever deeper and deeper
cost. The process was necessary for His complete humanity, in which
sense He was "made perfect," complete, by suffering. It was also
necessary for His perfection as example and sympathetic High Priest.
He must fight the human battles under the human conditions.
Having translated obedient aspiration and disposition into obedient
action in the face of, and in suffering unto, death, even the death of
the cross. He is able to lead the procession of obedient sons of God
through every possible trial and surrender. Without this testing of His
obedience He could have had the sympathy of clear and accurate
knowledge, for He "knew what was in man," but He would have
lacked the sympathy of a kindred experience. Lacking this. He would
have been for us, and perhaps also in Himself, but an imperfect
"captain of our salvation," certainly no "file leader" going before us
in the very paths we have to tread, and tempted in all points like as
we are, yet without sin. It may be worth noting that He "learned
obedience" and was "made perfect" by suffering, not the results of
His own sins, as we do largely, but altogether the results of the sins
of others. In Rom 5 19, in the series of contrasts between sin and
salvation ("Not as the trespass, so also is the free gift"), we are told:
"For as 3. In Its through the one man's disobedience Soterio- the
many were made sinners, even so logical through the obedience of
the one shall Bearings the many be made righteous." Interpreters
and theologians, esp. the latter, differ as to whether "obedience"
here refers to the specific and supreme act of obedience on the
cross, or to the sum total of Christ's incarnate obedience through His
whole life; and they have made the distinction between His "passive
obedience," yielded on the cross, and His "active obedience" in
carrying out without a flaw the Father's will at all times. This
distinction is hardly tenable, as the whole Scriptural representation,
esp. His own, is that He was never more intensely active than in His
death: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I
straitened till it be accomplished" (Lk 12 50); "I lay down my life,
that I may take it again. No one takcth it away from me, but I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
talce it again" (Jn 10 17.18). "Who through the eternal Spirit offered
himself without blemish unto God" (He 9 14), indicates the active
obedience of one who was both priest and sacrifice. As to the
question whether it was the total obedience of Christ, or His death
on the cross, that constituted the atonement, and
 2177 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA Obedience of Christ Observe the kindred question
whether it was not the spirit of obedience in the act of death, rather
than the act itself, that furnished the value of His redemptive work, it
might conceivably, though improbably, be said that "the one act of
righteousness" through which "the free gift came" was His whole life
considered as one act. But these ideas are out of line with the
unmistakable trend of Scripture, which everywhere lays principal
stress on the death of Christ itself; it is the center and soul of the
two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper; it holds first place in
the Gospels, not as obedience, but as redemptive suffering and
death; it is unmistakably put forth in this light by Christ Himself in
His few references to His death: "ransom," "my blood," etc. Paul's
teaching everywhere emphasizes the death, and in but two places
the obedience; Peter indeed speaks of Christ as an ensample, but
leaves as his characteristic thought that Christ "suffered for sins
once .... put to death in the flesh" (1 Pet 3 18). In He the center and
significance of Christ's whole work is that He "put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself" (9 26) ; while John in many places emphasizes
the death as atonement: "Unto him that .... loosed us from our sins
by his blood" (Rev 1 6), and elsewhere. The Scripture teaching is
that "God set [him] forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his
blood" (Rom 3 25). His lifelong obedience enters in chiefly as making
and marking Him the "Lamb without blemish and without spot," who
alone could be the atoning sacrifice. If it enters further, it is as the
preparation and anticipation of that death, His life so dominated and
suffused with the consciousness of the coming sacrifice that it
becomes really a part of the death. His obedience at the time of His
death could not have been atonement, for it had always existed and
had not atoned; but it was the obedience that turned the possibility
of atonement into the fact of atonement. He obediently offered up,
not His obedience, but Himself. He is set forth as propitiation, not in
His obedience, but in His blood, His death, borne as the penalty of
sin, in His own body on the tree. The distinction is not one of mere
academic theological interest. It involves the whole question of the
substitutionary and propitiatory in Christ's redemptive work, which is
central, vital and formative, shaping the entire conception of
Christianity. The blessed and helpful part which Our Lord's complete
and loving obedience plays in the working out of Christian character,
by His example and inspiration, must not be underestimated, nor its
meaning as indicating the quality of the life which is imparted to the
soul which accepts for itself His mediatorial death. These bring the
consummation and crown of salvation; they are not its channel, or
instrument, or price. See also Atonement. LiTEBATUBE. — DCG, art.
"Obedience of Christ"; Denney, Death of Christ, esp. pp. 231-33;
Cliampion, Living Atonement; Forsytlie. Crucialiti/ of the Cross, etc;
worlis on the Atonement; Conuu-s.. in loc. Philip Wendell Crannell
OBEISANCE, 5-ba'sans: Is used 9 t in AV in the phrase "made [or
did] obeisance" as a rendering of the reflexive form of HnilJ
(shdhdh), and denotes the bow or curtsey indicative of deference
and respect. The same form of the vb. is sometimes tr'' "to bow
one's self" when it expresses the deferential attitude of one person
to another (Gen 33 6.7, etc). Occasionally the vow of homage or
fealty to a king on the part of a subject is suggested. In Joseph^s
dream his brother's sheaves made obeisance to his sheaf (Gen 43
28; cf also 2 S 15 5; 2 Ch 24 17). But in a large number of instances
the vb. denotes the prostrate posture of the worshipper in the
presence of Deity, and is generally rendered, "*" to worship" in AV.
In all probability this was the original significance of the word (Gen
24 26, etc). Obeisance ( = obedience) originally signified the vow of
obedience made by a vassal to his lord or a slave to his master, but
in time denoted the act of bowing as a token of respect. T. Lewis
OBELISK, ob's-lisk, ob'el-isk: A sacred stone or maisebhdh. For
ma(;i;ebhah RV has used "pillar" in the text, with "obelisk" in the m
in many instances (Ex 23 24; Lev 26 1; Dt 12 3; IK 14 23; Hos 3 4;
10 1.2, etc), but not consistently (e.g. Gen 28 18). See Pillar.
OBETH, o'beth ('fip^ie, Ohm, B, Oiip
 Observer of Times Offence, Offend THE INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2178 serve lying vanities" (RV
"regard," but "give heed to" would be clearer; of Ps 107 43). Still
farther from modern usage is Hos 14 8, "I have heard him, and
observed him" (RV "will regard"; the meaning is "care for"); and Mk
6 20, "For Herod feared John .... and observed him" (RV "kept him
safe"). In the last case, the AV editors seem to have used "to
observe" as meaning "to give reverence to." Observation is found in
Lk 17 20, "The kingdom of God Cometh not with observation" (neTo.
-wapaTTjpT^a-eus, meld paratereseos) . The meaning of the Eng.
is, "so that it can be observed," but the exact force of the underlying
Gr ("visibly"? "so that it can be computed in advance"?) is a matter
of extraordinary dispute at the present time. See Kingdom of God.
Burton Scott Easton OBSERVER, ob-ztrr'ver, OF TIMES. See
Divination. OBSTINACY, ob'sti-na-si. See Habdening. OCCASION, o-
ka'zhun: The uses in EV are all modern, but in Jer 2 24 "occasion" is
employed (both in Heb and Eng.) as a euphemism for "time of
conception of offspring." OCCUPY, ok'n-pl: Is in AV the tr of 7
different words: (1) "nS , naihan; (2) "ino , ^ahar; (3) Sny , "-drabh;
(4) HTEy , 'asdh, either with or without the added word, riDSbn ,
m'la'khdh; (5) avairXr]poOv, atiapleroun; (6) irepiiraTetv, peripateln;
(7) ■n-pa-y|jiaTeii«iv, pragmateuein. In almost every case the
meanings of "to occupy" as used in AV in harmony with the common
usage of the time have become obsolete. (1) In Ezk 27 16.19.22,
naihan meant "to trade," and RV reads "traded." (2) From ^ahar, "to
go about," was derived a designation of "merchants" (RV) (Ezk 27
21). (3) 'Arabh (Ezk 27 9) signifies "to exchange" (ERV and ARVm,
but ARV "deal in"). (4) 'asa/i (Ex 38 24) means simply "to use" (RV),
and the same word in Jgs 16 11, with m'ld'khah ("work") added,
signifies that work had been done (RV). (5) In 1 Cor 14 16,
"occupy," the AV rendering of anapUroun, would still be as
intelligible to most as RV "fill." (6) "Occupy" in He 13 9, in the sense
of "being taken up with a thing," is the tr (both AV and RV) of
peripalein, lit. "to walk." Finally (7) pragmaleuein (Lk 19 13) is
rendered in AV "occupy" in its obsolete sense of "trade" (RV). David
Foster Estes OCCURRENT, o-kur'ent (AV, ERV, 1 K 5 4): An obsolete
form of "occurrence" (so ARV). OCHIELUS, 6-ki-c'lus ('Ox£tiX.os,
Ochielos, B, '0^i.fi\os, Ozitlos; AV Ochiel): One of the "captains over
thousands" who furnished the Levites with much cattle for .losiah's
Passover (1 Esd 1 9) = "Jeiel"of 2 Ch 35 9. OCHRAN, ok'ran (T}?^,
'okhrdn, from 'dkhar, "trouble"; AV Ocran): The father of Pagiel, the
prince of the tribe of Asher (Nu 1 13; 2 27; 7 72. 77; 10 26).
OCHRE, o'ker, RED (Isa 44 13, "He marketh it put with a pencil," m
"red ochre," AV "line"; Till) , seredh, a word found only here, and of
unknown etymology): Designates the implement used by the
carpenter to mark the wood after measuring and before cutting.
"Red ochre" supposes this to have been a crayon (as does "pencil"),
but a scratch-awl is quite as likely. Ochre is a clay colored by an iron
compound. OCIDELUS, os-i-de'lus, ok-i-de'lus (A,_ 'IiK«£8iiXos,
Okeidelos, B and Swete, 'flKatX.T)8os, Okailedos, Fritzsche, 'flKoS-
qXcs, Okodelos; AV and Fritzsche Ocodelus): One of the priests who
had married a "strange wife" (1 Esd 9 22); it stands in the place of
"Jozabad" in Ezr 10 22 of which it is probably a corruption. OCINA,
6-si'na, os'i-na, ok'i-na ('Ok(iv6., Okeind) : A town on the Phoen
coast S. of Tyre, mentioned only in Jth 2 28, in the account of the
campaign of Holofernes in Syria. The site is unknown, but from the
mention of Sidon and Tyre immediately preceding and Jemnaan,
Azotus and Ascalon following, it must have been S. of Tyre. One
might conjecture that it was Sandalium (Iskanderuna) or Utnm ul-
'Awamid, but there is nothing in the name to suggest such an
identification. OCRAN, ok'ran. See Ochran. ODED, o'ded (~liy [2 Ch
15], Tiy [elsewhere], ^odhedh, "restorer"): (1) According to 2 Ch 15
1, he was the father of Azariah who prophesied in the reign of Asa
of Judah (c 918-877), but ver 8 makes Oded himself the prophet.
The two verses should agree, so we should probably read in ver 8,
"the prophecy of Azariah, the son of Oded, the prophet," or else "the
prophecy of Azariah the prophet." See Azariah. (2) A prophet of
Samaria (2 Ch 28 9) who lived in the reigns of Pekah, king of the
Northern Kingdom, and Ahaz, king of Judah. According to 2 Ch 28,
Oded protested against the enslavement of the captives which Pekah
had brought from Judah and Jerus on his return from the Syro-
Ephraimitic attack on the Southern Kingdom (735 BC). In this protest
he was joined by some of the chiefs of Ephraim, and the captives
were well treated. After those wdio were naked (i.e. those who had
scanty clothing; cf the meaning of the word "naked" in Mk 14 51)
had been supplied with clothing from the spoil, and the bruised
anointed with oil, the prisoners were escorted to Jericho. The
narrative of ch 28 as a whole does not agree with that of 2 K 15 37;
16 5 f , where the allied armies of Rezin of Damascus and Pekah
besieged Jerus, but failed to capture it (cf Isa 7 1-17; 8 5-8a). As
Curtis points out [Chron, 459, where he compares Ex 21 2ff; Lev 25
29-43; Dt 15 12-18), wholesale enslavement of their
fellowcountrymen was not allowed to the Hebrews, and this fact the
passage illustrates. It seems to be a fulfilment in spirit of Isa 61 1-2,
a portion which Our Lord read in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk 4
16-20). David Francis Roberts ODES, odz, OF SOLOMON. See
Apocalyptic Literature. ODOLLAM, 6-dol'am ('08o\\d|i, OdolUin): The
Gr form of Adullam (q.v.), found only in 2 Mace 12 38. ODOMERA,
od-6-me'ra ('08o|xiipa, Odomerd, B, '08oaappif|s, Odoaarres, Itala
Odare?t; AV Odonarkes, m Odomarra) : It is not certain whether
Odomera was an independent Bedouin chief, perhaps an ally of the
Syrians, or an officer of Bacchides. He was defeated by Jonathan in
his campaign against Bacchides (1 Mace 9 66) in 156 BC. ODOR,
o'der: In the OT the rendering of DTBa , besem, "fragrance" (2 Ch
16 14; Est 2 12; "in Jer 34 5,RV "burnings"), and of one or two other
 2179 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA Observer of Times Offence, Offend words; in the
NT of icrii-fi, osme (Jn 12 3; Phil 4 18; Eph 5 2RV); in Rev 5 8; 18
13, of evfj.la,j.a, thwnlama, where RV (with AVm in former passage)
has "incense." See also Savor. OF, ov: (1) In Anglo-Saxon, had the
meaning "from," "away from" (as the strengthened form "off" has
still), and was not used for genitive or possessive relations, these
being expressed by special case-forms. In the Norman period,
however, "of" was taken to represent the French de (a use well
developed by the time of Chaucer), and in the Elizabethan period
both senses of "of were in common use. But after about 1600 the
later force of the word became predominant, and in the earlier sense
(which is now practically obsolete) it was replaced by other
prepositions. In consequence AV (and in some cases RV) contains
many uses of "of" that are no longer familiar — most of them, to be
sure, causing no difficulty, but there still being a few responsible for
real obscurities. (2) Of the uses where "of" signifies "from," the most
common obscure passages are those where "of" follows a vb. of
hearing. In modern Eng. "hear of" signifies "to gain information
about," as it does frequently in AV (Mk 7 2.5; Rom 10 14, etc). But
more commonly this use of "of" in AV denotes the source from
which the information is derived. So Jn 15 15, "all things that I have
heard of my Father"; Acts 10 22, "to hear words of thee"; 28 22,
"We desire to hear of thee"; cf 1 Thess 2 13; 2 Tim 1 13; 2 2, etc
(similarly Mt 11 29, "and learn of me"; cf Jn 6 45). All of these are
ambiguous and in modern Eng. give a wrong meaning, so that in
most cases (but not Mt 11 29 or Acts 28 22) RV substitutes "from."
A different example of the same use of "of" is 2 Cor 6 1, "a building
of God" (RV "from"). So Mk 9 21, "of a child," means "from
childhood" ("from a child," RV, is dubious Eng.). A still more obscure
passage is Mt 23 25, "full of extortion and excess." "Full of"
elsewhere in AV (and even in the immediate context, Mt 23 27.28)
refers to the contents, but here the "of" represents the Gr ^«:, ek,
"out of," and denotes the source — "The contents of your cup and
platter have been purchased from the gains of extortion and
excess." RV again substitutes "from," with rather awkward results,
but the Gr itself is unduly compressed. In Mk 11 8, one of the
changes made after AV was printed has relieved an obscurity, for
where the ed of 1611 read "cut down branches of the trees," the
modern edd have "off" (RV "from"). For clear examples of this use of
"of," without the obscurities, cf Jth 2 21, "they went forth of
Nineveh"; 2 Mace 4 34, "forth of the sanctuary"; and, esp., Mt 21 25,
"The baptisrn of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?"
Here "from" and "of" represent exactly the same Gr prep., and the
change in Eng. is arbitrary (RV writes "from" in both cases). (3) In a
weakened sense this use of "of" as "from" was employed rather
loosely to connect an act with its source or motive. Such uses are
generally clear enough, but the Eng. today seems sometimes rather
curious: Mt 18 13, "rejoiceth more of that sheep" (RV "over"); Ps 99
8, "vengeance of their inventions" (so AV); 1 Cor 7 4, "hath not
power of her own body" (RV "over"), etc. (4) A very common use of
"of" in AV is to designate the agent — a use complicated by the fact
that "by" is also employed for the same purpose and the two
interchanged freely. So in Lk 9 7, "all that was done by him .... it was
said of some ....," the two words are used side by side for the same
Gr prep. (RV replaces "of" by "by," but follows a different text in the
first part of the verse) . Again, most of the examples are clear
enough, but there are some obscurities. So in Mt 19 12, "which were
made eunuchs of men," the "of men" is at first sight possessive (RV
"by men"). Similarly, 2 Esd 16 30, "There are left some clusters of
them that diligently seek through the vineyard" (RV "by them"). So 1
Cor 14 24, "He is convinced of all, he is judged of all," is quite
misleading (RV "by all" in both cases). Phil 3 12, AV "I am
apprehended of Christ Jesus," seems almost meaningless (RV "by").
(5) In some cases the usage of the older Eng. is not suflBcient to
explain "of" in AV. So Mt 18 23, "take account of his servants," is a
very poor rendition of "make a reckoning with his servants" (so RV).
In Acts 27 5, the "sea of Cilicia" may have been felt to be the "sea
which is off Cilicia" (cf RV), but there are no other instances of this
use. In 2 Cor 2 12, "A door was opened unto me of the Lord" should
be "in the Lord" (so RV). 2 S 21 4, "We will have no silver nor gold
of Saul, nor of his house," is very loose, and RV rewrites the verse
entirely. In all these cases, AV seems to have looked solely for
smooth Eng., without caring much for exactness. In 1 Pet 1 11,
however, "sufferings of Christ" probably yields a correct sense for a
difficult phrase in the Gr (so RV, with "unto" in the m), but a
paraphrase is needed to give the precise meaning. And, finally, in He
11 18, the Gr itself is ambiguous and there is no way of deciding
whether the prep, employed (^piSs, pr6s) means "to" (so RV) or
"of" (so AV, RVm; cf He 1 7, where "of" is necessary). BuHTON Scott
Easton OFFENCE, o-fens', OFFEND, o-fond' (blTCSTa , mikhshol,
DTIJN , 'dsham, i5Un , hats'; o-KdvSaXov, skdndalon, o-Kav8a\tJa),
skandalizo) : "Offend" is either trans or intrans. As trans it is
primarily "to strike against," hence "to displease," "to make angry,"
"to do harm to," "to affront," in Scripture, "to cause to sin"; intrans it
is "to sin," "to cause anger," in Scripture, "to be caused to sin."
"Offence" is either the cause of anger, displeasure, etc, or a sin. In
Scripture we have the special significance of a stumbling-block, or
cause of falling, sin, etc. In the OT it is frequently the tr of 'asham,
"to be guilty," "to transgress": Jer 2 3, RV "shall be held guilty"; 50
7, RV "not guilty"; I. OT Ezk 25 12, "hath greatly offended"; Usage
Hos 4 15, RVm "become guilty"; 5 15, "till they acknowledge theii
offence," RVm "have borne their guilt"; 13 1, "He offended in Baal,"
RVm "became guilty" ; Hab 1 II, "He shall pass over, and offend,
[imputing] this his power unto his god," RV "Then shall he sweep by
[as] a wind, and shall pass over [m "transgress"], ancl be guilty,
[even] he whose might is his god." In 2 Ch 28 13, we have 'ashmath
'al, lit. "tlie oflence against," RV " a trespass [m "or guilt"] against
Jeh" ; we have also hatd\ "to miss tlie niarlv," "to sin," "to err" (Gen
20 9' liV "sinned against thee"; 40 1, "offended their lord"; 2 K 18
14; Jer 37 18, RV "sinned against thee"); bdohadh, "to deal
treacherously" (Ps 73 15, "offend against the generation of thy
children," RV "dealt treacherously with"}; hdbhal, "to act wickedly"
(Job 34 31); mikhshol, " a stumbling block " (Lev 19 14: tr
 Offer, Offering OU THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2180 frequent in the Gospels (Mt 5 29, "if thy right
eye offend thee"; 5 30; 11 6; 18 6, "whoso shall offend one of these
little ones"; 13 41, 2. NT ; 'all things that offend"; Lk 17 1, "It Usage
is impossible but that offences will come," etc; Rom 14 21; 16 17,
"Mark them which cause .... offences"; 1 Cor 8 13 bis, "if meat make
my brother to offend," etc). Skandalon is primarily "a trap-stick," "a
bentstick on which the bait is fastened which the animal strikes
against and so springs the trap," hence it came to denote a "snare,"
or anything which one strikes against injuriously (it is LXX for
mohesh, a "noose" or "snare," .losh 23 13; 1 S 18 21); "a stumbling-
block" (LXX for mikhshol [see above], Lev 19 14). For skandalizo,
skandalon, tr"" in AV, "offend," "offence," RV gives "cause to
stumble," "stumbling-block," etc; thus, Mt 5 29, "if thy right eye
causeth thee to stumble," i.e. "is an occasionfor thy falhng into sin";
Mt 16 23, "Thou art a stumbling-block unto me," an occasion of
turning aside from the right path; in Mt 26 31.33 bis, "offended" is
retained, m 33 bis, "Gr caused to stumble" (same word in ver 31);
Mk 9 42, "whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe
on me to stumble," to fall away from the faith, or fall into sin ; Lk 17
1, "It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling should come; but
woe unto him, through whom they come"; in Rom 14 21; 16 17; in 1
Cor 8, Paul's language has the s.ame meaning, and we see how truly
he had laid to heart the Saviour's earnest admonitions — "weak
brethren" with him answering to the master's "little ones who
beUeve"; Rom 14 21, "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine,
nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth," i.e. "is led by
your example to do that which he cannot do with a good
conscience"; ver 20, "It is evil for that man who eateth with offence
[did proskummatos]," so as to place a stumbling-block before his
brother, or, rather, 'without the confidence that he is doing right'; cf
ver 23, "He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth
not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is-sin"; so 1 Cor 8 13;
Rom 16 17, "Mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions
of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine, [m "teaching"] which ye
learned" (Is not the "teaching" of Christ Himself implied here?) .
Everything that would embolden another to do that which would be
wTong for him, or that would turn anyone away from the faith, must
be carefully avoided, seeking to please, not ourselves, but to care for
our brother, "for whom Christ died," "giving no occasion of stumbling
[proskope] in anything" (2 Cor 6 3). Aprdskopos. "not causing to
stumble." is tr
 2181 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA Offer, Offering Oil 33-35; Dt 3 1-12). The defeat
took place at Edrei, one of the chief of these cities (Nu 21 33; Josh
12 4), and Og and his people were "utterly destroyed" (Dt 3 6). Og
is described as the last of the Rephaim (q.v.), or giant-race of that
district, and his giant stature is borne out by what is told in Dt 3 11
of the dimensions of his "bedstead of iron" Qeres harzel), 9 cubits
long and 4 broad (13| ft. by 6 ft.), said to be still preserved at
Rabbath of Amnaon when the verse describing it was written. It is
not, of course, necessary to conclude that Og's own height, though
immense, was as great as this. Some, however, prefer to suppose
that what is intended is "a sarcophagus of black basalt," which iron-
like substance abounds in the Hauran. The conquered territory was
subsequently bestowed on the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-
tribe of Manasseh (Nu 32 33; Dt 3 12.13). Other references to Og
are Dt 1 4; 4 47; 31 4; Josh 2 10; 9 10; 13 12.30). The memory of
this great conquest lingered all through the national history (Ps 135
11; 136 20). On the conquest, cf Stanley, Lectures on the History of
the Jewish Church, I, 185-87, and see Akgob; Bashan. Jambs Orr
OHAD, o'had ("o'', 'ohadh, meaning unknown): A son of Simeon,
mentioned as third in order (Gen 46 10; Ex 6 15). The name is not
found in the list of Nu 26 12-14. OHEL, o'hel (bni? , 'ohel, "tent"): A
son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3 20). OHOLAH, 5-ho'la (nbnx , 'ohdldh; AV
Aholah) : The exact meaning is a matter of dispute. As written, it
seems to mean a tent-woman, or the woman living in a tent. With a
mappik in the last consonant it could mean "her tent." The term is
used symbolically by Ezekiel to designate Samaria or the kingdom of
Israel (Ezk 23 4.5.36.44). See Oholibah. OHOLIAB, 6-ho'li-ab
(31SibnN , 'ohdll'abh, "father's tent"; AV AhoUab): A Danite artificer,
who assisted Bezalel in the construction of the tabernacle and its
furniture (Ex 31 6; 35 34; 35 If; 38 23). OHOLIBAH, 6-hol'i-ba, 6-
h6'li-ba (nn^briN, 'ohdlibhah, "tent in her," or "my tent is in her"):
An opprobrious and symbolical name given by Ezekiel to Jerus,
representing the kingdom of Judah, because of her intrigues and
base alliances with Eg}T)t, Assyria and Babylonia, just as the name
Oholah (q.v.) was given to Samaria or the Northern Kingdom,
because of her alliances with Egypt and Assyria. There is a play
upon the words in the Heb which cannot be reproduced in Eng. Both
Oholah and Oholibah, or Samaria and Jerus, are the daughters of
one mother, and wives of Jeh, and both are guilty of religious and
political alliance with heathen nations. Idolatry is constantly
compared by the Heb prophets to marital unfaithfulness or adultery.
W. W. Da VIES OHOLIBAMAH, 6-hol-i-ba'ma, o-hol-i-ba'ma (npiibnN ,
'ohmbhamah, "tent of the high place") : (1) One of Esau's wives,
and a daughter of Anah the Hivite (Gen 36 2.5). It is strange that
she is not named along with Esau's other wives in either Gen 28 9 or
26 30. Various explanations have been given, but none of them is
satisfactory. There is probably some error in the text. (2) An Edomite
chief (Gen 36 41; 1 Ch 1 52). OIL, oil (1^ip> shemen; eXaiov,
elaion): 1. Terms 2. Production and Storage 3. tJses (1) As a
Commodity of Excliango (2) As a Cosmetic (3) As a Medicine (4) As a
Food (5) As an lUuminant (6) In Religious Ritus (a) Consecration (6)
Offerings (c) Burials 4. Figurative Uses Shemen, lit. "fat,"
corresponds to the common Arab, senin of similar meaning, although
now applied to boiled butter fat. Another 1. Terms Heb word, zayith
(zelh), "olive," occurs with shemen in several passages (Ex 27 20; 30
24; Lev 24 2). The corresponding Arab. zeit, a contraction of zeitun,
which is the name for the olive tree as well as the fruit, is now
applied to oils in general, to distinguish them from solid fats. Zeit
usually means olive oil, unless some qualifying name indicates
another oil. A corresponding use was made of shemen, and the oil
referred to so many times in the Bible was olive oil (except Est 2 12).
Compare this with the Gr eXaioK, elaion, "oil," a neuter noun from
i\ala, elaia, "olive," the origin of the Eng. word "oil." 1I7¥"'-> Vi-shar,
lit. "glistening," which occurs less frequently, is used possibly
because of the light-giving quality of olive oil, or it may have been
used to indicate fresh oil, as the clean, newly pressed oil is bright.
HTCp , m'shah, a Chald word, occurs twice: Ezr 6 9; 7 22. eXaiov,
elaion, is the NT term. Olive oil has been obtained, from the earliest
times, by pressing the fruit in such a way as to filter out the oil and
other liquids from 2. Pro- the residue. The Scriptural references
duction correspond so nearly to the methods practised in Syria up to
the present time, and the presses uncovered by excavators at such
sites as Gezer substantiate so well the similarity of these methods,
that a description of the oil presses and modes of expression still
being employed in Syria will be equally true of those in use in early
Israelitish times. The olives to yield the greatest amount of oil are
allowed to ripen, although some oil is expressed from the green
fruit. As the olive ripens it turns black. The fruit begins to fall from
the trees in September, but the main crop is gathered after the first
rains in November. The olives which have not fallen naturally or have
not been blown off by the storms are beaten from the trees with
long poles (cf Dt 24 20). The fruit is gathered from the ground into
baskets and carried on the heads of the women, or on donkeys to
the houses or oil presses. Those carried to the houses are preserved
for eating. Those carried to the presses are piled in heaps until
fermentation begins. This breaks down the oil cells and causes a
more abundant flow of oil. The fruit thus softened may be trod out
with the feet (Mic 6 15) — which is now seldom practised — or
crushed in a handmill. Such a mill was uncovered at Gezer beside an
oil press. Stone mortars with wooden pestles are also used. Any of
these methods crushes the fruit, leaving only the stone unbroken,
and yields a purer oil (Ex 27 20). The method now generally
practised of crushing the fruit and kernels with an edgerunner mill
probably dates from Rom times. These mills are of crude
construction. The stones are cut from native limestone and are
turned by horses or mules. Remains of huge stones of this type are
found near the old Rom presses in Mt. Lebanon and other districts.
The second step in the preparation of the oil is
 ou Old Prophet THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2182 the expression. In districts where the olives
are plentiful and there is no commercial demand for the oil, the
householders crush the fruit in a mortar, mix the crushed mass with
water, and after the solid portions have had time to settle, the pure
sweet oil is skimmed from the surface of the water. Ancient Oil
Presses (Land and the Book). This method gives a delicious oil, but
is wasteful. This is no doubt the beaten oil referred to in connection
with religious ceremonials (Ex 27 20). Usually the crushed fruit is
spread in portions on mats of reeds or goats' hair, the corners of
which are folded over the mass, and the packets thus formed are
piled one upon another between upright supports. These supports
were formerly two stone columns or the two sections of a split stone
cylinder hollowed out within to receive the mats. Large hollow tree
trunks are still similarly used in Syria. A flat stone is next jilaced on
top, and then a heavy log is placed on the pile in such a manner that
one end can be fitted into a socket made in a wall or rock in close
proximity to the pile. This socket becomes the fulcrum of a large
lever of the second class. The lever is worked in the same manner
as that used in the wine presses (see Wine Press). These presses
are now being almost wholly superseded by hydraulic presses. The
juice which runs from the press, consisting of oil, extractive matter
and water, is conducted to vats or run into jars and allowed to stand
until the oil separates. The oil is then drawn off from the surface, or
the watery fluid and sediment is drawn away through a hole near
the bottom of the jar, leaving the oil in the container. (For the
construction of the ancient oil presses, see The Excavations of Gczer,
bj' Macalister.) The oil, after standing for some time to allow further
sediment to settle, is stored either in huge earthenware jars holding
100 to 200 gallons, or in underground cisterns (cf 1 Ch 27 28)
holding a much larger quantity. Some of these cisterns in Beirut hold
several tons of oil each (2 Ch 11 11; 32 28; Neh 13 5.12; Prov 21
20). In the homes the oil is kept in small earthen jars of various
shapes, usually having spouts by which the oil can be easily poured
(1 K 17 12; '2 K 4 2). In 1 S 16 13; 1 K 1 39, horns of oil are
mentioned. (1) As a commodity of exchange. — Olive oil when
properly made and stored will keep sweet for years, hence was a
good form of merchandise 3. Uses to hold. Oil is still sometimes
given in payment (1 K 5 11; Ezk 27 17; Hos 12 1; Lk 16 6; Rev 18
13). (2) As a cosmetic. — From earliest times oil was used as a
cosmetic, esp. for oiling the limbs and head. Oil used in this way was
usually scented (see Ointment). Oil is still used in this manner by the
Arabs, principally to keep the skin and scalp soft when traveling in
dry de.sert regions where there is no opportunity to bathe. Sesam6
oil has replaced olive oil to some extent for this purpose. Homer,
Pliny and other early writers mention its use for external application.
Pliny claimed it was used to protect the body against the cold. Many
Bib. references indicate the use of oil as a cosmetic (Ex 25 6; Dt 28
40; Ruth 3 3; 2 S 12 20; 14 2; Est 2 12; Ps 23 5; 92 10; 104 15; 141
5; Ezk 16 9; Mic 6 15; Lk 7 46). (3) As a medicine. — From early
Egyp literature down to late Arab, medical works, oil is mentioned as
a valuable remedy. Man}' queer prescriptions contain olive oil as one
of their ingredients. The good Samaritan used oil mingled with wine
to dress the wounds of the man who fell among robbers (Mk 6 13;
Lk 10 34.) (4) ^.s a food. — Olive oil replaces butter to a large
extent in the diet of the people of the Mediterranean countries. In
Bible lands food is fried in it, it is added to stews, and is poured over
boiled vegetables, such as beans, peas and lentils, and over salads,
sour milk, cheese and other foods as a dressing. A cake is prepared
from ordinary bread dough which is smeared with oil and sprinkled
with herbs before baking (Lev 2 4). At times of fasting oriental
Christians use only vegetable oils, usually olive oil, for cooking. For
Bib. references to the use of oil as food see Nu 11 8; Dt 7 13; 14 23;
32 13; 1 K 17 12.14.16; 2 K 4 2.6.7; 1 Ch 12 40; 2 Ch 2 10.15; Ezr 3
7; Prov 21 17; Ezk 16 13.18; Hos 2 5.8.22; Hag 2 12; Rev 6 6. (5)
As an illuminant. — Olive oil until recent years was universally used
for lighting purposes (see Lamp). In Pal are many homes where a
most primitive form of lamp similar to those employed by the
Israelites is still in use. The prejudice in favor of the exclusive use of
olive oil for lighting holy places is disappearing. Formerly any other
illuminant was forbidden (cf Ex 25 6; 27 20; 35 8.14.2S; 39 37; Mt
25 3.4.8). (6) In religious riles. — (a) Consecration of officials or
sacred things (Gen 28 18; 35 14; Ex 29 7.21 ff; Lev 2 Iff; Nu 4 9 ff;
1 S 10 1; 16 1.13; 2 S 1 21; 1 K 1 39; 2 K 9 1.3.6; Ps 89 20): This
was adopted by the early Christians in their ceremonies (Jas 5 14),
and is still used in the consecration of crowned rulers and church
dignitaries. (5) Offerings, votive and otherwise; The custom of
making offerings of oil to holy places still survives in oriental
religions. One may see burning before the shrines along a Syrian
roadside or in the churches, small lamps whose supply of oil is kept
renewed by pious adherents. In Israelitish times oil was u.sed in the
meal offering, in the consecration offerings offerings of purification
from leprosy, etc (Ex 29 2 409 ff; Lev 2 2ff; Nu 4 9ff; Dt 18 4; 1 Ch 9
29 2 Ch 31 5; Neh 10 37.-39; 13 5.12; Ezk 16 18.19. 45; 46; Mic 6
7). (c) In connection with the burial of the dead: Egyp papyri
mention this use. In the OT no direct mention is made of the
custom. Jesus referred to it in connection with His own burial (Mt 26
12; Mk 14 3-8; Lk 23 56; Jn 12 3-8; 19 40). Abundant oil was a
figure of general prosperity (Dt 32 13; 33 24; 2 K 18 .32; Job 29 6;
Joel 2 19.24). Langutshing of the oil in4. Figur- dicated general
famine (Joel 1 10; ative Hag 1 11). Joy is described as the oil of joy
(isa 6i 3), or the oil of gladness (Ps 45 7; He 1 9). Ezekiel prophesies
that the rivers shall run like oil, i.e. become viscous (Ezk 32 14).
Words of deceit are softer than oil (Ps 55 21; Prov 5 3). Cursing
becomes a habit with the wicked as readily as oil soaks into bones
(Ps 109 18). Excessive u.se of oil indicates wastefulne.ss (Prov 21
17), while the saving of it is a charactertstic of the wise (Prov 21
20). Oil was
 2183 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA Oil Old Prophet carried into Egypt, i.e. a treaty was
made with that country (Hos 12 1). James A. Patch OIL, ANOINTING
(nnipTSn Taip , shemen hamishhah): This holy oil, the composition
of which is described in Ex 30 22-33, was designed for use in the
anointing of the tabernacle, its furniture and vessels, the altar and
laver, and the priest, that being thus consecrated, they might be
"most holy." It was to be "a holy anointing oil" unto Jeh throughout
all generations (ver 31). On its uses, cf Ex 37 29; Lev 8 12; 10 7; 21
10. The care of this holy oil was subsequently entrusted to Eleazar
(Nu 4 16) ; in later times it seems to have been prepared by the
sons of the priests (1 Ch 9 30). There is a figurative allusion to the
oil on Aaron's head in Ps 133 2. See Oil; Anointing. James Orr OIL,
BEATEN (Ex 27 20; Lev 24 2; Nu 28 5). See Oil; Golden Candlestick.
OIL, HOLY. See Oil; Anointing. OIL, OLIVE. See Oil; Olive Tree. OIL
PRESS. See Oil; Wine Press. OIL-MAKING. See Cr.^fts, II, 11. OLL
TREE, oil tre (jPip y?, "ff sheme7i [Isa 41 19], m "oleaster," in Neh 8
15, tr"* "wild olive," AV "pine";lpTlJ ""2^, 'dfe shemen, in 1 K 6
23.31.32, tr'' "olive wood"): The name "oleaster" used to be applied
to the wild olive, but now belongs to quite another plant, the silver-
berry, Eleagnus horlensis (N.O. Elaeagnaceae) , known in Arab, as
Zeizafdn. It is a pretty shrub with sweet-smelling white flowers and
silver-grey-green leaves. It is difficult to see how all the three
references can apply to this tree; it will suit the first two, but this
small shrub would never supply wood for carpentry work such as
that mentioned in 1 K, hence the tr "olive wood." On the other hand,
in the reference in Neh 8 15, olive branches are mentioned just
before, so the tr "wild olive" (the difference being too slight) is
improbable. Post suggests the tr of 'ef shemen by Pine (q.v.), which
if accepted would suit all the requirements. E. W. G. Masterman
OINTMENT, oint'ment: The present use of the word "ointment" is to
designate a thick unguent of buttery or tallow-like consistency. AV in
frequent instances translates shemen or m'shah (see Ex 30 25)
"ointment" where a perfumed oil seemed to be indicated. ARV has
consequently substituted the word "oil" in most of the passages.
Merkdhah is rendered "ointment" once in the OT (.lob 41 31 [Heb 41
23]). The well-known power of oils and fats to absorb odors was
made use of by the ancient perfumers. The composition of the holy
anointing oil used in the tabernacle worship is mentioned in Ex 30
2.3-25. Olive oil formed the base. This was scented with "flowing
myrrh .... sweet cinnamon .... sweet calamus .... and .... cassia." The
oil was probably mixed with the above ingredients added in a
powdered form and heated until the oil had absorbed their odors
and then allowed to stand until the insoluble matter settled, when
the oil could be decanted. Olive oil, being a non-drying oil which
does not thicken readily, yielded an ointment of oily consistency. This
is indicated by Ps 133 2, where it says that the precious oil ran down
on Aaron's beard and on the collar of his outer garment. Anyone
attempting to make the holy anointing oil would be cut off from his
people (Ex 30 33). The scented oils or ointments were kept in jars or
vials (not boxes) made of alabaster. These jars are frequently found
as part of the equipment of ancient tombs. The word tr'' "ointment"
in the NT is /j-vpoii, muron, "myrrh." This would indicate that myrrh,
an aromatic gum resin, was the substance commonly added to the
oil to give it odor, la Lk 7 40 both kinds of oil are mentioned, and the
verse might be paraphrased thus: My head with common oil thou
didst not anoint; but she hath anointed my feet with costly scented
oil. For the uses of scented oils or ointments see Anointing; Oil.
James A. Patch OLAMUS, ol'a-mus ('HXaiios, Olamds): One of the
Israelites who had taken a "strange wife" (1 Esd 9 30) =
"Meshullam" of Ezr 10 29. OLD, old. See Age, Old. OLD GATE. See
Jerusalem. OLD MAN (iraXaios, palaids, "old," "ancient"): A term
thrice used by Paul (Rom 6 6; Eph 4 22; Col 3 9) to signify the
unrenewed man, the natural man in the corruption of sin, i.e. sinful
human nature before conversion and regeneration. It is theologically
synonymous with "flesh" (Rom 8 3-9), which stands, not for bodily
organism, but for the whole nature of man (body and soul) turned
away from God and devoted to self and earthly things. The old man
is "in the flesh"; the new man "in the Spirit." In the former "the
works of the flesh" (Gal 5 19-21) are manifest; in the latter "the fruit
of the Spirit" (vs 22.23). One is "corrupt according to the deceitful
lusts"; the other "created in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 4
22-24 AV). See also Man, Natural; Man, New. DwiGHT M. Pratt OLD
PROPHET, THE CJpJT nns XinS, ndbhl' 'ehddh zdlfen, "an old
prophet" '[1 K 13 11], ^?^5^^ IpJO, ha-ndbhl' ha-zaken, "the old 1.
The prophet" ]ver 29]): The narrative of Narrative 1 K 13 11-32, in
which the old prophet is mentioned, is part of a larger account
telling of a visit paid to Bethel by "a man of God" from Judah. The
Judaean prophet uttered a curse upon the altar erected there by
Jeroboam I. When the king attempted to use force against him, the
prophet was saved by Divine intervention; the king then invited him
to receive royal hospitality, but he refused because of a command of
God to him not to eat or drink there. The Judaean then departed (vs
1-10). An old prophet who lived in Bethel heard of the stranger's
words, and went after him and offered him hospitality. This offer too
was refused. But when the old prophet resorted to falsehood and
pleaded a Divine command on the subject, the Judaean returned
with him. While at table the old prophet is given a message to
declare that death will follow the southerner's disobedience to the
first command. A lion kills him on his way home. The old prophet
hears of the death and explains it as due to disobedience to God; he
then buries the dead body in his own grave and expresses a wish
that he also at death should be buried in the same sepulcher. There
are several difBcultie-s in tlie text. In ver 1 1 , AV reads "his sons
came" instead of "one of his sons came," and tr ver \2b: "And his
sons shewed ttie O Pri+iral ^^^ ^^^ man of God went." There is a
i. \^Ti\.n,
 Old Testament Olives, Mount of THE INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2184 Benzinger ("Die Bucher der
Konige," Kurz. Hand-Komm. zum AT, 91) holds that wc have here an
example of a midrash, i.e. according to LOT, 529, "an imaginative
development of a thought or theme suggested by Scripture, esp. a
didactic or homiletio exposition or an edifying religious story." 2 Ch
24 27 refers to a "midhrash of the book of the kings," and 2 Ch 13
22 to a "midhrash of the prophet Iddo." In 2 Ch 9 29 we have a
reference to "the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the
son of Nebat." Jos names the Judaean prophet Jadon (Ant, VIII, viii,
5), and so some would trace this narrative to the midrash of Iddo,
which would be a late Jewish work. There is a trace of late Heb in
ver 3, and evidence in several places of a later editing of the original
narrative. Kittel and Benzinger think it possible that the section may
be based on a historical incident. If the narrative is historical in the
main, the mention of Josiah by name in ver 2 may be a later
insertion; if not historical, the prophecy there is ex eventu, and the
whole section a midrash on 2 K 23 15-20. (1) Several questions are
suggested by the narrative, but in putting as well as in answering
these questions, it must be remembered that 3. Central the old
prophet himself, as has been Truths pointed out, is not the chief
character of the piece. Hence it is a little pointless to ask what
became of the old prophet, or whether he was not piunished for his
falsehood. The passage should be studied, like the parables of Jesus,
with an eye on the great central truth, which is, here, that God
punishes disobedience even in "a, man of God." It is not inconsistent
with this to regard the old prophet as an example of "Satan
fashioning himself into an angel of light" (2 Cor 11 14), or of the
beast which "had two horns like unto a lamb" (Rev 13 11). (2) It
must also be remembered that the false prophets of the OT are
called prophets in spite of their false prophecies. So here the old
prophet in spite of his former lie is given a Divine message to
declare that death will follow the other's disobedience. (.3) One
other question suggests itself, and demands an answer. Why did the
old prophet make the request that at death he should be buried in
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com