|Noah Webster's Dictionary|
1. (n.) Plural of Child.
2. (n.) pl. of Child.
Int. Standard Bible Encyclopedia
BRIDE-CHAMBER, SONS (CHILDREN) OF THE
(hoi huioi tou numphonos): These were friends or companions of the bridegroom and were usually very numerous (Matthew 9:15 Mark 2:19 Luke 5:34). Any wedding guest might be included in the expression, or anyone who took part in the bridal procession and remained for the wedding-feast (see MARRIAGE). In the above passages "the sons of the bride-chamber" are the disciples of Christ.
child, chil'-dren (ben, "son," yeledh, "child" na`ar, "lad"; teknon, paidion): The Hebrews regarded the presence of children in the family as a mark of Divine favor and greatly to be desired (Genesis 15:2; Genesis 30:1 1 Samuel 1:11, 20 Psalm 127:3 Luke 1:7, 28). The birth of a male child was especially a cause for rejoicing (Psalm 128:3, Hebrew); more men, more defenders for the tribe. If there were no sons born to a household, that family or branch became lost. If the wife proved childless, other wife or wives might be added to the family (Genesis 16 f). Further, each Jewish mother, at least in later times, hoped that her son might prove to be the Messiah. The custom of Levirate marriage, which was not limited to the Hebrew people, rested on the principle that if a man died childless his brother should marry his widow, the children of such union being considered as belonging to the brother whose name and line were thus preserved from extinction (Deuteronomy 25:5 Genesis 38:26 Matthew 22:24).
Children were sometimes dedicated to God, even before their birth (1 Samuel 1:11). Names often were significant: Moses (Exodus 2:10); Samuel (1 Samuel 1:20); Ichabod (1 Samuel 4:21; compare Genesis 30) (see PROPER NAMES). The firstborn son belonged to God (Numbers 3:44). The ceremony of redeeming the firstborn occurred on the thirtieth day. Friends of the family were invited to a feast, the rabbi also being present. The child was placed in the hands of the priest. The father carried some gold or silver in a cup or vessel. The priest asked the mother whether this was her firstborn, and, on being answered in the affirmative, claimed the child as Yahweh's. The father offered the redemption money, which was accepted in exchange for the child (compare 1 Peter 1:18). See FIRSTBORN. Other stages in the life of the child were celebrated with fitting ceremonies. In the fourth year, in Palestine, on the second day of the Passover occurred the ceremony of the first cutting of the boy's hair, the friends sharing the privilege. Sometimes, as in the case of the wealthy, the weight of the child in currency was given as a donation to the poor. In common with the custom of other eastern peoples, male children were circumcised (Genesis 17:12), the rite being performed on the eighth day.
Early education was cared for in the home, the children growing up more or less with the mother (Proverbs 6:20; Proverbs 31:1 2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:14, 15), and the girl continuing with her mother until her marriage. In wealthier families tutors were employed (1 Chronicles 27:32). Schools for children are first mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XV, x, 5). According to the Talmud the first school for children was established about 100 B.C., but in the time of Jesus such schools were common. Children were taught to read and to write even in families of moderate means, these arts being widely diffused as early as 600 B.C., if not earlier (Isaiah 8:1; Isaiah 10:19). Great stress was laid on the Torah, i.e. the law of Moses. Boys were trained also in farming, the tending of cattle, and in the trades. The religious training of the boy began in his fourth year, as soon as he could speak distinctly. The religious life of the girl also began early. In later times at least children took part in the Sabbath and Passover festivals and boys attended synagogue and school regularly.
Children were subject to the father (Nehemiah 5:5 marks the extreme), who in turn was bound to protect them, though he himself had the power of life and death (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2). Respect for and obedience to parents were stoutly upheld by public opinion (Exodus 20:12 Deuteronomy 5:16; compare Proverbs 6:20 Micah 7:6 Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Exodus 21:15).
Both the Old Testament and New Testament afford abundant evidence of the strength of the bond that bound the Hebrew family together (Genesis 21:16 2 Samuel 18:33 1 Kings 3:23 2 Kings 4:19 Isaiah 8:4; Job 29:5 Matthew 19:13; Matthew 20:20 Mark 9:24 Luke 2:48 John 4:47 Hebrews 2:13; Hebrews 11:23). The gift of a son from Yahweh was the height of joy; the loss of a child marked the depth of woe. A hint occurs in the custom of naming a man as the father of his firstborn son (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, 382), or even the use of the father's name as a surname (Bar-jonah, Bartimeus) and such continues in Syria at the present day. This idea is further instanced in the use, in both Old Testament and New Testament, of the terms to express the relation between God and men (Exodus 4:22 Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:6 Jeremiah 3:4 Zechariah 12:10 Malachi 1:6).
See also FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS; SONS.
LITERATURE. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, 2nd edition, 1907, 112-23; for rabbinical lore, Friedenberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, IV, 27.
W. N. Stearns
Figurative: Child is the English Versions of the Bible rendering of the Greek teknon. The corresponding Hebrew words (ben, and yeledh), are usually translated "son," but they have practically the same significance in the figurative use of the term. Child is used figuratively to describe:
(1) An affectionate greeting. Jesus addressed the sick of the palsy as "child" (Mark 2:5 the Revised Version, margin).
(2) The disciples, or followers, of a teacher. Jesus addressed His disciples as children (Mark 10:24). Paul referred to Timothy as his child (1 Timothy 1:2), and also to Onesimus (Philemon 1:10). John also designated the disciples to whom he was writing as his children (2 John 1:4). The same use of "children" or "sons" is common in the Old Testament (see 1 Kings 20:35 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7; 2 Kings 4:38). As a term of special endearment, disciples are sometimes called "little children" (teknia). Jesus thus addressed His disciples when He was speaking about His departure (John 13:33). Paul thus addressed the Galatians (Galatians 4:19), and that was a favorite expression with John (see 1 John 2:1; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21). A term that was even more endearing was paidia, which means "little ones" or "babes." Jesus used this term once in addressing His disciples after His resurrection (John 21:5), and John also used this term occasionally in saluting those to whom he was writing (1 John 2:18).
(3) Those who belong to God. Children of God is a common expression in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is based on the relation between parents and children, and in general describes God's affection for His own, and their dependence upon Him, and moral likeness to Him. The term is sometimes used of those who are disloyal to God, and they are designated as "rebellious children" (see Isaiah 30:1).
See CHILDREN OF GOD.
(4) Those who belong to the devil. Those who are like the devil in thought and action are designated as "children of the devil" (1 John 3:10).
(5) One's relation to something to which he belongs, or by which he is dominated in his affection for it. Thus we have:
(a) the children of a city or country (see Jeremiah 2:16 Matthew 23:37), and this designates those who belong to that particular city or country;
(b) children of wisdom (Matthew 11:19 the King James Version; Luke 7:35), and these are the ones whose lives are dominated by wisdom. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek adopted ergon for teknon in Matthew 11:19, but this seems to be without any good reason;
(c) children of obedience (1 Peter 1:14), and these are the ones who are eager to obey;
(d) children of light (Ephesians 5:8), and this designates those whose souls are illumined by the light.
(6) Those who are liable to some particular fate. Thus, we have
(a) children of cursing, or those who are exposed to cursing (2 Peter 2:14), and
(b) children of wrath or those who are exposed to wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
(7) Moral likeness or spiritual kinship (Galatians 3:7 the King James Version; compare John 8:39; "the children of Abraham"). See secs. (3), (4).
A. W. Fortune
CHILDREN OF EDEN
e'-d'-n (bene `edhen): In 2 Kings 19:12 Isaiah 37:12 "the children of Eden that were in Telassar" are mentioned in connection with "Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph" as having been destroyed by the Assyrians who were before the time of Sennacherib. The expression, "the children of Eden that were in Telassar," undoubtedly referred to a tribe which inhabited a region of which Telassar was the center. Telassar means "the hill of Asshur" and, according to Schrader, it was a name that might have been given to any place where a temple had been built to Asshur. Inasmuch as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph were in Mesopotamia it would seem probable that "the children of Eden that were in Telassar" belonged to the same locality. The "children of Eden" is quite probably to be identified with the Bit `Adini of the inscriptions and this referred to a district on the middle Euphrates. According to the inscriptions Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, and Bit `Adini were destroyed by Sennacherib's forefathers, and this is in accord with the account in 2 Kings and Isaiah.
The "Eden" of Ezekiel 27:23 is usually taken as the name of a place in Mesopotamia with which Tyre had commercial relations, and probably belongs to the region of "the chilrden of Eden," discussed above.
Some writers think the "Beth-eden" of Amos 1:5 the Revised Version, margin (the American Standard Revised Version "Aven") is to be identified with the Bit `Adini of the inscriptions and hence, with "the children of Eden," but this is doubtful. This was perhaps in Syria in the neighborhood of Damascus.
A. W. Fortune
CHILDREN OF GOD
Introduction: Meaning of Terms
I. OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING
1. Mythological Survivals
2. Created Sonship
3. Israel's Collective Covenant Sonship
4. Individual and Personal Relation
5. Universalizing the Idea
II. NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING
1. Physical and Limited Sonship Disappears
2. As Religious Experience, or Psychological Fact
(1) Filial Consciousness of Jesus
(2) Communicated to Men
3. As Moral Condition, or Ethical Fact
4. As State of Being, or Ontological Fact
(1) Essence of Christ's Sonship
(2) Men's Sonship
5. As Relation to God, or Theological Fact
(1) Eternal Generation
(2) The Work of Grace
Introduction: Meaning of Terms:
Children (Sons and Daughters) of God (bene and benoth 'elohim, literally "sons and daughters of God"; tekna theou, and huioi theou): so the King James Version; but the Revised Version (British and American) translates the latter Greek phrase more accurately "sons of God." Tekna contains the idea of origin or descent, but also that of personal relation, and is often used metaphorically of "that intimate and reciprocal relationship formed between men by the bonds of love, friendship, trust, just as between parents and children" (Grimm-Thayer). Huioi, too, conveys the ideas of origin, and of personal relation, but the latter in the fuller form in which it appears in mature age. "The difference between huios and teknon appears to be that whereas teknon denotes the natural relationship of child to parent, huios implies in addition to this the recognized status and legal privileges reserved for sons" (Sanday and Headlam, on Romans 8:14). This difference obtains, however, only in a very general sense.
The above phrases denote the relation in which men are conceived to stand to God, either as deriving their being from Him and depending upon Him, or as standing in that personal relation of intimate trust and love toward Him which constitutes the psychological fact of sonship. The exact significance of the expression depends upon the conception of God, and particularly of His Fatherhood, to which it corresponds. It therefore attains to its full significance only in the New Testament, and its meaning in the Old Testament differs considerably, even though it marks stages of development up to the New Testament idea.
I. Old Testament Teaching.
The most primitive form of the idea appears in Genesis 6:1-4, where the sons of God by marrying the fair daughters of men become the fathers of the giants.
1. Mythological Survivals:
These were a subordinate order of Divine beings or demi-gods, and the title here may mean no more, although it was probably a survival of an earlier idea of the actual descent of these gods from a higher God. The idea of a heavenly court where the sons of God come to present themselves before Yahweh is found in quite late literature (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7 Psalm 29:1; Psalm 89:6). In all these cases the phrase implies a certain kinship with God and dependence upon Him on the part of the Divine society around Him. But there is no evidence to show whether the idea of descent of gods from God survived to any extent, nor is there any indication of a very close personal relationship. Satan is unsympathetic, if not hostile. In one obviously polytheistic reference, the term implies a similarity of appearance (Daniel 3:25). In a secondary sense the titles "gods," and "sons of the Most High" are given to magistrates, as exercising God's authority (Psalm 82:6).
2. Created Sonship:
The idea of creation has taken the place of that of procreation in the Old Testament, but without losing the sense of sonship. "Saith Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: Ask me. concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands" (Isaiah 45:11). Israel acknowledges the absolute sovereignty of God as her Father and Maker (Isaiah 64:8). Israel's Maker is also her Husband, and by inference the Father of her children (Isaiah 54:5). Since all Israel has one Father, and one God created her, the tribes owe brotherly conduct to one another (Malachi 2:10). Yahweh upbraids His sons and daughters whom He as their Father bought, made and established. "He forsook God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that gave thee birth" (Deuteronomy 32:6, 15, 18). These passages reveal the transition from the idea of original creation to that of making and establishing Israel as a nation. All things might be described as children of God if creation alone brought it to pass, but Israel stands in a unique relation to God.
3. Israel's Collective Covenant Sonship:
The covenant relation of God with Israel as a nation is the chief form in which man's sonship and God's fatherhood appear in the Old Testament. "Israel is my son, my firstborn" (Exodus 4:22); "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). And to be children of God involves the obligation to be a holy people (Deuteronomy 14:1, 2). But Israel has proved unworthy of her status: "I. have brought up children, and they have rebelled against me" (Isaiah 1:2, 4; Isaiah 30:1, 9). Yet He will have pity upon them: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jeremiah 31:9, 20). Israel's unworthiness does not abolish the relation on God's side; she can therefore return to Him again and submit to His will (Isaiah 63:16; Isaiah 64:8); and His pity exceeds a mother's love (Isaiah 49:15). The filial relation of Israel to God is summed up and symbolized in a special way in the Davidic king: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Samuel 7:14 = 1 Chronicles 17:13; compare 1 Chronicles 22:10; 1 Chronicles 28:6 Psalm 2:7).
4. Individual and Personal Relation:
God's fatherhood to collective Israel necessarily tends to develop into a personal relation of father and son between Him and individual members of the nation. The children of Israel, whatever their number, shall be called "the sons of the living God" (Hosea 1:10). Yahweh's marriage relation with Israel as a nation made individual Israelites His children (Hosea 2:19, 20 Jeremiah 3:14, 22; compare Isaiah 50:1 Ezekiel 16:20, 21; Ezekiel 23:37), and God's ownership of His children, the individual members of the nation, is asserted (compare Psalm 127:3). Chastisement and pity alike God deals forth as Father to His children (Deuteronomy 1:31; Deuteronomy 8:5 Psalm 103:13), and these are intimate personal relations which can only obtain between individuals.
5. Universalizing the Idea:
In another direction the idea of God as the father of Israel tends to be modified by the inclusion of the Gentiles. The word "first-born" (in Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9, 20) may be only an emphatic form of expressing sonship, or it may already suggest the possibility of the adoption of the Gentiles. If that idea is not present in words, it is an easy and legitimate inference from several passages, that Gentiles would be admitted some day into this among the rest of Israel's privileges (Isaiah 19:25; Isaiah 65:1 Zechariah 14:16).
II. New Testament Teaching.
1. Physical and Limited Sonship Disappears:
As the doctrine of Divine fatherhood attains its full spiritual and moral significance in the New Testament, so does the experience and idea of sonship. All traces of physical descent have disappeared. Paul's quotation from a heathen poet: "For we are also his offspring" (Acts 17:28), whatever its original significance, is introduced by the apostle for the purpose of enforcing the idea of the spiritual kinship of God and men. The phrase "Son of God" applied to Christ by the Roman centurion (Matthew 27:54 Mark 15:39) may or may not, in his mind, have involved the idea of physical descent, but its utterance was the effect of an impression of similarity to the gods, produced by the exhibition of power attending His death. The idea of creation is assumed in the New Testament, but generally it is not prominent in the idea of sonship. The virgin birth of Jesus, however, may be understood as implying either the creative activity of the Holy Spirit, or the communication of a preexistent Divine being to form a new human personality, but the latter idea also would involve creative activity in the physical realm (compare Luke 3:38: "Adam (son) of God"). The limitations of the Old Testament conception of sonship as national and collective disappear altogether in the New Testament; God is father of all men, and of every man. In potentiality at least every man and all men are sons of God. The essence of sonship consists in a personal experience and moral likeness which places man in the most intimate union and communion with God.
2. As Religious Experience, or Psychological Fact:
(1) Filial Conciousness of Jesus.
Divine sonship was first realized and made manifest in the consciousness of Jesus (Matthew 11:27). For Him it meant unbroken personal knowledge of God and communion with Him, and the sense of His love for Him and of His satisfaction and delight in Him (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5 Mark 1:11; Mark 9:7 Luke 3:22; Luke 9:35). Whether the "voice out of the heavens saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" was objective or not, its message always dwelt in the filial consciousness of Jesus. The Father's love was to Him a source of knowledge and power (John 5:20), the reward of His self-sacrifice (John 10:17) and the inspiration of His love for men (John 15:9).
Sonship meant for Him His Messianic mission (Matthew 16:16, 17). It involved His dependence on the Father and His obedience to Him (John 5:19, 30; John 8:29), and a resulting confidence in His mission (John 5:36; John 10:36, 37). It filled Him with a sense of dignity, power and glory which the Father gave Him, and would yet give in larger measure (Matthew 26:63, 14; Matthew 16:27 John 17:5).
(2) Communicated to Men.
Jesus communicated His own experience of God to men (John 14:9) that they also might know the Father's love and dwell in it (John 17:26). Through Him and through Him alone can they become children of God in fact and in experience (John 1:12; John 14:6 Matthew 11:27). It is therefore a distinctively Christian experience and always involves a relation of faith in Christ and moral harmony with Him. It differs from His experience in one essential fact, at least in most men. It involves an inner change, a change of feeling and motive, of ideal and attitude, that may be compared to a new birth (John 3:3). Man must turn and return from disobedience and alienation through repentance to childlike submission (Luke 15:18-20). It is not the submission of slaves, but the submission of sons, in which they have liberty and confidence before God (Galatians 4:6), and a heritage from Him for their possession (Galatians 4:6, 7 Romans 8:17). It is the liberty of self-realization. As sons they recognize their kinship with God, and share his mind and purpose, so that His commands become their pleasure: "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3). They have boldness and access to God (Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12). With this free union of love with God there comes a sense of power, of independence of circumstances, of mastery over the world, and of the possession of all things necessary which become the heirs of God (Matthew 6:26, 32; Matthew 7:11). "For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world" (1 John 5:4). They learn that the whole course and destiny of creation is for the "revealing of the sons of God" (Romans 8:19, 21).
3. As Moral Condition, or Ethical Fact:
Christ's sonship involved His moral harmony with the Father: "I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10; John 8:53). He accomplished the work which the Father gave Him to do (John 17:4; John 5:19), "becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:8). And sonship makes the same demand upon men. The peacemakers and those who forgive like God are His children (Matthew 5:9, 45 Luke 6:35). "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these (and these only) are sons of God" (Romans 8:14). God will be Father to the holy (2 Corinthians 6:18). The test and mark of the children of God is that they do righteousness and love the brethren (1 John 3:10). They are blameless and harmless, without blemish, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (Philippians 2:15). Therefore their ideal of life is to be "imitators of God" and to walk in love even as Christ did (Ephesians 5:1). Sonship grows to its consummation as the life grows in the likeness of Christ, and the final destiny of all sons is to be ever like Him (1 John 3:2).
4. As State of Being, or Ontological Fact:
Sonship is properly and primarily a relation, but it may so dominate and transform the whole of a man's life, thought and conduct as to become his essential being, the most comprehensive category under which all that he is may be summed up.
(1) Essence of Christ's Sonship.
It is so that the New Testament comprehends the person of Christ. Everything that He did, He did as God's son, so that He is the Son, always and ever Son. In the beginning, in the bosom of the Father, He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN (which see) Son (John 1:1, 18). He is born a Son of God (Luke 1:35). He begins life in the things of His Father (Luke 2:49). His whole life is that of the beloved Son (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5). As Son of God He dies (Matthew 26:63 Luke 22:70 Matthew 27:40, 43; compare John 5:18). In His resurrection He was declared to be the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4); as Jesus the Son of God He is our great high priest in heaven (Hebrews 4:14), and in the glory of His father He will come to judge in the last day (Matthew 16:27).
(2) Men's Sonship.
Unlike Him, men's moral sonship is neither eternal nor universal. Are they therefore sons in any sense always and everywhere? All children are heirs of the kingdom of God and objects of the Father's care (Luke 18:16 Matthew 18:10). But men may turn away from the Father and become unworthy to be called His sons (Luke 15:13, 19). They may become children of the devil (1 John 3:10 John 8:44), and children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Then they lose the actuality, but not the potentiality, of sonship. They have not the experience or character of sons, but they are still moral and rational beings made in the image of God, open to the appeal and influence of His love, and able to "rise and go to their Father." They are objects of God's love (John 15:13 Romans 5:8) and of His gracious search and seeking (Luke 15:4 John 11:52). But they are actual sons only when they are led by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:14); and even so their sonship will only be consummated in the resurrection (Romans 8:23 Luke 20:36).
5. As Relation to God, or Theological Fact:
In the relation of father and son, fatherhood is original and creative. That does not necessarily mean priority in time.
(1) Eternal Generation.
Origen's doctrine of the eternal generation of Christ, by which is meant that God and Christ always stood in the relation of Father and Son to one another, is a just interpretation of the New Testament idea that the Son "was in the beginning with God" (pros ton Theon). But Jesus was conscious of His dependence upon the Father and that His sonship was derived from Him (John 5:19, 36). Still more manifest is it that men derive their sonship from God. He made them for Himself, and whatever in human nature qualifies men to become sons of God is the free gift of God. But men in their sin and disobedience could not come to a knowledge of the Father, had He not "sent forth his Son. that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4, 5): "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God" (1 John 3:1); "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son" (which see) who gave men "the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 3:16; John 1:12). It is not the children of the flesh but the children of the promise who are children of God (Romans 9:4). The mere act of birth does not constitute men into children of God, but His covenant of free grace must be added. God being essentially Father made men and the universe, sent His Son and His Spirit, "for the revealing of the sons of God." But they can only know the Father, and realize their sonship when they respond to His manifestation of fatherly love, by faith in God and obedience to Him.
(2) The Work of Grace.
The question whether sonship is natural and universal or conditional upon grace working through faith, does not admit of a categorical answer. The alternatives are not strict antitheses. God does all things as Father. To endow man with rational and moral nature capable of his becoming a son was an act of love and grace, but its whole purpose can be communicated only in response to faith in Christ. But a natural sonship which is not actual is meaningless. A man's moral condition and his attitude toward God are the most essential elements of his nature, for a man's nature is just the sum total of his thoughts, acts and states. If these are hostile or indifferent to God, there is nothing left that can have the reality or bear the name of son. For if the word son be used of mere creaturehood and potentiality, that is to give it a meaning entirely different from New Testament usage. All men by nature are potential sons, because God has made them for sonship and does all things to win them into their heritage. Men may be sons of God in a very imperfect and elementary manner. The sharp transitions of Pauline and Johannine theology are rather abstract distinctions for thought than actual descriptions of spiritual processes. But Paul and John also contemplate a growth in sonship, "till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13).
SeeSONS OF GOD.
For lit. and further discussion, see special articles on ADOPTION; GOD; JESUS CHRIST.
CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
iz'-ra-el (bene yisra'el): A very common term in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and it refers to the Israelites as the descendants of a common ancestor, Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel (see Genesis 32:24-32). It was customary to designate the members of the various tribes as the children of the one from whom the tribe originated (see Numbers 1:20-43 Ezra 2:3-61), and it was natural that the people who boasted of Israel as their ancestor should be designated as his children. The first reference to the descendants of Jacob is found in the account of the changing of Jacob's name to Israel, and the purpose is to connect them with the experience in Jacob's life which led to the change in his name: "Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip." At the time when this was written "the children of Israel" was a phrase that was commonly applied to the Israelites. In 2 Kings 17:34 they are called "the children of Jacob," and this occurs in connection with the account of the changing of Jacob's name to Israel and is intended to connect them closely with their father Jacob, who was favored of God.
After a time, it is quite likely that the phrase "children of Israel" lost its peculiar significance and was simply one of the popular terms designating the inhabitants of Palestine, but at first it was intended to connect these people with their ancestor Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. The Jews of the New Testament times connected themselves with Abraham rather than with Jacob (see John 8:39 Romans 9:7 Galatians 3:7, tekna, or, huioi Abraam).
A. W. Fortune
CHILDREN OF THE EAST
est (bene qedhem): A term which in a general way designated the inhabitants of the country East of Palestine The Hebrews thought of their own country as occupying the central place, and of the other parts of the world in relation to this. They spoke of the "queen of the south" (Matthew 12:42), and of the "king of the south" (Daniel 11:5, 6). They spoke of people coming from "the east and the west" and sitting down with the patriarchs (Matthew 8:11).
The term "children of the east" seems to have been applied to the inhabitants of any part of the country East of Palestine It is stated that Jacob, when he fled from Esau, "came to the land of the children of the east" (Genesis 29:1), and the place to which he came was Haran in Mesopotamia. In Jeremiah 49:28 the inhabitants of Kedar are called "the children of the east," and in later Jewish literature, Kedar is identified with the Arabs (see KEDAR). Job was designated as "the greatest of all the children of the east" (Job 1:3), and the land of Uz was mentioned as his home (Job 1:1). While it is impossible absolutely to locate the land of Uz, it must have been on the edge of the desert which was East of Palestine. The children of the east seem to have been famous for their wisdom. It is said that "Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east" (1 Kings 4:30), and "Wise-men from the east" came to Jerusalem seeking the one that was born king of the Jews (Matthew 2:1).
Many of the inhabitants of the east country were regarded as descending from Abraham (see Genesis 25:6), and hence, they were related to Israel.
A. W. Fortune
EAST, CHILDREN OF THE
est, (mizrach, qedhem, qedhem, and other derivatives of the same root; anatole):
Mizrach is the equivalent of the Arabic meshriq, "the orient" or "place of sunrise." In the same way ma`arabh, "west," corresponds to the Arabic maghrib, and both mizrach and ma`arabh occur in Psalm 103:12: "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." Qadham, "to precede" (whence qedhem, "east"), and its derivatives correspond closely to the Arabic qadham, except that the Arabic derivatives do not include the signification "east." In the majority of cases "east" and other words of direction require no explanation, but the expressions "the children of the east" (bene qedhem), "the land of the children of the east" ('erets bene qedhem), and "the east country" ('erets qedhem), belong to a different category. In the story of Gideon (Judges 6:3, 13; Judges 7:12; Judges 8:10), we find several times the expression "the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the east." In Judges 8:24 it is said of the same host: "For they Go up to Kedar, and destroy the children of the east. Their tents and had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites." In Jeremiah 49:28, 29: "Go up to Kedar, and destroy the children of the east. Their tents and their flocks shall they take." In Genesis 25:6: "But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country." Now Ishmael is the son of Abraham and Hagar, Midian of Abraham and Keturah, Kedar the son of Ishmael, and Amalek the grandson of Esau, dwelling in Edom. It is evident that we have to do with the Syrian desert and in a general way with Arabia, especially its northern part, and with peoples like the modern Bedouin who kept camels and dwelt in tents, 'houses of hair' (buyut sha`r), as they are called by the Arabs of today.
A striking passage is Genesis 29:1: "Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of the east." As one journeys eastward through the country East of the Jordan he traverses first a region of towns and villages with fields of grain, and then the wide desert where the Bedouin wander with their herds. The line is a sharp one. Within a very few hours he passes from the settled part where the rain, though scanty, is sufficient to bring the grain to maturity, to the bare desert.
Job was "the greatest of all the children of the east" (Job 1:3). These desert people had a name for wisdom as we see from 1 Kings 4:30, "Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt"; and from Matthew 2:1: "Now when Jesus was born. Wisemen from the east came."
Alfred Ely Day
SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN
" 1. Name
4. Author and Date
5. Original Language
6. Text and Versions
For general remarks concerning the Additions to Daniel see BEL AND THE DRAGON.
This Addition has no separate title in any manuscript or version because in the Septuagint, Theod, Syriac and Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate) it follows Daniel 3:23 immediately, forming an integral portion of that chapter, namely, The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:24-90 in the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is the only one of the three Additions which has an organic connection with Daniel; as regards the others see preliminary remarks to BEL AND THE DRAGON. The title in English Versions of the Bible is "The So of the Three Holy Children," a title describing its matter as formerly understood, though a more rigid analysis shows that in the 68 verses so designated, we have really two separate sections. See 3, below.
See introductory remarks to BEL AND THE DRAGON. The order in which the three "Additions to Daniel" are found in the (Separate Protestant) Apocrypha is decided by their sequence in the Vulgate, the So of the Three Children forming part of chapter 3, Susanna of chapter 13, and Bel and the Dragon of chapter 14 of Daniel.
Though the English and other Protestant versions treat the 68 verses as one piece under the name given above, there are really two quite distinct compositions. These appear separately in the collection of Odes appended to the Psalter in Cod. A under the headings, "The Prayer of Azarias" (Proseuche Azariou, Azariah, Daniel 1:6) and "The Hymn of Our Fathers" (Humnos ton pateron hemon); see Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, 3804;, and Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 253 f. Luther with his usual independence makes each of these into a separate book under the titles, "The Prayer of Azaria" (Das Gebet Asarjas) and "The So of the Three Men in the Fire" (Der Gesang der drei Manner im Feuerofen).
(1) The Prayer of Azarias (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:1-22) (Daniel 3:24-48).
Azariah is the Hebrew name of Abed-nego (= Abednebo, "servant of Nebo"), the latter being the Babylonian name (see Daniel 1:7; Daniel 2:49, etc.). This prayer joins on to Daniel 3:23, where it is said that "Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego (Azariah) fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." [?] (the version of Theodotion; see "Text and Versions" below) adds, "And they walked (Syr adds "in their chains") in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord." This addition forms a suitable connecting link, and it has been adopted by the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and in modern versions which are made from [?] and not from the Septuagint, which last was lost for many centuries (see BEL AND THE DRAGON, III). In the Septuagint the words with which the Prayer was introduced are these: "Thus therefore prayed Hananias, and Azarias and Misael and sang praises (hymns) to the Lord when the king commanded that they should be cast into the furnace." The prayer (offered by Azarias) opens with words of adoration followed by an acknowledgment that the sufferings of the nation in Babylon were wholly deserved, and an earnest entreaty that God would intervene on behalf of His exiled and afflicted people. That this prayer was not composed for the occasion with which it is connected goes without saying. No one in a burning furnace could pray as Azarias does. There are no groans or sighs, nor prayer for help or deliverance of a personal nature. The deliverance sought is national.
(2) The So of the Three Holy Children (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:28-68) (Da 3:51-90).
This is introduced by a brief connecting narrative (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27). The king's servants continued to heat the furnace, but an angel came down and isolated an inner zone of the furnace within which no flames could enter; in this the three found safety. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 175) is inclined to think that this narrative section (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) stood between Daniel 3:23 and 3:24 in the original Hebrew text. The "Song" is really a psalm, probably a translation of a Hebrew original. It has nothing to do with the incident-the three young men in the furnace-except in The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 (EV) where the three martyrs call upon themselves by name to praise and bless the Lord for delivering them from the midst of the furnace. This verse is an interpolation, for the rest of the So is a long litany recalling Psalm 103 and especially Psalms 136; 148, and Sirach 43. The Song, in fact, has nothing to do with the sufferings of the three young men, but is an ordinary hymn of praise. It is well known from the fact that it forms a part of the Anglican Prayer-book, as it had formed part of many early Christian liturgies.
4. Author and Date:
We know nothing whatever of the author besides what may be gathered from this Addition. It is quite evident that none of the three Additions belong to the original text of Daniel, and that they were added because they contained legends in keeping with the spirit of that book, and a song in a slight degree (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Version of the Bible) adapted to the situation of the three Hebrew youths in the furnace, though itself of an independent liturgical origin.
For a long time the three Additions must have circulated independently. Polychronius says that "The So of the Three Holy Children" was, even in the 5th century A.D., absent from the text of Daniel, both in the Peshitta and in the Septuagint proper. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 176) contends that the Additions formed a part of the Septuagint from the beginning, from which he infers that they were all composed before the Septuagint was made. What was the date of this version of Daniel? Since its use seems implied in 1 Maccabees 1:54 (compare Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11), it would be safe to conclude that it existed about 100 B.C.
(2) Date of the Prayer of Azarias.
In The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:15 (English Versions of the Bible) it is said that at the time the prayer was offered, there was no prince, prophet or leader, nor sacrifice of any kind. This may point to the time between 168 and 165 B.C., when Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) profaned the temple. If written in that interval, it must have been added to Daniel at a much later time. But on more occasions than one, in later times, the temple-services were suspended, as e.g. during the invasion of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king, Ptolemy IV (Philopater).
(3) Date of the Song.
We find references in the So (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:62 English Versions of the Bible) to priests and temple-servants, and in The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:31 to the temple itself, suggesting that when the So was written the temple-services were carried on. This, in itself, would suit a time soon after the purification of the temple, about 164 B.C. But the terms of the So are, except in verse 66 (English Versions of the Bible), so general that it is impossible to fix the date definitely. On the date of the historical connecting narrative (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) see 3, (2), above.
5. Original Language:
(1) Romanist scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in das Altes Testament, IV, 24 f; Einleit. in die apok. Schriften, 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, De Habacuci, 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that the original language was Hebrew. The evidence, which is weak, is as follows: (a) The style is Hebraistic throughout (not more so than in writings known to have been composed in Alexandrian Gr; the idiom kataischunesthai + apo = bosh min (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:44 English Versions of the Bible; the Septuagint 1:44), "to be ashamed of," occurs in parts of the Septuagint which are certainly not translations). (b) The three Hebrew martyrs bear Hebrew names (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Versions). This only shows that the tale is of Hebrew origin. (2) Most modern non-Romanist scholars hold that the original language of the So (and Prayer) was Greek. So Keil, Fritzsche, De Wette, Schurer, Konig, Cornill, Strack, etc.
(1) The Hebraisms are comparatively few, and those which do exist can be paralleled in other writings composed in Hellenistic Greek
(2) It can be proved that in Daniel and also in Bel and the Dragon (see Introduction to Bel in the Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles), Theodotion corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew (lost in the case of Bel); but in Three, Theodotion corrects according to Greek idiom or grammar. It must be admitted, however, that the evidence is not very decisive either way.
6. Text and Versions:
As to the text and the various versions of the Song, see what is said in the article BEL AND THE DRAGON. It is important to note that the translations in English Versions of the Bible are made from Theodotion's Greek version, which occurs in ancient versions of the Septuagint (A B V Q dc) instead of the true Septuagint (Cod. 87).
See the article BEL AND THE DRAGON; Marshall (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 754); W. H. Bennett (Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles, 625;).
T. Witton Davies
CHILDREN OF THE BRIDECHAMBER
See BRIDE-CHAMBER, SONS.
EDEN, CHILDREN OF
See CHILDREN OF EDEN.
GOD, CHILDREN OF
See CHILDREN OF GOD.