(3) In the division of property. The most notable instance of this is in the assignment of territory among the tribes of Israel (Nu 26° 335 3.418 36%, Jos 13° 14? 16! etc., Ps 105°, Ac 13!). Thus by a natural transition the land itself, when divided, came to be designated by this word δὴ. (Jos 15! ἘΠΕ Oey 15: 15.615): ence we frequently find this term ΤΑ ΑΡΒΌΣΙΟΗΝ applied to express the destiny which is awarded by tod, whether favour- able or the reverse (Ps 16°, Is 171" 3417, Jer 13%, Dn 12%). The division of the booty taken in war, or of the property of prisoners or criminals, was often carried out by means of the lot (Jl 3%, Nah 3... ΟΣ ῬΑ 2915. Mt 27%, Jn 19%).
(4) The lot was also employed on the great Day o1 Atonement in the selection of the he-goat for Jehovah and for Azazel respectively (Lv 167"). See arts. AZAZEL and ATONEMENT (DAY OF). According to the Mishna Tractate Joma (iii. 9) these lots were made at first of boxwood and after- wards of gold, and shaken in an urn.
We have no clear indications as to the actual nature of the lots used by ancient Israel. Probably they were small tablets of stone or wood, and were inscribed with the name of the person or tribe; or, in cases of criminal trial, they may have been of different colours, one (to express guilt) differing from all the others. Probably in many cases (as in the assignments of property) there was a second vessel containing lots inscribed with the name of the property (as land or slaves). But it is not necessary to suppose this. The name of the property might be called out and a lot containin the name of the tribe or person would be drawn from the vessel, or vice versa. All this belongs to the uncertain realm of conjecture. We do know, however, that the lots were sometimes held in the fold of the outer garment (Pr 1053).
Another point which is obscure is whether the function of deciding by lot was predominantly exercised by priests or not. From Keh 11} we are led to infer that, unlike the use of the ephod and Urim and Thummim in pre-exilian times, the em- ployment of the lot, in the times both before and after the Exile, was open equally to priests and laity.
Last of all, we have to consider the obscure derivation of the name of the feast of Purim from the supposed Persian word pér, meaning ‘lot’ (Est 9°; cf. 37). Lagarde has shown that no such Persian word exists. Pers, pdre=‘ portion,’ not ‘lot.’ Zimmern’s combiration of the name with the Babyl. puhru, ‘assembly’ (ZATW, 1890,
LOVE 153 p. 158 fi.), is far more probable. Comp. the Mand. xomp, Syr. |;2sQ2 ‘meal,’ ‘feast.’ The interest- ing Babylonian parallels with the Esther narrative, suggested by him and by Jensen, will be found in Nowack’s Heb. Archdol. ii. pp. 194-200, and in Wildeboer’s ‘Esther’ in the Kurzer Hand-Com- mentar, p. 172 ff. See, further, PuRIM (FEAST OF).
On the use of the lot in classical antiquity consult Warre Cornish’s Concise Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, sub voce ‘ Sortes.’
OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE,
LOVE (4308, dydan).—Love to God and love to man are primary principles of the NT religion. But Jesus declares that on these two command- ments hang all the law and the prophets (Mt 22”; cf. 74, Mk 127%), They are therefore primary principles of the OT religion as well. ey are not, however, independent or co-ordinate, but are so related that the second springs from, or is conditioned by, the first. The love to man, in the biblical sense, springs from a heart renewed, and possessed with the love of God (1 Jn 44; ef. 271 310 4.12) ; for only by such a heart will the view be taken of man’s essential worth and dignity, of the true ends of his life, and of the possibilities of his recovery from sin, that makes love possible (cf. Lk 15") ; only in such a heart is the egoistic impulse conquered which leads us to regard other men as rivals to ourselves, to seek our own good in preference to theirs, to use them as means to our own ends, to treat them with indifference and neglect, or, if they come into collision with our interests, with envy, irritation, and resentment ; only in such a heart is there the disposition and a sufficiently powerful motive, to a sustained, holy, spiritual, ungrudging, truly disinterested love to our fellow-men, even to those who have no claims upon us, or who may have injured us, or may be personally unworthy (Mt 588, Ro 121, 1 Jn 316. 17 44).* On the other hand, it is vain for us to profess to love God if we do not love our brethren (1 Jn 25:11 810 4), But this love to God, again, which is the spring of love to man, has its source in the knowledge we have of the love which God has to us (1 Jn 47), It is the loving character of God as revealed in His words and acts to men (Ps 114 ete.), peculiarly in His grace in Christ, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross (Eph 5!-%, 1 Jn 4°!" ete.), im conjunction with the love which Christ Himself has manifested to us (Jn 13 15", Gal 2%, Eph 5” ete.), which begets responsive love, and leads to the entire surrender of ourselves to the service of God, and of our fellow-men for God’s sake. Alike in OT and in NT, love to God and love to man lead up as their last source to love in God Himself, and it is from this highest point of view, accordingly, that our proper study of the subject must begin.