But the adoption of this course did not entail any compromise of those truths of moral unity and universality that are of the essence of the relations in which God stands to His people and they to Him. He showed His sense of the greatness and validity of these as well as of other moral truths, and secured the interests attaching to them, by two other vastly important things that He did as a teacher. In the first place, He embedded all the truths of moral unity and universality referred to in His parables, which He spoke as' illustrative of the rich and diversified order of ideas presented by Him under the designation of 'the kingdom of God.' His reason for couching these ideas in para- bolic forms He Himself explained (Mt IS'""^*). His explanation implies that He would have preferred to emplo}- a more explicit way of communicating the ideas in question if circumstances had per-
PER.EA
335
mitted ; that the hearts of the adherents of the existing perverted Judaism had been blinded and hardened by the intluence of their sj'stem ; that it was impossible for them to see the truth and validity of these ideas ; and that xXxey were not in a mood to extend to them or to Himself toleration. Such was His reason for speaking of the Kingdom of heaven in parables. The true meaning of the latter was veiled from the enemies of the truth by the blindness of their ej^es. But, on the other hand, the parables, He knew, would preserve the essence of the truth as He had taught it, and to all who were of the truth the latter would in due time become revealed.
But, secondly, Christ guarded and effectively secured the interests of the truths of moral unitj' and universality, which are of the essence of His gospel, in another way. In the Kingdom of God and in the relations between God and His people, moral unity and moral universality are founded on their human side on moral individmility. In any case, therefore, it would liave been necessary for Clirist to give to moral iiulividualit}' a place of supreme importance in His teaching. And this is precisely what He did. He knew and never lost sight of the truth that moral unity and universality can never come to actual realization in the Kingdom of heaven, or, in other words, in the relations be- tween Gotl and His people, unless in so far as men are saved, and become morally perfect as indi- viduals. And therefore He not only gave His just and constant consideration to the individual, but held up before His disciples the moral perfection of God, their Father in heaven, as the ideal which they should strive individually to realize in their own character and life (Mt S'""**). This is the basis on which moral unit}' and universality are realized in the relations of men to God as His people. W. D. Thomson.
PER^A.— 1. Name and extent. — The name (^
Ufpaia), while constantly used by Josephus, is not foimd in LXX or NT, in both of which it is repre- sented by the equivalent iripav tov 'lopdavov = 1-1!--'=^ (c'f. Is 91 [Heb. 8^], Mt 4-^, Mk 10^). Juda?a, Galilee, and Per?ea were reckoned by the Jews themselves as the three Jewish provinces. The division is repeatedly assumed in the Mishna (Schiirer. ffJP. II. i. 2; cf. Jos. BJ, ill. iii. 3). The population of Pera-a was, however, never so thoroughly Jewish as that of Jud;¥a, or even of Galilee. In both Galilee and Pera?a political Wcis- situdes had occasioned a large intermingling of Jewish and Gentile elements. Notwithstanding the close neighbourhood of the three provinces, the dirterenees of their experience had produced difierences of customs and manners, which gave to each of them an independent life of its own, and caused them to be regarded as in certain respects ditterent countries (Schiirer, I.e.).
The name ' Pertea,' like the names of many of the districts east of the Jordan, was somewhat loosely used, having a wider and a narrower sig- nification. Josephus {I.e.) states tlie length of Pera?a as from Maclijerus to Pella, i.e. from the Amon to the Jabbok, and its breadth as from Philadelphia and Gerasa to the Jordan, limits coiTesponding with those of the modern Belkii. But in BJ, IV. Wi. 3. he calls Gadara ' the metropolis of Perpea.' In what sense he uses this term there is no means of ascertaining, but he must intend to include under the name ' Pera?a ' the region ex- tending north from the Jabbok to the Yarmuk (Hieromax), close to which river Gadara stood, that is to say, all that the Hebrews meant by ' beyond the Jordan.' His usage may depend on whether he happened at the moment to be referring to the district which was more completely Je^\■ish,
336
PER^A
PER^A
or to the whole region, whicli was govei-ned as one, and which included the Hellenistic towns of the Deeapolis (Atit. Xlll. ii. 3, iv. 9). Persea in its more limited sense corresponded with the kingdom of Silion, or Kenben and a part of Gad. In its larger signillcation it was from 80 to 90 miles from north to south, and about 25 from east to west.
2. Characteristics. — As regards its physical features, Pera'a consists for the most part of an elevated tableland, rising rapidly from the Jordan valley, but broken by frequent gorges and moun- tain torrents. It was, according to JVlukaddasi, pro- verbially cold. Josephus (BJ, III. iii. 3) says that, while larger than Galilee, it is mostly desert and rough, and much less adapted than that province for the cultivation of fruit. Still he admits that it is in parts very fertile, and produces all kinds of fruits, and its plains are planted with various trees, chiefly the olive, the vine, and the palm. It is sutticiently watered by streams from the moun- tains and by springs which do not fail even in summer.