The rending of the veil of the Temple would indicate the end of its sanctity, just as the tearing of a woman's veil means dishonouring her (Hamasa, Frcytag, i. 141).
It is a curious fact that Jewish tradition also records the occurrence of certain prodigies about this time. Josephus {BJ VI. V. 3) enumerates several portents which presaged the de- struction of the Temple : a sword appeared suspended over the city, a heifer about to be sacrificed brought forth a lamb, and the brazen gate opened of its own accord. Lightfoot {Prospect of the Temple, xx. 1 [Pitman's ed. ix. 32!)]) says : ' 'There are three remarkable things, which the Jews do date from forty yeara before the destruction of the Temple — namely this of the Temple-doors' opening of themselves, and the Sanhedrin's flitting from the room Gazith, and the scarlet list on the scapegoat's head not turning white.' Compare Plutarch's account of the prodigies which foreshadowed the murder of Caesar.
In He lO^" the veil of the Tabernacle is inter- preted as symbolizing the corporeal nature of Christ, and in later mysticism phenomenal exist- ence is termed 'the veil.' In 2 Co Z^-^- tlie veil (KoXvixfia) which Moses put on (Ex 34^^ .11 on, LXX Kd\v/Jifia) becomes the spiritual blindness of the Jewish nation, probably without any reference to Is 25'', where the words are ditt'erent. The veil on Israel's heart is ' done away in Christ ' (iv Xpiarui Karapye^Tai).
LiTERATt'RE. — Grimm-Thaver, Lex. s.v. xxTxriTccr/xx ; Hast- ings' DB, art. ' Veil ' ; Edersheim, LT ii. 610 ff.
T. H. Weir. VENGEANCE.— The word ' vengeance ' (iKdlKvaLs) occurs in EV of the Gospels only m Lk 21^2, where it refers to God's providential punishment of sin. iKdiKrjtn^ occurs also in the phrase woieTv eKSlKyja-iv (EV 'avenge') in the parable of the Unjust Judge (Lk 18'- *), and the corresponding verb e^Si/c^w (also rendered 'avenge'; cf. KVni 'do me ju.stice of) is found in the same parable (vv.^- ^). Outside the Gospels these words and tlie cognate IkSikos occur exactly a dozen times. Some of the passages will call for reference in the course of this article. We are not left, however, to the very rare use of
this small group of words for our Lord's teaching on vengeance. We gather it from .several pa.ssages of direct instruction, from His continual insistence on an unrevengeful, a forgiving, loving spirit, and from His own conduct throughout His ministry, but e.specially at its close.
Our word ' vengeance ' is closely related to two others, — 'avenge' and 'revenge,' — between which, at least in modern usage, an important distinction is made. Both have to do with the redress of wrong. In ' avenge ' the idea of the justice of the redress or punishment is prominent. In ' revenge,' on the other hand, the predominant thought is that of the infliction of punishment or pain, not neces- sarily unjust, for the gratification of resentful or malicious feelings (note, e.g., in Jer 15'' the .sub- stitution in RV of 'avenge' for AV 'revenge,' and on the other hand the retention of ' avenge ' in Ro 12'"). ' Vengeance ' leans, now to the one, now to the other of these meanings. It may be just, it may be malicious ; even when it is just, the motive may be wrong.
1. The aim of Christ was to create in His dis- ciples a new attitude towards those who had wronged them. Evidently He was preparing them, at least in part, for injuries that must come to them as His followers (Mt S'""'-) ; but His teaching has, of coui'se, a much wider apj^lication. The permission, even encouragement, of retaliation by the OT, and .still more the interpretations, ex- aggerations, limitations of the scribes and Phari- sees, Christ swept away with an authority whicli astounded His hearers. He denounced the attitude of retaliation and hatred, and commanded His disciples to accept the sufferings which fell to their lot. But this was more than a demand for a new attitude. It was the exorcizing of an evil spirit, and the opening of the doors of the heart to a new spirit. An attitude may be merely external and mechanical. Christ wants more. The nega- tive must have a corresponding positive or be morally worthless. Forgiveness and benevolence must take the place of vengeance ; love, not hatred, must be the motive of thought and act. ' Enemy ' must be blotted out of the vocabulary of the follower of Christ, at least as a category in which any of his fellow-men may be included. Others may hate and persecute him ; he must love and pray for them, and do them good. It is this new spirit that is the supreme moral difficulty ; it is here that all questions of interpretation and application must find their solution. We nmst remember, not only Christ's 'resist not,' but also His ' pray for,' and His ' love.'
This teaching of Christ is found constantly throughout the Gospels. He pronounced ' blessed ' the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers, the persecuted (Mt 5^- ''• "• ^^'^■). He rebuked James and John when they would have called down fire from heaven on the Samaritan village that Avould not receive Him (Lk 9^"^-)- He taught His disciples to forgive a sinning but penitent brother, not M'ith a niggard, but with a generous and inexhaustible forgiveness (Lk IT^*-, cf. Mt IS^'"'-). He even makes God's forgiveness of a man depend on the man's forgiveness of his fellow (Mt 6'^ 18*', Mk 11'^^'-). He taught His disciples to pray that they might be forgiven as they forgave others (Mt 6'^, Lk 11^). He warned the Twelve, as He sent them out on their mission (Mt 10), that they would .sutler hatred, persecution, even death, for His sake ; and charged them to be, in the midst of wolves, ' wise as serpents and harmless as doves' (v.'*), in the endurance of their sufierings to have no fear, but to rely on God.