H. Wheeler Robinson.
HANDKERCHIEF, NAPKIN.— The word (rovMpiov ( = Lat. sudariam) is translated by 'handkerchiefs' (plur.) in Ac 19^2^ b^t elsewhere in the NT by 'napkin' (Lk 192«, Jn ll^* 20'). See DCG, s.v. •Napkin.' Its equivalent appears in Talmudic literature as an article of clothing (one of the over- garments), which might be worn round the neck (cf. Suet. Nero, 51) or carried upon the arm or over the shoulder. It was also in use as a head or face cloth, approximating in idea to ' veil ' (cf. Suet. Nero, 48 ; Quintil. Instit. VI. iii. 60). The aovSapiov appears among the items of dowry in marriage contracts of the 2nd and 3rd cent. A.D. (A. Deiss- mann, Neue Bibelstudien, 1897, p. 50). According to the derivation of the word, it was a sweat-cloth, corresponding in use to our handkerchief. Catullus (Carm. xii. 14) speaks of the joke of abstracting a neighbour's napkin at meals. According to this passage the articles were of Spanish manufacture, and the material linen. The aovdapioi/ was em- ployed for waving in public assemblies. It served humbler purposes as a strainer and as a wrapper. See especially S. Krauss, Talmudische Archdologie, i. [1910] 166 f. Cf. also art. 'The Aprons and Handkerchiefs of St. Paul,' by E. Nestle, in ExpT xiii. [1901-02] 282, and see art. Apron.
W. Cruickshank.
HANDS, LAYING ON OF.— See Ordination.
HANDWRITING.— See Bond.
HARAN (AV ' Charaan,' Ac V- *).— Haran was a city of some importance, on a tributary of the Euphrates. From Ur the ancestors of Abraham emigrated to Haran (Gn IP^). Here one division, under Nahor, remained. Hence it is called 'the city of Nahor ' (24^"). It was a famous seat of the worship of Sin, the moon-god. Abram left it to enter Canaan. J. W. DUNCAN.
HARDENING.— The discussion of this subject relates to a single striking case, which St. Paul and later theologians have taken as typical. The dramatic interest of the legend of the Exodus (Ex 5-14) centres in a conflict between the Divine and the human will. Pharaoh's successive pro- mises and refusals to let the Israelites go into the wilderness are the outward signs of an inward vacillation under the alternate influences of in- sensate pride and abject fear. It is stated that his heart was hardened [l^^- "• 22 8'9 9' 9=*^)^ ^hat he hardened his heart (8'^- ^2 9*4), and that Jahweh said He would harden (42' 7* 14''), and did harden (912 101-20.27 i]io 24«), his heart. In the NT the proposition that God hardens the heart occurs only in quotations from the OT {iruipdu being used in Jn 12'*" and ffK\Ttpvv(o in Ro 9^*).
Critical exegesis makes no attempt to soften or evade the natui-al meaning of this language, which affirms, not that God merely permits (as Origen and Grotius thought), or that He foreknows, but that He effects, the hardening of the heart. If such a statement is not to be explained away, can it be explained in such a manner as to be credible? The difficulty of accepting it is a particular phase of the general difficulty of reconciling human
522
HARDENING
HARDENING
freedom with Divine sovereignty. It has been truly said that
' the relation of man, as a free moral personality, to God is even more difficult to conceive than his relation to nature ; theoloffy has more perils for human freedom than cosmolog-y. To think of God as all in all, and yet to retain our belief in human freedom or personalitv, — that is the real metaphysical diffi- culty • (J. Seth, Ethical Principles^, 1898, p. 395).
The assertion that God hardens a man's heart shocks our moral sense, because it seems to deny Divine love on the one hand and human freedom on the other. It is partly explained by the Semitic habit of recognizing- the First Cause of all events and ignoring second causes. In Nature, history, and personal experience the controlling and directing hand of God was discei'ned by tlie Hebrews. Now, ' piety demands such an em- phasizing of God's action as would logically take away man's freedom. Moral consciousness, on the other hand, demands a freedom which, looked at by itself, would exclude all divine co-operation and order' (H. Schultz, OT Theol., Eng. tr., 1892, ii. 196). The authors of the Exodus narrative, most of which is by J or E, are typical OT writers, in that they set the doctrines of sovereignty and freedom side by side without betraying any con- sciousness of a conflict between them and a need to harmonize them. Their teaching is not fatal- istic, for fatalism is the assertion of a superhuman activity which leaves no room for moral freedom. They take for granted that responsibility which the conscience, unless corrupted by sophistry, regards as the prerogative of every human being. The tyrant whom they depict is anything but a puppet in the hands of an absolute and arbitrary will. The Divine sovereignty never excludes the possibility of initiative on liis part. In every retrospect of his own conduct he feels that he could, and ought to, have chosen a difierent course. He knows that he has failed to ' lay to heart ' the judgments of God (Ex 7^). He confesses again and again that he has sinned (9-'' 10^®), and he asks Moses to forgive his sin and pray for him (10'''). He might at any moment humble himself before God, but he stubbornly refuses to do it (10^). His will is never coerced ; it is by his own deeds that he merits the penalty which is ultimately inflicted upon him. He sins and suffers, not as the victim of a Divine good-pleasure which hardens whom it will, but as a tyrant who, 'being often reproved, hardeneth his neck,' and who is therefore ' suddenly broken, and that without remedy' (Pr 29^).