HARLOT
HARLOT
523
T(j vXda-avTi), "AVhy didst thou make me thus?'" the answer must be that ' a man is not a thing, and if the whole explanation of his destiny is to be souglat in the bare will of God, he tvill say. Why didst thou make me thus ? and not even the authority of Paul will silence him ' (J. Denney, EGT, ' Komans,' 1900, p. 663). If the Potter is a God of infinite love, it is well with the clay, as Rabbi Ben Ezra sees ; but if the Potter is a God who for His mere good pleasure makes ' vessels of wrath,' who would care to worship Him ?
' We must affirm that freedom i3 the fixed point that must be held, because it is an inalienable certainty of experience, and that predestination can be only such as is consistent with it : else there is no rational and responsible life. . . . Predestination in other fields of existence need not trouble us ; but perplexity and anguish unutterable enter if we admit the supposition, or even the genuine suspicion that God has so foreordained our actions as to take away our freedom. To this the history of Christian experience bears abundant witness ' (W. N. Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology, 1S98, p. 146).
It is certain that in his general teaching St. Paul held fast both Divine sovereignty and human freedom (see Ph 2'^). It is equally certain that he left the speculative q^uestion of the relation of the two where he found it — as an antinomy which he could not transcend. Nor have any later theo- logians or philosophers solved the enigma. Finite thought is unable to comprehend that Divine activity which works in a liigher way than any other energy in the world. But ' even though the ultimate reconciliation of divine and human personality may be still beyond us' (J. Seth, op. cit. 396), it is practically enough if Christianity maintains that in relation to free beings the will of God is never an arbitrary will, enforcing itself without moral means.
' God shows respect for his creatures, and for himself as their creator, and upon the iiiiiependeiice that he has fjiven them he makes no attempt forcibly to intrude ' (W. N. Clarke, op. cit. p. 138).
While the Qur'an (xiv. 4) teaches that 'God leads astray whom He will and leads aright whom He will ; He is the Powerful, the wise,' the God revealed by Jesus Christ ' wishes not that any should perish, but that all should come to repent- ance' (2 P 3").
Literature. — In addition to books named in the art. see Calvin, Institutes, ed. 1S63, i. 198 ff. ; B. Weiss, Bib. Theol. of JSiT, Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1SS2-S3, ii. 3ff. ; A. B. Bruce, St. Paxil's Conception of Christianity, do. 1894, p. 121 ff.; F. Godet, Romans, Eng. tr., do. 1881-82, ii. 15Sff.
James Strahan.
HARLOT (TTdpfT?, niasc. 7r(5/)i/os).— The RV has dropped the words whore and whoremonger which the AV used interchangeably with ' harlot ' and ' fornicator ' to translate the Gr. words irdpvq and vopvos.
1. The word irdpvq is used in two passages (He Ipi, Ja 225) t;o describe Rahab. This Rahab is mentioned (Mt P) in the genealogy of Jesus ; and although, as Calvin says (on He IP^), the term 'harlot' is applied only to her former life ('ad anteactam vitam referri certum est'), yet difficulty was early felt as to the propriety of giving her such an honoured position as she has in the NT.
Theophylact in the 12th cent, expressed doubt as to the correctness of identifying her with the Rahab of Jos 2^ ('There are some who think that Rachab Avas that Rahab the harlot who received the spies of Joshua the son of Nave ' [Enarratio in Mt P]). He has been followed in this by others, notably the Dutch professor, G. Outhov ('Disser- tatio de Raab et Racliab,' in Bibl. hist. -phil. -theol. Bremensis, Bremen and Amsterdam, 1719-25, class iii. p. 438), C. T. Kuinoel {Nov. Test. lib. hist., Greece, London, 1835, i. 2), and H. Olshausen (Com. on Gospels and Acts'^, Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1852- 54, in lac.). Valpy also contends that the two
cannot be the same (Greek Testament, London, 1836, i. 4). There is no reason, however, for doubt- ing that the two are identical. Jewish tradition makes the identification, although her entrance into the Israelitish community is variously related (see John Lightfoot, Horce Hebraicce, ed. Gandell, Oxford, 1859, ii. 11, for details).
Various reasons have been suggested for Rahab's •inclusion among the Saviour's forbears (cf. also Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba). Grotius suggests that it in a, prohidium of the gospel of Him wiio saved idolaters and criminals; Wetstein, that it might meet Jewish objections to Mary's position — and this seems most likely.
There have been attempts also to weaken the force of TTopvT) as applied to her. Josephus (Ant. V. i. 2) speaks of her house as a KarayJiyiov. She is described as an inn-keeper in the Targum on Jos 2^ — Nn'piJia (TravdoKeiTpia). In the NT also in some texts of Heb. (K') she is so described, and in Clem. Rom. (Ep. ad Cor. i. 12) various readings show a tendency towards softening down Tr6pi'ri (see J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 'Clem. Rom.,' ii. [1890] 46 ff. ). The term, however, is really used in the ordinary sense, and has to be so understood.