§ Ezekiel's ideal division of the land was by lot (Ezk 4722 48-9). It was the intention of Antiochus, after subduing Palestine, to plant colonies in the land, dividing it among them by lot (1 Mac3S6). Josephus (BJ m. viiL 7) saved his life by inducing his soldiers to agree that the order in which they should kUl each other should be decided by lot. He adds this conniieul, ' whether we must say it happened iO by chance, or whether M' the providence of God.'
3. In the New Testament. — At the Crucifixion of Jesus we see its secular and Roman use when the soldiers divided His upper garments among themselves by lot.
After the suicide of Judas it was decided that a successor should be appointed. The procedure (Ac 121-26) ^ya,s as follows. From the mass of the followers of Jesus, numbering about one hundred and twenty, those only were declared eligible who had proved their steadfastness by keeping in con- stant contact with Him from His baptism. From this short leet they appointed [iar-qaav ; not ' put forward ') two. Neither the parties who did this nor the method of doing it are mentioned. Then prayer was ottered to Jesus* for His decision. The next step is not quite certain. If the words iSuKav KXr/povs avroh, which is the correct reading, mean 'they gave the lots to them,' then that indicates that to each of the two tiiere was given to place in the proper receptacle a tablet with his name or mark, and he whose tablet was first shaken out was held to be Divinely elected. But the phrase is not the classical nor the NT expres- .sion for casting lots, and if rendered ' they gave lots for them,' a quite legitimate rendering, then, as Mosheim held,t the election was by ballot. This, of course, is not in harmony with Jewish practice, as seen in the selection of the goats (Lv 16^). From the result being indicated by the words 'the lot fell' and not 'the Lord chose,' it has been argued that the election was unwarranted and that the Divine intention was that St. Paul should fill the place of Judas. This is a piece of pure imagination. Nor is there a shadow of proof that the eleven were in any special manner led either to appoint a successor or to appoint him by this method. The fact that the election took place before Pentecost has no vital significance. The act, in the face of the enemies of the Church, was, like the auctioning of the camp of Hannibal by the Romans, a boldly prudent step, a declara- tion to all that the Church was neither cowed by the death of her Lord nor dejected by the suicide of the traitor, but was girding herself for a forward march. When St. James was martyred there was no occasion for such an act, and no successor was appointed. Hence this remains the only official use of the lot in the Apostolic Church. J Klero- mancy has left its mark on the thought, and specially on the soteriology, of the Apostolic Age. /cX^pos is used in the secondary sense which it gradually gained as something assigned to man by a higher power. Judas had received rbv K\ripov in the ministry carried on by Jesus (cf. //. xxiii. 862 ; Ac P'), and his successor was to take not rbv KXrjpov (a C*E), but only his rdirov, ' place ' (ABC*D ; Ac 1-5), while in it Simon Magus had neitlier /xeph oiidi /cX^pos, neither a share, a limited portion, nor an allotment (Ac 8-'). The irpea^vrepoi must not exercise lordly mastery (cf. Ps 9 [lOp) over what is not theirs, but tQiv kXtjpwv, allotments made to them (I P 5^). Ignatius prays for grace eh to rbv KXrjpdv fxov dvefj.TrodiffTws aTroXa^eli', ' to cling to my lot without hindrance to the end ' {Epistle to the Roiiiiins, {.). K\7]pot>o/xla has its original sense of an allotment made by a higher power. Abraham went out from Ur into a Tdtrov, a district in which he was promised an allotment (He IP), but in
• H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord^i, 1885, p. 375 ; A. Carr in Expositor, 6th ser. i. [1900] 389 ; and various Coninien- aries in loco.
t J. L. Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, 1S68, p. 20, note 3.
J J. Binjrham, Originex Ecclesiasticoe, 1840, iv. 1. 11 ; J. Cochrane, TJiscourses on Difficult Texts of Scripture, 1851, \\ 297 : J. B. Li(,'htfoot, Epistle to the Philii>pian.s^, 1870, p. 240 ; F. W. Hobertson, Sermons, 4th ser., 1874, p. 117; F. Kendall, Expositor, 3rd ser. vii. [1888] 357 ; HDB iii. 305, and literature there mentioned. The Didache (15) contains no reference to the method of electing bishops and deacons.
which he actually got none (Ac 7®), the allotment, and all its accompaniments, resting on nothing legal, but on a mere promise (Gal S''*). Similarly the called of God still receive only the promise of an allotment which is eternal (He 9'^).