UTTKKAXCE
VKMiKAXCK
t;;i.">
well known to the reaJers of these siihitations. We shall suppose him to have been resident at the time of writing in Rome or in Ephesus, accordinf; to our view of the destination of Ho 16. 'In the adjective " our" the Apostle may inrliide with him- self either the pair he has just named [I'risia and Af^uila], or the whole of those mentioned in the list before Urbanus ; or, on the other hand, his constant comjianions like Timothy, Silvanus, and Titus ' (see C. von Weizsiieker, Apostolic Age, Eng. tr., i. [1S04] 394). T. B. ALLWORTHY.
UTTERANCE.— The word 'utterance' is found five times in the AV of the NT : once in .'\cts (2*) and four times in the writings of St. Paul (1 Co 1°, 2 Co 8", Eph 6'", Col 4"). In the passage in Acts it does not rejiresent any substantive in the original, tlie phrase translated ' as the Spirit gave them utterance ' being literally ' as the Spirit
gave them to speak ' (iirof^BiyyiaBat). Where it occurs in St. Paul's Epistles it rejjresents the (Jreek word \i57os, and in two passages (1 Co 1°, '2 Co 8') it is used in conjunction with ' knowled^'e ' (yfuais). In Col 4' the phrase of the A V ' a door ot utterance ' has been changeil by the Kevisers to 'a door for the word.' The meaning to be attached to \6yof has, therefore, been changed from the power of e.\pressiou i)ossessed by the speaker to the Divine message which he is charged to deliver.
The significance of the word in the NT .seems to be the power of speech rather than w hat is actually spoken. This jiower is a gift of the Holy Spirit, bestowed on certain individuals, with the implica- tion that it has been given for some special purpose. It might therefore be fittingly apjdied to the pro- phets (cf. 1 Co 14), though it is not so used in fact.
The Apostolic Fathers do not use Xii70! in this sense. R. H. Malden.
VANITY.— Neither in the OT nor in the NT is the word 'vanity' used in the sense of self-conceit or vainglory (see PRIDE) : it is always a rendering of imraidTTji, which is an essentially Scriptural word, not being found in an ethical sense in the classical writers. There is, however, an adjective, rendered ' vain,' which has no corresponding substantive, namely xfuSs. Perhaps the prevailing sense of (ffi-ds is 'emptiness' or ' hollowness,' while /idToios rather expresses 'futility' or ' frnitlessness,' and denotes an absence of aim or a purpose unfulfilled ; but the two epithets are so nearly synonymous even on the showing of R. C. Trench (NT Syno- n)/ins^, London, 1880, p. 180 f., where be defines kiiros xevis [1 Co 15™] as 'labour which yields no return ') that the distinction cannot always be pressed. J. B. JIayor on 2 P 2" (see The Epistle of St. Jude, and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1907) discusses the passages of LXX where MaTai(5r7)s is found, e.g. Ps 4- 39" and the famous Ec 1- ('vanity of vanities'), and concludes that in these cases, as in 2 P 2'", the word approximates to the Pauline use in Ro 8-° ('the creation was subjected to vanity') and denotes what is simplj' passing and transient. On the other hand, in Ps 26^ 119" 1448 and Eph 4" he is of opinion that the word expresses moral instability, being used ' of men without principle on whom no reliance can be placed.'
As against the view of Maj'or, it should be remembered that in Ro 8-° the meaning of result- lessness or ineffectiveness (see Sanclay- Head- lam, ICC, 'Romans'', Edinburgh, 1902, in lor.) is equally harmonious with the context as in- dicating the opposite of rAeios, that is, the dis- ajipointing character of the present existence with its unfulfilled aims and its pursuit of ends never realized. The word is found in Barn. iv. 10; Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 2; Ignatius, a(Z TraW. viii. 2. On the whole, an examination of the passages where ixaTai6Tri% anil /idraios are found as well as compound words like liaTaioKoyia and iiaraioTrovla tends to support the theory that 'vanity,' or /xarai- 6x7)1 (Heb. Sjn, though in LXX the word is also a rendering of ki?'), denotes 'either absence of pur- pose or failure to attain any true purpose' (J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesinyis-, London, 1909, on 4").
R. Martin Popk.
VEIL (KUTairiTaaim). — The tabernacle was divided
into two parts by means of a veil or curtain, which the writer of Hebrews calls 'the second veil ' (t6 Sdirepov Karaw^TiKrfia, 9'), to distinguish it from the screen which huu" before the entrance to the Holy Place. It was ot fine tapestry, and was suspended upon four pillars overlaid with gold (Ex 26^'-"-). Joseplnis (vl«<. VIII. iii. :!)calls it^^Sdrtpoi' Karair^Taafia, and Philo {de Gig. 12) rd iaunarov Kara- TT^TaiT/ia, but it was pre-eminently the veil (nri^n, while the curtain at the door of the Holy Place was known as Tipn, tr. ' a screen ' in RV), and it is the only one referred to in the NT. In He 6'" 'the place within the veil' [rb iawTfpov toC koto- TTfTdff/iaTos), which only the high priest might enter once a year, is figuratively used of heaven, the in- most shrine into which Jesus, a High Priest of another order, has entered as a Forerunner. In 10"" the veil is allegorized as the corporeal and earthly n.ature of the Christ, who is said to have dedicated a way into heaven ' through the veil, that is, his flesh.' As the veil of the tabernacle, aiul that of the Temple, hung between the high priest and the shrine which was hallowed by the Shekinah, so Christ's frail humanity lay between Him and the glory of the heavenly sanctuary. His flesh had to be rent — as the Temple veil was rent (Mk 15'*) — that He might enter, and by so enter- ing He became a Pioneer and Pathfinder for all seekers after immortality. JAMES Strahan.