3. Origin and Design of the Phylacteries. — It is the unanimous voice of Jewish tradition that the phylac- teries are enjoined in Exod. xiii. 9, 16; I>cut. vi. 8; xi, 18. It is true that Rashbara and Aben-Ezra (on Exod. xiii, 9), who are followed by De Lyra. Calvin, bishop Patrick, 11. Michaelis, Keil, etc.. take the pas question in a figurative sense, lint against this the ad- vocates of the usage urge that — (1.) It is inconceivable that the same declaration should he used four times figuratively, there being no parallel for Buch a usage throughout the whole Pentateuch. (2.) In two cases out of the tour (Deut.vi,9; xi, 20), the injunction is immediately followed by the command about tht Mezu- zah, whicb is generally admitb d to he literal [ see Mezu- zaii |, and ii i> against all sound rules of exegesis to take one command in a figurative and the other in a literal sense. (3.) In every one of the four instances wherein the injunction is given, the expression FAX is used, W hich in all other passages of Scripture iu\ ariahly denotes a visiblt sign, given either to attesl an event or doctrine staled in the foregoing pas-age. or to serve as a remembrance. Now. on the supposition that the whole commandment is to he taken figuratively, it would he no sign whatever, and the term *("~;t; could not have been substituted for the technical expression Tt-"-'. a- it is in Exod. siii, 9. i 1. 1 The end of the external action enjoined in the first clause of Exod. xiii. 9 i- im- mediately introduced in the second clause by *""2. "thai the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth ;" where- as, as Philippsohn rightly remarks, the simple conjunc- tion " would be required if the preceding word.- had the same internal figurative meaning. (5.) It was a com- mon custom in ancient days for those who engaged in military service, or devoted themselves to the worship of a special deity, to lie marked either on the forehead or on the hand, or on both ( Yogel.f/< Mil it. ii,5; Herod. ii, 113 ; Lucian, />■ Sgr.Dea,59\ Asia*. Res. rli, 28? sq.). Thus the high-priest, as being especially consecrated to the service of Jehovah, had inscribed in the plate on the fr.mt of his head "Holiness to the Lord" (Exod, Kxviii,36), the ordinary servants of Jehovah were com- manded to have a mark i Ezek. ix. 1. ii : and al the in- gathering of Israel we are told that even the horses
shall have written upon their bells "Holiness to the
PHYLACTERY
IV
Lord" (Zech. xiv, 20) ; while the worshippers of the beast are represented as bearing his inscription on their foreheads and arms (Rev. vii, 3 ; xiii, 1G-18 ; xiv, 9-11 ; xvi, 2; xix, 20; xx, 4). The Moslems, Nusairieh and Bedawln Arabs, to the present day, either tie, or have tattooed, on their hands and foreheads select passages of the Koran. It was therefore natural that the Mosaic law, which forbids tattooing (Lev. xix, 28), should ap- propriate, for the service of the Most High, the innocent and generally prevailing custom, which the lawgiver could not eradicate, of wearing ornaments and tokens, with inscriptions declaring that they belonged to Jeho- vah, and that the Lord is their Redeemer. This uni- versal custom would of itself be sufficient argument for taking the injunction in its literal sense, even if we had not the support of the ancient versions and the undevi- ating practice of the synagogue; and be it remembered that even the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and adhered to the simple meaning of the law, also wore phylacteries. As to the phrase "33 nib ?3 03PO (Prov. iii, 3, etc.), which is frequently quoted in support of the spiritual meaning, it must be observed that it too is to be taken literally, inasmuch as nib does not de- note the external front of the breast, but the tablet which the ancients wore on their hearts. It is the same as Dp22, which so frequently occurs in the Mishna (comp. Kelim, xxiv, 7), and which the Greeks called IL'va?, and the Romans Pugillares. This tablet, when made of wood, was called nib (Isa. xxx, 8 ; Habak. ii. 2) ; when of metal, it was termed "(Tbs (Isa. viii, 1), and when it was of stone it was denominated C^ZX. The argu- ment of Spencer, that because the Sept. renders niBBlB by aaaXtvra, and not (pvXaicriipia, therefore this ver- sion did not understand it literally, " inter eos (qui le- gem illam sensu tantum metaphorico exponendam cen- suerunt) LXX cum primis notandi veniunt, qui quod in Moisi est FfiSHlE ipsi non <piXaKTi)pia sed aadXevra transtulerunt" (De Leg. Hebrceor. ritual, lib. iv, c. 2), ig- nores the fact that (pvXaKrijpia is a term which obtained at a much later period as an equivalent for "pbsn. Jo- sephus, too, who like all the ancient and modern Jews takes the injunction literally, does not render MB212 by (pv\aKT>)pia (Ant. iv, 8, 13). The fact is, that in very early days there was no fixed and technical term for those frontlets. Hence Herzfeld (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii, 223) has pointed out that the phylacteries are meant in 2 Kings xi, 12, where the high-priest is said to have put upon Joash "the crown and the nil";" and Duschak (Josephus unci die Tradition, p. 85) sup- poses that the Tephillin are meant by FHIi'n "113 (Isa. viii, 1G). The injunction about the phylacteries was so generally observed among the Jews after the Babylo- nian captivity, that the writers of them found it a most lucrative business. Hence we are told that "twenty- four fast days were ordained by the Great Synagogue, in order that the writers of the scrolls of the law, the phylacteries, and the mezuzahs, might not grow rich, inasmuch as they were not allowed to write them on these days" (Pesachim, 50 b). In harmony with the design of the phylacteries, Maimonides propounds their utility, when he remarks: "The sacred influence of the phylacteries is very great ; for as long as one wears them on his head and arm he is obliged to be meek, God- fearing, must not suffer himself to be carried away by laughter or idle talk, nor indulge in evil thoughts; but must turn his attention to the words of truth and up- rightness" (Kitto). Nevertheless, the fact that these appendages, being regarded more or less in the light of amulets, engender superstition, has led interpreters gen- erally to view the sacred injunction as a spiritual or figurative precept. This is the opinion of the Karaites, Grotius, Schottgen (Her. Heb. i, 194), Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg (Pent, i, 458 sq.), and most others. In VIII.— M