IDOLATRY

IGNORANCE

from the ethical or from the utilitarian standpoint. It the legislation embodied in the Pentateuch had all along been an acknowledged, even though a neglected, code, such a complete neglect of it during long periods, taken with the total silence about its distinctive features in the sayings and writings of the most enlightened and devoted men, would present phenomena quite inex-plicable. It is needful, therefore, to observe that the true development from original Mosaism, though perhaps never quite neglected by the leaders of the nation, does not appear distinctly in any legislation until the closing decades of the 7th cent. B.C. This develop-ment continued through and beyond the Exile. Until the Deuteronomic epoch began, the enactments of Mosaism in regard to idolatry were clearly of the slenderest proportions. There is good reason for thinking that the Second of the Ten Commandments is not in its earliest form; and it is probable that Ex 34^'-^^ (from the document J, i.e. c. B.C. 850) contains an earlier Decalogue, embodying such traditional Mosaic legisla-tion as actually permitted the use of simple images (distinct from molten cultus-idols. Ex 34"). Such development accounts for the phenomena presented by the history of idolatry in Israel. For example, Samuel sacrifices in one of those 'high places' (IS Q'^ff-) which Hezekiah removed as idolatrous (2 K 180. Elijah, the stern foe of Baalism, does not denounce the calf- worship attacked later on by Hosea. Even Isaiah can anticipate the erection in Egypt of a pillar (Is 19") like those which Josiah in the next century destroyed (2 K 23"). As vrith reforming prophets, so with reforming kings. Jehu in Israel extirpates Baalism, but leaves the calf- worship alone (2 K lO^"). In Judah, where heathenism went to greater lengths, but where wholesome reaction was equally strong, Asa, an iconoclastic reformer, tolerates 'high places' (1 K IS'^-H; cf. Jehoshaphat's attitude, 1 K 22"). It was the work of the 8th cent. prophets that prepared the way for the remarkable reformation under Josiah (2 K 22. 23). Josiah's reign was epoch-making in everything connected with Hebrew religious thought and practice. To this period must be assigned that Deuteronomic legislation which completed the earlier attempts at reformation. This legislation aims at the complete destruction of everything suggestive of idolatry. A code, otherwise humane, is on this point extremely severe: idolatry was punish-able by death (Dt 172-'; cf. 6" 8" 138-i» etc.). Such a view of idolatry exhibits in its correct perspective the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the elaborate Levitical enactments, the exilic and post-exilic litera-ture. Distinctive Judaism has succeeded to Jehovism, monotheism has replaced henotheism, racial and religious exclusiveness has supplanted the earlier eclecticism. The Exile marks practically the end of Hebrew Idolatry. The lesson has been learned by heart.

A striking proof of the great change is given by the MaccabaBan war, caused by the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to force idolatry on the very nation which in an earlier period had been only too prone to accept it. Relations with Rome in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. illustrate the same temper. Had not Caligula's death so soon followed his insane proposal to erect his statue in the Temple, the Jews would assuredly have offered the most determined resistance; a century later they did actively resist Rome when Hadrian desecrated the site of the ruined Temple.

4. Teaching of the NT. — As idolatry was thus non-existent in Judaism in the time of Christ, it is not surprising that He does not allude to it. St. Paul, however, came into direct conflict with it. The word itself (eidSlolatreia) occurs first in his vmtings; we have his illuminating teaching on the subject in Ro I's-az, Ac 17»-", 1 Co 8 etc. But idolatry in Christian doctrine has a wider significance than the service of material idols. Anything that interferes between the soul and its God is idolatrous, and is to be shunned

376

(cf. Eph 5=, Ph 319, 1 Jn 5™'-, and the context of Gal 520 etc.). See also art. Images.

H. F. B. COMPSTON.

IDTTEL (1 Es 8«) =Ezr S" Ariel. The form is due to confusion of Heb. d and r.

IDUlLffiA.— The Greek equivalent (in RV only in Mk 3') of the name Edom, originally the territory east of the Jordan-Arabah valley and south of the land of Moab. This country was inhabited, when we first catch a glimpse of it, by a primitive race known as Horites, of whom little but the name is known. The apparent meaning of the name (' cave-dwellers ') and comparison with the remains of what seems to ha ve been an analogous race discovered in the excavations at Gezer, shew that this race was at a low stage of civilization. They were partly destroyed, partly absorbed, by the Bedouin tribes who claimed descent through Esau from Abraham, and who were acknowledged by the Israelites as late as the date of the Deuteronomic codes as brethren (Dt 23'). They were governed by sheiks (EV 'dukes,' a lit. tr. of the Lat. dux), and by a non-hereditary monarchy whose records belonged to a period anterior to the time of Saul (Gn 36si->9, 1 ch 1«-"). See Edom.

After the fall of Babylon the pressure of the desert Arabs forced the Edomites across the Jordan-Arabah valley, and the people and name Were extended westward. In 1 Mac 5^' we find Hebron included in Idumaea. Josephus, with whom Jerome agrees, makes Idumaea extend from Beit Jibrin to Petra; Jerome assigns the great caves at the former place to the troglodyte Horites. The Herod family was by origin Idumsan in this extended sense. In the 2nd cent. a.d. the geog-rapher Ptolemy restricts Idumaea to the cis-Jordanic area, and includes the original trans-Jordanic Edom in Arabia. R. A. S. Macalister.

lEDDIAS (1 Es 9=6). — One of those who agreed to put away their ' strange ' wives, called Izziah in Ezr 10".

lEZER, lEZERITES (Nu 26™) .—Contracted from Abiezer, Abiezerites. See Abiszer.

IGAL. — 1. The spy representing the tribe of Issachar (Nu 13'). 2. One of David's heroes, the son of Nathan of Zobah (2 S 2336). in the parallel list (1 Ch 11") the name is given as 'Joel, the brother of Nathan.' 3. Son of Shemaiah of the royal house of David (1 Ch 3=2).

IGDALIAH. — A 'man of God,' father of Hanan, whose name is mentioned in connexion with Jeremiah's interview with the Rechabites (Jer 35').

I&KORANCE. — It appears to be in accordance with natural justice that ignorance should be regarded as modifying moral responsibility, and this is fully recog-nized in the Scriptures. In the OT, indeed, the knowl-edge of God is often spoken of as equivalent to true reUgion (see Knowledge), and therefore ignorance is regarded as its opposite (1 S 2'^, Hos 4' 66). But the Levitical law recognizes sins of ignorance as needing some expiation, but with a minor degree of guilt (Lv 4, Nu 1522-62). go 'ignorances' are spoken of in 1 Es 8'= (RV 'errors'). To 36, Sir 23"- as partly involuntary (cf. He 52 9'). The whole of the OT, however, is the history of a process of gradual moral and spiritual enlightenment, so that actions which are regarded as pardonable, or even praiseworthy, at one period, become inexcusable in a more advanced state of knowledge. In the NT the difference between the 'times of ignorance' and the light of Christianity is recognized in Ac 176" (cf. 1 Ti 1'6, 1 p 114), and ignorance is spoken of as modifying responsibility in Ac 3", 1 Co 2', Lk 23«. This last passage, especially, suggests that sin is pardon-able because it contains an element of ignorance, while Mk 329 appears to contemplate the possibility of an absolutely wilful choice of evil with full knowledge of what it is, which will be unpardonable (cf. 1 Jn 5"). Immoral and guilty ignorance is also spoken of in Ro I'™-, Eph 4>». For the question whether Christ in