forth
with
His
disciples
over
the
brook
Kidron'
(Jn
18')
for
His
great
and
terrible
agony
before
His
crucifixion.
E.
W.
G.
Masterman.
KILAN.
—
Sixty-seven
sons
of
Kilan
and
Azetas
returned
with
Zerub.
(1
Es
6");
in
the
lists
of
Ezr
2
and
Neh
7
the
names
are
omitted.
KIN
(NEXT
OF),
EINSItUN,
AVENGER
OF
BLOOD,
GOEL.
—
1.
'Next
of
Idn'
is
the
nearest
equivalent
in
modern
jurisprudence
of
the
Heb.
gd'il,
itself
the
participle
of
a
verb
originally
signifying
to
claim
(vindicare),
then
to
buy
back.
The
duties
devolving
on
the
goel
belonged
to
the
domain
both
of
civil
and
of
criminal
law.
If
a
Hebrew,
for
example,
were
reduced
to
selling
a
part,
or
the
whole,
of
his
property,
it
was
the
duty
of
his
next
of
kin
to
purchase
the
property,
if
it
was
in
his
power
to
do
so.
The
classical
instance
of
the
exercise
of
this
'
right
of
redemption'
is
the
case
of
the
prophet
Jeremiah,
who
purchased
the
property
of
his
cousin
Hanamel
in
Anathoth,
on
being
asked
to
do
so
in
virtue
of
his
relationship
(Jer
32"*).
Similarly,
should
a
sale
have
actually
taken
place,
the
right
of
redemption
fell
to
'
his
kinsman
that
is
next
to
him'
(Lv
25^).
The
case
of
Naomi
and
'
the
parcel
of
land
'
belonging
to
her
deceased
husband
was
compUcated
by
the
presence
of
Ruth,
who
went
with
the
property,
for
Ru
4'
must
read
'
thou
must
buy
also
Ruth
the
Moabitess,
the
wife
of
the
dead.
The
true
god
accordingly
transferred
his
rights
to
Boaz,
who
came
next
to
him
in
the
degree
of
relationship.
In
all
these
cases
the
underlying
idea
is
that
the
land
is
the
inalienable
property
of
the
clan
or
'family'
(Ru
2')
in
the
wider
sense.
The
duties
of
the
god,
however,
extended
not
merely
to
the
property
but
also
to
the
person
of
a
relative.
Should
the
latter
have
been
compelled
by
misfortune
to
sell
himself
as
a
slave,
it
fell
to
his
next
of
kin
to
redeem
him.
Hence
arose
an
extensive
use
of
the
verb
and
its
participle
in
a
figurative
sense,
by
which
J"
is
represented
as
a
god
(EV
redeemer),
and
Israel
as
His
redeemed
(so
esp.
in
Is
41»
43"
and
oft.).
2.
The
most
serious
of
all
the
duties
incumbent
on
the
god,
in
earlier
times
more
particularly,
was
that
of
avenging
the
murder
of
a
relative.
In
this
capacity
he
was
known
as
the
avenger
of
blood
(.gB'el
hod-dam).
The
practice
of
blood-revenge
is
one
of
the
most
widely
spread
customs
of
human
society,
and
is
by
no
means
confined
to
the
Semitic
races,
although
it
is
still
found
in
full
vigour
among
the
modern
Arabs.
By
the
Bedouin
of
the
Sinaitic
peninsula,
for
instance,
the
hereditary
vendetta
is
kept
up
to
the
fifth
generation
(see
tjie
interesting
details
given
in
Lord
Cromer's
Report
on
Egypt,
1906,
13
ff.).
In
primitive
times,
therefore,
if
a
Hebrew
was
slain,
it
was
the
sacred
duty
of
his
next
of
kin
to
avenge
his
blood
by
procuring
the
death
of
his
slayer.
This,
it
must
be
emphasized,
was
in
no
sense
a
matter
of
private
vengeance.
It
was
the
affair
of
the
whole
clan,
and
even
tribe,
of
the
murdered
man
(2
S
14'),
the
former,
as
it
were,
delegating
its
rights
to
the
nearest
relatives.
Hebrew
legislation
sought
to
Umit
the
appUcation,
and
generally
to
regulate
the
exercise,
of
this
principle
of
a
life
for
a
life.
Thus
the
Book
of
the
Covenant
removes
from
its
appUcation
the
case
of
accidental
homicide
(Ex
21«;
cf.
Dt
19'-i=,
Nu
SS'-"),
while
the
legislation
of
Dt.
further
restricts
the
sphere
of
the
vendetta
to
the
actual
criminal
(Dt
24i6).
In
the
older
legislation
the
local
high
places
appear
as
asylums
for
the
manslayer,
until
his
case
should
be
proved
to
be
one
of
wilful
murder,
when
he
was
handed
over
to
the
relatives
of
the
man
he
had
slain
(Ex
21"-
").
With
the
abolition
of
the
local
sanctuaries
by
the
reforms
of
Josiah
it
was
necessary
to
appoint
certain
special
sanctuaries,
which
are
known
as
cities
of
refuge
(see
Refuge
[Cities
ofJ).
An
interesting
feature
of
the
regulations
concerning
blood-revenge
among
the
Hebrews
is
the
almost
total
absence
(cf.
Ex
2V)
of
any
legal
provision
for
com-
pounding
with
the
relatives
of
the
murdered
man
by
means
of
a
money
payment,
the
poini
of
the
Greeks
(see
Butcher
and
Lang's
tr.
of
the
Odyssey,
408
ff.)
and
the
wergdd
of
Saxon
and
Old
English
law.
A.
R.
S.
Kennedy.
KINAH.
—
A
town
in
the
extreme
south
of
Judah
(Jos
15^2).
The
site
is
unknown.
Cf.
Kenites.
KINDNESS.—
The
pattern
of
all
kindness
is
set
before
us
in
the
Bible
in
the
behaviour
of
God
to
our
race.
He
gives
the
sunshine
and
the
rain,
and
fruitful
seasons
and
glad
hearts,
food
and
all
the
good
they
have
to
the
just
and
the
unjust
alike
(Mt
6«
7",
Ac
14").
But
the
exceeding
wealth
of
His
grace
is
shown
unto
us
in
kind-ness
toward
us
in
Christ
Jesus
(Eph
2').
God's
glory
no
man
can
look
upon
and
live.
It
is
a
light
that
no
man
can
approach
unto.
It
is
inconceivably
great,
incomprehensibly
grand,
unimaginably
exalted
above
the
grasp
of
man's
mind.
But
the
kindness
of
God
is
God's
glory
stooping
to
man's
need.
It
is
God's
power
brought
within
man's
reach.
It
is
God's
mercy
and
God's
love
and
God's
grace
flowing
through
time
and
through
eternity,
as
broad
as
the
race,
as
deep
as
man's
need,
as
long
as
man's
immortality.
The
Bible
reveals
it.
Jesus
incarnated
it.
In
His
Ufe
the
kindness
of
God
found
its
supreme
manifestation
(TitS'-').
All
the
children
of
God
are
to
be
like
the
Father
in
this
regard
(Mt
5",
Ro
12'",
Col
3"-»).
The
philanthropy
of
God
(Tit
3*)
is
to
be
reproduced
in
the
philanthropy
of
men
(2
P
1»).
D.
A.
Hates.
KING.
—
1.
Etymology
and
use
of
the
term.
—
The
Heb.
name
for
'
king
'
(mdek)
is
connected
with
an
Assyr.
root
meaning
'advise,'
'counsel,'
'rule,'
and
it
seems
to
have
first
signified
'the
wise
man,'
the
'counsellor,'
and
then
'
the
ruler.'
The
root
occurs
in
the
names
of
several
Semitic
deities,
e.g.
Molech,
the
tribal
god
of
the
Ammonites,
and
the
Phcen.
Mdkarth.
In
the
days
of
Abraham
we
find
the
title
'king'
appUed
to
the
rulers
of
the
city-States
of
Palestine,
e.g.
Sodom,
Gomorrah,
etc.
(Gn
14^).
We
also
find
references
to
kings
in
all
the
countries
bordering
on
Canaan
—
Syria,
Moab,
Ammon,
Egypt,
etc.,
and
in
later
times
Assyria,
Babylonia
and
Persia.
In
the
NT
the
title
'king'
is
applied
to
the
vassal-king
Herod
(Mt
2',
Lk
1»)
and
to
Agrippa
(Ac
25").
In
the
Psalms
and
the
Prophets
God
Himself
is
constantly
designated
'King
of
Israel'
or
'my
King'
{e.g.
Is
43«
446,
pg
iQie
24'-
»•
»•
'»
44<
74'2
84=
etc.),
and
the
Messianic
advent
of
the
true
King
of
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
predicted
(Zee
9',
Is
32'
etc.).
In
the
NT
Christ
is
represented
as
the
fulfilment
of
this
prophecy
and
as
the
true
King
of
God's
Kingdom
(cf.
Jn
IS^^-
",
1
Ti
615,
Rev
17").
2.
The
ofSce
of
king
in
Israel.
—
(1)
Institution.
The
settlement
of
the
people
of
Israel
in
Canaan,
and
the
change
from
a
nomadic
to
an
agricultural
life,
laid
the
incomers
open
to
ever
fresh
attacks
from
new
adventurers.
Thus
in
the
time
of
the
judges
we
find
Israel
ever
liable
to
hostile
invasion.
In
order
to
preserve
the
nation
from
extermination,
it
became
necessary
that
a
closer
connexion
and
a
more
intimate
bond
of
union
should
exist
between
the
different
tribes.
The
judges
in
the
period
subsequent
to
the
settlement
seem,
with
the
possible
exception
of
Gideon
(Jg
S"),
to
have
been
little
more
than
local
or
tribal
heroes,
carrying
on
guerilla
warfare
against
their
neighbours.
The
successes
of
the
warlike
PhiUstines
made
it
clear
to
patriotic
minds
that
the
tribes
must
be
more
closely
connected,
and
that
a
permanent
leader
in
war
was
a
necessity.
Accordingly
Saul
the
Benjamite
was
anointed
by
Samuel
(1
S
10'),
and
appointed
by
popular
acclamation
(lO^*
11").
The
exploits
of
Saul
and
his
sons
against
the
Ammonites
(liu«),
against
the
Amalekites
(15').
and
against
the
Philistines
(14»)
showed
the
value
of
the
kingly
office;
and
when
Saul
and
his
sons
fell
on
Mt.
Gilboa,
it
was
not
long
till
David
the
outlaw
chief
of
Judah
was
invited
to
fill
his
place.
