[See page image]

Page 443

x. 37-39; Luke xi. 23; etc.). Thus singleness of heart stands in contrast with a condition of heart in which different tendencies exist side by side, the religious-ethical disposition being interwoven with tendencies of the natural ego and thus obscured in its purity and deprived of its value which lies in its oneness and singularity (Matt. xxii. 37; 11 Cor. vi. 14 sqq.). Excluding the intermingling of different currents or tendencies, which destroy the compact unity of Christian character, singleness of heart in the religious sense denotes the entire uprightness, straightforwardness, and determination of the heart which in undivided receptivity accepts the grace of God as he offers it (Ps. cxix., cxxx.). In the ethical sense, singleness of heart denotes purity, soundness, and soberness of disposition by means of which the ethical action is the spontaneous outgrowth of love from faith. Self-preservation in singleness of heart is a duty of the justified who will not fall back into the error of self-redemption.

In dogmatics the conception has found its place under the conception of sanctification because of the peculiar constitution of the religious-ethical consciousness, which must cling to the human cooperation with grace in order that the progress of the state of grace according to the essence of the Kingdom of God may take place in an ascending line. (L. LEMME.)

SWIM: The name of a region or a people mentioned in Ira. xlix. 12. The prophet announces in the context that Yahweh is about to gather his still scattered people from the places of their imprisonment. He then closes with the statement: " Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west [Hebr. miyyam, " from the sea"]; and these from the land of Sinim." Divergent views exist as to the interpretation of the thrice-occurring " these." On first sight the meaning seems to be " these . . . , others . . . , and still others . . . ," i.e., three categories seem to be embraced. In that case, Nagelsbach's suggestion that the first " these " is general and is distributed by the second and third " these " does not comport with the text. It is to be noted that before the first and second cases comes the Hebrew word hinneh (rendered in the A. V. " Behold . . . lo," in the R. V. more correctly " Lo . . . to "). It can not be supposed that a third " to " has fallen out and that consequently the general statement " from far " is explained by the designation of special localities in what follows. Duhm and Marti propose to strike out the clause " from the north " and to substitute the sentence " and those from the ends of the earth," making four categories. But the junction in the text of " from the north and from the west " makes of this clause a joint description of one class of exiles-i.e., those in the northwest, the land of Phenicia in its whole extent, Syria, Asia Minor, and the " isles " (Ira. xlix. 1), where since the sixth century prisoners had been sold (cf. Obad. 20). The prophet does not intend to name here four regions (for a case where four are mentioned cf. Ira. x1iii. 5-6), but three, and to this threefold partition Greek and Aramaic translations, and so the best Jewish tradition, testify. Nor is Cheyne justified in

making miyyam here mean as an exception " from the South" (Prophecies of Isaiah, ii. 16, London, 1884).

In defining the expression " from far," one must realize that the spiritual center for the dispersed Israelites as well as the center of reference of the author of Ira. xl. aqq. was Palestine (cf. Ira. xl. 9, xlix. 14, Iii. 7). As compared with Assyria and Babylonia, the northwestern regions of Phenicia and Syria were relatively near. Since the transportation of captives from Israel and Judah were to the Tigris and Euphrates (II Kings xvii. 6, xxiv. 15; Tobit i. 10, 14), when one spoke of exiles the Hebrews in those regions came naturally to mind. The expression " from far " would naturally refer, therefore, to those regions. But the collocation of words in the text does not relate " from far " and " from the land of Sinim," which latter therefore did not lie in the most distant east or south. In locating Sinim one must remember the law of prophecy: prophets whose date can be surely fixed reveal a parallelism between prediction and history, and they name only such lands or peoples as are within the ken of those whom they address. Accordingly Sinim must refer to the inhabitants of Sin (q.v.), viz., the inhabitants of the region about Pelusium, of which Sin was the frontier fortress, the key, the entrance, and the emblem. To note the importance to the Hebrews of the region of which Sin was the beginning one need but remember Jer. xlii. 1 aqq. Moreover, it is to be remarked that expressions such as " the land of . . ." designate always a small district (Ira. ix. 1). With this interpretation agrees the construction of the Targum, Jerome, Rashi, David Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, Bochart, Ewald, and Bunsen. One may not correct the text and read Sewenim (with A. Klostermann in Deuterojesaia, Munich, 1893; T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, London, 1895; K. Marti, commentary on Isaiah, Tiibingen, 1900, and others), since Swnh (Ezek. xxix. 10) and Syn (Sin) (Ezek. xxx. 15) are different places in Egypt. [See remark under SIN, following signature.]

In accordance with the law of prophecy enunciated above, Sinim might refer to the Sinites of the Phenician coast (Gen. x. 17), only that these would be already included in the miyyam in the preceding clause. It would be possible also to think of the Kurdish clan Sin in the district of Kerkuk in the province of Bagdad suggested by Egli, provided the stock is really old enough and had significance for the hearers or readers of this prophecy; but in that case it would be natural to hear something of the exiles in that place, and the silence needs explanation. But this very law of prophecy does not encourage one to think of China. When this prediction was written there had been no emigration of Jews to China, and it was, in general, impossible for the author of the passage in question to have meant by Sinim the inhabitants of the Middle Kingdom. Authorities do not claim a settlement of Jews in China before the third century before Christ (EB, iv. 4644; JE, iv. 33-34), and the tradition of the Chinese Jews carries their history in the country back to the Han dynasty (206 a.c. to 201 A.D.). Finally, were the region of China referred to in the passage, etymological considerations would lead