PROSELYTE(πpoσηλvτo<i) is the term most frequently adopted by the Septuagint, especially in legal passages, to represent the Hebrew ηj. The ger, or more fully ger vftöshäb, is not any “stranger” but a stranger dwelling in a Hebrew community and enjoying a certain measure of protection. In old time at least the position of such a stranger was no doubt very insecure, for he had no strong kinsmen to take his part, and so, like the widow and orphan, with whom many passages of the Old Testament associate him, he was liable to oppression. The law as well as the prophets commend him to the humane regard of his neighbours, but it would have been quite foreign to antique ideas to grant him equal rights (see Lev. xxv. 45; Deut, xxiii. 20). Like the Arabic jar, therefore (whose name is at bottom the same), he must have generally sought to attach himself as a client to some individual or community able to protect him, and so we must understand the metaphor in passages like Ps. xv. 1, xxxix. 12....
In the old Hebrew kingdom the word gër had a civil not a religious significance, and it would almost seem that a poor Israelite without inheritance might sink to this position, which indeed is scarcely distinguishable from that of the Le vite in Jud. xvii. 8, who went forth to sojourn (gur) where he might find a place. The exile and the restoration made a change in this as in all other aspects of Hebrew society. On the one hand Ezekiel xlvii. 22 and Isa. xiv. 1 contemplate that the restored nation shall be recruited by strangers who are received on equal terms; but, as the Jews returned not as an independent nation but as a distinct religious community, this implies especially that the sons of the stranger, by joining Israel, observing the Sabbath, and holding fast to Jehovah’s covenant, may gain admission to all the privileges of the temple and its worship. So it is put in Isa. Ivi. 6, 7 in marked contrast to the restrictions laid down in Deut, xxiii. 3, 7 sq. That the views of the prophets had practical issue cannot be doubted; even the foreign Nethinim in the second temple were rapidly transformed not merely into good Israelites but into Levites. The condition of admission to the full privileges of an Israelite, in particular to the passover, is, according to the Priestly Code (Exod. xii. 48; Numb. ix. 14), circumcision,—to which the later Jewish usage adds lustration by immersion in water (baptism, t ’ blla) and the presentation of a sacrifice (korbän). The immersion, about which there has been a good deal of controversy, some maintaining that it came into use later than Christian baptism, was really a necessary act for one who had been previously unclean, and may be held to be involved in the general Pentateuchal law of ceremonial washings. The later technical name for a heathen who thus joined the theocracy was pηχ∏ *1J, “proselyte of righteousness.”
The free admission of foreigners to the Jewish church is a mark of the universalistic tendency which, in spite of all the narrownesses of Judaism under the law, accompanied the break-up of the old national system. On the other hand the so-called Law of Holiness (later than Ezekiel but earlier than the Priestly Code), which is contained in Lev. xvii. sq., presents a different line of transition from the purely civil to the religious meaning of gêr. In these laws, which proceed throughout on the principle that Israel, and all that has to do with Israel, must be regulated by regard to formal holiness, it is demanded that certain rules shall be enforced not only on Israelites proper but on strangers sojourning in their land. They are not to eat blood (xvii. 10), commit incest (xviii. 26), sacrifice to Moloch (xx. 2), or blaspheme Jehovah (xxiv. 16); and for murder and other crimes they are to be answerable to the Hebrew authorities according to Hebrew law (xxiv. 22). These rules are in substance—the third being extended to a prohibition of idolatry generally—-the “Noachic laws” to which in later usage a man or woman might promise to conform and thereby, without becoming a regular member of the theocracy, be recognized as a “proselyte of the gate,” i.e., “within the gates of Israel.” What the Law of Holiness proposed to enforce became in fact—the theocracy not possessing political power over strangers— a voluntary obligation assumed by those “who worshipped God” (σeβ0gevoL τbv θeov, Acts xiii. 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 4, 17, xviii. 7—in E.V. often rendered “devout”).
The proselytizing zeal of the Jews is spoken of in Mat. xxiii. 15, and by many Greek and Latin writers. Up to the time of Hadrian it was facilitated by the favour generally extended to the Jews by the Roman emperors; and not only on Semitic soil, as at Damascus, where Josephus tells us that most of the women were proselytes, but throughout the Roman world many converts were made, especially among women. The most noted conversion was that of the royal house of Adiabene (Josephus, Ant., xx. 2), of which the splendid tomb of Queen Helena, a little way outside of Jerusalem, still remains a monument.
[895 words — estimated reading time: 6 minutes]
Προσήλυτος, signifies _a stranger_, _a foreigner_; the Hebrew word גר, or נכר, also denotes a stranger, one who comes from abroad, or from another place. In the language נכר of the Jews, those were called by this name who came to dwell in their country, or who embraced their religion, being not Jews by birth. In the New Testament they are called sometimes proselytes, and sometimes Gentiles, fearing God, Acts ii, 5; x, ii, 22; xiii, 16, 50. The Jews distinguish two kinds of proselytes. The first, proselytes of the gate; the others, proselytes of justice or righteousness. The first dwelt in the land of Israel, or even out of that country, and, without obliging themselves to circumcision, or to any other ceremony of the law, feared and worshipped the true God, observing the rules imposed on Noah. These were, according to the rabbins, 1. To abstain from idolatry; 2. From blasphemy; 3. From murder; 4. From adultery; 5. From theft; 6. To appoint just and upright judges; 7. Not to eat the flesh of any animal cut off while it was alive. Maimonides says, that the first six of these precepts were given to Adam, and the seventh to Noah. The privileges of proselytes of the gate were, first, that through holiness they might have hope of eternal life. Secondly, they could dwell in the land of Israel, and share in the outward prosperities of it. It is said they did not dwell in the cities, but only in the suburbs and the villages; but it is certain that the Jews often admitted into their cities, not only proselytes of habitation, but also Gentiles and idolaters, as appears by the reproaches on this account, throughout the Scriptures. Proselytes of justice or of righteousness were those converted to Judaism, who had engaged themselves to receive circumcision, and to ...observe the whole law of Moses. Thus were they admitted to all the prerogatives of the people of the Lord. The rabbins inform us that, before circumcision was administered to them, and before they were admitted into the religion of the Hebrews, they were examined about the motives of their conversion; whether the change was voluntary, or whether it proceeded from interest, fear, ambition, &c. When the proselyte was well proved and instructed, they gave him circumcision; and when the wound of his circumcision healed, they gave him baptism, by plunging his whole body into a cistern of water, by only one immersion. Boys under twelve years of age, and girls under thirteen, could not become proselytes till they had obtained the consent of their parents, or, in case of refusal, the concurrence of the officers of justice. Baptism in respect of girls had the same effect as circumcision in respect of boys. Each of them, by means of this, received, as it were, a new birth, so that those who were their parents before were no longer regarded as such after this ceremony, and those who before were slaves now became free. Many, however, are of opinion that there appears to be no ground whatever in Scripture for this distinction of proselytes of the gate, and proselytes of righteousness. “According to my idea,” says Dr. Tomline, “proselytes were those, and those only, who took upon themselves the obligation of the whole Mosaic law, but retained that name till they were admitted into the congregation of the Lord as adopted children. Gentiles were allowed to worship and offer sacrifices to the God of Israel in the outer court of the temple; and some of them, persuaded of the sole and universal sovereignty of the Lord Jehovah, might renounce idolatry without embracing the Mosaic law; but such persons appear to me never to be called proselytes in Scripture, or in any ancient Christian writer.” He also observes that “the term _proselytes of the gate_ is derived from an expression frequent in the Old Testament; namely, ‘the stranger that is within thy gates;’ but I think it evident that the strangers were those Gentiles who were permitted to live among the Jews under certain restrictions, and whom the Jews were forbidden ‘to vex or oppress,’ so long as they live in a peaceable manner.” Dr. Lardner says, “I do not believe that the notion of two sorts of Jewish proselytes can be found in any Christian writer before the fourteenth century or later.” Dr. Jennings also observes that “there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the Scripture history of the existence of such proselytes of the gate, as the rabbins mention; nor, indeed, of any who with propriety can be styled proselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion.” PROSEUCHÆ. That the Jews had houses, or places for prayer, called ϖροσευχαὶ, appears from a variety of passages in Philo; and, particularly in his oration against Flaccus, he complains that their ϖροσευχαὶ were pulled down, and there was no place left in which they might worship God and pray for Cæsar. Among those who make the synagogues and _proseuchæ_ to be different places, are the learned Mr. Joseph Mede and Dr. Prideaux; and they think the difference consists partly in the form of the edifice; a synagogue, they say, being roofed like our houses or churches; and a _proseucha_ being only encompassed with a wall, or some other mound or enclosure, and open at the top, like our courts. They make them to differ in situation; synagogues being in towns and cities, _proseuchæ_ in the fields, and frequently by the river side. Dr. Prideaux mentions another distinction in respect to the service performed in them. In synagogues, he says, the prayers were offered up in public forms in common for the whole congregation; but in the _proseuchæ_ they prayed, as in the temple, every one apart for himself. And thus our Saviour prayed in the _proseucha_ into which he entered. Yet, after all, the proof in favour of this notion is not so strong, but that it still remains a question with some, whether the synagogues and the _proseuchæ_ were any thing more than two different names for the same place; the one taken from the people’s assembling in them, the other from the service to which they were more immediately appropriated, namely, prayer. Nevertheless, the name _proseuchæ_ will not prove that they were appropriated only to prayer, and therefore were different from synagogues, in which the Scriptures were also read and expounded; since the temple, in which sacrifices were offered, and all the parts of divine service were performed, is called οικος προσευχης, _a house of prayer_, Matt. xxi, 13.
[1,099 words — estimated reading time: 7 minutes]
