Faithlife
Faithlife

Pride-Original Sin

Sermon  •  Submitted
1 rating
· 11 views
Notes & Transcripts

Study on

 

PRIDE/ORIGINAL SIN

 

 

 

 

 

PROBLEM

One=s ego is apparent.  Humility is not a prominent trait.  It is a lifting up on one=s self above God=s purpose for you; thinking of one=s self above any others.  AHAUGHTY@ (arrogant, cavalier, contemptuous, disdainful, scornful, supercilious, pompous, superior, conceited, egotistical, imperious), AND AHIGH MINDED@ PEOPLE.

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (KJV)

PRIDE:  5244 huperephanos {hooperay'fanos} TDNT - 8:525,1231

 

1) showing one's self above others, overtopping, conspicuous above others, pre-eminent

 

2) with an overweening estimate of one's means or merits, despising others or even treating them with contempt, haughty

An individual may express that he is able to take care of things usually, but is having a problem now.

BIBLICAL STATEMENT

Self-consciousness or pride is our natural state of being, from which issues every problem we may have in the world.  The answer to it is to be God and others conscious, as we are conscious of ourselves.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (KJV)

 

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (KJV)

 

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (KJV)

Proverbs 18:12  Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility. (KJV)

 

James 4:6  But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. (KJV)


 

These forms may be re-produced for distribution to other interested individuals.

Proverbs 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. (KJV)

 

Proverbs 27:2  Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. (KJV)

 

1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: (KJV)

COUNSEL

If an individual is not saved or baptized with the Holy Spirit minister accordingly. Pride must be repented of.  Then pray for the fruit of the Spirit, Ameekness@.  When a person is under submission to God and those in authority over us, we have crucified the flesh and can walk in the Spirit.

To practice humility, see the fruit of the Spirit, love (for others).  Look for praiseworthiness in others rather than being critical.  If you find yourself talking Adown@ or Aup@ to others, stop and consider what you are saying.  To be authentic in relationship is a worthy goal.

Remember that when Job repented of his pride, God restored all he had lost. When we minister to God, we are not ministering to ourselves.  We minister to God by praising Him.

People need to be led into the prayer of forgiveness for others.  A renewing of the mind is needed. Encourage people to seek the mind of Christ in prayer and in the Scripture. Ask God to renew your mind.

 

 PRIDE. The emphasis placed on pride, and its converse humility, is a distinctive feature of biblical religion, unparalleled in other religious or ethical systems. Rebellious pride, which refuses to depend on God and be subject to him, but attributes to self the honour due to him, figures as the very root and essence of sin.

We may say with Aquinas that pride was first revealed when Lucifer attempted to set his throne on high in proud independence of God (Is. 14:12-14). The fallen devil (Lk. 10:18) instilled the craving to be as gods into Adam and Eve (Gn. 3:5), with the result that man’s entire nature was infected with pride through the Fall (cf. Rom. 1:21-23). The ‘condemnation of the devil’ is associated with pride in 1 Tim. 3:6 (cf. ‘the snare of the devil’ in 1 Tim. 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:26); pride was his undoing and remains the prime means by which he brings about the undoing of men and women. Hence we find a sustained condemnation of human arrogance throughout the OT, especially in the Psalms and Wisdom Literature. In Pr. 8:13 both geµÕaÆ, ‘arrogance’, and gaÕawaÆ, ‘insolence’, are hateful to the divine wisdom: their manifestation in the form of national pride in Moab (Is. 16:6), Judah (Je. 13:9) and Israel (Ho. 5:5) are especially denounced by the prophets. The notorious ‘pride which goes before a fall’ is called gaµÕoÆn, ‘swelling excellence’, in Pr. 16:18, and is rejected in favour of the lowly spirit. ‘Haughtiness’, goµb_ah, appears as a root cause of atheism in Ps. 10:4. It is the downfall of Nebuchadrezzar in Dn. 4:30, 37. A milder word, zaµd_oÆn ‘presumption’, is applied to David’s youthful enthusiasm in 1 Sa. 17:28, but in Ob. 3 even this is regarded as a deceitful evil. Further warnings against pride occur in the later Wisdom Literature, e.g. Ecclus. 10:6-26.

Greek teaching during the four last centuries bc was at variance with Judaism in regarding pride as a virtue and humility as despicable. Aristotle’s ‘great-souled man’ had a profound regard for his own excellence; to underestimate it would have stamped him as mean-spirited. Similarly, the Stoic sage asserted his own moral independence and equality with Zeus. Insolence (hybris), however, is a deep source of moral evil in the Greek tragedy (cf., e.g., the Antigone of Sophocles).

The Christian ethic consciously rejected Greek thought in favour of the OT outlook. Humility was accorded supreme excellence when Christ pronounced himself ‘gentle and lowly in heart’ (Mt. 11:29). Conversely, pride (hypereµphania) was placed on a list of defiling vices proceeding from the evil heart of man (Mk. 7:22). In the Magnificat (Lk. 1:51f.) God is said to scatter the proud and exalt the meek. In both Jas. 4:6 and 1 Pet. 5:5, Pr. 3:34 is quoted to emphasize the contrast between the meek (tapeinois), whom God favours, and the proud (hypereµphanois), whom God resists. Paul couples the insolent (hybristas) and the boastful (alazonas) with the proud sinners in his sketch of depraved pagan society in Rom. 1:30; cf. 2 Tim. 3:2. Arrogant display or ostentation (alazoneia) are disparaged in Jas. 4:16 and 1 Jn. 2:16. Love, in 1 Cor. 13:4, is stated to be free from both the arrogance and the self-conceit which mar the heretical teachers of 1 Tim. 6:4.

Paul saw pride (‘boasting’ in knowledge of the law and in works/righteousness) as the characteristic spirit of Judaism and a direct cause of Jewish unbelief. He insisted that the gospel is designed to exclude boasting (Rom. 3:27) by teaching men that they are sinners, that self-righteousness is therefore out of the question, and that they must look to Christ for their righteousness and take it as a free gift by faith in him. Salvation is ‘not because of works, lest any man should boast’; it is all of grace. No man, therefore, not even Abraham, may glory in the achievement of his own salvation (see Eph. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:26-31; Rom. 4:1-2). The gospel message of righteousness through Christ sounds the death-knell of self-righteousness in religion; that is why it was a stumbling-block to the proud Jews (Rom. 9:30-10:4).

This NT emphasis made a deep impact on early and mediaeval ethics. Augustine, Aquinas and Dante all characterized pride as the ultimate sin, while Milton and Goethe dramatized it.


2102 zuwd { zood}  or (by permutation) ziyd { zeed}

a primitive root; TWOT - 547; v

AV - deal proudly 4, presumptuously 3, presume 1, proud 1, sod 1; 10

GK - 2326 { dyzI

1)         to boil, boil up, seethe, act proudly, act presumptuously, act rebelliously, be presumptuous, be arrogant, be rebelliously proud

1a) (Qal)

1a1)   to act presumptuously

1a2)   to deal arrogantly (with ‘al’)

1a3)   to defy proudly (with ‘el’)

1b) (Hiphil)

1b1)   to boil, seethe, act proudly

1b2)     to act presumptuously, act insolently[1] 

547        dyzI

 (zéÆd), dWz

 (zuÆd) boil, act proudly, presumptously, rebelliously. (ASV and RSV similar.) 

Derivatives

547a    dz«

 (zeµd) proud, arrogant.

547b    ÷/dzÉ

 (zaµdoÆn) pride, insolence.

547c    ÷/dyz«

 (zeÆdoÆn) proud, raging.

547d    dyzIn:

 (naµzéÆd) boiled food, pottage.

Because the root form does not appear in the ot, its spelling, whether with middle yod or waw, is not certain. The verb appears only in the Qal and Hiphil stems, with no clear distinction in meaning between them. In the sphere of the physical. it means “to boil”; in the sphere of personality, “to act in a proud manner.” With its derivatives, the word appears a total of forty times in the ot.

The verb is used only once in reference to boiling (Gen 25:27–34). The text states that Jacob “boiled” (KJV “sod”) pottage (v. 29).

The verb form is used eight times in reference to the personality, and three of the derivatives are used only in that connection. The basic idea is pride, a sense of self-importance, which often is exaggerated to include defiance and even rebelliousness. For instance, in Prov 11:2, the “proud” person is set over against the humble (cf. Prov 13:10). A similar use is found in Jer 49:16; 50:31–32; Ezk 7:10, with the added implication that God is strongly opposed to such pride.

zéÆd is frequently used to refer to three specific aspects of pride. One is presumption. Because a person is proud he presumes too much in his favor, especially in the sense of authority. For instance, the false prophet was one who presumed to speak in the name of God, assuming authority to do so, without having been called (Deut 18:20; cf. v. 22 for use of the noun derivative). False gods, too, are spoken of as presuming authority for themselves (Ex 18:11); and Babylon is said to have claimed too much for herself as against the Holy One of Israel (Jer 50:29). Egyptians assumed the same in subjecting the Israelites to bondage (Neh 9:10).

The second aspect is rebellion or disobedience. Because the person is proud he asserts his own will to the point of rebelling against one in authority over him. The Israelites so asserted themselves against God when they chose to fight the Canaanites, even though God told them not to do so (Deut 1:43). The same thought is contained in Neh 9:16, 29. Eliab, David’s older brother, accused him of having pride in coming to the Philistine battle scene (I Sam 17:28, where zaµdoÆn is used with the sense of hybris).

The third, closely related to the second, carries the additional element of willful decision. If a person so asserted himself and killed his neighbor, his own life was required as punishment. If the slaying was unintentional, however, a place of refuge was available for him (Ex 21:14). Indeed, if a person willfully disobeyed the priest, whether murder was involved or not, he had to die (Deut 17:12–13, where both zéÆd and zaµdoÆn appear). This seems to explain David’s distinction between “hidden” (KJV “secret”) and “presumptuous” sins (Ps 19:12–13 [H 13–14]). He prays that he may be cleansed from the “hidden,” thus admitting his guilt in that respect; but asks that he may be kept from the "presumptuous.

dz«

 (zeµd). Proud, arrogant, presumptous. An adjective, which refers twelve times to people and once to sins.

÷/dzÉ

 (zaµdoÆn). Pride, insolence. A noun used eleven times. The adjective and noun forms of zéÆd are used in contexts having pride in view as opposed to God, which is a major sin. Persons so characterized are parallelled with those who “work wickedness” and “tempt God” (Mal 3:15 [H 13]), and with “all who do wickedly.” As a result, they will be burned like stubble in the day of God’s impending punishment (Mal 4 [H 3:19]). Frequently, such people are depicted as opposing those who try to do the will of God (Ps 19:14; Ps 119:51, 69, 78, 122; Jer 43:2).

÷/dyz«

 (zeÆdoÆn). Proud, raging. The one instance of this adjectival form refers figuratively to “proud” (RSV “raging”) water, which represents overwhelming trouble (Ps 124:5). The thought seems to be of power asserted against a person which brings him to the point of death.

dyzIn:

 (naµzéÆd). Boiled food, pottage. A noun, used six times. All six usages refer to “pottage” or boiled food (Gen 25:29, 34). Three are used of boiled food which, having become poisoned by poisonous ingredients mistakenly added, had to be made edible by Elisha’s miracle (II Kgs 4:38-41). The sixth employment is by Haggai (2:12), who uses it to designate a kind of food, along with bread, wine, oil, and meat.

L.J.W.

÷/dyz«

 (zeÆdoÆn). See no. 547c.

zyzI

 (zéÆz). See no. 535a, 536a.

hq;yzI

 (zéÆqaÆ). See no. 573.

÷/ryz«

 (zeÆroÆn). See no. 582d.[2]

he f1  † u{bri", uJbrivzw, ejnubrivzw, uJbristhv"

A.  The Usage in Greek.

u{bri" is etym. obscure. The second syllable is originally connected with briarov" “weighty,” brivqw “heavily laden.” Popular etym., as already in Hom., derives it from uJpevr along the lines of “beyond measure.” This is linguistically impossible but important historically. With both noun and verb the range of meaning is very large. The noun means originally an act  which invades the sphere of another to his hurt, a “trespass,” a “transgression” of the true norm in violation of divine and human right. Arrogance of disposition is often implied, Hom.Od., 14, 262; 17, 431; cf. also Il., 1, 203. Thus u{bri" stands contrasted with eujnomiva, divkh (® II, 178, 18 ff.) and swfrosuvnh (® VII, 1097, 5 ff.) and calls for nemesis. The ref. is to a wicked act, also insult, scorn, contempt, often accompanied by violence, rape, and mistreatment of all kinds. More rarely and later the noun also means something endured, e.g., Plut.Pericl., 12 (I, 158).

The verb uJbrivzw, which is primarily trans. in formation, has the same range of meaning. From Hom.Od., 18, 381 it denotes intr. arrogant conduct and trans. “to harm,” “damage,” “injure,” cf. Hom.Il., 11, 695, i.e., the injurious treatment of others even to rough handling. From the class. age it is also common in the pass.

uJbristhv", derived from the verb, denotes a man who, sinfully overestimating his own powers and exaggerating his own claims, is insolent in word and deed in relation to gods and men.

1. In Hom. u{bri" is trespass beyond one’s own sphere. u{bri" and eujnomiva are anton. in human conduct, Od., 17, 487; cf. Plat.Soph., 216b. Often the arrogant, wild and unrighteous are contrasted with the hospitable who are minded to fear God, Od., 6, 120; 9, 175; 13, 201. The overweening come to a bad end (ajtavsqaloi), Od., 3, 207; 17, 588; 24, 282; Il., 11. 694 f.; 13, 633 f. Arrogance is an affair of supermen uJperhnorevonte", Od., 17, 581. The conduct of the free is esp. denoted by the group, Od., 1, 227; 24, 352 etc. In Hes. Theog., 307 uJbristhv" is connected with deinov". In 514–6 it is characterised by the par. ideas of wickedness and overweening male force, cf. 996 and also Op., 134, 146, 191 f. There is a warning against hubris, over which dike finally holds power, in 213 ff., cf. 238 f. Acc. to Hom. Hymn. Ap., 541 hubris is common among men. The dictum of Solon Fr., 5, 9 f. (Diehl3, I, 32): “Excess breeds wantonness,” is adopted in Theogn., 153, and 751 says that lost and unrighteous man, sated with riches, falls into wantonness. But hubris means destruction, 43 f. Solon expects the gods to avenge every offence, though retribution may not always fall on the offender but often on his progeny.,  Hubris makes wealth unstable and it destroys arrogant giants, one reads in Bacchyl., 15, 57 ff. Pind.Olymp., 13, 10 calls arrogance the mother of satiation. Eujnomiva, Divka and Eijrhvna are contrasted with Óçbri" here, 13, 6. 10 f. ® 295, 10 f.

2. Gk. tragedy deals with human hubris in the tragic sense. In Aesch.Pers., 808 it is set alongside godforgotten thoughts; the reward is divine tivsi", cf. also 820 ff.; Ag., 217 ff., 374 ff., 750 ff. There are the beginnings of a change when Aesch., though he regards the theft of fire as an act of defiant insolence, still sees in Prometheus a hero who made man independent of the gods. This raises the problem of hubris as an attempt on man’s part to cross even the religious boundaries set for the individual in society and to be himself. Hubris is originally the ruthless or scornful right of might. But the view gains ground that the gods as bearers of nemesis oppose man’s hubris with retribution, punishment and destruction. In the 5th cent., then, hubris becomes the class. expression of numinous fear, i.e., of the Greek sense of sin from the religious standpoint. The gods do not love presumptuousness, Soph.Trach., 280. It breeds tyrants, Oed. Tyr., 873. It leads to senseless and futile excess and plunges the one who walks wickedly (uJperovpth", 883) in word and work into sudden destruction. Finally it entails violation of reverence for the holy which Zeus must avenge if fear of the gods is not to perish altogether, 895–910. An unsuccessful deed is shown to be hubris. For the sense of right and morality success is decisive. Failure, merited or unmerited, brings shame and loss. The philosophical presuppositions change in Eur. The human norm replaces norms set by fate. Hence hubris is no longer a religious concept though the mode of expression often seems to suggest it, cf. Heracl., 388; Or., 708. Hubris characterises human relations, negatively as scorn, contempt, or actively as hurt and violence, e.g., El., 68: “Thou has not scorned me in my misery.” Acc. to Hipp., 474 it is hubris to want to be better than the demons, cf. Ba., 375.

3. In the Gk. historians hubris is an important factor in the course of events. In Hdt. the religious and metaphysical basis of the concept is plain. The hubris of the Persian plan of conquest (VII, 16 a 2) corresponds to the fundamental Persian attitude as Croesus sees it (I, 89, 2) but the deity leads Xerxes by a dream to the struggle for world-dominion (VII, 18; cf. also III, 80, 2; 81, 2 and the fable-like personifying of I, 189, 1; IV, 129, 2). On this basis Thuc. develops a historico-philosophical theory of a purely immanent type. Sober prudence (I, 84, 2) is confronted by an attitude of untimely arrogance (II, 65, 9). Swift and unexpected affluence leads to hubris and punishment must follow, III, 39, 4 f.; 45, 4. Acc. to Xenoph. Hist. Graec., II, 2, 10 the decay of Sparta’s power and the fall of Athens are divine judgments on human hubris. The anton. of u{bri" is swfrosuvnh in Cyrop., VIII, 4, 14, cf. 1, 30; Ap., 19; Mem., III, 10, 5. Wealth can lead to arrogance, Cyrop., VIII, 6, 1. In An., III, 1, 21 the Persians represent hubris and acc. to III, 1, 13 a shameful overthrow (uJbrizomevnou" ajpoqaneivn) threatens the Gks.

4. In legal rhetoric one finds hubris technically from Aristoph. In trials the main issue is the violence of the rich against the poor, Lys., 24, 15. 16. 18 etc. One finds violation of personal rights and forceful interference in the personal or domestic sphere, 1, 2. 4. 16, cf. also 2, 14; Aeschin.Tim., 87, 116, 188. In Demosth.Or., 21, 47; Aeschin.Tim., 15 the u{brew" grafhv contains the law of injuries and violations which exerted considerable influence and shaped the similar law in Alexandria, P. Tor., II, 3, 41–49 (3rd cent. b.c.); P. Fay., 12, 31 f. (c. 100 b.c.); u{bri" with plhgaiv, P. Hal., 1, 115; P. Hibeh, I, 32, 8 (3rd cent. b.c.).

5. Socrates is not aware of arrogance and has no fear of seeming to be arrogant, Plat.Ap., 34c d, thus helping to bring about his condemnation. Even acc. to friends he could be like a bold (uJbristhv") satyr, Symp., 221e, cf. also 175e, 215b, 219c, 222a; Ps.-Plat.Alc., I, 114d. Plato regards hubris as an essential cosmological and anthropological force. It is the negative side of eros. Eros meta; th`" u{brew" is the basis of all destructive immoderation and disorder, Symp., 188a; Resp., III, 403a; Leg., VI, 783a; cf. Phaedr., 253d–e. The child is the most impudent being: uJbristovtaton qhrivwn Leg., VII, 808d, cf. Euthyd., 273a. The excesses and arrogancies of youth are esp. bad, Leg., X, 884 f. The hubris of youth is directed against the holy and also against parents and it is an attack on public life, Resp., VIII, 559d–560a, cf. Ps.-Plat.Def., 415e. Hubris has many names, forms and aspects, Phaedr., 238a, cf. Gorg., 525a; its consequences are injustice (Leg., III, 691c) and destruction (X, 906a). It is directed against subjects, the lowly and the defenceless, for whom the gods intervene in vengeance, Leg., VI, 761e, 777d; IX, 874c; XI, 927b–d. In the actuality of life there can easily be a vicious circle. Paideia brings victory but victory can result in licence, Leg., I, 641c,cf. II, 661e, 662a. In Plat. hubris is not sin in the bibl. sense but a power of fate which penetrates all areas of life and comes on man. In a very weak sense hubris can also be used of a mocker or a frivolous person, Prot., 355c.

6. With the mythical or philosophical usage of earlier times (which continued to exert an influence) and with the legal use, one also finds new applications in Aristot. In him, as earlier (® 295, 13), u{bri" can be sexual violation, Eth. Nic., V, 3, p. 1129b, 22; VII, 6, p. 1148b, 30; Pol., V, 10, p. 1311b, 19–25; Fr., 379, p. 1541a, 41. In a weak sense the verb can be a synon. of katagelavw, cleuavzw, skwvptw, Rhet., II, 2, p. 1379a, 29 ff., cf. Topica, VI, 6, p. 144a, 6 f. It also occurs pass. with ojligwriva in Eth. Nic., VII, 7, p. 1149a, 32, cf. Rhet., II, 23, p. 1398a, 25. As an expression of contempt u{bri" means “maltreatment” with katafrovnhsi" “scorn” and ejphreasmov" “ill-will,” Rhet., II, 2, p. 1378b, 14 f. u{bri" is also used act. for “arrogance” as a form of ajdikiva (® I, 149, 33 ff.) with ajsevbeia (® VII, 185, 6 ff.) “offence against gods and men” and pleonexiva (® VI, 266, 14 ff.) “greed,” De virtutibus et vitiis, 7, p. 1251a, 30 ff. Hubris in action is associated with pleasure, loc. cit., cf. Rhet., II, 2, p. 1387b, 23–30. The high-minded man is not to be confused with the arrogant, Eth. Nic., IV, 8, p. 1124a, 29 ff. To act arrogantly is very wrong, but hubris cannot be punished, for a presumptuous disposition is a gen. human complaint to which some (the rich and young) are more prone and others less, Probl., 1, 16, p. 953a, 3–7. The wrong which results from hubris is to be distinguished from that which results from wickedness. uJbristaiv go beyond the mean, Pol., IV, 11, p. 1295b, 9–11. Whereas war forces to righteous and considered action, the enjoyment of peaceful and quiet periods of prosperity produces transgressors. Peace and quiet are the goal of politics but they can be achieved only when wisdom, prudence and righteousness hold sway. Thus the question of hubris becomes in Aristot. a political problem, Pol., VII, 15, p. 1334a, 28 ff., cf. V, 2, p. 1302b, 5 f. and 11, p. 1314b, 24.

7. The later period brings no essential changes. In Polyb., 8, 12, 9 as already in Demosth.Or., 24, 143 ajselghv" and uJbrivzwn are synon. Plut.Quaest. Conv., VIII, 6, 5 (II, 726d) characterises the uJbristhv" as by nature prone to (mocking) laughter, Quaest. Conv., I, 4, 3 (II, 622b). Hence one finds u{bri" kai; fruvagma in Amat., 9 (II, 754c) and u{bri" kai; cleuasmov", Quaest. Conv., IX, 6, 1 (II, 741a). Sept. Sap. Conv., 3 (II, 148e) speaks of hubris in intercourse, 13 (II, 155 f.) of hubris against the law, cf. also Lib. Educ., 14 (II, 10c); there is pass. use in Lib. Educ., 12 (II, 8f.); 15 (II, 11d); 17 (II, 13b). Hellas must endure violence, Pericl., 12 (I, 158).

Thus hubris passed into common usage in many senses, some of them quite weak. It retains a certain emotional force as a poetic term. But in an age when more and more the problems of ethics and anthropology were being considered with the tools of rational thought this word which originally owed its content to myth could not become a tt. in philosophy. Hence hubris never became a key concept in Gk. thought.

B.  The Old Testament.

1. The main equivalent of LXX u{bri" is ÷/aG:

 with other derivates of hga

. The root hag

 means in the first instance “to be or become high, lofty,” then “to be proud, arrogant.” The fig. which seems to lie behind this sense is that of the boiling or frothing of the sea, Ps. 46:3, which is influenced by the myth of the uprising of the sea. Loftiness and pride ÷/aG:

 are not intrinsically wrong. But to the degree they are linked with presumptuousness and defiant arrogance (® n. 7) Yahweh comes to overthrow them, Am. 6:8; Jer. 13:9. Lv. 26:19 and Ez. 7:24; 33:28 threaten Israel with the destruction of its glorious power if the people falls into disobedience, cf. foreign nations in Ez. 30:6, 18; 32:12 (Egypt); Zech. 10:11 (Assyria); Is. 13:19 (Babylon); Is. 23:9 (Tyre). Acc. to Ez. 16:49 f. pomp –÷/aG:„

,  satiety and careless ease (® line 13) lead to arrogance (hbg

), cf. Ez. 7:20. The destruction of the means of power on which they rely, of their ÷/aG:

 (concretely), is the punishment of their sin, of the pride of the insolent and the arrogance of the tyrant, Is. 13:11. Here the Hbr. words are used psychologically or ethically. The OT is aware that pride is ineluctably followed by a fall, Prv. 16:18. This may be seen both in Israel (Hos. 5:5; 7:10; Is. 9:8 f.; Jer. 13:17) and also in its enemies (Jer. 48:29 f.; Zech. 9:6; Zeph. 2:10). A proud and arrogant attitude is the true and fatal reason for their collapse. Sir. 10:8 almost seems to echo the principle of Thucydides that dominion passes from one nation to another by reason of violent arrogance. In Israel itself there is constant complaint about the encroachments of the wicked, Job 35:12, cf. 9. For the righteous the rule of wisdom is to hold aloof from the arrogant and not to take part in their exploiting of the poor, Prv. 16:19, cf. 8:13; 29:33; Sir. 10:6. The arrogant (µyaiG«

 cf. Prv. 15:25; Ps. 94:2; 123:4; 140:5) seem to be a specific group in society and political life. Claims to power, the suppression of the masses, i.e., the poor and a basic secularising of piety characterise them. Zeph. 3:11 promises their overthrow, cf. Ps. 36:12. In Sir. 10:12 ff. one finds a fundamental repudiation of this attitude. The beginning of pride is when a man engages in defiance and turns away his heart from his Maker.

Derivates of the root hag

 are mainly transl. in the LXX and Hexapla by u{bri" and related terms or ® uJperhfaniva and related terms. Since these Gk. words correspond only to the negative side of ÷/aG:

 etc. u{bri" can be used only in passages in which it is appropriate to the meaning and context. Sometimes there are variations in understanding. Thus ytiw:a}g¾ yz«yLi['

 in Is. 13:3 ref. to heroes who “rejoice in my (sc. God’s) majesty.” But the LXX gives these heroes the task of executing God’s wrath with joy and hubris, i.e., arrogance, cf. Zeph. 3:11; cf. 2:15 (3:1), also Is. 23:7, 12; No. 2:3. Jer. 13:17 HT has the difficult hw:g« ynEP]mi

 (where we are perhaps helped by v. 15): The prophet must weep because of the pride of the people of Jerusalem with which they provoke God. The LXX transl. lit.: ajpo; proswvpou u{brew", but u{bri" is taken as pass.: The people of Jerusalem must weep because of the violence they suffer.

In Sir. 10:12 f. ÷wag

 means the same as ÷wdz

 and both denote defiance and sin. In the Mas. ÷/aG:

 and related terms can often be used positively for pomp (concretely) or pride (abstractly), but also negatively for arrogance or presumptuousness. No single action exhausts the Hbr. term and the meaning is open. But when the LXX uses u{bri" it decides for a negative sense and brings the element of violence or actual encroachment into the text, e.g., Is. 28:1, 3; Am. 6:8; Zech. 9:6; 10:11; Jer. 13:9; Ez. 30:6; Lv. 26:19 etc.

2. The root dyz

, like hag

, denotes first the bubbling up of water in the boiling of the sea or in cooking or simmering. In a transf. sense the verb (11 times Mas., once Sir.) is transl. “to be presumptuous,” the noun ÷/dzÉ

 (11 times Mas., 10 Sir.) “presumptuousness,” the adj. dz«

 (16 times Mas., twice Sir.) “impudent” or “presumptuous.” In the earlier canonical prophets it occurs only at 1 S. 17:28. It does not seem to occur in the prophetic tradition of the 8th cent. Is. 13:11 is primarily aimed at the proud rulers of Babylon and acc. to the traditional formulation attacks all arrogance anywhere in the world. Alien peoples are accused by the prophets of arrogance, opposition to Yahweh and rebellion against Him, Jer. 50:29–32 (Babylon); 49:16; Ob. 3 (Edom). Israel is similarly accused in Ez. 7:10 (the king Zedekiah); Jer. 43:2 (those who seek refuge in Egypt). The same charge is found in historical accounts, e.g. the arrogance of the Egyptians against Yahweh and His people, Ex. 18:11; cf. Neh. 9:10, or of the Israelites striving against Yahweh, Dt. 1:43 (parabiasavmenoi); Neh. 9:16, 29 (dyz

 hi alongside ¹re[o hvq

 hi transl. travchlon sklhruvnw); Sir. 16:10 (sklhrokardiva), and cf. the legislation of Ex. 21:14; Dt. 17:12, 13; 18:20, 22. In OT wisdom the word group takes on greater significance. In Prv. 13:10; cf. 11:2 it ref. to frivolous, contentious and dishonourable conduct. The basic sense of boiling up may still be detected in Prv. 21:24: ÷/dzÉ tr'b][,b] hce[o

. In the Ps. µydiz«

 seems to denote the same or a similar group or tendency as µyaiNE

 ® 300, 10 ff. They, too, are against the righteous, Ps. 86:14; 119:21, 51 etc. The reservoir of arrogance is sin, Sir. 10:13, 18, cf. 12:14, also 7:6; 9:12 (Mal. 3:15, 19); 11:9; 12:5; 13:1 ff.; 15:7. In Sir. 3:16 the parallelism of dyzm

 and warwb sy[km

 shows that arrogance is sin and is thus aimed against God. The eschatological threat of Sir. 35:21 results from the same theocentric orientation.

From the root dyz

 only the noun is transl. 6 times by u{bri" and related terms, though here there is considerable agreement between the Hbr. and Gk. words. But with uJperhvfano" and related words (5 times) and ajsebhv" etc. (7) one finds aJmartwlov" at Sir. 12:14; 15:7, blavsfhmo" at Sir. 3:16 etc., both more general and weaker, perhaps also to emphasises the religious character of the concept.

3. Since hubris is so broad and can denote disposition, attitude and conduct, sinful turning from or provocation of God, secularism, as well as vainglorious arrogance, encroachments and tyranny against one’s fellows, it is very hard to fix the limits of signification whether over against synon. or related Gk. words or with ref. to the equivalent Hbr. roots. In fact many Hbr. roots stand close in sense to hubris or are in context an expression of it. Thus one may ref. to ldg

,  hbg

,  µwr

 “to be great, lofty, exalted,” but also “to be boastful, proud, arrogant,” e.g., Joel 2:20; Zeph. 2:10, where ldg

 hi with ¹rj

 elucidates ÷/aG:

. In Zeph. 2:10 LXX u{bri" is similarly elucidated: wjneivdisan kai; ejmegaluvnqhsan ejpi; to;n kuvrion, cf. also Jer. 48:31(31):26; Is. 9:8; 10:12. For t/mr; µyIn"y[e

 Prv. 6:17 LXX has ojfqalmo;" uJbristou`, ÆAS ® uJyhlov". Whether Is. 10:33 has arrogance in view with its simile of the high trees is questionable. But the LXX construed it thus, transl. hm;/Qh' ymer;

 by uJyhloi; th`/ u{brei. Cod B LXX also has u{bri" for µWr

 with tWhb]G¾

 at Is. 2:17. Job 38:15 has ® uJperhvfano" for root µwr

; Prv. 21:4 Mas.: ble bj'riW µyIn"y[e µWr

 LXX megalovfrwn ejfÆ u{brei qrasukavrdio". In Ps. 76:5 ÆAS have uJperhvfanoi th;n kardivan for ble yreyBia'

. Cf. also the root hbg

 in Job 41:26; Is. 3:16, fig. too Ob.4. It is linked with µyIn"y[e

 in Ps. 101:5 and occurs with ble bj'r]

, cf. Prv. 21:4. The verbs ldg

,  hbg

,  µwr

 are also linked with ¹a'

 or j'Wr

, thus pointing to the inner attitude for which LXX prefers uJperhvfano" to u{bri", esp. as there is no current adj. from the stem u{bri", uJbristikov". acn

 with cp,n

 at Prv. 19:18 Mss. is meant very differently, but LXX has for it eij" de; u{brin mh; ejpaivrou th`/ yuch`/ sou.

4. Other roots which might be connected with hubris are f[b

 in Dt. 32:15; 1 S. 2:29 “to kick, despise,” cf. 1 Ba". 2ò29: ejpevbleya" … ajnaidei` ojfqalmw/. The root Åyl

 (in all 32 times in Mas. and 4 in Sir.) found no uniform rendering in the LXX. The hubris group occurs among the many moral concepts found for it, Prv. 1:22; 19:28; Sir. 8:11. This involves sharpening compared with the sin of the tongue at issue in the Mas. “garrulity” or “ridicule.” Similarly at Prv. 20:1 for hm,ho

 “noisy” one finds uJbristikov" “violent” with ajkovlasto" “unruly” for Åyl

. At Prv. 20:3 ÆA has the compound ejxubrivzw for [lg

 hitp “to break loose.” llq

 pi “to curse” in Lv. 20:9; 24:11–23 is transl. by variants with kaq< or ejnubrivzw. Other examples are 2 Ba". 19ò44; Ez. 22:7, cf. Lv. 20:9; Na. 1:14 EÆ (cf. Field, ad loc.); Prv. 6:33 S; 12:16 Q; 1 Ba". 17ò10 (¹rj

). LXX also brings in u{bri" at Prv. 19:10, 18 and thus alters the sense, esp. in the second v. The idea of hubris comes in because of a slip at Prv. 14:10, cf. also 27:13 and Jer. 51:2(28):2. In the depiction of the wrong-doer in Job 15:20 ff. the translator replaced the image stiff-neckedness by that of rebellion against God, cf. 22:12. u{bri" seems to correspond both in sound and sense to the noun hr;b][,

. This comes from root rb[

 “to step over,” hitp “to let oneself be caught away.” hr;bi[e

 might be understood as “presumption” at Is. 16:6; Jer. 48:30; Prv. 21:24; 22:8, cf. also Sir. 13:7; 16:8. But the translators hardly noted or regarded this. On roots [[t

 2 Ch. 36:16 (== 1 Esdr. 1ò49), slq

 Sir. 11:4, qjc

 Ju. 16:25, ll[

 Ju. 19:25 etc., hn[

 pi Ju. 20:5 ® V, 631, 1 ff. On ryhiy:

 Prv. 21:24 ® I, 508, 35 ff. On hvq

 also with ¹r,[o

 or raW:x'

 “neck” ® V, 1028, 13 ff., cf. also Job 15:25–27 where u{brei corresponds to raW:x'K]

. On lysiK]

 ® IV, 834, 16 ff. Other words like lls

 hitp Ex. 9:17, zz[

 hi Prv. 7:13; 21:29, z[y

 part. ni Is. 33:19 (® n. 44), zjp

 Ju. 9:4; Zeph. 3:4 and qt;[;

 1 S. 2:3; Ps. 31:18; 75:5; 94:4 might also be brought into the sphere of hubris in the sense of arrogance or insolence.

5. There are only a few instances from works only in Gk. or extant only in Gk. Wis. 2:19 ref. to worse than pride, i.e., to the mistreatment and torture of the righteous, who is to be condemned to a shameful death. But in 4:19 the wicked will be delivered up to (spiritual?) torments among the dead (Is. 14:10 ff.) for ever. In Est. 4:17d and 1–3 Macc. the group occurs in speeches and strongly rhetorical passages in varying senses from arrogance to violence. Hubris is used primarily to denote the attitude and conduct of the Gentiles. Esp. in opposition to them God is the One who hates hubris mivsubri" (3 Macc. 6:9), obviously a new and unique expression.

C.  Judaism.

1. Philo uses the group in various ways. He often speaks of “persecutions” of the Jews or “attacks” on them or the temple, Flacc., 58 f., 77, 79, 95, 117; Leg. Gaj., 191 and 302; Vit. Mos., I, 72. For the hubris of men in relation to one another cf. Spec. Leg., III, 173; Leg. All., III, 241; for that of men against women, III, 76, 78, 108 (Dt. 21:22 f.); Virt., 113; of women themselves, Spec. Leg., I, 281; III, 173 f. (Dt. 25:11), of “infringements” against parents, Spec. Leg., II, 245 and 254; Jos., 74, slaves, Spec. Leg., II, 83, debtors, Virt., 89, excesses at feasts, Vit. Cont., 42; Spec. Leg., III, 186; Flacc., 136. Hubris is one of many vices, Spec. Leg., I, 204; Conf. Ling., 117 (the building of the tower, Gn. 11:4). Boasters see presumption in admonitions to them, Spec. Leg., II, 18, cf. Leg. Gaj., 64 (pro;" u{brew"). Hubris is often used for the “punishment,” “dishonouring,” imposed by a judge, with blows, Spec. Leg., III, 82, 168; Omn. Prob. Lib., 55. Other vices, including hubris, are condemned with murder, Decal., 170. Shame comes on the adulterer, Decal., 126, also on the perjurer, 86. The changing of hubris into a penal concept seems almost an inner contradiction, since there is no norm for hubris as a capricious act. Philo himself says hubris is in contradiction with law, Vit. Mos., II, 14. But it is in keeping with OT ideas as also with the pagan world that the criminal is without rights and is delivered up to the caprice of the executioner.

For Philo the Gentile world is permeated by hubris in many of its manifestations. This is true of the festivals with their violent excesses, Cher., 92, cf. also the mocking of Agrippa in Alexandria, Flacc., 32 and 40. The same applies to the games, Praem. Poen., 52; Agric., 113 and 116, to the dominant conceit in the cities with its scorn of men, Decal., 4, to writers who squander their gifts on trash, Vit. Mos., I, 3. It is even true of the state which through its tax-gatherers grinds the people even after death with exactions and spoliations, Spec. Leg., II, 94 f. Philo hardly gets down to essentials. He adopts the ancient dictum of Solon that affluence breeds arrogance (® 296, 15 f.), sometimes just alluding to it, Spec. Leg., III, 43; Poster. C., 99 and 145; Agric., 32; Abr., 228: Vit. Mos., II, 14 and 164; Virt., 163; Flacc., 91; Leg. All., II, 29; Op. Mund., 169: Hubris is a common moral danger. Virtue is extolled in words, but in reality it is despised and mistreated, Mut. Nom., 196. Bodily desires threaten degeneration into sin (ejxubrivzw), Poster. C., 182. Understanding and senses lead so easily to arrogance, Leg. All., II, 70, cf. Det. Pot. Ins., 110. He who would follow God must avoid the society of licentious and wicked men, Praem. Poen., 100.

2. Joseph. finds hubris in OT history. It is a recurrent motif from the story of Cain to the giants of Gn. 6. He esp. uses the noun u{bri". Less common is the verb with compounds, ajfubrivzw in Ant., 19, 357, periubrivzw in 18, 44. 260. 358, ejxubrivzw in 4, 189, ejnubrivzw in 1, 254, kaqubrivzw in 5, 148. Sometimes one also finds uJbristhv" “evil-doer,” Bell., 3, 375; 5, 380 and uJbristikov", Ant., 2, 106, ajnuvbristo" “unmolested,” Ant., 1, 208 f.; Bell., 17, 308; 7, 334; Vit., 80 and 259. Kinship with the hubris-concept of antiquity (® 295, 7 ff.) and the proximity of synon. expressions are apparent in the description of the Sodomites, Ant., 1, 194; in their overweening presumption uJperfronou`nte" in their own vast and wealthy sphere the Sodomites showed themselves to be evil-doers uJbristaiv against men and irreverent ajsebei`" vis-à-vis the divine; on account of this arrogance (they had to fall victim to punishment); Ant., 1, 100 and 113 (linked with tyranny in Nimrod); in 8, 253 and 277 the arrogance is against God, cf. 15, 135. For the rest the group expresses any kind of “defamation” (Ant., 16, 235), “ignominy” (17, 309; Bell., 4, 278), “shame,” e.g., shameful peace (18, 47. 57. 60) or banishment (3, 266), “ravishing” (Bell., 6, 3), esp. of women (4, 560; 7, 377), also “encroachments” (Ant., 17, 316; 18, 1 and 6; 19, 160), “violence” (17, 297; Bell., 1, 269), “cruelty” (Ant., 19, 129), “outbursts of rage” (19, 78), “mistreatment” (Ap., 1, 130), “making contemptible” (Bell., 7, 357; Vit., 408), “provocation” (Ant., 3, 311; 15, 129 etc.). The compounds too, as in Gk. gen., have no special sense, though the individual prep. give particular nuances and the sense can be strengthened or intensified. The concept of hubris often serves to characterise specific people, esp. the holders of political power, Ant., 18, 88. Hubris explains the fall of Israel and Judah, Ant., 10, 39, cf. 103. Hubris poisons human relations both on a large scale and a small. For this reason all self-assertion is ruled out by the Essenes, Bell., 2, 140. But all this hardly exhausts the great variety of Jos.’ use of the group.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls, like the Wisdom lit., are against pride 1 QM 14:11: hmwq ymr

,  cf. 1 QS 7:5: µyrmb

, cf. Ps. 56:2. Damasc. 2:19 (3:5): µyrhkw µhbg µyzra µwrk

 of bodily size is alluding to Gn. 6, cf. Sib., 1, 123. 312. jwr ymr

 in 1 QS 11:1 are arrogant men. In 1 QpHab 8:10 the ungodly priest is wbl µr

, cf. 8:3: ryhy

 from Hab. 2:5, elsewhere only Prv. 21:24. In Damasc. 1:14 (1:10) ÷wxlh ya

 ref. to the same ungodly priest as a “scoffer.” In 1 QS 4:9 bbl µwrw hwg

 is listed in a catalogue of vices in which ÷wdz tanq

 also occurs in 4:10 with a par. in ÷wdz trb[

, Prv. 21:24. In Damasc. 1:15 (1:10) one finds µlw[ twhbg

 “their wicked (lw[

) pride.” In 1 QH Fr. 3:15 we read ÷wdz ldj

: “presumption ceases.” All these expressions, as the list of vices shows, are dealing with the sphere and operations of the spirit of corruption. Cf. also 1 Q 29:13, 3 (DJD, I, 132) hwg rw [r

 and also 1 QS 3:10ff.; 4:9ff. The root hag

 with hwag –twag

,  ÷wag„

 occurs in the Scrolls only at 1 QH Fr. 55:2, but cf. 1 QS 4:9 hwg

.

4. Throughout Jewish eschatology one finds a kingdom of evil. Hubris is one of its marks. The 12th petition of the Prayer of Eighteen Benedictions ref. to it: “Mayest thou root out the kingdom of arrogance (÷wdz twklm

), … Yahweh who humbles the insolent (µydz [ynkm

).” A political interpretation suggests itself, cf. Sib., 3, 352 (Rome). In the Rabb. tradition hubris occurs with ÷wdz

, which denotes wilful sin, Åj

,  sg

,  hbg

 and derivates, Midr. Est., 4, 15; Dt. r., 4, 2 on 10:1 Raba (d. 352 a.d.) has said: “(The Torah) is not in heaven (Dt. 30:12), i.e., it is not found with him who proudly lifts up his mind,” b.Erub, 55a. Pride is idolatry and denial of God, as is shown with the help of Prv. 16:5 with Dt. 7:26, the application of Is. 2:22, and on the basis of other passages, b.Sota, 4b, cf. also 5a. Ab., 4, 7 contains an important warning of Rabbi Ismael b Jose against the judicial office: “He who refrains from judging keeps himself from enmity, theft and vain swearing, but he who is bold in decision is a fool, an evil-doer, and of a haughty spirit.” bl sg

 or jwr sg

 is not biblical, nor does it occur in the Qumran texts, which have bl µr

 etc. Later Jewish and Jewish Hell. texts show that the hubris concept of the Gk. OT (® 299, 31 ff.) was still alive and also influenced primitive Christianity (® 306, 25 ff.), though it did not undergo any further development, cf. Sib., 2, 259 (list of vices), 3, 455 and 529 (passion piety); S. Bar. 36:8; 48:40; 83:12 f.; Test. R. 3:5; B. 9:3 (a Chr. formulation); Test. Job 15:6, 8; 41:4. Finally one might ref. to the apocalyptic statement in Sib., 4, 152–164 in which one finds together the two elements in hubris, the wicked act of destruction and impious joy at it.

D.  The New Testament.

In the NT u{bri" and related terms are only sparsely used. The noun occurs only 3 times, always in a pass. sense. The verb is used only trans. There is only indirect ref. to the sin of hubris in uJbristhv" (twice).

1. The noun u{bri" occurs in Ac. 27:10, 21 in words which Paul spoke to the sailors and his fellow-passengers before leaving Crete and then again at the height of the emergency. In both instances we find u{bri" along with zhmiva. The reference of both is to the “hardship,” “difficulty,” “damage” and “loss” which are due to natural forces and which affect both the ship and its complement. In the little list of sufferings in 2 C. 12:10 the u{brei" are “difficulties” which according to Acts too Paul encountered on his journeys through the way, the weather, and the hostility of men ® VII, 608, 2 ff.

2. Paul uses the verb in 1 Th. 2:2 with reference to the sufferings (® V, 924, 28 ff.) and ignominious handling (Ac. 16:12 ff.; Phil. 1:30) which he and Silas had to undergo at Philippi. The u{brei" inflicted on the missionaries, public whipping and imprisonment (Ac. 16:22–24), are official acts of the authorities. uJbrivzw has here the sense of “undergoing ignominious punishment.” In Ac. 14:5 the content of uJbrivzw (“to revile or maltreat”) is not defined. In Lk. 11:45 the rendering “to insult, slander” does not quite do justice to the element of the proud or mockingly ironic in uJbrivzw. The scribe is complaining that Jesus arrogantly attacks the leaders of His people with insulting mockery. The roughly handled messengers of Mt. 22:6 are the prophets of the OT and perhaps also the apostles of the NT. They must suffer martyrdom; the term uJbrivzw derives from the passion piety of Judaism ® V, 907, 13 ff. In the third intimation of the passion the strengthening uJbrisqhvsetai (® V, 634, 10 ff.) occurs along with ejmpaicqhvsetai, Lk. 18:32: Jesus is to suffer the fate of the righteous of the OT, the prophets and the martyrs.

3. uJbristhv" occurs only at R. 1:30 in a list of vices. It is hardly a constituent part of such lists, but simply serves with many other terms to swell out the number of sins. uJbristav" is given strong emphasis by qeostugei`", which is to be taken as an adjectival attribute: “despisers hated by God” as representatives of moral inferiority ® 296, 3 ff. The expression qeostugei`" uJbristav" presupposes rebellion against God, for the reference is to the disruption of human fellowship as a result of ungodliness. According to 1 Tm. 1:13 Paul described himself as a onetime blasphemer, persecutor and evil-doer. The three terms refer to the period when the apostle persecuted the community (1 C. 15:9; Gl. 1:13) or Christ Himself (Ac. 9:4, 5; 22:7, 8; 26:14, 15). The more specific use of uJbristhv" is not current in Paul. The word characterises the persecution of the community as revolt against God.

4. Hb. 10:29 contains the only compound of the verb in the NT, namely, ejnubrivzw. Transgression of the Law of Moses brings death. How much more sharply will he be punished, then, who has sinned against Christ, trampled underfoot the Son of God, treated the blood of the covenant as profane, and done despite (ejnubrivsa") to the Spirit of grace. The three statements are parallel and mean the same thing; similarly the three verbs katapathvsa", koino;n hJghsavmeno" and ejnubrivsa" correspond.

E.  The Early Church.

The usage found in t___NT only at Hb. 10:29 has a par. in 2 Cl., 14, 4: He who acts wickedly (uJbrivsa") against the flesh (which was also the flesh of Christ) acts wickedly against the Church. 1 Cl., 59, 3 (based on Is. 13:11) shows the influence of biblical developments on liturgical language in Christianity as well as in Judaism, where the 12th petition of the Prayer of Eighteen Benedictions invokes God, on the basis of Is. 13:11, as the One who humbles arrogant boasters. Often u{bri" and related words are used in the sense of Christian endurance, Herm.m., 8, 10; Dg., 5, 15. In Herm.s., 6, 3, 4 the word occurs for the temporal punishment in which the righteous are exposed to indignities by unworthy men. The meaning of u{bri" in Herm.s., 9, 11, 8 is obscure. Acc. to Just.Dial., 136, 3 the wicked rejection of Christ is directed against God Himself. At bottom pagans deride their own gods in their poetry, Apol., 4, 9. When they protect golden idols from theft this presupposes the scornful view these cannot protect themselves, Dg., 2, 7. To set up idols is to mock God, Just.Apol., 9, 3. Pagans mistreat the earth which they hold to be a goddess, Aristid.Apol., 4, 3. Tat.Or. Graec., 23, 1 adopts the philosophical criticism of the games when he states that hubris is crowned there instead of being punished.

Sib., 6, 25 alludes to the mocking of Christ on the cross by means of the crown of thorns and the drink, cf. Test. B. 9:3; Act. Joh. 106 (p. 204, 8). He knows the evil they do to him. The charge of uJbrivzein against Jesus, to which there is only implied ref. in Lk. 11:45, is raised in Acta Pilati B 4:3f. on the ground of prediction of His resurrection. Here as in the NT examples of hubris etc. are neither numerous nor significant. Only the development of Chr. theology made the concept important. In the Chr. doctrine of tyrants in opposition to the state hubris as rebellion against God became from the 2nd cent. onwards a mark of the autonomous ruler hostile to God. Hipp., who died as a political prisoner in the Sardinian mines, worked out this teaching. Aug. Enarratio, 2, 15 on Ps. 18 (MPL, 36 [1861], 163) calls superbia the basic sin which caused the fall and from which all schisms and individual sins derive.

PRIDE. See VIRTUE/VICE LISTS

VIRTUE/VICE LISTS. The practice of compiling lists of virtues and vices was widespread in the ancient Mediterranean world. These lists typically specified vices or sins that were to be avoided and virtues that were to be practiced. The code of conduct reflected in such lists was normally the conventional one of the period. Both abstract and concrete terms for virtues and vices were employed, and mental dispositions as well as overt acts were mentioned. In addition, types of people who exhibited particular virtues and vices were frequently enumerated, and occasionally various vices and virtues were even personified. These ethical lists were used for a wide variety of purposes, including characterization, description, exemplification, instruction, exhortation, apology, and polemic. Numerous examples of these lists, which vary enormously in length, form, function, and content, are contained in polytheistic, Jewish, and Christian literature.

A.        Greco-Roman World

As the comprehensive examination by Vögtle (1936) established, lists of virtues and vices occur in both literary and non-literary sources of the Greco-Roman world. They are found, for instance, in philosophical discussions of virtue and vice, in the diatribe and Roman satire, in rhetorical and astrological texts, and on inscriptions. Stoics, who maintained that virtue is the only good and vice the only evil, were especially fond of compiling extensive lists of the various virtues and vices. Accepting Plato’s fourfold division of virtue (areteµ) into phroneµsis (wisdom, prudence, understanding), soµphrosyneµ (moderation, temperance, self-restraint), dikaiosyneµ (justice), and andreia (courage), they divided these cardinal virtues into numerous sub-types.

A similar procedure was used in regard to both vices and emotions, with a basic fourfold division applied in each case. Aphrosyneµ (folly),  akolasia (profligacy, licentiousness), adikia (injustice), and deilia (cowardice) were given as the four cardinal vices (kakiai), and each was understood as the antithesis of the corresponding virtue. Closely linked to the vices were the emotions and passions (patheµ). Stoics viewed these negatively and regarded apatheia or freedom from passion as the ideal. The four chief passions were seen as lypeµ (grief), phobos (fear), epithymia (desire, lust), and heµdoneµ (pleasure). Specific types of lypeµ were said to include not only such emotions as anguish and distress but also jealousy, envy, and even pity.

Both passions and vices proper were mentioned in Stoic vice lists, which were often used to describe and castigate the sinful and irrational life led by the masses or by particular individuals. Whereas vice lists thus depict the deficient life that fails to achieve its human potential, virtue lists paint and praise the ideal, whether it be that of the ideal manner of life or of some ideal figure, such as that of the wise man or of the good sovereign. Lists of virtues and vices thus play an important role in moral instruction and exhortation (Malherbe 1986: 138–41).

Greco-Roman authors who use the lists include Pseudo-Aristotle (On Virtues and Vices), Pseudo-Cebes (Fitzgerald and White 1983), Cicero (e.g., Tusc. 4.11–27), Pseudo-Crates (e.g., Ep. 15), Pseudo-Diogenes (e.g., Ep. 28), Dio Chrysostom (Mussies 1972: 67–70, 172–77), Diogenes Laertius (e.g., 7.92–93, 110–12), Epictetus (e.g., Diss. 3.20.5–6), Pseudo-Heraclitus (Attridge 1976: 25–39), Horace (e.g., Ep. 1.1.33–40; 6.12), Lucian (Betz 1961: 183–211), Maximus of Tyre (e.g., Or. 36.4c), Musonius Rufus (e.g., Frag. XVI), Onasander (Dibelius and Conzelmann Pastoral Epistles Hermeneia, 158–60), Philostratus (Petzke 1970: 220–27), Plautus (e.g., Pseudolus 138–39, 360–68), Plutarch (e.g., Mor. 468B, 523D; see the indices in Betz 1975: 367 and 1978: 581), Seneca (Bultmann 1910: 19 n. 3), Soranus (Vögtle 1936: 79–80), Teles (e.g., Frag. IVA), Virgil (e.g., Aen. 6.733), and various astrologers, including Ptolemy (= Claudius Ptolemaeus), Teucer of Babylon, and Vettius Valens (Vögtle 1936: 84–88; Kamlah 1964: 137–39). In addition, lists of virtues and vices occur in the Corpus Hermeticum (Kamlah 1964: 115–36), especially in tractates I and XIII (Grese 1979: 111–12, 121, 127–28, 131–33).

B.        The Ancient Near East

While catalogs of sins and transgressions in both Mesopotamian (Schmökel 1978: 131–33) and Egyptian materials (e.g., Book of the Dead 125) have been noted, particular attention has been given to lists in ancient Iranian cosmological traditions. These mythological lists contain the names of various spirits of good (under Ahuramazda) and evil (under Angra Mainyu) which oppose one another in a cosmic, dualistic struggle. These divine and demonic spirits are largely personifications of abstract virtues and vices (Jackson 1928: 37–109), so that the juxtaposition of these two groups serves to form an antithetic catalog of good and evil. Kamlah (1964) has paid particular attention to this primitive Iranian myth with its antithetic catalog form and has endeavored to trace the history of its development and use in both Iranian (e.g., the Bundahishn) and non-Iranian literature (e.g., Plutarch, De Is. et Os. 46–47 = Mor. 369D–370C).

C.        The Hebrew Bible and Non-Canonical Early Jewish Literature

The Hebrew Bible contains surprisingly few lists of sins. Simple lists occur in Jer 7:9 and Hos 4:2, which presuppose the sins forbidden in the Decalogue (Exod 20:1–17; Deut 5:6–21), and in Prov 6:16–19, which gives seven evils hated by God (cf. Prov 8:13). Similarly, lists of virtues are brief and appear in descriptions of God (Exod 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Pss 86:15; 103:8; Jonah 4:2), of humans endowed by God (Exod 31:3; 35:31; Eccl 2:26), and of righteous men (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3). In the judgment of most scholars (e.g., Wibbing 1959: 26; Conzelmann 1 Corinthians Hermeneia, 100; Schweizer 1976: 463 n. 13; Betz Galatians Hermeneia, 282), however, these lists neither constitute a fixed literary form nor serve as the models for later Jewish and Christian catalogs.

In contrast to the Hebrew Bible, lists of both virtues and vices are quite numerous in later Jewish literature. They vary widely in both form and content, with some reflecting the influence of the Decalogue (Berger 1972: 272–73) and others that of Greek philosophy. The lists appear, for example, in Apocalypse of Abraham 24, 3 Baruch (4:17; 8:5; 13:4), 1 Enoch (10:20; 91:6–7), 2 Enoch (9:1; 10:4–6; 34:1–2; 66:6; Kamlah 1964: 160–62), Jubilees (7:20–21; 21:21; 23:14), 4 Maccabees (1:2–4, 18, 26–27; 2:15; 5:23–24; 8:3), Philo (Lagrange 1911: 539–42; Lietzmann An die Römer HNT, 36; Vögtle 1936: 107–13; Wibbing 1959: 27–29; Kamlah 1964: 50–53, 104–15), Sybilline Oracles (Bussmann 1975: 155–57), Testament of Abraham 10 (rec. A), Testament of Moses 7, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Vögtle 1936: 102–06; Wibbing 1959: 31–33; Kamlah 1964: 171–75), Wisdom of Solomon (8:7; 14:22–26; Easton 1932: 1–3), and in rabbinic literature (Klein 1909: 94–101; Francke 1930: 24–27; Kamlah 1964: 150–60; contrast Vögtle 1936: 106–07), as well as in the writings of Qumran. The double catalog in 1QS 4:3–14 has received particular attention (Wibbing 1959: 43–76; Kamlah 1964: 39–50; von der Osten-Sacken 1969: 150–63) in regard to Gal 5:19–23 and other early Christian texts (Braun 1966: 1.172, 212–14; 2.289–301; Mussner Galaterbrief HTKNT, 392–95).

D.        The New Testament

The fullest list of NT catalogs of virtues and vices is given by Mussies (1972: 67, 172), who cites as examples the following:

Virtue Lists: 2 Cor 6:6–7a; Gal 5:22–23; Eph 4:2–3, 32–5:2; 5:9; Phil 4:8; Col 3:12; 1 Tim 3:2–4, 8–10, 11–12; 4:12; 6:11, 18; 2 Tim 2:22–25; 3:10; Titus 1:8; 2:2–10; Heb 7:26; 1 Pet 3:8; 2 Pet 1:5–7; (1 Cor 13:4–7).

Vice Lists: Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21–22; Rom 1:29–31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 4:31; 5:3–5; Col 3:5–8; 1 Tim 1:9–10; 6:4–5; 2 Tim 3:2–4; Titus 1:7; 3:3; 1 Pet 2:1; 4:3, 15; Rev 9:21; 21:8; 22:15.

While other scholars would delete some of Mussies’ examples and/or add further instances (e.g., Luke 18:11), there is a broad consensus that the lists played an important role in both early Christian parenesis and polemic (Karris 1971; 1973). Debate has centered on the origin of the NT lists. Various Hellenistic (e.g., Lietzmann An die Römer HNT, 35–36; ANRW 25/2: 1088–92), Jewish (e.g., Seeberg 1903: 9–44; 1905: 109–29; Daxer 1914: 25–58; Wibbing 1959), and Iranian (Kamlah 1964; Suggs 1972: 65–73) sources have been proposed, but no solution has become definitive (so Käsemann 1980: 49–50; Coetzer 1984: 37–39). Of the NT lists, greatest attention has been paid to those in the Pauline corpus (Larsson 1962: 210–23; Furnish 1968: 84–89; Schweizer 1976), especially those in the Pastoral Epistles (McEleney 1974; Mott 1978; Donelson 1986: 171–76).

The functions of the NT lists are broadly analogous to their use outside of early Christian literature. For example, Greco-Roman philosophers frequently began their speeches with a list of vices in order to depict the wretched moral condition of the masses. Paul, similarly, uses a vice list at the beginning of Romans (1:29–31) to depict the condition of people who have not appropriated the knowledge of God (Malherbe 1987: 24, 31–32). Again, lists of virtues are employed in both philosophical tractates and the NT to delineate the qualifications and characteristics of good leaders, such as the ideal king or bishop (Malherbe 1986: 138–39).

E.        Non-Canonical Early Christian Literature

Many of the Apostolic Fathers, the apologists, the authors of the NT Apocrypha and Nag Hammadi Codices, the theologians, and other early Christians made frequent use of lists of virtues and vices. In general, these lists have received surprisingly little scholarly attention. Recent exceptions to this neglect include studies by Rambaux (1978) of Tertullian’s lists and by Mussies (1981) of a personified list of vices and virtues in the Gnostic treatise On the Origin of the World (NHC II,106,27–107,17). Examples of the non-canonical lists cited in secondary literature include the following:

1.      Apostolic Fathers: Barn. 2:2–3; 18–20; 1 Clem. 3:2; 30:1,3,8; 35:5; 62:2; 64:1; 2 Clem. 4:3 (see Donfried 1974: 114–18); Did. 2:1–5:2; Herm. Mand. 5.2.4; 6.2.3–5; 8.3–5, 9–10; 11.8, 12; 12.2.1; 12.3.1; Sim. 6.5.5; 9.15.2–3; Vis. 3.8.3–7; Ign. Eph. 3:1; Pol. Phil. 2:2; 4:3; 5:2; 12:2.

2.      Apologists: Aristides, Apol. 8; 9; 11; 13; 15; Athenagoras Res. 21; 23; Justin Apol. II,2; 5; Dial. 14; 93; 95; 110; Theoph. Autol. 1.2; 2.34.

3.      New Testament Apocrypha: Acts Andr. 8; 10; Acts John  29; 35–36; Acts Paul and Thecla 17; Acts Pet. 2; Acts Phil. 90; Acts Thom. 12; 28; 55–56; 58; 79; 84–85; 126 (see Klijn 1962: 218–19); Apoc. Paul 5–6; Apoc. Pet. 22–34 (see Dieterich 1913: 163–95); Ps-Clem. Hom. 1.18; 2.44; 8.23; 11.27; 17.16; Ps-Clem. Rec. 4.36; 9.17.

4.      Nag Hammadi Codices: I,80,3–11; 85,7–12; II,18,14–31; 106,27–107,17; VI,23,12–17; 30,34–31,7; 39,22–33; VII,37,26–35; 84,19–26; 95,20–33. For other Gnostic lists, see Pistis Sophia 102; 127; 146–47; Irenaeus Haer. 1.29.4.

5.      Other: Altercatio Simonis et Theophili 21; Ps-Clement, de virg. 1.8; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.6, 20; 7.12; Const. App. 2.6, 24; 7.18, 33; Ps-Cyprian, adv. aleat. 5; Hippolytus, Haer. 4.15–26; John Chrysostom, Cat. 1.32–33, 36 (Series Stavronikita); 2.16, 39, 42–43 (Series Montfaucon); and Tertullian (see Rambaux 1978: 212–13). For additional Christian vice lists, see esp. Resch 1905: 117–24.

Lists of virtues and vices continued to play an important role in later Christianity. The three “theological” virtues of faith, hope, and love were added to the four Platonic-Stoic “cardinal” or “natural” virtues to form the “Seven Virtues” (Zöckler 1904; Kirk 1920: 29–48). The most famous vice list was that of the “Seven Deadly Sins,” which were held to be pride, covetousness, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth (Zöckler 1893; 1897: 253–56; Kirk 1920: 265–68; 1932: 201 n. 4). The popularity of such lists resided, above all, in their utility for moral instruction and exhortation.

Bibliography

Attridge, H. W. 1976. First-Century Cynicism in the Epistles of Heraclitus. HTS 29. Missoula, MT.

Berger, K. 1972.  Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Pt. 1, Markus und Parallelen. WMANT 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Betz, H. D. 1961.  Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. TU 76. Berlin.

———. 1975. Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature. SCHNT 3. Leiden.

———. 1978. Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. SCHNT 4. Leiden.

Braun, H. 1966.  Qumran und das Neue Testament. 2 vols. Tübingen.

Bultmann, R. 1910.  Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. FRLANT 13. Göttingen.

Bussmann, C. 1975.  Themen der paulinischen Missionspredigt auf dem Hintergrund der spätjüdisch-hellenistischen Missionsliteratur. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/3. 2d ed. Frankfurt am Main.

Coetzer, W. C. 1984. The Literary Genre of Paranesis in the Pauline Letters. TE 17: 36–42.

Daxer, H. 1914.  Römer 1,18–2,10 im Verhältnis zur spätjüdischen Lehrauffassung. Naumburg.

Dieterich, A. 1913.  Nekyia: Beiträge zur Erklärung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse. 2d ed. Leipzig.

Donelson, L. R. 1986. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 22. Tübingen.

Donfried, K. P. 1974. The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity. NovTSup 38. Leiden.

Easton, B. S. 1932. New Testament Ethical Lists. JBL 51: 1–12.

Fitzgerald, J. T., and White, L. M. 1983. The Tabula of Cebes. SBLTT 24. Chico, CA.

Francke, K. 1930.  Das Woher der neutestamentlichen Lastertafeln: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Spezialstudie. Leipzig.

Furnish, V. P. 1968. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville.

Grese, W. C. 1979. Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature. SCHNT 5. Leiden.

Jackson, A. V. W. 1928. Zoroastrian Studies. Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series 12. New York.

Kamlah, E. 1964.  Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. WUNT 7. Tübingen.

Karris, R. J. 1971. The Function and Sitz im Leben of the Paraenetic Elements in the Pastoral Epistles. Th.D. diss. Harvard.

———. 1973. The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles. JBL 92: 549–64.

Käsemann, E. 1980. Commentary on Romans. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids.

Kirk, K. E. 1920. Some Principles of Moral Theology and Their Application. London.

———. 1932. The Vision of God. 2d ed. London.

Klein, G. 1909.  Der älteste christliche Katechismus und die jüdische Propaganda-Literatur. Berlin.

Klijn, A. F. J. 1962. The Acts of Thomas. NovTSup 5. Leiden.

Lagrange, M.-J. 1911. Le catalogue des vices dans l’épître aux Romains (I,28–31). RB n.s. 8: 534–49.

Larsson, E. 1962. Christus als Vorbild. ASNU 23. Lund and Copenhagen.

Malherbe, A. J. 1986. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. Library of Early Christianity 4. Philadelphia.

———. 1987. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia.

McEleney, N. J. 1974. The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles. CBQ 36: 203–19.

Mott, S. C. 1978. Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus II 10–14 and III 3–7. NovT 20: 22–48.

Mussies, G. 1972. Dio Chrysostom and the New Testament. SCHNT 2. Leiden.

———. 1981. Catalogues of Sins and Virtues Personified (NHC II,5). Pp. 315–35 in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden.

Osten-Sacken, P. von der. 1969.  Gott und Belial. SUNT 6. Göttingen.

Petzke, G. 1970.  Die Traditionen über Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament. SCHNT 1. Leiden.

Rambaux, C. 1978. Les listes de vices et de vertus dans l’oeuvre de Tertullien. RSPT 62: 211–24.

Resch, G. 1905.  Das Aposteldecret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Text-gestalt. TU 13/3. Leipzig.

Schmökel, H. 1978. Mesopotamian Texts. Pp. 68–145 in Near Eastern Religious Texts relating to the Old Testament, ed. W. Beyerlin. Trans. J. Bowden. London.

Schweizer, E. 1976. Gottesgerechtigkeit und Lasterkataloge bei Paulus (inkl. Kol und Eph).  Pp. 461–77 in Rechtfertigung, Festschrift E. Käsemann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen and Göttingen.

Seeberg, A. 1903.  Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit. Leipzig.

———. 1905.  Das Evangelium Christi. Leipzig.

Suggs, M. J. 1972. The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function. Pp. 60–74 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune. Leiden.

Vögtle, A. 1936.  Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament. NTAbh 16/4-5. Münster.

Wibbing, S. 1959.  Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte. BZNW 25. Berlin.

Zöckler, O. 1893.  Das Lehrstück von den Sieben Hauptsünden. Munich.

———. 1897.  Askese und Mönchtum. 2d ed. Freiburg.


Instances of “pride”

PRIDE.

Ex. 18:10,11

Lev. 26:19

Deut. 8:11-14,17-20

Judg. 9:14,15

1 Sam. 2:3-5

1 Kin. 20:11

2 Kin. 14:9,10 2 Chr. 25:18,19.

Job 11:12

Job 12:2,3

Job 13:2,5

Job 15:1-13

Job 18:3,4

Job 21:31,32

Job 32:9-13

Job 37:24

Psa. 9:20

Psa. 10:2-6,11

Psa. 12:3,4

Psa. 18:27

Psa. 31:23

Psa. 49:11

Psa. 52:7

Psa. 73:6,8,9

Psa. 75:4-6

Psa. 101:5

Psa. 119:21,69,70,78

Psa. 138:6

Prov. 3:34

Prov. 6:16,17

Prov. 8:13

Prov. 10:17

Prov. 11:2,12

Prov. 12:9,15

Prov. 13:10

Prov. 14:21

Prov. 15:5,10,12,25,32

Prov. 16:5,18,19

Prov. 17:19

Prov. 18:11,12

Prov. 20:6

Prov. 21:4,24

Prov. 25:14,27

Prov. 26:5,12,16

Prov. 27:2

Prov. 28:11,25

Prov. 29:8,23

Prov. 30:12,13

Isa. 2:11-17

Isa. 3:16-26

Isa. 5:8,15

Isa. 9:9,10

Isa. 10:5-16

Isa. 13:11

Isa. 14:12-16

Isa. 22:16,19

Isa. 23:7,9

Isa. 24:4,21

Isa. 26:5

Isa. 28:3

Isa. 47:7-10

Jer. 9:23,24

Jer. 13:9,15,17

Jer. 48:7,14,15,29 Isa. 16:6,7.

Jer. 49:4,16

Jer. 50:31,32

Ezek. 16:56

Ezek. 28:2-9,17

Ezek. 30:6

Ezek. 31:10,11 vs. 12-14.

Dan. 4:37

Dan. 11:45

Hos. 5:5 Hos. 7:10.

Hos. 10:11

Obad. 3,4

Nah. 3:19

Hab. 2:4,5,9

Zeph. 2:10,15

Zeph. 3:11

Mal. 4:1

Matt. 23:6-8,10-12 Matt. 20:26,27; Mark 10:43; Luke 9:46; 18:14.

Mark 7:21,22

Mark 12:38,39 Luke 20:45-47.

Luke 1:51,52

Luke 11:43

Luke 14:8,9

Luke 20:46 Matt. 23:6,7.

Rom. 1:22,29,30

Rom. 11:17-21,25

Rom. 12:3,16

1 Cor. 1:29

1 Cor. 3:18

1 Cor. 4:6-8,10

1 Cor. 5:2,6

1 Cor. 8:1,2

1 Cor. 10:12

1 Cor. 13:4

1 Cor. 14:38

2 Cor. 10:5,12,18

2 Cor. 12:7

Gal. 6:3

Eph. 4:17

Phil. 2:3

1 Tim. 2:9

1 Tim. 3:6

1 Tim. 6:3,4,17

2 Tim. 3:2,4

Jas. 3:1

Jas. 4:6

1 Pet. 5:3 v. 5.

1 John 2:16

Rev. 3:17,18

Rev. 18:7,8See Rich, The.

Instances of: Ahithophel, 2 Sam. 17:23. Naaman, refusing to wash in Jordan, 2 Kin. 5:11-13. Hezekiah, in displaying his resources, 2 Kin. 20:13; 2 Chr. 32:31; Isa. 39:2. Uzziah, 2 Chr. 26:16-19. Haman, Esth. 3:5; 5:11,13; 6:6; 7:10. Kings of Tyre, Ezek. 28:2. Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4:30-34; 5:20.See Ambition.[3]


----

Pride.

 

1.         Is sin. Pr 21:4.

2.         Hateful to God. Pr 6:16,17; 16:5.

3.         Hateful to Christ. Pr 8:12,13.

4.         Often originates in

a.  Self-righteousness. Lu 18:11,12.

b.  Religious privileges. Zep 3:11.

c.  Unsanctified knowledge. 1Co 8:1.

d.  Inexperience. 1Ti 3:6.

e.  Possession of power. Le 26:19; Eze 30:6.

f.  Possession of wealth. 2Ki 20:13.

5.         Forbidden. 1Sa 2:3; Ro 12:3,16.

6.         Defiles a man. Mr 7:20,22.

7.         Hardens the mind. Da 5:20.

8.         Saints

a.  give not away. Ps 131:1.

b.  Respect not, in others. Ps 40:4.

c.  Mourn over, in others. Jer 13:17.

d.  Hate, in others. Ps 101:5.

9.         A hindrance to seeking God. Ps 10:4; Ho 7:10.

10.       A hindrance to improvement. Pr 26:12.

11.       A characteristic

a.  The devil. 1Ti 3:6.

b.  The world. 1Jo 2:16.

c.  False teachers. 1Ti 6:3,4.

d.  The wicked. Hab 2:4,5; Ro 1:30.

12.       Comes from the heart. Mr 7:21-23.

13.       The wicked encompassed with. Ps 73:6.

14.       Leads men to

a.  Contempt and rejection of God’s word and ministers. Jer 43:2.

b.  A persecuting spirit. Ps 10:2.

c.  Wrath. Pr 21:24.

d.  Contention. Pr 13:10; 28:25.

e.  Self-deception. Jer 49:16; Ob 1:3.

15.       Exhortation against. Jer 13:15.

16.       Is followed by

a.  Shame. Pr 11:2.

b.  Debasement. Pr 29:23; Isa 28:3.

c.  Destruction. Pr 16:18; 18:12.

17.       Shall abound in the last days. 2Ti 3:2.

18.       Woe to. Isa 28:1,3.

19.       They who are guilty of, shall be

a.  Resisted. Jas 4:6.

b.  Brought into contempt. Isa 23:9.

c.  Recompensed. Ps 31:23.

d.  Marred. Jer 13:9.

e.  Subdued. Ex 18:11; Isa 13:11.

f.  Brought low. Ps 18:27; Isa 2:12.

g.     Abased. Da 4:37; Mt 23:12.

h.  Scattered. Lu 1:51.

i.  Punished. Zep 2:10,11; Mal 4:1.

20.       Exemplified

a.  Ahithophel. 2Sa 17:23.

b.  Hezekiah. 2Ch 32:25.

c.       Pharaoh. Ne 9:10.

RELATED MEDIA
See the rest →
RELATED SERMONS
See the rest →