But in considering this matter, the main point is that the Christians did not look to these things for salvation. The apostle explained that things such as the eating of meat or vegetables, the observing of certain days as above others, even the eating of meat that had been offered to idols before being put up for regular sale in the marketplaces, were matters of conscience. He wrote: “One man judges one day as above another; another man judges one day as all others; let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. Also, he who eats, eats to Jehovah, for he gives thanks to God; and he who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, and yet gives thanks to God.” Then he summed up his argument by stating the principle: “For the kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit,” and concluded: “Happy is the man that does not put himself on judgment by what he approves. But if he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats, because he does not eat out of faith. Indeed, everything that is not out of faith is sin.”—Rom. 14:5, 6, 17, 22, 23; 1 Cor. 10:25-30.

An enlightening comment is made on this point by Bible scholar Albert Barnes, in his Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 290, 291). Making reference to Acts 21:20, which reads: “After hearing this [an account of God’s blessing on Paul’s ministry to the nations] they began to glorify God, and they said to him: ‘You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law,’” Barnes remarks: “The reference here is, to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, &c. It may seem remarkable that they should still continue to observe those rites, since it was the manifest design of Christianity to abolish them. But we are to remember, (1.) That those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were trained to their observance. (2.) That the apostles conformed to them while they remained in Jerusalem, and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them. ch. iii. 1. Luke xxiv. 53. (3.) That the question about their observance had never been agitated at Jerusalem. It was only among the Gentile converts that the question had risen, and there it must arise, for if they were to be observed, they must have been imposed upon them by authority. (4.) The decision of the council (ch. xv.) related only to the Gentile converts. [Acts 15:23] . . . (5.) It was to be presumed, that as the Christian religion became better understood—that as its large, free, and [universal] nature became more and more developed, the peculiar institutions of Moses would be laid aside of course, without agitation, and without tumult. Had the question been agitated [publicly] at Jerusalem, it would have excited tenfold opposition to Christianity, and would have rent the Christian church into factions, and greatly retarded the advance of the Christian doctrine. We are to remember also, (6.) That, in the arrangement of Divine Providence, the time was drawing near which was to destroy the temple, the city, and the nation; which was to put an end to sacrifices, and effectually to close for ever the observance of the Mosaic rites. As this destruction was so near, and as it would be so effectual an argument against the observance of the Mosaic rites, the Great Head of the church did not suffer the question of their obligation to be needlessly agitated among the disciples at Jerusalem.”

VULTURE

[Heb., ra·hhamʹ]; Black vulture [Heb., ʽoz·ni·yahʹ].

These birds are listed among those declared ‘unclean’ in the Mosaic law.—Lev. 11:13, 18; Deut. 14:12, 17.

Vultures are large carrion-eating birds rather similar in appearance to the hawks and eagles, except that the vultures generally have only soft down or scattered feathers on the head and neck and their claws are comparatively weak. They render a very valuable service in many lands of warm climate, consuming the dead carcasses and putrefying flesh that might otherwise cause disease.

In Arabic, a language that is cognate with Hebrew, a word similar to ra·hhamʹ designates the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), often called Pharaoh’s hen. This bird is white except for its black wings and yellow bill and legs. It is the smallest of the vultures found in Bible lands, being about twenty-five inches (64.1 centimeters) in length. With its bare wrinkled face, large eyes, hooked beak and curved talons, it is quite repulsive in appearance. Due to its willingness to eat refuse disdained even by other vultures, it is considered the foulest scavenger of the East, and by the same token the most useful, because of the service it performs.

The griffon vulture is the most common of the vultures found in Palestine and, according to one naturalist, it is “the most striking ornithological feature of Palestine. It is impossible in any part of the country to look up without seeing some of them majestically soaring at an immense height.” A yellowish-brown bird, it measures about four feet (1.2 meters) in length, with a wingspan of some nine feet (2.7 meters). The griffon vulture was the symbol of the Egyptian goddess Nekhebt and also appeared on the battle standards of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Persians.

The lammergeier or bearded vulture is now becoming uncommon in Palestine. It is the largest of the vultures, standing about four feet (1.2 meters) high. With its long pointed wings that span almost ten feet (3 meters), the lammergeier flies with unusual grace and wheels effortlessly as it searches the land below for food. Unlike other vultures, the lammergeier has feathers on its head and a beard resembling that of a goat. It has a preference for marrow bones, carrying these to great heights and then letting them drop upon rocks so that they split open, allowing the bird to reach the marrow within.

The Hebrew word ʽoz·ni·yahʹ is of uncertain derivation. Lexicographer Ludwig Koehler (Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, p. 695) suggests that it identifies the black vulture (Aegypius monachus), a vulture about the same size as the griffon but classed by ornithologists as of a separate “genus” among the vultures. Whereas vultures commonly prefer to nest on cliff ledges or rocky crevices, the black vulture usually nests in tall trees. More brown than black, it has the vulture’s characteristic naked head; the neck is blue, the tail wedge-shaped.

WAGON

[Heb., ʽagha·lahʹ, from ʽa·ghalʹ, meaning to roll].

The wagon or cart of ancient times was a simple vehicle, usually wooden, having spoked or solid wheels. (1 Sam. 6:14) Some were little more than two-wheeled open platforms fitted with a horizontal tongue or pole in front. Others had sides, and some were covered, such as the six covered wagons (drawn by two bulls each) used to transport tabernacle articles. (Num. 7:2-9) The “coaches” of Revelation 18:13 may denote four-wheeled wagons or carriages.

In Israel, especially in earlier times, the wagon was usually drawn by cattle rather than horses, the latter being used especially for chariots and in warfare. (2 Sam. 6:3, 6; 15:1; 1 Chron. 13:7, 9; Prov. 21:31) Wagons were employed to transport persons (Gen. 45:19, 21, 27; 46:5), grain and other loads. (1 Sam. 6:7-14; Amos 2:13) Those used in warfare (as mentioned at Psalm 46:9) may have been military baggage wagons. In the time of Isaiah, when the Israelites had many horses (Isa. 2:7), wagons pulled by horses were used in threshing.—Isa. 28:27, 28.

The prophet Isaiah pronounced woe upon persons ‘drawing sin as with wagon cords,’ possibly indicating that such individuals were attached to sin just as animals were tied with cords to wagons they pulled.—Isa. 5:18.

WALLS

As long as man has been constructing houses and cities he has been building walls out of many materials, in a variety of designs, to serve a number of purposes. The size and strength of structures largely depend on the construction and materials used in their walls.

The walls of David’s palace were of cut stone. (2 Sam. 5:11) Similarly, the outside walls of Solomon’s temple, it appears, were of quarried stone, with some of their interior surfaces covered over with cedar boards. (1 Ki. 6:2, 7, 15) These interior wooden panels, in turn, were elaborately decorated with carvings and overlays of gold. (1 Ki. 6:29; 1 Chron. 29:4; 2 Chron. 3:4, 7) The interior wall surfaces of Belshazzar’s palace were plastered. (Dan. 5:5) The walls of the homes of the people in general were ordinarily of simple construction—sun-dried bricks, uncut stones or plastered material over a wooden framework. Sometimes the surface was whitewashed.—Acts 23:3.

CITY WALLS

In ancient times fear caused people to erect protective walls around large cities to prevent enemy invasions. (1 Ki. 4:13; Isa. 25:12) The inhabitants of the small “dependent towns” round about (Num. 21:25) likewise took refuge within the walled city if attacked. The Mosaic law made a legal distinction between walled and unwalled towns, as to the rights of house owners. (Lev. 25:29-31) The walls not only provided a physical barrier between city residences and an enemy but also afforded an elevated position atop which the defenders could protect the walls from being undermined, tunneled through or breached by battering rams. (2 Sam. 11:20-24; 20:15; Ps. 55:10; Song of Sol. 5:7; Isa. 62:6; Ezek. 4:1, 2; 26:9) As a countermeasure, attacking forces sometimes threw up siege walls as shields behind which to assault the city walls.—2 Ki. 25:1; Jer. 52:4; Ezek. 4:2, 3; 21:22; see FORTIFICATIONS.

OTHER WALLS

Stone walls were often built to hedge in vineyards or fields, and to form corrals or sheep pens. (Num. 22:23-25; Prov. 24:30, 31; Isa. 5:5; Mic. 2:12; Hab. 3:17) And there were also walls that served for embankment purposes along terraced hillsides. (Job 24:11) These walls were of a fairly permanent nature, built of undressed field stones and sometimes set in clay or mortar.

SYMBOLIC WALLS

In the Scriptures walls are sometimes mentioned in a figurative way as pictorial of protection and safety (1 Sam. 25:16; Prov. 18:11; 25:28), or as a symbol of separation. (Gen. 49:22; Ezek. 13:10) In this latter sense Paul wrote the Ephesians: “For he [Christ] is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off.” (Eph. 2:14) Paul was well acquainted with the middle wall in Jerusalem’s temple courtyard, which carried a warning sign to the effect that no non-Jew was to go beyond that wall under penalty of death. However, when Paul wrote to the Ephesians in 60 or 61 C.E., though he may have alluded to it in an illustrative way, he was actually not meaning that the literal wall had been abolished, for it was still standing. Rather, the apostle had in mind the Law covenant arrangement that had acted as a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles for centuries.

On the basis of Christ’s death nearly thirty years previously, that symbolic “wall” had been abolished.

Jeremiah was told he would be like fortified walls of copper against those that opposed him. (Jer. 1:18, 19; 15:20) In another illustration, God’s people, though dwelling as in a city without literal walls, therefore seemingly defenseless, enjoy peace and security because of God’s invisible help. (Ezek. 38:11) Or from another point of view, a strong city would be one having Jehovah as a “wall of fire” (Zech. 2:4, 5), or having walls of salvation set up by Jehovah, rather than ones of mere stone and brick. (Isa. 26:1) The “holy city, New Jerusalem,” which comes down out of heaven, is said to have a “great and lofty wall” of jasper, the height of which is 144 cubits, or 210 feet (64 meters), and having twelve foundation stones consisting of precious jewels engraved with the names of the twelve apostles.—Rev. 21:2, 12, 14, 17-19.

WAR

[Heb., la·hhamʹ, to consume, devour, therefore, by extension, to fight; mil·hha·mahʹ (drawn from la·hhamʹ), fighting; tsa·vaʼʹ, to rally, gather together for military service; qa·ravʹ (verb root), to hit or touch upon, draw near, approach, hence, q^eravʹ, collision or encounter, war; Gr., poʹle·mos (source of English “polemics”), fight, battle, war (at James 4:1, violent strife, wrangling, quarrel); stra·teuʹo, to serve in war, to be a soldier, to wage war].

The Bible says that Nimrod “went forth into Assyria,” which was evidently an act of aggression into the territory of Asshur the son of Shem. There Nimrod built cities. (Gen. 10:11) In Abraham’s day another king from Mesopotamia, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, subjected a number of cities (all apparently around the southern end of the Dead Sea) for a period of twelve years, forcing them to serve him. After they rebelled, Chedorlaomer and his allies warred against them, vanquishing the forces of Sodom and Gomorrah, taking their possessions and capturing Abraham’s nephew Lot and his household. At that Abraham mustered 318 trained servants and, together with his three confederates, pursued Chedorlaomer, and recovered the captives and the plunder. However, Abraham did not take any of the booty for himself. This is the first record of a war waged by a servant of God. Abraham’s warring to recover his fellow servant of Jehovah had Jehovah’s approval, for, on Abraham’s return, he was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God.—Gen. 14:1-24.

GOD-ORDAINED WARFARE

Jehovah is “a manly person of war,” “the God of armies” and “mighty in battle.” (Ex. 15:3; 2 Sam. 5:10; Ps. 24:8, 10; Isa. 42:13) Not only has he the right as Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the universe, but he is also obligated by justice to execute or authorize execution of the lawless, to war against all obstinate ones who refuse to obey his righteous laws. Jehovah was therefore just in wiping out the wicked at the time of the Flood, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and in bringing destruction upon Pharaoh’s forces.—Gen. 6:5-7, 13, 17; 19:24; Ex. 15:4, 5; compare 2 Peter 2:5-10; Jude 7.

Israel used as God’s executioner

Jehovah assigned the Israelites the sacred duty of serving as his executioners in the Promised Land to which he brought them. By victoriously directing Israel, who, prior to their deliverance from Egypt, had not known warfare (Ex. 13:17), against “seven nations more populous and mighty” than they were, God magnified his name as “Jehovah of armies, the God of the battle lines of Israel.” This proved that “neither with sword nor with spear does Jehovah save, because to Jehovah belongs the battle.” (Deut. 7:1; 1 Sam. 17:45, 47; compare 2 Chronicles 13:12.) It also furnished the Israelites the opportunity to demonstrate obedience to God’s commandments to the point of endangering their lives in God-ordained warfare.—Deut. 20:1-4.