CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY

RIVER: (Noun) Copious stream of water flowing in channel to sea or lake or marsh or another.

STREAM: (Noun) Body of water running in bed, river or brook.

WATER: (Noun) Colourless transparent tasteless scentless compound of oxygen and hydrogen in liquid state convertible by heat into steam and by cold into ice, kinds of liquid consisting chiefly of this seen in sea, lake, stream, spring, rain, tears, sweat, saliva, urine, serum, etc., body of water as sea or lake or river.

CLEANSE: (Verb) Make clean, purify.

PURIFY: (Verb) Make pure, cleanse (of, from, impurities, sin, etc.); make ceremonially clean; clear of foreign elements, whence purifier.

BIBLE DICTIONARIES

RIVER — (1.) Heb. ‘aphik, properly the channel or ravine that holds water (2 Sam. 22:16), translated “brook,” “river,” “stream,” but not necessarily a perennial stream (Ezek. 6:3; 31:12; 32:6; 34:13).
(2.) Heb. nahal, in winter a “torrent,” in summer a “wady” or valley (Gen. 32:23; Deut. 2:24; 3:16; Isa. 30:28; Lam. 2:18; Ezek. 47:9).
These winter torrents sometimes come down with great suddenness and with desolating force. A distinguished traveller thus describes his experience in this matter:, “I was encamped in Wady Feiran, near the base of Jebel Serbal, when a tremendous thunderstorm burst upon us. After little more than an hour’s rain, the water rose so rapidly in the previously dry wady that I had to run for my life, and with great difficulty succeeded in saving my tent and goods; my boots, which I had not time to pick up, were washed away. In less than two hours a dry desert wady upwards of 300 yards broad was turned into a foaming torrent from 8 to 10 feet deep, roaring and tearing down and bearing everything upon it, tangled masses of tamarisks, hundreds of beautiful palmtrees, scores of sheep and goats, camels and donkeys, and even men, women, and children, for a whole encampment of Arabs was washed away a few miles above me. The storm commenced at five in the evening; at half-past nine the waters were rapidly subsiding, and it was evident that the flood had spent its force.” (Comp. Matt. 7:27; Luke 6:49.)
(3.) Nahar, a “river” continuous and full, a perennial stream, as the Jordan, the Euphrates (Gen. 2:10; 15:18; Deut. 1:7; Ps. 66:6; Ezek. 10:15).
(4.) Tel’alah, a conduit, or water-course (1 Kings 18:32; 2 Kings 18:17; 20:20; Job 38:25; Ezek. 31:4).
(5.) Peleg, properly “waters divided”, i.e., streams divided, throughout the land (Ps. 1:3); “the rivers [i.e., ‘divisions’] of waters” (Job 20:17; 29:6; Prov. 5:16).
(6.) Ye’or, i.e., “great river”, probably from an Egyptian word (Aur), commonly applied to the Nile (Gen. 41:1–3), but also to other rivers (Job 28:10; Isa. 33:21).
(7.) Yubhal, “a river” (Jer. 17:8), a full flowing stream.
(8.) ‘Ubhal, “a river” (Dan. 8:2).

RIVER OF GOD — (Ps. 65:9), as opposed to earthly streams, denoting that the divine resources are inexhaustible, or the sum of all fertilizing streams that water the earth (Gen. 2:10). 1

WATER OF PURIFICATION — used in cases of ceremonial cleansings at the consecration of the Levites (Num. 8:7). It signified, figuratively, that purifying of the heart which must characterize the servants of God. 1

WATER OF SEPARATION — used along with the ashes of a red heifer for the ceremonial cleansing of persons defiled by contact with a dead body (Num. 19). 1

CLEAN — The various forms of uncleanness according to the Mosaic law are enumerated in Lev. 11–15; Num. 19. The division of animals into clean and unclean was probably founded on the practice of sacrifice. It existed before the Flood (Gen. 7:2). The regulations regarding such animals are recorded in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14:1–21.
The Hebrews were prohibited from using as food certain animal substances, such as (1) blood; (2) the fat covering the intestines, termed the caul; (3) the fat on the intestines, called the mesentery; (4) the fat of the kidneys; and (5) the fat tail of certain sheep (Ex. 29:13, 22; Lev. 3:4–9; 9:19; 17:10; 19:26).
The chief design of these regulations seems to have been to establish a system of regimen which would distinguish the Jews from all other nations. Regarding the design and the abolition of these regulations the reader will find all the details in Lev. 20:24–26; Acts 10:9–16; 11:1–10; Heb. 9:9–14. 1

PURIFICATION — the process by which a person unclean, according to the Levitical law, and thereby cut off from the sanctuary and the festivals, was restored to the enjoyment of all these privileges.
The great annual purification of the people was on the Day of Atonement (q.v.).
But in the details of daily life there were special causes of cermonial uncleanness which were severally provided for by ceremonial laws enacted for each separate case. For example, the case of the leper (Lev. 13, 14), and of the house defiled by leprosy (14:49–53; see also Matt. 8:2–4). Uncleanness from touching a dead body (Num. 19:11; Hos. 9:4; Hag. 2:13; Matt. 23:27; Luke 11:44). The case of the high priest and of the Nazarite (Lev. 21:1–4, 10, 11; Num. 6:6, 7; Ezek. 44:25). Purification was effected by bathing and washing the clothes (Lev. 14:8, 9); by washing the hands (Deut. 21:6; Matt. 27:24); washing the hands and feet (Ex. 30:18–21; Heb. 6:2, “baptisms”, R.V. marg., “washings;” 9:10); sprinkling with blood and water (Ex. 24:5–8; Heb. 9:19), etc. Allusions to this rite are found in Ps. 26:6; 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 10:22. 1

FRUIT — a word as used in Scripture denoting produce in general, whether vegetable or animal. The Hebrews divided the fruits of the land into three classes:,
(1.) The fruit of the field, “corn-fruit” (Heb. dagan; all kinds of grain and pulse.
(2.) The fruit of the vine, “vintage-fruit” (Heb. tirosh; grapes, whether moist or dried.
(3.) “Orchard-fruits” (Heb. yitshar, as dates, figs, citrons, etc.
Injunctions concerning offerings and tithes were expressed by these Hebrew terms alone (Num. 18:12; Deut. 14:23). This word “fruit” is also used of children or offspring (Gen. 30:2; Deut. 7:13; Luke 1:42; Ps. 21:10; 132:11); also of the progeny of beasts (Deut. 28:51; Isa. 14:29).
It is used metaphorically in a variety of forms (Ps. 104:13; Prov. 1:31; 11:30; 31:16; Isa. 3:10; 10:12; Matt. 3:8; 21:41; 26:29; Heb. 13:15; Rom. 7:4, 5; 15:28).
The fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 5:9; James 3:17, 18) are those gracious dispositions and habits which the Spirit produces in those in whom he dwells and works. 1

RIVER. Hebrew has a good many different words often rendered ‘river’, although this is not always an accurate translation of the original term.
The Heb. word nahal is common, meaning a wadi or torrent-valley; in summer a dry river-bed or ravine, but a raging torrent in the rainy season. The Jabbok was such a wadi (Dt. 2:37), as were all the streams mentioned in the Elijah stories. Because these river-beds could suddenly become raging torrents, they often symbolize the pride of nations (Is. 66:12), the strength of the invader (Je. 47:2), and the power of the foe (Ps. 124:4). In his vision it was a nahal that Ezekiel saw issuing from the Temple (47:5-12).
The second term, nahar, is the regular word for ‘river’ in Heb. It is used of particular rivers: e.g. the rivers of Eden (Gn. 2:10, 13-14), the Euphrates (Dt. 1:7), and the rivers of Ethiopia (Is. 18:1), Damascus (2 Ki. 5:12), etc. In Ex. 7:19; Ps. 137:1, the word should almost certainly be rendered ‘canals’. The waters from the rock struck by Moses formed a nahar (Ps. 105.41).
The word used most frequently of the Nile is y or? The term is also found in Coptic, and was probably an Egyp. loan-word (BDB): see, e.g., Gn. 41:1; Ex. 1:22. It is used by Jeremiah (46:7f.) as a similitude of Egyp. invasion.
Other Heb. terms for ‘river’ are peleg, irrigating canals (Pss. 1:3; 65:9); apiq, channel or river-bed (Ps. 42:1; Is. 8:7; and yubal or ubal, a stream or watercourse (Is. 30:25; Dn. 8:2-3, 6). In the NT the word for ‘river’ is potamos? It is used of the Euphrates (Rev. 16:12) and the Jordan (Mk. 1:5); of the river issuing from God’s throne (Rev. 22:1f.); and of the Holy Spirit under the figure of living water (Jn. 7:38f.).

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN. The Heb. tuma (‘uncleanness’,) occurs 26 times, whereas the adjective tame (‘unclean’) is found 72 times. Other words appear less frequently. The Gk. akatharsia (‘uncleanness’) and akathartos (‘unclean’) occur 41 times. Other terms are found less often. The concept of cleanness is conveyed by the Heb. tahor??barar and synonyms; the NT employs katharos almost exclusively. In the biblical words for ‘clean’, the physical, ritual and ethical usages overlap.

I. Cleanliness highly regarded
Bodily cleanliness was esteemed highly and practised in Bible lands. Herodotus (2. 27) stated that Egyptian priests bathed twice each day and twice each night. In Israel physical cleanness rendered a man ready to approach God, if his motive was proper. As early as the age of Noah the distinction between clean and unclean obtained. Gn. 7:2 records: ‘Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate.‘ The early references in Genesis to clean and unclean *animals appear to have in mind the question of whether these animals were intended for sacrifice or not. Gn. 9:3 is explicit that ‘every moving thing that lives shall be food for you’. The regulations in Lv. 11 and Dt. 14 make the distinction as a basis for food laws. It is stated: ‘This is the law pertaining to beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters, and every creature that swarms upon the earth: to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten’ (Lv. 11:46-47).

II. In earliest times
In patriarchal times and in the era of the Monarchy in Israel the differentiation is found. Compare Gn. 31:35 (the case of Rachel with the household gods of her father, Laban) and 1 Sa. 20:26 (the incident of David’s absence from the table of King Saul). Unfortunately, some writers have largely misunderstood the important distinctions here, because they have related all OT regulations of this character to alleged originally superstitious taboos. (Cf. A. S. Peake, HDB, 4, pp. 825ff.).

III. Under the prophets
The prophets, whose high ethical standards have been acclaimed on every hand, spoke of uncleanness also. Isaiah, envisioning the future age of righteousness, predicted that the way of holiness would not be traversed by the unclean (35:8); again, he called upon Jerusalem to gird on her strength, for the uncircumcised and the unclean would no longer trouble her in the hour of her glory (52:1). The plea is further made by the evangelical prophet for those in holy service to avoid any unclean thing, and to be clean in the handling of the sacred vessels of the Lord (52:11). Hosea, the prophet of the heart-broken love of God, warned his people that the N kingdom would not only return to Egypt, but would eat the unclean in Assyria (9:3). Amos, the unparalleled champion of the righteousness of God, in response to coercion which would muzzle his prophetic testimony, foretold that Amaziah of Bethel would experience the hand of God heavily upon him in his immediate family, and would himself die in an unclean land (7:17). The priestly Ezekiel expressed in various ways the loathing he felt for the pollution of his people, and his own abhorrence for the manner in which he was called upon to portray it dramatically before them (4:14).

IV. The Mosaic law
The law of Moses made clear distinctions between clean and unclean, the holy and unholy (Lv. 10:10). Uncleanness was primarily ceremonial defilement, not moral, unless done wilfully. It kept a man from the service of the sanctuary and from fellowship with his co-religionists. Ceremonial defilement was contracted in several ways, and provision was made for cleansing.
a. Contact with a dead body rendered the individual unclean (Nu. 19:11-22). The human corpse was the most defiling, according to OT regulations. In all probability it epitomized for the people of God the full gravity and ultimate consequences of sin.
b. Leprosy, whether in a person, clothing or a house, was polluting (Lv. 13-14).
c. Natural (those connected with the functions of reproduction) and unnatural issues were defiling to the observant Israelite (Lv. 12; 15).
d. Eating the flesh of an unclean bird, fish or animal made one unclean. Lv. 11 and Dt. 14 contain extended lists of the clean and unclean. Beasts of prey were considered unclean, because they consumed the blood and flesh of their victims. Unclean birds for the most part were birds of prey or those which fed on carrion. Fish without fins and scales were unclean. Some have thought that their serpent-like appearance accounts for the prohibition against them, but we now know that the prohibition of this group was wise on hygienic grounds. Both shellfish and crustaceans can easily cause food-poisoning and may also carry disease (G. S. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands, 1970, p. 213). Eating of flesh of animals torn to pieces or violently slain was a source of uncleanness (Ex. 22:31; Lv. 17:15; Acts 15:20, 29). Eating of blood was forbidden from earliest times (Gn. 9:4).
e. Physical impairments were considered like uncleanness in their power to exclude from approach to the altar. The regulations are given explicitly for the sons of Aaron, the ministering priests in the sanctuary (Lv. 21:16-24). Finally, unpunished murder (Dt. 21:1-9) and especially idolatry (Ho. 6:10) rendered the land unclean. The former struck at the image of God (Gn. 9:6), whereas the latter was a violation of the spiritual worship due to God (Ex. 20:4).

V. In post-exilic times
The scribes of post-exilic times and the Pharisees of the NT period enlarged artificially the distinction between clean and unclean (Mk. 7:2, 4). An elaborate and burdensome system developed therefrom. For example, a canonical book rendered the hands unclean; a non-canonical book did not. The largest of the six divisions of the Mishnah deals with the subject of purifications. The multiplied regulations give validity to the observation of our Lord: ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!‘ (Mk. 7:9).

VI. The necessity and form of purification
Israel was to be holy (Lv. 11:44-45) and separate from all uncleanness. Ceremonial uncleanness spoke of sin. Bodily cleanliness was required in their society. Laws of cleanliness were followed by the observant in their approach to God. The clean person is the one who can approach God in worship. See Ex. 19:10f.; 30:18-21; Jos. 3:5. In religious usage the clean denoted that which did not defile ceremonially. The term was employed of beasts (Gn. 7:2), places (Lv. 4:12), objects (Is. 66:20) or persons who were not ceremonially (ritually) defiled (1 Sa. 20:26; Ezk. 36:25). Ethical cleanness or purity is in view in Pss. 19:9; 51:7, 10. A rare usage in the sense of ‘blameless, or ‘guiltless’ is found in Acts 18:6.
The usual mode of purification was bathing of the body and washing of the clothes (Lv. 15:8, 10-11). Cleansing from an issue called for a special cleansing (Lv. 15:19), also childbirth (Lv. 12:2, 8; Lk. 2:24), leprosy (Lv. 14), contact with a corpse (Nu. 19; for a Nazirite, Nu. 6:9-12). Cleansing may be physical (Je. 4:11; Mt. 8:3); ritual, by a sin-offering (Ex. 29:36), to expiate sin (Nu. 35:33), to remove ceremonial defilement (Lv. 12:7; Mk. 1:44); ethical, either by man’s removal of the uncleanness or sin (Ps. 119:9; Jas. 4:8), or by God’s removal of the guilt (Ezk. 24:13; Jn. 15:2). Ritual cleansing was effected by water, fire or the ashes of a red heifer. Ps. 51:7 is a good example of the ceremonial as a figure of the ethical or spiritual. David prayed: ‘Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.‘

VII. The New Testament view
In his teachings Christ emphasized moral, rather than ceremonial, purity (Mk. 7:1-23). His strongest denunciations were against those who elevated the ritual and external over the moral and ethical. What is important is not ceremonial, but moral, defilement. A careful reading of certain NT texts will give indications of the customs of the Jews regarding cleanness and defilement. Mk. 7:3-4 is a concise statement of the regulations concerning washing of hands, defilement contracted in the market-place and cleansing of utensils. Jn. 2:6 touches upon the method of purifying upon entering a household, and Jn. 3:25 indicates that the matter of cleansing was a ready subject for disputation. Strict regulations governed purification for the Feast of the Passover; these are alluded to in Jn. 11:55 and 18:28. The leper once cleansed was enjoined to offer for his cleansing what the law of Moses required (Mk. 1:44).In order to allay the opposition against him and procure for himself a readier acceptance in his message, Paul underwent the rite of purification in the Temple in Jerusalem (Acts 21:26). This puzzling behaviour must be evaluated in the light of his policy to be ‘all things to all men’-inter alia, to live as a Jew when among Jews—‘for the sake of the gospel’ (1 Cor. 9:22f.). It does not detract from the truth that Christ repealed all the levitical regulations on unclean meats and practices (Mt. 15:1-20 and Mk. 7:6-23), in the light of which Peter was commanded to act (Acts 10:13ff.), and Paul promulgated his precepts for Christian conduct (Rom. 14:14, 20; 1 Cor. 6:13; Col. 2:16, 20-22; Tit. 1:15). It is emphasized in Heb. 9:13f. that the only pollution that matters religiously is that of the conscience, from which the sacrifice of Christ, offered in the spiritual realm, alone can cleanse.
As is to be expected, the Gospels have most to say of the distinction between clean and unclean. Purification is treated in the Gospels under several categories. It is seen in relation to leprosy (Mt. 8:2; Mk. 1:44; Lk. 5:14; 17:11-19). The word used in this connection is katharizein, but in Lk. 17:15 (the case of the ten lepers) iasthai (‘to heal’) is employed. The cleansing of the leper had two parts: (a) the ritual with the two birds (Lv. 14); and (b) the ceremony 8 days later. In regard to food there was the ritualistic washing of the hands (Mt. 15:1-20; Mk. 7:1-23; Jn. 2:6; 3:25). As already indicated, there was a purification in connection with the Passover (Jn. 11:55; 18:28). There had to be a thoroughgoing removal of all leaven from the home (Ex. 12:15, 19-20; 13:7). Finally, following childbirth an offering was brought at the termination of the period of uncleanness, that is, 40 days for a male child and 80 for a girl (Lk. 2:22).

VIII. Conclusion
Some have supposed that the laws regulating clean and unclean not only had the effect of hindering social and religious intercourse with the heathen, especially in the matter of eating, but were originally given to accomplish this purpose. Moore feels there is neither internal nor external evidence to support this position (Judaism, 1, 1927, p. 21). He reasons thus: ‘They were ancient customs, the origin and reason of which had long since been forgotten. Some of them are found among other Semites, or more widely; some were, so far as we know, peculiar to Israel; but as a whole, or we may say, as a system, they were the distinctive customs which the Jews had inherited from their ancestors with a religious sanction in the two categories of holy and polluted. Other peoples had their own, some of them for all classes, some, as among the Jews, specifically for the priests, and these systems also were distinctive’ (op.cit., pp. 21-22).
In the discussion of the far-reaching rules which differentiate between clean and unclean among animals, fowl and fish, various reasons have been given for these laws. The traditional and most obvious reason is the religious or spiritual: You shall be men consecrated to me’ (Ex. 22:31). Another explanation is the hygienic. It was espoused by Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages in Spain, and other notable scholars. The argument, now supported by modern research, was that scaleless fish and the swine tend to produce diseases (Cansdale, op.cit., p. 99). Still another interpretation was the psychological. The forbidden animals appeared either loathsome or begat a spirit of cruelty in those who ate them. A fourth reason is the dualistic. The Israelites, like the Persians, are said to have assigned all unclean animals to an evil power. Another explanation is the national, which holds that the Israelites were surrounded with such prohibitions in order to keep them separate from all other nations. Opponents of this view have pointed out that the animals forbidden in the law of Moses are practically the same as those proscribed in the Hindu, Babylonian and Egyptian religions.
The most popular theory in critical circles is that advanced by W. Robertson Smith (The Religion of the Semites, p. 270). Köhler states it succinctly, ‘In view of the fact that almost every primitive tribe holds certain animals to be tabooed, the contention is that the forbidden or tabooed animal was originally regarded and worshipped as the totem of the clan; but the facts adduced do not sufficiently support the theory, especially in regard to the Semites, to allow it to be more than an ingenious conjecture. . .‘ (JewE, 4, p. 599). If the scriptural data are allowed their normal force, the spiritual and hygienic explanations are the correct ones.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. C. Zenos, ‘Pure, Purity, Purification’, Standard Bible Dictionary, pp. 719-721; G. A. Simcox, ‘Clean and Unclean, Holy and Profane’, EBi, 1, pp. 836-848; J. Hastings, ‘Clean’, HDB, 1, p. 448; R. Bruce Taylor, ‘Purification’, DCG, 2, pp. 457-458; P. W. Crannell, ‘Clean’ and ‘Cleanse’, ISBE, 1, pp. 667-668; ‘Uncleanness’, WDB, p. 617; A. S. Peake, ‘Unclean, Uncleanness’, HDB, 4, pp. 825-834; Charles B. Williams, ‘Uncleanness’, ISBE, 5, pp. 3035-3037; JewE, 4, pp. 110-113 and 596-600; George F. Moore, Judaism, 1-2, 1927; M. Douglas, Purity and Danger, 1966; G. S. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands, 1970, pp. 99, 213. 2

PURITY. The original biblical significance was ceremonial. It was to be obtained by certain ablutions and purifications which were enjoined upon the worshipper in the performance of his religious duties. Purifications were common to many other religions, but there they were merely ceremonial and had no ethical significance. In the case of Israel most of the ceremonial purifications had both sanitary and ethical significance. Though Gn. 35:2 and Ex. 19:14 indicated that the general idea did not originate with the Mosaic law, it is clear that only with the giving of the ceremonial law under Moses were these regulations codified and detailed. In the teaching of the prophets the significance largely passed from the merely ceremonial to the ethical. In the NT the teaching of Christ and the descent of the Spirit lifted the meaning of purity into the moral and spiritual sphere.
In the general sense common to the NT, and to the devotional literature of the OT, purity indicates a state of heart where there is complete devotion to God. As unadulterated water is said to be pure, and gold without alloy is pure gold, so the pure heart is the undivided heart where there is no conflict of loyalties, no cleavage of interests, no mixture of motives, no hypocrisy and no insecurity. It is whole-heartedness God-wards. This is probably the sense in which our Lord used it in the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:8). The reward of the undivided heart is the vision of God. No vision of God can come to the heart that is unclean because it is out of harmony with the nature and character of God. In the further teaching of Christ (see Mk. 7:14-28) he transfers the state of defilement, and so of purity, entirely from the outer to the inner man. Purity in this sense may be said to be a state of heart reserved completely for God and freed from all worldly distractions.
In the specialized sense purity came to mean freedom from sensual pollution, particularly in the sexual life, though the NT does not teach that sexual activity is polluting in itself and, indeed, makes it clear that rightly ordered sexual behaviour is not (cf. Heb. 13:4). Nevertheless, the NT teaches the sanctity of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19f.) and inculcates the duty of self-restraint and self-denial even to the extent of personal loss. Purity is thus the spirit of renunciation and of the obedience which brings every thought and feeling and action into subjection to Christ. It begins within and extends outwards to the entire life, cleansing all the centres of living and controlling all the movements of body and spirit.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. Baltensweiler et al., NIDNTT 3, pp. 100-108; F. Hauck, TDNT 1, pp. 122f.; R. Meyer, F. Hauck, TDNT 3, pp. 413-431. 2

FRUIT, FRUITS. The AV translation of the following Heb. and Gk. words, some of which are used interchangeably: Heb. eb, ‘budding’ (Ct. 6:11; Dn. 4:12, 14, 21); ybul, ‘increase’ (Dt. 11:17; Hab. 3:17; Hg. 1:10); tnuba, ‘increase’ (Jdg. 9:11. Is. 27:6; La. 4:9); yeled, ‘child’ (Ex. 21:22); lehem ‘bread, food’ (Je. 11:19); riib, ‘utterance’ (Is. 57:19; Mal. 1:12); makal, ‘eating’ (Ne. 9:25); mlea, ‘fullness’ (Dt. 22:9; also ‘ripe fruits’ in Ex. 22:29); pri, ‘fruit’ (107 times); tbua ‘incoming’ (13 times); koah, ‘strength’ (Jb. 31:39). Gk. gennema, ‘produce’ (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 12:18; 22:18; 2 Cor. 9:10); karpos, ‘fruit’ (64 times; akarpos, ‘without fruit’, in Jude 12); opora, ‘ripe or full fruits’ (Rev. 18:14).

a. Literal use
Mosaic law decreed that fruit-bearing trees be regarded as unclean for 3 years after planting, as the Lord’s in the fourth year, and to be eaten by the people only in the fifth year. This preserved the health of the tree against premature plucking, gave God his due place, perhaps commemorated the entrance of sin by forbidden fruit and certainly inculcated self-discipline. Fruit-trees were so highly valued that for many centuries thereafter, even during the bitterest wars, special efforts were made to protect them (cf. Dt. 20:19-20). See *AGRICULTURE, *FIG, *FOOD, *VINE, *TREES.
Children are sometimes spoken of as the fruit of the body or womb (Dt. 28:4; Ps. 127:3).

b. Metaphorical use
The term has inspired a large number of metaphorical uses, involving such phrases as the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); fruit for God (Rom. 7:4) and for death (Rom. 7:5; cf. Jas. 1:15); fruit of the lips (i.e. speaking, Is. 57:19; Heb. 13:15); fruit unto holiness and life (Rom. 6:22); fruit of the wicked (Mt. 7:16) and of self-centredness (Ho. 10:1; cf. Zc. 7:5-6); fruit in season (i.e. true prosperity, Ps. 1:3; Je. 17:8); fruits of the gospel (Rom. 1:13; Col. 1:6); of righteousness (Phil. 1:11; Jas. 3:18); fruits which demonstrate repentance (Mt. 3:8; cf. Am. 6:12). The unfruitful works of darkness are contrasted with the fruit of light (Eph. 5:9-11).
‘The tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit’ (Rev. 22:2) some regard as ‘a sacrament of the covenant of works, and analogous to the bread and wine used by Melchizedek (Gn. 14:18) and to the Christian Eucharist (Mt. 26:29) in the covenant of grace’ (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 1960, p. 231). More probably it is a symbol of abundant life (Jn. 10:10).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Goor and M. Nurock, The Fruits of the Holy Land, 1968; D. Zohary and P. Spiegel-Roy, Beginnings of fruit growing in the Old World, 1975, pp. 319-327; R. Hensel, NIDNTT 1, pp. 721-723. 2

WATER OF JEALOUSY — a phrase employed (not, however, in Scripture) to denote the water used in the solemn ordeal prescribed by the law of Moses (Num. 5:11–31) in cases of “jealousy.”
WATER OF PURIFICATION — used in cases of ceremonial cleansings at the consecration of the Levites (Num. 8:7). It signified, figuratively, that purifying of the heart which must characterize the servants of God.

WATER OF SEPARATION — used along with the ashes of a red heifer for the ceremonial cleansing of persons defiled by contact with a dead body (Num. 19). 1

WATER (Heb. mayim, Gk. hydor). In a part of the world where water is in short supply, it naturally features significantly in the lives of the people of the Bible. Nothing is more serious to them than absence of water (1 Ki. 17:1ff.; Je. 14:3; Joel 1:20; Hg. 1:11), and conversely rainfall is a sign of God’s favour and goodness. An equally serious menace to life is water that has been polluted or rendered undrinkable. This was one of the plagues of Egypt (Ex. 7:17ff.). The Israelites found the water at Marah bitter (Ex. 15:23), and the well at Jericho was unpleasant in Elisha’s day (2 Ki. 2:19-22).
It was common practice in time of warfare for an invading army to cut on the water-supply of beleaguered cities, as did Jehoshaphat with the wells of Moab (2 Ki. 3:19, 25), and Holofernes at Bethulia (Judith 7:7ff.). Hezekiah averted this danger by the construction of the tunnel which exists to this day in Jerusalem, running from the Virgin’s fountain (Gihon), outside the city walls of his day, to the Pool of *Siloam (2 Ch. 32:30). Under conditions when water had to be rationed (La. 5:4; Ezk. 4:11, 16), the phrase ‘water of affliction’ could fittingly be used (Is. 30:20), but the context usually suggests punishment (1 Ki. 22:27; 2 Ch. 18:26).
Frequently water is symbolical of God’s blessing and of spiritual refreshment, as in Ps. 23:2; Is. 32:2; 35:6-7; 41:18, etc., and the longing for it indicates spiritual need (Pss. 42:1; 63:1; Am. 8:11). In Ezekiel’s vision of God’s house (47:1-11) the waters that poured out from under the threshold represented the unrestricted flow of Yahweh’s blessings upon his people (cf. Zc. 14:8). Jeremiah describes Yahweh as ‘the fountain of living waters’ (2:13; 17:13), a phrase that is echoed in Jn. 7:38 of the Holy Spirit. In the NT water is connected with eternal life as the supreme blessing that God gives (Jn. 4:14; Rev. 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17), but in Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22, the predominant idea is that of baptismal cleansing for forgiveness of sins.
The idea of cleansing comes next to that of refreshment. In the ceremonial system washing was a prominent feature. Priests were washed at their consecration (Ex. 29:4); Levites too were sprinkled with water (Nu. 8:7). Special ablutions were demanded of the chief priest on the Day of Atonement (Lv. 16:4, 24, 26), of the priest in the ‘water of separation’ ritual (Nu. 19:1-10), and of all men for the removal of ceremonial defilement (Lv. 11:40; 15:5ff.; 17:15; 22:6; Dt. 23:11). The laver before the *tabernacle was a constant reminder of the need for cleansing in the approach to God (Ex. 30:18-21). A developed form of this ritual ablution was practised by the Qumran sect and by a variety of Jewish baptist sects which flourished before and after the turn of the Christian era. These provide the background to John’s baptism of repentance and to the Christian *baptism of cleansing, initiation and incorporation into Christ.
A third aspect is that of danger and death. The story of the Flood, the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, and the general fear of the sea and deep waters expressed by the psalmist (18:16; 32:6; 46:3; 69:1ff., etc.) indicate that water could in Yahweh’s hands be an instrument of judgment, although at the same time there was the thought of salvation through danger for the faithful people of God (cf. Is. 43:2; 59:19). It is hard to say to what extent these ideas were moulded by the Canaanite myths of the contest of Baal with the tyrannical waters of the sea, recounted in the Ras Shamra texts. Scandinavian scholars and Hooke’s ‘Myth and Ritual’ school saw in these OT references, especially in the Psalms, a clue to the existence in Israel of an annual kingly festival at which the victory of Yahweh, personified by the king, was re-enacted. That Heb. thought and poetry echoed the language of Near Eastern mythology is clear (cf. the references to Rahab, Leviathan, the dragon, etc.), but to hold that the Canaanite rituals themselves or the doctrinal beliefs underlying them were taken over by the religion of Israel goes beyond the evidence. The views of Gunkel, Mowinckel and others are well discussed by A. R. Johnson in the chapter on ‘The Psalms’ in OTMS, 1951.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. O. Böcher, R. K. Harrison, in NIDNTT 3, pp. 982-993. 2

1. Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996

2. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.