| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
NEXT CHAPTER - HELP 
A See ALEPH; ALPHABET. AALAR AARON 1. FAMILY: Probably eldest son of Amram ( Exodus 6:20), and according to the uniform genealogical lists ( Exodus 6:16-20; 1 Chronicles 6:1-3), the fourth from Levi. This however is not certainly fixed, since there are frequent omissions from the Hebrew lists of names which are not prominent in the line of descent. For the corresponding period from Levi to Aaron the Judah list has six names ( Ruth 4:18-20; 1 Chronicles 2). Levi and his family were zealous, even to violence ( Genesis 34:25; Exodus 32:26), for the national honor and religion, and Aaron no doubt inherited his full portion of this spirit. His mother’s name was Jochebed, who was also of the Levitical family ( Exodus 6:20). Miriam, his sister, was several years older, since she was set to watch the novel cradle of the infant brother Moses, at whose birth Aaron was three years old ( Exodus 7:7). 2. BECOMES MOSES’ ASSISTANT: When Moses fled from Egypt, Aaron remained to share the hardships of his people, and possibly to render them some service; for we are told that Moses entreated of God his brother’s cooperation in his mission to Pharaoh and to Israel, and that Aaron went out to meet his returning brother, as the time of deliverance drew near ( Exodus 4:27). While Moses, whose great gifts lay along other lines, was slow of speech ( Exodus 4:10), Aaron was a ready spokesman, and became his brother’s representative, being called his “mouth” ( Exodus 4:16) and his “prophet” ( Exodus 7:1). After their meeting in the wilderness the two brothers returned together to Egypt on the hazardous mission to which Yahweh had called them ( Exodus 4:27-31). At first they appealed to their own nation, recalling the ancient promises and declaring the imminent deliverance, Aaron being the spokesman. But the heart of the people, hopeless by reason of the hard bondage and heavy with the care of material things, did not incline to them. The two brothers then forced the issue by appealing directly to Pharaoh himself, Aaron still speaking for his brother ( Exodus 6:10-13). He also performed, at Moses’ direction, the miracles which confounded Pharaoh and his magicians. With Hur, he held up Moses hands, in order that the `rod of God might be lifted up,’ during the fight with Amalek ( Exodus 17:10,12). 3. AN ELDER: Aaron next comes into prominence when at Sinai he is one of the elders and representatives of his tribe to approach nearer to the Mount than the people in general were allowed to do, and to see the manifested glory of God ( Exodus 24:1,9,10). A few days later, when Moses, attended by his “minister” Joshua, went up into the mountain, Aaron exercised some kind of headship over the people in his absence. Despairing of seeing again their leader, who had disappeared into the mystery of communion with the invisible God, they appealed to Aaron to prepare them more tangible gods, and to lead them back to Egypt (Exodus 32). Aaron never appears as the strong, heroic character which his brother was; and here at Sinai he revealed his weaker nature, yielding to the demands of the people and permitting the making of the golden bullock. That he must however have yielded reluctantly, is evident from the ready zeal of his tribesmen, whose leader he was, to stay and to avenge the apostasy by rushing to arms and falling mightily upon the idolaters at the call of Moses ( Exodus 32:26-28). 4. HIGH PRIEST: In connection with the planning and erection of the tabernacle (“the Tent”), Aaron and his sons being chosen for the official priesthood, elaborate and symbolical vestments were prepared for them (Exodus 28); and after the erection and dedication of the tabernacle, he and his sons were formally inducted into the sacred office (Leviticus 8). It appears that Aaron alone was anointed with the holy oil ( Leviticus 8:12), but his sons were included with him in the duty of caring for sacrificial rites and things. They served in receiving and presenting the various offerings, and could enter and serve in the first chamber of the tabernacle; but Aaron alone, the high priest, the Mediator of the Old Covenant, could enter into the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year, on the great Day of Atonement ( Leviticus 16:12-14). 5. REBELS AGAINST MOSES: After the departure of Israel from Sinai, Aaron joined his sister Miriam in a protest against the authority of Moses (Numbers 12), which they asserted to be self-assumed. For this rebellion Miriam was smitten with leprosy, but was made whole again, when, at the pleading of Aaron, Moses interceded with God for her. The sacred office of Aaron, requiring physical, moral and ceremonial cleanness of the strictest order, seems to have made him immune from this form of punishment. Somewhat later (Numbers 16) he himself, along with Moses, became the object of a revolt of his own tribe in conspiracy with leaders of Daniel and Reuben. This rebellion was subdued and the authority of Moses and Aaron vindicated by the miraculous overthrow of the rebels. As they were being destroyed by the plague, Aaron, at Moses’ command, rushed into their midst with the lighted censer, and the destruction was stayed. The Divine will in choosing Aaron and his family to the priesthood was then fully attested by the miraculous budding of his rod, when, together with rods representing the other tribes, it was placed and left overnight in the sanctuary (Numbers 17). See AARON’S ROD. 6. FURTHER HISTORY: After this event Aaron does not come prominently into view until the time of his death, near the close of the Wilderness period. Because of the impatience, or unbelief, of Moses and Aaron at Meribah ( Numbers 20:12), the two brothers are prohibited from entering Canaan; and shortly after the last camp at Kadesh was broken, as the people journeyed eastward to the plains of Moab, Aaron died on Mount Hor. In three passages this event is recorded: the more detailed account in Numbers 20, a second incidental record in the list of stations of the wanderings in the wilderness ( Numbers 33:38,39), and a third casual reference ( Deuteronomy 10:6) in an address of Moses. These are not in the least contradictory or inharmonious. The dramatic scene is fully presented in Numbers 20: Moses, Aaron and Eleazar go up to Mount Hor in the people’s sight; Aaron is divested of his robes of office, which are formally put upon his eldest living son; Aaron dies before the Lord in the Mount at the age of 123, and is given burial by his two mourning relatives, who then return to the camp without the first and great high priest; when the people understand that he is no more, they show both grief and love by thirty days of mourning. The passage in Numbers 33 records the event of his death just after the list of stations in the general vicinity of Mount Hor; while Moses in Deuteronomy 10 states from which of these stations, namely, Moserah, that remarkable funeral procession made its way to Mount Hor. In the records we find, not contradiction and perplexity, but simplicity and unity. It is not within the view of this article to present modern displacements and rearrangements of the Aaronic history; it is concerned with the records as they are, and as they contain the faith of the Old Testament writers in the origin in Aaron of their priestly order. 7. PRIESTLY SUCCESSION: Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, and sister of Nahshon, prince of the tribe of Judah, who bore him four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. The sacrilegious act and consequent judicial death of Nadab and Abihu are recorded in Leviticus 10. Eleazar and Ithamar were more pious and reverent; and from them descended the long line of priests to whom was committed the ceremonial law of Israel, the succession changing from one branch to the other with certain crises in the nation. At his death Aaron was succeeded by his oldest living son, Eleazar ( Numbers 20:28; Deuteronomy 10:6). Edward Mack AARONITES A word used in the King James Version, but not in the revised versions, to translate the proper name Aaron in two instances where it. denotes a family and not merely a person ( 1 Chronicles 12:27; 27:17). It is equivalent to the phrases “sons of Aaron,” “house of Aaron,” frequently used in the Old Testament. According to the books of Joshua and Chronicles the “sons of Aaron,” were distinguished from the other Levites from the time of Joshua (e.g. Joshua 21:4,10,13; 1 Chronicles 6:54). AARON’S ROD (Numbers 17 and Hebrews 9:4): Immediately after the incidents connected with the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram against the leadership of Moses and the priestly primacy of Aaron (Numbers 16), it became necessary to indicate and emphasize the Divine appointment of Aaron. Therefore, at the command of Yahweh, Moses directs that twelve almond rods, one for each tribe with the prince’s name engraved thereon, be placed within the Tent of the Testimony. When Moses entered the tent the following day, he found that Aaron’s rod had budded, blossomed and borne fruit, “the three stages of vegetable life being thus simultaneously visible.” When the miraculous sign was seen by the people, they accepted it as final; nor was there ever again any question of Aaron’s priestly right. The rod was kept “before the testimony” in the sanctuary ever after as a token of the Divine will ( Numbers 17:10). The writer of Hebrews, probably following a later Jewish tradition, mentions the rod as kept in the Holy of Holies within the ark ( Hebrews 9:4; compare 1 Kings 8:9). See PRIEST, III. Edward Mack AB (1) ( ba; or ba” [’abh], the Hebrew and Aramaic word for “father”): It is a very common word in the Old Testament; this article notes only certain uses of it. It is used both in the singular and in the plural to denote a grandfather or more remote ancestors (e.g. Jeremiah 35:16,15). The father of a people or tribe is its founder, not, as is frequently assumed, its progenitor. In this sense Abraham is father to the Israelites (see, for example, Genesis 17:11-14,27), Isaac and Jacob and the heads of families being fathers in the same modified sense. The cases of Ishmael, Moab, etc., are similar. The traditional originator of a craft is the father of those who practice the craft (e.g. Genesis 4:20,21,22). Sennacherib uses the term “my fathers” of his predecessors on the throne of Assyria, though these were not his ancestors ( 2 Kings 19:12). The term is used to express worth and affection irrespective of blood relation (e.g. 2 Kings 13:14). A ruler or leader is spoken of as a father. God is father. A frequent use of the word is that in the composition of proper names, e.g. Abinadab, “my father is noble.” See ABI. The Aramaic word in its definite form is used three times in the New Testament ( Mark 4:6), the phrase being in each case “Abba Father,” addressed to God. In this phrase the word “Father” is added, apparently, not as a mere translation, nor to indicate that Abba is thought of as a proper name of Deity, but as a term of pleading and of endearment. See also ABBA. Willis J. Beecher AB (2) ( ba; [’abh]): The name of the fifth month in the Hebrew calendar, the month beginning in our July. The name does not appear in the Bible, but Josephus gives it to the month in which Aaron died (Ant., IV, iv, 6; compare Numbers 33:38). ABACUC ABADDON The word occurs six times in the Old Testament, always as a place name in the sense in which Sheol is a place name. It denotes, in certain aspects, the world of the dead as constructed in the Hebrew imagination. It is a common mistake to understand such expressions in a too mechanical way. Like ourselves, the men of the earlier ages had to use picture language when they spoke of the conditions that existed after death, however their picturing of the matter may have differed from ours. In three instances Abaddon is parallel with Sheol ( Job 26:6; Proverbs 15:11; 27:20). In one instance it is parallel with death, in one with the grave and in the remaining instance the parallel phrase is “root out all mine increase” ( Job 28:22; Psalm 88:11; Job 31:12). In this last passage the place idea comes nearer to vanishing in an abstract conception than in the other passages. Abaddon belongs to the realm of the mysterious. Only God understands it ( Job 26:6; Proverbs 15:11). It is the world of the dead in its utterly dismal, destructive, dreadful aspect, not in those more cheerful aspects in which activities are conceived of as in progress there. In Abaddon there are no declarations of God’s lovingkindness ( Psalm 88:11). In a slight degree the Old Testament presentations personalize Abaddon. It is a synonym for insatiableness ( Proverbs 27:20). It has possibilities of information mediate between those of “all living” and those of God ( Job 28:22). In the New Testament the word occurs once ( Revelation 9:11), the personalization becoming sharp. Abaddon is here not the world of the dead, but the angel who reigns over it. The Greek equivalent of his name is given as Apollyon. Under this name Bunyan presents him in the Pilgrim’s Progress, and Christendom has doubtless been more interested in this presentation of the matter than in any other. In some treatments Abaddon is connected with the evil spirit Asmodeus of Tobit (e.g. 3:8), and with the destroyer mentioned in The Wisdom of Solomon (18:25; compare 22), and through these with a large body of rabbinical folklore; but these efforts are simply groundless. See APOLLYON. Willis J. Beecher ABADIAS ABAGARUS ABAGTHA ABANAH The Abanah is identified with the Chrysorrhoas (“golden stream”) of the Greeks, the modern Nahr Barada (the “cold”), which rises in the Anti- Lebanon, one of its sources, the Ain Barada, being near the village of Zebedani, and flows in a southerly and then southeasterly direction toward Damascus. A few miles southeast of Suk Wady Barada (the ancient Abila; see ABILENE ) the volume of the stream is more than doubled by a torrent of clear, cold water from the beautifully situated spring `Ain Fijeh (Greek [phgh> , pege], “fountain”), after which it flows through a picturesque gorge till it reaches Damascus, whose many fountains and gardens it supplies liberally with water. In the neighborhood of Damascus a number of streams branch off from the parent river, and spread out like an opening fan on the surrounding plain. The Barada, along with the streams which it feeds, loses itself in the marshes of the Meadow Lakes about 18 miles East of the city. The water of the Barada, though not perfectly wholesome in the city itself, is for the most part clear and cool; its course is picturesque, and its value to Damascus, as the source alike of fertility and of charm, is inestimable. C. H. Thomson ABARIM It is to be distinguished from the place of the same name in southern Judah ( Joshua 15:29). The name Abarim, without the article, occurs in Jeremiah (22:20 the Revised Version (British and American), where the King James Version translates “the passages”), where it seems to be the name of a region, on the same footing with the names Lebanon and Bashan, doubtless the region referred to in Numbers and Deuteronomy. There is no reason for changing the vowels in Ezekiel 39:11, in order to make that another occurrence of the same name. When the people of Abraham lived in Canaan, before they went to Egypt to sojourn, they spoke of the region east of the Jordan as “beyond Jordan.” Looking across the Jordan and the Dead Sea they designated the mountain country they saw there as “the Beyond mountains.” They continued to use these geographical terms when they came out of Egypt. We have no means of knowing to how extensive a region they applied the name. The passages speak of the mountain country of Abarim where Moses died, including Nebo, as situated back from the river Jordan in its lowest reaches; and of the Mounds of the Abarim as farther to the southeast, so that the Israelites passed them when making their detour around the agricultural parts of Edom, before they crossed the Arnon. Whether the name Abarim should be applied to the parts of the eastern hill country farther to the north is a question on which we lack evidence. Willis J. Beecher ABASE ABBA This “Abda the son of Shammua” is in the partly duplicate passage in 1 Chronicles (9:16) called “Obadiah the son of Shemaiah.” ABDEEL ABDI ABDIAS Mentioned with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Minor Prophets who shall be given as leaders to the “nation from the east” which is to overthrow Israel (compareOBADIAH). ABDIEL ABDON (1) An effort has been made to identify Abdon with the Bedan mentioned in 1 Samuel 12:11, but the identification is precarious. A certain importance attaches to Abdon from the fact that he is the last judge mentioned in the continuous account ( Judges 2:6 through 13:1) in the Book of Jgs. After the account of him follows the statement that Israel was delivered into the hands of the Philistines forty years, and with that statement the continuous account closes and the series of personal stories begins — the stories of Samson, of Micah and his Levite, of the Benjamite civil war, followed in our English Bibles by the stories of Ruth and of the childhood of Samuel. With the close of this last story ( 1 Samuel 4:18) the narrative of public affairs is resumed, at a point when Israel is making a desperate effort, at the close of the forty years of Eli, to throw off the Philistine yoke. A large part of one’s views of the history of the period of the Judges will depend on the way in which he combines these events. My own view is that the forty years of Judges 13:1 and of 1 Samuel 4:18 are the same; that at the death of Abdon the Philistines asserted themselves as overlords of Israel; that it was a part of their policy to suppress nationality in Israel; that they abolished the office of judge, and changed the high-priesthood to another family, making Eli high priest; that Eli was sufficiently competent so that many of the functions of national judge drifted into his hands. It should be noted that the regaining of independence was signalized by the reestablishment of the office of judge, with Samuel as incumbent ( 1 Samuel 7:6 and context). This view takes into the account that the narrative concerning Samson is detachable, like the narratives that follow, Samson belonging to an earlier period. See SAMSON. (2) The son of Jeiel and his wife Maacah ( 1 Chronicles 8:30; 9:36). Jeiel is described as the “father of Gibeon,” perhaps the founder of the Israelirish community there. This Abdon is described as brother to Ner, the grandfather of King Saul. (3) One of the messengers sent by King Josiah to Huldah the prophetess ( 2 Chronicles 34:20); called Achbor in 2 Kings 22:12. (4) One of many men of Benjamin mentioned as dwelling in Jerusalem ( 1 Chronicles 8:23), possibly in Nehemiah’s time, though the date is not clear. Willis J. Beecher ABDON (2) ABED-NEGO Abed-nego was one of the three companions of Daniel, and was the name imposed upon the Hebrew Azariah by Nebuchadnezzar ( Daniel 1:7). Having refused, along with his friends, to eat the provisions of the king’s table, he was fed and flourished upon pulse and water. Having successfully passed his examinations and escaped the death with which the wise men of Babylon were threatened, he was appointed at the request of Daniel along with his companions over the affairs of the province of Babylon (Daniel 2). Having refused to bow down to the image which Nebuehadnezzar had set up, he was cast into the burning fiery furnace, and after his triumphant delivery he was caused by the king to prosper in the province of Babylon (Daniel 3). The three friends are referred to by name in 1 Macc 2:59, and by implication in Hebrews 11:33,34. R. Dick Wilson ABEL (1) 1. A SHEPHERD: “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground,” thus representing the two fundamental pursuits of civilized life, the two earliest subdivisions of the human race. On the Hebrew tradition of the superiority of the pastoral over agricultural and city life, see The Expositor T, V, 351 ff. The narrative may possibly bear witness to the primitive idea that pastoral life was more pleasing to Yahweh than husbandry. 2. A WORSHIPPER: “In process of time,” the two brothers came in a solemn manner to sacrifice unto Yahweh, in order to express their gratitude to Him whose tenants they were in the land ( Genesis 4:3,4. See SACRIFICE ). How Yahweh signified His acceptance of the one offering and rejection of the other, we are not told. That it was due to the difference in the material of the sacrifice or in their manner of offering was probably the belief among the early Israelites, who regarded animal offerings as superior to cereal offerings. Both kinds, however, were fully in accord with Hebrew law and custom. It has been suggested that the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 4:7 makes Cain’s offense a ritual one, the offering not being “correctly” made or rightly divided, and hence rejected as irregular. “If thou makest a proper offering, but dost not cut in pieces rightly, art thou not in fault? Be still!” The Septuagint evidently took the rebuke to turn upon Cain’s neglect to prepare his offering according to strict ceremonial requirements. [die>lh|v dieles] (Septuagint in the place cited.), however, implies jt”n: [nathach] ( jT”n’ [nattach]), and would only apply to animal sacrifices. Compare Exodus 29:17; Leviticus 8:20; Judges 19:29; 1 Kings 18:23; and see COUCH . 3. A RIGHTEOUS MAN: The true reason for the Divine preference is doubtless to be found in the disposition of the brothers (see CAIN ). Well-doing consisted not in the outward offering ( Genesis 4:7) but in the right state of mind and feeling. The acceptability depends on the inner motives and moral characters of the offerers. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent (abundant, pleiona ) sacrifice than Cain” ( Hebrews 11:4). The “more abundant sacrifice,” Westcott thinks, “suggests the deeper gratitude of Abel, and shows a fuller sense of the claims of God” to the best. Cain’s “works (the collective expression of his inner life) were evil, and his brother’s righteous” ( 1 John 3:12). “It would be an outrage if the gods looked to gifts and sacrifices and not to the soul” (Alcibiades II.149E.150A). Cain’s heart was no longer pure; it had a criminal propensity, springing from envy and jealousy, which rendered both his offering and person unacceptable. His evil works and hatred of his brother culminated in the act of murder, specifically evoked by the opposite character of Abel’s works and the acceptance of his offering. The evil man cannot endure the sight of goodness in another. 4. A MARTYR: Abel ranks as the first martyr ( Matthew 23:35), whose blood cried for vengeance ( Genesis 4:10; compare Revelation 6:9,10) and brought despair ( Genesis 4:13), whereas that of Jesus appeals to God for forgiveness and speaks peace ( Hebrews 12:24) and is preferred before Abel’s. 5. A TYPE: The first two brothers in history stand as the types and representatives of the two main and enduring divisions of mankind, and bear witness to the absolute antithesis and eternal enmity between good and evil. M. O. Evans ABEL (2) ABEL-BETH-MAACAH In 2 Samuel it is spoken of as the city, far to the north, where Joab besieged Sheba, the son of Bichri. In 2 Kings it is mentioned, along with Ijon and other places, as a city in Naphtali captured by Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria. The capture appears also in the records of Tiglath-pileser. In Kings it is mentioned with Ijon and Daniel and “all the land of Naphtali” as being smitten by Benhadad of Damascus in the time of Baasha. In the account in Chronicles parallel to this last ( 2 Chronicles 16:4) the cities mentioned are Ijon, Daniel, Abel-maim. Abel-maim is either another name for Abel-beth-maacah, or the name of another place in the same vicinity. The prevailing identification of Abel-beth-maacah is with Abil, a few miles West of Daniel, on a height overlooking the Jordan near its sources. The adjacent region is rich agriculturally, and the scenery and the water supply are especially fine. Abel-maim, “meadow of water,” is not an inapt designation for it. Willis J. Beecher ABEL-CHERAMIM ABEL-MAIM ABEL-MEHOLAH Abel-meholah is also mentioned in connection with the jurisdiction of Baana, one of Solomon’s twelve commissary officers ( 1 Kings 4:12) as below Jezreel, with Beth-shean and Zarethan in the same list. Jerome and Eusebius speak of Abel-meholah as a tract of country and a town in the Jordan valley, about ten Roman miles South of Beth-shean. At just that point the name seems to be perpetuated in that of the Wady Malib, and Abel-meholah is commonly located near where that Wady, or the neighboring Wady Helweh, comes down into the Jordan valley. Presumably Adriel the Meholathite ( 1 Samuel 18:19; 2 Samuel 21:8) was a resident of Abel-meholah. Willis J. Beecher ABEL-MIZRAIM A name given to “the threshing floor of Atad,” East of the Jordan and North of the Dead Sea, because Joseph and his funeral party from Egypt there held their mourning over Jacob ( Genesis 50:11). The name is a pun. The Canaanite residents saw the [’ebhel], “the mourning,” and therefore that place was called [’abhel mitsrayim]. It is remarkable that the funeral should have taken this circuitous route, instead of going directly from Egypt to Hebron. Possibly a reason may be found as we obtain additional details in Egyptian history. The explanations which consist in changing the text, or in substituting the North Arabian Mutsri for Mitsrayim, are unsatisfactory. Willis J. Beecher ABEL-SHITTIM For many weeks before crossing the Jordan, Israel was encamped in the vicinity of the Jordan valley, North of the Dead Sea, East of the river. The notices in the Bible, supplemented by those in Josephus and Eusebius and Jerome, indicate that the camping region was many miles in extent, the southern limit being Beth-jeshimoth, toward the Dead Sea, while Abel of the Acacias was the northern limit and the headquarters. The headquarters are often spoken of as East of the Jordan at Jericho (e.g. Numbers 22:1; 26:3,63). During the stay there occurred the Balaam incident (Numbers through 24), and the harlotry with Moab and Midian (Numbers 25) and the war with Midian (Numbers 31), in both of which Phinehas distinguished himself. It was from the Acacias that Joshua sent out the spies, and that Israel afterward moved down to the river for the crossing. Micah aptly calls upon Yahweh’s people to remember all that happened to them from the time when they reached the Acacias to the time when Yahweh had brought them safely across the river to Gilgal. Josephus is correct in saying that Abel of the Acacias is the place from which the Deuteronomic law purports to have been given. In his time the name survived as Abila, a not very important town situated there. He says that it was “sixty furlongs from Abila to the Jordan,” that is a little more than seven English miles (Ant., IV, viii, 1 and V, i, 1; BJ, IV, vii, 6). There seems to be a consensus for locating the site at Kefrein, near where the wady of that name comes down into the Jordan valley. Willis J. Beecher ABEZ ABGAR; ABGARUS; ABAGARUS Written also Agbarus and Augarus. A king of Edessa. A name common to several kings (toparchs) of Edessa, Mesopotamia. One of these, Abgar, a son of Uchomo, the seventeenth (14th?) of twenty kings, according to the legend (Historia Ecclesiastica, i.13) sent a letter to Jesus, professing belief in His Messiahship and asking Him to come and heal him from an incurable disease (leprosy?), inviting Him at the same time to take refuge from His enemies in his city, “which is enough for us both.” Jesus answering the letter blessed him, because he had believed on Him without having seen Him, and promised to send one of His disciples after He had risen from the dead. The apostle Thomas sent Judas Thaddeus, one of the Seventy, who healed him (Cod. Apocrypha New Testament). A. L. Breslich ABHOR ABI (2) Abram (“exalted one”), Joah (“Yahweh is brother”), Ahab (“father’s brother”). At the beginning of a word, however, the modified forms [’abhi] and [’achi] are the ones commonly used, e.g. Ahimelech (“king’s brother”) and Abimelech (by the same analogy “king’s father”). These forms have characteristics which complicate the question of their use in proper names. Especially since the publication in 1896 of Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, by G. Buchanan Gray, the attention of scholars has been called to this matter, without the reaching of any perfect consensus of opinion. The word [’abhi] may be a nominative with an archaic ending (“father”), or in the construct state (“father-of”), or the form with the suffix (“my father”). Hence a proper name constructed with it may supposedly be either a clause or a sentence; if it is a sentence, either of the two words may be either subject or predicate. That is to say, the name Abimelech may supposedly mean either “father of a king,” or “a king is father,” or “a father is king,” or “my father is king,” or “a king is my father.” Further, the clause “father of a king” may have as many variations of meaning as there are varieties of the grammatical genitive. Further still, it is claimed that either the word father or the word king may, in a name, be a designation of a deity. This gives a very large number of supposable meanings from which, in any case, to select the intended meaning. The older scholarship regarded all these names as construct clauses. For example, Abidan is “father of a judge.” It explained different instances as being different varieties of the genitive construction; for instance, Abihail, “father of might,” means mighty father. The woman’s name Abigail, “father of exultation,” denotes one whose father is exultant. Abishai, “father of Jesse,” denotes one to whom Jesse is father, and so with Abihud, “father of Judah,” Abiel, “father of God,” Abijah, “father of Yahweh.” See the cases in detail in Gesenius’ Lexicon. The more recent scholarship regards most or all of the instances as sentences. In some cases it regards the second element in a name as a verb or adjective instead of a noun; but that is not important, inasmuch as in Hebrew the genitive construction might persist, even with the verb or adjective. But in the five instances last given the explanation, “my father is exultation,” “is Jesse,” “is Judah,” “is God,” “is Yahweh,” certainly gives the meaning in a more natural way than by explaining these names as construct clauses. There is sharp conflict over the question whether we ought to regard the suffix pronoun as present in these names — whether the five instances should not rather be translated Yahweh is father, God is father, Judah is father, Jesse is father, exultation is father. The question is raised whether the same rule prevails when the second word is a name or a designation of Deity as prevails in other cases. Should we explain one instance as meaning “my father is Jesse,” and another as “God is father”? A satisfactory discussion of this is possible only under a comprehensive study of Bible names. The argument is more or less complicated by the fact that each scholar looks to see what bearing it may have on the critical theories he holds. In the Hebrew Lexicon of Dr. Francis Brown the explanations exclude the construct theory; in most of the instances they treat a name as a sentence with “my father” as the subject; when the second part of the name is a designation of Deity they commonly make that the subject, and either exclude the pronoun or give it as an alternative. For most persons the safe method is to remember that the final decision is not yet reached, and to consider each name by itself, counting the explanation of it an open question. See NAMES, PROPER. The investigations concerning Semitic proper names, both in and out of the Bible, have interesting theological bearings. It has always been recognized that words for father and brother, when combined in proper names with Yah, Yahu, El, Baal, or other proper names of a Deity, indicated some relation of the person named, or of his tribe, with the Deity. It is now held, though with many differences of opinion, that in the forming of proper names many other words, e.g. the words for king, lord, strength, beauty, and others, are also used as designations of Deity or of some particular Deity; and that the words father, brother, and the like may have the same use. To a certain extent the proper names are so many propositions in theology. It is technically possible to go very far in inferring that the people who formed such names thought of Deity or of some particular Deity as the father, the kinsman, the ruler, the champion, the strength, the glory of the tribe or of the individual. In particular one might infer the existence of a widely diffused doctrine of the fatherhood of God. It is doubtless superfluous to add that at present one ought to be very cautious in drawing or accepting inferences in this part of the field of human study. Willis J. Beecher ABIA; ABIAH ABI-ALBON Presumably he was from Beth-arabah ( Joshua 15:6,61; 18:22). ABIASAPH 1. THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT: The Scriptures represent that Abiathar was descended from Phinehas the son of Eli, and through him from Ithamar the son of Aaron; that he was the son of Ahimelech the head priest at Nob who, with his associates, was put to death by King Saul for alleged conspiracy with David; that he had two sons, Ahimelech and Jonathan, the former of whom was, in Abiathar’s lifetime, prominent in the priestly service ( 1 Samuel 21:1-9; 22:7 ff; Samuel 8:17; 15:27 ff; 1 Chronicles 18:16; 24:3,6,31). See AHIMELECH; AHITUB. Abiathar escaped from the massacre of the priests at Nob, and fled to David, carrying the ephod with him. This was a great accession to David’s strength. Public feeling in Israel was outraged by the slaughter of the priests, and turned strongly against Saul. The heir of the priesthood, and in his care the holy ephod, were now with David, and the fact gave to his cause prestige, and a certain character of legitimacy. David also felt bitterly his having been the unwilling cause of the death of Abiathar’s relatives, and this made his heart warm toward his friend. Presumably, also, there was a deep religious sympathy between them. Abiathar seems to have been at once recognized as David’s priest, the medium of consultation with Yahweh through the ephod ( 1 Samuel 22:20-23; 23:6,9; 30:7,8). He was at the head of the priesthood, along with Zadok ( 1 Chronicles 15:11), when David, after his conquests ( Chronicles 13:5; compare 2 Samuel 6), brought the ark to Jerusalem. The two men are mentioned together as high priests eight times in the narrative of the rebellion of Absalom ( 2 Samuel 15:24 ff), and are so mentioned in the last list of David’s heads of departments ( 2 Samuel 20:25). Abiathar joined with Adonijah in his attempt to seize the throne ( 1 Kings 1:7-42), and was for this deposed from the priesthood, though he was treated with consideration on account of his early comradeship with David ( 1 Kings 2:26,27). Possibly he remained high priest emeritus, as Zadok and Abiathar still appear as priests in the lists of the heads of departments for Solomon’s reign ( 1 Kings 4:4). Particularly apt is the passage in Psalm 55:12-14, if one regards it as referring to the relations of David and Abiathar in the time of Adonijah. There are two additional facts which, in view of the close relations between David and Abiathar, must be regarded as significant. One is that Zadok, Abiathar’s junior, is uniformly mentioned first, in all the many passages in which the two are mentioned together, and is treated as the one who is especially responsible. Turn to the narrative, and see how marked this is. The other similarly significant fact is that in certain especially responsible matters (1 Chronicles 24; 18:16; 2 Samuel 8:17) the interests of the line of Ithamar are represented, not by Abiathar, but by his son Ahimelech. There must have been something in the character of Abiathar to account for these facts, as well as for his deserting David for Adonijah. To sketch his character might be a work for the imagination rather than for critical inference; but it seems clear that though he was a man worthy of the friendship of David, he yet had weaknesses or misfortunes that partially incapacitated him. The characteristic priestly function of Abiathar is thus expressed by Solomon: “Because thou barest the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father” ( 1 Kings 2:26). By its tense the verb denotes not a habitual act, but the function of ark-bearing, taken as a whole. Zadok and Abiathar, as high priests, had charge of the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem ( Chronicles 15:11). We are not told whether it was again moved during the reign of David. Necessarily the priestly superintendence of the ark implies that of the sacrifices and services that were connected with the ark. The details in Kings indicate the existence of much of the ceremonial described in the Pentateuch, while numerous additional Pentateuchal details are mentioned in Chronicles. A priestly function much emphasized is that of obtaining answers from God through the ephod ( 1 Samuel 23:6,9; 30:7). The word ephod (see 1 Samuel 2:18; 2 Samuel 6:14) does not necessarily denote the priestly vestment with the Urim and Thummim (e.g. Leviticus 8:7,8), but if anyone denies that this was the ephod of the priest Abiathar, the burden of proof rests upon him. This is not the place for inquiring as to the method of obtaining divine revelations through the ephod. Abiathar’s landed estate was at Anathoth in Benjamin ( 1 Kings 2:26), one of the cities assigned to the sons of Aaron ( Joshua 21:18). Apart from the men who are expressly said to be descendants of Aaron, this part of the narrative mentions priests three times. David’s sons were priests ( 2 Samuel 8:18). This is of a piece with David’s carrying the ark on a new cart (2 Samuel 6), before he had been taught by the death of Uzza. “And also Ira the Jairite was priest to the king” ( 2 Samuel 20:26 the English Revised Version). “And Zabud the son of Nathan was priest, friend of the king” ( 1 Kings 4:5 the English Revised Version). These instances seem to indicate that David and Solomon had each a private chaplain. As to the descent and function of these two “priests” we have not a word of information, and it is illegitimate to imagine details concerning them which bring them into conflict with the rest of the record. 2. CRITICAL OPINIONS CONCERNING ABIATHAR: No one will dispute that the account thus far given is that of the Bible record as it stands. Critics of certain schools, however, do not accept the facts as thus recorded. If a person is committed to the tradition that the Deuteronomic and the priestly ideas of the Pentateuch first originated some centuries later than Abiathar, and if he makes that tradition the standard by which to test his critical conclusions, he must of course regard the Biblical account of Abiathar as unhistorical. Either the record disproves the tradition or the tradition disproves the record. There is no third alternative. The men who accept the current critical theories understand this, and they have two ways of defending theories against the record. In some instances they use devices for discrediting the record; in other instances they resort to harmonizing hypotheses, changing the record so as to make it agree with theory. Without here discussing these matters, we must barely note some of their bearings in the case of Abiathar. For example, to get rid of the testimony of Jesus ( Mark 2:26) to the effect that Abiathar was high priest and that the sanctuary at Nob was “the house of God,” it is affirmed that either Jesus or the evangelist is here mistaken. The proof alleged for this is that Abiathar’s service as priest did not begin till at least a few days later than the incident referred to. This is merely finical, though it is an argument that is sometimes used by some scholars. Men affirm that the statements of the record as to the descent of the line of Eli from Ithamar are untrue; that on the contrary we must conjecture that Abiathar claimed descent from Eleazar, his line being the alleged senior line of that family; that the senior line became extinct at his death, Zadok being of a junior line, if indeed he inherited any of the blood of Aaron. In making such affirmations as these, men deny the Bible statements as resting on insufficient evidence, and substitute for them other statements which, confessedly, rest on no evidence at all. All such procedure is incorrect. Many are suspicious of statements found in the Books of Chronicles; that gives them no right to use their suspicions as if they were perceptions of fact. Supposably one may think the record unsatisfactory, and may be within his rights in thinking so, but that does not authorize him to change the record except on the basis of evidence of some kind. If we treat the record of the times of Abiathar as fairness demands that a record be treated in a court of justice, or a scientific investigation, or a business proposition, or a medical case, we will accept the facts substantially as they are found in Samuel and Kings and Chronicles and Mark. Willis J. Beecher ABIB Willis J. Beecher ABIDA ABIDAH ABIDAN ABIDE Abode, as a noun (Greek [monh> , mone]) twice in New Testament: “make our abide with him” ( John 14:23); “mansions,” the Revised Version, margin “abiding-places” John 14:2). The soul of the true disciple and heaven are dwelling-places of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Dwight M. Pratt ABIEL ABIEZER In later generations the name survived as that of the family to which Gideon belonged, and perhaps also of the region which they occupied ( Judges 6:34; 8:2). They are also called Abiezrites ( Judges 6:11,24; 8:32). The region was West of Shechem, with Ophrah for its principal city. (2) One of David’s mighty men, “the Anathothite” ( 2 Samuel 23:27; 1 Chronicles 11:28), who was also one of David s month-by-month captains, his month being the ninth ( 1 Chronicles 27:12). Willis J. Beecher ABIEZRITE ABIGAIL; ABIGAL It is interesting to note this frequent intermarriage in the Davidic house; (5) Father of Queen Esther, who became wife of Xerxes (Biblical Ahasuerus) king of Persia, after the removal of the former queen, Vashti, (Est 2:15; 9:29). He was uncle of Mordecai. Edward Mack ABIHU Second son of Aaron, the high priest ( Exodus 6:23). With his older brother Nadab he “died before Yahweh,” when the two “offered strange fire” ( Leviticus 10:1,2). It may be inferred from the emphatic prohibition of wine or strong drink, laid upon the priests immediately after this tragedy, that the two brothers were going to their priestly functions in an intoxicated condition ( Leviticus 10:8-11). Their death is mentioned three times in subsequent records ( Numbers 3:4; Numbers 26:61; Chronicles 24:2). ABIHUD The son of Bela the oldest son of Benjamin ( 1 Chronicles 8:3).
ABIJAH The statements concerning Abijah’s mother afford great opportunity for a person who is interested in finding discrepancies in the Bible narrative. She is said to have been Maacah the daughter of Absalom ( 1 Kings 15:2; Chronicles 11:20,21,22). As more than 50 years elapsed between the adolescence of Absalom and the accession of Rehoboam, the suggestion at once emerges that she may have been Absalom’s daughter in the sense of being his granddaughter. But Maacha the daughter of Absalom was the mother of Asa, Abijam’s son and successor ( 1 Kings 15:10,13; Chronicles 15:16). Further we are explicitly told that Absalom had three sons and one daughter ( 2 Samuel 14:27). It is inferred that the three sons died young, inasmuch as Absalom before his death built him a monument because he had no son ( 2 Samuel 18:18). The daughter was distinguished for her beauty, but her name was Tamar, not Maacah. Finally, the narrative tells us that the name of Abijah’s mother was “Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah” ( 2 Chronicles 13:2).
It is less difficult to combine all these statements into a consistent account than it would be to combine some pairs of them if taken by themselves.
When all put together they make a luminous narrative, needing no help from conjectural theories of discrepant sources or textual errors. It is natural to understand that Tamar the daughter of Absalom married Uriel of Gibeah; that their daughter was Maacah, named for her great-grandmother ( 2 Samuel 3:3; 1 Chronicles 3:2); that Micaiah is a variant of Maacah, as Abijah is of Abijam. Maacah married Rehoboam, the parties being second cousins on the father’s side; if they had been first cousins perhaps they would not have married. Very likely Solomon, through the marriage, hoped to conciliate an influential party in Israel which still held the name of Absalom in esteem; perhaps also he hoped to supplement the moderate abilities of Rehoboam by the great abilities of his wife. She was a brilliant woman, and Rehoboam’s favorite ( 2 Chronicles 11:21). On Abijah’s accession she held at court the influential position of king’s mother; and she was so strong that she continued to hold it, when, after a brief reign, Abijah was succeeded by Asa; though it was a position from which Asa had the authority to depose her ( 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16).
The account in Chronicles deals mainly with a decisive victory which, it says, Abijah gained over northern Israel (2 Chronicles 13), he having 400,000 men and Jeroboam 800,000, of whom 500,000 were slain. It is clear that these numbers are artificial, and were so intended, whatever may be the key to their meaning. Abijah’s speech before the battle presents the same view of the religious situation which is presented in Kings and Amos and Hosea, though with fuller priestly details. The orthodoxy of Abijah on this one occasion is not in conflict with the representation in Kings that he followed mainly the evil ways of his father Rehoboam. In Chronicles coarse luxury and the multiplying of wives are attributed to both father and son. (6) A priest of Nehemiah’s time, who sealed the covenant ( Nehemiah 10:7). Conjecturally the same with the one mentioned in Nehemiah 12:4,17. (7) The wife of Judah’s grandson Hezron, to whom was traced the origin of Tekoa ( 1 Chronicles 2:24). (8) The mother of King Hezekiah ( 2 Chronicles 29:1), called Abi in Kings. See ABI.
Willis J. Beecher ABIJAM The name given in Kings ( 1 Kings 14:31; 15:1,7,8) to the son of Rehoboam who succeeded him as king of Judah. See ABIJAH.
The name has puzzled scholars. Some have proposed, by adding one letter, to change it into “father of his people.” Others have observed that the Greek rendering in Kings is Abeiou . Either the Hebrew copy used by the Greek translator read [’abhiyahu], Abijah, or else the translator substituted the form of the name which was to him more familiar. A few existing copies of the Hebrew have the reading Abijah, and Matthew 1:7 presupposes that as the Old Testament reading. So they infer that Abijam in Kings is an erroneous reading for Abijah. This seems at present to be the prevailing view, and it is plausible. It would be more convincing, however, if the name occurred but once in the passage in Kings, instead of occurring five times. It is improbable that a scribe would repeat the same error five times within a few sentences, while a translator, if he changed the name once, would of course change it the other four times.
Exploration has revealed the fact that the whole region near the eastern end of the Mediterranean was known as “the west.” “Father of the west” is not an inapt name for Rehoboam to give to the boy who, he expects, will inherit the kingdom of Solomon and David. The effect of the secession of the ten tribes was to make that name a burlesque, and one does not wonder that it was superseded by Abijah, “My father is Yahweh.” Willis J. Beecher ABILA ABILENE The territory of Abilene was part of the Iturean Kingdom, which was broken up when its king, Lysanias, was put to death by M. Antonius, circa 35 BC. The circumstances in which Abilene became distinct tetrarchy are altogether obscure, and nothing further is known of the tetrarch Lysanias (Ant., XIX, v, 1; XX, ii, 1). In 37 AD the tetrarchy, along with other territories, was granted to Agrippa I, after whose death in 44 AD it was administered by procurators until 53 AD, when Claudius conferred it again, along with neighboring territories, upon Agrippa II. On Agrippa’s death, toward the close of the 1st century, his kingdom was incorporated in the province of Syria. See LYSANIAS.
C. H. Thomson ABILITY ABIMAEL Like some of the other names in this list, the name is linguistically south Arabian, and the tribes indicated are south Arabians. On the Arabic elements in Hebrew proper names see Halevy, Melanges d’epigraphie et d’archeologie semitiques; ZDMG, especially early in 1883; D. H. Muller, Epigraphie Denkmaler aus Arabien; Glaser, Skizze der Gesch. und Geog.
Arabiens; and by index Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition; and Gray, Hebrew Proper Names; and F. Giesebrecht, Die alttestamentliche Schatzung des Gottesnamens. Willis J. Beecher ABIMELECH An insurrection led by Gaal the son of Ebed having broken out in Shechem, Abimelech, although he succeeded in capturing that city, was wounded to death by a mill-stone, which a woman dropped from the wall upon his head, while he was storming the citadel of Thebez, into which the defeated rebels had retreated, after that city also had been taken ( Judges 9:50-53).
Finding that he was mortally wounded and in order to avoid the shame of death at a woman’s hand, he required his armor-bearer to kill him with his sword ( Judges 9:54). His cruel treatment of the Shechemites ( Judges 9:46-49), when they took refuge from him in their strong tower, was a just judgment for their acquiescence in his crimes ( Judges 9:20,57); while his own miserable death was retribution for his bloody deeds ( Judges 9:56). (5) A priest in the days of David; a descendant of Ithamar and Eli, and son of Abiathar ( 1 Chronicles 18:16). In the Septuagint and in 1 Chronicles 24 he is called Ahimelech; but is not to be confused with Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, and therefore his grandfather. He shared with Zadok, of the line of Ithamar, the priestly office in the reign of David ( 1 Chronicles 24:31). Edward Mack ABINADAB However this may be, they “sanctified” Abinadab’s son Eleazar to have charge of the ark. According to the Hebrew and some of the Greek copies, the ark was in Gibeah in the middle of the reign of King Saul ( 1 Samuel 14:18).
About a century later, according to the Bible numbers, David went with great pomp to Kiriath-jearim, otherwise known as Baalah or Baale-judah, to bring the ark from Kiriath-jearim, out of the house of Abinadab in the hill (or, in Gibeah), and place it in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 13; 2 Samuel 6).
The new cart was driven by two descendants of Abinadab. There may or may not have been another Abinadab then living, the head of the house. (2) The second of the eight sons of Jesse, one of the three who were in Saul’s army when Goliath gave his challenge ( 1 Samuel 16:8; 17:13; Chronicles 2:13). (3) One of the sons of King Saul ( 1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39; 10:2; Samuel 31:2). He died in the battle of Gilboa, along with his father and brothers. (4) In 1 Kings 4:11 the King James Version has “the son of Abinadab,” where the Revised Version (British and American) hasBEN-ABINADAB, which see. Willis J. Beecher ABINOAM ABIRAM Jericho; (who) shall lay its foundation in his firstborn, and set up its gates in his youngest.’ According to this interpretation the death of the builder’s eldest and youngest sons is not spoken of as the penalty involved in the curse, but as an existing horrible custom, mentioned in order to give solemnity to the diction of the curse. The writer in Kings cites the language of the curse by Joshua. The context in which he mentions the affair suggests that he regards Hiel’s conduct as exceptionally flagrant in its wickedness. Hiel, in defiance of Yahweh, not only built the city, but in building it revived the horrible old Canaanite custom, making his first-born son a foundation sacrifice, and his youngest son a sacrifice at the completion of the work. Willis J. Beecher ABIRON ABISEI ABISHAG Adonijah sought Abishag in marriage. On the basis of this and of such other evidence as may supposably have been in his possession, Solomon put Adonijah to death as an intriguer. Willis J. Beecher ABISHAI He was chief of the second group of three among David’s “mighty men” ( 2 Samuel 23:18). He first appears with David, who was in the Wilderness of Ziph, to escape Saul. When David called for a volunteer to go down into Saul’s camp by night, Abishai responded, and counseled the killing of Saul when they came upon the sleeping king ( 1 Samuel 26:6-9).
In the skirmish between the men of Ishbosheth and the men of David at Gibeon, in which Asahel was killed by Abner, Abishai was present ( Samuel 2:18,24). He was with and aided Joab in the cruel and indefensible murder of Abner, in revenge for their brother Asahel ( 2 Samuel 3:30). In David’s campaign against the allied Ammonites and Syrians, Abishai led the attack upon the Ammonites, while Joab met the Syrians; the battle was a great victory for Israel ( 2 Samuel 10:10-14). He was always faithful to David, and remained with him, as he fled from Absalom. When Shimei, of the house of Saul, cursed the fleeing king, Abishai characteristically wished to kill him at once ( 2 Samuel 16:8,9); and when the king returned victorious Abishai advised the rejection of Shimei’s penitence, and his immediate execution ( 2 Samuel 19:21). In the battle with Absalom’s army at Mahanaim Abishai led one division of David’s army, Joab and Ittai commanding the other two ( 2 Samuel 18:2). With Joab he put down the revolt against David of Sheba, a man of Benjamin ( 2 Samuel 20:6,10), at which Joab treacherously slew Amasa his cousin and rival, as he had likewise murdered Abner, Abishai no doubt being party to the crime. In a battle with the Philistines late in his life, David was faint, being now an old man, and was in danger of death at the hands of the Philistine giant Ishbihenob when Abishai came to his rescue and killed the giant ( Samuel 21:17). In the list of David’s heroes (2 Samuel 23) Abishai’s right to leadership of the “second three” is based upon his overthrowing three hundred men with his spear ( 2 Samuel 23:18). He does not appear in the struggle of Adonijah against Solomon, in which Joab was the leader, and therefore is supposed to have died before that time.
He was an impetuous, courageous man, but less cunning than his more famous brother Joab, although just as cruel and relentless toward rival or foe. David understood and feared their hardness and cruelty. Abishai’s best trait was his unswerving loyalty to his kinsman, David. Edward Mack ABISHALOM ABISHUA ABISHUR ABISSEI ABISUE ABISUM ABITAL ABITUB ABIUD ABJECT ABLE ABLUTION Ablutions for actual or ritual purification form quite a feature of the Jewish life and ceremonial. No one was allowed to enter a holy place or to approach God by prayer or sacrifice without having first performed the rite of ablution, or “sanctification,” as it was sometimes called ( Exodus 19:10; 1 Samuel 16:5; 2 Chronicles 29:5; compare Josephus, Ant, XIV, xi, 5).
Three kinds of washing are recognized in Biblical and rabbinical law: (1) washing of the hands, (2) washing of the hands and feet, and (3) immersion of the whole body in water. (1 and 2 = Greek [ni>ptw , nipto]; 3 = Greek [lou>w , louo]).
Something more than an echo of a universal practice is found in the Scriptures. The rabbis claimed to find support for ceremonial handwashing in Leviticus 15:11. David’s words, “I will wash my hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Yahweh” ( Psalm 26:6; compare Psalm 73:13), are regarded by them as warranting the inference that ablution of the hands was prerequisite to any holy act. This is the form of ablution, accordingly, which is most universally and scrupulously practiced by Jews. Before any meal of which bread forms a part, as before prayer, or any act of worship, the hands must be solemnly washed in pure water; as also after any unclean bodily function, or contact with any unclean thing. Such handwashings probably arose naturally from the fact that the ancients ate with their fingers, and so were first for physical cleansing only; but they came to be ceremonial and singularly binding. The Talmud abundantly shows that eating with unwashed hands came to be reckoned a matter of highest importance — ”tantamount to committing an act of unchastity, or other gross crime.” Akiba, when in prison, went without water given him to quench his thirst, rather than neglect the rite of ablution (`Er. 216). Only in extreme cases, according to the Mishna, as on a battlefield, might people dispense with it. Simeon, the Essene, “the Saint” (Toseph. Kelim i.6), on entering the holy place without having washed his hands, claiming that he was holier than the high priest because of his ascetic life, was excommunicated, as undermining the authority of the Elders (compare `Eduy. 5 6).
Washing of the hands and feet is prescribed by the Law only for those about to perform priestly functions (compare Koran, Sura 5 8, in contrast: “When ye prepare yourselves for prayer, wash your faces and hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles”; Hughes, Dict. of Islam). For example, whenever Moses or Aaron or any subordinate priest desired to enter the sanctuary (Tabernacle) or approach the altar, he was required to wash his hands and feet from the layer which stood between the Tabernacle and the altar ( Exodus 30:19; 40:31). The same rule held in the Temple at Jerusalem. The washing of the whole body, however, is the form of ablution most specifically and exactingly required by the Law. The cases in which the immersion of the whole body is commanded, either for purification or consecration, are very numerous.
For example, the Law prescribed that no leper or other unclean person of the seed of Aaron should eat of holy flesh until he had washed his whole body in water ( Leviticus 22:4-6); that anyone coming in contact with a person having an unclean issue, or with any article used by such a one, should wash his whole body ( Leviticus 15:5-10); that a sufferer from an unclean issue ( Leviticus 15:16,18); a menstruous woman ( 2 Samuel 11:2,4), and anyone who touched a menstruous woman, or anything used by her, should likewise immerse the whole person in water ( Leviticus 15:19-27): that the high priest who ministered on the Day of Atonement ( Leviticus 16:24-28), the priest who tended the red heifer ( Numbers 19:7,8,19), and every priest at his installation ( Exodus 29:4; 40:12) should wash his whole body in water. Compare `divers baptisms’ (immersions) in Hebrews 9:10, and see Broadus on Matthew 15:2-20 with footnote. (For another view on bathing see Kennedy in HDB, I, v.)
Bathing in the modern and non-religious sense is rarely mentioned in the Scriptures ( Exodus 2:5 Pharaoh’s daughter; 2 Samuel 11:2 the Revised Version (British and American) Bathsheba, and the interesting case Kings 22:38). Public baths are first met with in the Greek period — included in the “place of exercise” (1 Macc 1:14), and remains of such buildings from the Roman period are numerous. Recently a remarkable series of bath-chambers have been discovered at Gezer, in Palestine, in connection with a building which is supposed to be the palace built by Simon Maccabeus (Kennedy (illust. in PEFS, 1905, 294 f)).
The rite of ablution was observed among early Christians also. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, X, 4.40) tells of Christian churches being supplied with fountains or basins of water, after the Jewish custom of providing the laver for the use of the priests. The Apostolical Constitutions (VIII.32) have the rule: “Let all the faithful .... when they rise from sleep, before they go to work, pray, after having washed themselves” nipsamenoi .
The attitude of Jesus toward the rabbinical law of ablution is significant.
Mark (7:3) prepares the way for his record of it by explaining, `The Pharisees and all the Jews eat not except they wash their hands to the wrist (pugme ). (See LTJM, II, 11). According to Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 Pharisees and Scribes that had come from Jerusalem (i.e. the strictest) had seen some of Jesus’ disciples eat bread with unwashed hands, and they asked Him: “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” Jesus’ answer was to the Jews, even to His own disciples, in the highest degree surprising, paradoxical, revolutionary (compare Matthew 12:8). They could not but see that it applied not merely to hand-washing, but to the whole matter of clean and unclean food; and this to them was one of the most vital parts of the Law (compare Acts 10:14). Jesus saw that the masses of the Jews, no less than the Pharisees, while scrupulous about ceremonial purity, were careless of inward purity. So here, as in the Sermon on the Mount, and with reference to the Sabbath ( Matthew 12:1 ff), He would lead them into the deeper and truer significance of the Law, and thus prepare the way for setting aside not only the traditions of the eiders that made void the commandments of God, but even the prescribed ceremonies of the Law themselves, if need be, that the Law in its higher principles and meanings might be “fulfilled.” Here He proclaims a principle that goes to the heart of the whole matter of true religion in saying: “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites” ( Mark 7:6-13) — you who make great pretense of devotion to God, and insist strenuously on the externals of His service, while at heart you do not love Him, making the word of God of none effect for the sake of your tradition!
LITERATURE.
For list of older authorities see McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia; Nowack, Biblische Archaeologie, II, 275-99; and Spitzer, Ueber Baden und Bader bei den alten Hebraern, 1884. George B. Eager ABNER And Ner begat Abner, and Kish begat Saul. According to 1 Chronicles 27:21 Abner had a son by the name of Jaasiel.
Abner was to Saul what Joab was to David. Despite the many wars waged by Saul, we hear little of Abner during Saul’s lifetime. Not even in the account’ of the battle of Gilboa is mention made of him. Yet both his high office and his kinship to the king must have brought the two men in close contact. On festive occasions it was the custom of Abner to sit at table by the king’s side ( 1 Samuel 20:25). It was Abner who introduced the young David fresh from his triumph over Goliath to the king’s court (so according to the account in 1 Samuel 17:57). We find Abner accompanying the king in his pursuit of David ( 1 Samuel 26:5 ff). Abner is rebuked by David for his negligence in keeping watch over his master (ibid., 15).
Upon the death of Saul, Abner took up the cause of the young heir to the throne, Ishbosheth, whom he forthwith removed from the neighborhood of David to Mahanaim in the East-Jordanic country. There he proclaimed him king over all Israel. By the pool of Gibeon he and his men met Joab and the servants of David. Twelve men on each side engaged in combat which ended disastrously for Abner who fled. He was pursued by Asahel, Joab’s brother, whom Abner slew. Though Joab and his brother Abishai sought to avenge their brother’s death on the spot, a truce was effected; Abner was permitted to go his way after three hundred and threescore of his men had fallen. Joab naturally watched his opportunity. Abner and his master soon had a quarrel over Saul’s concubine, Rizpah, with whom Abner was intimate. It was certainly an act of treason which Ishbosheth was bound to resent. The disgruntled general made overtures to David; he won over the tribe of Benjamin. With twenty men of them he came to Hebron and arranged with the king of Judah that he would bring over to his side all Israel. He was scarcely gone when Joab learned of the affair; without the knowledge of David he recalled him to Hebron where he slew him, “for the blood of Asahel his brother.” David mourned sincerely the death of Abner. “Know ye not,” he addressed his servants, “that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?” He followed the bier in person. Of the royal lament over Abner a fragment is quoted: “Should Abner die as a fool dieth?
Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters:
As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so didst thou fall.” (See 2 Samuel 3:6-38.) The death of Abner, while it thus cannot in any wise be laid at the door of David, nevertheless served his purposes well.
The backbone of the opposition to David was broken, and he was soon proclaimed as king by all Israel. Max L. Margolis ABODE ABOLISH The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is hb;[ewOT [to`ebhah], meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds ( Genesis 46:34).
The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.
Among the objects described in the Old Testament as “abominations” in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the “abominations” of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively ( 2 Kings 23:13), and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: “Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo, [to`ebhah], to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?” ( Exodus 8:26).
It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an “abomination,” for it “is an abomination to Yahweh thy God” ( Deuteronomy 7:25,26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: `Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart ([cherem] = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart’ (tabooed). [To`ebhah] is even used as synonymous with “idol” or heathen deity, as in Isaiah 44:19; Deuteronomy 32:16; 2 Kings 23:13; and especially Exodus 8:22 ff.
Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination [to`ebhah]; as are sexual transgressions ( Deuteronomy 22:5; Deuteronomy 23:18; Deuteronomy 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you” ( Leviticus 18:27; compare Ezekiel 8:15).
It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where “divers measures, a great and a small,” are forbidden ( Deuteronomy 25:14-16); and in Proverbs where “lying lips” (12:22), “the proud in heart” (16:5), “the way of the wicked” (15:9), “evil devices” (15:26), and “he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous” (17:15), are said to be an abomination in God’s sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: `Bring no more an oblation of falsehood — an incense of abomination it is to me’ ( Isaiah 1:13; compare Jeremiah 7:10). “The sacrifice of the wicked” and the prayer of him “that turneth away his ear from hearing the law,” are equally an abomination (see Proverbs 15:8; 21:27; 28:9).
Another word rendered “abomination” in the King James Version is Åq,c, [sheqets] or ÅWQvi [shiqquts]. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than [to`ebhah], but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In Deuteronomy 14:3, for example, we have the command, “Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing,” as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS ), and the word there used is [to`ebhah]. But in Leviticus 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Isaiah 66:17; and in Ezekiel 8:10 [sheqets] is the word used and likewise applied to the prohibited animals; as also in Leviticus 11:43 [sheqets] is used when it is commanded, “Ye shall not make yourselves abominable.” Then [sheqets] is often used parallel to or together with [to`ebhah] of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially Deuteronomy 29:17; Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 4:1; 13:27; 16:18; Ezekiel 11:18-21; 20:7,8). It is used exactly as [to`ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing [sheqets] of the Ammonites ( Kings 11:5). Still even in such cases [to`ebhah] seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.
The other word used to express a somewhat kindred idea of abhorrence and translated “abomination” in the King James Version is lwgp [piggul]; but it is used in the Hebrew Bible only of sacrificial flesh that has become stale, putrid, tainted (see Leviticus 7:18; 19:7; Ezekiel 4:14; Isaiah 65:4). Driver maintains that it occurs only as a “technical term for such state sacrificial flesh as has not been eaten within the prescribed time,” and, accordingly, he would everywhere render it specifically “refuse meat.”
Compare [lechem megho’al], “the loaths ome bread” (from [ga’al], “to loathe”) Malachi 1:7. A chief interest in the subject for Christians grows out of the use of the term in the expression “abomination of desolation” ( Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14), which see. See also ABHOR.
LITERATURE.
Commentators at the place Rabbinical literature in point. Driver; Weiss; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, IV, note 15. George B. Eager ABOMINATION, BIRDS OF Leviticus 11:13-19: “And these ye shall have in abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier-eagle, and the osprey, and the kite, and the falcon after its kind, every raven after its kind, and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the vulture, and the stork, the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat.” Deuteronomy 14:12-18 gives the glede in addition.
Each of these birds is treated in order in this work. There are two reasons why Moses pronounced them an abomination for food. Either they had rank, offensive, tough flesh, or they were connected with religious superstition. The eagle, gier-eagle, osprey, kite, glede, falcon, raven, nighthawk, sea-mew, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, horned owl, pelican and vulture were offensive because they were birds of prey or ate carrion or fish until their flesh partook of the odor of their food. Young ostriches have sweet, tender flesh and the eggs are edible also. In putting these birds among the abominations Moses must have been thinking of grown specimens. (Ostriches live to a remarkable age and on account of the distances they cover, and their speed in locomotion, their muscles become almost as hard as bone.) There is a trace of his early Egyptian training when he placed the stork and the heron on this list. These birds, and the crane as well, abounded in all countries known at that time and were used for food according to the superstitions of different nations. These three were closely related to the ibis which was sacred in Egypt and it is probable that they were protected by Moses for this reason, since they were eaten by other nations at that time and cranes are used for food today by natives of our southeastern coast states and are to be found in the markets of our western coast. The veneration for the stork that exists throughout the civilized world today had its origin in Palestine. Noting the devotion of mated pairs and their tender care for the young the Hebrews named the bird [chacidhah], which means kindness. Carried down the history of ages with additions by other nations, this undoubtedly accounts for the story now universal, that the stork delivers newly-born children to their homes; so the bird is loved and protected. One ancient Roman writer, Cornelius Nepos, recorded that in his time both crane and storks were eaten; storks were liked the better. Later, Pliny wrote that no one would touch a stork, but everyone was fond of crane. In Thessaly it was a capital crime to kill a stork. This change from regarding the stork as a delicacy to its protection by a death penalty merely indicates the hold the characteristics of the bird had taken on people as it became better known, and also the spread of the regard in which it was held throughout Palestine.
The hoopoe (which see) was offensive to Moses on account of extremely filthy nesting habits, but was considered a great delicacy when captured in migration by residents of southern Europe. See also ABOMINATION; BIRDS, UNCLEAN.
Gene Stratton-Porter ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION 1. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Since the invasion of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Jewish people, both of the Northern and of the Southern kingdom, had been without political independence. From the Chaldeans the rulership of Judea had been transferred to the Persians, and from the Persians, after an interval of 200 years, to Alexander the Great. From the beginning of the Persian sovereignty, the Jews had been permitted to organize anew their religious and political commonwealth, thus establishing a state under the rulership of priests, for the high priest was not only the highest functionary of the cult, but also the chief magistrate in so far as these prerogatives were not exercised by the king of the conquering nation. Ezra had given a new significance to the [Torah] by having it read to the whole congregation of Israel and by his vigorous enforcement of the law of separation from the Gentiles. His emphasis of the law introduced the period of legalism and finical interpretation of the letter which called forth some of the bitterest invectives of our Saviour. Specialists of the law known as “scribes” devoted themselves to its study and subtle interpretation, and the pious beheld the highest moral accomplishment in the extremely conscientious observance of every precept. But in opposition to this class, there were those who, influenced by the Hellenistic culture, introduced by the conquests of Alexander the Great, were inclined to a more “liberal” policy.
Thus, two opposing parties were developed: the Hellenistic, and the party of the Pious, or the Chasidim, [chacidhim] (Hasidaeans, 1 Macc 2:42; 7:13), who held fast to the strict ideal of the scribes. The former gradually came into ascendancy. Judea was rapidly becoming Hellenistic in all phases of its political, social and religious life, and the “Pious” were dwindling to a small minority sect. This was the situation when Antiochus Epiphanes set out to suppress the last vestige of the Jewish cult by the application of brute force.
2. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES:
Antiochus IV, son of Antiochus the Great, became the successor of his brother, Seleucus IV, who had been murdered by his minister, Heliodorus, as king of Syria (175-164 BC). He was by nature a despot; eccentric and unreliable; sometimes a spendthrift in his liberality, fraternizing in an affected manner with those of lower station; sometimes cruel and tyrannical, as witness his aggressions against Judea. Polybius (26 10) tells us that his eccentric ideas caused some to speak of him as a man of pure motive and humble character, while others hinted at insanity. The epithet Epiphanes is an abbreviation of theos epiphanes , which is the designation given himself by Antiochus on his coins, and means “the god who appears or reveals himself.” Egyptian writers translate the inscription, “God which comes forth,” namely, like the burning sun, Horos, on the horizon, thus identifying the king with the triumphal, appearing god. When Antiochus Epiphanes arose to the throne, Onias III, as high priest, was the leader of the old orthodox party in Judea; the head of the Hellenists was his own brother Jesus, or, as he preferred to designate himself, Jason, this being the Greek form of his name and indicating the trend of his mind. Jason promised the king large sums of money for the transfer of the office of high priest from his brother to himself and the privilege of erecting a gymnasium and a temple to Phallus, and for the granting of the privilege “to enroll the inhabitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch.” Antiochus gladly agreed to everything. Onias was removed, Jason became high priest, and henceforth the process of Hellenizing Judea was pushed energetically.
The Jewish cult was not attacked, but the “legal institutions were set aside, and illegal practices were introduced” (2 Macc 4:11). A gymnasium was erected outside the castle; the youth of Jerusalem exercised themselves in the gymnastic art of the Greeks, and even priests left their services at the altar to take part in the contest of the palaestra. The disregard of Jewish custom went so far that many artificially removed the traces of circumcision from their bodies, and with characteristic liberality, Jason even sent a contribution to the sacrifices in honor of Heracles on the occasion of the quadrennial festivities in Tyre.
3. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE JEWISH CULT:
Under these conditions it is not surprising that Antiochus should have had both the inclination and the courage to undertake the total eradication of the Jewish religion and the establishment of Greek polytheism in its stead.
The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the Sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death. The Jewish cult was set aside, and in all cities of Judea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict.
Once a month a search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the Law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death.
In Jerusalem on the 15th of Chislev of the year 145 aet Sel, i.e. in December 168 BC, a pagan altar was built on the Great Altar of Burnt Sacrifices, and on the 25th of Chislev, sacrifice was brought on this altar for the first time (1 Macc 1:54,59). This evidently was the “abomination of desolation.” The sacrifice, according to 2 Macc was brought to the Olympian Zeus, to whom the temple of Jerusalem had been dedicated. At the feast of Dionysus, the Jews were obliged to march in the Bacchanalian procession, crowned with laurel leaves. Christ applies the phrase to what was to take place at the advance of the Romans against Jerusalem. They who would behold the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place, He bids flee to the mountains, which probably refers to the advance of the Roman army into the city and temple, carrying standards which bore images of the Roman gods and were the objects of pagan worship. Frank E. Hirsch ABOUND; ABUNDANCE; ABUNDANT; ABUNDANTLY ABRAHAM 1. NAME. 1. Various Forms: In the Old Testament, when applied, to the patriarch, the name appears as µr:b]a” [’abhram], up to Genesis 17:5; thereafter always as µh;r:b]a” [’abhraham]. Two other persons are named µh;r:b]a” [’abhiram]. The identity of this name with [’abhram] cannot be doubted in view of the variation between [’abhiner] and [’abhner], [’abhishalom] and [’abhshalom], etc. Abraham also appears in the list at Karnak of places conquered by Sheshonk I: ‘brm (no. 72) represents µrba [’abram], with which Spiegelberg (Aegypt. Randglossen zum Altes Testament, 14) proposes to connect the preceding name (so that the whole would read “the field of Abram.” Outside of Palestine this name (Abiramu) has come to light just where from the Biblical tradition we should expect to find it, namely, in Babylonia (e.g. in a contract of the reign of Apil-Sin, second predecessor of Hammurabi; also for the aunt (!) of Esarhaddon 680-669 BC). Ungnad has recently found it, among documents from Dilbat dating from the Hammurabi dynasty, in the forms A-ba-am-ra-ma, A-ba-am-raam, as well as A-ba-ra-ma. 2. Etymology: Until this latest discovery of the apparently full, historical form of the Babylonian equivalent, the best that could be done with the etymology was to make the first constituent “father of” (construct -i rather than suffix -i), and the second constituent “Ram,” a proper name or an abbreviation of a name. (Yet observe above its use in Assyria for a woman; compare\parABISHAG;ABIGAIL). Some were inclined rather to concede that the second element was a mystery, like the second element in the majority of names beginning with [’abh] and [’ach], “father” and “brother.” But the full cuneiform writing of the name, with the case-ending am, indicates that the noun “father” is in the accusative, governed by the verb which furnishes the second component, and that this verb therefore is probably ramu (= Hebrew µh”r: [racham]) “to love,” etc.; so that the name would mean something like “he loves the (his) father.” (So Ungnad, also Ranke in Gressmann’s article “Sage und Geschichte in den Patriarchenerzahlungen,” ZATW (1910), 3.) Analogy proves that this is in the Babylonian fashion of the period, and that judging from the various writings of this and similar names, its pronunciation was not far from [’abh-ram]. 3. Association: While the name is thus not “Hebrew” in origin, it made itself thoroughly at home among the Hebrews, and to their ears conveyed associations quite different from its etymological signification. “Popular etymology” here as so often doubtless led the Hebrew to hear in [’abh-ram], “exalted father,” a designation consonant with the patriarch’s national and religious significance. In the form ‘abh-raham his ear caught the echo of some root (perhaps r-h-m; compare Arabic ruham, “multitude”) still more suggestive of the patriarch’s extensive progeny, the reason (“for”) that accompanies the change of name Genesis 17:5 being intended only as a verbal echo of the sense in the sound. This longer and commoner form is possibly a dialectical variation of the shorter form, a variation for which there are analogies in comparative Semitic grammar. It is, however, possible also that the two forms are different names, and that [’abh-raham] is etymologically, and not merely by association of sound, “father of a multitude” (as above). (Another theory, based on South-Arabic orthography, in Hommel, Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung, 177.)
2. KINDRED. Genesis 11:27, which introduces Abraham, contains the heading, “These are the generations of Terah.” All the story of Abraham is contained within the section of Genesis so entitled. Through Terah Abraham’s ancestry is traced back to Shem, and he is thus related to Mesopotamian and Arabian families that belonged to the “Semitic” race. He is further connected with this race geographically by his birthplace, which is given as [’ur-kasdim] (see UR ), and by the place of his pre-Canaanitish residence, Haran in the Aramean region. The purely Semitic ancestry of his descendants through Isaac is indicated by his marriage with his own half-sister ( Genesis 20:12), and still further emphasized by the choice for his daughter-in-law of Rebekah, descended from both of his brothers, Nahor and Haran ( Genesis 11:29; 22:22 f). Both the beginning and the end of the residence in Haran are left chronologically undetermined, for the new beginning of the narrative at Genesis 12:1 is not intended by the writer to indicate chronological sequence, though it has been so understood, e.g. by Stephen ( Acts 7:4). All that is definite in point of time is that an Aramean period of residence intervened between the Babylonian origin and the Palestinian career of Abraham. It is left to a comparison of the Biblical data with one another and with the data of archaeology, to fix the opening of Abraham’s career in Palestine not far from the middle of the 20th century BC.
3. CAREER.
Briefiy summed up, that career was as follows. 1. Period of Wandering: Abraham, endowed with Yahweh’s promise of limitless blessing, leaves Haran with Lot his nephew and all their establishment, and enters Canaan.
Successive stages of the slow journey southward are indicated by the mention of Shechem, Bethel and the Negeb (South-country). Driven by famine into Egypt, Abraham finds hospitable reception, though at the price of his wife’s honor, whom the Pharaoh treats in a manner characteristic of an Egyptian monarch. (Gressmann, op. cit., quotes from Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, 12, 142, the passage from a magic formula in the pyramid of Unas, a Pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty: “Then he (namely, the Pharaoh) takes away the wives from their husbands whither he will if desire seize his heart.”) Retracing the path to Canaan with an augmented train, at Bethel Abraham and Lot find it necessary to part company. Lot and his dependents choose for residence the great Jordan Depression; Abraham follows the backbone of the land southward to Hebron, where he settles, not in the city, but before its gates “by the great trees” (Septuagint sing., “oak”) of Mamre. 2. Period of Residence at Hebron: Affiliation between Abraham and the local chieftains is strengthened by a brief campaign, in which all unite their available forces for the rescue of Lot from an Elamite king and his confederates from Babylonia. The pursuit leads them as far as the Lebanon region. On the return they are met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of [’el `elyon], and blessed by him in his priestly capacity, which Abraham recognizes by presenting him with a tithe of the spoils. Abraham’s anxiety for a son to be the bearer of the divine promises conferred upon a “seed” yet unborn should have been relieved by the solemn renewal thereof in a formal covenant, with precise specifications of God’s gracious purpose. But human desire cannot wait upon divine wisdom, and the Egyptian woman Hagar bears to Abraham a son, Ishmael, whose existence from its inception proves a source of moral evil within the patriarchal household. The sign of circumcision and the change of names are given in confirmation of the covenant still unrealized, together with specification of the time and the person that should begin its realization. The theophany that symbolized outwardly this climax of the Divine favor serves also for an intercessory colloquy, in which Abraham is granted the deliverance of Lot in the impending overthrow of Sodom. Lot and his family, saved thus by human fidelity and Divine clemency, exhibit in the moral traits shown in their escape and subsequent life the degeneration naturally to be expected from their corrupt environment.
Moabites and Ammonites are traced in their origin to these cousins of Jacob and Esau. 3. Period of Residence in the Negeb: Removal to the South-country did not mean permanent residence in a single spot, but rather a succession of more or less temporary restingplaces.
The first of these was in the district of Gerar, with whose king, Abimelech, Abraham and his wife had an experience similar to the earlier one with the Pharaoh. The birth of Isaac was followed by the expulsion of Ishmael and his mother, and the sealing of peaceful relations with the neighbors by covenant at Beersheba. Even the birth of Isaac, however, did not end the discipline of Abraham’s faith in the promise, for a Divine command to sacrifice the life of this son was accepted bona fide, and only the sudden interposition of a Divine prohibition prevented its obedient execution. The death of Sarah became the occasion for Abraham’s acquisition of the first permanent holding of Palestine soil, the nucleus of his promised inheritance, and at the same time suggested the probable approach of his own death. This thought led to immediate provision for a future seed to inherit through Isaac, a provision realized in Isaac’s marriage with Rebekah, grand-daughter of Abraham’s brother Nahor and of Milcah the sister of Lot. But a numerous progeny not associated with the promise grew up in Abraham’s household, children of Keturah, a woman who appears to have had the rank of wife after Sarah’s death, and of other women unnamed, who were his concubines. Though this last period was passed in the Negeb, Abraham was interred at Hebron in his purchased possession, the spot with which Semitic tradition has continued to associate him to this day.
4. CONDITIONS OF LIFE.
The life of Abraham in its outward features may be considered under the following topics: economic, social, political and cultural conditions. 1. Economic Conditions: Abraham’s manner of life may best be described by the adjective “seminomadic,” and illustrated by the somewhat similar conditions prevailing today in those border-communities of the East that fringe the Syrian and Arabian deserts. Residence is in tents, wealth consists of flocks, herds and slaves, and there is no ownership of ground, only at most a proprietorship in well or tomb. All this in common with the nomad. But there is a relative, or rather, intermittent fixity of habitation, unlike the pure Bedouin, a limited amount of agriculture, and finally a sense of divergence from the Ishmael type — all of which tend to assimilate the seminomadic Abraham to the fixed Canaanitish population about him. As might naturally be expected, such a condition is an unstable equilibrium, which tends, in the family of Abraham as in the history of all border-tribes of the desert, to settle back one way or the other, now into the city-life of Lot, now into the desert-life of Ishmael. 2. Social Conditions: The head of a family, under these conditions, becomes at the same time the chief of a tribe, that live together under patriarchal rule though they by no means share without exception the tie of kinship. The family relations depicted in Genesis conform to and are illuminated by the social features of Code of Hammurabi. (See K. D. Macmillan, article “Marriage among the Early Babylonians and Hebrews,” Princeton Theological Review, April, 1908.) There is one legal wife, Sarah, who, because persistently childless, obtains the coveted offspring by giving her own maid to Abraham for that purpose (compare Code of Hammurabi, sections 144, 146). The son thus borne, Ishmael, is Abraham’s legal son and heir. When Isaac is later borne by Sarah, the elder son is disinherited by divine command ( Genesis 21:10-12) against Abraham’s wish which represented the prevailing law and custom (Code of Hammurabi, sections 168 f). The “maid-servants” mentioned in the inventories of Abraham’s wealth ( Genesis 12:16; 24:35) doubtless furnished the “concubines” mentioned in Genesis 25:6 as having borne sons to him. Both mothers and children were slaves, but had the right to freedom, though not to inheritance, on the death of the father (Code of Hammurabi, section 171). After Sarah’s death another woman seems to have succeeded to the position of legal wife, though if so the sons she bore were disinherited like Ishmael ( Genesis 25:5). In addition to the children so begotten by Abraham the “men of his house” ( Genesis 17:27) consisted of two classes, the “home-born” slaves ( Genesis 14:14; 17:12 f,23,27) and the “purchased” slaves (ibid.). The extent of the patriarchal tribe may be surmised from the number (318) of men among them capable of bearing arms, near the beginning of Abraham’s career, yet after his separation from Lot, and recruited seemingly from the “home-born” class exclusively ( Genesis 14:14). Over this entire establishment Abraham ruled with a power more, rather than less, absolute than that exhibited in detail in the Code of Hammurabi: more absolute, because Abraham was independent of any permanent superior authority, and so combined in his own person the powers of the Babylonian paterfamilias and of the Canaanite city-king. Social relations outside of the family-tribe may best be considered under the next heading. 3. Political Conditions: It is natural that the chieftain of so considerable an organism should appear an attractive ally and a formidable foe to any of the smaller political units of his environment. That Canaan was at the time composed of just such inconsiderable units, namely, city-states with petty kings, and scattered fragments of older populations, is abundantly clear from the Biblical tradition and verified from other sources. Egypt was the only great power with which Abraham came into political contact after leaving the East. In the section of Genesis which describes this contact with the Pharaoh Abraham is suitably represented as playing no political role, but as profiting by his stay in Egypt only through an incidental social relation: when this terminates he is promptly ejected. The role of conqueror of Chedorlaomer, the Elamite invader, would be quite out of keeping with Abraham’s political status elsewhere, if we were compelled by the narrative in Genesis 14 to suppose a pitched battle between the forces of Abraham and those of the united Babylonian armies. What that chapter requires is in fact no more than a midnight surprise, by Abraham’s band (including the forces of confederate chieftains), of a rear-guard or baggagetrain of the Babylonians inadequately manned and picketed (“Slaughter” is quite too strong a rendering of the original hakkoth, “smiting,” 14:17) Respect shown Abraham by the kings of Salem (14:18), of Sodom (14:21) and of Gerar ( Genesis 20:14-16) was no more than might be expected from their relative degrees of political importance, although a moral precedence, assumed in the tradition, may well have contributed to this respect. 4. Cultural Conditions: Recent archaeological research has revolutionized our conception of the degree of culture which Abraham could have possessed and therefore presumably did possess. The high plane which literature had attained in both Babylonia and Egypt by 2000 BC is sufficient witness to the opportunities open to the man of birth and wealth in that day for the interchange of lofty thought. And, without having recourse to Abraham’s youth in Babylonia, we may assert even for the scenes of Abraham’s maturer life the presence of the same culture, on the basis of a variety of facts, the testimony of which converges in this point, that Canaan in the second millennium BC was at the center of the intellectual life of the East and cannot have failed to afford, to such of its inhabitants as chose to avail themselves of it, every opportunity for enjoying the fruits of others’ culture and for recording the substance of their own thoughts, emotions and activities
5. CHARACTER.
Abraham’s inward life may be considered under the rubrics of religion, ethics and personal traits. 1. Religious Beliefs: The religion of Abraham centered in his faith in one God, who, because believed by him to be possessor of heaven and earth ( Genesis 14:22; 24:3), sovereign judge of the nations ( Genesis 15:14) of all the earth ( Genesis 18:25), disposer of the forces of Nature ( Genesis 18:14; 19:24; 20:17 f), exalted ( Genesis 14:22) and eternal ( Genesis 21:33), was for Abraham at least the only God. So far as the Biblical tradition goes, Abraham’s monotheism was not aggressive (otherwise in later Jewish tradition), and it is theoretically possible to attribute to him a merely “monarchical” or “henotheistic” type of monotheism, which would admit the coexistence with his deity, say, of the “gods which (his) fathers served” ( Joshua 24:14), or the identity with his deity of the supreme god of some Canaanite neighbor ( Genesis 14:18). Yet this distinction of types of monotheism does not really belong to the sphere of religion as such, but rather to that of speculative philosophical thought. As religion, monotheism is just monotheism, and it asserts itself in corollaries drawn by the intellect only so far as the scope of the monotheist’s intellectual life applies it. For Abraham Yahweh not only was alone God; He was also his personal God in a closeness of fellowship ( Genesis 24:40; 48:15) that has made him for three religions the type of the pious man ( 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8, James 2:23, note the Arabic name of Hebron El- Khalil, i.e. the friend (viz of God)) To Yahweh Abraham attributed the moral attributes of Justice ( Genesis 18:25), righteousness ( Genesis 18:19), faithfulness ( Genesis 24:27), wisdom ( Genesis 20:6), goodness ( Genesis 19:19), mercy ( Genesis 20:6). These qualities were expected of men, and their contraries in men were punished by Yahweh ( Genesis 18:19; 20:11). He manifested Himself in dreams ( Genesis 20:3), visions ( Genesis 15:1) and theophanies ( Genesis 18:1), including the voice or apparition of the Divine mal’akh or messenger (“angel”) ( Genesis 16:7; 22:11) On man’s part, in addition to obedience to Yahweh’s moral requirements and special commands, the expression of his religious nature was expected in sacrifice. This bringing of offerings to the deity was diligently practiced by Abraham, as indicated by the mention of his erection of an altar at each successive residence. Alongside of this act of sacrifice there is sometimes mention of a “calling upon the name” of Yahweh (compare 1 Kings 18:24; <19B613> Psalm 116:13 f). This publication of his faith, doubtless in the presence of Canaanites, had its counterpart also in the public regard in which he was held as a “prophet” or spokesman for God ( Genesis 20:7). His mediation showed itself also in intercessory prayer ( Genesis 17:20 for Ishmael; 18:23-32; compare 19:29 for Lot; 20:17 for Abimelech), which was but a phase of his general practice of prayer. The usual accompaniment of sacrifice, a professional priesthood, does not occur in Abraham’s family, yet he recognizes priestly prerogative in the person of Melchizedek, priest-king of Salem ( Genesis 14:20). Religious sanction of course surrounds the taking of oaths ( Genesis 14:22; 24:3) and the sealing of covenants ( Genesis 21:23).
Other customs associated with religion are circumcision ( Genesis 17:10-14), given to Abraham as the sign of the perpetual covenant; tithing ( Genesis 14:20), recognized as the priest’s due; and child-sacrifice ( Genesis 22:2,12), enjoined upon Abraham only to be expressly forbidden, approved for its spirit but interdicted in its practice. 2. Morality: As already indicated, the ethical attributes of God were regarded by Abraham as the ethical requirement of man. This in theory. In the sphere of applied ethics and casuistry Abraham’s practice, at least, fell short of this ideal, even in the few incidents of his life preserved to us. It is clear that these lapses from virtue were offensive to the moral sense of Abraham’s biographer, but we are left in the dark as to Abraham’s sense of moral obliquity. (The “dust and ashes” of Genesis 18:27 has no moral implication.) The demands of candor and honor are not satisfactorily met, certainly not in the matter of Sarah’s relationship to him ( Genesis 12:11-13; 20:2; compare 11-13), perhaps not in the matter of Isaac’s intended sacrifice ( Genesis 22:5,8). To impose our own monogamous standard of marriage upon the patriarch would be unfair, in view of the different standard of his age and land. It is to his credit that no such scandals are recorded in his life and family as blacken the record of Lot ( Genesis 19:30-38), Reuben ( Genesis 35:22) and Judah ( Genesis 38:15-18). Similarly, Abraham’s story shows only regard for life and property, both in respecting the rights of others and in expecting the same from them — the antipodes of Ishmael’s character ( Genesis 16:12). 3. Personal Traits: Outside, the bounds of strictly ethical requirement, Abraham’s personality displayed certain characteristics that not only mark him out distinctly among the figures of history, but do him great credit as a singularly symmetrical and attractive character. Of his trust and reverence enough has been said under the head of religion. But this love that is “the fulfilling of the law,” manifested in such piety toward God, showed itself toward men in exceptional generosity ( Genesis 13:9; 14:23; 23:9,13; 24:10; 25:6), fidelity ( Genesis 14:14,24; 17:18; 18:23-32; 19:27; 21:11; 23:2), hospitality ( Genesis 18:2-8; 21:8) and compassion ( Genesis 16:6 and 21:14 when rightly understood, 18:23-32). A solid self-respect ( Genesis 14:23; 16:6; 21:25; 23:9,13,16; 24:4) and real courage ( Genesis 14:14-16) were, however, marred by the cowardice that sacrificed Sarah to purchase personal safety where he had reason to regard life as insecure ( Genesis 20:11).
6. SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGION.
Abraham is a significant figure throughout the Bible, and plays an important role in extra-Biblical Jewish tradition and in the Mohammedan religion. 1. In the Old Testament: It is naturally as progenitor of the people of Israel, “the seed of Abraham,” as they are often termed, that Abraham stands out most prominently in the Old Testament books. Sometimes the contrast between him as an individual and his numerous progeny serves to point a lesson ( Isaiah 51:2; Ezekiel 33:24; perhaps Malachi 2:10; compare 15). “The God of Abraham” serves as a designation of Yahweh from the time of Isaac to the latest period; it is by this title that Moses identifies the God who has sent him with the ancestral deity of the children of Israel ( Exodus 3:15).
Men remembered in those later times that this God appeared to Abraham in theophany ( Exodus 6:3), and, when he was still among his people who worshipped other gods ( Joshua 24:3) chose him ( Nehemiah 9:7), led him, redeemed him ( Isaiah 29:22) and made him the recipient of those special blessings ( Micah 7:20) which were pledged by covenant and oath (so every larger historical book, also the historical <19A509> Psalm 105:9), notably the inheritance of the land of Canaan ( Deuteronomy 6:10) Nor was Abraham’s religious personality forgotten by his posterity: he was remembered by them as God’s friend ( 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8), His servant, the very recollection of whom by God would offset the horror with which the sins of his descendants inspired Yahweh ( Deuteronomy 9:27). 2. In the New Testament: When we pass to the New Testament we are astonished at the wealth and variety of allusion to Abraham. As in the Old Testament, his position of ancestor lends him much of his significance, not only as ancestor of Israel ( Acts 13:26), but specifically as ancestor, now of the Levitical priesthood ( Hebrews 7:5), now of the Messiah ( Matthew 1:1), now, by the peculiarly Christian doctrine of the unity of believers in Christ, of Christian believers ( Galatians 3:16,29). All that Abraham the ancestor received through Divine election, by the covenant made with him, is inherited by his seed and passes under the collective names of the promise ( Romans 4:13), the blessing ( Galatians 3:14), mercy ( Luke 1:54), the oath ( Luke 1:73), the covenant ( Acts 3:25). The way in which Abraham responded to this peculiar goodness of God makes him the type of the Christian believer. Though so far in the past that he was used as a measure of antiquity ( John 8:58), he is declared to have “seen” Messiah’s “day” ( John 8:56). It is his faith in the Divine promise, which, just because it was for him peculiarly unsupported by any evidence of the senses, becomes the type of the faith that leads to justification ( Romans 4:3), and therefore in this sense again he is the “father” of Christians, as believers ( Romans 4:11). For that promise to Abraham was, after all, a “preaching beforehand” of the Christian gospel, in that it embraced “all the families of the earth” ( Galatians 3:8). Of this exalted honor, James reminds us, Abraham proved himself worthy, not by an inoperative faith, but by “works” that evidenced his righteousness ( James 2:21; compare John 8:39). The obedience that faith wrought in him is what is especially praised by the author of Hebrews ( Hebrews 11:8,17). In accordance with this high estimate of the patriarch’s piety, we read of his eternal felicity, not only in the current conceptions of the Jews (parable, Luke 16), but also in the express assertion of our Lord ( Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28). Incidental historical allusions to the events of Abraham’s life are frequent in the New Testament, but do not add anything to this estimate of his religious significance. 3. In Jewish Tradition: Outside the Scriptures we have abundant evidence of the way that Abraham was regarded by his posterity in the Jewish nation. The oldest of these witnesses, Ecclesiasticus, contains none of the accretions of the later Abraham-legends. Its praise of Abraham is confined to the same three great facts that appealed to the canonical writers, namely, his glory as Israel’s ancestor, his election to be recipient of the covenant, and his piety (including perhaps a tinge of “nomism”) even under severe testing (Ecclesiasticus 44:19-21). The Improbable and often unworthy and even grotesque features of Abraham’s career and character in the later rabbinical midrashim are of no religious significance, beyond the evidence they afford of the way Abraham’s unique position and piety were cherished by the Jews. 4. In the Koran: To Mohammed Abraham is of importance in several ways. He is mentioned in no less than 188 verses of the Koran, more than any other character except Moses. He is one of the series of prophets sent by God.
He is the common ancestor of the Arab and the Jew. He plays the same role of religious reformer over against his idolatrous kinsmen as Mohammed himself played. He builds the first pure temple for God’s worship (at Mecca!). As in the Bible so in the Koran Abraham is the recipient of the Divine covenant for himself and for his posterity, and exhibits in his character the appropriate virtues of one so highly favored: faith, righteousness, purity of heart, gratitude, fidelity, compassion. He receives marked tokens of the Divine favor in the shape of deliverance, guidance, visions, angelic messengers (no theophanies for Mohammed!), miracles, assurance of resurrection and entrance into paradise. He is called “Imam of the peoples” (2 118)
7. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE STORY OTHER THAN THE HISTORICAL.
There are writers in both ancient and modern times who have, from various standpoints, interpreted the person and career of Abraham otherwise than as what it purports to be, namely, the real experiences of a human person named Abraham. These various views may be classified according to the motive or impulse which they believe to have led to the creation of this story in the mind of its author or authors. 1. The Allegorical Interpretation: Philo’s tract on Abraham bears as alternative titles, “On the Life of the Wise Man Made Perfect by Instruction, or, On the Unwritten Law.”
Abraham’s life is not for him a history that serves to illustrate these things, but an allegory by which these things are embodied. Paul’s use of the Sarah-Hagar episode in Galatians 4:21-31 belongs to this type of exposition (compare allegoroumena , 4:24), of which there are also a few other instances in his epistles; yet to infer from this that Paul shared Philo’s general attitude toward the patriarchal narrative would be unwarranted, since his use of this method is incidental, exceptional, and merely corroborative of points already established by sound reason. “Luther compares it to a painting which decorates a house already built” (Schaff, “Galatians,” Excursus). 2. The Personification Theory: As to Philo Abraham is the personification of a certain type of humanity, so to some modern writers he is the personification of the Hebrew nation or of a tribe belonging to the Hebrew group. This view, which is indeed very widely held with respect to the patriarchal figures in general, furnishes so many more difficulties in its specific application to Abraham than to the others, that it has been rejected in Abraham’s case even by some who have adopted it for figures like Isaac, Ishmael and Jacob. Thus Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme, 250; compare also note on p. 251), speaking of his earlier opinion, acknowledges that, at the time when he “regarded the assertion of Stade as proved that Jacob and Isaac were tribes,” even then he “still recognized Abraham as a mythical figure and originally a god.” A similar differentiation of Abraham from the rest is true of most of the other adherents of the views about to be mentioned.
Hence also Wellhausen says (Prolegomena 6, 317): “Only Abraham is certainly no name of a people, like Isaac and Lot; he is rather ambiguous anyway. We dare not of course on that account hold him in this connection as an historical personage; rather than that he might be a free creation of unconscious fiction. He is probably the youngest figure in this company and appears to have been only at a relatively late date put before his son Isaac.” 3. The Mythical Theory: Urged popularly by Noldeke (Im neuen Reich (1871), I, 508 ff) and taken up by other scholars, especially in the case of Abraham, the view gained general currency among those who denied the historicity of Genesis, that the patriarchs were old deities. From this relatively high estate, it was held, they had fallen to the plane of mere mortals (though with remnants of the hero or even demigod here and there visible) on which they appear in Genesis. A new phase of this mythical theory has been developed in the elaboration by Winckler and others of their astral-theology of the Babylonian world, in which the worship of Abraham as the moon-god by the Semites of Palestine plays a part. Abraham’s traditional origin connects him with Ur and Haran, leading centers of the moon-cult. Apart from this fact the arguments relied upon to establish this identification of Abraham with Sin may be judged by the following samples: “When further the consort of Abraham bears the name Sarah, and one of the women among his closest relations the name Milcah, this gives food for thought, since these names correspond precisely with the titles of the female deities worshipped at Haran alongside the moongod Sin. Above all, however, the number 318, that appears in Genesis 14:14 in connection with the figure of Abraham, is convincing because this number, which surely has no historical value, can only be satisfactorily explained from the circle of ideas of the moon-religion, since in the lunar year of 354 days there are just days on which the moon is visible — deducting 36 days, or three for each of the twelve months, on which the moon is invisible” (Baentsch, Monotheismus, 60 f). In spite of this assurance, however, nothing could exceed the scorn with which these combinations and conjectures of Winckler, A. Jeremias and others of this school are received by those who in fact differ from them with respect to Abraham in little save the answer to the question, what deity was Abraham (see e.g. Meyer, op. cit., 252 f, 256 f). 4. The “Saga” Theory: Gunkel (Genesis, Introduction), in insisting upon the resemblance of the patriarchal narrative to the “sagas” of other primitive peoples, draws attention both to the human traits of figures like Abraham, and to the very early origin of the material embodied in our present book of Genesis. First as stories orally circulated, then as stories committed to writing, and finally as a number of collections or groups of such stories formed into a cycle, the Abraham-narratives, like the Jacob-narratives and the Josephnarratives , grew through a long and complex literary history. Gressmann (op. cit, 9-34) amends Gunkel’s results, in applying to them the principles of primitive literary development laid down by Professor Wundt in his Volkerpsychologie. He holds that the kernel of the Abraham-narratives is a series of fairy-stories, of international diffusion and unknown origin, which have been given “a local habitation and a name” by attaching to them the (ex hypothesi) then common name of Abraham (similarly Lot, etc.) and associating them with the country nearest to the wilderness of Judea, the home of their authors, namely, about Hebron and the Dead Sea. A high antiquity (1300-1100 BC) is asserted for these stories, their astonishing accuracy in details wherever they can be tested by extra-Biblical tradition is conceded, as also the probability that, “though many riddles still remain unsolved, yet many other traditions will be cleared up by new discoveries” of archaeology. J. Oscar Boyd ABRAHAM, BOOK OF See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.
ABRAHAM’S BOSOM James Orr ABRAM ABRECH ABRONAH One of the stations of Israel in the wilderness on the march from Sinai to Kadesh — the station next before that at Ezion-geber on the eastern arm of the Red Sea ( Numbers 33:34,35).
ABSALOM (1) 1. A GENERAL FAVORITE:
Absalom was born at Hebron ( 2 Samuel 3:3), and moved at an early age, with the transfer of the capital, to Jerusalem, where he spent most of his life. He was a great favorite of his father and of the people as well. His charming manners, his personal beauty, his insinuating ways, together with his love of pomp and royal pretensions, captivated the hearts of the people from the beginning. He lived in great style, drove in a magnificent chariot and had fifty men run before him. Such magnificence produced the desired effect upon the hearts of the young aristocrats of the royal city ( 2 Samuel 15:1 ff).
2. IN EXILE:
When Amnon, his half-brother, ravished his sister Tamar, and David shut his eyes to the grave crime and neglected to administer proper punishment, Absalom became justly enraged, and quietly nourished his anger, but after the lapse of two years carried out a successful plan to avenge his sister’s wrongs. He made a great feast for the king’s sons at Baalhazor, to which, among others, Amnon came, only to meet his death at the hands of Absalom’s servants ( 2 Samuel 13:1 ff). To avoid punishment he now fled to the court of his maternal grandfather in Geshur, where he remained three years, or until David, his father, had relented and condoned the murderous act of his impetuous, plotting son. At the end of three years ( 2 Samuel 13:38) we find Absalom once more in Jerusalem. It was, however, two years later before he was admitted to the royal presence ( 2 Samuel 14:28).
3. REBELS AGAINST HIS FATHER:
Absalom, again reinstated, lost no opportunity to regain lost prestige, and having his mind made up to succeed his father upon the throne, he forgot the son in the politician. Full of insinuations and rich in promises, especially to the disgruntled and to those having grievances, imaginary or real, it was but natural that he should have a following. His purpose was clear, namely, to alienate as many as possible from the king, and thus neutralize his influence in the selection of a successor, for he fully realized that the court party, under the influence of Bathsheba, was intent upon having Solomon as the next ruler. By much flattery Absalom stole the hearts of many men in Israel ( 2 Samuel 15:6). How long a period elapsed between his return from Geshur and his open rebellion against his father David is a question which cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. Most authorities regard the forty years of 2 Samuel 15:7 as an error and following the Syriac and some editions of the Septuagint, suggest four as the correct text. Whether forty or four, he obtained permission from the king to visit Hebron, the ancient capital, on pretense of paying a vow made by him while at Geshur in case of his safe return to Jerusalem.
With two hundred men he repairs to Hebron. Previous to the feast spies had been sent throughout all the tribes of Israel to stir up the discontented and to assemble them under Absalom’s flag at Hebron. Very large numbers obeyed the call, among them Ahithophel, one of David’s shrewdest counselors (15:7 ff).
4. DAVID’S FLIGHT:
Reports of the conspiracy at Hebron soon reached the ears of David, who now became thoroughly frightened and lost no time in leaving Jerusalem.
Under the protection of his most loyal bodyguard he fled to Gilead beyond Jordan. David was kindly received at Mahanaim, where he remained till after the death of his disloyal son. Zadok and Abiathar, two leading priests, were intent upon sharing the fortunes of David; they went so far as to carry the Ark of the Covenant with them out of Jerusalem ( Samuel 15:24). David, however, forced the priests and Levites to take it back to its place in the city and there remain as its guardians. This was a prudent stroke, for these two great priests in Jerusalem acted as intermediaries, and through their sons and some influential women kept up constant communications with David’s army in Gilead ( 2 Samuel 15:24 ff). Hushai, too, was sent back to Jerusalem, where he falsely professed allegiance to Absalom, who by thins time had entered the royal city and had assumed control of the government ( 2 Samuel 15:32 ff). Hushai, the priests and a few people less conspicuous performed their part well, for the counsel of Ahithophel, who advised immediate action and advance upon the king’s forces, while everything was in a panic, was thwarted ( <101701> Samuel 17:1 ff); nay more, spies were constantly kept in contact with David’s headquarters to inform the king of Absalom’s plans ( 2 Samuel 17:15 ff). This delay was fatal to the rebel son. Had he acted upon the shrewd counsel of Ahithophel, David’s army might have been conquered at the outset.
5. ABSALOM’S DEATH AND BURIAL:
When at length Absalom’s forces under the generalship of Amasa ( Samuel 17:25) reached Gilead, ample time had been given to David to organize his army, which he divided into three divisions under the efficient command of three veteran generals: Joab, Abishai and Ittai ( 2 Samuel 18:1 ff). A great battle was fought in the forests of Ephraim. Here the rebel army was utterly routed. No fewer than 20,000 were killed outright, and a still greater number becoming entangled in the thick forest, perished that day ( 2 Samuel 18:7 f). Among the latter was Absalom himself, for while riding upon his mule, his head was caught in the boughs of a great oak or terebinth, probably in a forked branch. “He was taken up between heaven and earth; and the mule that was under him went on” ( 2 Samuel 18:9). In this position he was found by a soldier who at once ran to inform Joab.
The latter without a moment’s hesitation, notwithstanding David’s positive orders, thrust three darts into the heart of Absalom. To make his death certain and encouraged by the action of their general, ten of Joab’s young men “compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him” ( Samuel 18:15). He was buried in a great pit, close to the spot where he was killed. A great pile of stones was heaped over his body ( 2 Samuel 18:17), in accordance with the custom of dishonoring rebels and great criminals by burying them under great piles of stone ( Joshua 7:26; 8:29).
Thomson reforms us that Syrian people to this day cast stones upon the graves of murderers and outlaws (LB, II, 61).
6. DAVID’S LAMENT:
The death of Absalom was a source of great grief to the fond and aged father, who forgot the ruler and the king in the tenderhearted parent. His lament at the gate of Mahanaim, though very brief, is a classic, and expresses in tender language the feelings of parents for wayward children in all ages of the world ( 2 Samuel 18:33).
Little is known of Absalom’s family life, but we read in 2 Samuel 14:27 that he had three sons and one daughter. From the language of 18:18, it is inferred that the sons died at an early age.
7. ABSALOM’S TOMB:
As Absalom had no son to perpetuate his memory “he reared up for himself a pillar” or a monument in the King’s dale, which according to Josephus was two furlongs from Jerusalem (Ant., VII, x, 3). Nothing is known with certainty about this monument. One of the several tombs on the east side of the Kidron passes under the name of Absalom’s tomb.
This fine piece of masonry with its graceful cupola and Ionic pillars must be of comparatively recent origin, probably not earlier than the Roman period. W. W. Davies ABSALOM (2) (Apocrypha) (Codex Vaticanus, [ ÆAbessa>lwmov , Abessalomos] and Abessalom; Codex Alexandrinus, Absalomos, the King James Version Absalon): (1) Father of Mattathias, a captain of the Jewish army (1 Macc 11:70; Ant, XIII, v, 7). (2) Father of Jonathan who was sent by Simon Maccabee to take possession of Joppa; perhaps identical with Absalom (1) (1 Macc 13:11; Ant, XIII, vi, 4). (3) One of two envoys of the Jews, mentioned in a letter sent by Lysias to the Jewish nation (2 Macc 11:17).
ABSALON ABSOLUTION H. E. Jacobs ABSTINENCE This article will be concerned chiefly with abstinence from food, as dealt with in the Bible. (For other aspects of the subject, see TEMPERANCE; SELF-DENIAL; CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS; MEAT , etc.). Thus limited, abstinence may be either public or private, partial or entire.
1. PUBLIC FASTS:
Only one such fast is spoken of as having been instituted and commanded by the Law of Moses, that of the Day of Atonement. This is called “the Fast” in Acts 27:9 (compare Ant, XIV, iv, 3; Philo, Vit Mos, II, 4; Schurer, HJP, I, i, 322).
Four annual fasts were later observed by the Jews in commemoration of the dark days of Jerusalem — the day of the beginning of Nebuchadrezzar’s siege in the tenth month, the day of the capture of the city in the fourth month, the day of its destruction in the fifth month and the day of Gedaliah’s murder in the seventh month. These are all referred to in Zechariah 8:19. See FASTS.
It might reasonably be thought that such solemn anniversaries, once instituted, would have been kept up with sincerity by the Jews, at least for many years. But Isaiah illustrates how soon even the most outraged feelings of piety or patriotism may grow cold and formal. `Wherefore have we fasted and thou seest not?’ the exiled Jews cry in their captivity. `We have humbled our souls, and thou takest no notice.’ Yahweh’s swift answer follows: `Because your fasting is a mere form! Behold, in the day of your fast ye find your own pleasure and oppress all your laborers’ (compare Isaiah 58:3; Expositor’s Bible, at the place). That is to say, so formal has your fasting grown that your ordinary selfish, cruel life goes on just the same. Then Yahweh makes inquest: “Is such the fast that I have chosen? the day for a man to afflict his soul? Is not this the fast that I have chosen: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? Then shalt thou call, and Yahweh will answer; thou shalt cry, and he will say, Here I am” ( Isaiah 58:5-9). The passage, as George Adam Smith says, fills the earliest, if not the highest place in the glorious succession of Scriptures exalting practical love, to which belong Isaiah 61; Matthew 25; 1 Corinthians 13. The high import is that in God’s view character grows rich and life joyful, not by fasts or formal observances, but by acts of unselfish service inspired by a heart of love.
These fasts later fell into utter disuse, but they were revived after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Occasional public fasts were proclaimed in Israel, as among other peoples, in seasons of drought or public calamity. It appears according to Jewish accounts, that it was customary to hold them on the second and fifth days of the week, for the reason that Moses was believed to have gone up to Matthew. Sinai on the fifth day of the week (Thursday) and to have come down on the second (Monday) (compare Didache, 8; Apostolical Constitutions, VIII, 23).
2. PRIVATE FASTS:
In addition to these public solemnities, individuals were in the habit of imposing extra fasts upon themselves (e.g. Judith 8:6; Luke 2:37); and there were some among the Pharisees who fasted on the second and fifth days of the week all the year round ( Luke 18:12; see Lightfoot, at the place).
Tacitus alludes to the “frequent fasts” of the Jews (History, V, 4), and Josephus tells of the spread of fasting among the Gentiles (Against Apion, II, 40; compare Tertullian, ad Nat, i.13). There is abundant evidence that many religious teachers laid down rules concerning fasting for their disciples (compare Mark 2:18; Matthew 9:14; Luke 5:33).
3. DEGREES OF STRICTNESS IN ABSTINENCE:
Individuals and sects differ greatly in the degrees of strictness with which they observe fasts. In some fasts among the Jews abstinence from food and drink was observed simply from sunrise to sunset, and washing and anointing were permitted. In others of a stricter sort, the fast lasted from one sunset till the stars appeared after the next, and, not only food and drink, but washing, anointing, and every kind of agreeable activity and even salutations, were prohibited (Schurer, II, ii, 119; Edersheim, Life and Times, I, 663). Such fasting was generally practiced in the most austere and ostentatious manner, and, among the Pharisees, formed a part of their most pretentious externalism. On this point the testimony of Matthew 6:16 is confirmed by the Mishna.
4. ABSTINENCE AMONG DIFFERENT KINDS OF ASCETICS:
There arose among the Jews various kinds of ascetics and they may be roughly divided into three classes. (1) The Essenes.
These lived together in colonies, shared all things in common and practiced voluntary poverty. The stricter among them also eschewed marriage. They were indifferent, Philo says, alike to money, pleasure, and worldly position. They ate no animal flesh, drank no wine, and used no oil for anointing. The objects of sense were to them “unholy,” and to gratify the natural craving was “sin.” They do not seem to come distinctly into view in the New Testament. See ESSENES. (2) The Hermit Ascetics.
These fled away from human society with its temptations and allurements into the wilderness, and lived there a life of rigid self-discipline. Josephus (Vita, 2) gives us a notable example of this class in Banus, who “lived in the desert, clothed himself with the leaves of trees, ate nothing save the natural produce of the soil, and bathed day and night in cold water for purity’s sake.” John the Baptist was a hermit of an entirely different type.
He also dwelt in the desert, wore a rough garment of camel’s hair and subsisted on “locusts and wild honey.” But his asceticism was rather an incident of his environment and vocation than an end in itself (see “Asceticism,” DCG). In the fragments of his sermons which are preserved in the Gospels there is no trace of any exhortation to ascetic exercises, though John’s disciples practiced fasting ( Mark 2:18). (3) The Moderate Ascetics.
There were many pious Jews, men and women, who practiced asceticism of a less formal kind. The asceticism of the Pharisees was of a kind which naturally resulted from their legal and ceremonial conception of religion. It expressed itself chiefly, as we have seen, in ostentatious fasting and externalism. But there were not a few humble, devout souls in Israel who, like Anna, the prophetess, served God “with fastings and supplications night and day” ( Luke 2:37), seeking by a true self-discipline to draw near unto God (of Acts 13:2,3; 14:23; 1 Timothy 5:5).
5. ABSTINENCE AS VIEWED IN THE TALMUD:
Some of the rabbis roundly condemned abstinence, or asceticism in any form, as a principle of life. “Why must the Nazirite bring a sin offering at the end of his term?” ( Numbers 6:13,14) asks Eliezer ha-Kappar (Siphra’, at the place); and gives answer, “Because he sinned against his own person by his vow of abstaining from wine”; and he concludes, “Whoever undergoes fasting or other penances for no special reason commits a wrong.” “Man in the life to come will have to account for every enjoyment offered him that was refused without sufficient cause” (Rabh, in Yer. Kid., 4). In Maimonides (Ha-Yadh ha-Chazaqah, De`oth 3 1) the monastic principle of abstinence in regard to marriage, eating meat, or drinking wine, or in regard to any other personal enjoyment or comfort, is condemned as “contrary to the spirit of Judaism,” and “the golden middleway of moderation” is advocated.
But, on the other hand, abstinence is often considered by the rabbis meritorious and praiseworthy as a voluntary means of self-discipline. “I partook of a Nazirite meal only once,” says Simon the Just, “when I met with a handsome youth from the south who had taken a vow. When I asked the reason he said: `I saw the Evil Spirit pursue me as I beheld my face reflected in water, and I swore that these long curls shall be cut off and offered as a sacrifice to Yahweh’; whereupon I kissed him upon his forehead and blessed him, saying, May there be many Nazirites like thee in Israel!” (Nazir, 4b). “Be holy” was accordingly interpreted, “Exercise abstinence in order to arrive at purity and holiness” (`Ab. Zarah, 20b; Siphra’, Kedhoshim). “Abstain from everything evil and from whatever is like unto it” is a rule found in the Talmud (Chullin, 44b), as also in the Didache (3 1) — a saying evidently based on Job 31:1, “Abstain from the lusts of the flesh and the world.” The Mosaic laws concerning diet are all said by Rabh to be “for the purification of Israel” (Leviticus R. 13) — ”to train the Jew in self-discipline.”
6. THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS TO FASTING:
The question of crowning interest and significance to us is, What attitude did Jesus take toward fasting, or asceticism? The answer is to be sought in the light, first of His practice, and, secondly, of His teaching. (1) His Practice.
Jesus has even been accounted “the Founder and Example of the ascetic life” (Clem. Alex., Strom, III, 6). By questionable emphasis upon His “forty days’“ fast, His abstinence from marriage and His voluntary poverty, some have reached the conclusion that complete renunciation of the things of the present was “the way of perfection according to the Saviour.”
A fuller and more appreciative study of Jesus’ life and spirit must bring us to a different conclusion. Certainly His mode of life is sharply differentiated in the Gospels, not only from that of the Pharisees, but also from that of John the Baptist. Indeed, He exhibited nothing of the asceticism of those illustrious Christian saints, Bernard and John of the Cross, or even of Francis, who “of all ascetics approached most nearly to the spirit of the Master.” Jesus did not flee from the world, or eschew the amenities of social life. He contributed to the joyousness of a marriage feast, accepted the hospitality of rich and poor, permitted a vase of very precious ointment to be broken and poured upon His feet, welcomed the society of women, showed tender love to children, and clearly enjoyed the domestic life of the home in Bethany. There is no evidence that He imposed upon Himself any unnecessary austerities. The “forty days’ “ fast (not mentioned in Mark, the oldest authority) is not an exception to this rule, as it was rather a necessity imposed by His situation in the wilderness than a self-imposed observance of a law of fasting (compare Christ’s words concerning John the Baptist: “John came neither eating nor drinking”, see the article on “Asceticism,” DCG). At any rate, He is not here an example of the traditional asceticism. He stands forth throughout the Gospels “as the living type and embodiment of selfdenial,” yet the marks of the ascetic are not found in Him. His mode of life was, indeed, so non-ascetic as to bring upon Him the reproach of being “a gluttonous man and a winebibber” ( Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). (2) His Teaching.
Beyond question, it was, from first to last, “instinct with the spirit of selfdenial” “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,” is an everrecurring refrain of His teaching “Seek ye first the kingdom of God,” is ever His categorical imperative ( Matthew 6:33 the King James Version; Luke 12:31). This is to Him the summum bonum — all desires and strivings which have not this as their goal must be suppressed or sacrificed (compare Matthew 13:44-46; 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 9:59,60; 14:26 with Matthew 5:29,30; Mark 9:43-47; Matthew 16:24 f; Mark 8:34 f; Luke 9:23 f; and Luke 14:33). In short, if any man find that the gratification of any desire of the higher or lower self will impede or distract him in the performance of his duties as a subject of the Kingdom, he must forego such gratification, if he would be a disciple of Christ. “If it cause thee to stumble,” is always the condition, implied or expressed, which justifies abstinence from any particular good.
According to the record, Jesus alluded to fasting only twice in His teaching. In Matthew 6:16-18, where voluntary fasting is presupposed as a religious exercise of His disciples, He warns them against making it the occasion of a parade of piety: “Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face; that thou be not seen of men to fast, but of thy Father who is in secret.” In short, He sanctions fasting only as a genuine expression of a devout and contrite frame of mind.
In Matthew 9:14-17 (parallel Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39) in reply to the question of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees, Jesus refuses to enjoin fasting. He says fasting, as a recognized sign of mourning, would be inconsistent with the joy which “the sons of the bridechamber” naturally feel while “the bridegroom is with them.” But, he adds, suggesting the true reason for fasting, that the days of bereavement will come, and then the outward expression of sorrow will be appropriate.
Here, as in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sanctions fasting, without enjoining it, as a form through which emotion may spontaneously seek expression. His teaching on the subject may be summarized in the one word, subordination (DCG).
To the form of fasting He attaches little importance, as is seen in the succeeding parables of the Old Garment and the Old Wine-skins. It will not do, He says, to graft the new liberty of the gospel on the body of old observances, and, yet more, to try to force the new system of life into the ancient molds. The new piety must manifest itself in new forms of its own making ( Matthew 9:16,17; Mark 2:21,22; Luke 5:36,38). Yet Jesus shows sympathy with the prejudices of the conservatives who cling to the customs of their fathers: “No man having drunk old vane desireth new; for he saith, The old is good.” But to the question, Was Jesus an ascetic? we are bound to reply, No. “Asceticism,” as Harnack says, “has no place in the gospel at all; what it asks is that we should struggle against Mammon, against care, against selfishness; what it demands and disengages is love — the love that serves and is self-sacrificing, and whoever encumbers Jesus’ message with any other kind of asceticism fails to understand it” (What is Christianity? 88).
7. THE PRACTICE AND TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES:
On the whole, unquestionably, the practice and teachings of the apostles and early Christians were in harmony with the example and teaching of the Master. But a tendency, partly innate, partly transmitted from Jewish legalism, and partly pagan, showed itself among their successors and gave rise to the Vita Religiosa and Dualism which found their fullest expression in Monasticism.
It is worthy of note that the alleged words of Jesus: `But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting’ ( Mark 9:29; Matthew 17:21 the King James Version), are corruptions of the text. (Compare Tobit 12:8; Sirach 34:26; Luke 2:37). The Oxyrhynchus fragment (disc. 1897) contains a logion with the words legei Iesous, ean me nesteuete ton kosmon, ou me heurete ten basileian tou theou : “Jesus saith, Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the Kingdom of God,” but the “fasting” here is clearly metaphorical.
LITERATURE.
Bingham, Antiquities, W. Bright, Some Aspects of Primitive Church Life (1898), J. O. Hannay, The Spirit and Origin of Christian Monasticism (1902), and The Wisdom of the Desert (1904); Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ, Migne, Dictionnaire d’ Ascetisme, and Encyclopedia Theol., XLV, XLVI, 45, 46; Jewish Encyclopedia, and Bible Dictionaries at the place. George B. Eager ABUBUS ABUNDANCE; ABUNDANT ABUSE ABYSS, THE ACACIA ACCABA ACCAD; ACCADIANS ACCARON It is also mentioned in the days of the Crusades. See EKRON.
ACCEPT; ACCEPTABLE; ACCEPTATION Accept, used (1) of sacrifice, “accept thy burnt-sacrifice” ( ˆveD: [dashen], “accept as fat,” i.e. receive favorably; Psalm 20:3); (2) of persons, “Yahweh accept Job” ( Job 42:9, ac;n: [nasa’], “to lift up,” “take,” “receive”); (3) of works, “a the work of his hands” ( Deuteronomy 33:11 hx;r: [ratsah], “to delight in”).
In New Testament (1) of favors, “We accept .... with all thankfulness” ([ajpode>comai , apodechomai], Acts 24:3); (2) of personal appeal, “He accept our exhortation” ( 2 Corinthians 8:17); (3) of God’s Impartiality ([lamba>nw , lambano], “to take,” “receive”); “accepteth not man’s person” ( Galatians 2:6).
Acceptable, used (1) of justice ( rj”B; [bachar], “choose select”), “more accept .... than sacrifice” ( Proverbs 21:3); (2) of words ( Åp,je [chephets], “delight in,” “sought .... accept words” ( Ecclesiastes 12:10); (3) of times ( ˆwOxr: [ratson], “delight,” “approbation”; [dektov , dektos], “receivable”) “acceptable year of the Lord” ( Isaiah 61:2 (King James Version); Luke 4:19); (4) of spiritual sacrifice ([eujpo>sdektov , euprosdektos], “well received”), “acceptable to God” ( 1 Peter 2:5); (5) of patient endurance ([ca>riv , charis], “grace,” “favor”) “This is acceptable with God” ( 1 Peter 2:20).
Acceptation, used twice to indicate the trustworthiness of the gospel of Christ’s saving grace: “worthy of all acceptation.” ( 1 Timothy 1:15; 4:9).
These words are full of the abundant grace of God and are rich in comfort to believers. That which makes man, in word, work and character, acceptable to God; and renders It possible for God to accept him, his service and sacrifice, is the fullness of the Divine mercy and grace and forgiveness. He “chose us” and made us, as adopted sons, the heirs of His grace “which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” ( Ephesians 1:6; compare the King James Version). Dwight M. Pratt ACCEPTANCE ACCESS The goal of redemption is life in God, “unto the Father.” The means of redemption is the cross of Christ, “in whom we have our redemption through his blood” ( Ephesians 1:7). The agent in redemption is the Holy Spirit, “by one Spirit,” “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” ( Ephesians 1:13). The human instrumentality, faith. The whole process of approach to, and abiding fellowship with, God is summed up in this brief sentence Access to the Father, through Christ, by the Spirit, by faith. Dwight M. Pratt ACCO The Egyptian suzerainty over the coast, which was established by Thothmes III about 1480 BC, was apparently lost in the 14th century, as is indicated in Tell el-Amarna Letters, but was regained under Seti I and his more famous son Rameses II in the 13th, to be again lost in the 12th when the Phoenician towns seem to have established their independence. Sidon however surpassed her sisters in power and exercised a sort of hegemony over the Phoenician towns, at least in the south, and Acco was included in it (Rawl. Phoenica, 407-8). But when Assyria came upon the scene it had to submit to this power, although it revolted whenever Assyria became weak, as appears from the mention of its subjugation by Sennacherib (ib 449), and by Ashurbanipal (ib 458). The latter “quieted” it by a wholesale massacre and then carried into captivity the remaining inhabitants. Upon the downfall of Assyria it passed, together with other Phoenician towns, under the dominion of Babylon and then of Persia, but we have no records of its annals during that period; but it followed the fortunes of the more important cities, Tyre and Sidon. In the Seleucid period (BC 312-65) the town became of importance in the contests between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The latter occupied it during the struggles that succeeded the death of Alexander and made it their stronghold on the coast and changed the name toPTOLEMAIS, by which it was known in the Greek and Roman period as we see in the accounts of the Greek and Roman writers and in Josephus, as well as in New Testament (1 Macc 5:22; 10:39; 12:48; Acts 21:7). The old name still continued locally and reasserted itself in later times. The Ptolemies held undisputed possession of the place for about 70 years but it was wrested from them by Antiochus III, of Syria, in 219 BC and went into the permanent possession of the Seleucids after the decisive victory of Antiochus over Scopas in that year, the result of which was the expulsion of the Ptolemies from Syria, Palestine and Phoenicia (Ant., XII, iii, 3). In the dynastic struggles of the Seleucids it fell into the hands of Alexander Bala, who there received the hand of Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Philometor, as a pledge of alliance between them (ib XIII, iv, 1). Tigranes, king of Armenia, besieged it on his invasion of Syria, but was obliged to relinquish it on the approach of the Romans toward his own dominions (BJ, I, v, 3). Under the Romans Ptolemais became a colony and a metropolis, as is known from coins, and was of importance, as is attested by Strabo. But the events that followed the conquests of the Saracens, leading to the Crusades, brought it into great prominence. It was captured by the Crusaders in 1110 AD, and remained in their hands until 1187, when it was taken from them by Saladin and its fortifications so strengthened as to render it almost impregnable. The importance of this fortress as a key to the Holy Land was considered so great by the Crusaders that they put forth every effort during two years to recapture it, but all in vain until the arrival of Richard Coeur de Lion and Philip Augustus with reinforcements, and it was only after the most strenuous efforts on their part that the place fell into their hands, but it cost them 100,000 men. The fortifications were repaired and it was afterward committed to the charge of the knights of John, by whom it was held for 100 years and received the name of Jean d’Acre. It was finally taken by the Saracens in 1291, being the last place held by the Crusaders in Palestine It declined after this and fell into the hands of the Ottomans under Selim I in 1516, and remained mostly in ruins until the 18th century, when it came into the possession of Jezzar Pasha, who usurped the authority over it and the neighboring district and became practically independent of the Sultan and defied his authority. In 1799 it was attacked by Napoleon but was bravely and successfully defended by the Turks with the help of the English fleet, and Napoleon had to abandon the siege after he had spent two months before it and gained a victory over the Turkish army at Tabor.
It enjoyed a considerable degree of prosperity after this until 1831 when it was besieged by Ibrahim Pasha, of Egypt, and taken, but only after a siege of more than five months in which it suffered the destruction of its walls and many of its buildings. It continued in the hands of the Egyptians until 1840 when it was restored to the Ottomans by the English whose fleet nearly reduced it to ruins in the bombardment. It has recovered somewhat since then and is now a town of some 10,000 inhabitants and the seat of a Mutasarrifiyet, or subdivision of the Vilayet of Beirut. It contains one of the state prisons of the Vilayet, where long-term prisoners are incarcerated. Its former commerce has been almost wholly lost to the town of Haifa, on the south side of the bay, since the latter has a fairly good roadstead, while Acre has none, and the former being the terminus of the railway which connects with the interior and the Damascus-Mecca line, it has naturally supplanted Acre as a center of trade. H. Porter ACCOMMODATION 1. INTRODUCTORY. 1. Three Uses of the Term: The term “accommodation” is used in three senses which demand careful discrimination and are worthy of separate treatment: (1) the use or application of a Scripture reference in a sense other than the obvious and literal one which lay in the mind and intent of the writer; (2) theory that a passage, according to its original intent, may have more than one meaning or application; (3) the general principle of adaptation on the part of God in His selfrevelation to man’s mental and spiritual capacity. 2. The Importance of the Subject: Important issues are involved in the discussion of this subject in each of the three divisions thus naturally presented to us in the various uses of the term. These issues culminate in the supremely important principles which underlie the question of God’s adaptation of His revelation to men.
2. ACCOMMODATED APPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES. 1. Interpretation a Science: It is obvious that the nature of thought and of language is such as to constitute for all human writings, among which the Bible, as a document to be understood, must be placed, a science of interpretation with a definite body of laws which cannot be violated or set aside without confusion and error. This excludes the indeterminate and arbitrary exegesis of any passage It must be interpreted with precision and in accordance with recognized laws of interpretation. The first and most fundamental of these laws is that a passage is to be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the writer in so far as that can be ascertained. The obvious, literal and original meaning always has the right of way. All arbitrary twisting of a passage in order to obtain from it new and remote meanings not justified by the context is unscientific and misleading. 2. Scientific Accommodation: There is, however, a scientific and legitimate use of the principle of accommodation. For example, it is impossible to determine beforehand that a writer’s specific application of a general principle is the only one of which it is capable. A bald and literal statement of fact may involve a general principle which is capable of broad and effective application in other spheres than that originally contemplated. It is perfectly legitimate to detach a writer’s statement from its context of secondary and incidental detail and give it a harmonious setting of wider application. It will be seen from this that legitimate accommodation involves two things: (1) the acceptance of the author’s primary and literal meaning; (2) the extension of that meaning through the establishment of a broader context identical in principle with the original one. In the article onQUOTATIONS IN New Testament (which see) this use of the term accommodation, here treated in the most general terms, is dealt with in detail. See also INTERPRETATION.
3. DOUBLE REFERENCE IN SCRIPTURE.
The second use of the term accommodation now emerges for discussion.
Are we to infer the presence of double reference, or secondary meanings in Scripture? Here again we must distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate application of a principle. While we wisely deprecate the tendency to look upon Scripture passages as cryptic utterances, we must also recognize that many Scripture references may have more than a single application. 1. Allegory in Scripture: We must recognize in the Scriptures the use of allegory, the peculiar quality of which, as a form of literature, is the double reference which it contains. To interpret the story of the Bramble-King ( Judges 9:7-15) or the Parables of our Lord without reference to the double meanings which they involve would be as false and arbitrary as any extreme of allegorizing.
The double meaning is of the essence of the literary expression. This does not mean, of course, that the poetry of the Bible, even that of the Prophets and Apocalyptic writers, is to be looked upon as allegorical. On the contrary, only that writing, whether prose or poetry, is to be interpreted in any other than its natural and obvious sense, in connection with which we have definite indications of its allegorical character. Figures of speech and poetical expressions in general, though not intended to be taken literally because they belong to the poetical form, are not to be taken as having occult references and allegorical meanings. Dr. A. B. Davidson thus characterizes the prophetic style (Old Testament Prophecy, 171; see whole chapter): “Prophecy is poetical, but it is not allegorical. The language of prophecy is real as opposed to allegorical, and poetical as opposed to real. When the prophets speak of natural objects or of lower creatures, they do not mean human things by them, or human beings, but these natural objects or creatures themselves. When Joel speaks of locusts, he means those creatures. When he speaks of the sun and moon and stars, he means those bodies.” Allegory, therefore, which contains the double reference, in the sense of speaking of one thing while meaning another, is a definite and recognizable literary form with its own proper laws of interpretation. See ALLEGORY. 2. Hidden Truths of Scripture: There is progress in the understanding of Scripture. New reaches of truth are continually being brought to light. By legitimate and natural methods hidden meanings are being continually discovered. (1) It is a well-attested fact that apart from any supernatural factor a writer sometimes speaks more wisely than he knows. He is the partially unconscious agent for the expression of a great truth, not only for his own age, but for all time. It is not often given to such a really great writer or to his age to recognize all the implications of his thought. Depths of meaning hidden both from the original writer and from earlier interpreters may be disclosed by moving historical sidelights. The element of permanent value in great literature is due to the fact that the writer utters a greater truth than can exhaustively be known in any one era. It belongs to all time. (2) The supernatural factor which has gone to the making of Scripture insures that no one man or group of men, that not all men together, can know it exhaustively. It partakes of the inexhaustibleness of God. It is certain, therefore, that it will keep pace with the general progress of man, exhibiting new phases of meaning as it moves along the stream of history.
Improved exegetical apparatus and methods, enlarged apprehensions into widening vistas of thought and knowledge, increased insight under the tutelage of the Spirit in the growing Kingdom of God, will conspire to draw up new meanings from the depths of Scripture. The thought of God in any given expression of truth can only be progressively and approximately known by human beings who begin in ignorance and must be taught what they know. (3) The supernatural factor in revelation also implies a twofold thought in every important or fundamental statement of Scripture: the thought of God uttered through His Spirit to a man or his generation, and that same thought with reference to the coming ages and to the whole truth which is to be disclosed. Every separate item belonging to an organism of truth would naturally have a twofold reference: first, its significance alone and of itself; second, its significance with reference to the whole of which it is a part. As all great Scriptural truths are thus organically related, it follows that no one of them can be fully known apart from all the others. From which it follows also that in a process of gradual revelation where truths are given successively as men are able to receive them and where each successive truth prepares the way for others which are to follow, every earlier statement will have two ranges of meaning and application — that which is intrinsic and that which flows from its connection with the entire organism of unfolding truth which finally appears. 3. Prophecy and Its Fulfillment: (1) The principles thus far expressed carry us a certain way toward an answer to the most important question which arises under this division of the general topic: the relation between the Old Testament and the New Testament through prophecy and its fulfillment. Four specific points of connection involving the principles of prophetic anticipation and historical realization in the career of Jesus are alleged by New Testament writers.
They are of total importance, inasmuch as these four groups of interpretations involve the most important elements of the Old Testament and practically the entire New Testament interpretation of Jesus. (2) (a) The promise made to Abraham ( Genesis 12:1-3; compare 13:14-18; 15:1-6, etc.) and repeated in substance at intervals during the history of Israel (see Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 26:17-19; 29:12,13; 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17, etc.) is interpreted as having reference to the distant future and as fulfilled in Christ (see Galatians 3 for example of this interpretation, especially 3:14; also QUOTATIONS IN NEW TESTAMENT ). (b) The Old Testament system of sacrifices is looked upon as typical and symbolic, hence, predictive and realized in the death of Christ interpreted as atonement for sin (Hebrews 10, etc.). (c) References in the Old Testament to kings or a king of David’s line whose advent and reign are spoken of are interpreted as definite predictions fulfilled in the advent and career of Jesus the Messiah (Psalm 2; 16; 22; 110; compare Luke 1:69, etc.). (d) The prophetic conception of the servant of Yahweh ( Isaiah 42:1 f; 44:1 f; 52:13 through 53:12; compare Acts 8:32-35) is interpreted as being an anticipatory description of the character and work of Jesus centering in His vicarious sin-bearing death. (3) With the details of interpretation as involved in the specific use of Old Testament statements we are not concerned here (see “QUOTATIONS ,” etc.) but only with the general principles which underlie all such uses of the Old Testament. The problem is: Can we thus interpret any passage or group of passages in the Old Testament without being guilty of what has been called “pedantic supernaturalism”; that is, of distorting Scripture by interpreting it without regard to its natural historical connections? Is the interpretation of the Old Testament Messianically legitimate or illegitimate accommodation? (a) It is a widely accepted canon of modern interpretation that the institutions of Old Testament worship and the various messages of the prophets had an intrinsic contemporary significance. (b) But this is not to say that its meaning and value are exhausted in that immediate contemporary application. Beyond question the prophet was a man with a message to his own age, but there is nothing incompatible, in that fact, with his having a message, the full significance of which reaches beyond ins own age, even into the far distant future. It would serve to clear the air in this whole region if it were only understood that it is precisely upon its grasp of the future that the leverage of a great message for immediate moral uplift rests.
The predictive element is a vital part of the contemporary value. (c) The material given under the preceding analysis may be dealt with as a whole on the basis of a principle fundamental to the entire Old Testament economy, namely: that each successive age in the history of Israel is dealt with on the basis of truth common to the entire movement of which the history of Israel is but a single phase. It is further to be remembered that relationship between the earlier and later parts of the Bible is one of organic and essential unity, both doctrinal and historical. By virtue of this fact the predictive element is an essential factor in the doctrines and institutions of the earlier dispensation as originally constituted and delivered, hence forming a part of its contemporary significance and value, both pointing to the future and preparing the way for it. In like manner, the element of fulfillment is an essential element of the later dispensation as the completed outcome of the movement begun long ages before.
Prediction and fulfillment are essential factors in any unified movement begun, advanced and completed according to a single plan in successive periods of time. We have now but to apply this principle in general to the Old Testament material already in hand to reach definite and satisfactory conclusions. (4) (a) The promise made to Abraham was a living message addressed directly to him in the immediate circumstances of his life upon which the delivery and acceptance of the promise made a permanent impress; but it was of vaster proportions than could be realized within the compass of a single human life; for it included himself, his posterity, and all mankind in a single circle of promised blessing. So far as the patriarch was concerned the immediate, contemporary value of the promise lay in the fact that it concerned him not alone but in relationship to the future and to mankind. A prediction was thus imbedded in the very heart of the word of God which was the object of his faith — a prediction which served to enclose his life in the plan of God for all mankind and to fasten his ambition to the service of that plan. The promise was predictive in its essence and in its contemporary meaning (see Beecher, Prophets and Promise, 213). (b) So also it is with the Messianic King. The Kingdom as an institution in Israel is described from the beginning as the perpetual mediatorial reign of God upon earth (see Exodus 19:3-6; 2 Samuel 7:8-16, etc.), and the King in whom the Kingdom centers is God’s Son ( 2 Samuel 7:13,15) and earthly representative. In all this there is much that is immediately contemporaneous. The Kingdom and the Kingship are described in terms of the ideal and that ideal is used in every age as the ground of immediate appeal to loyalty and devotion on the part of the King. None the less the predictive element lies at the center of the representation. The very first recorded expression of the Messianic promise to David involves the prediction of unconditioned perpetuity to his house, and thus grasps the entire future. More than this, the characteristics, the functions, the dignities of the king are so described (Psalm 102; Isaiah 9:6,7) as to make it clear that the conditions of the Kingship could be met only by an uniquely endowed person coming forth from God and exercising divine functions in a worldwide spiritual empire. Such a King being described and such a Kingdom being promised, the recipients of it, of necessity, were set to judge the present and scrutinize the future for its realization. The conception is, in its original meaning and expression, essentially predictive. (c) Very closely allied with this conception of the Messianic King is the prophetic ideal of the Servant of Yahweh. Looked at in its original context we at once discover that it is the ideal delineation of a mediatorial service to men in behalf of Yahweh — which has a certain meaning of fulfillment in any person who exhibits the Divine character by teaching the truth and ministering to human need (for application of the term see Isaiah 49:5,6,7; 50:10; especially 45:1). But the service is described in such exalted terms, the devotion exacted by it is so high, that, in the application of the ideal as a test to the present and to the nation at large, the mind is inevitably thrown into the future and centered upon a supremely endowed individual to come, who is by preeminence the Servant of Yahweh. (d) The same principle may be applied with equal effectiveness to the matter of Israel’s sacrificial system. In the last two instances this fact emerged: No truth and no institution can exhaustively be known until it has run a course in history. For example, the ideas embodied in the Messianic Kingship and the conception of the Servant of Yahweh could be known only in the light of history. Only in view of the actual struggles and failures of successive kings and successive generations of the people to realize such ideals could their full significance be disclosed. Moreover, only by historic process of preparation could such ideals ultimately be realized. This is preeminently true of the Old Testament sacrifices. It is clear that the New Testament conception of the significance of Old Testament sacrifice in connection with the death of Christ is based upon the belief that the idea embodied in the original institution could be fulfilled only in the voluntary sacrifice of Christ (see Hebrews 10:1-14). This view is justified by the facts. Dr.
Davidson (op. cit., 239) holds that the predictive element in the Old Testament sacrifices lay in their imperfection. This imperfection, while inherent, could be revealed only in experience. As they gradually deepened a sense of need which they could not satisfy, more and more clearly they pointed away from themselves to that transaction which alone could realize in fact what they express in symbol. A harmony such as obtained between Old Testament sacrifice and the death of Christ could only be the result of design. It is all one movement, one fundamental operation; historically prefigured and prepared for by anticipation, and historically realized. Old Testament sacrifice was instituted both to prefigure and to prepare the way for the sacrifice of Christ in the very process of fulfilling its natural historic function in the economy of Israel. 4. Conclusion: The total outcome of the discussion is this: the interpretation of these representative Old Testament ideas and institutions as referring to Christ and anticipating His advent is no illegitimate use of the principle of accommodation. The future reference which takes in the entire historical process which culminates in Christ lies within the immediate and original application and constitutes an essential element of its contemporary value.
The original statement is in its very nature predictive and is one in doctrinal principle and historic continuity with that which forms its fulfillment.
IV. ACCOMMODATION IN REVELATION. 1. General Principles: (1) It is evident that God’s revelation to men must be conveyed in comprehensible terms and adjusted to the nature of the human understanding. That is clearly not a revelation which does not reveal. A disclosure of God’s character and ways to men revolves the use and control of the human spirit in accordance with its constitution and laws.
The doctrine of inspiration inseparable from that of revelation implies such a divine control of human faculties as to enable them, still freely working within their own normal sphere, to apprehend and interpret truth otherwise beyond their reach. (2) The Bible teaches that in the height and depth of His being God is unsearchable. His mind and the human mind are quantitatively incommensurable. Man cannot by searching find out God. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. (3) But, on the other hand, the Bible affirms with equal emphasis the essential qualitative kinship of the divine and the human constitutions God is spirit — man is spirit also. Man is made in the image of God and made to know God. These two principles together affirm the necessity and the possibility of revelation. Revelation, considered as an exceptional order of experience due to acts of God performed with the purpose of making Himself known in personal relationship with man, is necessary because man’s finite nature needs guidance. Revelation is possible because man is capable of such guidance. The Bible affirms that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, but that they may become ours because God can utter them so that we can receive them. (4) These two principles lead to a most important conclusion. In all discussions of the principle of accommodation it is to be remembered that the capacity of the human mind to construct does not measure its capacity to receive and appropriate. The human mind can be taught what it cannot independently discover. No teacher is limited by the capacity of his pupils to deal unaided with a subject of study. He is limited only by their capacity to follow him in his processes of thought and exposition. The determining factor in revelation, which is a true educative process, is the mind of God which stamps itself upon the kindred and plastic mind of man. 2. Accommodation a Feature of Progressive Revelation: (1) The beginnings of revelation. Since man’s experience is organically conditioned he is under the law of growth. His entire mental and spiritual life is related to his part and lot in the kingdom of organisms. The very laws of his mind reveal themselves only upon occasion in experience.
While it is true that his tendencies are innate, so that he is compelled to think and to feel in certain definite ways, yet it is true that he can neither think nor feel at all except as experience presents material for thought and applies stimulus to feeling Man must bye in order to learn. He must, therefore, learn gradually. This fact conditions all revelation. Since it must deal with men it must be progressive, and since it must be progressive it must necessarily involve, in its earlier stages, the principle of accommodation. In order to gain access to man’s mind it must take him where he is and link itself with his natural aptitudes and native modes of thought. Since revelation involves the endeavor to form in the mind of man the idea of God in order that a right relationship with Him may be established, it enters both the intellectual and moral life of the human race and must accommodate itself to the humble beginnings of early human experience. The chief problem of revelation seems to have been to bring these crude beginnings within the scope of a movement the aim and end of which is perfection. The application of the principle of accommodation to early human experience with a view to progress is accomplished by doing what at first thought seems to negate the very principle upon which the mental and moral life of man must permanently rest. (a) It involves the authoritative revelations of incomplete and merely tentative truths. (b) It involves also the positive enactment of rudimentary and imperfect morality.
In both these particulars Scripture has accommodated itself to crude early notions and placed the seal of authority upon principles which are outgrown and discarded within the limits of Scripture itself. But in so doing Scripture has saved the very interests it has seemed to imperil by virtue of two features of the human constitution which in themselves lay hold upon perfection and serve to bind together the crude beginnings and the mature achievements of the human race. These two principles are (c) the idea of truth; (d) the idea of obligation. (2) It is mainly due to these two factors of human nature that any progress in truth and conduct is possible to men. What is true or right in matter of specific fact varies in the judgment of different individuals and of different ages. But the august and compelling twin convictions of truth and right, as absolute, eternal, authoritative, are present from the beginning of human history to the end of it. Scripture seizes upon the fact that these great ideas may be enforced through crude human conceptions and at very rudimentary stages of culture, and enforcing them by means of revelation and imperative law brings man to the test of truth and right and fosters his advance to larger conceptions and broader applications of both fundamental principles. Canon Mozley in discussing this principle of accommodation on its moral side, its necessity and its fruitfulness, says: “How can the law properly fulfill its object of correcting and improving the moral standard of men, unless it first maintains in obligation the standard which already exists? Those crudely delineated conceptions, which it tends ultimately to purify and raise, it must first impose” (Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, 183; compare Matthew 5:17 with 21,27,33). 3. The Limits of Revelation: Since the chief end of revelation is to form the mind of man with reference to the purpose and will of God to the end that man may enter into fellowship with God, the question arises as to how far revelation will be accommodated by the limitation of its sphere. How far does it seek to form the mind and how far does it leave the mind to its own laws and to historical educative forces? Four foundation principles seem to be sufficiently clear: (a) Revelation accepts and uses at every stage of its history such materials from the common stock of human ideas as are true and of permanent worth. The superstructure of revelation rests upon a foundation of universal and fundamental human convictions. It appeals continually to the rooted instructs and regulative ideas of the human soul deeply implanted as a preparation for revelation. (b) Regard is paid in Scripture to man’s nature as free and responsible.
He is a rational being who must be taught through persuasion; he is a moral being who must be controlled through his conscience and will.
There must be, therefore, throughout the process of revelation an element of free, spontaneous, unforced life in and through which the supernatural factors work. (c) Revelation must have reference, even in its earliest phases of development, to the organism of truth as a whole. What is actually given at any time must contribute its quota to the ultimate summing up and completion of the entire process. (d) Revelation must guard against injurious errors which trench upon essential and vital matters. In short, the consistency and integrity of the movement through which truth is brought to disclosure must sacredly be guarded; while, at the same time, since it is God and man who are coming to know each other, revelation must be set in a broad environment of human life and entrusted to the processes of history. See REVELATION. 4. The Outcome of Revelation: It is now our task briefly to notice how in Scripture these interests are safeguarded. We must notice (a) the principle of accommodation in general. It has often been pointed out that in every book of the Bible the inimitable physiognomy of the writer and the age is preserved; that the Biblical language with reference to Nature is the language of phenomena; that its doctrines are stated vividly, tropically, concretely and in the forms of speech natural to the age in which they were uttered; that its historical documents are, for the most part, artless annals of the ancient oriental type, that it contains comparatively little information concerning Nature or man which anticipates scientific discovery or emancipates the religious man who accepts it as a guide from going to school to Nature and human experience for such information. All this, of course, without touching upon disputed points or debated questions of fact, involves, from the point of view of the Divine mind to which all things are known, and of the human mind to which certain facts of Nature hidden in antiquity have been disclosed, the principles of accommodation. Over against this we must set certain contrasting facts: (b) The Scripture shows a constant tendency to transcend itself and to bring the teaching of the truth to a higher level. The simple, primitive ideas and rites of the patriarchal age are succeeded by the era of organized national life with its ideal of unity and the intensified sense of national calling and destiny under the leadership of God. The national idea of church and kingdom broadens out into the universal conception and world-wide mission of Christianity. The sacrificial symbolism of the Old Testament gives way to the burning ethical realities of the Incarnate Life. The self-limitation of the Incarnation broadens out into the world-wide potencies of the era of the Spirit who uses the letter of Scripture as the instrument of His universal ministry.
It is thus seen that by the progressive method through a cumulative process God has gradually transcended the limitation of His instruments while at the same time He has continuously broadened and deepened the Spirit of man to receive His self-disclosure. (c) More than this, Scripture throughout is marked by a certain distract and unmistakable quality of timelessness. It continually urges and suggests the infinite, the eternal, the unchangeable. It is part of the task of revelation to anticipate so as to guide progress. At every stage it keeps the minds of men on the stretch with a truth that they are not able at that stage easily to apprehend. The inexhaustible vastness and the hidden fullness of truth are everywhere implied. Prophets and Apostles are continually in travail with truths brought to their own ages from afar. The great fundamental verities of Scripture are stated with uncompromising fullness and finality. There is no accommodation to human weakness or error. Its ideals, its standards, its conditions are absolute and inviolate.
Not only has Israel certain fundamental ideas which are peculiar to herself, but there has been an organizing spirit, an “unique spirit of inspiration” which has modified and transformed the materials held by her in common with her Semitic kindred. Even her inherited ideas and Institutions are transformed and infused with new meanings. We note the modification of Semitic customs, as for example in blood revenge, by which savagery has been mitigated and evil associations eliminated. We note the paucity of mythological material. If the stories of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Samson were originally mythological, they have ceased to be such in the Bible. They have been humanized and stripped of superhuman features. (See Fable,” HGHL, 220 ff.)
If we yield to the current hypothesis as to the Babylonian background of the narratives in Genesis, we are still more profoundly impressed with that unique assimilative power, working in Israel, which has enabled the Biblical writers to eradicate the deep-seated polytheism of the Babylonian documents and to stamp upon them the inimitable features of their own high monotheism (see BABYLONlA ). We note the reserve of Scripture, the constant restraint exercised upon the imagination, the chastened doctrinal sobriety in the Bible references to angels and demons, in its Apocalyptic imagery, in its Messianic promises, in its doctrines of rewards and punishments. In all these particulars the Bible stands unique by contrast, not merely with popular thought, but with the extra-canonical literature of the Jewish people (see DEMONS , etc.). 5. The Question as to Christ’s Method: We come at this point upon a most central and difficult problem. It is, of course, alleged that Christ adopted the attitude of concurrence, which was also one of accommodation, in popular views concerning angels and demons, etc. It is disputed whether this goes back to the essential accommodation involved in the self-limiting of the Incarnation so that as man He should share the views of His contemporaries, or whether, with wider knowledge, He accommodated Himself for pedagogical purposes to erroneous views of the untaught people about Him (see DCG, article “Accommodation”). The question is complicated by our ignorance of the facts. We cannot say that Jesus accommodated Himself to the ignorance of the populace unless we are ready to pronounce authoritatively upon the truth or falseness of the popular theory. It is not our province in this article to enter upon that discussion (see INCARNATION and KENOSIS ).
We can only point out that the reserve of the New Testament and the absence of all imaginative extravagance shows that if accommodation has been applied it is most strictly limited in its scope. In this it is in harmony with the entire method of Scripture, where the ignorance of men is regarded in the presentation of God’s truth, while at the same time their growing minds are protected against the errors which would lead them astray from the direct path of progress into the whole truth reserved in the Divine counsel.
LITERATURE. (a) For the first division of the subject consult standard works on Science of Interpretation and Homiletics sub loc. (b) For second division, among others, Dr. A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy; Dr. Willis J. Beecher, Prophets and Promise. (c) For the third division, the most helpful single work is the one quoted: Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, published by Longmans as “Old Testament Lectures.” Louis Matthews Sweet ACCOMPLISH ACCORD; ACCORDING; ACCORDINGLY M. O. Evans ACCOS ACCOUNT ACCOUNTABILITY 1. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES:
The general teaching of Scripture on this subject is summarized in Romans 14:12: “So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.” But this implies, on the one hand, the existence of a Moral Ruler of the universe, whose will is revealed, and, on the other the possession by the creature of knowledge and free will In Romans 4:15 it is expressly laid down that, `where no law is, neither is there transgression’; but, lest this might seem to exclude from accountability those to whom the law of Moses was not given, it is shown that even heathen had the law to some extent revealed in conscience; so that they are “without excuse” ( Romans 1:20). “For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law” ( Romans 2:12). So says Paul in a passage which is one of the profoundest discussions on the subject of accountability, and with his sentiment agrees exactly the word of our Lord on the same subject, in Luke 12:47,48: “And that servant, who knew his lord’s will, and made not ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes And to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask the more.” There is a gradual development of accountability accompanying the growth of a human being from infancy to maturity; and there is a similar development in the race, as knowledge grows from less to more. In the full light of the gospel human beings are far more responsible than they were in earlier stages of intellectual and spiritual development, and the doom to which they will be exposed on the day of account will be heavy in proportion to their privileges. This may seem to put too great a premium on ignorance; and a real difficulty arises when we say that, the more of moral sensitiveness there is, the greater is the guilt; because as is well known, moral sensitiveness can be lost through persistent disregard of conscience; from which it might seem to follow that the way to diminish guilt was to silence the voice of conscience. There must, however, be a difference between the responsibility of a conscience that has never been enlightened and that of one which, having once been enlightened, has lost, through neglect or recklessness, the goodness once possessed. In the practice of the law, for example, it is often claimed that a crime committed under the influence of intoxication should be condoned; yet everyone must feel how different this is from innocence, and that, before a higher tribunal, the culprit will be held to be twice guilty — first, of the sin of drunkenness and then of the crime.
2. CONNECTION WITH IMMORTALITY:
Wherever civilization is so advanced that there exists a code of public law, with punishments attached to transgression, there goes on a constant education in the sense of accountability; and even the heathen mind, in classical times, had advanced so far as to believe in a judgment beyond the veil, when the shades had to appear before the tribunal of Rhadamanthus, Minos and AEacus, to have their station and degree in the underworld decided according to the deeds done in the body. How early the Hebrews had made as much progress has to be discussed in connection with the doctrine of immortality; but it is certain that, before the Old Testament canon closed, they believed not only in a judgment after death but in resurrection, by which the sense of accountability was fastened far more firmly on the popular mind. Long before, however, there was awakened by the sacred literature the sense of a judgment of God going on during the present life and expressing itself in everyone’s condition. The history of the world was the Judgment of the world; prosperity attended the steps of the good man, but retribution sooner or later struck down the wicked. It was from the difficulty of reconciling with this belief the facts of life that the skepticism of Hebrew thought arose; but by the same constraint the pious mind was pushed forward in the direction of the full doctrine of immortality. This came with the advent of Him who brought life and immortality to light by His gospel ( 2 Timothy 1:10). In the mind of Jesus not only were resurrection, judgment and immortality unquestionable postulates; but He was brought into a special connection with accountability through His consciousness of being the Judge of mankind, and, in His numerous references to the Last Judgment, He developed the principles upon which the conscience will then be tried, and by which accordingly it ought now to try itself. In this connection the Parable of the Talents is of special significance; but it is by the grandiose picture of the scene itself, which follows in the same chapter of the First Gospel, that the mind of Christendom has been most powerfully influenced. Reference has already been made to the discussions at the commencement of the Epistle to the Romans in which our subject finds a place. By some the apostle John has been supposed to revert to the Old Testament notion of a judgment proceeding now in place of coming at the Last Day; but Weiss (Der johanneische Lehrbegriff, II, 9) has proved that this is a mistake.
3. JOINT AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY:
Up to this point we have spoken of individual accountability, but the subject becomes more complicated when we think of the joint responsibility of several or many persons. From the first the human mind has been haunted by what is called the guilt of Adam’s first sin. There is a solidarity in the human race, and the inheritance of evil is too obvious to be denied even by the most optimistic. There is far, however, from being agreement of opinion as to the relation of the individual to this evil legacy; some contending fiercely against the idea that the individual can have any personal responsibility for a sin hidden in a past so distant and shadowy, while others maintain that the misery which has certainly been inherited by all can only be justified in a world governed by a God of justice if the guilt of all precedes the misery. The question enters deeply into the Pauline scheme, although at the most critical point it is much disputed what the Apostle’s real position is. While joint responsibility burdens the individual conscience, it may, at the same time, be said to lighten it. Thus, in Ezekiel 18 one of the most weighty ethical discussions to be found in Holy Writ is introduced with the popular proverb, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” which proves to be a way of saying that the responsibility of children is lightened, if not abolished, through their connection with their parents. In the same way, at the present time, the sense of responsibility is enfeebled in many minds through the control over character and destroy ascribed to heredity and environment. Even criminality is excused on the ground that many have never had a chance of virtue, and it is contended that to know everything is to forgive everything. There can be no doubt that, as the agents of trusts and partnerships, men will allow themselves to do what they would never have thought of in private business; and in a crowd the individual sustains psychological modifications by which he is made to act very differently from his ordinary self. In the actions of nations, such as war, there is a vast and solemn responsibility somewhere; but it is often extremely difficult to locate whether in the ruler, the ministry or the people. So interesting and perplexing are such problems often that a morality for bodies of people, as distinguished from individuals, is felt by many to be the great desideratum of ethics at the present time.
On this subject something will be found in most of the works on either philosophical or Christian ethics; see especially Lemme’s Christliche Ethik, 242 ff. James Stalker ACCOZ ACCURSED Everything that might paganize or affect the unique character of the religion of Israel was banned, e.g. idols ( Deuteronomy 7:26); idolatrous persons ( Exodus 22:20); idolatrous cities ( Deuteronomy 13:13-18).
All Canaanite towns — where the cult of Baal flourished — were to be banned ( Deuteronomy 20:16-18). The ban did not always apply to the gold and silver of looted cities ( Joshua 6:24). Such valuable articles were to be placed in the “treasury of the house of Yahweh.” This probably indicates a slackening of the rigid custom which involved the total destruction of the spoil. According to Numbers 18:14, “everything devoted in Israel” belonged to Aaron, and Ezekiel 44:29 the King James Version ordained that “every dedicated thing” should belong to the priests (compare Ezra 10:8). In the New Testament “accursed” is the King James Version rendering of ANATHEMA (which see). Thomas Lewis ACCUSER ACHAIA In Acts 18:12 we are told that the Jews in Corinth made insurrection against Paul when Gallio was deputy of Achaia, and in 18:27 that Apollos was making preparations to set out for Achaia In Romans 16:5, “Achaia” should read “ASIA” as in the Revised Version (British and American). In Acts 20:2 “Greece” means Achaia, but the oft-mentioned “Macedonia and Achaia” generally means the whole of Greece ( Acts 19:21; Romans 15:26; 1 Thessalonians 1:8). Paul commends the churches of Achaia for their liberality ( 2 Corinthians 9:13).
LITERATURE.
See Gerhard, Ueber den Volksstamm der A. (Berlin, 1854); Klatt, Forschungen zur Geschichte des achaischen Bundes (Berlin, 1877); M.
Dubois, Les ligues etolienne et acheenne (Paris, 1855); Capes, History of the Achean League (London, 1888); Mahaffy, Problems, 177-86; Busolt, Greek Staatsalter, 2nd edition (1892), 347 ff; Toeppfer, in Pauly’s Realencyclopaedie.
For Aratus see Hermann, Staatsalter, 1885; Krakauer, Abhandlung ueber Aratus (Breslau, 1874); Neumeyer, Aratus aus Sikyon (Leipzig, 1886); Holm, History of Greece. J. E. Harry ACHAICUS ACHAN The crime of Achan was a serious one. Quite apart from all questions of supposable superstition, or even religion, the [cherem] concerning Jericho had been proclaimed, and to disobey the proclamation was disobedience to military orders in an army that was facing the enemy. It is commonly held that Achan’s family were put to death with him, though they were innocent; but the record is not explicit on these points. One whose habits of thought lead him to expect features of primitive savagery in such a case as this will be sure to find what he expects; a person of different habits will not be sure that the record says that any greater cruelty was practiced on the family of Achan than that of compelling them to be present at the execution. Those who hold that the Deuteronomic legislation comes in any sense from Moses should not be in haste to think that its precepts were violated by Joshua in the case of Achan (see Deuteronomy 24:16).
The record says that the execution took place in the arable valley of Achor, up from the Jordan valley. See ACHOR.
Willis J. Beecher ACHAR ACHAZ Greek form of Ahaz (thus the Revised Version (British and American)).
The name of a King of Israel.
ACHBOR It may be presumed that this Achbor is also the man mentioned in Jeremiah (26:22; 36:12) as the father of Elnathan, who went to Egypt for King Jehoiakim in order to procure the extradition of Uriah the prophet, and who protested against the burning of Baruch’s roll. Willis J. Beecher ACHIACHARUS ACHIAS ACHIM ACHIOR Holofernes ordered him bound and delivered at Bethulia to the Israelites (Judith 6), who received him gladly and with honor. Afterward he became a proselyte, was circumcised, and joined to Israel (Judith 14). In Numbers 34:27 it is the Septuagint reading for Ahihud, and in the Hebrew would be rwOayjia\ [’achi’or], “brother of light.”
ACHIPHA ACHISH Fearing rough treatment or betrayal by Achish, he feigned madness. But this made him unwelcome, whereupon he fled to the Cave of Adullam ( <092201> Samuel 22:1). Later in his fugitive period David returned to Gath to be hospitably received by Achish ( 1 Samuel 27:1 ff), who gave him the town of Ziklag for his home. A year later, when the Philistines invaded the land of Israel, in the campaign which ended so disastrously for Saul (1 Samuel 31), Achish wished David to participate ( 1 Samuel 28:1-2), but the lords of the Philistines objected so strenuously, when they found him and his men with the forces of Achish, that Achish was compelled to send them back. Achish must have been a young man at this time, for he was still ruling forty years later at the beginning of Solomon’s reign ( 1 Kings 2:39). He is mentioned as Abimelech in the title of Psalm 34. See ABIMELECH 3.
Edward Mack ACHITOB ACHMETHA 1. LOCATION:
This, the ancient capital of Media, stood (lat 34 degrees 50’ North — long. 48 degrees 32’ East) near the modern Hamadan, 160 miles West-Southwest of Tehran, almost 6,000 feet above the sea, circa 1 1/2 miles from the foot of Matthew. Orontes (Alvand).
2. HISTORY:
It was founded or rebuilt by Deiokes (Dayaukku) about 700 BC on the site of Ellippi an ancient city of the Manda, and captured by Cyrus BC who brought Croesus there as captive (Herodotus i.153). It was the capital of the 10th Nome under Darius I. Cyrus and other Persian kings used to spend the two summer months there yearly, owing to the comparative coolness of the climate. Herodotus describes it as a magnificent city fortified with seven concentric walls (i.98). Its citadel ([biretha’], Ezra 6:2, wrongly rendered “palace” in the Revised Version (British and American)) is mentioned by Arrian, who says that, when Alexander took the city in 324 BC, he there stored his enormous booty. In it the royal archives were kept. It stood on a hill, where later was built a temple of Mithra. Polybius (x.27) speaks of the great strength of the citadel. Though the city was unwalled in his time, he can hardly find words to express is admiration for it, especially for the magnificent royal palace, nearly 7 stadia in circumference, built of precious kinds of wood sheathed in plates of grid and silver. In the city was the shrine of Aine (Nanaea, Anahita?). Alexander is said to have destroyed a temple of AEsculapius (Mithra?) there. Diodorus tells us the city was 250 stadia in circumference.
On Matthew. Alvand (10,728 feet) there have been found inscriptions of Xerxes. Doubtless Ecbatana was one of the “cities of the Medes” to which Israel was carried captive ( 2 Kings 17:6). It should be noted that Greek writers mention several other Ecbatanas. One of these, afterward called Gazaca (Takhti Sulaiman, a little South of Lake Urmi, lat. 36 degrees 28’ North, long. 47 degrees 9’ East) was capital of Atropatene. It was almost destroyed by the Mughuls in the 12th century. Sir H. Rawlinson identifies the Ecbatana of Tobit and Herodotus with this northern city. The southern and far more important Ecbatana which we have described is certainly that of 2 Macc 9:3. It was Cyrus’ Median capital, and is doubtless that of Ezra 6:2. Classical writers spoke erroneously of Ecbatana (for Ecbatana) as moderns too often do of Hamadan for Hamadan.
3. PRESENT CONDITION:
Hamadan has perhaps never fully recovered from the fearful massacre made there in 1220 AD by the Mongols, but its population is about 50,000, including a considerable number of descendants of the Israelites of the Dispersion (tracing descent from Asher, Naphtali, etc.). They point to the tombs of Esther and Mordecai in the neighborhood. It is a center for the caravan trade between Baghdad and Tehran. There is an American Presbyterian mission at work.
Authorities (besides those quoted above): Ctesias, Curtius, Amm.
Marcellinus, Pausanias, Strabo, Diod. Siculus; Ibnu’l Athir, Yaqut, Jahangusha, Jami`u’t Tawarikh, and modern travelers. W. St. Clair Tisdall ACHO ACHOR Many identify it with the Wady Kelt which descends through a deep ravine from the Judean hills and runs between steep banks south of the modern Jericho to Jordan, the stream after rams becoming a foaming torrent. Possibly the name may have been applied to a region of considerable extent. In Isaiah 65:10 it is a region on the east side of the mountain ridge which is in some sense balanced with Sharon on the west side. By implication the thing depicted seems to be these rich agricultural localities so far recovered from desolation as to be good grounds for cattle and sheep. Hosea recognizes the comforting aspect of the dreadful affair in the valley of Achor; it was a doorway of hope to pardoned Israel ( Hosea 2:15 (17)), and he hopes for like acceptance for the Israel of his own day. Willis J. Beecher ACHSA ACHSAH ACHZIB Achzib was a coast town, nine miles north of Acco, now known as Ez- Zib. It appears in the Assyrian inscriptions as Aksibi and Sennacherib enumerates it among the Phoenician towns that he took at the same times as Acco (702 BC). It was never important and is now an insignificant village among the sand dunes of the coast. It was the bordertown of Galilee on the west, what lay beyond being unholy ground. H. Porter ACIPHA ACITHO; ACITHOH ACKNOWLEDGE The Psalmist ( Psalm 32:5) “acknowledged” his sin, when he told God that he knew the guilt of what he had done. The Corinthians ( Corinthians 1:14) “acknowledged” Paul and his companions when they formally recognized their claims and authority.
ACQUAINT; ACQUAINTANCE ACRABATTENE ACRABBIM ACRE (1) ACRE (2) The English word “acre” originally signified field. Then it came to denote the measure of land that an ox team could plow in a day, and upon the basis of a maximum acre of this kind the standard acre of 160 square rods (with variations in different regions) was fixed. The Hebrew word translated acre denotes a yoke of animals, in the sense of a team, a span, a pair; it is never used to denote the yoke by which the team are coupled together. The phrase `ten yokes of vineyard’ ( Isaiah 5:10) may naturally mean vineyard covering as much land as a team would plow in ten days, though other plausible meanings can also be suggested. In 1 Samuel 14:14 the same word is used in describing the limits of space within which Jonathan and his armor-bearer slew twenty Philistines. The translation of the Revised Version (British and American), “within as it were half a furrow’s length in an acre of land,” means, strictly, that they were slain along a line from two to twenty rods in length. The word rendered “furrow,” used only here and in <19C903> Psalm 129:3, is in Brown’s Hebrew Lexicon defined as “plowing-ground.” This gives the rendering “as it were in half a plowing-stint, a yoke of ground,” the last two phrases defining each the other, so that the meaning is substantially that of the paraphrase in the King James Version. There is here an alleged obscurity and uncertainty in the text, but it is not such as to affect either the translation or the nature of the event. Willis J. Beecher ACROSTIC Acrostics of this kind are found in pre-Christian Hebrew literature as well as elsewhere in ancient oriental literature. There are twelve clear instances in the Old Testament: Psalms 25; 34; 37; 111 f; 119; 145; Proverbs 31:10-31, and Lamentations 1 through 4. There is probably an example in Psalms 9 and 10, and possibly another in Nab 1:2-10. Outside the Canon, Sirach 51:13-30 exhibits clear traces of alphabetic arrangement. Each of these fifteen poems must briefly be discussed.
Pss 9 and 10, which are treated as one psalm in Septuagint and Vulg, give fairly clear indications of original alphabetic structure even in the Massoretic Text. The initials of 9:1,3,5 are respectively ‘aleph, beth, gimel; of 9:9,11,13,15,17 waw, zayin, cheth, Teth and yodh. Psalm 10:1 begins with lamedh and 10:12,14,15,17 with qoph, resh, shin and taw.
Four lines seem to have been allotted to each letter in the original form of the poem. In Psalm 25 all the letters are represented except waw and qoph.
In 25:18 we find resh instead of the latter as well as in its place in 25:19. In 25:2 the alphabetical letter is the initial of the second word. The last verse is again supernumerary. There are mostly two lines to a letter. In Psalm all the letters are represented except waw, 34:6 beginning not with it, as was to be expected, but with zayin. The last verse is again a supernumerary. Since here and in 25:22 the first word is a form of padhah it has been suggested that there may have been here a sort of acrostic on the writer’s name Pedahel [pedhah’el], but there is no evidence that a psalmist so named ever existed. There are two lines to a letter. In Psalm all the letters are represented except `ayin which seems however from Septuagint to have been present in the earliest text. As a rule four lines are assigned to each letter. In Psalms 111 f are found two quite regular examples with a line to each letter. Psalm 119 offers another regular example, but with 16 lines to a letter, each alternate line beginning with its letter. Vs 1-8, for instance, each begin with ‘aleph. In Psalm 145 are found all the letters but nun. As we find in Septuagint between 145:13 and 14, that is where the nun couplet ought to be: “Faithful is the Lord in his words And holy in his works,” which may represent a Hebrew couplet beginning with nun, it would seem that a verse has dropped out of the Massoretic Text. Proverbs 31:10-31 constitutes a regular alphabetical poem with (except in 31:15) two lines to a letter. Lamentations 1 is regular, with three lines to a letter Lamentations 2; 3; 4, are also regular with a curious exception. In each case pe precedes `ayin, a phenomenon which has not yet been explained. In Lamentations there are three or four lines to a letter except in 2:17, where there seem to be five. In Lamentations 3 also there are three lines to a letter and each line begins with that letter. In Lamentations 4 there are two lines to a letter except in 4:22 where there are probably four lines. Lamentations 5 has twice as many lines as the letters of the alphabet but no alphabetical arrangement. In Nab 1:1-10 ff Delitzsch (following Frohnmeyer) in 1876, Bickell in 1880 and 1894, Gunkel in 1893 and 1895, G. B. Gray in (Expos, September) and others have pointed out possible traces of original alphabetical structure. In the Massoretic text, however, as generally arranged, it is not distinctly discernible. Sirach 51:13-30: As early as Bickell reconstructed this hymn on the basis of the Greek and Syriac versions as a Hebrew alphabetical poem. In 1897 Schechter (in the judgment of mos |
