Help PreviousNext

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

AT


AT ONE

eis eirenen, "at one," "at peace"): "Set them at one again" (Acts 7:26), the reconciliation of persons at variance. From this adverb we have the words "atone" and "atonement."


ATAD

a'-tad ('aTadh, "a thorn").

See ABEL-MIZRAIM .


ATAR

at'-ar (Atar; the King James Version Jatal = Ater (Ezr 2:42; Neh 7:45)): The sons of Atar (porters) returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 5:28).


ATARAH

at'-a-ra, a-ta'-ra (`aTarah, "crown"): One of Jerahmeel's wives and mother of Onam (1 Ch 2:26).


ATARGATIS

a-tar'-ga-tis (Atargatis; the Revised Version (British and American) wrongly ATERGATIS): Is stated in 2 Macc 12:26 to have been worshipped at Karnion, the Ashtaroth-Karnaim of the Old Testament (compare Ant,XII , viii, 4). The name is found on coins of Membij as `atar-`atah, where `Atar (i.e. Ashtoreth) is identified with the goddess `Atah, whose name is sometimes written `Ati. or `Atah or `Ati was also worshipped at Palmyra, and (according to Melito) in Adiabene. The compound Atargatis, often corrupted by the Greeks into Derketo, had her chief temples at Membij (Hierapolis) and Ashkelon where she was represented with the body of a woman and the tail of a fish, fish being sacred to her. Herodotus made her the Aphrodite Urania of the Greeks. `Ati may have been originally a Hittite goddess with whom the Assyrian Ishtar (`Atar) came afterward to be identified.tory of the kingdom (2 Sam 14:14). For the legal and geographical information, see CITIES OF REFUGE ;HOMICIDE .

A. H. Sayce


ATAROTH

at'-a-roth, a-ta'-roth (`aTaroth, "crowns" or "wreaths"; Ataroth):

(1) A city East of the Jordan, apparently in the territory given to Reuben, but built, or fortified, by the children of Gad (Nu 32:3,34). It is named along with Dibon, which is identified with Dhiban. Eight miles Northeast by North of Dibon, on the South of Wady Zerqa Ma`in, stands Jebel `Attarus, in which the ancient name is preserved. The city is doubtless represented by Khirbet `Attarus, about 4 miles West of the mountain.

(2) A place on the boundary between Ephraim and Benjamin, toward the West (Josh 16:2). It seems to be the same as Ataroth-addar of Josh 16:5 and 18:13. It is probably to be identified with the modern ed-Dariyeh South of nether Bethhoron, and about 12 1/2 miles West of Jerusalem.

(3) A place on the eastern frontier of Ephraim (Josh 16:7). This town has not been identified. Conder thinks it may be identified with et-Truneh in the Jordan valley, or with Khirbet et-Taiyereh.

W. Ewing


ATAROTH-ADDAR

at'-a-roth-ad'-ar (`aTroth 'addar, "crowns of Addar").

See ATAROTH (2).


ATER

a'-ter ('aTer, "bound" (?)): (1) The ancestor of a family of 98 persons who returned from Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:16; Neh 7:21). the King James Version has "Ater of Hezekiah"; the Revised Version (British and American) of 1 Esdras 5:15 has "Ater of Ezekias," margin, "Ater of Hezekiah." the King James Version has "Aterezias."

(2) The head of a family of porters who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:42; Neh 7:45).


ATEREZAIAS

a-ter-e-zi'-as (Ater to Hezekia): Usually found in the abbreviated form Ater. Head of a Jewish family, which returned with Zerubbabel, under the decree of Cyrus. Mentioned (Ezr 2:16) as sprung from Hezekiah. Their number is given as 98. Mentioned again as found in the register of the genealogies of the first returned exiles by Nehemiah (7:21). Again among those who sealed "the sure covenant" (Neh 10:17). Also found in 1 Esdras 5:15, where the name is given variously as Ater or Aterezaias. The number of the family, given by Esdras, is 92.


ATERGATIS

a-ter'-ga-tis.

See ATARGATIS .


ATETA

a-te'-ta (the King James Version Teta; Codex Alexandrinus Ateta, Codex Vaticanus, om.): Head of a family of Levites; gate keepers who returned from the captivity with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:28); called Hitita in Ezr 2:42; Neh 7:45.


ATHACH

a'-thak (`athakh, "lodging-place"): One of the cities of Judah to which David sent from Ziklag the spoil of the Amalekites (1 Sam 30:30). Its site is unknown. Driver, Budde, and Wellhausen identify it with Ether (Josh 15:42).


ATHAIAH

a-tha'-ya ('athayah = "Yahweh is helper"; Athea, or Atheai): He is designated (Neh 11:4) as a descendant of Judah and the son of Uzziah. After the return from Babylon, he dwelt in Jerusalem. In 1 Ch 9:4 his name is given as Uthai.


ATHALIAH

ath-a-li'-a (`athalyah; meaning uncertain, perhaps, "whom Yahweh has afflicted"; 2 Ki 8:26; 11; 2 Ch 22; 23):

1. Relationship:

(1) Daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, grand-daughter of Omri, 6th king of Israel. In her childhood the political relations of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel had, after many years of strife, become friendly, and she was married to Jehoram, eldest son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (2 Ki 8:18). The marriage was one of political expediency, and is a blot on the memory of Jehoshaphat.

2. Athaliah as Queen:

When Jehoram was 32 years of age, he succeeded to the throne, and Athaliah became queen of Judah. She inherited her mother's strength of will, and like her developed a fanatical devotion to the cult of the Zidonian Baal. Elijah's blow at the worship of Baal in Samaria shortly before her accession to power did nothing to mitigate her zeal. It probably intensified it. The first recorded act of Jehoram's reign is the murder of his six younger brothers; some princes of the realm, who were known to be favorable to the ancient faith of the nation, were also destroyed (2 Ch 21:4). There can be little doubt that these deeds of blood were supported, and perhaps instigated, by Athaliah, who was a much stronger character than her husband.

3. Murder of Her Grandchildren:

After eight years of royal life, Athaliah became a widow, and her son, Ahaziah, then 22 years of age (2 Ki 8:26; not 42 as in 2 Ch 22:2), ascended his father's throne. As queen-mother, Athaliah was now supreme in the councils of the nation, as well as in the royal palace. Within a single year, the young king fell (see JEHU ), and the only persons who stood between Athaliah and the throne were her grandchildren. It is in such moments that ambition, fired by fanaticism, sees its opportunity, and the massacre of the royal seed was determined on. This was carried out: but one of them, Jehoash, a babe, escaped by the intervention of his aunt, Jehosheba (1 Ki 11:2; 2 Ch 22:11).

4. Her Usurpation:

The palace being cleared of its royal occupants, Athaliah had herself proclaimed sovereign. No other woman, before or since, sat upon the throne of David, and it is a proof of her energy and ability that, in spite of her sex, she was able to keep it for six years. From 2 Ch 24:7 we gather that a portion of the temple of Yahweh was pulled down, and the material used in the structure of a temple of Baal.

5. The Counter-Revolution:

The high priest at this time was Jehoiada, who had married the daughter of Athaliah, Jehosheba (2 Ch 22:11). His promotion to the primacy led to the undoing of the usurper, as Jehoiada proved staunchly, if secretly, true to the religion of Yahweh. For six years he and his wife concealed in their apartments, near the temple, the young child of Ahaziah. In the seventh year a counter-revolution was planned. The details are given with unusual fullness in Ki and Chronicles, the writings of which supplement one another. Thus, when the Chronicler wrote, it had become safe to give the names of five captains who led the military rising (2 Ch 23:1). With the Book of Ki before him, it was not necessary to do more than extract from the ancient records such particulars as had not hitherto appeared. This it is which has chiefly given rise to the charge of variations in the two narratives.

See JEHOASH .

6. Her Death:

At the time of her deposition, Athaliah was resident in the royal palace. When roused to a sense of danger by the acclamations which greeted the coronation ceremony, she made an attempt to stay the revolt by rushing into the temple court, alone; her guards, according to Josephus, having been prevented from following her (Ant., IX, vii, 3). A glance sufficed. It showed her the lad standing on a raised platform before the temple, holding the Book of the Law in his hand, and with the crown upon his brow. Rending her robe and shouting, "Treason! Treason!" she fled. Some were for cutting her down as she did so, but this was objected to as defiling the temple with human blood. She was, therefore, allowed to reach the door of the palace in flight. Here she fell, smitten by the avenging guards.

Athaliah's usurpation lasted for six years (2 Ki 11:3; 12:1; 2 Ch 22:12). Her 1st year synchronizes with the 1st of Jehu in Israel, and may be placed 846 BC (some put later). See CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT . The statement of 2 Ki 12:1 is here understood in the sense that Jehoash began his public reign in the 7th year of Jehu, and that he reigned 40 years counting from the time of his father's death. A modern parallel is the dating of all official records and legal documents of the time of Charles II of England from the death of Charles I.

The only other reference to Athaliah is that above alluded to in 2 Ch 24:7, where she is spoken of as "that wicked woman."

(2) A Benjamite who dwelt in Jerusalem (1 Ch 8:26,28).

(3) Father of Jeshaiah, who returned with Ezra (8:7); called Gotholias in Apocrypha (1 Esdras 8:33).

W. Shaw Caldecott


ATHANASIAN; CREED

ath-a-na'-zhan.

See CREED .


ATHARIAS

ath-a-ri'-as.

See ATTHARIAS .


ATHARIM

ath'-a-rim] (`atharim): the Revised Version (British and American) "The way of Atharim"; the King James Version "The way of the spies." the Revised Version (British and American) regards Atharim as a place (so Septuagint). the King James Version follows Syriac and Targum, rendering Atharim as if Tarim = spies. Dillmann translates "the caravan path," connecting it with Arabic athar, "a track or footprint." Here the king of Arad fought against Israel, taking some captives (Nu 21:1).all official records and legal documents of the time of Charles II of England from the death of Charles I.

See HORMAH .


ATHEISM

a'-the-iz'-m (atheos, "without God" (Eph 2:12)): Ordinarily this word is interpreted to mean a denial of the existence of God, a disbelief in God, the opposite of theism. But it seems better that we should consider it under four heads, in order to obtain a clear idea of the different meanings in which it has been used.

(1) The classical.

In this sense it does not mean a denial of the existence of a Divine Being, but the denial of the existence or reality of the god of a particular nation. Thus the Christians were repeatedly charged with atheism, because of their disbelief in the gods of heathenism. It was not charged that they did not believe in any god, but that they denied the existence and reality of the gods worshipped, and before whom the nation hitherto had bowed. This was considered so great a crime, so dangerous a thing to the nation, that it was felt to be a just cause for most cruel and determined persecutions. Socrates' teaching cast a shadow on the reality of the existence of the gods, and this charge was brought against him by his contemporaries. Cicero also uses the word in this sense in his charge against Diagoras of Athens. Indeed, such use of it is common in all classical literature.

(2) Philosophic.

It is not meant that the various philosophic systems to which this term is applied actually deny the existence of a Divine Being or of a First Cause, but that they are atheistic in their teaching, and tend to unsettle the faith of mankind in the existence of God. There is indeed a belief in a first cause, in force, in motion, in a certain aggregation of materials producing life, but the Divine Being as taught by theism is absolutely denied. This is true of the Idealism of Fichte, of the Ideal Pantheism of Spinoza, the Natural Pantheism of Schelling, and similar forms of thought. In applying the word atheism to the teaching here given, theism does not intend to assail them as wholly without a belief in a Divine Being; but it affirms that God is a person, a self-conscious Being, not merely a first cause or force. To deny this fundamental affirmation of theism is to make the teaching atheistic, a denial of that which is essential to theism (Heb 11:3).

(3) Dogmatic.

It absolutely denies the existence of God. It has often been held that this is, in fact, impossible. Cousin has said, "It is impossible, because the existence of God is implied in every assertion." It is true, however, that in all ages there have been persons who declared themselves absolute atheists. Especially is this true of the 18th century a period of widespread skepticism--when not a few, particularly in France, professed themselves atheists. In many cases, however, it resulted from a loose use of the word, careless definition, and sometimes from the spirit of boastfulness.

(4) Practical atheism.

It has nothing at all to do with belief. Indeed it accepts the affirmations of theism. It has reference wholly to the mode of life. It is to live as though there was no God.

It takes the form often of complete indifference to the claims of the Divine Being or again of outbroken and defiant wickedness (Ps 14:1). That this form of atheism is widely prevalent is well known. It is accompanied in many cases with some form of unbelief or prejudice or false opinion of the church or Christianity. Dogmatic atheism is no longer a menace or even a hindrance to the progress of Christianity, but practical atheism is widespread in its influence and a dangerous element in our modern life (compare Isa 31:1; Jer 2:13,17,18; 18:13-15). Whatever the form, whether it be that of religious agnosticism, denying that we can know that God exists, or critical atheism, denying that the evidence to prove His existence is sufficient, or dogmatic, or practical atheism, it is always a system of negation and as such tears down and destroys. It destroys the faith upon which all human relations are built. Since there is no God, there is no right nor wrong, and human action is neither good nor bad, but convenient or inconvenient. It leaves human society without a basis for order and human government without foundation (Rom 1:10-32). All is hopeless, all is wretchedness, all is tending to the grave and the grave ends all.

Arguments against atheism may be summarized as follows: (1) It is contrary to reason. History has shown again and again how impossible it is to bring the mind to rest in this doctrine. Although Buddhism is atheistic in its teaching, idolatry is widespread in the lands where it prevails. While the Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte was based on a denial of the existence of God, his attempt to found the new religion of humanity with rites and ceremonies of worship reveals how the longing for worship cannot be suppressed. It is a revelation of the fact so often seen in the history of human thought, that the mind cannot rest in the tenets of atheism.

(2) It is contrary to human experience. All history testifies that there are deep religious instincts within the human breast. To regard these as deceptive and unreasonable would itself be utterly unreasonable and unscientific. But the fact of such spiritual longing implies also that there is a Being who is responsive to and can satisfy the cry of the heart (Heb 11:6). In his Bampton Lectures Reville has said on this subject: "It would be irrational in the last degree to lay down the existence of such a need and such a tendency, and yet believe that the need corresponds to nothing, that the tendency has no goal."

(3) It fails to account for the evidence of design in the universe.

See COSMOLOGY .

(4) It fails to account for the existence of man and the world in general. Here is the universe: how did it come to be? Here is man: how is he to be accounted for? To these and like questions, atheism and atheistic philosophy have no adequate answer to give.

See also COSMOLOGY ;CREATION ;GOD .

Jacob W. Kapp


ATHENIANS

a-the'-ni-ans Athenaioi: Inhabitants of Athens. Luke has a remark on their curiosity and their delight in novelty (Acts 17:21).

See ATHENS .


ATHENOBIUS

ath-e-no'-bi-us [Athenobios]: A "friend" of Antiochus VII (Sidetes), who was sent to Jerusalem by the king to protest against the occupation of Joppa and Gazara, and the citadel Jerusalem. A demand was made on Simon Maccabeus to give up all the places he had taken or pay 1,000 talents in silver. Simon declined to pay more than 100 talents, and Athenobius returned to Antiochus from his fruitless mission (1 Macc 15:28-36).


ATHENS

ath'-enz Athenai In antiquity the celebrated metropolis of Attica, now the capital of Greece. Two long walls, 250 ft. apart, connected the city with the harbor (Peiraeus). In Acts 17 we are told what Paul did during his single sojourn in this famous city. He came up from the sea by the new road (North of the ancient) along which were altars of unknown gods, entered the city from the West, and passed by the Ceramicus (burial-ground), which can be seen to this day, the "Theseum," the best preserved of all Greek temples, and on to the Agora (Market-Place), just North of the Acropolis, a steep hill, 200 ft. high, in the center of the city. Cimon began and Pericles completed the work of transforming this citadel into a sanctuary for the patron goddess of the city. The magnificent gateway (Propylaea), of which the Athenians were justly proud, was built by Mnesicles (437-432 BC). A monumental bronze statue by Phidias stood on the left, as one emerged on the plateau, and the mighty Parthenon a little further on, to the right. In this temple was the famous gold and ivory statue of Athena. The eastern pediment contained sculptures representing the birth of the goddess (Elgin Marbles, now in the British Museum), the western depicting her contest with Poseidon for supremacy over Attica. This, the most celebrated edifice, architecturally, in all history, was partially destroyed by the Venetians in 1687. Other temples on the Acropolis are the Erechtheum and the "Wingless Victory." In the city the streets were exceedingly narrow and crooked. The wider avenues were called plateiai, whence English "place," Spanish "plaza." The roofs of the houses were flat. In and around the Agora were many porticoes stoai. In the Stoa Poecile ("Painted Portico"), whose walls were covered with historical paintings, Paul met with the successors of Zeno, the Stoics, with whom he disputed daily. In this vicinity also was the Senate Chamber for the Council of Five Hundred, and the Court of the Areopagus, whither Socrates came in 399 BC to face his accusers, and where Paul, five centuries later, preached to the Athenians "the unknown God." In this neighborhood also were the Tower of the Winds and the water-clock, which must have attracted Paul's attention, as they attract our attention today.

The apostle disputed in the synagogue with the Jews (Acts 17:17), and a slab found at the foot of Mount Hymettus (a range to the East of the city, 3,000 ft. high), with the inscription haute he pule tou kuriou, dikaioi eiseleusontai en aute (Ps 118:20), was once thought to indicate the site, but is now believed to date from the 3rd or 4th century. Slabs bearing Jewish inscriptions have been found in the city itself.

The population of Athens was at least a quarter of a million. The oldest inhabitants were Pelasgians. Cecrops, the first traditional king, came from Egypt in 1556 BC, and by marrying the daughter of Actaeon, obtained the sovereignty. The first king was Erechtheus. Theseus united the twelve communities of Attica and made Athens the capital. After the death of Codrus in 1068 BC, the governing power was entrusted to an archon who held office for life. In 753 BC the term of office was limited to ten years. In 683 BC nine archons were chosen for a term of one year. Draco's laws, "written in blood," were made in 620 BC. Solon was chosen archon in 594 BC and gave the state a constitution. The tyrant Pisistratus was in control permanently from 541 to 527 BC; his son Hipparchus was assassinated in 514. Clisthenes changed the constitution and introduced the practice of ostracism. In 490 BC the Athenians defeated the Persians at Marathon, and again in 480 BC at Salamis. In 476 BC Aristides organized the great Athenian Confederacy. After his death Conon became the leader of the conservative party; and when the general Cimon was killed, Pericles became the leader of the people. In 431 BC the Peloponnesian War broke out and continued till 404 BC, when Athens succumbed to Sparta. An oligarchical government was set up with Critias and Theramenes at the head. War broke out again but peace was restored by the pact of Antalcidas (387 BC). In the Sacred War (357-355 BC) Athens exhausted her strength. When Philip of Macedon began to interfere in Greek affairs, Athens could neither resolve on war measures (to which the oratory of Demosthenes incited her), nor make terms with Philip. Finally, she joined Thebes in making armed resistance, but in spite of her heroic efforts at Chaeronea, she suffered defeat (338 BC). Philip was murdered in 336 BC, and Alexander the Great became master. After the subjugation of Greece by the Romans, Athens was placed under the supervision of the governor of Macedonia, but was granted local independence in recognition of her great history. As the seat of Greek art and science, Athens played an important role even under Roman sway--she became the university city of the Roman world, and from her radiated spiritual light and intellectual energy to Tarsus, Antioch and Alexandria. Philo, the Jew, declares that the Athenians were Hellenon oxuderkestatoi dianoian ("keenest in intellect") and adds that Athens was to Greece what the pupil is to the eye, or reason to the soul. Although the city had lost her real independence, the people retained their old characteristics: they were still interested in art, literature and philosophy. Paul may possibly have attended theater of Dionysus (under the Southeast cliff of the Acropolis) and witnessed a play of the Greek poets, such as Euripides or Menander. Many gifts were received from foreign monarchs by Athens. Attalus I of Perg amum endowed the Academy, Eumenes added a splendid Stoa to theater and Antiochus Epiphanes began the Olympeium (15 columns of which are still standing), the massive sub-basement of which had been constructed by Pisistratus. Athens became a favorite residence for foreign writers who cultivated history, geography and literature. Horace, Brutus and Cassius sojourned in the city for some time. Josephus declares that the Athenians were the most god-fearing of the Greeks eusebestatous ton Hellenon. Compare Livy xlv.27.

LITERATURE.

See Wordsworth, Athens and Attica; Butler, Story of Athens; Ernest Gardner, Ancient Athens; Tucker, Life in Ancient Athens; A. Mommsen, Athenae Christianae; Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, chapter x; Gregorovius, Stadt Athen im Mittelalter; Leake, Grote, Thirlwall, Curtius, Wachsmuth, Holm, and Pausanias' Attica, recently edited by Carroll (Ginn and Co.), or in the large work of Frazer.

J. E. Harry


ATHLAI

ath'-la-i `athlay, "afflicted?"): A Jew, the son of Bebai, who was influenced by Ezra to put away his wife (Ezr 10:28).


ATIPHA

at'i-fa.

See HATIPHA .


ATONEMENT

a-ton'-ment: Translates kaphar; chaTa'; ratsah, the last employed only of human relations (1 Sam 29:4); translates the following Greek stems hilas-, simple and compounded with various prepositions; allag- in composition only, but with numerous prepositions and even two at a time, e.g. Mt 5:24; lip- rarely (Dan 9:24).

I. Terms Employed.

1. Hebrew and Greek Words:

The root meanings of the Hebrew words, taking them in the order cited above, are, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i.e. by some conduct, or course of action. Of the Greek words the meanings, in order, are "to be," or "cause to be, friendly"; "to render other," hence to restore; "to leave" and with preposition to leave off, i.e. enmity, or evil, etc.; "to render holy," "to set apart for"; hence, of the Deity, to appropriate or accept for Himself.

2. The English Word:

It is obvious that the English word "atonement" does not correspond etymologically with any Hebrew or Greek word which it translates. Furthermore, the Greek words in both Septuagint and New Testament do not correspond exactly to the Hebrew words; especially is it true that the root idea of the most frequently employed Hebrew word, "cover," is not found in any of the Greek words employed. These remarks apply to both verbs and substantives The English word is derived from the phrase "at one," and signifies, etymologically, harmony of relationship or unity of life, etc. It is a rare instance of an AS theological term; and, like all purely English terms employed in theology, takes its meaning, not from its origin, but from theological content of the thinking of the Continental and Latin-speaking Schoolmen who employed such English terms as seemed most nearly to convey to the hearers and readers their ideas. Not only was no effort made to convey the original Hebrew and Greek meanings by means of English words, but no effort was made toward uniformity in translating of Hebrew and Greek words by their English equivalents.

3. Not to Be Settled by Lexicon Merely:

It is at once clear that no mere word-study can determine the Bible teaching concerning atonement. Even when first employed for expressing Hebrew and Christian thought, these terms, like all other religious terms, already had a content that had grown up with their use, and it is by no means easy to tell how far heathen conceptions might be imported into our theology by a rigidly etymological study of terms employed. In any case such a study could only yield a dictionary of terms, whereas what we seek is a body of teaching, a circle of ideas, whatever words and phrases, or combinations of words and phrases, have been employed to express the teaching.

4. Not Chiefly a Study in Theology:

There is even greater danger of making the study of the Atonement a study in dogmatic theology. The frequent employment of the expression "the Atonement" shows this tendency. The work of Christ in reconciling the world to God has occupied so central a place in Christian dogmatics that the very term atonement has come to have a theological rather than a practical atmosphere, and it is by no means easy for the student, or even for the seeker after the saving relation with God, to pass beyond the accumulated interpretation of the Atonement and learn of atonement.

5. Notes on Use of Terms:

The history of the explanation of the Atonement and the terms of preaching atonement cannot, of course, be ignored. Nor can the original meaning of the terms employed and the manner of their use be neglected. There are significant features in the use of terms, and we have to take account of the history of interpretation. Only we must not bind ourselves nor the word of God in such forms.

(1) The most frequently employed Hebrew word, kaphar, is found in the Prophets only in the priestly section (Ezek 45:15,20; Dan 9:24) where English Versions of the Bible have "make reconciliation," margin, "purge away." Furthermore, it is not found in Deuteronomy, which is the prophetic book of the Pentateuch (Hexateuch). This indicates that it is an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (Lev 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; 1 Sam 29:4; Ezek 45:15,20; Dan 9:24). In this latter sense it connects itself with chaTa'. In 2 Ch 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering chaTa' to effect an atonement kaphar. But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized.

(2) Of the Greek words employed hilaskesthai means "to make propitious" (Heb 2:17; Lev 6:30; 16:20; Ezek 45:20); allattein, used however only in composition with prepositions, means "to render other," "to restore" to another (former?) condition of harmony (compare Mt 5:24 = "to be reconciled" to a fellow-man as a condition of making an acceptable sacrifice to God).s an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (Lev 6:30; 8:15; 16:20; 1 Sam 29:4; Ezek 45:15,20; Dan 9:24). In this latter sense it connects itself with chaTa'. In 2 Ch 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering chaTa' to effect an atonement kaphar. But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized.

(3) In the English New Testament the word "atonement" is found only at Rom 5:11 and the American Standard Revised Version changes this to "reconciliation." While in strict etymology this word need signify only the active or conscious exercise of unity of life or harmony of relations, the causative idea probably belongs to the original use of the term, as it certainly is present in all current Christian use of the term. As employed in Christian theology, both practical and technical, the term includes with more or less distinctness: (a) the fact of union with God, and this always looked upon as (b) a broken union to be restored or an ideal union to be realized, (c) the procuring cause of atonement, variously defined, (d) the crucial act wherein the union is effected, the work of God and the response of the soul in which the union becomes actual. Inasmuch as the reconciliation between man and God is always conceived of as effected through Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:18-21) the expression, "the Atonement of Christ," is one of the most frequent in Christian theology. Questions and controversies have turned mainly on the procuring cause of atonement, (c) above, and at this point have arisen the various "theories of the Atonement."

II. Bible Teaching concerning Atonement in General:

The Atonement of Christ must be interpreted in connection with the conception of atonement in general in the Scriptures. This idea of atonement is, moreover, part of the general circle of fundamental ideas of the religion of Yahweh and Jesus. Theories of the Atonement root themselves in conceptions of the nature and character of God, His holiness, love, grace, mercy, etc.; of man, his nature, disposition and capacities; of sin and guilt.

1. Primary Assumption of Unity of God and Man:

The basal conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man's true life and interest may be conceived as corresponding with those of God. Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, "at-one." Such is the ideal picture of Adam and Eve in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father's house (Lk 15). Such also is the ideal of Jesus as seen especially in Jn 14 through 17; compare particularly 17:21ff; compare also Eph 2:11-22; 1 Cor 15:28. This is quite possibly the underlying idea of all those offerings in which the priests--God's representatives-and the people joined in eating at a common meal parts of what had been presented to God. The prohibition of the use of blood in food or drink is grounded on the statement that the life is in the blood (Lev 17:10 f) or is the blood (Gen 9:4; Dt 12:23). Blood was used in the consecration of tabernacle, temple, vessels, altars, priests; all things and persons set apart for Yahweh. Then blood was required in offerings made to atone for sin and uncleanness. The reason for all this is not easy to see; but if we seek an explanation that will account for all the facts on a single principle, shall we not find it in the idea that in the life-principle of the blood God's own life was present? Through this life from God all living beings shared God's life. The blood passing out of any living being must therefore return to God and not be consumed. In sprinkling blood, the life-element, or certainly the life-symbol, over persons and things set apart for God they were, so to say, visibly taken up into the life of God, and His life extending over them made them essentially of His own person. Finally the blood of sacrifices was the returning to God of the life of the man for whom the beasts stood. And this blood was not burned with the dead sacrifice but poured out beside the holy altar. The now dead sin offering was burned, but the blood, the life, returned to God. In peace-offerings of various sorts there was the common meal in which the common life was typified.

In the claim of the first-fruits of all crops, of all flocks and of all increase, God emphasized the common life in production; asserted His claim to the total life of His people and their products. God claimed the lives of all as belonging essentially to Himself and a man must recognize this by paying a ransom price (Ex 30:12). This did not purchase for the man a right to his own life in separation from God, for it was in no sense an equivalent in value to the man's time. It the rather committed the man to living the common life with God, without which recognition the man was not fit to live at all. And the use of this recognition-money by the priests in the temple was regarded as placing the man who paid his money in a sort of continuous worshipful service in the tabernacle (or temple) itself (Ex 30:11-16).

2. The Breach in the Unity:

In both Old Testament and New Testament the assumption of unity between God and man stands over against the contrasted fact that there is a radical breach in this unity. This breach is recognized in all God's relations to men; and even when healed it is always subject to new failures which must be provided for, by the daily oblations in the Old Testament, by the continuous intercession of the Christ (Heb 7:25; 9:24) in the New Testament. Even when there is no conscious breach, man is taught to recognize that it may exist and he must avail himself of the appointed means for its healing, e.g. daily sacrifices. This breach is universally attributed to some behavior on man's part. This may be moral or ceremonial uncleanness on man's part. He may have broken with God fundamentally in character or conduct and so by committing sin have incurred guilt; or he may have neglected the fitting recognition that his life is in common with God and so by his disregard have incurred uncleanness. After the first breach between God and man it is always necessary that man shall approach God on the assumption that this breach needs healing, and so always come with an offering. In human nature the sin breach is rooted and universal (Rom 3:9-19; 5:12-14).

3. Means for Expressing, Restoring and Maintaining:

Numerous and various means were employed for expressing this essential unity of life, for restoring it since it was broken off in sin, and for maintaining it. These means were primarily spiritual and ethical but made extensive use of material substances, physical acts and symbolical ceremonials; and these tended always to obscure and supplant the spiritual and ethical qualities which it was their function to exhibit. The prophet came to the rescue of the spiritual and ethical and reached his highest insight and function in the doctrine of the Suffering Servant of Yahweh through whom God was to be united with a redeemed race (compare among many passages, Isa 49:1-7; 66:18 ff; Ps 22:27 ff).

Atonement is conceived in both Old Testament and New Testament as partly personal and partly social, extending to the universal conception. The acts and attitudes by which it is procured, restored and maintained are partly those of the individual alone (Ps 51), partly those in which the individual secures the assistance of the priest or the priestly body, and partly such as the priest performs for the whole people on his own account. This involves the distinction that in Israel atonement was both personal and social, as also were both sin and uncleanness. Atonement was made for the group by the priest without specific participation by the people although they were, originally at least, to take cognizance of the fact and at the time. At all the great feasts, especially upon the DAY OF ATONEMENT (which see) the whole group was receptively to take conscious part in the work of atonement (Nu 29:7-11).

The various sacrifices and offerings by means of which atonement was effected in the life and worship of Israel will be found to be discussed under the proper words and are to be spoken of here only summarily. The series of offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, peace-offerings, reveal a sense of the breach with God, a conviction of the sin making the breach and an ethical appreciation of the holiness of God entirely unique among religions of ancient or modern times, and this fact must never be overlooked in interpreting the New Testament Christian doctrine of the Atonement. In the Old Testament there are sins and sinful circumstances for which no atonement is possible. Many passages, indeed, almost seem to provide against atonement for any voluntary wrongdoing (e.g. Lev 4:2,13,22,27; 5:14 ff). This is, no doubt, an extreme interpretation, out of harmony with the general spirit of the Old Testament, but it does show how seriously sin ought to be taken under the Old Testament regime. No atonement for murder could make possible the residence of the murderer again in that section of the land where the murder was done (Nu 35:33), although the land was not by the murder rendered unfit for occupation by others. When Israel sinned in making the golden calf, God refused to accept any atonement (Ex 32:20 ff) until there had been a great loss of life from among the sinners. No repentance could find atonement for the refusal to follow Yahweh's lead at Kadesh-barnea (Nu 14:20-25), and complete atonement was effected only when all the unbelieving generation had died in the wilderness (Nu 26:65; 32:10 ff); i.e. no atonement was possible, but the people died in that sin, outside the Land of Promise, although the sin was not allowed to cut off finally from Yahweh (Nu 14:29 f).

Permanent uncleanness or confirmed disease of an unclean sort caused permanent separation from the temple and the people of Yahweh (e.g. Lev 7:20 f), and every uncleanness must be properly removed (Lev 5:2b; 17:15; 22:2-8; Dt 23:10 f). A house in which an unclean disease was found must be cleansed--have atonement made for it (Lev 14:53), and in extreme cases must be utterly destroyed (Lev 14:43 ff).

After childbirth (Lev 12:7 f) and in all cases of hemorrhage (compare Lev 15:30) atonement must be effected by prescribed offerings, a loss, diminution, or pollution of blood, wherein is the life, having been suffered. All this elaborate application of the principle of atonement shows the comprehensiveness with which it was sought by the religious teachers to impress the people with the unity of all life in the perfectly holy and majestic God whom they were called upon to serve. Not only must the priests be clean who bear the vessels of the Lord (Isa 52:11), but all the people must be clean also from all defilement of flesh and spirit, seeking perfect holiness in the fear of their God (compare 2 Cor 7:1).

III. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

1. Preparation for New Testament Doctrine:

All the symbols, doctrine and examples of atonement in the Old Testament among the Hebrews find their counterpart, fulfillment and complete explanation in the new covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ (Mt 26:28; Heb 12:24). By interpreting the inner spirit of the sacrificial system, by insisting on the unity and holiness of God, by passionate pleas for purity in the people, and especially by teaching the principle of vicarious suffering for sin, the Prophets laid the foundation in thought-forms and in religious atmosphere for such a doctrine of atonement as is presented in the life and teaching of Jesus and as is unfolded in the teaching of His apostles.

The personal, parabolic sufferings of Hosea, the remarkable elaboration of the redemption of spiritual Israel through a Suffering Servant of Yahweh and the extension of that redemption to all mankind as presented in Isa 40 through 66, and the same element in such psalms as Ps 22, constitute a key to the understanding of the work of the Christ that unifies the entire revelation of God's righteousness in passing over human sins (Rom 3:24 f). Yet it is remarkable that such a conception of the way of atonement was as far as possible from the general and average Jewish mind when Jesus came. In no sense can the New Testament doctrine of the Atonement be said to be the product of the thought and spirit of the times.

2. The One Clear Fact:

However much theologians may disagree as to the rationale of the Atonement, there is, as there can be, no question that Jesus and all His interpreters in the New Testament represent the Atonement between God and men as somehow accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is also an agreed fact in exegesis that Jesus and His apostles understood His death to be radically connected with this Atonement.

(1) Jesus Himself teaches that He has come to reveal the Father (Jn 14:9), to recover the lost (Lk 19:10), to give life to men (Jn 6:33; 10:10), to disclose and establish the kingdom of heaven (or of God), gathering a few faithful followers through whom His work will be perpetuated (Jn 17:2 ff; Mt 16:13 ff); that salvation, personal and social, is dependent upon His person (Jn 6:53 ff; 14:6). He cannot give full teaching concerning His death but He does clearly connect His sufferings with the salvation He seeks to give. He shows in Lk 4:16 ff and 22:37 that He understands Isa 52 through 53 as realized in Himself; He is giving Himself (and His blood) a ransom for men (Mt 20:28; 26:26 ff; compare 1 Cor 11:23 ff). He was not a mere martyr but gave Himself up willingly, and voluntarily (Jn 10:17 f; Gal 2:20), in accordance with the purpose of God (Acts 2:23), as the Redeemer of the world, and expected that by His lifting up all men would be drawn to Him (Jn 12:31-33). It is possible to explain the attention which the Evangelists give to the death of Jesus only by supposing that they are reflecting the importance which they recall Jesus Himself to have attached to His death.

(2) All the New Testament writers agree in making Jesus the center of their idea of the way of salvation and that His death is an essential element in His saving power. This they do by combining Old Testament teaching with the facts of the life and death of the Lord, confirming their conclusion by appeal to the Resurrection. Paul represents himself as holding the common doctrine of Christianity at the time, and from the beginning, when in 1 Cor 15:3 f he sums up his teaching that salvation is secured through the death and re surrection of Jesus according to the Scriptures. Elsewhere (Eph 2:16,18; 1 Tim 2:5; compare Acts 4:12) in all his writings he emphasizes his belief that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator between God and man, by the blood of His cross (Col 1:20; 1 Cor 2:2), removing the sin barrier between God and men. Peter, during the life of Jesus so full of the current Jewish notion that God accepted the Jews de facto, in his later ministry makes Jesus in His death the one way to God (Acts 4:12; 1 Pet 1:2,18,19; 2:21,24; 3:18).

John has this element so prominent in his Gospel that radical critical opinion questions its authorship partly on that account, while the epistles of John and the Revelation are, on the same ground, attributed to later Greek thought (compare 1 Jn 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9). The Epistle to the Hebrews finds in Jesus the fulfillment and extension of all the sacrificial system of Judaism and holds that the shedding of blood seems essential to the very idea of remission of sins (9:22; compare 2:17; 7:26 f; 9:24-28).

3. How Shall We Understand the Atonement?

When we come to systematize the teaching concerning the Atonement we find, as in all doctrine, that definite system is not offered us in the New Testament, but all system, if it is to have any value for Christianity, must find its materials and principles in the New Testament. Proceeding in this way some features may be stated positively and finally, while others must be presented interrogatively, recognizing that interpretations may differ.

(1) An initial consideration is that the Atonement originates with God who "was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Cor 5:19), and whose love gave Jesus to redeem sinful men (Jn 3:16; Rom 5:8, etc.). In all atonement in Old Testament and New Testament the initiative is of God who not only devises and reveals the way to reconciliation, but by means of angels, prophets, priests and ultimately His only begotten Son applies the means of atonement and persuades men to accept the proffered reconciliation. Nothing in the speculation concerning the Atonement can be more false to its true nature than making a breach between God and His Christ in their attitude toward sinful men.

(2) It follows that atonement is fundamental in the nature of God in His relations to men, and that redemption is in the heart of God's dealing in history. The "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 the King James Version and the English Revised Version; compare Rev 5:5-7) is the interpreter of the seven-sealed book of God's providence in history� In Jesus we behold the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29).

(3) The question will arise in the analysis of the doctrine: How does the death of Christ save us? No specific answer has ever been generally satisfactory. We have numerous theories of the Atonement. We have already intimated that the answer to this question will depend upon our idea of the nature of God, the nature of sin, the content of salvation, the nature of man, and our idea of Satan and evil spirits. We ought at once to dismiss all merely quantitative and commercial conceptions of exchange of merit. There is no longer any question that the doctrines of imputation, both of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness, were overwrought and applied by the early theologians with a fatal exclusiveness, without warrant in the Word of God. On the other hand no theory can hold much weight that presupposes that sin is a thing of light consequence in the nature of man and in the economy of God. Unless one is prepared to resist unto blood striving against sin (Heb 12:2-4), he cannot know the meaning of the Christ. Again, it may be said that the notion that the death of Christ is to be considered apart from His life, eternal and incarnate life, as the atoning work, is far too narrow to express the teaching of the Bible and far too shallow to meet the demands of an ethical conscience.

It would serve clearness if we reminded ourselves that the question of how in the Atonement may involve various elements. We may inquire: (a) for the ground on which God may righteously receive the sinner; (b) for the means by which God places the restoration within the reach of the sinner; (c) for the influence by which the sinner is persuaded to accept the reconciliation; (d) for the attitude or exercise of the sinner toward God in Christ wherein he actually enters the state of restored union with God. The various theories have seemed to be exclusive, or at least mutually antagonistic, largely because they have taken partial views of the whole subject and have emphasized some one feature of the whole content. All serious theories partly express the truth and all together are inadequate fully to declare how the Daystar from on high doth guide our feet into the way of peace (Lk 1:79).

(4) Another question over which theologians have sorely vexed themselves and each other concerns the extent of the Atonement, whether it is available for all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. That controversy may now be passed by. It is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2). No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (Jn 14:6): but whosoever does thus call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21).

See also ATONEMENT ,DAY OF ;PROPITIATION ;RECONCILIATION ;SACRIFICE .

LITERATURE.

In the vast literature on this subject the following is suggested: Articles by Orr in HDB; by Mackenzie in Standard Bible Dictionary; in the Catholic Encyclopedia; in Jewish Encyclopedia; by Simpson in Hastings, DCG; J. McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; John Champion, The Living Atonement; W. M. Clow, The Cross in Christian Experience; T. J. Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement; R. W. Dale, The Atonement; J. Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament, and The Atonement and the Modern Mind; W. P. DuBose, The Soteriology of the New Testament; P. T. Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement; Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement; A. Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, I, II; Riviere, Le dogme de la redemption; D. W. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation; W. L. Walker, The Cross and the Kingdom; various writers, The Atonement and Modern Religious Thought.

William Owen Carver


ATONEMENT, DAY OF

a-ton'-ment:

I. THE LEGAL ENACTMENTS

1. Named

2. Leviticus 16

(1) Contents, Structure and Position

(a) Leviticus 16:1-10

(b) Leviticus 16:11-24

(c) Leviticus 16:25-28

(d) Leviticus 16:29-34

Use of Number Four

Place in Leviticus

(2) Modern Attempts to Disprove Unity of Chapter

II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT

1. The Significance for Israel

2. The Significance from a Christian Standpoint

III. ON THE HISTORY OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT

1. The Long Silence of History

(1) The Facts and the False Conclusions

(2) The Historicity of the Day of Atonement

2. Further Development

I. The Legal Enactments.

1. Named:

In addition to the chief passage, Lev 16, which is treated under a separate head, we have the following:

In Ex 30:10 it is mentioned in the directions that are given for the construction of the altar of incense that Aaron, once a year, is to make an atonement on the horns of the altar, with the blood of the sin offering, which is used for the purpose of an atonement for sin.

In Lev 23:26-32 mention is made in the list of festivals of the Day of Atonement, on the 10th day of the 7th month. It is ordered that for this day there shall be a holy convocation at the sanctuary, a fast, an offering by fire, and rest from labor from the 9th day of the 7th month in the evening.

According to Lev 25:9 the year of jubilee begins with the Day of Atonement.

Nu 18 speaks of the duties and the rights of the priests and the Levites. In contrast with the latter, according to 18:7, Aaron and his sons are to perform the duties of the priesthood in all matters pertaining to the altar and of the service within the veil and shall render this service. We have here doubtless a comprehensive law for the entire priestly order, so that from this alone it cannot be determined that the service within the veil, by which reference is made to the ceremony of the Day of Atonement, has been reserved for the high priest alone, just as in Dt 10:8; 33:8 ff, everything that pertains to the whole tribe of Levi is found combined, without thereby the division into high priest, priests and Levites, being regarded as excluded (compare EZEKIEL ,II , 2, (1), c).

Nu 29:7-11 contains in connection with the laws treating of sacrifices also the enactment, that on the 10th day of the 7th month there shall take place a holy convocation at the sanctuary, fasting and rest from labor. In addition to the sin offering, which is brought for the purpose of atonement for sin, and in addition to the regular burnt offerings and the accompanying meal offerings and drink offerings, burnt offerings also are to be brought, namely, one young bullock, one young ram, seven lambs of the first year (all without blemish); then meal offerings, namely, three-tenths (compare Nu 28:12-14) of fine flour mingled with oil for each bullock; two-tenths for each ram; one-tenth for each lamb; then a sin offering, namely, one he-goat.

Ezekiel in his vision of the new temple, of the holy city and the holy country (chapters 40 through 48), in 45:18 ff, gives a series of enactments for the festivals and the sacrifices. According to these, on the 1st day of the 1st month and on the 7th day of the 1st month (on the 1st day of the 7th month according to the Septuagint), the sanctuary is to be cleansed through a young bullock without blemish, the priest taking some of the blood of the sin offering and putting it on the posts of the temple, on the four corners of the altar and on the posts of the gate of the inner court; and this is to be done for the sake of those who perhaps have sinned through error or ignorance. Further, that sacrifice which is to be brought on the Passover by the princes for themselves and all the people of the land (compare 45:22) appears to present a clear analogy to Lev 16. As for the rest, Ezek 40 through 48 cannot without further consideration be put on the same level with the other legal enactments, but are to be regarded as an ideal scheme, the realization of which is conditioned on the entrance of the wonderful future (compare EZEKIEL ).

2. Leviticus 16:

(1) Contents, Structure and Position.

Lev 16:1-28 contains instructions given by Yahweh to Moses for his brother Aaron (16:1,2).

(a) Leviticus 16:1-10.

Leviticus 16:1-10 contain presuppositions, preparations and summary statements of the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement. According to 16:1,2, Aaron is not allowed to enter the holy place at any time whatever, lest he may die as did his sons with their unseemly fire offering (compare Lev 10:1 ff); 16:3-5 tell what is necessary for the ceremony: For himself four things: a young bullock as a sin offering (compare 16:6,11,14,15,27); a ram for burnt offering (compare 16:24); sacred garments, namely, a linen coat, linen breeches, linen girdle, linen mitre (compare 16:23,32); a bath. For the congregation: two he-goats as a sin offering (compare 16:7 ff,15-22,25,27,28,32,33), a ram as a burnt offering (compare 16:24). The passages in parentheses show how closely the succeeding parts of this account are connected with this introductory part, 16:1-10. In other parts of Lev also it is often found that the materials used for the sacrifices are mentioned first, before anything is said in detail of what is to be done with this material. Compare 8:1,2 with 8:6,7 ff,10,14,18,22,26 and 9:2-4 with 9:7,8 ff,12 ff,15-18. In 16:6 Aaron's sin-offering bullock is to be used as an atonement for himself; 16:7-10 refer to the two goats: they are to be placed at the door of the tent of meeting (16:7); lots are to be cast upon them for Yahweh and Azazel (16:8); the first to be prepared as a sin offering for Yahweh (16:9); the second, in accordance with the law, to be sent into the desert (16:10).

(b) Leviticus 16:11-24.

Leviticus 16:11-24 describe the ceremony itself and give fuller directions as to how the different sacrificial materials mentioned under (a) are to be used by Aaron: 16:11-14 speak of the atonement for Aaron and his house; 16:11, of his sin-offering bullock to be killed; 16:12, of burning coal from the altar and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small to be placed behind the veil; 16:13, of the cloud of incense to be made in the Holy of Holies, so that the top covering is hidden and Aaron is protected from the danger of death; 16:14, of some of the blood to be sprinkled once on the front of the top covering and seven times in front of it. Lev 16:15-19 prescribe the ceremony with the first sin-offering goat for the congregation: in 16:15,16a, the ceremony described in 16:14 is directed also to be carried out with the goat, as an atonement for the inner sanctuary, cleansing it from blemishes; in 16:16b the same thing is directed to be done in regard to the tabernacle of revelation, i.e. the holy place, in 16:17, no one is permitted to be present even in the holy place when these ceremonies take place; in 16:18,19, the altar too is directed to be cleansed by an atonement, some of the blood of both sin-offering animals being smeared on the horns and sprinkled seven times on the ground. Lev 16:20-22 prescribe the ceremony with the second sin-offering goat for the congregation: 16:20 directs it to be brought there; in 16:21 there takes place the transfer of guilt; Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the goat; shal l confess all guilt over him; shall lay them upon the head of the goat; shall through a man send him into the desert; in 16:22a, the goat carries the guilt into an uninhabited land; in 16:22b, he is not to be let go until he is in the desert. Lev 16:23,24, the concluding act: in 16:23a, Aaron takes off his linen garments in the tent of meeting, and in 16:23b puts them down there; in 16:24a, he bathes in the holy place and again puts on his usual clothing; in 16:24b he brings the burnt offering for himself and his people. (The statement `for himself and his people' at this place concludes the ritual as such.)

(c) Leviticus 16:25-28.

Leviticus 16:25-28 are explanatory, with three additional directions. In 16:25, the fat of the sin offering is directed to be consumed into smoke on the altar; 16:26, he who has taken away the second goat must wash his clothes and bathe himself, and only then is he permitted to enter the camp; 16:27, the fat, flesh and dung of the sin-offering animal, and then the blood that was brought into the (inner) sanctuary, are to be burned outside of the camp; 16:28, he who has burned these must wash his clothes, and must bathe, and only after this can he enter the camp. (In this case 16:25 and 27 correspond, and also 16:26 and 28; and in addition 16:26,27,28 are united by their reference to the camp.)

(d) Leviticus 16:29-34.

Leviticus 16:29-34: Over against these sections (a)--(c) (16:1-28), which contain the instructions for the high priest, we have a fourth (16:29-34), which already through the address in the second person plural and also by its contents is intended for the congregation. In 16:29-31, the demand is made of the congregation. As in Lev 23:26 ff; Nu 29:7 ff, a fast and absolute rest are prescribed for the 10th day of the 7th month as the Day of Atonement; in Lev 16:32-34, a number of directions are given in a summary to the congregation on the basis of 16:1 ff, namely, 16:32, how the atonement is to take place: the priest who is anointed; he shall be consecrated; that he perform the service in his father's place; in his linen garments; 16:33 prescribes when and for whom the atonement is to take place: for the holy of holies; for the holy place; for the altar; for the order of priests and all the people; in 16:34, the one Day of Atonement in the year for all sins is declared to be an everlasting statute. The statement that Aaron (16:2), according to Yahweh's command, did as Moses directed aptly closes the whole chapter.

Use of Number Four

The number four appears to occupy a predominating place in this chapter, as the bird's-eye view above already shows, and as this can be traced still further in the details of the accounts. But even if this significance of the number four in the division of the chapter is accidental, although this number appears almost as a matter of course, and in Ex 35:4 through 40:38, in Gen 12 through 25, in the story of Abraham, Lev 11 through 15, and Dt 12 through 26 naturally fall into four pericopes with four subdivisions, yet this chapter is, as far as contents are concerned, so closely connected, and so well organized as a whole, that all attempts to ascribe it to different sources, concerning which we shall speak immediately, must come to naught in view of this fact.

Place in Leviticus

At this point we first of all draw attention to the fact that Lev 16 has its well-established place in the whole of the Book of Lev (compare LEVITICUS ). The whole book has as its purpose to regulate the dealings of the Israelites with their God, and it does this in such a way that the first part (Lev 1 through 17) removes the hindrances that have been caused by sin. In this the ordinances with reference to the Day of Atonement (Lev 16), and with reference to the significance of the blood (Lev 17), constitute a natural acme and excellent conclusion, while this prepares for the positive sanctification, which is discussed in Lev 18 ff. In 15:31 we find in addition a clear transition to the thoughts of Lev 16, for in this passage mention is made of the uncleanness of the Israelites, which contaminates the dwelling-place of Yahweh that is in their midst.

(2) Modern Attempts to Disprove Unity of Chapter.

A large number of attempts have been made to destroy the unity of this chapter, which has been demonstrated in division (1) above. Thus Stade separates Lev 16:3-10 as the original kernel from the explanatory and changing details that were added in 16:11-28. But we have already seen that 16:3-10 are the preparation for all that follows, so that these verses demand 16:11 ff as a necessary complement. Again Oort separates 16:1-4,11b,14,16,18a,19,23,24a,25a,29a from the rest, by using the purification of the sanctuary and the atonement of the people as the measure for this separation; but above all it is proved by Ezek 45:18-20 that just these two thoughts are inseparably united. In recent times it has become the custom, following the leadership of Benzinger, to divide the text into three parts. Baentsch divides as follows: (a) Lev 16:1-4,6,12 f,34b contain a single pericope, which on the basis of the fate of the sons of Aaron, described in Lev 10, determines under what circumstances Aaron alone is permitted to enter the Holy of Holies; (b) Lev 16:29-34a contain "an older, relatively simpler law in reference to the yearly day of penitence and atonement"; (c) 16:5,7-10,11,14-28 are a "later enlargement of this ritual, with a more complicated blood rite," and above all with "the rite of the sin goat." Of these three pieces only (a) is thought to belong to the original Priest Codex, as proved especially by its reference back to Lev 10; (b) is regarded as belonging to the secondary parts, because the day of repentance is not yet mentioned in Neh 8 ff; compare III , 1; at any rate the anointing of all the priests is there not yet presupposed (compare LEVITICUS ); (c), however, is declared to be very late and its separate parts are regarded as having originated only after the others (thus recently also Bertholet). It is impossible here to enter into all the minor parts eliminated by the exegetes; and in the same way we do not intend in our examination to enter into all the incorrect views found in these criticisms. We confine ourselves to the chief matter. The very foundation of the criticism is wrong. What Aaron's sons experienced according to Lev 10 could very easily have furnished a connecting link for that ritual which is introduced in Lev 16:2 ff, but could never have furnished the occasion for the composition of the pericope described above (a); for Nadab and Abihu had not entered into the Holy of Holies at all. Just as little justifiable is the conclusion drawn from chapter 10, that chapter 16 originally followed immediately on chapter 10. For who could possibly have conceived the thought of inserting chapters 11 through 15 in an altogether unsuitable place between chapters 10 and 16 and thus have split asunder a connection so transparent? In general, the different attempts to break the unity of this chapter show how subjective and arbitrary these attempts are. They are a characteristic example of the manner in which the Priest Codex is now being further divided (compare LEVITICUS ). In general, sufficient material for the positive refutation of such attempts has been given above.

II. The Significance of the Day of Atonement.

1. The Significance for Israel:

The significance of the day is expressed in the name "Day of Atonement" Yom ha-kippurim: Lev 23:27 f; 25:9) in the same manner as it is in the fast which was enjoined on the congregation as a sign of sorrow for their sins (this fasting being the only one enjoined by the law: Lev 16:29,31; 23:26 ff; Nu 29:7 ff), as also finally and chiefly in the entire ritual (Ex 30:10; Lev 23:28; Nu 29:11; Lev 16; compare also Ezek 18:20,22). Then, too, the atonement takes place for the sanctuary which has been defiled by the contamination of the Israelites (Ex 30:10; Lev 16:16-20,33; compare also Ezek 45:18-20). In particular, mention is made of the Holy of Holies (Lev 16:33, called Miqdash ha-qodhesh; otherwise in Lev regularly ha-qodhesh), then of the holy place (16:16b,20,33), and then of the altar (16:18,20,33). In the last-mentioned case it is a matter of discussion whether the altar of incense is meant, as is claimed by Jewish tradition, on the basis of Ex 30:10, or the altar of burnt offerings, for which reference could be made to the additional statements in Lev 16:18, to those of 16:16, and to the conclusion in 16:17. The altar of incense (Ex 30:10) would then be included in the atonement of the tent of meeting. The somewhat remarkable position of 16:17b would then at the same time find its motive in this, that, while 16:6 and 11b mention an atonement only for Aaron and his house, the atonement of the Holy of Holies and of the holy place in 16:17 is for Aaron, his house, and the whole congregation, while the atonement of the burnt-offering altar in the forecourt (16:18) would be intended only for the sins of the congregation. The atonement, however, takes place for all the transgressions of the congregation since the last Day of Atonement (compare 16:21 f,30,34). In reference to the significance of what is done with the second goat of sin offering, compare 16:8 ff,20 ff, and AZAZEL, II, 1. In this way Delitzsch has correctly called the Day of Atonement "the Good Friday of the Old Testament." How deeply the consciousness of sin must have been awakened, if the many otherwise commanded private and congregational sacrifices did not make such an institution superfluous, and if even the high priest himself stood before God as a sinner (16:6,11 ff). On this day, with the exception of the mitre, he does not wear the insignia of his high-priestly office, but wears white garments, which in their simplicity correspond to the earnestness of the situation. The repetition of the bath, both in his case and in that of the other persons engaged in the ceremony (16:4,24,26,28), was necessary, because the mere washing of the hands and feet (Ex 30:19 f) would not suffice on this occasion (compare Nu 19:7 ff,19,21). The flesh of the sin-offering animals was not permitted to be eaten but had to be burned (16:27) because it was sacrificed also for Aaron's sin, and its blood was carried not only into the holy place but also into the Holy of Holies (compare 16:27 with Lev 6:23; 4:11 f,21; Ex 29:14; Lev 8:17; 9:11; 10:19). And in comparison with the consciousness of sin that had been aroused, how great must on the other hand God's grace appear, when once in each year a general remission of all the sins that had been forgiven was guaranteed.

2. Significance from a Christian Standpoint:

"The Day of Atonement, the good Friday of the Old Testament"--these words express not only the highest significance of the day but also its limitations. As the tabernacle, the sacrificial system, the entire law, thus too the Day of Atonement in particular contained only the shadow of future good things, but not these things themselves (Heb 10:1), and is "like in pattern to the true" (Heb 9:24). Christ Himself entered into the holy place, which was not made with hands, namely, into heaven itself, and has now appeared before God, by once for all giving Himself as a sacrifice for the removal of sin (Heb 9:23 ff). By this act the purpose of the Old Testament sacrificial cult and its highest development, namely, the Day of Atonement, understood in its typical significance, has been fulfilled, and at the same time surpassed and thereby abrogated (compare LEVITICUS ). Accordingly, our hope, too, like an anchor--(Heb 6:19), penetrates to the inner part of the veil in the higher sense of the term, i.e. to heaven.

III. On the History of the Day of Atonement.

1. The Long Silence of History:

(1) The Facts and the False Conclusions.

The Day of Atonement is stated to have been instituted in the times of Moses (Lev 16:1); the ceremony takes place in the tabernacle (tent of meeting); the people are presupposed to be in the camp (Lev 16:26 ff); Aaron is still the high priest. Very remarkably there is but little evidence of the observance of this prominent day in the later history of Israel. Down to the time of the Exile there is found a deep silence on this subject. The days of atonement in Ezek 45:18 ff (compare under I, 1) differ in number and observance from that in Lev 16. According to Zec 3:9, God in the Messianic future will take away the guilt of the land in a single day; but this too presents no more than an analogy to the results of the Day of Atonement. On the other hand, there is no reference made to the day where we could expect it. Not only 2 Ch 7:7-9 in connection with the consecration of Solomon's temple, and Ezr 3:1-6, in the account of the reintroduction of the sacrificial services after the return from the Exile, are silent on the subject, which fact could possibly be explained in an easy manner; but also Neh 8 f. According to 8:2 f, Ezra begins on the 1st day of the 7th month in the year 444 BC to read from the law; on the 2nd day of the 7th month remembrance is made of the ordinance treating of the feast of tabernacles, and on the 22nd day of the 7th month (Neh 8:13 ff), this festival is observed; on the 24th day of the 7th month a day of penance is observed (Neh 9:1); but of the Day of Atonement coming in between Neh 8:1 and chapter 9:1, namely, on the 10th day of the 7th month, which would seem to make the day of penance superfluous, nothing is said. From these facts the Wellhausen school has drawn the conclusion, in accordance with its principles elsewhere observed, that all those legal enactments that have not in the history a sufficient evidence of having been observed, did not exist until the time when they have such historical evidence; that therefore the Day of Atonement did not originate until after the year 444 BC. It is claimed that the day originated in the two days of atonement mentioned in Ezek 45:18-20 (compare under I, 1); in the four national fast days of Zec 7:5, and 8:19, and in the day of penance of 444 BC, just mentioned, on the 24th day of the 7th month, which is said to hav e been repeated on the following New Year's day, the 10th day of the 7th month; and that by the sacred character of its observance it soon crowded the New Year day upon the 1st day of the 7th month (compare Lev 23:23 ff; Nu 29:1 ff; contrary to Lev 25:9 and Ezek 40:1). In this way it is thought that Lev 16:29 ff first originated, and that at a still later time the complicated blood ritual had been added (compare under I, 1, 2). But it is to be observed that in still later times there is found no more frequent mention of the Day of Atonement than in the earlier, although it is the custom of modern criticism to place a much larger bulk of Biblical literature into this later period. It is only when we come to Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 50:5 ff) that the high priest Simon is praised, when he came forth from behind the veil; and this is certainly a reference. to the Day of Atonement, although no further mention is made at this place of the ceremony as such. Then there is a further silence on the subject down to Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:19; 9:7,13 ff; 10:1 ff; compare underII , 2). It is probable too that the fasting mentioned in Acts 27:9 is based on the Day of Atonement. We have in this manner a characteristic example to show how carefully we must handle the argument from silence, if we do not want to arrive at uncomfortable results.

(2) The Historicity of the Day of Atonement.

Since Lev 16 constitutes only one part of the Levitical legislation, the question as to the original and historical character of the day cannot be fully discussed at this place (see LEVITICUS ). At so late a period, naturally all the data that would lead to an explanation of the origin of such a fundamental institution as the Day of Atonement are lacking. It is all the more impossible to separate Lev 16 from the other priestly ordinances, because the name of the lid of the ark of covenant hakapporeth: Ex 25:17 ff; 26:34) stands in the clearest relation to the ceremony that takes place with this ark on the Day of Atonement. The impossibility of splitting up Lev 16 as is the manner of critics, or even as much as separating it from Lev 11 through 15, has been sufficiently demonstrated above (compare under I). Against the view which forces the Priest Codex down at least to the Exile and to claim the tabernacle as the product of imagination and as a copy of the temple of Solomon (see EXODUS ), we have still the following to add: If the ark of the covenant was no longer in existence after the Exile and if, according to Jer 3:16, the Israelites no longer expected its restoration, then it would have been absolutely impossible in the ritual of the Day of Atonement to connect the most important ceremony of this ritual with this ark and on this to base the atonement. In the second temple, as is well known, the incense pan was placed on the "foundation stone" in the Holy of Holies, because there was no tabernacle. Against these facts the counter-arguments mentioned above cannot stand. Even those who deny the existence of the Day of Atonement do not lay much stress on 2 Ch 7:1-9 and Ezr 3:1-6; but Neh 8 ff also does not deserve mention, since in this place the emphasis lies on the purpose of showing how the congregation was to declare its adherence to the law, and how the Day of Repentance, which had been observed since the beginning of the history of Israel, was instituted to be observed on the 24th day of the 7th month for all sins (9:1 ff), and was not made superfluous by the celebration of the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the 7th month, on which day only the sins of the last year were taken into consideration. But Ezekiel changed or ignored also other pre-exilic arrangements (compare EZEKIEL ), so that he is no authority in deciding the question as to the earlier existence of the Day of Atonement. Finally, attention must be drawn to the fact that the Passover festival is mentioned in prophetic literature, in addition to the mere reference in Isa 30:29, only in Ezek 45:21; the ark of the covenant only in Jer 3:16; the Feast of Tabernacles only in Hos 12:9; Ezek 45:25; and that in its historical connection the Feast of Weeks is mentioned incidentally only in 2 Ch 8:13, and possibly in 1 Ki 9:25, and is not at all found in Ezek (compare 45:18 ff), although the existence of these institutions has for a very long time been called into question.

2. Further Development:

The Day of Atonement, in accordance with its purpose in later times, came more and more into the foreground and was called "the great fast" or "the great day," or merely "the day." Its ritual was further enlarged and the special parts mentioned in the law were fully explained, fixed and specialized. Compare especially the tract "Yoma" in the Mish; and for the further elaborations and stories in poetry and prose on the basis of the Talmud, see, e.g. Delitzsch's translation from Maim, Ha-yadh ha-chazaqah, in the supplement to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1857. According to these accounts, e.g. the high priest had to be a married man. Already seven days before the beginning of the Day of Atonement he was ordered to leave his house and had to submit to a series of purifications and had to practice for the performance of the different purification ceremonies, some of which were difficult. The last night he was not allowed to sleep and had to spend his time in studying the sacred writings. On the Day of Atonement he took five baths and ten washings. Four times he enters the Holy of Holies (with the incense), with the blood of both sin offerings, and when he brings out the utensils used with the incense he makes three confessions of sins (for himself, for himself and his house, for Israel); 10 times in all he utters the name of Yahweh; 43 times he sprinkles; in addition he must read certain sections of the Scriptures or repeat them from memory (compare also AZAZEL ). When he returns home he celebrates a festival of rejoicing, because he has without harm been able to leave the sanctuary. In addition, he had performed severe physical work, and especially difficult was the manipulation of the incense. The modern estimate put on the Day of Atonement appears from the following citation of Wellhausen: "The rite and the sacrifice through the unfavorable circumstances of the times have disappeared; but it has retained the same sacred character. He who has not yet entirely broken with Judaism observes this day, no matter how indifferent he may be otherwise to old customs and festivals."

Wilhelm Moller


ATROTH-BETH-JOAB

at-roth-beth-jo'-ab `aTroth beth yo'abh "crowns of the house of Joab"): the King James Version "Ataroth," the house of Joab. Probably a family in Judah (1 Ch 2:54).


ATROTH-SHOPHAN

at'-roth-sho'fan `Troth shophan; Septuagint gen sophan: A town built or fortified by the children of Gad East of the Jordan (Nu 32:35), named next to Aroer. If it had been at Khirbet `Attarus or Jebel `Attarus (HDB and EB, under the word) Aroer would hardly have been named between them. The King James Version reads Atroth, Shophah, understanding that two places are named. No identification is yet possible.


ATTAI

at'-ta-i at'-i `attay, "timely?"):

(1) A son of Jarha, the Egyptian, by a daughter of Sheshan (1 Ch 2:35 f).

(2) A Gadite soldier who joined David's army at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:11).

(3) A son of Rehoboam and grandson of Solomon (2 Ch 11:20).


ATTAIN

a-tan': The rendering of qanah = "buy," "get" (Prov 1:5); nasagh= "reach," "a meal-offering .... according as he is able" (Ezek 46:7 margin), "not attained unto the days" (Gen 47:9); yakhol or yakhowl ="be able," "overcome," "attain to innocency" (Hos 8:5); bo' = "come," "follow" (2 Sam 23:19,23; 1 Ch 11:21,25); katantao="arrive at" (Acts 27:12 the King James Version; Phil 3:11); katalambano ="take eagerly," "seize," "apprehend," "attained to righteousness" (Rom 9:30); phthano ="have arrived at" (Rom 9:31 the King James Version; Phil 3:16); lambano -"take," "get a hold of," "catch," the Revised Version (British and American) "already obtained" (Phil 3:12); parakoloutheo = "follow," "trace out," "conform to" (1 Tim 4:6). Here the Revised Version (British and American) corrects the King James Version.

Frank E. Hirsch


ATTALIA

at-a-li'-a Attalia: A city on the southern coast of Asia Minor in ancient Pamphylia which, according to Acts 14:25, was visited by Paul and Barnabas on the way to Antioch during their first missionary journey. The city was founded by Attalus II Philadelphus (159-138 BC), hence, its name Attalia, which during the Middle Ages was corrupted to Satalia; its modern name is Adalia. Attalia stood on a flat terrace of limestone, about 120 ft. high, near the point where the Catarrhactes River flowed into the sea. The river now, however, has practically disappeared, for the greater part of its water is turned into the fields for irrigation purposes. The early city did not enjoy the ecclesiastical importance of the neighboring city of Perga; but in 1084 when Perga declined, Attalia became a metropolis. In 1148 the troops of Louis IV sailed from there to Syria; in 1214 the Seljuks restored the city walls, and erected several public buildings. The city continued to be the chief port for ships from Syria and Egypt, and the point of entry to the interior until modern times, when the harbor at Mersine was reopened; it has now become a place of little importance.

The town possesses considerable which is of archaeological interest. The outer harbor was protected by ancient walls and towers now in ruins; its entrance was closed with a chain. The inner harbor was but a recess in the cliff. The city was surrounded by two walls which were constructed at various times from material taken from the ruins of the ancient city; the outer wall was protected by a moat. The modern town, lying partly within and partly without the walls is thus divided into quarters. In the southern quarter live the Christians; in the northern the Moslems. Among other objects of archaeological interest still to be seen may be mentioned the inscribed arched gateway of Hadrian and the aqueduct. Rich gardens now surround the town; the chief exports are grain, cotton, licorice root and valonia or acorn-cups.

E. J. Banks


ATTALUS

at'-a-lus: King of Pergamum, mentioned in 1 Macc 15:22 among the kings to whom was sent an edict (Ant., XIV, viii, 5) from Rome forbidding the persecution of the Jews.

See ATTALIA .


ATTEND; ATTENDANCE

a-tend'; a-tend'-ans: (1) "To incline," "listen," "regard" qashabh; Ps 17:1 etc.); then, in the King James Version, "observe," but in the Revised Version (British and American), more frequently, "give heed" prosechein noun, as in 1 Tim 4:13. (2) "To be with," "take care of," "wait upon" (Est 4:5; Heb 7:13; Rom 13:6); literally, "give unremitting care to," as in 1 Cor 7:35 (Luther: "serve the Lord constantly and without hindrance").


ATTENT; ATTENTIVE

a-tent' (archaic; 2 Ch 6:40); a-tent'-iv: Expresses the direction of thought and interest toward some one point. Same Hebrew word as "attend," and is used particularly in prayers (Ps 130:2; Neh 1:6). "Very attentive" (Lk 19:48) is a paraphrase for what is literally rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), "the people all hung upon him, listening" exekremeto.


ATTHARATES

a-thar'-a-tez: A title assigned to Nehemiah, probably by a later editor (Neh 8:9). The Septuagint omits the title; the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) gives "Athersatha"; the King James Version reads "Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha." Tirshatha is the Persian title for a local or provincial governor (Neh 8:9 = 1 Esdras 9:49).

See TIRSHATHA .


ATTHARIAS; ATHARIAS

a-tha-ri'as: 1 Esdras 5:40 = Ezr 2:63.

See TIRSHATHA .


ATTIRE; DYED ATTIRE

a-tir': "Can a virgin forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire?" asks the prophet Jeremiah in hot remonstrance against Israel's unfaithfulness. "Yet," saith Yahweh, "my people have forgotten me" (2:32). "And I saw that she was defiled," cries Ezekiel against Jerusalem; "she saw men ... girded with girdles upon their loins, with flowing turbans [AV exceeding in dyed attire] upon their heads, ..... after the likeness of the Babylonians in Chaldea, .... and .... she doted upon them .... "(Ezek 23:13-16). "And, behold, there met him," says the author of Prov (Prov 7:10) in his description of the "strange woman," that "lieth in wait at every street corner," "a woman with the attire of a harlot, and wily of heart," whose "house is the way to Sheol" (Prov 7:27). These passages show how diversely and elastically the term "attire" was used among the Hebrews. The numerous synonyms for "dress," "attire," "apparel," "clothes," "raiment," "garment," etc., found in English Versions of the Bible, reflect a similar wealth of nomenclature in the original Hebrew and Greek; but the lack of exactness and consistency in the renderings of translators makes the identification of the various articles of dress referred to very difficult, sometimes impossible.

See DRESS .

George B. Eager


ATTITUDES

at'-i-tuds: Customs change slowly in Bible lands. This becomes clear by a comparison of the many references found in the Bible and other literatures of the Orient with existing circumstances and conditions. The same fact is attested by the pictures illustrating daily life upon the monuments of Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt in the countries between the Nile and the Tigris. Many of these, dating back to the second or third millennium before our era, prove conclusively that the same practices and usages as are now common among the inhabitants of those lands were in vogue in the days of Hammurabi and the early rulers of Egypt. This is especially true of matters pertaining to the worship of the gods, and of the attitudes or positions assumed in homage and respect to monarchs and those in authority.

The many references found in the Bible to these same usages prove that the Hebrews too had much in common with the nations around them, not only in creed, but also in the mode of worship, as well as in general everyday etiquette. This is not strange, at least among the Semitic peoples, for there is more or less agreement, even among all nations, ancient and modern, in the attitude of the worshipper in temple and high place.

The outward tokens of respect and honor shown by Orientals to their superiors, above all to monarchs, may seem exaggerated. But when we consider that the king was God's vicegerent upon the earth or over a certain country, and in some sense Divine, worthy even of adoration, it is not strange that almost equal homage should be paid him as the gods themselves. The higher the person was in power, the greater the honor and respect shown him. It is natural, therefore, that God, the Lord of Lords, and the King of Kings should be the recipient of the highest reverence and adoration.

There are several Hebrew words used to describe the various attitudes assumed by those who worshipped Yahweh and heathen gods; these same words are constantly employed in speaking of the homage or respect paid to rulers and persons in authority. The most common terms are those rendered "to stand," "to bow," "to kneel" and "prostrate oneself" or "fall on the face." It is not always easy to differentiate between them, for often one passes imperceptibly into the other. No doubt several attitudes were assumed by the worshipper or suppliant while offering a prayer or petition. The intensity, the ardor or earnestness with which such a petition or prayer was presented would naturally have much to do with the words and posture of the petitioner, though the same expression might be employed to designate his posture or attitude. Thus "to fall on the face" might be done in many different ways. The Moslems observe a regular course of nine or more different postures in their worship. These are more or less faithfully observed by the faithful everywhere. It is almost certain that the Hebrews in common with other Orientals observed and went through almost every one of these attitudes as they presented themselves in prayer to Yahweh. We shall call attention to just four postures: (1) standing, (2) bowing, (3) kneeling, and (4) falling on the face or prostration.

1. Standing:

This was one of the very common postures in prayer to God, especially in public worship. It is still customary to stand either erect or with slightly bowed head while offering the public prayers in the synagogue. This is likewise the common practice of a large number of Christians in this and other lands, and no doubt such a posture is sanctioned by the example of the early church and primitive Christians, who, in turn, adopted the usages of the Jewish church. The same practice was in vogue among the Persians, Egyptians and Babylonians and other ancient people as is evidenced by their sculptures and paintings. The famous stela of Hammurabi shows this great king in a standing position as he receives the famous Code from the sun-god. There are numerous Babylonian and Assyrian seals on which are pictured a priest in a standing position before the throne of Sin or Shamash. In this attitude with uplifted hands, he is sometimes accompanied by the person in whose behalf prayers are made. A beautiful rock sculpture at Ibriz, Southeast of Eregli in Lycaonia, shows us a king or satrap in a standing position, worshipping a local Baal. E. J. Davies, the discoverer of this Hittite monument, in describing it, makes this remark, which we cannot refrain from inserting, inasmuch as it gives another proof of the unchangeable East. He says: "He (the god) wears boots turned up in front, and bound round the leg above the ankle by thongs and a piece of leather reaching half-way up the shin, exactly as it is worn to this day by the peasants of the plain of Cilicia round Adana." King Solomon, during at least a portion of his prayer at the dedication of the temple, stood before the altar with his hands stretched out toward heaven (1 Ki 8:22). Numerous allusions to prayer in the New Testament prove that standing was the common posture (Mt 6:5; Mk 11:25; Lk 18:11).

What has been said about standing while praying to God is true also of the attitude of the petitioner when paying homage or making an entreaty to man. The Assyrian and Babylonian monuments are full of evidence on this point; we shall give only one illustration: One of the sculptures describing the siege of Lachish by Sennacherib represents the monarch as seated upon his throne while the conquered stand or kneel before him. Joseph stood before Pharaoh (Gen 41:46). Solomon's advisers stood before him (2 Ch 10:6) and so did those of Rehoboam (2 Ch 10:8). The same attitude was assumed by suppliants in the Persian court (Est 5:2; 8:4). The same is true of Babylonia (Dan 1:19; 2:2).

2. Kneeling:

Though standing seems to have been the usual attitude, it is quite certain that kneeling was common at all times. The monuments afford abundant proof for this statement; so too the many references in the Bible. Solomon not only stood before the altar on the occasion of dedicating his famous temple, but he also knelt (1 Ki 8:54; 2 Ch 6:13). Josephus, describing this ceremony, says that the king at the conclusion of his prayer prostrated himself on the ground and in this posture continued worshipping for a long time. Ezra fell upon his knees as he addressed Yahweh in prayer (Ezr 9:5). Daniel, too, knelt upon his knees and prayed three times a day (Dan 6:10). The same practice was observed by the apostles and the early church; for we read that Stephen (Acts 7:60), Peter (Acts 9:40), Paul (Acts 20:36) and others (Acts 21:5) assumed this posture as they prayed.

3. Bowing:

As already stated, it is not always easy to determine the exact posture of those described as kneeling or bowing, for this varied with the temperament of the suppliant and the intensity of his prayer or supplication. Eleazer when sent to select a wife for his master, Isaac, bowed before Yahweh (Gen 24:26). The Hebrews on leaving Egypt were commanded to bow to Yahweh (Ex 11:8; 12:27,28). The injunction of the Psalmist shows the prevalence of this posture in prayer: "O come, let us worship and bow down" (Ps 95:6). Isaiah refers to the same when he says: "Every knee shall bow" to God (Isa 45:23). Paul also bowed his knees to the Father (Eph 3:14). The same practice obtained among the heathen nations as they worshipped their gods or idols. Naaman bowed before Rimmon, his god. The numerous prohibitions in the Hebrew Scriptures against bowing down at the shrines of the nations around Israel prove the prevalence of this method of adoration. Indeed, one of the ten commandments is directed explicitly against bowing to or worshipping idols (Ex 20:5). The same prohibition was often repeated, as by Joshua (23:7) and the author of 2 Ki (17:35). Unfortunately, Israel did transgress in this very thing, for while still in the Wilderness they bowed down to the gods of Moab (Nu 25:2) and again after their settlement in Canaan (Jdg 2:12). Amaziah bowed down to the gods of Edom (2 Ch 25:14).

Like deference was also shown to angels or supernatural beings. Thus, Abraham bows to the three angels as they appear to him at Mamre (Gen 18:2). And so did Lot at Sodom (Gen 19:1). Joshua fell on his face before the prince of the host of Yahweh (Josh 5:14). This attitude was a common one to Ezekiel as he saw his wonderful visions (Ezek 1:28; 3:23, and often). Daniel when he saw Gabriel in a vision was afraid and fell upon his face (Dan 8:17). The three disciples had the same experience on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mt 17:6).

Monarchs and persons of superior rank were the recipients of like honors and marks of respect. Joseph's brothers bowed as they came into his presence, thinking that he was an Egyptian of high rank (Gen 43:28). Bathsheba bowed to King David when she entered his presence in the interest of their son Solomon (1 Ki 1:16,31). But such deference was not shown to monarchs only, for Jacob and his household bowed down seven times to the irate Esau (Gen 33:3 ff). Abigail fell on her face before David as he was marching to avenge himself upon Nabal, her husband (1 Sam 25:23). David too when he went to meet Jonathan fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself three times (1 Sam 20:41). The Shunammite woman, as she came to entreat Elisha for the life of her boy, bowed before the prophet (2 Ki 4:37). The same custom prevailed not only among the Persians, as is evident from the Book of Esther and the monuments at Persepolis, but also in Babylonia, Assyria and other countries.

4. Prostration:

This was but a more intense way of showing one's regard or of emphasizing a petition. It was the token of abject subjection or the deepest reverence. Abraham, when Yahweh appeared to him and promised him a son, with profoundest gratitude and greatest joy fell prostrate on his face (Gen 17:3). Moses and Aaron were often found in this posture (Nu 14:5; 16:4,45; 20:6). Elijah, eccentric in many ways, cast himself upon the earth and placed his face between his knees (compare 1 Ki 18:42). Job fell on the ground and worshipped Yahweh (Job 1:20). Such homage was often shown to our Saviour (Mk 5:22; Jn 11:32), not because men realized that He was God in the flesh, but simply as a mark of respect for a great teacher and miracle-worker. It is to be noticed th at our Saviour never refused such homage, but accepted it as pertinent and proper. Did He not realize that honor and worship Divine belonged to Him, He would have refused them just as Peter did when Cornelius fell down at his feet and worshipped him (Acts 10:25) or as the angel in Rev 19:10, who said to John, prostrate at his feet, "See thou do it not:I am a fellow servant," etc.

See ADORATION , iii.

W.W. Davies


ATTUS

at'-us (1 Esdras 8:29 = Ezr 8:2).

See HATTUSH .



Placed in the public domain by SpiritAndTruth.org
Report corrections to contact@SpiritAndTruth.org
(Produced: Thu Nov 30 09:08:30 2000)

Help PreviousNext