Aeon – Agar

Aeon

e'-on: This word originally meant "duration," "dispensation." In the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle the word is aion, from which this word is transliterated. In the Gnostic philosophy it has a special meaning and is there used to solve the problem of the world order. In the infinite separation between God and the world, it was taught, there must of necessity be mediating powers. These powers are the eons and are the successive emanations from God from eternity. They are spiritual, existing as distinct entities. They constituted the Divine fullness or the Divine Pleroma. The name was applied to these beings for two reasons: because they were thought to partake of the eternal existence of God and because they were supposed to govern the various ages. The idea of the eons in various forms may be found in nearly all oriental philosophy that attempted to deal with the problem of the world order. It appears in the writings of Philo, in Shintoism, in the old Zoroastrian religion.

See GNOSTICISM.

Jacob W. Kapp

Aesora

e'-so-ra, the King James Version Esora, e-so'-ra (Aisora): A town in the borders of Samaria, mentioned in connection with Beth-boron and Jericho (Judith 4:4), and from this association we judge that it was in the eastern part of Samaria.

Affect; Affection

a-fekt', a-fek'-shun: The literal meaning of "affect" is to act upon (Latin ad, "to," "upon," facio, "to do"). It has various shades of meaning, and occurs in the following senses in the English Bible:

(1) In its literal sense: Lamentations 3:51, "Mine eye affecteth my soul"

(2) In the sense of "to endeavor after," "desire," "court": Galatians 4:17, "They zealously affect (the Revised Version (British and American) "seek") you .... that ye may affect (the Revised Version (British and American) "seek") them," i.e. they earnestly court your favor, that you may court theirs. Paul means that the proselytizing zeal of the Judaizers was rooted in personal ambition. The past part. "affected" (the Revised Version (British and American) "sought") has the same meaning in Galatians 4:18. The same Greek word (zeloo) is translated "desire earnestly" in the Revised Version (British and American) (1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1,1 Corinthians 14:39). "Affect" has a similar meaning in Ecclesiasticus 13:11.

(3) In the passive, it occurs in the sense of "to be disposed," in a neutral sense, with an adverb to characterize the nature of the disposition: Acts 14:2, "evil affected against the brethren" So also 2 Macc 4:21; 13:26.

"Affection" occurs in the following senses:

(1) In the literal sense: the state of having one's feelings acted upon or affected in some way; bent or disposition of mind, in a neutral sense (the nature of the affection, whether good or bad, needing further description in the context). So Colossians 3:2, "Set your affection (the Revised Version (British and American) "mind") on things above"; Colossians 3:5, "inordinate affection" (here "affection" by itself is neutral; the addition of the adjective makes it equivalent to "passion" in an evil sense, as in the Revised Version (British and American)).

(2) In a good sense: tender feeling, warm attachment, good will; the word in itself carrying a good meaning apart from the context. 1 Chronicles 29:3, "because I have set my affection on the house of my God"; Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3, "without natural affection", 2 Corinthians 6:12 "Ye are straitened in your own affections" (lit. "bowels," regarded as the seat of kindly feelings, compare Eng "heart") So 2 Corinthians 7:15.

(3) In an evil sense in the plural = passions. Galatians 5:24, the flesh, with the affections (the Revised Version (British and American) "passions") and "lusts"; Romans 1:26, "God gave them unto vile affections" (the Revised Version (British and American) "passions").

"Affectioned" occurs once, in a neutral sense: Romans 12:10, "affectioned (i.e. "disposed") one to another" In 1 Thessalonians 2:8, we have "affectionately," in a good sense.

D. Miall Edwards

Affinity

a-fin'-i-ti (chathan "to join one-self"): This term is used three times in the Old Testament:

(1) in 1 Kings 3:1, where we read that "Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh King of Egypt",

(2) in 2 Chronicles 18:1, where it is stated that Jehoshaphat "joined affinity with Ahab," and

(3) in Ezra 9:14, where it is asked "Shall we .... join in affinity with the peoples that do these abominations?" The Hebrew word thus rendered in the above three passages refers in each case to marriage alliances rather than to family or political relationships.

See MARRIAGE; FAMILY.

W. W. Davies

Affirm; Affirmatives

a-fur'-ma-tivs (diischurizomai). The verb "affirm" occurs in several passages of the New Testament in the sense of "assert" Luke 22:59; Acts 12:15; Acts 25:19 pha-sko; Romans 3:8 phemi; 1Ti 17, Titus 3:8 diabebaioomai. The Hebrew does not employ affirmative particles, but gives a positive reply by either repeating the word in question or by substituting the first person in the reply for the second person in the question, or by employing the formula: "Thou hast said" or "Thou hast rightly said." The Saviour used this idiom (su eipas) when answering Judas and Caiaphas (Matthew 26:25,Matthew 26:64). A peculiar elegance occasionally attaches to the interpretation of the Scriptures because of their use of an affirmative and a negative together, rendering the sense more emphatic; sometimes the negative occurs first, as in Psalms 118:17: "I shall not die, but live"; sometimes the affirmative precedes, as in Isa 88:1: "Thou shalt die, and not bye" John 1:20 is made peculiarly emphatic because of the negative placed between two affirmatives: "And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ."

Frank E. Hirsch

Affliction

a-flik'-shun: Represents no fewer than 11 Hebrew words in the Old Testament, and 3 Greek words in the New Testament, of which the most common are (oni), (thlipsis). It is used

(1) actively = that which causes or tends to cause bodily pain or mental distress, as "the bread of affliction" (Deuteronomy 16:3; 2 Chronicles 18:26); often in plural, as "Many are the afflictions of the righteous" (Psalms 34:19);

(2) passively = the state of being in pain or trouble, as "to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27).

The following are the chief forms of affliction referred to:

(1) Individual affliction, especially sickness, poverty, the oppression of the weak by the strong and rich, perverted justice.

(2) National. A great place is given in the Old Testament to affliction as a national experience, due to calamities, such as war, invasion, conquest by foreign peoples, exile. These form the background of much of the prophetic writings, and largely determine their tone and character.

(3) In the New Testament the chief form of affliction is that due to the fierce antagonism manifested to the religion of Jesus, resulting in persecution.

I. The Source of Affliction.

1. God:

The Hebrew mind did not dwell on secondary causes, but attributed everything, even afflictions, directly to the great First Cause and Author of all things: "Shall evil befall a city, and Yahweh hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6); "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (i.e. calamity); I am Yahweh, that doeth all these things" (Isaiah 45:7) Thus, all things, including calamity, were referred to the Divine operation. The Hebrew when afflicted did not doubt the universal sovereignty of God; yet, while assuming this sovereignty, he was sometimes tempted to accuse Him of indifference, neglect or forgetfulness. Compare Job passim; Isaiah 40:27; Isaiah 49:14; Ezekiel 8:12; Ezekiel 9:9.

2. Evil Agents:

Yet there are traces of a dualism which assigns a certain vague limit to God's absolute sovereignty, by referring affliction to an evil agency acting in quasi-independence of God. There could, however, never be more than a tendency in this direction, for a strict dualism was incompatible with the standpoint of Jewish monotheism. Thus Saul's mental affliction is attributed to an "evil spirit," which is yet said to be "from Yahweh" (1 Samuel 16:14; 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:9); and the fall of Ahab is said by Micaiah to be due to the "lying spirit" which enticed him to his doom, in obedience to God's command (1 Kings 22:20–22). In the prologue of Job, Job's calamities are ascribed to the Satan, but even he receives his word of command from God, and is responsible to Him, like the other "sons of God" who surround the heavenly throne. He is thus "included in the Divine will and in the circle of Divine providence" (Schultz). After the prologue, the Satan is left out of account, and Job's misfortunes are attributed directly to the Divine causality. In later Judaism, the tendency to trace the origin of evil, physical and moral, to wicked spirits became more marked, probably because of the influence of Persian dualism. In New Testament times, physical and mental maladies were thought to be due to the agency of evil spirits called demons, whose prince was Beelzebub or Satan (Mark 1:23 ff; Mark 3:22 f; Mark 5:2 ff; Matthew 9:32 f, etc.). Christ gave His assent to this belief (compare the woman under infirmity, "whom Satan hath bound," Luke 13:16). Paul attributed his bodily affliction to an evil angel sent by Satan (2 Corinthians 12:7), though he recognized that the evil agent was subordinate to God's purpose of grace, and was the means of moral discipline (1 Corinthians 12:7,1 Corinthians 12:9). Thus, while the evil spirits were regarded as malicious authors of physical maladies, they were not, in a strictly dualistic fashion, thought to act in complete independence; rather, they had a certain place assigned to them in the Divine Providence.

II. Meaning and Purpose of Affliction.

Why did God afflict men? How is suffering to be explained consistently with the goodness and justice of God? This was an acute problem which weighed heavily upon the Hebrew mind, especially in the later, more reflective, period. We can only briefly indicate the chief factors which the Scriptures contribute to the solution of the problem. We begin with the Old Testament.

1. Punitive or Retributive:

The traditional view in early Hebrew theology was that afflictions were the result of the Divine law of retribution, by which sin was invariably followed by adequate punishment. Every misfortune was a proof of sin on the part of the sufferer. Thus Job's "friends" sought to convince him that his great sufferings were due to his sinfulness. This is generally the standpoint of the historians of Israel, who regarded national calamities as a mark of the Divine displeasure on account of the people's sins. But this naive belief, though it contains an important element of truth, could not pass uncontested. The logic of facts would suffice to prove that it was inadequate to cover all cases; eg. Jeremiah's sufferings were due, not to sin, but to his faithfulness to his prophetic vocation. So the "suffering servant" in Isa. Job, too, in spite of his many woes, was firm in the conviction of his own integrity. To prove the inadequacy of the penal view is a main purpose of the Book of Job. A common modification of the traditional view was, that the sorrows of the pious and the prosperity of the wicked were only of brief duration; in the course of time, things would adjust themselves aright (eg. Job 20:5 ff, Psalms 73:3–20). But even granting time for the law of retribution to work itself out, experience contradicts the view that a man's fortune or misfortune is an infallible proof of his moral quality.

2. Probational:

The thought is often expressed that afflictions are meant to test the character or faith of the sufferer. This idea is especially prominent in Job. God allowed the Satan to test the reality of Job's piety by over-whelming him with disease and misfortunes (2). Throughout the poem Job maintains that he has stood the test (eg. Job 23:10–12). Compare Deuteronomy 8:2,Deuteronomy 8:16; Psalms 66:10 f; Psalms 17:3; Isaiah 48:10; Jeremiah 9:7; Proverbs 17:3.

3. Disciplinary and Purificatory:

For those who are able to stand the test, suffering has a purificatory or disciplinary value.

(1) The thought of affliction as a discipline or form of Divine teaching is found in Job, especially in the speeches of Elihu, who insists that tribulation is intended as a method of instruction to save man from the pride and presumption that issue in destruction (Job 33:14–30; Job 36:8–10,Job 36:15 the Revised Version (British and American)). The same conception is found in Psalms 94:12; Psalms 119:67,Psalms 119:71.

(2) The purificatory function of trials is taught in such passages as Isaiah 1:25; Zechariah 13:9; Malachi 3:2,Malachi 3:3, where the process of refining metals in fire and smelting out the dross is the metaphor used.

4. Vicarious and Redemptive:

The above are not fully adequate to explain the mystery of the afflictions of the godly. The profoundest contribution in the Old Testament to a solution of the problem is the idea of the vicarious and redemptive significance of pain and sorrow. The author of Job did not touch this rich vein of thought in dealing with the afflictions of his hero. This was done by the author of the Second Isaiah. The classical passage is Isaiah 53:1–12, which deals with the woes of the oppressed and afflicted Servant of God with profound spiritual insight. It makes no difference to the meaning of the afflictions whether we understand by the Servant the whole Hebrew nation, or the pious section of it, or an individual member of it, and whether the speakers in Isa 53 are the Jewish nation or the heathen. The significant point here is the value and meaning ascribed to the Servant's sufferings. The speakers had once believed (in accordance with the traditional view) that the Servant suffered because God was angry with him and had stricken him. Now they confess that his sorrows were due, not to his own sin but to theirs (Isaiah 53:4–6,Isaiah 53:8). His sufferings were not only vicarious (the punishment of their sin falling upon him), but redemptive in their effect (peace and health coming to them as a result of his chastisement). Moreover, it was not only redemptive, but expiatory ("his soul guilt-offering," Isaiah 53:10)--a remarkable adumbration of the Christian doctrine of atonement.

5. The New Testament:

So far we have dealt only with Old Testament teaching on the meaning and purpose of affliction. The New Testament makes no new contribution to the solution of the problem, but repeats and greatly deepens the points of view already found in the Old Testament.

(1) There is a recognition throughout the New Testament of the law of retribution (Galatians 6:7). Yet Jesus repudiates the popular view of the invariable connection between misfortune and moral evil (John 9:2 f). It is clear that He had risen above the conception of God's relation to man as merely retributive (Matthew 5:45, sunshine and rain for evil men as well as for the good). His followers would suffer tribulation even more than unbelievers, owing to the hostile reaction of the evil world, similar to that which afflicted Christ Himself (Matthew 5:10 Matthew 10:16–25; John 15:18–20; John 16:33). Similarly the Ac and the epistles frequently refer to the sufferings of Christians (eg. Acts 14:22; 2 Corinthians 4:8–11; Colossians 1:24; Hebrews 10:32; 1 Peter 4:13; Revelation 7:14). Hence afflictions must have some other than a purely punitive purpose.

(2) They are probational, affording a test by which the spurious may be separated from the genuine members of the Christian church (James 1:3,James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 4:17), and

(3) a means of discipline, calculated to purify and train the character (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:7,2 Corinthians 12:9; James 1:3).

(4) The idea of vicarious and redemptive suffering gets a far deeper significance in the New Testament than in the Old Testament, and finds concrete realization in a historical person, Jesus Christ. That which is foreshadowed in Second-Isa becomes in the New Testament a central, pervasive and creative thought. A unique place in the Divine purpose is given to the passion of Christ. Yet in a sense, His followers partake of His vicarious sufferings, and "fill up.... that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ" (Colossians 1:24; compare Philippians 3:10; 1 Peter 4:13). Here, surely is a profound thought which may throw a flood of light on the deep mystery of human affliction. The cross of Christ furnishes the key to the meaning of sorrow as the greatest redemptive force in the universe.

III. Endurance of Affliction.

The Scriptures abound in words of consolation and exhortation adapted to encourage the afflicted. Two main considerations may be mentioned.

(1) The thought of the beneficent sovereignty of God "Yahweh reigneth; let the earth rejoice," even though "clouds and darkness are round about him" (Psalms 97:1,Psalms 97:2); "All things work together for good to them that love God" (Romans 8:28 the King James Version). Since love is on the throne of the universe, we may rest assured that all things are meant for our good.

(2) The thought that tribulation is of brief duration, in comparison with the Joy that shall follow (Psalms 30:5; Isaiah 54:7 John 16:22); a thought which culminates in the hope of immortality. This hope is in the Old Testament only beginning to dawn, and gives but a faint and flickering light, except in moments of rare exaltation and insight, when the thought of a perfect future blessedness seemed to offer a solution of the enigmas of life (Job 19:25–27; Psalms 37; 49; 73). But in the New Testament it is a postulate of faith, and by it the Christian is able to fortify himself in affliction, remembering that his affliction is light and momentary compared with the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" which is to issue out of it (2 Corinthians 4:17 the King James Version; compare Matthew 5:12; Romans 8:18). Akin to this is the comfort derived from the thought of the near approach of Christ's second coming (James 5:7,James 5:8). In view of such truths as these, the Bible encourages the pious in trouble to show the spirit of patience (Psalms 37:7; Luke 21:19; Romans 12:12; James 1:3,James 1:4; James 5:7–11; 1 Peter 2:20), and even the spirit of positive joy in tribulation (Matthew 5:11 Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:10; James 1:2,James 1:12; 1 Peter 4:13). In the New Testament emphasis is laid on the example of Jesus in patient endurance in suffering (John 16:33; James 5:7–11; 1 Peter 2:19–23; 1 Peter 3:17 f). Above all, the Scriptures recommend the afflicted to take refuge in the supreme blessedness of fellowship with God, and of trust in His love, by which they may enter into a deep peace that is undisturbed by the trials and problems of life (Psalms 73:23–28; Isaiah 26:3,Isaiah 26:4; John 14:1,John 14:27; Philippians 4:7; et passim).

D. Miall Edwards

Affright

a-frit': Designates a state of terror occasioned by some unexpected and startling occurrence; not as strong as "amazed," which refers more to the stupor resulting from fright. In the New Testament most frequently for emphobos (Luke 24:37; Acts 10:4; Revelation 11:13). The Revised Version (British and American) uses it also for pturomenoi of Philippians 1:28, a word "properly used of scared horses" (Ellicott).

Afoot

a-foot' (pezeuo, "to go on foot"): By walking from Troas to Assos Paul avoided the tedious voyage round Cape Lectum (Acts 20:13 the King James Version; compare Mark 6:33).

Afore

a-for': Archaic for "before" of time, or "formerly"; frequently occurs as compound, as in "aforetime," "aforehand," etc.; in the New Testament most commonly for the Greek prefix, pro, in compound words (Romans 1:2; Romans 15:4); at other times, for Greek adverb pote, "at some time," "once" (John 9:13; 1 Peter 3:5; Colossians 3:7).

Afresh

a-fresh': Only in Hebrews 6:6, "seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," where it stands for the prefix of the Greek anastaurountas. It has been disputed whether in this word ana has the reiterative force ("again," "anew"). In classical Greek anastauroo has always the simple sense of "to crucify," (ie. "to rinse up on a cross," ana being merely "up"). So some would render it here (eg. Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek). Against this it is argued

(1) that the classical writers had no occasion for the idea of crucifying anew (compare Winer, De verb. Comp., etc., Pt III, 9 ff, Leipzig, 1843);

(2) that in many compounds ana signifies both "up" and "again," as in anablepo, which means "to recover sight" as well as "to look up";

(3) that the rendering "crucify afresh" suits the context;

(4) that the Greek expositors (eg. Chrysostom) take it so without questioning. (So also Bleek, Lunemann, Alford, Westcott; compare the Vulgate's rursum crucifigentes.)

D. Miall Edwards

Africa

af'-ri-ka: The name of this tract, as a continent, does not occur in the Bible, and it was only in later days known as one of the quarters of the world, under the name of Libya--that portion opposite the coast of Greece and West of Egypt.

1. Africa as Known to the Ancients:

Naturally the most considerable part of Africa known to the Hebrews was Egypt itself, but Libya is regarded as being referred to under the names of Lehabim and Lubim (Ludim) (Genesis 10:13; 2 Chronicles 12:3)--words indicating, as often with the Semites, not the country itself, but its inhabitants. Other portions of Africa known to the Hebrews were Cush or Ethiopia, and Put, whose inhabitants they regarded as belonging to the Hamitic stock. Canaan, also Cushite and therefore Hamitic, naturally did not belong to the African continent, showing that the divisions of then known world into "quarters" (Europe, Asia, Africa) had not taken place when the Table of the Nations (Genesis 10:1 ff) was drawn up--indeed, these division were not apparently thought of until many centuries later. The Casluhim and the Naphtuhim (Genesis 10:13,Genesis 10:14) were in all probability African peoples, though their position is in general regarded as uncertain. For the Hebrews, to all appearance, the southernmost point of Africa was Cush or Ethiopia, called by the Assyrians and Babylonians Kusu and Meluhha (Meroe), which included the district now known as the Sudan, or Black region. The sons of Cush, and also those of his firstborn, Sheba, were all Arabian tribes, nominally under the domain of Mizraim or Egypt, and on this account classed with the descendants of Ham.

2. The Cushites and the Negroes:

It will thus be seen that the Negro districts were practically unknown to the ancient Hebrews, though men and women of Negro race must have come within their ken. It seems doubtful, therefore, whether there be, in the Bible, any reference to that race, either collectively or individually, the word Cushite standing, not for Negro, but for Ethiopian. This term is applied to Moses' (first) wife (Numbers 12:1), and it will probably be generally admitted, that the great Hebrew lawgiver is not likely to have espoused a Negro woman. The Ethiopian eunuch converted by Philip the Evangelist (Acts 8:26 ff) was an official of Meroe, and an educated man, for he could read the Old Testament in the Greek(Septuagint) version. Commerce must have revealed to the Hebrews the whereabouts of the various peoples of Africa with whom they came into contact, and they acquired a personal knowledge of Egypt when the 12 tribes were in bondage there. During this period, it may be supposed, they saw from time to time visitors from the South--people who are not mentioned in the sacred books of the Old Testament because the Hebrews, as a nation, never came into contact with them. Apart from Egypt, the history of the portion of Africa known to the Hebrews was a chequered one, as it came successively under Egypt, Phoenicia, Greek and Roman civilization. That it was not overrun, or even influenced, by the barbarous tribes of the South, is due to the fact that the Mediterranean tract is isolated from the central (and southern) portion of that continent by the Sahara.

3. Hebrew Tradition:

In the Talmud it is related that Alexander penetrated Africa on Libyan asses to find a race of women, with whom he had conversation, and from whom, as he afterward confessed, being a fool, he learned wisdom--a legend suggesting some possible tradition of the Amazons of Dahomey. But even in the Talmud it is mainly the nearer (Northeast) portion of Africa which is referred to, the Africans, who had the reputation of being flat-footed, being associated with the Canaanites.

See also CUSH; ETHIOPIA; MIZRAIM.

T. G. Pinches

After; Afterward

aft'-er, aft'-er-werd: The fundamental thought, in which all shades of meaning unite, is that of succession either in time or place. This succession may be immediate or remote. A very common adaptation of this conception the use of "after" to denote "according to," "after the manner of," or "in the order of," as in Genesis 1:26; Ephesians 4:24; Luke 1:59; Romans 5:14; Hebrews 4:11 (the Revised Version, margin "unto"), and in many passages where the Greek uses the preposition kata, as Matthew 23:3; Romans 8:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26, etc. "In proportion to": Psalms 28:4; compare Psalms 90:15.

It sometimes correctly translates a peculiar Greek idiom of the preposition dia, with the genitive case, indicating time elapsed, as Mark 2:1, literally, "through some days," "after some days had passed"; compare Acts 24:17. While the Greek is expressed by a variety of words, the Hebrew uses 'achar for both preposition and adverb.

H. E. Jacobs

Afternoon

af-ter-noon' (neToth ha-yom, "the declining of the day"; Judges 19:8 the King James Version): The expression kechom ha-yom, "in the heat of the day" (Genesis 18:1) refers to the early afternoon when the sun is a little past its zenith, its rays still being very strong. The phrase le-ruach ha-yom, "in the cool of the day" (Genesis 3:8) is in contrast to the last phrase and points to the late afternoon; in the Orient a cooling breeze arises at this period of the day, and it is then that much of the day's business is transacted.

See DAY.

Agaba

ag'-a-ba: A fortress in Judea. The first of 22 "strong places" which by its commander Galestus was given over to Aristobulus, the son of Alexander Janneus and Alexandra, when he (his mother, the queen, being dangerously ill) attempted to get control of the Judean government (Ant., XIII, xvi, 5).

Agabus

ag'-a-bus (Agabos): A Christian prophet of Jerusalem, twice mentioned in Acts.

(1) In Acts 11:27 f, we find him at Antioch foretelling "a great famine over all the world," "which," adds the historian, "came to pass in the days of Claudius." This visit of Agabus to Antioch took place in the winter of 43-44 AD, and was the means of urging the Antiochian Christians to send relief to the brethren in Judea by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Two points should be noted.

(a) The gift of prophet's here takes the form of prediction. The prophet's chief function was to reveal moral and spiritual truth, to "forth-tell" rather than to "foretell"; but the interpretation of God's message sometimes took the form of predicting events.

(b) The phrase "over all the world" (practically synonymous with the Roman Empire) must be regarded as a rhetorical exaggeration if strictly interpreted as pointing to a general and simultaneous famine. But there is ample evidence of severe periodical famines in various localities in the reign of Claudius (eg. Suet Claud. 18; Tac. Ann. xii.43), and of a great dearth in Judea under the procurators Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander, 44-48 AD (Ant., XX, ii, 6; v, 2), which probably reached its climax circa 46 AD.

(2) In Acts 21:10 f we find Agabus at Caesarea warning Paul, by a vivid symbolic action (after the manner of Old Testament prophets; compare Jeremiah 13:1 ff; Ezekiel 3:1–27; Ezekiel 4:1–17) of the imprisonment and suffering he would undergo if he proceeded to Jerusalem.

(3) In late tradition Agabus is included in lists of the seventy disciples of Christ.

D. Miall Edwards

Agade

ag'-a-de: Ancient name for Akkad (or ACCAD, which see), one of the chief cities of Babylonia (Genesis 10:10), and the capital city of Sargon, who lived and ruled in Babylonia circa 3500 BC. Together with Shunir it formed part of one of the royal titles: "kings of Shunir (Sumer) and Accad."

Agag

a'-gag ('aghagh, or 'aghagh, meaning unknown, possibly "violent," BDB): A name, or title, applied to the king of the Amalekites, like Abimelech in Philistia and Pharaoh in Egypt. It is used of two of these kings:

(1) A king of Amalek, mentioned by Balaam (Numbers 24:7) in his blessing of Israel;

(2) A later king, in the days of King Saul (1 Samuel 15:1–35). Saul was sent with his army to destroy the Amalekites, who had so violently opposed Israel in the Wilderness. He disregarded the Divine command, sparing the best of the spoil, and saving Agag the king alive (1 Samuel 15:8,1 Samuel 15:9). After rebuking Saul, Samuel had Agag put to death for all the atrocities committed by himself and his nation (1 Samuel 15:32,1 Samuel 15:33).

Edward Mack

Agagite

a'-gag-it, ('aghaghi, from, 'aghagh, "a member of the house of Agag"): A title of opprobrium given to Haman (Esther 3:1,Esther 3:10; Esther 8:3,Esther 8:5; Esther 9:24). Jewish tradition always assigned the arch-enemies of Israel membership in the house of Amalek, the hereditary foe of the nation. Compare Ant, XI, vi, 5. The word Agag has properly been taken by Delitzsch as related to the Assyrian agagu, "to be powerful," "vehement," "angry." In the Greek parts of Esther, Haman is termed a Macedonian (Esther 1:2–6; Esther 1:6–10). The name Haman is probably of Elamitic origin. Oppert's attempt to connect the term "Agagite" with "Agaz," a Median tribe mentioned by Sargon, has found no supporters. See AGAG.

H. J. Wolf

Again

a-gen': Advb. denoting repetition; in New Testament, generally for palin, "back," "once more." Occasionally, it has the force of a connective, synonymous with "moreover," as in Romans 15:10 ff; 1 Corinthians 3:20, etc. The expression "born again" of the King James Version, John 3:3,John 3:7; 1 Peter 1:23, translating the Greek "anothen" and "ana" in composition, becomes in the Revised Version (British and American) "anew," i.e. "over again." As these particles mean "from above" and "up," their use as indicating repetition is sometimes disputed, but without further foundation than that "again" does not exhaust the meaning.

Again; Born

See REGENERATION.

Against

a-genst' (kata; enantion; pros): Preposition expressing contrast. When used of direction, equivalent to "toward" (Matthew 10:35; Matthew 12:14, etc.); when of position, meaning "opposite," "facing," "in front of" (1 Kings 7:5; Genesis 15:10, Romans 8:31); when of action, "opposed to" (Matthew 5:11; Matthew 26:59; 1 Corinthians 4:6); "in resistance to" (Hebrews 12:4); "provision for" (Greek eis, literally, "unto, toward" (1 Timothy 6:19)). Sometimes also applied to what breaks an established order as "customs" (Acts 28:17), "nature" (Romans 1:26). Peculiar shades of meaning may be traced by careful examination of the variety of prepositions in Hebrew and Greek employed in the Scriptures, that are translated into English by this one word.

H. E. Jacobs

Agape

ag'-a-pe (agape).

1. The Name and the Thing:

The name Agape or "love-feast," as an expression denoting the brotherly common meals of the early church, though of constant use and in the post-canonical literature from the time of Ignatius onward, is found in the New Testament only in Jude 1:12 and in 2 Peter 2:13 according to a very doubtful reading. For the existence of the Christian common meal, however, we have abundant New Testament evidence. The"breaking of bread" practiced by the primitive community in Jerusalem according to Acts 2:42,Acts 2:46 must certainly be interpreted in the light of Pauline usage (1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:24) as referring to the ceremonial act of the Lord's Supper. But the added clause in 2:46, "they took there food with gladness and singleness of heart," implies that a social meal was connected in some way with this ceremonial act. Paul's references to the abuses that had sprung up in the Corinthian church at the meetings for the observance of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20–22,1 Corinthians 11:33,1 Corinthians 11:34) make it evident that in Corinth as in Jerusalem the celebration of the rite was associated with participation in a meal of a more general character. And in one of the "we" sections of Ac (20:11) where Luke is giving personal testimony as to the manner in which the Lord's Supper was observed by Paul in a church of his own founding, we find the breaking of bread associated with and yet distinguished from an eating of food, in a manner which makes it natural to conclude that in Troas, as in Jerusalem and Corinth, Christians when they met together on the first day of the week were accustomed to partake of a common meal. The fact that the name Agape or love-feast used in Jude 1:12 (Revised Version) is found early in the 2nd century and often afterward as a technical expression for the religious common meals of the church puts the meaning of Jude's reference beyond doubt.

2. Origin of the Agape:

So far as the Jerusalem community was concerned, the common meal appears to have sprung out of the koinonia or communion that characterized the first days of the Christian church (compare Acts 1:14; Acts 2:1 etc.). The religious meals familiar to Jews--the Passover being the great type--would make it natural In Jerusalem to give expression by means of table fellowship to the sense of brotherhood, and the community of goods practiced by the infant church (Acts 2:44; Acts 4:32) would readily take the particular form of a common table at which the wants of the poor were supplied out of the abundance of the rich (Acts 6:1 ff). The presence of the Agape in the Greek church of Corinth was no doubt due to the initiative of Paul, who would hand on the observances associated with the Lord's Supper just as he had received them from the earlier disciples; but participation in a social meal would commend itself very easily to men familiar with the common meals that formed a regular part of the procedure at meetings of those religious clubs and associations which were so numerous at that time throughout the Greek-Roman world.

3. Relation to the Eucharist:

In the opinion of the great majority of scholars the Agape was a meal at which not only bread and wine but all kinds of viands were used, a meal which had the double purpose of satisfying hunger and thirst and giving expression to the sense of Christian brotherhood. At the end of this feast, bread and wine were taken according to the Lord's command, and after thanksgiving to God were eaten and drunk in remembrance of Christ and as a special means of communion with the Lord Himself and through Him with one another. The Agape was thus related to the Eucharist as Christ's last Passover to the Christian rite which He grafted upon it. It preceded and led up to the Eucharist, and was quite distinct from it. In opposition to this view it has been strongly urged by some modern critical scholars that in the apostolic age the Lord's Supper was not distinguished from the Agape, but that the Agape itself from beginning to end was the Lord's Supper which was held in memory of Jesus. It seems fatal to such an idea, however, that while Paul makes it quite evident that bread and wine were the only elements of the memorial rite instituted by Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23–29), the abuses which had come to prevail at the social gatherings of the Corinthian church would have been impossible in the case of a meal consisting only of bread and wine (compare 1 Corinthians 11:21,1 Corinthians 11:33 f) Moreover, unless the Eucharist in the apostolic age had been discriminated from the common meal, it would be difficult to explain how at a later period the two could be found diverging from each other so completely.

4. Separation from the Eucharist:

In the Didache (circa 100 AD) there is no sign as yet of any separation. The direction that the second Eucharistic prayer should be offered "after being filled" (x.1) appears to imply that a regular meal had immediately preceded the observance of the sacrament. In the Ignatian Epistles (circa 110 AD) the Lord's Supper and the Agape are still found in combination (Ad Smyrn viii.2). It has sometimes been assumed that Pliny's letter to Trajan (circa 112 AD) proves that the separation had already taken place, for he speaks of two meetings of the Christians in Bithynia, one before the dawn at which they bound themselves by a "sacramentum" or oath to do no kind of crime, and another at a later hour when they partook of food of an ordinary and harmless character (Ep x.96). But as the word "sacramentum" cannot be taken here as necessarily or even probably referring to the Lord's Supper, the evidence of this passage is of little weight. When we come to Justin Martyr (circa 150 AD) we find that in his account of church worship he does not mention the Agape at all, but speaks of the Eucharist as following a service which consisted of the reading of Scripture, prayers and exhortation (Apol, lxvii); so that by his time the separation must have taken place. Tertullian (circa 200 AD) testifies to the continued existence of the Agape (Apol, 39), but shows clearly that in the church of the West the Eucharist was no longer associated with it (De Corona, 3). In the East the connection appears to have been longer maintained (see Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 102 ff), but by and by the severance became universal; and though the Agape continued for long to maintain itself as a social function of the church, it gradually passed out of existence or was preserved only as a feast of charity for the poor.

5. Reasons for the Separation:

Various influences appear to have cooperated in this direction. Trajan's enforcement of the old law against clubs may have had something to do with it (compare Pliny as above), but a stronger influence probably came from the rise of a popular suspicion that the evening meals of the church were scenes of licentious revelry and even of crime. The actual abuses which already meet us in the apostolic age (1 Corinthians 11:20 Jude 1:12), and which would tend to multiply as the church grew in numbers and came into closer contact with the heathen world, might suggest the advisability of separating the two observances. But the strongest influence of all would come from the growth of the ceremonial and sacerdotal spirit by which Christ's simple institution was slowly turned into a mysterious priestly sacrifice. To Christ Himself it had seemed natural and fitting to institute the Supper at the close of a social meal. But when this memorial Supper had been transformed into a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary by the action of the ministering priest, the ascetic idea became natural that the Eucharist ought to be received fasting, and that it would be sacrilegious to link it on to the observances of an ordinary social meal.

LITERATURE:

Zahn, art "Agapen" in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie; Keating, Agape and Eucharist; Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, chapter xviii; Lambert, Sacraments in the New Testament, Lect viii; Weizsacker, The Apostolic Age, etc., I. 52 ff.

J. C. Lambert

Agar

a'-gar (Agar). Found once in the Apocrypha in the Greek (Baruch 3:23) probably for the Old Testament Hagar, mother of Ishmael, whose children are mentioned with the merchants of Meran (Midian) and Teman. In 1 Chronicles 5:10 the "Hagarites" the King James Version, are located East of Gilead, and In the days of Saul were at war with the tribe of Reuben. See also 1 Chronicles 5:19,1 Chronicles 5:20 and 1 Chronicles 27:31. In Psalms 83:6 the name of the same people is Hagarenes.