Authority In Religion (continued) – Azbuk

Authority In Religion (continued)

Incipient Catholicism in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.--All ideas of a living and prosefit revelation were suppressed as in the case of Montanism. Three more or less coordinate authorities were set up which determined for individual Christians what was Christian truth and conduct. The canon of the New Testament was gradually formed to define what writings, in addition to the Old Testament taken over from the Jewish church, were inspired by the Holy Spirit and of Divine authority. The outline of a common creed or rule of faith grew up as the standard interpretation of Scripture. Above all was the episcopacy, which was supposed to preserve in unbroken tradition the unwritten teaching of the apostles. As the only living factor in this system of authority the last easily secured the predominant place. (See Harnack, History of Dogma, II, chapter ii, English translation.)

(2) General Councils.

The authority of the episcopacy was organized into a permanent and general form in the councils, to whose decision obedience was demanded on pain of excommunication. The councils professed and believed that they were only defining the teaching that had always obtained in the church, and therefore invested themselves and their decisions with the authority of Christ.

(3) Romanism.

During the Middle Ages, the church of Rome concentrated in itself, that is, in its episcopacy, all the authority of tradition, bishops, councils and whatever else had held sway over the mind of the church. Scripture was ignored and the Bishop of Rome exercised the plenary authority of God over men's minds and lives. "Boniface VIII accepted in the Bull Unam sancram (ecclesiam) of November 18, 1302, the Thomist doctrine of the papacy: `We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is essential to salvation that every human creature should subject himself to the Roman Pontiff'" (Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, 307).

(4) Papal Infallibility.

This theory culminated in 1870 in the formal declaration of the infallibility of the pope. "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra .... has that infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer endowed His church, in defining a doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican Council, 1870, Session 4, cap. 4). This authority of the pope extends over all questions of knowledge and conduct, of discipline and government in the whole church. The theory is based upon the doctrine of tradition, as laid down in the Council of Chalcedon. "The doctrine of Catholic teaching is, that the body of publicly revealed doctrine has received no objective increase since the days of the apostles," and "it is no change of doctrine when that which has always been held implicitly becomes the subject of an explicit declaration" (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, I, 159, 164).

Newman and recent modernists, however, concede a development in the doctrines of the church, but on the basis of the traditional teaching derived from the apostles. But once a development is conceded, questions arise as to its principles and conditions, and the whole authority that rests upon them falls to the ground by the mere fact of an appeal from it to the principles that govern its development. The attempt to evade criticism by positing the miraculous preservation of the tradition from error involves a further appeal from the supposed authority to a hypothetical miracle for which there is no tittle of evidence. All the evidence is against it. The history of the church shows that it has been as liable to error, and as readily influenced by natural conditions, as any other human institution.

(5) Inerrancy of Scripture.

When Protestants sought an external authority, they posited the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and the whole Christian faith was founded upon that dogma. "Holy Scripture is the judge, or rather the voice of the supreme and infallible judge, the Holy Spirit, and the norm to which an inferior judge should refer in deciding controversies of faith, and according to which alone he should give sentence" (Quenstedt, quoted in Hutterns Redivivus, 119, 10th edition). Protestants found it necessary to interpret Scripture, and to define doctrines in synods and councils, but their decisions had authority only because they were supposed to be expositions of Scripture, and in that sense, the expression of God's mind. They differed from the "Catholic" councils in that they claimed no authority of their own and repudiated any authority that might be derived from tradition or the ministerial office.

(6) Anglican Appeal to Antiquity.

In the Anglican church too, the Scriptures as infallible were the ultimate authority, but some kind of a coordinate authority was claimed for the priesthood as standing in the succession of the apostles, and for the church Fathers and councils of the first six centuries. And the tendency has been to lay increasing emphasis on the latter factors, as criticism has undermined the literal and external authority of Scripture.

(7) Limitations of External Authority.

All the above-mentioned theories contain an element of truth, and the authorities they posit have in their turns ruled the minds and lives of men; but none of them can be regarded as adequate and final expressions of the mind of God to man.

(a) Not Infallible

It is superfluous to demonstrate that they are not infallible; in spite of that they might still be all the authority that man can have or need.

(b) Rests on Personal Authority

They all rest on the assumption that God's self-revelation came to an end with the apostolic age. The Biblical theory admittedly does, and the tradition theories strictly interpreted are in exactly the same case. An authority resting upon a traditional teaching handed down faithfully from the apostles would differ in no essential respect from one resting upon the written words of the apostles. They would be equally limited, literal, external and mechanical. But problems of mind and conduct have arisen, which the apostles never contemplated, and which their teaching (whether preserved in written or oral tradition matters nothing) could not solve.

(c) No Apostolical Tradition Extant

As a matter of fact no traditional teaching of the apostles supplementing their writings has ever been discovered or can be discovered. What has been put forward as such is in manifest contradiction to their writings.

(d) No Consensus of Fathers

The idea that there is a consensus of opinion among church Fathers is equally illusory. If there were, it would need to be proved that such opinion could have any binding authority in religion.

(e) Bible Needs Interpretation

The Bible is not one body of truth all standing at the same level, and whatever view of its inspiration may be held, some further authority will be needed to discriminate between the lower and the higher in its teaching.

(f) Authority Necessarily Spiritual

Above all, an authority which is merely external and objective is no authority at all to the mature religious life. Blind submission to any external authority, creed, church or book, is the condition of a slave, and in such case "our spiritual intelligence is not quickened and developed by communion with the infinite wisdom, but arrested and quelled. Only then, on the other hand, are we spiritually enfranchised when we receive a revelation as from God, not because we are awed or terrified or allured by our selfish interests into reception of it, but because our own minds and hearts respond to it, because we see and know it to be true" (J. Caird, University Sermons (1898), 204-5).

2. Internal Authority:

Theories of internal authority are in the nature of the case not so easily classified or defined as those of external; nor have they as yet filled so large a place in the public life of the church. But it would be a serious error to suppose that all the men who gave their adherence to systems of external authority lived in mere subjection to them. The history of mysticism in the church is the history of independent thought resting in a direct knowledge of God that transcended all external authority. Montanism and Gnosticism each in its own way appealed to an inner criterion of truth. All heresies involved some independent judgment, and appealed to authorities that were neither objective nor established. The Protestant Reformation was an open revolt against external authority, and although it resulted for a time in the substitution of another external authority, neither its original motive, nor its permanent force had any kinship with it.

Luther's free criticism of the Bible, and Calvin's appeal to the testimony of the Holy Spirit as the final principle of its interpretation, are well known. No body of Protestants at present founds its faith on the mere letter of Scripture or creed. Inward authority has been conceived in many ways and expressed by many terms, such as the Logos (Greek apologists); the Paraclete (Montanus); ecstasy (Mystics); knowledge as opposed to faith or creed (Gnostics); the personal experience of faith (Luther); the testimony of the Holy Spirit (Calvin); the inner light (Quakers); individual experience (Pietists); practical reason (Kant); religious feeling (Schleiermacher); the historical Christ (Ritschl); conscience (Martineau); the living Christ (R. W. Dale); the consciousness of Christ (A. M. Fairbairn); the Christ of history and of experience (D. W. Forest) and many more. The variety suggests at first the denial rather than the affirmation of authority, but it is only in such a variety that the principles of an adequate authority can be recognized.

The ultimate authority in religion is God as He reigns in men's hearts. But both the experience itself and the expression and interpretation of it vary with each individual. A religious authority to be real and effective must win the response of the human spirit, and in that personal relation of Spirit with spirit lie the conditions of variation. Yet human reason and conscience everywhere tend to acknowledge one standard, to recognize one ideal and to obey one Lord. Nothing can force such a uniformity but the inward fitness of one supreme revelation to the common demands of humanity. No agreement yet exists as to the possibility or reality of such a revelation. But wherever men lend themselves to the spiritual contact of Jesus Christ with their souls, without the intervention of human creeds or institutions, their conscience and reason approve His moral supremacy and their spirits recognize His intimate knowledge of the Father.

LITERATURE:

Besides books already mentioned, Bruce, Chief End of Revelation; Sanday, Inspiration, and Oracles of God; Oman, Vision and Authority, and The Problem of Faith and Freedom; Asia Minor Fairbairn, Catholicism, Roman and Anglican; Sabatier, The Religions of Authority; Watson, The Philosophical Basis of Religion; Kaftan, The Truth of the Christian Religion; Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God; Iverach, article "Authority" in Hastings, Encyclopedia of Theology and Ethics; E. O. Davies, Prolegomena to Systematic Theology, especially for Bibliography.

T. Rees

Authority; Authority In General

o-thor'-i-ti. See AUTHORITY IN RELIGION, sec. I.

Authorized Version

o'-thor-iz'd. See ENGLISH VERSIONS.

Autranitis

o-ran-i'-tis: Used by Josephus for HAURAN (which see).

Ava

a'-va. See AWA.

Avail

a-val' shawah, ("to be equal," hence "to be enough," "to avail"): Used in the sense of "satisfy" (Esther 5:13). Queen Esther's exceptional favor availed not to satisfy Haman, because of his insane jealousy of his rival Mordecai. ischuo, "to be strong.," translated also "prevail" (Revelation 12:8); with a negative signifies incompetence, e. g. the impossibility of redemptivc merit or power in an outward ceremony or act (Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15 the King James Version): "neither circumcision availcth anything," contrasted with the efficacy of faith "in Christ Jesus." Used also to express the efficacy of prayer (James 5:16).

Avaran

av'-a-ran: A surname of Eleazar, the third son of Mattathias (1 Macc 2:5). It is doubtfully conjectured that Eleazar received this surname from the episode related in 1 Macc 6:43-46; the word may mean "the piercer," referring to his stabbing of the elephant. Some connect it with chur, "to be white," and connect it with Eleazar's white complexion. The Syriac reads "Chavran" and the Vulgate's "Abaron"; the Septuagint in 1 Macc 6:43 gives Sauaran which is an error for Eleazaros auran; Septuagint's Codex Venetus corrects to auran.

Aven

a'-ven 'awen "emptiness," "vanity": Used in Ezekiel 30:17 for On or Heliopolis, in Egypt. See ON. As a term of contempt Hosea calls Beth-el "Beth-aven" (4:15; 10:5). So Amos speaks of some valley near Damascus as "the valley of Aven" (that is, of the idol, 1:5), in which Baalbek (Heliopolis) was situated. The word is rendered "idol" in Isaiah 66:3.

Avenge; Avenger

a-venj' a-venj'-er: Avenge.--The general idea connected with this word is that of inflicting punishment upon the wrongdoer. Since emphasis may be placed upon the deed itself, the wrongdoer, or the injured party, the verb is found an intransitive (only Leviticus 19:18; see below), transitive (2 Samuel 4:8 et al.); and also active (Deuteronomy 32:43), passive (Jeremiah 5:9) and reflexive (Esther 8:13). In 1 Samuel 25:26 ff avenge is translated from yasha`, "to save" (Revised Version margin, "thine own hand saving thee"), in Hosea 1:4 from paqadh, "to visit," and in 2 Samuel 18:19 ff from shaphaT, "to judge," but the usual Hebrew word is naqam, or derivatives, "to avenge."

The translation in the Revised Version (British and American) differs in some places from King James Version: Numbers 31:3 Revised Version (British and American) "execute Yahweh's vengeance"; (compare 2 Samuel 22:48; Psalms 18:47; Leviticus 26:25); Leviticus 19:18 Revised Version (British and American) "take vengeance"; Judges 5:2 Revised Version (British and American) "for that the leaders took the lead in Israel" from para`, "to be free, to lead".

In the New Testament avenge is translated from the Greek ekdikeo, "to do justice," "to protect" (Luke 18:3 ff et al.) and the King James Version Revelation 18:20, krino, "to judge" Revised Version (British and American) "God hath judged your judgment".

Avenger.--That is, the person who inflicts punishment upon the evil-doer for a wrong experienced by himself (from naqam, "to avenge"; Psalms 8:2 et al.) or by someone else from ga'al, "to redeem"; (Numbers 35:12 ff et al.). In the New Testament avenger occurs only once; "the Lord is an avenger in all things" (1 Thessalonians 4:6). It was the duty of the nearest relative to execute vengeance upon the murderer of his kin: he became the go'el. With reference to the protective legislation and custom, see GOEL. Compare BLOOD; REVENGE, REVENGER.

A. L. Breslich

Averse

a-vurs' shabh, "to turn back," ("retreat"): Quiet, peaceful wanderers (Micah 2:8).

Avim

av'-im. See AVVIM.

Avims

av'-imz (Deuteronomy 2:23). See AVVIM.

Avites

a'-vits. See AVVIM.

Avith

a'-vith `awith: The royal city of Hadad king of Edom (Genesis 36:35; 1 Chronicles 1:46). The Septuagint reads Getthaim. There is no clue to its identification.

Avoid

a-void: Archaic use in 1 Samuel 18:11 for "escaped." In the Revised Version (British and American) of New Testament only in 2 Corinthians 8:20 stellomenoi (with negative), literally, "arranging that not," etc., i. e. by anticipation providing that something should not occur. In the King James Version for "turn away from," ekklinete: Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 6:20; "refuse," paraitou, 2 Timothy 2:23; periistaso, Titus 3:9.

Avouch

a-vouch': In English Versions of the Bible only in Deuteronomy 26:17,Deuteronomy 26:18, in the sense of "to confess," "avow," "publicly and solemnly declare." The Hebrew form is likewise unique (Hiph. of 'amar).

Avvim; Avites

av'-im a'-vits `awwim; Heuaioi, also unaspirated; (also used to represent the name of the Hivites): The early inhabitants of the southern extremity of Canaan afterward occupied by the Philistines (Deuteronomy 2:23; compare Jos 13:3,4, the King James Version "Avim," a'-vim).

The Avvim of Joshua 18:23 was a town of Benjamin, not a people. Gesenius supposes the name to mean "dwellers in the desert," but it was more probably the name of some pre-Sem tribe. The Avvim are described as living in Chatserim or "encampments" and extending as far as the outskirts of Gaza.

Awa

av'-a `awwa'; the King James Version Ava, a'-va: A province, the people of which Shalmaneser king of Assyria placed in the cities of Samaria in the room of the children of Israel taken into exile by him (2 Kings 17:24). It is probably the same as Ivva (2 Kings 18:34; 2 Kings 19:13; Isaiah 37:13), a province conquered by Assyria.

Await

a-wat': Only in Acts 9:24 the King James Version, in its now obsolete sense as a noun, "ambush": "their laying await was known of Saul." the Revised Version (British and American) "their plot."

Awake

a-wak' yaqats, ("to waken"; `ur, "to rouse up" from sleep; egeiro, "to arouse from sleep"): The ordinary terms for awaking from natural slumber: as of Jacob at Bethel (Genesis 28:16); of Solomon at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:15); of Jesus in the storm-tossed boat (Luke 8:24).

Used figure with striking effect of awaking from mental, moral and spiritual sleep: as when Deborah calls upon herself to awake to the fervor and eloquence of poetry (Judges 5:12); of Zion's awaking to moral vigor and beauty (Isaiah 52:1); of waking from spiritual death (Ephesians 5:14); from the grave in resurrection (Daniel 12:2). Poetically used of the rising north wind (Song of Songs 4:16); of music (Psalms 108:2); of the sword in battle (Zechariah 13:7); of a lover's affection (Song of Songs 2:7); of God Himself responding to prayer (Psalms 59:4). Also used of moral awaking, as from drunkenness: eknepho, "to become sober" (compare Joel 1:5).

Dwight M. Pratt

Away With

(1) "To endure," "to bear with" (Isaiah 1:13), "I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting," i e. endure the combination of wickedness and worship. In the Hebrew merely, "I am unable iniquity and the solenm meeting."

(2) To destroy airo. Found in such expressions as Acts 22:22, "Away with such a fellow from the earth."

Awe

o: Fear mingled with reverence and wonder, a state of mind inspired by something terrible or sublime.

In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) it occurs in Psalms 4:4: "Stand in awe, and sin not" (where the Revised Version, margin has, "Be ye angry," so Septuagint; compare Ephesians 4:26); Psalms 33:8; Psalms 119:161. In the following passages the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "stand in awe" for the King James Version "fear": Psalms 22:23 phoboumenoi;

Isaiah 29:23; 1 Samuel 18:15; Malachi 2:5; and in Hebrews 12:28 it substitutes "awe" for the King James Version "reverence" (deos here only in New Testament). In all these passages, except 1 Samuel 18:15 (eulabeito, where it describes Saul's feeling toward David), the word stands for man's attitude of reverential fear toward God. This is the characteristic attitude of the pious soul toward God in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament. It arises from a consciousness of the infinite power, sublimity and holiness of God, which fills the mind with the "fear of the Lord," and a dread of violating His law. See FEAR.

D. Miall Edwards

Awl

ol martsea`: "Bore his ear through with an awl" (Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:17). The ear was pierced as being the organ of hearing, thus signifying the servant's promise of obedience. See BORE.

Ax (Axe); Ax-Head

aks; aks'hed: Nine different Hebrew words have been rendered "ax":

(1) garzen. This unquestionably was one of the larger chopping instruments, as the uses to which it was put would imply (Deuteronomy 19:5; Deuteronomy 20:19; 1 Kings 6:7; Isaiah 10:15). The modern ax used by the woodchoppers in Syria has a shape much like the ancient stone and bronze axes, with the exception that it is fastened to the handle by passing the latter through a hole in the ax-head, whereas the Egyptian sculptures show that their ax-heads were held to the handles by means of thongs. The so-called battle-ax found at Tell el-Chesy was probably fastened in this way. Syrian peasants are frequently seen carrying in their belts small hatchets the heads of which are shaped like a battle-ax and which are bound to the handles by thongs.

(2) ma`atsar, is used in Isaiah 44:12 (King James Version renders "tongs") and in Jeremiah 10:3.

(3) qardom, is used in Judges 9:48; 1 Samuel 13:20,1 Samuel 13:21; Psalms 74:5; Jeremiah 46:22. The present Arabic word, qudum, which is the name for the native adze, is from the same origin. The adze is the only chopping instrument of the Syrian carpenter. He uses it for many purposes, where a foreigner would use a saw or chisel or plane, and with a skill which the foreigner envies. Many students of Syrian life believe that the adze is a tool which has survived from the early Hebrew times.

(4) barzel (Deuteronomy 19:5; 2 Kings 6:5): The interest associated with this word is that it literally means "iron," although the context indicates that it means "ax." If the word iron was not used here to mean "metal," then iron axes were used by the children of Israel. If iron axes existed, however, they have long since disappeared as the result of corrosion, since the only ones discovered have been of stone, copper or bronze. See METALS.

(5) maghzirah (2 Samuel 12:31) is literally, "a cutting instrument," and might be rendered, "a blade" or sickle.

(6) megherah (1 Chronicles 20:2), translated in this one passage as axes, but better translated "saws."

(7) cherebh (Ezekiel 26:9), rendered ax in this passage only. It is usually translated sword. It could also mean pick-axe.

(8) kashil (Psalms 74:6 the King James Version), literally, "a feller," hence, an axe.

(9) mapets (Jeremiah 51:20), literally, "a smiter," hence, a war club or battle-axe. The Greek word used in the New Testament is axine (Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9).

James A. Patch

Axle-Tree

ak'-sil-tre. See SEA, THE MOLTEN.

Ayin

a'-yen: `ayin, "eye" or "fountain": The 16th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, so named, probably, because the original form resembled the eye. `Ayin (`) is usually neglected in pronunciation, and inverted comma (`) is the sign most commonly employed to represent it in transliteration.

The same sound is found in the Arabic and other Semitic languages. The Arabs have two pronunciations, one a very strong guttural formed at the back of the palate, something like a rattled "r" or "rg," the other similar in quality, only less harsh and guttural. The Septuagint reproduced the `ayin (`) in some cases by the Greek letter gamma (g). The numerical value of this letter is 70. An `ayin (`) begins each verse of the 16th section of Psalms 119:1–176 in the Hebrew.

W.W. Davies

Azael

az'-a-el Azaelos; compare Asahel [Ezra 10:15]: Father of Jonathan, one of two chief investigators of foreign marriages (1 Esdras 9:14).

Azaelus

az-a-e'-lus (B, Azaelos; A, Azael; omitted in Ezra 10:1–44): Azaelus, son of Ezora, put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:34).

Azal

a'-zal. See AZEL.

Azaliah

az-a-li'-a atsalyahu, ("Yahweh has set aside"): A son of Meshullam and father of Shaphan the scribe, famous in connection with the discovery of the law in the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:3).

Azaniah

az-a-ni'-a 'azanyah, ("Yahweh has given ear"): A son of Jeshua, a Levite who signed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:9).

Azaphion

a-za'-fi-on. See ASSAPHIOTH.

Azara

az'-a-ra. See ASARA.

Azarael

a-za'-ra-el. See AZAREL.

Azaraias

az-a-ra'-yas (B, Azaraias; A, Saraias; the King James Version Saraias); compare Seraiah (Ezra 7:1): An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:1).

Azareel

a-zar'-e-el. See AZAREL.

Azarel

az'-a-rel `azarel, ("God is helper"; the King James Version reads Azareel in numbers 1-5, Azarael in numbers 6):

(1) A Korahite who entered the army of David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:6).

(2) A musician in the temple appointed by lot; son of Heman (1 Chronicles 25:18; compare Uzziel, 1 Chronicles 25:4).

(3) A captain of the tribe of Da in the service of David (1 Chronicles 27:22).

(4) One of those who had "strange wives," a son of Bani (Ezra 10:41).

(5) The father of Amashai, a priest who dwelt in Jerusalem after the Exile (Nehemiah 11:13).

(6) A priest's son who played the trumpet in the procession when the wall was dedicated (Nehemiah 12:36).

A. L. Breslich

Azariah

az-a-ri'-a `azaryahu and `azaryah, ("Yahweh has helped"):

(1) King of Judah. See UZZIAH.

(2) A Judahite of the house of Ethan the Wise (1 Chronicles 2:8).

(3) The son of Jehu, descended from an Egyptian through the daughter of Sheshan (1 Chronicles 2:38).

(4) A son of Ahimaaz and grandson of Zadok (1 Chronicles 6:9).

(5) A son of Zadok the high priest and an official of Solomon (1 Kings 4:2).

(6) A high priest and son of Johanan (1 Chronicles 6:10).

(7) A Levite, ancestor of Samuel, and Heman the singer (1 Chronicles 6:36).

(8) A son of Nathan and captain of Solomon's tax collectors (1 Kings 4:5).

(9) A prophet in the reign of King Asa; his father's name was Oded (2 Chronicles 15:1–8).

(10 and 11) Two sons of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (2 Chronicles 21:2).

(12) King of Judah (2 Chronicles 22:6, called Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22:1).

(13) A son of Jeroham, who helped to overthrow Athaliah, and place Joash on the throne (2 Chronicles 23:1).

(14) A son of Johanan and a leading man of Ephraim, mentioned in connection with the emancipated captives taken by Pekah (2 Chronicles 28:12).

(15) A Levite of the family of Merari, who took part in cleansing the temple in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:12).

(16) A high priest who rebuked King Uzziah for arrogating to himself priestly functions (2 Chronicles 26:16–20).

(17) The father of Seraiah and son of Hilkiah (1 Chronicles 6:13).

(18) A son of Hoshaiah, and a bitter enemy of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 43:2).

(19) One of the royal captives taken to Babylon, whose name was changed to Abed-nego (Daniel 1:7).

(20) The son of Maaseiah, who helped repair the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:23).

(21) A Levite who assisted Ezra to expound the Law (Nehemiah 8:7).

(22) A priest who sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:2).

(23) A prince of Judah mentioned in connection with the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12:32).

W. W. Davies

Azarias

az-a-ri'as Azarias and Azareias:

(1) Azarias, who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:21); compare Uzziah (Ezra 10:21).

(2) Azarias, who stood at the right side of Ezra when the law was read to the people (1 Esdras 9:43); omitted in Ezra 8:4.

(3) Azarias, who interpreted the law to the people (1 Esdras 9:48); compare Azariah (Nehemiah 8:7).

(4) Azarias, a name assumed by the angel Raphael (Tobit 5:12; 6:6,13; 7:8; 9:2). See RAPHAEL.

(5) Azarias, a general in the service of Judas Maccabee (1 Macc 5:18,56,60).

(6) Azarias, one of the three men thrown into the fiery furnace (The So of the Three Children (Azariah) verses 2,66); compare Azariah (Daniel 1:6 Daniel 2:17), Abed-nego (Daniel 1:7; Daniel 2:49; Daniel 3:12).

A. L. Breslich

Azaru

az'a-ru B, Azarou; A, Azourou; (the King James Version Azuran): The descendants of Azaru returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 5:15); omitted in Ezr and Neh; compare however Azzur (Nehemiah 10:17).

Azaz

a'-zaz `azaz, ("powerful"): A descendant of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:8).

Azazel

a-za'-zel (`aza'zel apopompaios; the King James Version Scapegoat, the Revised Version, margin "removal"):

I. THE MEANING OF THE WORD

1. The Passages to Be Considered

2. The Proposed Interpretations

(1) The Etymology

(2) The Explanation

II. WHAT IS DONE IN CONNECTION WITH AZAZEL

1. The Significance of This Action

2. The Jewish Liturgy

I. The Meaning of the Word

1. The Passages to Be Considered:

This word is found in connection with the ceremony of the Day of Atonement (which see). According to Leviticus 16:8, Aaron is to cast lots upon the two goats which on the part of the congregation are to serve as a sin offering (Leviticus 16:5), "one be lot for Yahweh, and the other lot for Azazel." In Leviticus 16:10, after the first goat has been set apart as a sin offering for Yahweh, we read: "But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before Yahweh, to make atonement for him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness." In Leviticus 16:26 we read: "And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water." Before this, in Leviticus 16:21 mention had been made of what should be done with the goat. After the purification of the (inner) sanctuary, of the tent of meeting, and of the altar, the living goat is to brought, "and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all .... their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." But in this last mentioned and most important passage the term under consideration is not found.

2. The Proposed Interpretations:

(1) The Etymology.

Some have derived the word from `az plus 'azal (fortis abiens, "passing away in his strength" or from an intentional alteration of 'el plus `azaz, robur Dei, "strength of God"; compare below the angel of the Book of Enoch); while others have regarded the word as a broken plural of a substantive in the Arabic `azala, and translated it as "lonesomeness," "desert." Now there is an inclination to regard it as a reduplication from `azalzel, derived from the root `azal. If we accept this view, although it is without certainty and an exact analogue cannot be found, we could conclude from the way in which this noun has been formed that we have before us not an abstract term (remotio, "removal," or abitus, "departure"), but a concrete noun, or an adjective, longe remotus ("far removed") or porro abiens ("going far away").

(2) The Explanation.

In Leviticus 16:10,Leviticus 16:22,Leviticus 16:26, we would have an acceptable sense, if we regarded this word as expressive of a distinct locality in the wilderness. But this interpretation is impossible, since the law in Leviticus 16:1–34 was given during the wanderings in the wilderness and accordingly presupposed a constant change in the encampment, even if this should be regarded only as the historical background. By the use of the same preposition le- in connection with Yahweh and Azazel, it seems natural to regard the expressions as entirely II and to think of some personal being. Some interpret this word as referring to a demon of the wilderness (compare Psalms 106:37; Deuteronomy 32:17; Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15; Isaiah 13:21; Isaiah 34:14; Matthew 12:43; Luke 11:24; Revelation 18:2) and explain the term as "one who has separated himself from God," or "he who has separated himself," or "he who misleads others." But a demon of this kind could not possibly be placed in contrast to Yahweh in this way; and as in the Book of Enoch 6:6; 8:1 ff; 9:6; 10:4 ff; 13:1 ff; 69:2 one of the most prominent of the fallen angels who taught mankind the arts of war and luxury, revealed secrets to them, and is now bound in the wilderness, and is there preserved for the final judgment, because he was mainly responsible for the presence of evil in the world, is called Azael (also Azazel, or Azalzel), it is highly probable that this name was taken from Leviticus 16:1–34. In later times the word Azazel was by many Jews and also by Christian theologians, such as Origen, regarded as that Satan himself who had fallen away from God. In this interpretation the contrast found in Leviticus 16:8, in case it is to be regarded as a full parallelism, would be perfectly correct. But it must be acknowledged that in Holy Scripture, Satan is nowhere called by the name of Azazel, and just as little is the wilderness regarded as his permanent place of abode. Against these last two interpretations we must also recall that in the most significant passage, namely, Leviticus 16:20 ff, the term Azazel is not found at all. The same is true in the case of the ceremony in connection with the purification of leprous people and houses (Leviticus 14:7, Leviticus 14:49), which throughout suggests Leviticus 16:1–34. In this place we have also the sevenfold sprinkling (compare Leviticus 14:16 with Leviticus 16:14); and in addition two animals, in this case birds, are used, of which the one is to be slain for the purpose of sprinkling the blood, but the other, after it has been dipped into the blood of the one that has been slain, is to be allowed to fly away. In this way the essential thought in Leviticus 16:1–34 as also in Leviticus 14:1–57 seems to be the removal of the animal in either case, and it is accordingly advisable to interpret Azazel adjectively, i.e. to forego finding a complete parallelism in Leviticus 16:8, and to regard the preposition in connection with Yahweh as used differently from its use with Azazel, and to translate as follows: "And Aaron shall cast lots over both goats, the one lot [i.e. for the one goat] for Yahweh, and one lot for the goat that is destined to go far away." On the preposition le- used with the second Azazel in Leviticus 16:10, compare Exodus 21:2. With this interpretation a certain hardness yet remains for our linguistic sense, because we cannot find a good translation for the adjective. But in favor of this interpretation and against the personal interpretation we can appeal also to the feeling of the Septuagint translators who translate apopompaios, diestalmenos, and also to that of Aquilos, who translates tragos apoluomenos, apolelumenos, kekrataiomenos, and of Symmachus who translates aperchomenos, aphiemenos. (The general idea expressed by all these words is "removal," "sending away," "releasing" or "dismissal.") It is true that the Septuagint in one place translates eis ten apopompen, which however could be also an abstract circumlocution for a conception that, though used elsewhere, is yet awkward. In the Vulgate, we have caper emissarius and Luther says "der ledige Bock," which are probably based on a wrong etymology, since `ez signifies only a goat or perhaps this word "Bock" is here only supplied from the connection, and that quite correctly, so that Luther and the Vulgate can also be cited in favor of our interpretation.

II. What Is Done in Connection with Azazel.

1. The Significance of This Action:

Both goats, according to Leviticus 16:5, are to be regarded as a single sin-sacrifice, even should we interpret Azazel as demon or Satan, and we are accordingly not at all to understand that a sacrifice was brought to these beings. This too is made impossible by the whole tenor of the Old Testament in general, as of Leviticus 16:1–34 in particular, so that in 16:8 the two members introduced by the preposition le- would not at all be beings of exactly the same importance. Both goats, so to say, represent two sides of the same thing. The second is necessary to make clear what the first one, which has been slain, can no longer represent, namely, the removal of the sin, and accordingly has quite often aptly been called the hircus redivivus. But what is to be represented finds its expression in the ceremony described in Leviticus 16:20. Whatever may be the significance of the laying on of hands in other connections, whether the emphasis is placed more on the disposal or on the appropriation of the property, at this place it certainly is only a symbol of the transfer of guilt, which is confessed over the goat and is then carried into the wilderness by the goat upon which it has been laid. In order to make this transfer all the more impressive, both the hands are here brought into action, while e.g. in Leviticus 1:4 only one hand is used. The fact that the goat is accompanied by somebody and that it is to be taken to an uninhabited place is to indicate the absolute impossibility of its return, i.e. the guilt has been absolutely forgiven and erased, a deep thought made objectively evident in a transparent manner and independently of the explanation of Azazel, which is even yet not altogether certain. In the personal interpretation, we could have, in addition to the idea of the removal of the guilt, also a second idea, namely, that Azazel can do no harm to Israel, but must be content with his claim to a goat which takes Israel's place.

2. The Jewish Liturgy:

The actions in connection with Azazel, as was also the case with the Day of Atonement, were interpreted more fully by the Talmud and the traditions based on it (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. III, 2). The lots could be made of different materials; in later times they were made of gold. The manner of casting the lots was described in full. The goat that was to be sent into the wilderness was designated by a black mark on the head, the other by one on the neck. On the way from Jerusalem to the wilderness, huts were erected. From a distance it was possible to see how the goat was hurled backward from a certain cliff, called Beth-Hadudu (Beth-chadedun, 12 miles East of Jerusalem). By means of signals made with garments, news was at once sent to Jerusalem when the wilderness had been reached.

Wilhelm Moller

Azaziah

az-a-zi'-a (`azazyahu, "Yahweh is strong," or "strengthens"):

(1) A Levite musician who participated in the services held on the return of the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 15:21). His name is omitted from the list in 1 Chronicles 15:18.

(2) Father of Hoshea, who was the leader of Ephraim at the time that David enumerated the people (1 Chronicles 27:20).

(3) A Levite who had charge of the offerings brought to the temple in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 31:13).

Azbasareth

az-bas'-a-reth: The name of an Assyrian king. The King James Version form "Azbasareth" comes from the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.)

See ASBASARETH.

Azbuk

az'-buk `azbuk: The father of a certain Nehemiah--not the great governor of the same name, though a contemporary (Nehemiah 3:16).