Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

large rough stones, which formed the base of it. If they were the property of the priests, or of their children, or of any constant residents in the temple, (alluded to in the next verse,) they might give no more offence, by straggling about the sacred precincts, than the vicar's sheep or horse grazing in the church-yard does among ourselves. We know, too, that there is scarcely a country church among ourselves, in which sparrows, and swallows too, do not make their nests; and yet, though we dislike the defilement they occasion, we do not think the building the less sacred. By these considerations, we may perhaps illustrate the passage, Psalm lxxxiv. 3. The sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts.

The Altars in the tabernacle and in the temple at Jerusalem were as follow:-(1.) The Altar of Burntofferings. (2.) The Altar of Incense. (3.) The Table of Shew-bread; but this is improperly called an altar. See SHEW-BREAD.

1. THE ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERINGS is thus described by Calmet. It was a kind of coffer of Shittim-wood, covered with brass plates, (Exod. xxvii. 1, seq.) five cubits square, and three in height. Moses

placed it towards the east, before the entrance of the Tabernacle, in the open air, that so the fire which was to be kept perpetually upon it, and the smoke arising from the sacrifices which were burnt there, might not disfigure the inside of the Tabernacle. At the four corners were four horns, of a cubit square, covered with the same metal as the rest of the Altar. They were hollow, that part of the blood might be poured into them. Within the depth or hollow of it was a grate of brass, on which the fire was made, and through which fell the ashes, which were received in a pan below. At the four corners of this grate were four rings, and four chains, which kept it up at the four horns of the Altar above mentioned. As this Altar was portable, Moses had rings made, and fastened to the sides of it, into which were put staves of Shittim-wood, overlaid with brass, by means of which it was removed from place to place.

Such was the Altar of Burnt-offerings belonging to the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness; but in Solomon's temple it was much larger. This was a kind of cube, twenty cubits long, as many wide, and ten in height, covered with thick plates of brass, and filled with rough stones; and on the

[graphic][merged small][merged small][graphic]

The Altar of Burnt-offerings, according to the | over against the table of shew-bread. Every mornrabbins, was a large mass of rough and unpolished ing and evening the priest in waiting for that week, stones, the base of which was 32 cubits, or 48 feet and appointed by lot for this office, offered incense square. From thence the altar rose one cubit, or a of a particular composition upon this altar; and to foot and a half; then there was a diminishing of one this end entered with the smoking censer filled with cubit in thickness; and from thence the altar, being fire from the altar of burnt-offerings into the holy only 30 cubits square, rose five cubits, and received place. The priest, having placed the censer on it, a new diminution or in-benching of two cubits, and retired out of the holy place. This was the altar consequently was reduced to 28 cubits square. From which was hidden by Jeremiah before the captivity, thence again it rose three cubits, but was two cubits 2 Macc. ii. 5, 6. On the Altar of Incense the priest smaller. Lastly, it rose one cubit, and so being in Zacharias was appointed to place the perfume; and all 24 cubits, or 36 feet square, it formed the hearth while engaged in this service he received the annunon which the sacrifices were burnt, and the perpet- | ciation of the birth of a son, Luke i. 11. ual fire kept up. The diminution of two cubits, which was nearly in the middle of the Altar, served as a passage for the priests to go and come about the altar, to attend the fire, and to place the sacrifice on it.

This altar, being composed of large plates of massy brass, was thence called the brazen altar, 1 Kings viii. 64. The ascent was by a sloping rise on the south side, called Kibbesh, 32 cubits in length, and 16 in breadth; it landed upon the upper benchingin, near the hearth, or top of the altar; because to go up by steps was forbidden by the law. The priests might go round about the altar, and perform their offices very conveniently upon the two inbenchings which we have described; namely, that of the middle, and that above it, both of which were a cubit broad.

The following is an explanation of the profile of the altar of burnt-offerings according to the rabbins, and Dr. Prideaux.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

A Trench which went quite round the Altar, wherein was thrown the blood of the sacrifices.

a. b. The Foundation of the Altar, one cubit high, and 32 cubits square.

b. c. The first in-benching, one cubit broad. c. d. The elevation of five cubits.

d. e. The second in-benching, one cubit broad. e. f. The elevation of three cubits.

f.g. The third in-benching, one cubit broad. g.h. The last rising, one cubit.

2.

The Hearth of 24 cubits, or 36 feet square.
k. k. The Horns of the Altar, of one cubit, and hol-
low, half a cubit square.

1.
m. d. The passage on both sides the Kibbesh, to the
second in-benching.

The sloping ascent to the Altar, 32 cubits in
length.

The altar of burnt-offerings, both in the tabernacle and temple, was regarded as an asylum or place of refuge. 1 Kings i. 50, seq. ii. 28, seq.

2. THE ALTAR OF INCENSE was a small table of Shittim-wood, covered with plates of gold, of one cubit in length, another in width, and two in height, Exod. xxx. 1, seq. At the four corners were four horns, and all around a little border or crown over it. On each side were two rings, into which staves might be inserted for the purpose of carrying it. It stood in the holy place, (not in the holy of holies,)

II. ALTAR at Athens, inscribed 'Ayvooro dey, "to the unknown God." Paul, discoursing in that city on the resurrection of the dead, was carried by some of the philosophers before the judges of the Areopagus, where he uses this expression: (Acts xvii. 22, 23.) "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious, over fond of gods; for as I passed by, and beheld your sacred instruments, I found an altar, with this inscription-" To the unknown god;" him, therefore, whom ye worship as "unknown,"-him declare (represent, announce) I unto you." The question is, What was this altar, thus consecrated to the "unknown god?" Jerome says, that it was inscribed "to the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to the unknown and strange gods;" and that the apostle uses the singular form, because his design was only to demonstrate to the Athenians, that they adored an unknown god. In Ep. ad Tit. c. i. 12.

Some, as Grotius, Vossius, Beza, believe that Paul speaks of altars extant in several places of Attica, without any inscription, erected after a solemn expiation for the country, by the philosopher Epimenides; see the note of Dr. Doddridge below. Others conceive that this altar was the one mentioned by Pausanias and Philostratus, (Attic. lib. vi. cap. 2.) who speak of 'Αγνώστων θεῶν βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται, altars, at Athens, consecrated "to the unknown gods." Lucian, in the Dialogue attributed to him, entitled Philopatris, swears "by the UNKNOWN GOD, at Athens." He adds, "Being come to Athens, and finding there the UNKNOWN GOD, we worshipped him, and gave thanks to him, with hands lifted up to heaven." Another statement is made by Peter Comestor. He relates, that Dionysius, the Areopagite, observing, while he was at Alexandria, the eclipse, which, contrary to nature, happened at the death of our Saviour, from thence concluded, that some unknown god suffered; and not being then in a situation to learn more of the matter, he erected, at his return to Athens, this altar, "to the unknown god," which gave occasion to Paul's discourse at the Areopagus. Theophylact, Ecumenius, and others, give a different account of its origin and design, but each of their opinions, as also those we have noticed, has its difficulties.

Chrysostom thinks the altar, entitled, "To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the unknown and strange gods," is not that mentioned by Paul; as the Areopagites would never have understood this altar by the bare designation of the "Unknown God." He conceives it to be more probable that the Athenians, who were a people extremely superstitious, being apprehensive that they had forgotten some divinity and omitted to worship him, erected altars in some parts of their city, inscribed "To the unknown god;" whence Paul took occasion to preach, first JEHOVAH, and then JESUS, to them, as a

God, with respect to them, truly unknown, yet, in some sort, adored without their knowing him. Chrysost. in Acta.

Augustin did not doubt but that the Athenians, under the appellation of the unknown God, worshipped the true one. Others also have thought, that the God of the Jews was the object of this altar, he being a powerful God, but not fully known, as the Jews never used his name in speech, but substituted "the LORD" for "JEHOVAH."

[It is a strong objection to the view taken above by the excellent Dr. Doddridge, that the sacrifices were to be offered, not to an ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ, but to τῷ προσή ZOVTI 98, i. e. the god to whom the affair pertains, or the god who can avert the pestilence, whoever he may be; so that the inscription on such altars, if any, would doubtless have been, tẽ ngoo, zoti drų. But these altars are expressly said by the Greek writer to have been foi arrvuoi, i. e. anonymous allars, though evidently not in the sense in which Dr. Doddridge has taken it, but meaning altars without any name or inscription.

Eichhorn conjectures (Allgem. Biblioth. iii. p. 414.) that there were standing at Athens various very ancient altars, which originally had no inscription, and which were afterwards not destroyed, for fear of provoking the anger of the god to whom each had been dedicated, although it was no longer known who this god was. He supposes that therefore the inscription, ayvoro 9, was placed upon them, which would properly signify, "to AN unknown god," and not "to THE unknown god." Of these altars, Paul met with only one, and spoke accordingly. That there were altars with this inscription, in the plural number, appears from the testimony of Pausanias, (V. 14. p. 412.) and we may well conclude, on the authority of Paul, that at least one existed at Athens with the inscription in the singular.

Bretschneider supposes the inscription to have been, ayrάotois dɛois, i. e. to the gods of foreign nations, unknown to the Athenians; indicating either that foreigners might sacrifice upon that altar to their own gods, or that Athenians who were about to travel abroad, might first by sacrifices propitiate the favor of the gods of the countries they were about to visit. He quotes the following sentiment of Tertullian: "I find indeed altars prostituted to unknown gods, but idolatry is an Attic trait; also to uncertain gods, but superstition is a trait of Rome." (Adv. Marc. i. 9.) This view is in substance similar to that of Jerome, first above mentioned. Bretschn. Lex. N. T. art. ayrooтoç.

The following is Dr. Doddridge's note on the passage:-"The express testimony of Lucian (Philopat. ad fin.) sufficiently proves that there was such an inscription at Athens; and shows how unnecessary, as well as unwarrantable, it was in Jerome to suppose, that the apostle, to serve his own purpose, gives this turn to an inscription, which bore on its front a plurality of deities. Whence this important phenomenon arose, or to what it particularly referred, it is more difficult to say. Witsius (Melet. p. 85.) with Heinsius (in loc.) understands it of JEHOVAH, whose name, not being pronounced by the Jews themselves, might give occasion to this appellation; and to this sense Mr. Biscoe inclines. (Boyle's Lect. chap. viii. § 12. p. 322. 325.) Dr. Welwood (pref. to the Banquet of Xenophon, p. 18, 19.) supposes that Socrates reared this altar, to express his devotion to the one living and true God, of whom the Athenians had no notion; and whose incomprehensible being he insinuated, by this inscription, to be far beyond the reach of their understanding, or his own. And in this I should joyfully acquiesce, could I find one ancient testimony in confirmation of the fact. As it is, to omit other conjectures, I must give the preference to that which Beza and Dr. Hammond have mentioned, and which Mr. Hallet (Disc. on Script. vol. i. p. 307, 308.) has labored at large to confirm and illustrate; though I think none of these learned writers has set it in its most natural and advantageous light. Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Epimenides, (vide lib. i. p. 29, C. with the notes of J. Casaubon and Menagius,) assures us, that in the time of that philosopher (about 600 years before Christ) So much at least is certain, both from Paul's asthere was a terrible pestilence at Athens; in order to sertion and the testimony of Greek profane writers, avert which, when none of the deities to whom they that altars to an unknown god or gods existed at sacrificed, appeared able or willing to help them, Athens. But the attempt to ascertain definitely Epimenides advised them to bring some sheep to the whom the Athenians worshipped under this appellaAreopagus, and letting them loose from thence, to tion, must ever remain fruitless for want of sufficient follow them till they lay down, and then to sacrifice data. The inscription afforded to Paul a happy octhem (as I suppose the words T 7000 XOVTI Ocasion of proclaiming the gospel; and those who signify) to the god near whose temple or altar they then were. Now it seems probable, that, Athens not being then so full of these monuments of superstition as afterwards, these sheep lay down in places where none of them were near; and so occasioned the rearing what the historians call anonymous altars, or altars, each of which had the inscription ayvoora O to the unknown god; meaning thereby, the deity who had sent the plague, whoever he were; one of which altars, at least, however it might have been repaired, remained till Paul's time, and long after. Now as the God whom Paul preached as Lord of all, was indeed the deity who sent and removed this pestilence, the apostle might, with great propriety, tell the Athenians, he declared to them him whom, without knowing him, they worshipped; as I think the concluding words of the 23d verse may most fairly be rendered."

Dr. Lardner has an article on this subject, which may be consulted with advantage; it is in the quarto edition, vol. iv. p. 174.

embraced it, found indeed that the Being whom they had thus 'ignorantly worshipped,' was the one only living and true God. See Kuinoel's Comm. in Act. xvii. 23. *R.

ALUSH, see ALLUSH.

AMALEK, son of Eliphaz and Timna his concubine, and grandson of Esau. He succeeded Gatam in the government of Edom, south of Judah; (Gen. xxxvi. 12, 16. 1 Chron. i. 36.) and is by some supposed to have been father of the Amalekites who dwelt on the south of Judah. This, however, is very disputable, as will appear from what follows.

AMALEKITES, a powerful people who dwelt in Arabia Petræa, between the Dead sea and the Red sea, or between Havilah and Shur; (1 Sam. xv. 7.) perhaps in moving troops. We cannot assign the place of their habitation, except in general it is apparent that they dwelt south of Palestine, between mount Seir and the border of Egypt; and it does not appear that they possessed cities, though one is mentioned in 1 Sam. xv. 5. They lived generally

he perish for ever." This will not agree with th
Amalekites, if they were so modern; for the gener
ation then living was but the third from Amalek him
self, as appears by the following comparative gene
alogy:
Esau,
Eliphaz,
Amalek,

Jacob,

Levi,

Koath,

Amram,
Aaron.

in migrating parties, in caves, or in tents. The Israelites had scarcely passed the Red sea, when the Amalekites attacked them in the desert of Rephidim, and slew those who, through fatigue or weakness, lagged behind. Moses, by God's command, directed Joshua to repel this assault; and to record the act of inhumanity in a book, to perpetuate its remembrance for future vengeance. Joshua attacked the Amalekites, and defeated them, while Moses was on the mountain, and, with Aaron and Hur in his company, held up his lifted hands to heaven, A. M. 2513. It is worthy of notice, also, that Moses never re According to the Scripture mode of expression, proaches the Amalekites with attacking the Israel Moses required all the virtue of his rod and his ites, their brethren; an aggravating circumstance prayers, to defeat so dreadful an enemy; and if God which it is probable he would not have omitted it had not interfered on behalf of his people, the num- they had been descended from Esau, and, by tha ber, valor, and advantage of Amalek's arms, had descent, brethren to the Israelites. Lastly, we see given them the victory. Moreover, victory, which the Amalekites almost always joined in Scripture God gives or withholds at his pleasure, had certainly with the Canaanites and Philistines, and never with favored the Amalekites, if Aaron and Hur, who ac- the Edomites; and when Saul destroyed Amalek companied Moses on the mount, remote from dan- the Edomites neither assisted nor avenged them. I ger, had not supported the extended arms and hands is therefore probable that the Amalekites, so ofter of that legislator. The mystery of this we leave to mentioned in Sacred History, were a people descendcommentators. The battle continued till the ap-ed from Canaan, and very different from the de. proach of night; for Scripture says, (Exod. xvii. 12.) "the hands of Moses were steady till the going down of the sun." As the success of this action was the sole work of God, he said to Moses, "Write this for a memorial in a book."

Under the Judges, (Judg. vi. 3.) we see the Amalekites united with the Midianites and Moabites to oppress Israel; but Ehud delivered them from Eglon, (Judg. iii. 13.) and Gideon delivered them from Midian and Amalek. Many years after, the Lord directed Samuel to say to Saul, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember what Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way when he came up from Egypt: now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all." Saul marched therefore against the Amalekites, advanced to their capital, defeated and drove them from Havilah (towards the lower part of the Euphrates) to Shur, (on the Red sea towards Egypt,) destroying the people: but he spared the best of the cattle and movables; thereby violating the command of God. Nevertheless, some fugitives escaped; for though they appear but little more in history, yet some years after Saul's expedition against them, a troop of Amalekites pillaged Ziklag, then belonging to David, where he had left his wife and his property. David, returning, pursued, overtook, and dispersed them, and recovered all the booty which they had carried off, 1 Sam. xxx. 1. In Judges x. 14. and xii. 15. we read of an Amalek and a mount of the Amalekites in the tribe of Ephraim. It is hence probable that colonics of this people had formerly migrated into Canaan; and that one of them had thus maintained itself against the Ephraimites. See Bib. Repos. I. p. 594.

scendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau, who perhaps might be but a small tribe, and not conspic. uous at the time; if, indeed, they ever rose to much importance.

Of the Amalek destroyed by Saul, too, the Arabians had a tradition, that he was the father of an ancient tribe in Arabia, which contained only Arabians called pure; the remains of which were mingled with the posterity of Joktan and Adnan, and sc became Mosarabes, or Mostaarabes, that is, mirea Arabians-blended with foreigners. They believe also, that Goliath, who was slain by David, was king of the Amalekites, and that the giants who inhabited Palestine in Joshua's time, part of whom retired into Africa while Joshua was living, and settled on the coasts of Barbary, were of the same race; an account which has many circumstances of credibility about it. The son of Amalek was Ad, a celebrated prince among the Arabians, and as some suppose, the son of Uz, and grandson of Aram, the son of Shem. The Mahommedans say, Ad was father of an Arabian tribe called Adites, who were exterminated for not hearkening to the patriarch Eber, who preached the unity of God to them. (D'Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient.) These accounts are, indeed, very imperfect; but on the whole, we seem to be warranted in suggesting, (1.) That there were more kinds of Amalekites than one: (2.) that the tribe which Saul destroyed might not be very numerous at that time, and that the tract of country mentioned in relation to them, was that of their flight, not that of their possession, unless as rovers, or Bedouins: (3.) that they were turbulent and violent toward their neighbors, as formerly they had been toward the stragglers of Israel; which sugThe Arabians have a tradition, that Amalek was a gests the reason why their neighbors were not disson of Ham; a notion which we are not disposed to pleased at their expulsion: (4.) that such being their reject; for certainly it is not easy to conceive how character, they might have produced a war, by giving the Amalekites, if only the posterity of the son of recent cause of offence to Israel; though Scripture Eliphaz, grandson of Esau, could be so powerful and only mentions the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy numerous as this tribe was when the Israelites de--perhaps there never had been peace between the parted out of Egypt. Besides, Moses relates, (Gen. xiv. 7.) that in Abraham's time the five confederate kings invaded Amalek's country about Kadesh, as likewise that of the Amorites at Hazezon-tamar. Moses also (Numb. xxiv. 20.) relates, that Balaam, observing from a distance the land of Amalek, said, in his prophetic style, "Amalek is the first (the head, the original) of the nations, but his end shall be, that

two nations: (5.) that Agag, slain by Samuel, had been extremely cruel-a supposition which seems warranted by the expression, "As thy sword has made mothers childless;" therefore he met with no more than his just punishment in the death he received. See AGAG and SAMUEL.

Mr. Taylor arranges the different tribes bearing the name of Amalek in a geographical view, thus:

(1.) AMALEK, the ancient, Genesis xiv. 7. where the phrase is remarkable, "all the country of the Amalekites," which implies a great extent. This people we may place near the Jordan, Numb. xxiv. 20. (2.) A tribe in the region east of Egypt; between Egypt and Canaan, Exod. xvii. 8; 1 Sam. xv. &c. (3.) The descendants of Eliphaz.-It was against the second of these that Moses and Joshua fought, (Exod. xvii. 8-13.) against which tribe perpetual hostility was to be maintained, ver. 16; 1 Sam. xv It was also, most probably, to the ancient Amalekites (1.) that Balaam alluded (Numb. xxiv. 20.) as having been "first of the nations," for the descendants of Esau were very far from answering to this title; in fact, they were but just appearing as a tribe, or family. Even at this day, the Arabs distinguish between families of pure Arab blood, and those of mixed descent; but they include the posterity of Ishmael among those of mixed descent, while they reckon the Amalekites by parentage as of pure blood. The posterity of Esau, therefore, could hardly claim privilege above that of Ishmael, either by antiquity, or by importance. Neither is it any way likely, that the Amalekites of Esau's family should extend their settlements to where we find those Amalekites (2.) who attacked Israel at the very borders of Egypt, and on the shores of the Red sea. Instead of Maachathi, (Deut. iii. 14; Josh. xii. 5; xiii. 11, 13.) the LXX read, "the kings of the Amalekites," which implies that this people had occupied very extensive territories. The same countries scem to be alluded to by David, in Psalm lxxxiii. 7. where he had already mentioned Edom, the Ishmaelites, Moab, &c. yet distinct from these he mentions Gebel, Ammon, and Amalek; consequently this Amalek was not of the descent of Esau, or of Ishmael.

The spies sent to explore the land of Canaan (Numb. xiii. 29.) report, that the Amalekites inhabited the south; which agrees exactly with the equivocation of David to Achish, 1 Sam. xxvii. David invaded the Amalekites, ver. 8. but in ver. 10. he says, he went "against the south of Judah," the south of the Jerahmeelites, the south of the Kenites; which indeed was very true, as he went against the Amalekites, who were south of all those places.

I. AMANA, a mountain, mentioned in Cant. iv. 8. and by some supposed to be mount Amanus, in Cilicia. Jerome and the rabbins describe the land of Israel as extending northward to this mountain; and it is known that Solomon's dominion did extend so far. Mount Amanus, with its continuations, separates Syria and Cilicia, and reaches from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates.-[The Amana of the Canticles, however, is rather the southern part or summit of Antilibanus; so called perhaps from the river Amana, which descended from it. See Gesenius Heb. Lex. Reland Pal. p. 320. R.

II. AMANA, a river of Damascus. See ABANA. I. AMARIAH, eldest son of Meraioth, and father of the high-priest Ahitub, was high-priest in the time of the Judges, but we are not able to fix the years of his pontificate. His name occurs 1 Chron. vi. 7. and if he actually did exercise this office, he should be placed, as we think, before Eli, who was succeeded by Ahitub, who, in the Chronicles, is put after Amariah, ver. 7.-[There was another of this name, viz.

II. AMARIAH, high-priest at a later period, the son of Azariah, but also the father of a second Ahitub, 1 Chron. vi. 11. In like manner, in the same list, there are three high-priests bearing the name of Azariah. R.

III. AMARIAH, great-grandfather of the prophet Zephaniah, and father of Gedaliah, Zeph. i. Í. I. AMASA, son of Jether or Ithra and Abigail, David's sister. Absalom, during his rebellion against David, placed his cousin, Amasa, at the head of his troops, (2 Sam. xvii. 25.) but he was defeated by Joab. After the extinction of Absalom's party, David, from dislike to Joab, who had killed Absalom, offered Amasa his pardon and the command of the army, in room of Joab, whose insolence rendered him insupportable, 2 Sam. xix. 13. On the revolt of Sheba, son of Bichri, David ordered Amasa to assemble all Judah against Sheba; but Amasa delaying, David directed Abishai to pursue Sheba, with what soldiers he then had about his person. Joab, with his people, accompanied him; and when they had reached the great stone in Gibeon, Amasa joined them with his forces. Joab's jealousy being excited, he formed the dastardly and cruel purpose of assassinating his rival-"Then said Joab to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? and took him by the beard with the right hand to kiss him ;" but at the same time smote him with the sword. Such was the end of Amasa, David's nephew, ch. xx. 4—10. A. M. 2982.

II. AMASA, son of Hadlai, opposed the admission of such captives as were taken from the kingdom of Judah, in the reign of Ahaz, into Samaria, 2 Chron. xxviii. 12.

AMASAI, a Levite, who joined David with thirty gallant men, while in the desert, flying from Saul. David went to meet them, and said, "If ye be come peaceably to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray me to mine enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon and rebuke it." Then said Amasai, "Thine are wc, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers." David, therefore, received them; and gave them a command in his troops, 1 Chron. xii. 18.

AMATH, or EмATH, a city of Syria; the same with Emesa on the Orontes. See HAMATH.

AMATHITIS, a district in Syria with the capital city Hamath, on the Orontes, 1 Macc. xii. 25. See HAMATH.

I. AMAZIAH, son of Joash, eighth king of Judah, (2 Chron. xxiv. 27.) succeeded his father, A. M. 3165. He was twenty-five years of age when he began to reign, and reigned twenty-nine years at Jerusalem. He did good in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart. When settled in his kingdom, he put to death the murderers of his father, but not their children; because it is written in the law, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin," Deut. xxiv. 16; 2 Chron. xxv. 2, 3, 4. Designing to proceed against Edom, which had revolted from Judah, in the reign of Joram, about fifty-four years before, (2 Kings viii. 20.) Amaziah mustered 300,000 men able to bear arms. To these he added 100,000 men of Israel; for which he paid 100 talents, about $150,000. But a prophet of the Lord came to him, and said, "O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel." Amaziahı, hereupon, sent back those troops; and they returned strongly irritated against him. They dispersed themselves over the cities of Judah, from Beth-horon to Samaria, killed 3000 men, and carried off a great booty, to make themselves

« AnteriorContinuar »