AAR

AARON (H. mountain of strength. A. M. 3819; A. C. 1729; V. 1574), first son of Amram and Jochebed, of the tribe of Levi, brother of Moses and Miriam, was born in the land of Goshen, 115 years after the death of Jacob, and three years before the birth of Moses. His wife's name was Elisheba, who bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. While Moses was absent in the land of Midian, Aaron remained in Egypt with his people; but, when his brother returned, Aaron went forth to meet him, and from that time co-operated with Moses for the liberation of the Israelites. Aaron was naturally eloquent, and was therefore made spokesman to Moses in presence of Pharoah. As Moses was appointed a God to Pharoah, so Aaron was a Prophet to Moses. While Moses was absent during forty days in the Mount, Aaron yielded to the wishes of the people, and made a golden calf as a symbol of Jehovah, in imitation of the Egyptian god Apis or Mnevis. After the redemption of Israel, Aaron, not unnaturally considering the part he had taken, was appointed High Priest of the Mosaic religion (Lev. viii. Exod. xxix.). His consecration to that office was, at the divine command, solemnised by his brother Moses. graving represents the moment when the prophet, having purified Aaron with water, and put on him the holy vestments, 'poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him to sanctify him.'

Our en

AAR

A description of the dress he was to wear in his sacred office may be found in Exod. xxviii. We refer to the cut for the breastplate of judgment with cunning work, having four rows of three precious stones each, bearing the names of the twelve tribes 'like the engravings of a signet,' which Aaron was to wear upon his heart when he went into the holy place, for a memorial before Jehovah. The position which Aaron and Moses held, and the power which they exercised, excited against them Korah, of the tribe of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, and others, who, joining to themselves two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, men of renown, boldly charged Moses and Aaron with taking too much upon themselves. Moses put the issue on the rebels dying a natural death; and the earth is said to have opened her mouth, and swallowed up Korah and his associates. This only incensed the entire body, who employed threats towards their leaders. On this, Jehovah is represented as preparing to destroy them all, when Aaron, under the direction of Moses, makes an atonement, and the plague is stayed, after 14,700 had died, besides those that had perished with Korah. As, however, the discontent had not disappeared, an appeal is ordered to be made to Jehovah by lot, after the manner of the Arabians, who determine doubtful events by casting lots with their staffs. Accordingly, a rod is taken to represent each of the twelve tribes, to be laid up in the tabernacle: the rod that blossomed betokened on whom the choice and favour of God rested. That rod proved to be Aaron's. These accounts are not without their difficulty to the apprehensions of modern readers; but, in order to form a correct judgment, we must view them, not from our position, but from the position in which the actors stood. It is clear, that, unless the authority of Moses had been sustained, the purposes of God, in the establishment of his religion, would not have been realised. And the question which asks whether Moses and Aaron were disinterested and honest, must be determined, not by this or by any other particular event, but by their general conduct, and the general character of their institutions. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed for offering strange fire before Jehovah. This repeated destruction of life

A

is deplorable.

The benevolent mind cannot but wish that the aims of the leaders of Israel could have been secured at less cost. Years after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's younger sons, were called to perpetuate the priesthood in their own family. Aaron and the Levites were to have no part of the inheritance in the land, but all the tenth in Israel for their service in the tabernacle. Aaron, as well as Moses, was not permitted to enter with the people into the land of promise, because of the rebellion at the waters of Meribah; but, being conducted to the top of Mount Hor, was there stripped of his priestly garments, which were put on his son Eleazar; after which, Aaron died (Numb. xx.) on the top of Mount Hor (comp. Deut. x. 6. Numb. xxxiii. 38), and was mourned for by the people during the space of thirty days. Mount Hor is a hill of considerable height, which is found in Arabia Petræa, near Wady Musa. It is still named by the Arabs, Harun's Hill. On it a building, called Aaron's tomb, is shown, which is in reality a comparatively modern

structure.

Aaron was no slavish instrument in the hands of Moses. He had a will of his own, and did not fear to give expression to it when he saw fit. In this independence we have a guarantee of the trustworthiness of the Mosaic enterprise, as it affords an evidence that there was no collusion between its two great leaders. An exemplification of our position may be found in the following incident: - Moses, having married an Arab wife, had thereby given dissatisfaction to his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam, who do not stop at general reproaches, but even call in question his authority. From the fact that the chief punishment was made to fall on Miriam, we think it probable that jealousy between the two females was at the bottom of this outbreak of discontent. The divine will, however, interposes: Moses is pronounced guiltless and faithful; Miriam is struck with leprosy. Here are circumstances which would have proved fatal to an impostor. Against the destructive influences of jealousy, suspicion, imputations, and penalties, nothing but an honourable cause could have stood (Numb. xii.).

That the Scriptures do not pretend to give a complete history of its events, or a full picture of its characters, is evident from the fact, that they furnish no details of Aaron's history, till, in his eighty-third year, he is called to bis official duties.

The wisdom of Providence is exemplified in the different gifts which Moses and Aaron possessed. A union of the qualities of both was necessary. Moses was fitted to command; Aaron, to obey. The first had the high power which legislation requires: the second possessed the eloquence which can give effect to great ideas. Had Moses combined the excellences of Aaron with his own, he would have

lost his meekness, and might have forfeited his piety. Had Aaron been unsupported by the strong mind of his brother, his skill in words would have vanished into air. Had Moses been more, or Aaron less, than they severally were, the due proportion of their influence would have been impaired; the martial element would have been superabundant, the religious element would have been defective; and as the soldier was only the forerunner of the priest, so was it essential that Aaron should have his own virtues and his own sphere; nor perhaps can we easily measure the amount of good which the speaking and administrative ability of Aaron conferred on the structure of the Mosaic polity. The greatest men are individually unequal to the execution of the grand purposes of God. It is only in Jesus Christ that history presents us with a perfect human model and an all-sufficient Saviour; and, for the carrying forward of his work, most various and diverse ministrations were required and supplied. Ordinary men should be content and thankful, if, unable to command or persuade, they are permitted to stand and wait.' It is equally true, that, in the great vineyard, there is work for every hand, as also there is (will men but be faithful) a hand for every work. How deeply idolatry was engrained in the souls of the Israelites, is proved by the share which Aaron took in the setting-up of the golden calf. To eradicate idolatry was most important, as well as most difficult. was the first great work. The wound, if it could not be healed, must even be cut out. Hence arose the necessity of severe courses, which, if we thoroughly understood their aim and tendency, we should be less prone to reprobate. For the same great purpose was designed the display of the divine symbols, made on Mount Horeb, when Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders, were admitted into Jehovah's presence (Exod. xxiv. 9, seq. Deut. iv. 10). Two things were to be accomplished, I. That the Israelites, who had been used for centuries to ocular impressions as to divinities, and so needed something in the way of evidence which appealed to the senses, might, in some sense, see the invisible God; and, II. That they who were to be the founders of a system of religion, whose very essence lay in God's absolute spirituality, might not, while they were instructed, receive gross and material notions, but be raised to a pure and lofty conception, of the Creator. These most important results appear to have been signally attained by the interview, when, though the company came nigh to God, beheld awful tokens of his presence, and are even said to have seen the God of Israel,' they were yet duly admonished of the impiety of making any likeness or image of the Almighty; for, as Moses expressly observes, they heard Jehovah speaking to them out of the fire, but saw no similitude. The expression, 'the God of

This

he was a corpse. David then married Abigail, who bore him his second child, Chileab (2 Sam. iii. 3), who, in 1 Chron. iii. 1, is called Daniel.

The address which Abigail utters in order to deter David from his purposes of revenge, offers a remarkable combination of simplicity, shrewdness, and skill. It bears in itself the evidence of its truth. No one who knows any thing of oriental manners in ancient times, can doubt its reality. It affords also a permanent testimony to not merely the good sense, but the high culture, of Abigail, who, failing to make any good impression on the great lines of her husband's character, must have felt herself most unequally yoked, and, having a princely soul, well deserved to become David's queen. The promptitude with which she undertakes to try whether she could appease David's wrath, while the poor churl, Nabal, could do nothing but sit still and await the storm, shows the laudable decision of virtuous energy. A good conscience is the source of the noblest impulses.

ABIHU (H. he is my father), a son of Aaron, who, with his brother Nadab, was devoured by the fire which came out from the tabernacle, in consequence of the unbidden and strange fire which they offered in their censers (Lev. x. 1). The offence appears to have consisted, not merely in the oblation being unbidden, and therefore likely to interfere with the purity of divine worship, but in the improper state in which resort to strong drink had brought the young men (ver. 811). In untold instances, alas! has strong drink' annihilated in men's minds the essential difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean;' causing its inextinguishable and most deadly 'fire' to 'devour,' first their hearts, and then their bodies; leaving them, in regard to eternity, without God and without hope.

ABIJAH (H. my father Jah. A.M. 4602; A.C. 946; V. 958), the name given in the Chronicles to the second king of Judah, the follower of Rehoboam. In the Book of Kings, he is termed Abijam. He began his reign in the eighteenth year of his father, and reigned three years in Jerusalem. In ascending the throne, Abijah had all the advantages which birth could convey, and on that account seems to have cherished the project of bringing the ten tribes back under the sceptre of Judah: but, if they were given to idolatry, he was not free from its abominations; and the great ends of Providence in the furtherance of monotheism would have been little promoted by allowing his wishes to be realized, and so strengthening the kingdom of Judah. Even the power which Abijah did possess, was greater than he knew how to use religiously. However, he made an attempt to carry his plan into execution, and for that purpose engaged in war with Jeroboam. But some feasible pretext was required. Accord

ingly, having marshalled his troops, to the number of 400,000 'valiant men of war,' he proceeds, after the ancient custom, to address his enemy, and for this purpose ascends Mount Zemaraim, in the territories of Jeroboam; and then makes a speech, which shows that he possessed more talent than honesty, reproving the king of the ten tribes with the idolatrous practices to which he himself was not a stranger. Then came the battle, which ended in favour of Abijah, and in the slaughter of 500,000 chosen men on the opposite side. The chronicler ascribes the victory to the divine assistance; nor is it difficult to believe, that the Judahites, not having become religiously so corrupt as the Israelites, were superior, as in strength and courage, so in a consciousness of the favour of God (1 Kings xv. 2 Chron. xiii.). This victory increased Abijah's power, who, in the true spirit of an oriental monarch, had a harem of fourteen wives, and a family of twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters. As Abijah appeared as the champion of the national religion, so he took care to borrow from it more than the aid which words could give. A body of priests was placed in his army, whose office it was, at the onset of the forces, with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against the enemy;' and, no doubt, the worshippers of the golden calves retained in their bosoms enough of the influence of the old national religion, to be struck with a superstitious panic when they heard a blast, which, reminding them of the solemnities of the temple worship, sounded like the voice of God, uttered against their rebellion and idolatry.

The enemies of religion have endeavoured to turn to their own account the vast numbers arrayed and slain on this occasion and on others. The case is not without difficulty. We subjoin a few remarks, which may lessen the objection. Mistakes are easily made by transcribers in copying numbers, especially, from the nature of the Hebrew notation, the higher numbers. It may even be questioned, whether the apparent exaggeration rests withi the historian, or with our misconception of his mode of reckoning. These large are also round numbers, and do not therefore pretend to more than a general accuracy, which is sufficient for the object that the writers had in view. We must not look at these armies with modern eyes. They were not regular standing troops, but a sort of levy en masse, brought together for the occasion, and comprising the bulk of the adult population. This fact goes far to account for their magnitude, as well as for the extent of slaughter which ensued on a defeat; for the flight would be no less confused and scattered than precipitate, and the ravages of a pitiless and bloodthirsty conqueror would, in the first flush of victory, be fearful.

It is an old, but not the less blame-worthy expedient, for ambition and tyranny to cover

their designs with religious pretexts; but Abijah's misconduct was not mitigated by his disingenuousness, nor can hypocrisy in any case do aught but make a lust of power hateful in the sight of God and man.

ABILENE (G.), a district of country, at the foot of Antilebanon, named from Abila, its chief city (Luke iii. 1). Bankes considers Abila to have lain on the river Barrada, in which he agrees with Pococke. Burial mounds are found on the spot, and Bankes discovered a Grecian inscription on a rock; Pococke had previously discovered one in a church; both of which gave countenance to the idea, that the city stood there. We have only an imperfect knowledge of this small state. It is not mentioned in history before the time when Antony, the Roman triumvir, held sway over Western Asia, when it is denominated by Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7. 1) as a tetrarchy and a kingdom (Jewish War, ii. 11. 5). The first ruler on record bore the name of Ptolemy Mennæus, who died about A.C. 40. Lysanias followed him. He was put to death by Antony, A.C. 31. Then came a tetrarch named Zenodorus, who, A.C. 23, was compelled by Augustus to give up a large part of his territories, and the entire district fell into the hands of the Roman emperors.

According to this view, no mention is made by Josephus of the Lysanias who, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, was tetrarch of Abilene; at which we need feel no surprise, as Abilene was a small state, and lay beyond the borders of Palestine; while the terms employed by historians show, that Lysanias was an established name, in connection with the supreme magistrate, so that the Lysanias of Luke may have been a descendant of the Lysanias who was put to death by Antony. It must, however, be added, that language employed by Josephus admits the interpretation that he refers also to the Lysanias of Luke; and, speaking of Caligula, the Jewish historian says (Antiq. xviii. 6. 10) that emperor gave to Agrippa, I. 'the tetrarchy of Lysanias. The bestowal of the gift, however, was postponed; for Claudius is declared to have presented Agrippa, II. with Abila of Lysanias, and all that lay near Mount Lebanon' (Antiq. xix. 5. 1), which did not take effect till the twelfth year of Claudius (A.D. 52). In reference to the final disposal of Abila, Josephus remarks, which had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias' (Antiq. xx. 7. 1). One thing is very clear, namely, that Abilene was early in the first century currently spoken of as the tetrarchy of Lysanias. And it is scarcely to be supposed, that the reputation of a prince of so inconsiderable a state should have been such as to transmit the name of Lysanias, during various changes in the government, over a period of above half a century. The currency of the name is much more likely to be owing to its being borne by a tetrarch Lysanias, who held power, agree

ably with Luke's statement, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, which would be not many years short of the time when the tetrarchy was assigned by Caligula to Agrippa. The scattered historical intimations seem to favour the idea of there having been at least two rulers of Abilene, named Lysanias; one put to death by Antony, the other who governed at the time defined by Luke. Nor need we feel any surprise, that Luke makes use of the name as a means of dating by; since, as we have seen, the tetrarchate of Lysanias was a well-known object of reference. Lysanias bears the title of tetrarch on an inscription found by Pococke in the neighbourhood of Abila.

ABIMELECH (H. king's father. A. M. 3284; A. C. 2264; V. 1897) was a king of the Philistines, who ruled over Gerar which lay on the south-western border of Palestine. This petty prince took Sarah, Abraham's wife, as the patriarch journeyed in his nomadic wanderings towards the west, and put her into his harem, believing that she was merely Abraham's sister; for Abraham, in virtue of her being his father's but not his mother's child, had, with a view to safety, caused Sarah to be called his sister. Sarah, however, resisted the wishes of Abimelech, who, at length, discovers that Sarah was the wife, as well as sister, of Abraham, and, in consequence of a divinely sent punishment, restores her to her husband, whom the king seeks to conciliate with presents, and who, being thus satisfied, interposes with God to relieve Abimelech and his house from the penalty under which they lay (Gen. xx). Abimelech, in order to make an acknowledgment to Sarah for her severance from her husband, kiudly informs her that he had given him a thousand shekels of silver, which ought to act as a covering of the eyes;' that is, according to eastern phraseology, a veil to conceal what had been done ainiss, and a means of satisfaction and forgiveness; so that Sarah, who appears to have complained of the treatment she had received, was thus gently reproved (ver. 16). On the termination of this business, Abimelech sought to form permanent relations of friendship with Abraham. - In Gen. xxvi. 1, we find an Abimelech in the days of Isaac, reigning over the same country, who was in danger of standing, in regard to Isaac and his wife Rebekah, in the same position as that which has just been narrated. This Abimelech can scarcely be the same as the prince before spoken of: probably Abimelech was a name common to all the princes of Gerar, as Pharoah was in Egypt.

The conduct of both Abimelech and Abraham will be better understood when it is known, that Eastern princes possess an unquestioned right to all the beauties which may be found in their dominions (Gen. xii. 15. Esth. ii. 3).

Another Abimelech (A. M. 4237; A. C.

the

1311; V. 1236), a son of Gideon by a concubine, was born at Shechem; and, after the death of his father, he became ruler sixth judge of Israel, by means of his mother's relatives, who, however, at the end of three years took up arms against Abimelech; and he, after much bloodshed and ferocity, caused himself to be put to death, in consequence of a blow received from a millstone thrown on his head by the hands of a woman (Judg. viii. ix.). Probably owing to his own ambition, he is termed king, though the properly so-called kingdom of Israel was not established till long after his time. His assumption, however, of supreme power led to the composition of a parable, which, though produced in a time of national degradation, does not suffer in comparison with the famous apologue, spoken by Menenius Agrippa (Liv. ii. 32), in order to reconcile the revolted people to the aristocracy. It runs thus:-'At a time when all the members of man did not, as now, join to form the whole, but each had a distinct power of speaking and thinking, the rest of them were indignant that by their care and labour the belly was nourished, and that, remaining quiet in the middle, it did nothing but enjoy pleasures provided for it. On this account, they agreed that the hands should convey no food to the mouth, that the mouth should not receive what was offered to it, and that the teeth should not perform their office. By this foolish anger, each one of the members, and the whole body, were reduced to the greatest state of emaciation. Then it appeared that the belly also was not idle; that it was no less nourishing than nourished, sending out to all parts of the body, equally distributed through the veins, the blood by which we live, and which it obtained from the food it consumed.' The scriptural fable is introduced by the statement that its author, Jotham, went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried and said, 'Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you: The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olivetree, Reign thou over us: but the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig-tree, Come thou, and reign over us; but the fig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us; and the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us; and the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my sha

dow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon' (Judg. ix. 8-15).

One or two circumstances deserve to be specially noticed, as they supply incidental marks of reality, and therefore tend to establish the credibility of the book in which they are found. We content ourselves with a mere reference to the parable of the choice of the trees. Abimelech, when he had destroyed Shechem (ix. 45), sowed it with salt, according to an ancient custom, symbolising perpetual ruin. The death of this prince has a parallel in the history of Pyrrhus II. king of Epirus (Justin. xxv. 5), who, after having enjoyed most signal success, being repulsed by the Spartans, proceeded to besiege Argos, when, valiantly fighting in the thickest of the battle, he was slain by a stone hurled from the walls. But the blow which slew Abimelech came from a woman's hand, which was accounted a disgraceful death (comp. 2 Sam. xi. 21). Thus, perishing ignobly, was this ferocious ruler deservedly punished for the cruelties he had perpetrated. The millstones in use in those days were of such a size, as that one of them could be hurled by a woman's hand; and the putting of such an instrument of destruction into a woman's hand is accordant with the usages of a period, when grinding was a female occupation, being originally performed by one stone being turned on another.

ABINADAB (H. noble father), a son of Saul, who, together with his brother Melchishua, was slain by the Philistines, in Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. xxxi. 1, 2). A second of the name was a Levite, to whose house 'in the hill' the men of Kirjathjearim brought the ark, committing it specially to the care of his son Eleazar, who was sanctified' for the purpose (1 Sam. vii.). The second son of Jesse, David's father, also bore the name of Abinadab (1 Chron. ii. 13). The ark remained in the family of Abinadab for about seventy years, when it was transported by David to the house of Obed-edom; he fearing, after the sudden death of Uzzah, to take it into Jerusalem. Having, however, been the occasion of good to the family of Obed-edom, the ark, after a stay there of three months, was at length conveyed into the city of David with gladness.'

It is strange that so sacred a thing as the ark should have been so long severed from the tabernacle, and in the care of unofficial individuals. The unsettled state of the go. vernment may have been the cause of this separation. But, had there been any collusion or falseness at the bottom, this entrusting of the ark to private hands would hardly have been allowed by the priests, and, if allowed, could not have failed to cause detection and exposure.

ABISHAI (H. father of a gift), son of Zeruiah, sister of David, to whom he proved