and spoke, and the Jews of their time heard and read, the books of the
New Testament. The Socinian pretence is, that the inspired penmen used
the sacrificial terms which occur in their writings figuratively; but we
not only reply, as before, that they could not do this honestly, unless
they had given notice of this new application of the established terms
of the Jewish theology; but, if this be assumed, it leaves us wholly at
a loss to discover what that really was which they intended to teach by
these sacrificial terms and allusions. They are themselves utterly
silent as to this point; and the varying theories of those who reject
the doctrine of atonement, in fact, confess that their writings afford
no solution of the difficulty. If, therefore, it is blasphemous to
suppose, on the one hand, that inspired men should write on purpose to
mislead; so, on the other, it is utterly inconceivable that, had they
only been ordinary writers, they should construct a figurative language
out of terms which had a definite and established sense, without giving
any intimation at all that they employed them otherwise than in their
received meaning, or telling us why they adopted them at all, and more
especially when they knew that they must be interpreted, both by Jews
and Greeks, in a sense which, if the Socinians are right, was in direct
opposition to that which they intended to convey. See TYPE, SACRIFICE,
PROPITIATION.
EXPIATION, or ATONEMENT, _Great Day of_, was the tenth of Tizri, which
nearly answers to our September, O. S. The Hebrews call it KIPPUR, or
CHIPPUR, “pardon,” or “expiation,” because the faults of the year were
then expiated. The principal ceremonies of this day have been noticed in
the preceding article; but a more particular detail may be useful. The
high priest, after he had washed, not only his hands and his feet, as
usual at common sacrifices, but his whole body, dressed himself in plain
linen, like the other priests, wearing neither his purple robe, nor the
ephod, nor the pectoral, because he was to expiate his own sins,
together with those of the people. He first offered a bullock and a ram
for his own sins, and those of the priests: putting his hands on the
heads of these victims, he confessed his own sins and the sins of his
house. Afterward, he received from the princes of the people two goats
for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, to be offered in the
name of the whole nation. The lot determined which of the two goats
should be sacrificed, and which set at liberty. After this, the high
priest put some of the sacred fire of the altar of burnt offerings into
a censer, threw incense upon it, and entered with it, thus smoking, into
the sanctuary. After he had perfumed the sanctuary with this incense, he
came out, took some of the blood of the young bullock he had sacrificed,
carried that also into the sanctuary, and, dipping his fingers in it,
sprinkled it seven times between the ark and the vail, which separated
the holy from the sanctuary, or most holy. Then he came out a second
time, and, beside the altar of burnt offerings, killed the goat which
the lot had determined to be the sacrifice. The blood of this goat he
carried into the most holy sanctuary, and sprinkled it seven times
between the ark and the vail, which separated the holy from the
sanctuary: from thence he returned into the court of the tabernacle, and
sprinkled both sides of it with the blood of the goat. During all this,
none of the priests or people were admitted into the tabernacle, or into
the court. After this, the high priest came to the altar of burnt
offerings, wetted the four horns of it with the blood of the goat and
young bullock, and sprinkled it seven times with the same blood. The
sanctuary, the court, and the altar, being thus purified, the high
priest directed the goat which was set at liberty by the lot to be
brought to him. He put his hand on the goat’s head, confessed his own
sins and the sins of the people, and then delivered the goat to a person
appointed, who was to carry it to some desert place, and let it loose,
or, as others say, throw it down some precipice. This being done, the
high priest washed himself all over in the tabernacle; and, putting on
other clothes, his pontifical dress, that is, his robe of purple, the
ephod, and the pectoral, he sacrificed two rams for burnt offering, one
for himself, the other for the people. The great day of expiation was a
principal solemnity of the Hebrews, a day of rest and strict fasting.
2. There have been various disputes among the learned respecting the
meaning of the word _azazel_, the name of the scape-goat on which the
lot fell; but the most prevailing opinion is, that it is derived from
_gnez_, “a goat,” and _azel_, “to go away.” So Buxtorf and many others
explain it; and so it was understood by our translators, who have
therefore rendered it “a scape-goat.” Both goats were typical of Christ:
that which was sacrificed is understood to have denoted his death, by
means of which sin was expiated; the other, which was to have the sins
of the people confessed over him, and, as it were, put upon him, and
then to be sent alive into some desert place, where they could see him
no more, was intended to signify the effect of the expiation, namely,
the removing of guilt, indicating that it should never more be charged
on the pardoned sinner.
3. The rites attending the public service of the day of expiation were
chiefly performed by the high priest, whose duties were on this day more
arduous than on any other day in the year, or perhaps on all the rest
united. He was to kill and offer the sacrifices, and sprinkle their
blood with his own hands, Lev. xvi, 11–15; and he was to enter with it
into the holy of holies, which he was not permitted to do at any other
time, Lev. xvi, 2, &c; Heb. ix, 7. It was thus his peculiar privilege to
draw nearer to God, or to the tokens of his special presence, to the ark
of the covenant, to the mercy seat, and to the Shekinah, than was
allowed to any other mortal. The services which he performed in the
inmost sanctuary were, the burning of incense, and sprinkling the blood
of the sacrifices before the mercy seat, which he was to do with his
finger seven times, Lev. xvi, 14.
4. The spiritual meaning of all these rites has been particularly
explained by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews ix. As the high priest was a
type of Christ, his laying aside those vestments which were made “for
glory and beauty,” Exodus xxviii, 2, and appearing in his common
garments, which he did on that day, probably signified our Lord’s
humiliation, when he emptied himself of the glory which he had with the
Father before the world was, and “was made in fashion as a man,” Phil.
ii, 6, 7. The expiatory sacrifices, offered by the high priest, were
typical of the true expiation which Christ made for the sins of his
people, when he gave himself for them, that he might redeem them from
all iniquity, Titus ii, 14; Heb. i, 3; and the priest’s confessing the
sins of the people over them, and putting them upon the head of the
scape-goat, Lev. xvi, 21, was a lively emblem of the imputation of sin
to Christ, who “was made sin for us,” 2 Cor. v, 21; for “the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isaiah liii, 6. Farther, the goat’s
“bearing upon him all the iniquities of the Jews into a land not
inhabited,” Lev. xvi, 22, represents the effect of Christ’s sacrifice in
delivering his people from guilt and punishment; and the priest’s
entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice is
explained by the Apostle to be typical of Christ’s ascension into heaven
itself, and his making intercession for his people in virtue of the
sacrifice of his death.
EYE, the organ of sight. The Hebrews by a curious and bold metaphor call
fountains eyes; and they also give the same name to colours: “And the
eye,” or colour, “of the manna was as the eye,” or colour, “of
bdellium,” Num. xi, 7. By an “evil eye” is meant, envy, jealousy,
grudging, ill-judged parsimony; to turn the eyes on any one, is to
regard him and his interests; to find grace in any one’s eyes, Ruth ii,
10, is to win his friendship and good will. “The eyes of servants look
unto the hands of their masters,” Psalm cxxiii, 2, to observe the least
motion, and obey the least signal. “Their eyes were opened,” Gen. iii,
7, they began to comprehend in a new manner. “The wise man’s eyes are in
his head,” Eccles. ii, 14, he does not act by chance. The eye of the
soul, in a moral sense, is the intention, the desire. God threatens to
set his eyes on the Israelites for evil, and not for good, Amos ix, 4.
Nebuchadnezzar recommends to Nebuzaradan that he would “set his eyes” on
Jeremiah, and permit him to go where he pleased, Jer. xxxix, 12; xl, 4.
Sometimes expressions of this kind are taken in a quite opposite sense:
“Behold, the eyes of the Lord are on the sinful kingdom; and I will
destroy it,” Amos ix, 8. To be eyes to the blind, or to serve them
instead of eyes, is sufficiently intelligible, Job xxix, 15. The
Persians called those officers of the crown who had the care of the
king’s interests and the management of his finances, the king’s eyes.
Eye service is peculiar to slaves, who are governed by fear only; and is
to be carefully guarded against by Christians, who ought to serve from a
principle of duty and affection, Eph. vi, 6; Col. iii, 22. The lust of
the eyes, or the desire of the eyes, comprehends every thing that
curiosity, vanity, &c, seek after; every thing that the eyes can present
to men given up to their passions, 1 John ii, 16. “Cast ye away every
man the abomination of his eyes,” Ezek. xx, 7, 8; let not the idols of
the Egyptians seduce you. The height or elevation of the eyes is taken
for pride, Eccles. xxiii, 5. St. Paul says that the Galatians would
willingly have “plucked out their eyes” for him, Gal. iv, 15; expressing
the intensity of their zeal, affection, and devotion to him. The Hebrews
call the apple of the eye the black daughter of the eye. To keep any
thing as the apple of the eye, is to preserve it with particular care,
Deut. xxxii, 10: “He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye,”
Zech. ii, 8; attempts to injure me in the tenderest part, which men
instinctively defend. The eye and its actions are occasionally
transferred to God: “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the
whole earth,” Zech. iv, 10; 2 Chron. xvi, 9; Psalm xi, 4. “The eyes of
the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good,” Proverbs
xv, 3. “The Lord looked down from heaven,” &c. We read, Matthew vi, 22,
“The light,” or lamp, “of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be
single,” simple, clear, ἁπλοῦς, “thy whole body shall be full of light;
but if thine eye be evil,” distempered, diseased, “thy whole body shall
be darkened.” The direct allusion may hold to a lantern, or lamp,
λύχνος; if the glass of it be clear, the light will shine through it
strongly; but if the glass be soiled, dirty, foul, but little light will
pass through it: for if they had not glass lanterns, such as we use,
they had others in the east made of thin linen, &c: these were very
liable to receive spots, stains, and foulnesses, which impeded the
passage of the rays of light from the luminary within. So, in the
natural eye, if the cornea be single, and the humours clear, the light
will act correctly; but if there be a film over the cornea, or a
cataract, or a skin between any of the humours, the rays of light will
never make any impression on the internal seat of sight, the retina. By
analogy, therefore, if the mental eye, the judgment, be honest,
virtuous, sincere, well-meaning, pious, it may be considered as
enlightening and directing the whole of a person’s actions; but if it be
perverse, malign, biassed by undue prejudices, or drawn aside by
improper views, it darkens the understanding, perverts the conduct, and
suffers a man to be misled by his unwise and unruly passions.
2. The orientals, in some cases, deprive the criminal of the light of
day, by sealing up his eyes. A son of the great Mogul was actually
suffering this punishment when Sir Thomas Roe visited the court of
Delhi. The hapless youth was cast into prison, and deprived of the light
by some adhesive plaster put upon his eyes, for the space of three
years; after which the seal was taken away, that he might with freedom
enjoy the light; but he was still detained in prison. Other princes have
been treated in a different manner, to prevent them from conspiring
against the reigning monarch, or meddling with affairs of state: they
have been compelled to swallow opium and other stupifying drugs, to
weaken or benumb their faculties, and render them unfit for business.
Influenced by such absurd and cruel policy, Shah Abbas, the celebrated
Persian monarch, who died in 1629, ordered a certain quantity of opium
to be given every day to his grandson, who was to be his successor, to
stupify him, and prevent him from disturbing his government. Such are
probably the circumstances alluded to by the prophet: “They have not
known nor understood; for he hath shut their eyes that they cannot see;
and their hearts that they cannot understand,” Isaiah xliv, 18. The verb
טוח, rendered in our version, _to shut_, signifies “to overlay,” “to
cover over the surface;” thus, the king of Israel prepared three
thousand talents of gold, and seven thousand talents of refined silver,
to _overlay_ the walls of the temple, 1 Chron. xxix, 4. But it generally
signifies to _overspread_, or daub over, as with mortar or plaster, of
which Parkhurst quotes a number of examples; a sense which entirely
corresponds with the manner in which the eyes of a criminal are sealed
up in some parts of the east. The practice of sealing up the eyes, and
stupifying a criminal with drugs, seems to have been contemplated by the
same prophet in another passage of his book: “Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their
heart, and convert and be healed.”
3. Deprivation of sight was a very common punishment in the east. It was
at first the practice to sear the eyes with a hot iron; but a discovery
that this was not effectual, led to the cruel method of taking them out
altogether with a sharp-pointed instrument. The objects of this
barbarity were usually persons who aspired to the throne, or who were
considered likely to make such an attempt. It was also inflicted on
chieftains, whom it was desirable to deprive of power without putting
them to death. For this reason the hapless Zedekiah was punished with
the loss of sight, because he had rebelled against the king of Babylon,
and endeavoured to recover the independence of his throne: “Then he put
out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains,
and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his
death,” Jer. lii, 11.
4. Females used to paint their eyes. The substance used for this purpose
is called in Chaldee כהל, _cohol_; by the LXX, ϛίβι. Thus we read of
Jezebel, 2 Kings ix, 30, that, understanding that Jehu was to enter
Samaria, she decked herself for his reception, and (as in the original
Hebrew) “put her eyes in paint.” This was in conformity to a custom
which prevailed in the earliest ages. As large black eyes were thought
the finest, the women, to increase their lustre, and to make them appear
larger, tinged the corner of their eyelids with the impalpable powder of
antimony or of black lead. This was supposed also to give the eyes a
brilliancy and humidity, which rendered them either sparkling or
languishing, as suited the various passions. The method of performing
this among the women in the eastern countries at the present day, as
described by Russel, is by a cylindrical piece of silver or ivory, about
two inches long, made very smooth, and about the size of a common probe;
this is wet with water, and then dipped into a powder finely levigated,
made from what appears to be a rich lead ore, and applied to the eye;
the lids are closed upon it while it is drawn through between them. This
blacks the inside, and leaves a narrow black rim all round the edge.
That this was the method practised by the Hebrew women, we infer from
Isaiah iii, 22, where the prophet, in his enumeration of the articles
which composed the toilets of the delicate and luxurious daughters of
Zion, mentions “the wimples and the crisping pins,” or bodkins for
painting the eyes. The satirist Juvenal describes the same practice:--
_Ille supercilium madida fuligine tinctum
Obliqua producit acu, pingitque trementes
Attollens oculos._
SAT. ii.
“These with a tiring pin their eyebrows dye
Till the full arch give lustre to the eye.”
GIFFORD.
This custom is referred to by Jeremiah, iv, 30:--
“Though thou clothest thyself in scarlet,
Though thou adornest thyself with ornaments of gold,
Though thou distendest thine eyes with paint,
In vain shalt thou set forth thy beauty;
Thy paramours have rejected thee.”
And Ezekiel, describing the irregularities of the Jewish nation, under
the idea of a debauched woman, says, כחלת עיניך, “Thou didst dress thine
eyes with cohol;” which the Septuagint render, Ἐϛιϐίζȣ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς
σου, “Thou didst dress thine eyes with stibium,” Ezek. xxiii, 40.
5. The passage, Psalm cxxiii, 2, derives a striking illustration from
the customs of the east. The servants or slaves in eastern countries
attend their masters or mistresses with the profoundest respect.
Maundrell observes, that the servants in Turkey stand round their master
and his guests in deep silence and perfect order, watching every motion.
Pococke says, that at a visit in Egypt every thing is done with the
greatest decency and the most profound silence, the slaves or servants
standing at the bottom of the room, with their hands joined before them,
watching with the utmost attention every motion of their master, who
commands them by signs. De la Motraye says, that the eastern ladies are
waited on even at the least wink of the eye, or motion of the fingers,
and that in a manner not perceptible to strangers.
EZEKIEL, like his contemporary Jeremiah, was of the sacerdotal race. He
was carried away captive to Babylon with Jehoiachim, king of Judah, B.
C. 598, and was placed with many others of his countrymen upon the river
Chebar, in Mesopotamia, where he was favoured with the divine
revelations contained in his book. He began to prophesy in the fifth
year of his captivity, and is supposed to have prophesied about
twenty-one years. The boldness with which he censured the idolatry and
wickedness of his countrymen is said to have cost him his life; but his
memory was greatly revered, not only by the Jews, but also by the Medes
and Persians. The book which bears his name may be considered under the
five following divisions: the first three chapters contain the glorious
appearance of God to the prophet, and his solemn appointment to his
office, with instructions and encouragements for the discharge of it.
From the fourth to the twenty-fourth chapter inclusive, he describes,
under a variety of visions and similitudes, the calamities impending
over Judea, and the total destruction of the temple and city of
Jerusalem, by Nebuchadnezzar, occasionally predicting another period of
yet greater desolation, and more general dispersion. From the beginning
of the twenty-fifth to the end of the thirty-second chapter, the prophet
foretels the conquest and ruin of many nations and cities, which had
insulted the Jews in their affliction; of the Ammonites, the Moabites,
the Edomites, and Philistines; of Tyre, of Sidon, and Egypt; all of
which were to be punished by the same mighty instrument of God’s wrath
against the wickedness of man; and in these prophecies he not only
predicts events which were soon to take place, but he also describes the
condition of these several countries in the remote periods of the world.
From the thirty-second to the fortieth chapter, he inveighs against the
accumulated sins of the Jews collectively, and the murmuring spirit of
his captive brethren; exhorts them earnestly to repent of their
hypocrisy and wickedness, upon the assurance that God will accept
sincere repentance; and comforts them with promises of approaching
deliverance under Cyrus; subjoining intimations of some far more
glorious, but distant, redemption under the Messiah, though the manner
in which it is to be effected is deeply involved in mystery. The last
nine chapters contain a remarkable vision of the structure of a new
temple and a new polity, applicable in the first instance to the return
from the Babylonian captivity, but in its ultimate sense referring to
the glory and prosperity of the universal church of Christ. Jerom
observes that the visions of Ezekiel are among the things in Scripture
hard to be understood. This obscurity arises, in part at least, from the
nature and design of the prophecies themselves; they were delivered
amidst the gloom of captivity; and though calculated to cheer the
drooping spirits of the Jews, and to keep alive a watchful and
submissive confidence in the mercy of God, yet they were intended to
communicate only such a degree of encouragement as was consistent with a
state of punishment, and to excite an indistinct expectation of future
blessings, upon condition of repentance and amendment. It ought also to
be observed, that the last twelve chapters of this book bear a very
strong resemblance to the concluding chapters of the Revelation. The
style of this prophet is characterized by Bishop Lowth as bold,
vehement, and tragical; as often worked up to a kind of tremendous
dignity. He is highly parabolical, and abounds in figures and
metaphorical expressions. He may be compared to the Grecian Æschylus; he
displays a rough but majestic dignity; an unpolished though noble
simplicity; inferior perhaps in originality and elegance to others of
the prophets, but unequalled in that force and grandeur for which he is
particularly celebrated. He sometimes emphatically and indignantly
repeats his sentiments, fully dilates his pictures, and describes the
idolatrous manners of his countrymen under the strongest and most
exaggerated representations that the license of eastern style would
admit. The middle part of the book is in some measure poetical, and
contains even some perfect elegies, though his thoughts are in general
too irregular and uncontrolled to be chained down to rule, or fettered
by language.
EZION-GEBER. See ELATH.
EZRA, the author of the book which bears his name, was of the sacerdotal
family, being a direct descendant from Aaron, and succeeded Zerubbabel
in the government of Judea. This book begins with the repetition of the
last two verses of the second book of Chronicles, and carries the Jewish
history through a period of seventy-nine years, commencing from the
edict of Cyrus. The first six chapters contain an account of the return
of the Jews under Zerubbabel, after the captivity of seventy years; of
their reëstablishment in Judea; and of the building and dedication of
the temple at Jerusalem. In the last four chapters, Ezra relates his own
appointment to the government of Judea by Artaxerxes Longimanus, his
journey thither from Babylon, the disobedience of the Jews, and the
reform which he immediately effected among them. It is to be observed,
that between the dedication of the temple and the departure of Ezra,
that is, between the sixth and seventh chapters of this book, there was
an interval of about fifty-eight years, during which nothing is here
related concerning the Jews, except that, contrary to God’s command,
they intermarried with Gentiles. This book is written in Chaldee from
the eighth verse of the fourth chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of
the seventh chapter. It is probable that the sacred historian used the
Chaldean language in this part of his work, because it contains chiefly
letters and decrees written in that language, the original words of
which he might think it right to record; and indeed the people, who were
recently returned from the Babylonian captivity, were at least as
familiar with the Chaldee as they were with the Hebrew tongue.