Part 62
(d) David accepted as Wng over all Israel (5 1-3). (2) Reign of David in Jerus over united Israel (5 4 20 26). (o) Taking of Jerus and victories over the Philis (5 4-25).
divisions, as stated above, to a certain extent over-
lap.
(1) Visit of Hannah to Shiloh, and promise of the birth
of a son (1 S 1 1-19) ; birth and weaning of Samuel, and presentation to Eli at Shiloh (1 19-28).
(b) Return of the ark to the city of David (ch 8). (c) David's purpose to build a temple for the Lord (7 1-3) ; the Divine answer by the prophet Nathan, and the king's prayer (vs 4-29).
1 T ifp nf (2) Hannah's song or prayer (2 1-10)
X. ivue ui ministry of Samuel to Eh the priest (2 bamuel jj I8-2126); the evil practices of the
(d) Victories over the Phihs, Syrians, and other peoples (ch 8).
(1 S 1-15) sons of Eli and warning to Eh of the consequences to his house (2 12-17.22-25.
(e) David's reception of Mephibosheth (ch 9). (/) Defeat of the Ammonites and Syrians by the men of Israel under the command of Joab (10 1 11 1).
(k) Samuel's vision at the sanctuary and his induction to the prophetic office (3 1—4 1).
((7) David and Uriah, the latter's death in battle, and David's marriage with Batli-sheba (11 2-27). (h) Nathan's parable and David's conviction of sin (12 l-15a) ; the king's grief and intercession for his sick son (vs 156-25) ; siege and capture of Rabbah, the Ammonite capital (vs 26-31).
(4) Defeat of the Israelites by the Phihs, capture of
the ark of God, death of the two sons of Eli and of Eli himself {ch 4). „ , , ^, ,,/-,, 4. (.5) Discomfiture of Dagon before the ark of God at Ashdodreturn of the ark to Beth-shemesh, with expiatory offerings of golden tumors, and golden mice; its twenty years' sojourn at Kiriath-]eanm (S 1—7 4).
(i) Amnon and Tamar (13 1-22); Absalom's revenge and murder of Amnon (vs 23-36) ; flight of Absalom (vs 37-.39).
(6) Assembly of Israel under Samuel at Mizpah, and victory over the Phihs (7 S-14) ; Samuel established as judge over all Israel (vs 1.5-17). , . , , ,
if) Return of Absalom to Jerus (14 1-24) ; his beauty, and reconciliation with the king (vs 25-33).
(7) Samuel's sons appointed to be ]udges and the consequent demand of the people for a king; Samuels warning concerning the character of the king for whom
(k) Absalom's method of ingratiating himself with the people (15 1-6) ; his revolt and the flight of tlie king from Jerus (vs 7-31); meeting with Hushai (vs 32-37a); Absalom in Jerus (ver 376).
* '(8) "^Saul's "^search for the lost asses of his father and meeting with Samuel (ch 9).
(0 David's meeting with Ziba (16 1-4), and Shimei (vs .5-14) ; counsel of Ahitophel and Hushai (16 15 17 14) ; the news carried to David (vs 15-22) ; death of Ahitophel (ver 23). Im) David at Mahanaim (17 24-29). (n) The revolt subdued, death of Absalom, and reception by David of the tidings (18 1 19 80). (o) Return of the king to Jerus, and meetings with Shimei, Mephibosheth, and Barzillai the Gileadite (19 86-43).
, ^i, (9) Saul is anointed by Samuel to be ruler over the
people of Israel, and receives the gift of prophecy (10 1-16) ; second assembly of the people under Samuel at Mizpah, and election of Saul to be king (vs 17-27).
(10) Victory of Saul over the Ammonites and deliverance of Jabesh-gilead (11 l-13j; Saul made king in
*^"!l) ^slm^'uel's^address to the people in Gilgal, defend-
Samuel, Books of Sanctification THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2680
derived from other sources, and additions made by the editor or editors. This general determination of sources rests upon a difference of standpoint and religious conception, and upon slighter varieties of style which are neither so pronounced nor so readily distinguished as in the books of the Pent. It is reasonable also to bear in mind that a close and exact division or line of demarcation in every detail is not to be expected. V. Character and Date of Sources.—Attempts which have been made to determine the date of these two sources, or to identify them with one or other of the principal authorities from which the historical narratives of the Pent are derived, have not been convincing. In the judgment of some, however, the later of the two sources siiould be regarded as a continuation of the narrative or document knoivn as E, and the earlier be assigned to J. The style of the latter has much in conmion with the style of J, and is clear, vigorous and poetical: the religious conceptions also that are embodied and taught are of a simple and early type. The later writing has been supposed to give indications of the influence of the grophetic teaching of the 8th cent. The indications, owever, are not sufficiently decisive to enable a final judgment to be formed. If it is borne in mind that J and E represent rather schools of teaching and thought than individual writers, the characteristics of the two sources of the Books of S would not be out of harmony with the view that from these two schools respectively were derived the materials out of which the history was compiled. The "sources" would then, according to the usual view, belong to the 9th and 8th cents, before the Cliristian era; and to a period not more than a century or a century and a half later should be assigned the final compilation and completion of the book as it is contained in the Heb Canon of Scripture.
(p) Revolt of Sheba the Benjamite. and its suppression by Joab witli the death of Amasa (20 1.2.4-22); the king's treatment of the concubines left at Jems (ver 3)
the names of his officers (vs 23-26).
(1) Seven male descendants of Saul put to death at the instance of the Gibeonites (21 1-14); incidents of wars with the Philis (vs 1.5-22). 4 AoDendix ^-^^ David's song of thanksgiving and ^ c oi oi^ praise (ch 22). (2 b 21-24) (3) The "last words" of David (23 l-*?) ; names and exploits of David's "mighty men" (vs 8-39).
(4) The king's numbering of the people, the resulting plague, and the dedication of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (ch 24)
IV. Sources of the History.—The natural inference from the character and contents of the Books of S, as thus reviewed, is that the writer has made use of authorities, "sources" or "documents," from which he has compiled a narrative of the events which it was his desire to place on record. The same characteristics are noticeable here which are found in parts of the Pent and of the Books of Josh and Jgs, that in some instances duplicate or parallel accounts are given of one and the same event, which seems to be regarded from different points of view and is narrated in a style which is more or less divergent from that of the companion record. Examples of this so-called duphcation are more frequent in the earher parts of the books than in the later. There are presented, for instance, two accounts of Saul's election as king, and an act of disobedience is twice followed, apparently quite independently, by the sentence of rejection. Independent also and hardly consistent narratives are given of David's introduction to Saul (1 S 16 1423; 17 31fT.55ff); and the two accounts of the manner of the king's death can be imperfectly reconciled only on the hypothesis that the young Amalekite told a false tale to David in order to magnify his own part in the matter. In these and other instances httle or no attempt seems to be made to harmonize conflicting accounts, or to reconcile apparent discrepancies. In good faith the 'writer set down the records as he found them, making extracts or quotations from his authorities on the several events as they occurred, and thus building up his own history on the basis of the freest possible use of the materials and language of those who had preceded him.
VI. Creek Versions.—For an exact estimate and understanding of the history and text of the Books of S account must further be taken of the Gr version or versions. In the LXX there is great divergence from the Heb Massoretic text, and it is probable that in the course of transmission the Gr has been exposed to corruption to a very considerable extent. At least two recensions of the Gr text are in existence, represented by the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS respectively, of which the latter is nearer to the Heb original, and has apparently been conformed to it at a later period with a view to removing discrepancies; and this process has naturally impaired its value as a witness to the primary shape of the Gr text itself. There are therefore ttiree existing types of the text of S; the Massoretic Heb and B and A in the Greek. The original form of the LXX, If it could be recovered, would represent a text anterior to the Massoretic recension, ditfering from, but not necessarily superior to, the latter. For the restoration of the Gr text, the Old Lat. where it is available, affords valuable help. It is evident then that in any given instance the agreement of these three types or recensions of the text is the strongest possible witness to the originality and authenticity of a reading ; but that the weight attaching to the testimony of A will not in general, on account of the history of its text, be equivalent to that of either of the other two.
VII. Ethical and Religious Teaching.—The religious teaching and thought of the two Books of S it is not difficult to summarize. The books are in form a historical record of events; but they are at the same time and more particularly a history conceived with a definite purpose, and made to subserve a definite moral ancl religious aim. It is not a narrative of events solely, or the preservation of historical detail, that the writer has in view, but rather to elucidate and enforce from Israel's experience the significance of the Divine and moral government of the nation. The duty of king and people alike is to obey Jeh, to render strict and willing deference to His commands, and on this path of obedience alone will national independence and prosperity be secured. With the strongest emphasis, and with uncompromising severity, sin even in the highest places is condemned; and an ideal of righteousness is set forth in language and with an earnestness which recalls the exhortations of Dt. Thus the same is true of the Books of S as is manifest in the preceding books of the canonical OT: they are composed with a didactic aim. The experience of the past is made to afford lessons of warning and encouragement for the present. To the writer or writers—the history of the development and upbuilding of the Israelite kingdom is pregnant with a deeper meaning than lies on the surface, and this meaning he endeavors to make plain to his readers through the record. The issues of the events
However alien such a method of composition may appear to modem thought and usage in the West,
it is characteristic of all early oriental writing. It would be almost impossible to find in any eastern literature a work of any length or importance which was not thus silently indebted to its predecessors, had incorporated their utterances, and had itself in turn suffered interpolation at the hands of later editors and transcribers. Accordingly, early Heb historical literature also, while unique in its spirit, conformed in its methods to the practice of the age and country in which it was composed. It would have been strange if it had been otherwise.
Apart from the appendix and minor additions, of which Hannah's song or psalm in 1 S 2 is one, the main portion of the book is derived from two indeTwo Main Pendent sources, which themselves in all J T J probability formed part of a larger whole, a ana inaemore or less consecutive history or histories pendent of Israel. These sources may. however, siniircpt; ^^^^ been, as others think, rather of a bioouuiv-co graphical nature, presenting and enforcing the teaching of the acts and experience of the great leaders and rulers of the nation. The parallehsm and duplication of the narrative is perhaps most evident in the history of Saul. The broad lines of distinction between the two may be defined without much difficulty or uncertainty. Tlie greater part of the first eight chapters of 1 S is in all probability derived from tne later of these two sources, to which is to be assigned more or less completely chs 10-12, 15, 17-19 21-26, 28 and 2 S 1-7. The earher source has contributed 18 9 with parts of chs 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20 and considerable portions of chs 22, 23, 26-27, 29-31, 2 S 1 (in part), 2-6,9-20. Some details have probably been
2681 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Samuel, Books of Sanctification
and the events themselves are under the guidance and control of Jeh, who always condemns and punishes wrong, but approves and rewards righteousness. Thus the narrative is history utilized to convey moral truth. And its value is to be estimated, not primarily as recording the great deeds of the past, but as conveying ethical teaching; that by means of the history with all its glamor and interest the people may be recalled to a sense of their high duty toward God, and be warned of the inevitable consequences of disobedience to Him.
as the leading opponent of the Jews at the time when Nehemiah undertook to rebuild the walls of Jerus (Neh 2 10; 4 1; 6 1). He was related by marriage to the son of Eliashib, the high priest at the time of the annulment of the mixed marriages forbidden by the Law (Neh 13 28).
Renewed interest has been awakened in Sanballat from the fact that he is mentioned in the papyri I and II of Sachau (Die aramdischen Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, Berlin, 1908, and in his later work, Aramdische Papyrus und Ostraka, Leip-
LiTERATuni3.—Upon all points of introduction, criticism and interpretation, the comms. alTord abundant and satisfactory guidance. The principal Eng. comms. are by H. P. Smith in ICC, Edinburgh, 1899, and S. R. Driver, Notes on the Heb Text of the Books of S, 2d ed, Oxford, 1913; A. R. S. Kennedy, "Samuel," New Century Bible, New York, Prowde, 1905; in German by R. Budde, 1902, W. Nowack. 1902, A. Klostermann, 1887. See also the arts. "Samuel" in IIDB, EB and Jew Enc.
zig, 1911; cf Staerk's convenient ed in Lietzmanns Kleine Texle, No. 32, 1908) as having been the governor (pahath) of Samaria some time before the 17th year of Darius (Nothus), i.e. 408-407 BC, when Bagohi was governor of Judah. His two sons, Dclaiah and Shelemiah, received a letter from Jedoniah and his companions the priests who were in Yeb (Elephantine) in Upper Egypt. This letter contained information concerning the state of affairs in the Jewish colony of Yeb, esp. concerning the destruction of the temple or synagogue {agora) which had been erected at that place.
A. S. Geden SANAAS, san'4-as (A and Fritzsche, Savaas, iSandas, B, Sajid, Sam(i; AVAnnaas): The sons of Sanaas re1;unied in large numbers with Zerubbabel
(1 Esd 5 23) = "Senaah" in Ezr 2 3.5; Neh 7 38. The numbers vary in each case (Esd, 3,330 or 3,301; Ezr, 3,630; Neh, 3,930).
The address of this letter reads as follows: "To our lord Bagohi, the governor of Judaea, his servants Jedoniah and his companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb [Elephantine]. May the God of Heaven inquire much at every time after the peace of our lord and put thee in favor before Darius the king," etc. The conclusion of the letter reads thus: "Now, thy servants, Jedoniah and his companions and the Jews, all citizens of Yeb, say thus: If it seems good to our lord, mayest thou think on the rebuilding of that temple [tlie ayora which had been destroyed by the Egyptians]. Since it has not been permitted us to rebuild it, do thou look on the receivers of thy benefactions and favors here in Egypt. Let a letter with regard to the rebuilding of the temple of the God Jaho in the fortress of Yeb, as it was formerly built, be sent from thee. In thy name will they offer the meal offerings, the incense, and the burnt offerings upon the altar of the God Jaho; and we shall always pray for thee, we and our wives and our children and all the Jews found here, until the temple has beenrebuilt. And it will be to thee a meritorious work [c^d/iafcd/i] in the sight of Jaho, the God of Heaven, greater than the meritorious work of a man who offers to him a burnt offering and a sacrifice of a value equal to the value of
SANABASSAR, san-a-bas'ar (in 1 Esd 2 12.15), SANABASSARUS, san-a-bas'a-rus (in 6 18.10; a name appearing in many variations, A always reading 2ava(3d(rcrapos, Sanabdssaros, B, 2ava|j,acro-dpa>, Sanamassdro, in 2 12[11] [RVm Samanassar], Sa|iavao-o-dpov, Samanassdrou, in 2 15[14], but Sa|3av-
atro-dpui, Sabanassdro, in 6 18[17J [RVm] and 2ava-
pdo-o-apos, Sanabdssaros, in 6 20 [19]): He was "governor of Judaea" under Cyrus, conveyed the holy vessels of the temple from Babylon to Jerus and "laid the foundations of the house of the Lord"
for the first time since its destruction (1 Esd 2 12.
15; 6 18-20) = "Sheshbazzar [q.v.] the prince of Judah" (Ezr 1 8). Some identify him with Zerubbabel as AVm in 1 Esd 6 18: "Z., which is also S. the ruler." This view appears to be favored by the order of the words here, where, in case of two persons, one might expect "S. the ruler" to come first. Zerubbabel appears as "governor of Judaea" also in 1 Esd 6 27-29. Ezr 3 10 speaks of the foundation of the temple imder Zerubbabel and 6 16 as under Sheshbazzar. There is further the analogy of 1 Esd
1,000 talents of silver. And as to the gold (probably that which was sent by the Jews to Bagohi as a baksheesh] we have sent word and given knowledge. Also, we have in our name communicated in a letter all [these] matters unto Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria. Also, from all that has been done to us, Arsham [the satrap of Egypt] has learned nothing.
5 40 where Nehemias and Attharias refer to the same person. Against this identification: Zerubbabel is not styled ruler or governor either in Neh or Ezr, but in Hag 1 14; 2 2.21 he is pehdh or governor of Judah; no explanation is given of the double name, as in the case
The 20th of Marchoshvan in the 17th year ot Darius the king."
Sanballat is the Bab Sin-uballit, "may Sin give him life," a name occurring a number of times in the contract tablets from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and Darius Hystaspis. (See Tallquist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, 183.)
of e g Daniel, Belteshazzar ; the language of Ezr 5 14f seems to refer to work commenced under a different person than Zerubbabel. Nor is there any reason against supposing a first return mider Sheshbazzar (Sanabassar) and a foundation of the temple previous to the time of Zerubbabel—an undertaking into which the Jews did not enter heartily, perhaps because Sanabassar may have been a foreigner (though it is uncertain whether he was a Babylonian, a Persian, or a Jew). A later pro-
R. Dick Wilson SANCTIFICATION, sank-ti-ii-ka'shun Etymology
posal is to identify Sanabassar with bhenazzar. the uncle
I. The Formal Sense
of Zerubbabel in 1 Ch 3 18. But either of these identi-
1. In the OT
fications must remain doubtful. See Shenazzar; Zerubbabel. ~ . S. Angus SANASIB, san'a-sib (Fritzsche, 2avao-C|3, Sanaslb,
2. In the NT II. The Ethical Sense
1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea 2. Our Relation to God as Personal: NT Idea
but B and Swcte, 2avaPe£s, Sanabels, A, Avao-tCp,
3. Sanctification as God's Gift
4. Questions of Time and Method
Anaselb) : Found only in 1 Esd 5 24, where the
5. An Element in All Christian Life
sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are a priestly
6. Follows from Fellowship with God
family returning "among the sons of »anasib^ Thenameisnot foundinthe |1 Ezr 2 36; Neh 7 39, and is perhaps preserved m the Vulg Eliasib.
7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire ? 8. Sanctification as Man's Task Literature
. The root is found in the OT in the Heb vb.
, kddhash, in the NT in the Gr vb. aiidfu,
SANBALLAT, san-bal'at (t335?D, ^an'bhallat;
©jfj
hagidzo. The noun "sanctification" Etymology (ix7ia<r/x6s, hagiasmos) does not occur in the OT and is found but 10 t in the NT, but the roots noted above appear in a group of important words which are of very frequent occur-
Or and Vulg Sanaballdt, Pesh Samballal): San-
ballat the Horonite was, if the appellation which
follows his name indicates his origin, a Moabite ot
Horonaim, a city of Moab mentioned mlsa 15 5;
Jer 48 2.5.34; Jos, Ant, XIII, xxin; XIV, ii. He
rence. These words are "holy," "hallow," "hal-
is named along with Tobiah, the Ammonite slave
I lowed," "holiness," "consecrate, "saint," "sanctify,"
(Neh 4 1), and Geshem the Arabian (Neh b 1)
Sanctification THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2682
this. It is applied to Jeh, and it means the assertion
"sanctification." It must be borne in mind that these words are all tr' of the same root, and that therefore no one of them can be treated adequately without reference to the others. All have undergone a certain development. Broadly stated, this has been from the formal, or ritual, to the ethical, and these different meanings must be carefully distinguished.
of Jeh's power in Israel's triumph and the conquest of her foes (20 41; 28 25;_36 23; 38 16; 39 27). The sanctification of Jeh is thus the assertion of His being and power as God, just as the sanctification of a person or object is the assertion of Jeh's right and claim in the same.
The story of the waters of RIeribah illustrates the same meaning. Moses' failure to sanctify Jeh is his failure to declare Jeh's glory and power in the miracle of the waters (Nu 20 12.13; 27 14; Dt 32 51). The story of Nadab and Abihu points the same way. Here " I will be sanctified " is the same as " I will be glorified " (Lev 10 1-3). Not essentially dillerent is the usage in Isa 5 16: "Jeh of hosts is exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness." Holiness again is the e.xaltedness of God, His supremacy, which is seen here in the judgment (justice, righteousness) meted out to the disobedient people (cf the recurrent refrain of 5 25; 9 12.17.21; 10 4; see Justice; Justice of God). Isa 8 13; 29 23 suggest the same idea by the way in which they relate "sanctify" to fear and awe. One NT passage brings us the same meaning (1 Pet 3 15): "Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," that is, exalt Him as supreme.
/. The Formal Sense.—By sanctification is ordinarily meant that hallowing of the Christian believer by which he is freed from sin and enabled to realize the will of God in his life. This is not, however, the
first or common meaning in the Scriptures. To sanctify means commonly to make holy, that is, to separate from the world and consecrate to God.
To understand this primary meaning we must go back to the word "holy" in the OT. That is holy which belongs to Jeh. There is
1. In the nothing implied here as to moral OT character. It may refer to days and seasons, to places, to objects used for worship, or to persons. Exactly the same usage
In a few NT passages the OT ritual sense reappears, as when Jesus speaks of the temple sanctify-
is shown with the word "sanctify." To sanctify anything is to declare it as belonging to God. "Sanctify unto me all the first-born .... it is mine" (Ex 13 2; of Nu 3 13; 8 17). It applies thus to all that is connected with worship, to the Levites (Nu 3 12), the priests and the tent of meeting (Ex 29 44), the altar and all that touches
ing the gold, and the altar the gift
2. In the (Mt 23 17.19; cf also He 9 13; 1 NT Tim 4 5). The prevailing meaning
is that which we found in the OT. To sanctify is to consecrate or set apart. We may
first take the few passages in the Fourth Gospel. As applied to Jesus in 10 36; 17 19, sanctify cannot mean to make holy in the ethical sense. As the whole context shows, it means to consecrate for His mission in the world. The reference to the dis-
it (Ex 29 36 f), and the offering (Ex 29 27; ct 2 Maco 2 IS; Ecclus 7 31). The feast and holy days are to be sanctified, that is, set apart from ordinary business as belonging to Jeh (the Sabbath, Neh 13 19-22; a fast, Joel 1 14). So the nation as a whole is sanctified when Jeh acknowledges it and receives it as His own, "a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" (Ex 19 5,6). A man may thus sanctify his house or his field (Lev 27 14.16), but not the firstling of the flock, for this is already Jeh's
ciples, "that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," has both meanings: that they may beset apart (for Jesus sends them, as the Father sends Him), and that they may be made holy in truth.
This same meaning of consecration, or separation, appears when we study the word saint, which is the same as "sanctified one." Aside from its use in the Pss, the word is found mainly in the NT. Outside the Gospels, where the term "disciples" is used, it is the common word to designate the followers of Jesus, occurring some 56 t. By "saint" is not meant the morally perfect, but the one who belongs to Christ, just as the sanctified priest or offering belonged to Jeh. Thus Paul can salute the disciples at Corinth as saints and a little later rebuke them as carnal and babes, as those among whom are jealousy and strife, who walk after the manner of men (1 Cor 12; 3 1-3). In the same way the phrase "the sanctified" or "those that are sanctified"
(Lev 27 26).
It is this formal usage without moral implication that explains such a passage as Gen 38 21. The word tr'^ "prostitute" here is from the same V kddhash, meaning lit., as elsewhere, the sanctified or consecrated one (kfdhenhdfi; see margin and cf Dt 23 IS; 1 K 14 24; ilos 4 14). It is the hierodule, the famihar figure of the old pagan temple, the sacred slave consecrated to the temple and the deity for immoral purposes. The practice is protested against in Israel (Dt 23 17 f), but the use of the term illustrates clearly the absence of anything essentially ethical in its primary meaning (cf also 2 K 10 20, "And .lehu said. Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal. And they proclaimed it"; cf Joel 1 14).
Very suggestive is the transitive use of the word in the phrase, "to sanctify Jeh." To understand this we must note the use of the word "holy" as applied to Jeh in the OT. Its meaning is not primarily ethical. Jeh's holiness is His supremac}-. His sovereignty, His glory. His essential being as God. To say the Holy One is simply to say God. Jeh's holiness is seen in His might. His manifested glory; it is that before which peoples tremble, which makes the nations dread (Ex 15 11-18; ci; 1 S 6 20; Ps 68 35; 89 7; 99 2.3). Significant
is used to designate the believers. By "the inheritance among all them that are sanctified" is meant the heritage of the Christian believer (Acts 20 32; 26 18; cf 1 Cor 1 2; 6 11; Eph 1 IS; Col 1 12). This is the meaning in He, which speaks of the believer as being sanctified by the blood of Christ. In 10 29 the writer speaks of one who has fallen away, who "hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing." Evidently it is not the inner and personal holiness of this apostate that is referred to, esp. in view of the tense, but that he had been separated unto God by this sacrificial blood and had then counted the holy offering a common thing. The contrast is between sacred and common, not between moral perfection and sin (cf 10 10; 13 12). The formal meaning appears again in 1 Cor 7 12-14, where the unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified by the wife, and vice versa. It is not moral character that is meant here, but a certain separation from the profane and unclean and a certain relation to God. This is made plain by the reference to the children: "Else were your children unclean; but now aie they holy." The formal sense is less certain in other
is the way in which "jealous" and "holy" are almost identified (Josh 24 19; Ezk 38 23). It is God asserting His supremacy. His unique claim. To sanctify Jeh, therefore, to make Him holy, is to assert or acknowledge or bring forth His being as God, His supreme power and glory, His sovereign claim. Ezekicl brings this out most clearly. Jeh has been profaned in the eyes of the nations ilirough Israel's defeat and captivity. True, it was because of Israel's sins, but the nations thought it was because of Jeh's weakness. The ethical is not wanting in these passages. The people are to be separated from their sins and given a new heart (Ezk 36 25. 26.33). But the word "sanctify" is not used for
2683 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sanctification
instances where we have the thought of sanctification in or by the Holy Spirit or in Christ; as in Rom 15 16, "being sanctified by the Holy Spirit"; 1 Cor 1 2, to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus"; 1 Pet 1 2, "in sanctification of the Spirit." Paul's doctrine of the Spirit as the new life in us seems to enter in here, and yet the reference to 1 Cor suggests that the primary meaning is still that of setting apart, the relating to God.
affections and highest powers, to be ruled by a new spirit (Eph 4 13.20.23.24.32; cf Rom 12 1). But we do not get the full meaning of this thought of sanctification as consecration, or belonging, until
we grasp the NT thought of our rela2. Relation tion to God as personal. The danger to God has always been that this consecration Personal: should be thought of in a negative or NT Idea passive way. Now the Christian's surrender is not to an outer authority but to an inner, living fellowship. The sanctified
//. The Ethical Sense.—We have been considering so far what has been called the formal meaning of the word; but the chief interest of Christian thought lies in the ethical idea, sanctification considered as the active deed or process by which the
life is thus a life of personal fellowship lived out with the Father in the spirit of Christ in loving trust and obedient service. This positive and vital meaning of sanctification dominates Paul's thought. He speaks of living unto God, of living to the Lord, and, most expressively of all, of being alive unto Gocl (Rom 14 8; cf 6 13; Gal 2 19). So completely is his life filled by this fellowship that he can say, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal 2 20). But there is no quietism here. It is a very rich and active life, this life of fellowship to which we are surrendered. It is a
life is made holy.
Our first question is, How does the idea of belonging to God become the idea of transformation of life
and character? The change is, in-
1. Transdeed, nothing less than a part of the formation whole movement for which the entire of Formal Scriptures stand as a monument. The to Ethical ethical is not wanting at the beginning. Idea but the supremacy of the moral and spiritual over against the formal, the ritual, the ceremonial, the national, is the clear direction in which the movement as a whole tends. Now the pivot of this movement is the conception of God. As the thought of God grows more ethical, more spiritual, it molds and changes all other conceptions. Thus what it means to belong to God (holiness, sanctification) depends upon the nature of the God to whom man belongs. The hierodules of Corinth are women of shame because of the nature of the goddess to whose temple they belong. The prophets caught a vision of Jeh, not jealous for His prerogative, not craving the honor of punc-
life of sonship in trust and love, with the spirit that enables us to say, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8 1.5; Gal 4 6). It is a life of unconquerable kindness and good will (Mt 5 43-48) . It is a life of "faith working through love" (Gal 5 6), it is having the mind of Christ (Phil 2 5). The sanctified life, then, is the life so fully surrendered to fellowship with Christ day by day that inner spirit and outward expression are ruled by His spirit.
We come now to that aspect which is central for Christian interest, sanctification as the making holy
of life, not by our act, but by God's 3. Sanctideed and by God's gift. If holiness fication as represents the state of heart and life God's Gift in conformity with God's will, then sanctification is the deed or process by which that state is wrought. And this deed we are to consider now as the work of God. Jesus prays that the Father may sanctify His disciples in truth (Jn 17 17). So Paul prays for the Thessalonians (1 Thess 5 23), and declares that Christ is to sanctify His church (cf Rom 6 22; 2 Thess 2 13; 2 Tim 2 21; 1 Pet 1 2). _ Here sanctification means to make clean or holy in the ethical sense, though the idea of consecration is not necessarily lacking. But aside from special passages, we must take into account the whole NT teaching, according to which every part of the Christian life is the gift of God and wrought by His Spirit. "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to work" (Phil 2 13; cf Rom 8 2-4.9.14.16-26; Gal 6 22 f). Significant is the use of the words "creature" ("creation," see margin) and "workmanship" with Paul
tilious and proper ceremonial, but with a gracious love for His people and a passion for righteousness. Theirgreat message is: This now is Jeh ; hear what
it means to belong to such a God and to serve Him. "What unto me is the multitude of your
sacrifices? .... Wash you, make you clean; . . . . seek justice, relieve the oppressed" (Isa 1 11.16.17). "When Israel was a child, then I loved him
I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than bumt^offerings" (Hos 11 1; 6 6). In this way the formal idea that we have been considering becomes charged with moral meaning. To belong to God, to be His servant. His son, is no mere external matter. Jesus' teaching as to sonship
is in point here. The word "sanctification" does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels at all, but "son-
ship" with the Jews expressed this same relation of
belonging. For them it meant a certain obedience on the one hand, a privilege on the other. Jesus
(2 Cor 5 17; Gal 6 15; Eph 2 10; 4 24). The new life is God's second work of creation.
declares that belonging to God means likeness to Him, sonship is sharing His spirit of loving good
When we ask, however, when and how this work
will (Mt 5 43-48). Brother and sister for Jesus
is wrought, there is no such clear answer. What we have is on the one hand uncompro-
are those who do God's will (Mk 3 3.5). Paul
takes up the same thought, but joms it definitely to
4. Quesmising ideal and demand, and on the tions of other absolute confidence in God. By Time and adding to these two the evident fact Method that the Christian believers seen in the NT are far from the attainment of such Christian perfection, some writers have assumed to have the foundation here for the doctrine that the state of complete holiness of life is a special experience in the Christian life wrought in a definite moment of time. It is well to realize that no NT passages give a specific answer to these questions of time and method, and that our conclusions must be drawn from the general teaching of the NT as to the Christian life. First, it must be noted that in the NT view sancti-
the words "saint" and "sanctify." The rehgious means the ethical, those "that are sanctified are
"called to be saints" (1 Cor 1 2). The signffioant
latter phrase is the same as in Rom 1 1, Paul
called to be an apostle." In this light we read Eph 4 1 "Walk worthily of the calling wherewith yewerecaUed." Cf 1 Thess 2 12; Phil 1 27 And
the end of this caUing is that we are "foreordained
to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8
29) We must not limit ourselves to the words
"saint" or "sanctify" to get this teaching with Paul.
It is his constant and compelling moral appeal: You belong to Christ; live with Him, live unto Him (Col 3 1-4; 1 Thess 6 10). It is no formal
belonging, no external surrender. It is the yielding
of the life in its passions and purposes, m its deepest
fication in the ethical sense is an essential element
Sanctification THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2684
which we know as the Spirit of Christ. Such a fellowship is the supreme moral force for the molding of life. An intimate human fellowship is an analogue of this, and we know with what power it works on life and character. It cannot, however,
and inevitable result of all Christian life and experience. Looked at from the religious point of view,
it follows from the doctrine of regenera-
5. An Eletion. Regeneration is the implanting ment in All of a new life in man. So far as that Christian is a new life from God it is ipso facto Life holy. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit teaches the same (see Holy Spirit). There is no Christian life from the very beginning that is not the work of the Spirit. "No man can [even] say, Jesus is Lord, but in the .... Spirit"
set forth either the intimacy or the power of this supreme and final relation where our Friend is not another but is our real self. So much we know: this fellowship means a new spirit in us, a renewed and daily renewing life.
It is noteworthy that Paul has no hard-and-fast forms for this life. The reality was too rich and great, and his example should teach us caution in the insistence upon theological forms which may serve to compress the truth instead of expressing it. Here are some of his expressions for this life in us: to "have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2 16; Phil 2 5), "the Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8 9), "Christ is in you" (Rom 8 10), "the spirit which is from God" (1 Cor 2 12), "the Spirit of God"
(1 Cor 12 3). But this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether with Paul we say Spirit of Christ or Spirit of God (Rom 8 9) . His presence, therefore, in so far forth means holiness of life. From the ethical standpoint the same thing is constantly declared. Jesus builds here upon the prophets: no religion without righteousness; clean hands, pure hearts, deeds of mercy are not mere conditions of worship, but joined to humble hearts are themselves the worship that God desires (Am 5 21-25; Mic 6 6-8). Jesus deepened the conception, but did not change
(1 Cor 3 16), "the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 6 19). "the Spirit of the Lord " (2 Cor 3 17). "the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor 3 18). But in all this one fact stands out. this
life is personal, a new spirit in us, and that spirit is one that we have in personal fellowship with God; it
is His Spirit. Especially signiflcant Is the way in which Paul relates this new life to Christ. We have already noted that Paul uses indiflerently "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ." and that in the same passage (Rom 8 9). Paul's great contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit hes here. As he states it in 2 Cor 3 17: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." "With that the whole conception of the Spirit gains moral content and personal character. The Spirit is personal, not some thing, nor some strange and magical power. The Spirit is ethical; there is a definite moral quality which is expressed when we say Christ. He has the Spirit who has tlie qualities of Christ. Thus the presence of the Spirit
it, and Paul was true to this succession. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, .... the spirit is hfe because of righteousness" (Rom 8 9.10). There is nothing in Paul's teaching to suggest that sanctification is the special event of a unique experience, or that there are two kinds or qualities of sanctification. All Christian living meant for him clean, pure, right living, and that was sanctification. The simple, practical way in which he attacks the bane of sexual impurity in his pagan congregations shows this. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor. For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification" (1 Thess 4 3.4.7). The strength of Paul's teaching, indeed, lies here in this combination of moral earnestness with absolute dependence upon God.
is not evidenced in the unusual, the miraculous, the ecstatic utterance of the enthusiast, or some strange deed of power, but in the workaday quahties of kindness, goodness, love, loyalty, patience, self-restraint (Gal 5 22 f). With this identification of the Spirit and the Christ in mind, we can better understand the passages in which Paul brings out the relation of Christ to the sanctification of the believer. He is the goal (Rom 8 29). We are to grow up in Him (Eph 4 15). He is to be formed in us (Gal 4 19)- We are to behold Him and be changed into His image (2 Cor 3 17 f). This deepens into Paul's thought of the mystical relation with Christ. The Christian dies to sin with Him that he may live with Him a new life. Christ is now his real life. He dwells in Christ, Christ dwells in him. He has Christ's thoughts. His mind. See Rom 6 3-11; 8 9.10; 1 Cor 2 16; 15 22; Gal 2 20. This vital and positive conception of the sanctification of the believer must be asserted against some popular interpretations. The symbols of fire and water, as suggesting cleansing, have sometimes been made the basis for a whole superstructure of doctrine. (For the former, note Isa 6 6 f ; Lk 3 16; Acts 2 3; for the latter. Acts 2 38; 22 16; 1 Cor 6 11; Eph 5 26; Tit 3 5; He 10 22; Rev 1 .5; 7 14.) There is a twofold danger here, from which these writers have not escaped. The symbols suggest cleansing, and their over-emphasis has meant first a negative and narrow idea of sanctification as primarily separation from sin or defilement. This is a falling back to certain OT levels. Secondly, these material symbols have been literalized, and the result has been a sort of mechanical or magical conception of the work of the Spirit. I3ut the soul is not a substance for mechanical action, however sublimated. It is personal life that is to be hallowed, thought, affections, motives, desires, will, and only a personal agent through personal fellowship can work this end.
The second general conclusion that we draw from the NT teaching as to the Christian Hfe is this: the sanctification which is a part of all
6. Follows Christian living follows from the very from Felnature of that life as fellowship with lowship God. Fundamental here is the fact with God that the Christian hfe is personal, that nothing belongs in it which cannot be stated in personal terms. It is a life with God in which He graciously gives Himself to us, and which we live out with Him and with our brothers in the spirit of Christ, which is His Spirit. The two great facts as to this fellowship are, that it is God's gift, and that its fruit is holiness. First,
it is God's gift. AYhat God gives us is nothing less than Himself. The gift is not primarily forgiveness, nor victory over sin, nor peace of soul, nor hope of heaven. It is fellowship with Him, which includes all of these and without which none of these can be. Secondly, the fruit of this fellowship is holiness. The real hallowing of our
The clear recognition of the personal and vital character of sanctification will help us with another
life can come in no other way. For Christian holiness is personal, not something formal or ritual, and its source and power can be nothing lower than the personal. Such is the fellowship into which God graciously lifts the believer. Whatever its mystical aspects, that fellowship is not magical or sacramental. It is ethical through and through. Its condition on our side is ethical. For Christian faith is the moral surrender of our life to Him in whom truth and right come to us with authority to command. The meaning of that surrender is ethical; it is opening the life to definite moral real-
problem. If the holy life be God's re7. Is It Inquirement and at the same time His stantaneous deed, why should not this sanctificaand Entire? tion be instantaneous and entire? And does not Paul imply this, not merely in his demands but in his prayer for the Thessalonians, that God may establish their hearts in holiness, that He may sanctity them wholly and preserve spirit and soul and body entire, without blame at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 3 13; 5 23)? In answer to this we must first discriminate between the ideal and the empirical with Paul. Like John (1 Jn 1 6; 3 9), Paul insists that the hfe of Christ and the life of sin cannot go on together, and
ities and powers, to love, meekness, gentleness, humihty, reverence, purity, the passion for righteousness, to that which words cannot analyze but
2685 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Sanctification
word itself appears in but few passages with this sense, the NT is full of the thought of the making holy of the Christian's life by the Spirit of God in that fellowship into which God lifts us by Hia grace and in which He gives Himself to us. This sanctifying, or hallowing, is not mechanical or magical. It is wrought out by God's Spirit in a daily fellowship to which man gives himself in aspiration and trust and obedience, receiving with open heart, living out in obedient life. It is not negative, the mere separation from sin, but the progressive hallowing of a life that grows constantly in capacity, as in character, into the stature of full manhood as
he knows no qualified obedience, no graduated standard. He brings the highest Christian demand to the poorest of his pagan converts. Nor have we any finer proof of his faith than this uncompromising ideahsm. On the other hand, how could he ask less than this? God cannot require less than the highest, but it is another question how the ideal
is to be achieved. In the realm of the ideal it is always either .... or. In the realm of life there
is another category. The question is not simply. Is this man sinner or saint? It is rather, What
is he becoming? This matter of becoming is the really vital issue. Is this man turned the right way with aU his power? Is his life wholly open to the Divine fellowship? Not the degree of achievement, but the right attitude toward the ideal, is decisive. Paul does not stop to resolve paradoxes, but practically he reckons with this idea. Side by side with his prayer for the Thessalonians are his admonitions to growth and progress (1 Thess 3 12; 6 14). Neither the absolute demand or the promise of grace gives us the right to conclude how the consummation shall take place.
it is in Christ. And from this its very nature it is not momentary, but the deed and the privilege of a whole life. See also Holy Spirit and the following article.
Literature.—The popular and special works are usually too undiscriminating and unhistorical to be of value for the Bib. study. An exception is Beet. Holiness Symbolic and Real. Full Bib. material in Cremer, Bib. Theol. Lex., but treated from special points of view. See Systematic Theologies. OT Theologies (cf esp. Smend), and NT Theologies (cf esp. Holtzmann). Harris Franklin Rall
That conclusion we can reach only as we go back again to the fundamental principle of the personal
Wesleyan Doctrine
character of the Christian life and the
1. Doctrine Stated 2. Objections Answered 3. Importance for the Preacher 4. Hymnology 5. Its Glorious Results 6. Wesley's Personal Testimony
8. Sanctifirelation thus given between the ethical cation as and the religious. All Christian life Man's Task is gift and task alike. "Work out your own salvation .... for it is God who worketh in you" (Phil 2 12 f). All is from God; we can only five what God gives. But there is a converse to this: only as we live it out can God give to us the fife. This appears in Paul's teaching as to sanctification. It is not only God's gift, but our task. "This is the will of God, even your
Christian perfection, through entire sanctifica-
tion, by faith, here and now, was one of the doc-
trines by which John Wesley gave
1. Doctrine great offence to his clerical brethren Stated in the Anglican church. From the beginning of his work in 1739, till 1760, he was formulating this doctrine. At the last date there suddenly arose a large number of witnesses among his followers. Many of these he questioned with Baconian skiU, the result being a confirmation
sanctification" (1 Thess 4 3). "Having therefore
these promises .... let us cleanse ourselves from
all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting hohness
[hagiosune] in the fear of God" (2 Cor 7 1). Sig-
nificant is Paul's use of the word "walk." We are
of his theories on various points.
to "walk in newness of life," "by [or in] the Spirit,"
"in love," and "in Christ Jesus the Lord" (Rom 6
In public address he used the terms "Christian Perfection," "Perfect Love," and "Hohness," as synonymous, though there are differences between them when examined criticaUy. With St. Paul he taught that all regenerate persons are saints, i.e. holy ones, as the word "saint," from Lat sanctus, through the Norman-Fr., signifies (1 Cor 1 2; 2 Cor 1 1). His theory is that in the normal Christian the principle of holiness, beginning with the new birth, gradually expands and strengthens
4; Gal 5 16; Eph 5 2; Col 2 6). The gift in each case becomes the task, and indeed becomes
real and effective only in this activity. It is only
as we walk by the Spirit that this becomes powerful
in overcoming the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5 16; cf
5 2.5). But the ethical is the task that ends only
with life. If God gives only as we live, then He cannot give all at once. Sanctification is then the matter of a life and not of a moment. The hfe may
as the believer grows in grace and in the knowledge
be consecrated in a moment, the right relation to God assumed and the man stand in saving fellow-
of the truth, till, by a final, all-surrendering act of
ship with Him. The hfe is thus made holy m
faith in Christ, it reaches an instantaneous completion through the act of the Holy Spirit, the
principle. But the real making holy is coextensive
sanctifier: 2 Cor 7 1, "perfecting holiness," etc; Eph 4 13, AV "TiU we all come .... unto a perfect man," etc. Thus sanctification is gradual, but entire sanctificatien is instantaneous (Rom 6 6, "our old man was crucified," etc, a sudden death; Gal 2 20, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that five"). In 1 Thess 6 23, the word "sanctify" is a Gr aorist tense, signifying an act and not a process, as also in Jn 17
with the whole life of man. It is nothing less than
the constant in-forming of the life of the inner spirit and outer deed with the Spirit of Christ until we,
"speaking truth in love, may grow up m all things
into him, who is the head" (Eph 4 15). (Read also Rom 6; that the Christian is dead to sin is not some
fixed static fact, but is true only as he refuses the
lower and yields his members to a higher obedience.
Note that in 1 Cor 5 7 Paul in the same verse
19, "that they .... may be sanctified in truth," or truly. (See Meyer's note.) Many Christians experience this change on their deathbeds. If death suddenly ends the life of a growing Christian before he is wholly sanctified, the Holy Spirit per-
declares "ye are unleavened," and then exhorts
"Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new
lump"; cf also 1 Thess 5 5-10 ) We may sum up as follows: The word sanctify_
is used with two broad meanings: (1) The first is
fects the work. Wesley's advice to the preachers
to devote, to consecrate to God, to recognize as
of this evangelical perfection was to draw and not
holy, that is, as belonging to God. This is the
regular OT usage and is most common m the N i
to drive, and never to quote any threatenings of God's word against God's children. The declara-
The prophets showed that this belonging to Jeh demanded righteousness. The NT deepens this
tion, "Without sanctification no man shall see the Lord" (He 12 14), does not apply to the saints, "the holy ones."
into a whole-hearted surrender to the fellowship of God and to the rule of His Spirit. (2) Though the
Sanctification Sanctuary THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2686
masses of Great Britain. It furnished him a multitude of consecrated workers, many of them lay preachers, who labored in nearly every
Wesley's perfection of love is not perfection of
degree, but of kind. Pure love is perfect love. The gradual growth toward perfect purity of love is beautifully expressed in Monod's hymn,
5. Its hamlet, and who carried the gospel Glorious into all the British colonies, includResults ing America. It is declared by secular
"O the bitter shame and sorrow!" The first response to the Saviour's call is, "AU of self, and none of Thee." But after a vie-w of Christ on the cross, the answer Is faintly,
historians that this great evangelical movement, in which the doctrine of entire sancti-
fication was so prominent, saved England from a
" Some of self, and some of Thee." Then, after a period of growing love, the cry is, "Less of self, and more of Thee." After another period, tlie final cry is, "None of self, and all of Thee!" an aspiration for pure love, without any selfishness.
disastrous revolution, hke that which drenched France with the blood of its royal family and its nobihty, in the last decade of the 18th cent. It
is certain that the great Christian and humani-
tarian work of William Booth, originally a Metho-
The attainment of this grace is certified by the
dist, was inspired by this doctrine which he con-
total cessation of all servile fear (1 Jn 4 18). Wesley added to this the witness of the Spirit, for which his only proof-text is 1 Cor 2 12.
stantly preached. This enabled his followers in the
early years of the Salvation Army to endure the persecutions which befell them at that time.
(1) Paul, in Phil 3 12, declares that he is not "made perfect" : (a) in ver 15, he declares that he is perfect; (h) "made perfect" is a term,
Wesley's own experience of this grace is found in his
journal, March, 1760: "I felt my soul was all love.
I was so stayed on God as I never felt
2. Objecborrowed from the ancient games, tions signifying a finished course. This is Answered one of the meanings of teleido, as seen
6. Wesley's before, and knew that I loved Him with Personal all my heart. When I came home I Testimony could ask for nothing; I could only give thanks. And the witness that God had saved me from all my sins grew clearer every hour. On Wednesday this was stronger than ever. I have never since found my heart wander from God."
also in Lk 13 32 m, "The third day I end my course." Paul no more disclaims spiritual perfection in these words than does Christ before "the third day." Paul claims in ver 15, by the use
of an adj., that he is perfect. In ver 12 Paul claims that he is not perfect as a victor, because the race is not ended. In ver 15 he claims that he is perfect as a racer.
This is as explicit a testimony to his entire sancti-
fication as his only recorded testimony to his justi-
fication in these words (May 24, 1738): "I felt my heart strangely warmed .... and an assurance was given me, that He had taken away my sins," etc. Daniel Steele
(2) Paul says (1 Cor 15 31), "I die daily." This does not refer to death to sin, as some say that
it does, but to his daily danger of being killed for preaching Christ, as in Rom 8 36, "we are killed
SANCTITY, sank'ti-ti, LEGISLATION, lej-isla'shun, OF. See Astronomy, I, 5, (6)
all the day long."
(3) 1 Jn 1 8: "If we say that we have no sin,"
etc. (a) If this includes Christians, it contradicts John himself in the very next verse, and in 3 9, "^Tiosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin," and Jn 8 36, "If .... the Son shall make you free,"
SANCTUARY, sank'ta-a-ri, sank'tu-a-ri (tD^pl?
, mikddsh, W~^'i2 , viikk'dhash, TS"!" , kodhesh, "holy place"; a.^ lov, hdgion):
etc, and in all those texts in the NT declaring sins forgiven.
1. Nature of Article 2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis The Three Stages 3. Difficulties of the Theory
(b) Bishop "Westcott says that the expression, "to have sin." is distinguished from "to sin." as the sinful principle is distinguished from the sinful act in itself. It includes the idea of personal guilt. Westcott asserts that John refers to the Gnostics, who taught that moral evil exists only in matter, and never touches spirit, which
(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial
(2) Sacrifice and Theophany
(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries
(4) The Altar of God's House
(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy 4. The Alternative View
is always holy: and, therefore, though guilty of all manner of "\ace, their spirits had no need of atonement, because they were untouched by sin, which existed only in their bodies, as it does in all matter. When told that this made the body of Christ sinful, they denied the reahty of His body, saying that it was only a phantom. Hence, in the very first verse of this Ep., John writes evidently against the gnostic error, quoting three of the five senses to prove the reality of Christ's humanity. (By all means, see "The Epp. of St. John," Cambridge Bible for Schools, etc, 17-21.)
(1) Lay Sacrifice (2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals 5. The Elephantine Papyri The Elephantine Temple LiTERATUEE
The present art. is designed to supplement the arts, on Altars; High Place; Pentateuch; Tabern.acle; Temple, by giving an
1. Nature outline of certain rival views of the of the course of law and history as regards Article the place of worship. The subject has a special importance because it was made the turning-point of Wellhausen's discussion of the development of Israel's literature, history and religion. He himself writes: "I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralization of the cultus, and deduce from
The relation of this doctrine to the Methodist Episcopal church in the United States is seen in the
following questions, which have been
3. Required affirmatively answered in public by for the all its preachers on their admission to Highest the Conferences: "Are you going on Success to perfection?"; "Do you e.xpect to of the be made perfect in love in this life?"; Preacher "Are you earnestly striving after it?"
it the particular divergences. i\Iy whole position
The hymns of tlie Wesleys, still universally sung, are filled with this doctrine, in which occur such expressions as:
is contained in my first chapter" (Prolegomena, 368). For the purposes of this discussion it is necessary to use the sj'mbols JE, D, H, and P, which are explained in the art. Pentateuch.
"Take away our bent to sinning," .... " Let us find that second rest," .... "Make and keep me pure within," .... "'Tis done! Thou dost tlais moment save,
4. Hymnology
It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.
"VVith full salvation bless. " ....
(1) In the first stage all slaughter of domestic animals for food purposes was sacrificial, and every layman could sacrifice locally at an altar of earth or unhewn stones. The law of JE is contained in Ex
To the preaching of Christian perfection Wesley ascribed the success of his work in the conversion,
religious training and intellectual education of the
2687 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA
Sanctiflcation Sanctuary
20 24-26, providing for the making of an altar of earth or stones, and emphasis is laid on the words "in every place ["in all the place" is 2. The grammatically an equally possible renGraf-Welldering] where I record my name I will hausen Hycome unto thee and I will bless thee." pothesis This, it is claimed, permits a plurality of sanctuaries. Illustrations are provided by the history. The patriarchs move about the country freely and build altars at various places. Later sacrifices or altars are mentioned in connection with Jethro (Ex 18 12), Moses (17 15, etc), Joshua (Josh 8 30), Gideon (Jgs 6 26 etc), Manoah (13 19), Samuel (1 S 7 17, etc), Elijah
that here again sacrifice is out of the question. If Gideon performed a sacrifice when he "made ready a kid" (Jgs 6 19) or when he killed an animal for the broth of which the narrative speaks, the animals
in question must have been sacrificed twice over, once when they were killed and again when the food was consumed by flames. Special importance attaches to Ex 22 'l (Heb 21 37), for there the JE legislation itself speaks of slaughter by cattle thieves as a natural and probable occurrence, and it can surely not have regarded this as a sacrificial act. f)ther instances are to be found in Gen 43 16;
1 S 25 11; 1 K 19 21. In 1 S 8 13 the word
tr** "cooks" means lit. "women slaughterers." All these instances are prior to the date assigned to Dt. With respect to Lev 17 1-7 also, the theory
(1 K 18 32), to take but a few instances. Perhaps the most instructive case is that of Saul after the battle of Michmash. Observing that the people were eating meat with blood, he caused a large stone to be rolled to him, and we are e.xpressly told that this was the first altar that he built to the Lord
is unworkable. At any time in King Josiah's reign or after, it would have been utterly impossible to limit all slaughter of animals for the whole race wherever resident to one single spot. This part of the theory therefore breaks down.
(1 S 14 35). While some of these examples might be accounted for by theophanies or other special circumstances, they are too numerous when taken together for such an explanation to suffice. In many instances they represent the conduct of the most authoritative and religious leaders of the age,
(2) Sacrifi.ce and theophany.—The view that the altars were erected at places that were peculiarly holy, or at any rate were subsequently sanctified by a theophany, is also untenable. In the Patriarchal age we may refer to Gen 4 26, where the calUng on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (12 8) and Mamre (13 18), and Jacob's sacrifices (31 54; 33 20). Compare later Samuel's altar at Ramah, Adonijah's sacrifice at En-rogel (1 K 1), Naaman's earth (2 K 5), David's clan's sacrifice (1 S 20 6.29). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to tran.slate Ex 20 24 "in all the place" (see supra 2, [1]) and to understand "the place" as the territory of
e.g. Samuel, and it must be presumed that such men knew and acted upon the Law of their own day. Hence the history and the Law of Ex 20 are in unison in permitting a multiplicity of sanctuaries. Wellhausen adds: "Altars as a rule are not built by the patriarchs according to their own private judgment wheresoever they please; on the contrary, a theophany calls attention to, or, at least afterward, confirms, the holiness of the place" (op. cit.,
31).
(2) The second stage is presented by Dt in the Law and Josiah's reformation in the history. Undoubtedly Dt 12 permits local non-sacrificial slaughter for the purposes of food, and enjoins the destruction of heathen places of worship, insisting with great vehemence on the central sanctuary. The narrative of Josiah's reformation in 2 K 23
(3) Alleged plurality of sanctuaries.—The hypothesis of a multiplicity of sanctuaries in JE and the history also leaves out of view many most important facts. The truth is that the word "sanctuary" is ambiguous and misleading. A pluraUty of altars of earth or stone is not a plurality of sanctuaries. The early legislation knows a "house of Jeh" in addition to the primitive altars (Ex 23
Israel.
taUies with these principles.
(3) The third great body of law (P) does not deal with the question (save in one passage, Lev 17). In Dt "the unity of the cultus is commanded; in the PC it is presupposed What follows from
19; 34 26; cf the parts of Josh 9 23.27 assigned to
J). No eyewitness could mistake a house for an
altar, or vice versa.
(4) The altar ofOod's house.—Moreover a curious
this forms the question before us. To my thinking,
this: that the PC rests upon the result which is only
little bit of evidence shows that the "house" had quite a different kind of altar. In 1 K 1 50 f; 2 28 ff, we hear of the horns of the altar (of Am 3
the aim of Dt" {Prolegomena, 35). Accordingly, it
is later than the latter book and dates from about
14). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as required by the Law of Ex 20) could provide such horns, and the historical instances of the altars of the patriarchs, religious leaders, etc, to which reference has been made, show that they had no horns. Accordingly we are thrown back on the description of the great altar of burnt offering in Ex 27 and must assume that an altar of this type was to be found before the ark before Solomon built his Temple. Thus the altar of the House of God was quite different from the customary lay altar, and when we read of "mine altar" as a refuge in Ex 21 14, we must refer it to the former, as is shown by the passages just cited. In addition to the early legislation and the historical passages cited as recognizing a House of God with a horned altar, we see such a house in Shiloh where Eli and hia sons of the house of Aaron (1 S 2 27) ministered. Thus the data of both JE and the history show us a House of God with a horned altar side by side with the multi-
the time of Ezra. As to Lev 17 1-9, this belongs
to H, an older collection of laws than P, and is taken up in the latter. Its intention was "to secure
the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of
sacrifice Plainly the common man did not
quite understand the newly drawn and previously
quite unknown distinction between the religious and the profane act" {Prolegomena, 50). Accord-
ingly, this legislator strove to meet the difficulty by
the new enactment. See Criticism (The GrafWellhausen Hypothesis).
(1) Slaughter not necessarily sacrificial.—Tho
general substratum afforded by the documentary
theory falls within the scope of the
3. Difflculart. Pentateuch. The present dis-
ties of the cussion is limited to the legal and hisTheory torical outline traced above. The view that all slaughter of domestic
animals was sacrificial till the time of Josiah is
rebutted by the evidence of the early books. The
plicity of stone or earthen altars, but give us no hint of a plurality of legitimate houses or shrines or sanctuaries.
following examples should be noted: in Gen 18 7
a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and m
27 9-14 (Jacob's substitute for venison) no altar
(5) Local altars in Deuteronomy —Dt also recognizes a number of local altars in 16 21 (see ICC, ad
or religious rite can fairly be postulated. In 1 S
28 24 the slaughter is performed by a woman, so
Sanctuary Sanhedrin THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2688