ALTAR (θυσιαστήριον, a word of Hellenistic usage, applied to Jewish altars as distinguished from βωμός, the ordinary word for heathen altars [cf. Exodus 34:13, Numbers 23:1, Deuteronomy 7:5, Acts 17:23 ]).—The raised structure on which sacrifices and oblations were presented. As used in the Jewish ritual, the word was applied not only to the great altar of burnt-offering before the temple, but also to the altar of incense within the holy place, and on one or two occasions even to the table of shewbread (cf. Malachi 1:7, Malachi 1:12, Ezekiel 41:22). When no further specification was added, it denoted the altar of burnt-offering, the altar κατʼ? ἐ?ξοχήν .
The Jewish altar of Christ’s day was the last term of a long development, the history of which remains still in many points obscure. In the primitive Semitic worship it seems that no altar, properly speaking, was in use; unless we choose to give that name to the sacred stone or pillar beside which the victim was slain, and on which the blood or fat of the sacrifice was smeared (cf. 1 Samuel 14:33, 1 Samuel 6:14-15, 1 Kings 1:9). In such cases the victims were slain (or slain and burnt), not on the sacred stone, but beside it. No doubt the significant part of the offering lay in the smearing of the stone, which was more or less identified with the Deity (Genesis 28:18-22), and might thus be considered as both altar and temple. Later the burning of the victim came to be an integral part of the ceremony, and the hearth of burning acquired more importance. The hearth was originally the bare ground, or a rock (Judges 6:20, Judges 13:19-20), but later it was artificially formed. In the earliest law (Exodus 20:24-26) it was prescribed that the altar should be of earth, or of unhewn stone, and be made without steps, evidently a reversion to a simpler custom than prevailed in many of the Canaanite altars, or in the altars of the high places. That the stone was not to be hewn may also be connected with the primitive idea that the deity which inhabited the stone might be offended or injured by the dressing. These regulations were respected in a modified degree in the building of the altars of the temple at Jerusalem. The altar built by Ahaz, on an Assyrian model, was probably designed in total disregard of the early prescriptions; but the later altars endeavoured to conform somewhat to the original ideal. Thus the altars of the second temple—both that of Zerubbabel and that built by Judas Maccabaeus—were built of unhewn stone. In all probability there were steps up to the altar of the first temple * [Note: i.e. the altar of Ahaz. For the ‘hrazen altar’ of Solomon see the daring hypothesis of W. R. Smith (RS, note L), and A. R. S. Kennedy’s note in Hastings’ DB. i. 76b.] (cf. the altar of Ezekiel’s vision [ Ezekiel 43:17 ], which had steps on the eastern side); but the altars of the second temple were ascended by means of a gradual acclivity.
The altar of Herod’s temple, though larger than all former altars, preserved their main characteristics. It stood in front of the temple, in the innermost court. It was built of unhewn stone; no iron tool was used in its construction. In this the letter of the law in Exodus was adhered to, while its evident intention was evaded. A new interpretation of the law against the use of hewn stone was given by Jewish tradition in the words of Johanan ben Zakkai: ‘The altar is a means of establishing peace between the people of Israel and their Father in heaven; therefore iron, which is used as an instrument of murder, should not be swung over it.’ the altar was of huge dimensions. According to Josephus (BJ v. 6) it was 15 cubits high and 50 cubits square at the base; according to the more reliable tradition of the Mishna, which enters into precise details, it was 32 cubits square at the base and correspondingly less in height.† [Note: The dimensions given by pseudo-Hecataeus (Jos. c. Apion. i. 22)—20 cubits square and 10 cubits high—are not adducible here; they refer to an altar of the second temple. The altar of Ezekiel’s vision was 18 cubits square at the base and 11 cubits high. The altar of Solomon, according to 2 Chronicles 4:1, was 20 cubits square at the base and 10 high; dimensions perhaps taken, by the author who inserted them, from the altar of the second temple, with which he was acquainted.] Like the earlier altars, it rose up in a series of terraces or stages, contracting at irregular intervals. (The first landing was a cubit from the ground, and a cubit in breadth; while 5 cubits higher came a second landing). The hearth on the top still measured 24 cubits in length and breadth. The altar-hearth was made accessible to the ministering priests by a structure on the south side, built in the form of a very gradual acclivity, and making a pathway 32 cubits long by 16 broad. Beside this main ascent were small stairs to the several stages of the altar. Round the middle of the entire altar ran a red line as an indication to the priest when he sprinkled with blood the upper and lower parts of the altar. At the southwest corners of the hearth and of the altar’s base were openings to carry off the wine of the drink-offerings or the blood sprinkled on the side of the altar. These openings led into a subterranean canal which connected with the Kidron. At the corners of the altar-hearth were projections, called horns. The supposition that these were a survival of the time when the victims were slain as well as burnt on the altar, and required to be bound upon the hearth, has at least the recommendation of simplicity; but it scarcely explains the peculiar sacredness attached to the altar-horns, or the important part they had in the ritual (1 Kings 1:51, 1 Kings 2:28, Leviticus 8:15, Leviticus 9:9, Leviticus 16:18, in certain cases they were sprinkled with blood, Exodus 29:12, Leviticus 4:7). The explanation given by Stade and others connects them with the worship of Jahweh as symbolized by a young bull. Northward from the altar was the place of slaughtering, with rings fastened in the ground, to which the animals were tied; it was provided also with pillars and tables for purposes of hanging flaying, and washing. The temple, together with the altar and the place of slaughter, were separated from the rest of the inner court by a wall of partition, a cubit high, to mark off the part reserved for the priests from that free to Israelites generally.
On this great altar the fire was kept burning night and day; it was the centre of the Jewish ritual. On it, morning and evening, was offered the daily burnt-offering in the name of the people, accompanied with meal-offerings and drink-offerings. On the Sabbaths and during the festival days, the public offerings were greatly augmented. Still more vast was the number of private sacrifices which were offered day by day; and on the festival days, when Jerusalem was crowded with worshippers, thousands of priests officiated, and the great altar was scarcely sufficient to burn the masses of flesh that were heaped continuously upon it.
The altar of incense, or the golden altar, stood within the Holy Place. It was of very modest dimensions, and was used chiefly for the offering of incense, which took place twice daily, in the morning before the burnt-offering, and in the evening after it.
Besides an incidental mention of the altar (Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51), there are two pregnant sayings of Christ in the Gospels where the altar is concerned. In the first (Matthew 5:23-24) He opposes to the mere externalism of the altar-worship the higher claims of brotherhood, teaching that what God requires is mercy and not sacrifice. In the other (Matthew 23:18-20) He exposes the puerility of the distinction made, in swearing, between the altar and the gift upon it. It was by such miserable casuistry that the scribes and Pharisees evaded the most solemnly assumed obligations.
Literature.—Benzinger’s and Nowack’s Heb. Arch. (Index, s.v. ‘Altar’); Josephus, BJ v. 6, and c. Apion. i. 22: Mishna, Middoth iii. 1–4; Schenkel, Bibellexicon, ‘Brandopferaltar’; Lightfoot, The Temple Service; Schürer, HJ P [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 24; Wellhausen. Prolegomena (‘Die Opfer’), and Reste des Arab. [Note: Arabic.] Heidenthums 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred], 101 f.; W. R. Smith, R S [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] (Index, s.v. ‘Altar’); Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l’Art (English translation, sections on Phœnicia and Judaea). See also Lightfoot (J. B.), ‘Essay on the Chr. Ministry’ in Phil. [Note: Philistine.] pp. 251, 261, 265, and in Dissertations, pp. 217, 229, 234; Westcott (B. F.), Hebrews, pp. 453–461.
J. Dick Fleming.