the Fourth Week after Easter
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Pillar
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
or PILLAR . 1 . With two or three unimportant exceptions, ‘pillar’ in OT is the rendering of two very distinct Heb. terms, ‘ammûd and mazzçbâh . The former denotes in most cases for a conspicuous exception see Jachin and Boaz a pillar or column supporting the roof or other part of a building ( Judges 16:25 f., 1 Kings 7:2 f.), also the pillars from which the hangings of the Tabernacle were suspended ( Exodus 26:32 and oft.). From this sense the transition is easy to a column of smoke ( Judges 20:40 ), and to the ‘ pillar of cloud ’ and the ‘ pillar of fire ’ of the Exodus and the Wanderings ( Exodus 13:21 etc.). The further transition to the figurative use of the term ‘pillar,’ which alone prevails in NT ( Galatians 2:9 , 1 Timothy 3:15 , Revelation 3:12; Revelation 10:1 ), may be seen in Job 9:6; Job 26:11 passages reflecting an antique cosmogony in which the pillars of earth and heaven were actual supports.
2 . It is with the second of the two terms above cited, the mazzçbâh , that this article has mainly to deal. Derived from a root common to the Semitic family, mazzçbâh denotes something ‘set up’ on end, in particular an upright stone, whether it he a megalithic monument, such as the stones known to contemporary archæology as menhirs or ‘standing stones,’ or a less imposing funerary stele. Three varieties of mazzçbâhs may be distinguished in OT.
( a ) For reasons that will appear at a later stage, our survey may start from the stone erected over a grave or elsewhere as a memorial of the dead. The mazzçbâh set up by Jacob upon the grave of Rachel ( Genesis 35:20 ) was of this kind. This was the prevailing application of the term among the Phœnicians (see Cooke, Text-book of N. Sem. Inscrips . 60). To this category may also be reckoned the memorial pillar which Absalom erected for himself in his own lifetime ( 2 Samuel 18:18 ).
( b ) In a second group may be placed the stones set up to commemorate, or, in Biblical phrase, ‘for a witness’ of, some important incident ( Genesis 31:44 f., Joshua 24:27 ) in particular the appearance or manifestation of a Divine being (a theophany) at a given spot. Such, in the present form of the story for the probable original form, see § 4 below was the stone which Jacob set up and anointed at Bethel ( Genesis 28:18; Genesis 28:22; cf. Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:14 ). Other examples of mazzçbâhs , interpreted by the Heb. historians as commemorative monuments, are the stone Ebenezer of 1 Samuel 7:12 , and the cromlech ( gilgal ) set up by Joshua after the crossing of the Jordan ‘for a memorial unto the children of Israel’ ( Joshua 4:7 ).
( c ) The third and most important class of mazzçbâhs comprises the pillar-stones which stood beside the altar at every Canaanite sanctuary (see High Place). For this class AV [Note: Authorized Version.] has the misleading term ‘image’ (except Deuteronomy 12:3 ), for which RV [Note: Revised Version.] has substituted ‘pillar,’ with ‘ obelisk ’ in the margin. That the local sanctuaries, in most cases taken over from the Canaanites, at which the Hebrews worshipped J″ [Note: Jahweh.] were provided with such pillar-stones, is evident both from the references in Hosea 3:4; Hosea 10:1 f., and from the repeated condemnation of them in the successive law codes ( Exodus 34:13; Exodus 23:24 , Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 12:3 etc.), and by the Deuteronomic historians ( 1 Kings 14:23 , 2Ki 18:4; 2 Kings 23:14 [for Judah] 2 Kings 17:10 [Israel]).
A special variety of pillar associated with idolatrous worship emerges in the later writings, the chammânîm or sun-pillars (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘images,’ RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘ sun-images ’). They were probably connected with sun-worship (Lagrange, Études sur les relig. Sémit . 2 314 f.).
3 . The OT evidence for the mazzçbâhs as an indispensable part of the furnishing of a Canaanite high place has been confirmed in a remarkable degree by the excavations of recent years, in the course of which pillar-stones of diverse shapes and sizes have been brought to light. Even to summarize the archæological evidence would extend this article beyond due limits (see Vincent, Canaan d’après l’exploration récente [1907], 102 115; Benzinger, Heb. Arch . 2 [1907], 321 ff.; Kittel, Studien zur heb. Arch . [1908], 126 ff.). It must suffice to refer briefly to the magnificent series of mazzçbâhs which formed part of the high place at Gezer (for full details see PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1903, 23 ff., and Macalister, Bible Sidelights , etc., 54 ff.). Originally ten in number, eight of them are still standing in situ . ‘They are unhewn blocks, simply set on end and supported at the base by smaller stones … and range in height from 10 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 5 in.’ The smaller dimensions are those of the second stone of the series, which is supposed to have been the original beth-el (see next §) of the high place. The fact that this stone, alone of the group, has its top smooth and polished, as if by long-continued anointing on the part of the worshippers, is greatly in favour of this view. Several of the larger stones are provided with cavities, either at the top or in one side. This provision, which is also characteristic of the mazzçbâhs found at Taanach and Megiddo, must evidently, as will presently appear, have some relation to the ritual of the worship of these ancient sanctuaries.
4 . It now remains to deal with a question which may be thus formulated, What significance did the Canaanites, and the Hebrews after them, attach to these mazzçbâhs , and what place did they hold in the ancient cult? This question can hardly be approached without a reference to the still unsolved problem of the religious significance of ‘standing stones’ all the world over. This world-wide phenomenon ‘must rest on some cause which was operative in all primitive religions’ (W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 209). It will probably be found, on consideration of all the conditions to be satisfied, that the desire to appease the spirit of the dead lies at the beginning, while the conception of the pillar-stone as a representation of the deity, beside the altar dedicated to his worship, comes at the end of a long process of evolution. On this view, a stone, over or beside the grave of the dead, afforded, to the primitive mind, a convenient abode for the departed spirit, when it chose to return to receive the homage and offerings of the living. The blood of the sacrifice was poured over the stone, and thus brought into contact with the indwelling spirit (cf. the cup-marks on the cap-stones of the dolmens on the east of the Jordan and elsewhere). With this desire to do honour to the dead, the idea of keeping alive his memory by a conspicuous or upright stone was sooner or later associated. When and where higher ideas of the spirit world prevailed, the mazzçbâh became a memorial stone and nothing more, as in group ( a ) above.
The belief that a stone might become the abode of any numen marked a distinct step in advance. In Genesis 28:1-22 it is admitted that we have a later adaptation of a Canaanite temple myth, which explained the origin of the sanctuary at Bethel, and especially the sanctity attaching to the original beth-el , i.e. , the abode of an el or numen ( Genesis 28:22 ), round which the sanctuary grew up. In the original form of the story the anointing of the stone was an offering to the indwelling numen . The second of the Gezer mazzçbâhs shows an exact counterpart to this. The cavities in the other recently discovered mazzçbâhs , above mentioned, were no doubt originally intended to receive similar offerings of blood, wioe, or oil (cf. Genesis 35:14 ).
When this fetish worship had been outgrown, the mazzçbâh became merely a symbol or representation of the deity , who had his horme elsewhere. The conical pillar standing in the court of the temple of Astarte, as represented on the coins of Byblus, is an illustration of this higher conception. We may be sure that the worshippers of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] regarded the Canaanite mazzçbâhs in this light from the first. But the danger of contamination was great (see High Place, § 6 ), and the condemnation of the mazzçbâhs is a recurring feature of all the law codes (reff. above).
5 . Another unsolved problem may be mentioned in conclusion. What is the relation of the mazzçbâh to the altar ? Shall we say, with the distinguished author of the Religion of the Semites 9 (p. 204), that ‘the altar is a differentiated form of the primitive rude stone pillar, the nosb or massebah; or, with the latest investigator, that ‘the massebah is nothing else than the artificial substitute for the sacrificial stone’ (Kittel, op. cit. 129, 134)? If the views expressed in the previous section are correct, the second alternative offers the more probable solution. The pillar will then be a differentiated form of the most ancient altar (Altar, §§ 1. 2 ), the cause of the differentiation, as we have seen, being the desire to commemorate, as well as to appease, the dead.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Pillar'. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdb/p/pillar.html. 1909.
