ALTAR (מִזְבֵּחַ, H4640; Gr. θυσιαστήριον, G2603, place of sacrifice; βωμός, G1117, elevated platform).
1. The name. The common Lat. word for altar was ara. Altare or altarium, from which the Eng. word derives, was late and ecclesiastical. It was a noun formed from the adjective altus, which meant “high,” and implied any raised structure with a flat top, on which offerings to a deity were placed or sacrifice made.
The common Gr. term was bomós which derives, apparently, from baino, “to come” or “go.” The basic meaning would thus appear to be an “approach,” since it was applied originally to any raised platform on which to place something, e.g., a raised parking place for chariots (Iliad 8.441) or the base of a statue (Odyssey 7.100). The early Gr. apparently felt the need of adding the adjective hieros (“holy”) when bomos was used to denote an altar proper. In the NT this Gr. term is used only once, significantly enough in reference to the Athenian altar to the unknown god. The term marks Paul’s characteristic adaptation to his non-Christian audience (Acts 17:23).
The other twenty-one instances of the word altar in the NT (H. Cremer lists them in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 292) represent a word which appears to have been coined by the LXX tr. as a literal tr. of the common Heb. word for altar. It is thusiastērion from thuo (“to sacrifice”). The Heb. word, of which Gesenius (Lexicon, 258) lists 401 instances, is mizbēah, a noun derived from zābah (“to sacrifice”). The fundamental meaning of the Heb. term is, therefore, the raised place where sacrifice was made, although it came to be used for any form of offering table, e.g. the “altar of incense” (Exod 30:1-10).
2. The shape. The altar, therefore, in all ancient religious practice took shape from the idea of a raised table of stone or turf (Horace, Odes 1.19.3) on which an offering of blood, and later burned flesh, or even the products of agriculture (Gen 4:3) were set before the deity. Combined with the notion of a table was prob., in pagan practice, an idea more ancient still, that deity resided in great stones and could receive strength by an oblation of shed blood.
The altar was a feature of universal worship taken over by the worship of the OT and developed as an object of ritual and sanctity. It was the centerpiece of every sanctuary and the place of sacrifice: “An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen....And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it” (Exod 20:24, 25). This simple structure continued to be a normal Heb. form until the end of the nation’s history (1 Macc 4:41; Jos. War V. v. 6).
A curious feature of the altar, not adequately explained, is the pointed elevation at the four corners known as the “horns” (Ps 118:27; Amos 3:14; Rev 9:13). These details were regarded as of such special sanctity that they were individually marked by the blood of sacrifice in the Levitical ritual (Lev 4:30; 16:18). Perhaps their original intention was to contain the sacrifice on the plane top of the altar, while at the same time allowing the blood, which had deep mystic significance in the ritual, to drain away completely.
The Heb. altar was constructed without steps, though Canaanitish structures had no such prohibition. The regulation (Exod 20:26) was designed to preclude any unseemly exposure of feet or legs by the officiating priest in the midst of the solemnities of sacrifice.
3. Pagan altars. All types of altars have been discovered in Canaanitish Pal. They range from the small Early Bronze Age structure of plastered stones, set against a wall in a small temple at Ai, to the mud brick and lime-plastered stone rectangular altars of Middle and Late Bronze Age construction, discovered at Megiddo, Lachish, Bethshan, Hazor, and other places. A large structure of rubble and unhewn stone at Megiddo, an elevation twenty-six ft. in diameter and over four ft. high, is perhaps rather to be called a “high place” than an altar. Such an objection may beg the question if altars generally are, in fact, miniature “high places,” and find at least one root of their origin in a symbolic rendering of the common habit of hilltop sacrifice. Such speculation is inconclusive, and the proliferation of all types of altars in pre-Heb. Pal. is of interest to the Bible student from this major standpoint only. They demonstrate the manner in which the Mosaic code took over, purified, and adapted to its symbolic ritual and monotheistic purposes the forms and practices of alien religion. It is notable, here and elsewhere, how carefully the Pentateuch regulates the construction and use of the altar.
4. Patriarchal altars. The covenant code (Exod 20:24-26) clearly recognizes a plurality of altars, implying that the object was an almost indispensable accompaniment of formal worship, and that sacrifice, which was inseparable from worship, and all forms of approach to the Deity could not be made without an altar. Altars were built by Noah on leaving the ark (Gen 8:20); by Abraham at Shechem (Gen 12:7), at Bethel (Gen 12:8), and on Moriah (Gen 22:9); by Isaac at Beersheba (Gen 26:25); by Jacob at Shechem (Gen 33:20) and at Bethel (Gen 35:7); by Moses at Rephidim (Exod 17:15) and Horeb (Exod 24:4).
It would appear that the special regulations by which the two altars of the Tabernacle were set up did not preclude the construction and use of the altars authorized in Exodus 20. The patriarchs seem to have set up altars as symbols of some notable encounter with God and memorials of spiritual experience. The concentration of the Israelitish worship in the service of the Tabernacle does not appear to have withdrawn from the individual the satisfaction of setting up an altar to commemorate some act or outcome of private devotion. Joshua built an altar on Mount Ebal (Josh 8:30), and Gideon built one at Ophra (Judg 6:24); an unnamed holy man built one at Bethel, or, like Elijah, rebuilt a disused structure there (Judg 21:4). Similarly, Samuel built one at Ramah (1 Sam 7:17), Saul after the victory at Michmash (1 Sam 14:35), and David on the threshing floor of Ornan (1 Chron 21:26). As a solemn prelude to his sacrifice, Elijah on Carmel rebuilt an old altar of unhewn stones. None of these acts appear to have been in conflict with the prosecution of formal worship at a central and authorized sanctuary.
5. The altars of the Tabernacle. The more farfetched speculations of typological teaching need not be accepted along with the ready admission that the Tabernacle was a great object lesson and a demonstration of spiritual truth. Its presence in the midst of the marching or encamped host, and the entire pattern of its worship and ritual, were of prime educative importance for a people which was being molded and instructed for a great historic purpose. With meticulous care every detail of construction and furniture was recorded in the account.
Two altars were specified. One, which stood in the eastern half of the courtyard, was of “brass,” prob. bronze, laid over acacia wood (Exod 27:1-8; 38:1-7). This piece of furniture measured five by five by three cubits and was called the altar of burnt offering from the use required of it. It had projecting horns and fittings for transport. No top is mentioned, as in the case of the second altar, and it is reasonably conjectured that it was a hollow metal frame packed with earth. This would account for the preservation of the wooden frame in spite of the heat of the fire of sacrifice.
The second altar was a smaller piece, one by one by two cubits, made of acacia wood plated with gold (Exod 30:1-10). It had four horns and a crown of gold, together with devices for transport as the nomad host moved its place of encampment. Curiously enough, these two altars are named elsewhere only in the Chronicles (1 Chron 6:49; 16:40; 21:29; 2 Chron 1:5, 6).
The placing of the two altars is significant. The altar of burnt offering stood in the eastern part of the court and would thus be the first major feature visible to one who approached the Tabernacle, setting forth symbolically the truth that the shedding of blood provided access and forgiveness for the rebel, a truth spiritualized and consummated in the NT (Heb 9:9, 22). The altar of incense was set before the veil which screened the Holy of Holies (Exod 30:6; 40:5). It was thus called “the altar before the Lord” (Lev 16:12). Incense was burned twice daily symbolizing the offering of prayer (Rev 8:3). Zechariah was on duty at this place when he received his vision (Luke 1:8-11). See Incense.
6. The Temple altars. In the “upper court” (Jer 36:10) of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem was placed a vast altar of bronze, fifteen ft. high and thirty ft. long. It was, no doubt, an enlarged replica of the Tabernacle, departing from that model only in the fact that it was approached by a flight of steps, a sheer necessity to cope with its elevation. The hollow interior was filled with stone and earth so that the blaze of sacrifice should be visible to the crowd in the courtyard below (2 Chron 4:1). Before this altar, prayer was made (1 Kings 8:22, 64), and periodic sacrifice offered (1 Kings 9:25). Solomon’s altar stood thus for almost three centuries.
Early in his reign Ahaz (735-715 b.c.) sought the assistance of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria against his northern neighbors and won some dearly bought political success. It confirmed him in his apostasy (2 Chron 28:23-25, where in v. 23 “Assyria” should be read), and this may be the explanation of the altar which he set up to replace that of Solomon in the temple courtyard. The story is told in 2 Kings 16:7-16. Ahaz visited, as an ally, the conquered city of Damascus and saw “the altar” (not “an altar” as KJV 2 Kings 16:10). Perhaps this was the altar of the defeated Syrian god, Rimmon, reconsecrated by the Assyrian victor in honor of one of his own deities. In gross flattery, if this conjecture holds, Ahaz sent to the head priest Urijah a careful drawing of the altar which had so struck his fancy. The subservient priest undertook without protest to have a replica ready against the king’s return to Jerusalem. Ahaz, usurping the priest’s office, likewise without protest from a hierarchy which once had firmly resisted Uzziah’s intrusion into the sacerdotal office, made offerings personally on his new altar.
It was in the course of this same apostasy that Ahaz removed the bronze altar of Solomon from its place in front of the Temple porch. He coveted this position of honor for his own altar. Solomon’s ancient altar was removed to the N side. Ahaz called his altar “the great altar,” and ordered that all sacrifices should henceforth be made upon it. The old altar, he said, “shall be for me to inquire by.” Does the Heb. mean, “I can wait until I consider what to do with it”? The whole passage in 2 Kings 16 demands careful reading.
It is not clear what happened upon Ahaz’ death. In 2 Chronicles 29 there is a full account of the reconstitution of the Temple worship under Hezekiah. The chronicler’s narrative would appear to indicate that the reforming monarch invalidated the procedures of his predecessor’s day (29:7), and the “cleansing” of the altar (29:18) may perhaps indicate that Solomon’s altar was restored to its proper place. It seems unlikely that the altar of Ahaz, considering its Damascene and pagan origins, survived an inspired iconoclasm as thorough as that of Hezekiah. An enigmatic reference (2 Chron 33:16) suggests that some restoration was effected in Manasseh’s superficial reformation fifty years later. It would appear (Jer 52:17-20) that the altar of Solomon, or the essential metal parts of it, was part of the loot which Nebuchadnezzar carried off to Babylon.
Perhaps it was this fact, or even the known and visible presence of the piece of sacred furniture in Babylon, which inspired the vision of Ezekiel’s ideal Temple. Through the three gateways which led to the inner court, right in the middle so that it should be in full view, a great altar of burnt offering was projected, a huge stone structure rising in three terraces to a height of eighteen ft., having a breadth and length of twenty-six or twenty-seven ft. at the base. The altar thus placed was to be the center of the sanctuary, for the consciousness was growing that the altar was the one indispensable adjunct to the sacrificial worship and the one vast lack for those in exile. When the first exiles returned to the ruins of Jerusalem, and before they were able to rebuild the Temple, Jeshua erected an altar on the site and instituted the daily ritual (Ezra 3:2). From Ezekiel’s vision, it is evident that the sacrificial consecration of the altar was equated with the dedication of the whole sanctuary (Ezek 43:18-27).
The second Temple no doubt had its altars, and it is unlikely that the tradition of two altars, established with the Tabernacle, was fundamentally broken. Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have carried off a golden altar of incense in 169 b.c. (1 Macc 1:21). Two years later the same tyrant set up an “abomination of desolation,” prob. an image of Zeus, on the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54). The Maccabees restored both altars (1 Macc 4:44-49). It is not known whether these altars were incorporated in Herod’s enlarged shrine, but it is known that in this final Temple the altar of burnt offerings was a pile of unhewn stone, approached, not by the forbidden steps, but by a ramp.
It may be noted, in conclusion, that the growing consciousness of the centrality and importance of the altar in the Temple worship led to the doctrine that the great altar in Jerusalem was the one valid place of sacrifice. Hezekiah seems to have been the first to enforce this, and to have incurred some popular resentment in so doing, if the propagandist taunt of Sennacherib’s envoy be read aright (2 Kings 18:4, 22). It would appear from the Assyrian’s words that these altars were considered places of orthodox worship. In Josiah’s case it is not so clear that the altars broken down and defiled in the course of the great religious revival were other than pagan (2 Kings 23:8, 20). To set up an altar, as Ahab had clearly demonstrated (1 Kings 16:32), was to adopt and sanction a special form of worship and to recognize a god. The presence of the central altar at Jerusalem was, as Jeroboam foresaw (1 Kings 12:26-33), a source of tremendous prestige for the city. Thus was the altar welded to politics and Jerusalem established as a holy city, a role which it fulfilled to the end of its history and which it continued to play in the symbolism of the New Jerusalem, wherein was no temple nor the altar which accompanied it (Rev 21:22).
7. The altar in the NT. In the worship of the Church, as envisaged in its beginnings in the NT, no altar is prescribed. The furniture of Judaistic religion is set aside and all the symbolism of the altar has found fulfillment. This fact, of course, does not preclude a new Christian symbolism which makes use of a formal altar, provided that no practice associated with it conflicts with central theological doctrine.
The NT necessarily uses the word—literally, in reference to the altar in the Temple of Jerusalem (eight instances in the gospels: Matt 5:23, 24; 23:18-20, 35; Luke 11:51); and in reference to various OT altars (five instances in the epistles: Rom 11:3; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; James 2:21). The word is used fig. in the imagery of Revelation (seven contexts: 6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). Hebrews 13:10 KJV may be singled out for the metonymy which it seems to contain. “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” If the simple meaning of the prepositional phrase is pressed, the word “altar” stands for the sacrifice which lies upon it, but without essential difference to the meaning the metonymy may be avoided and the word “altar” taken literally as the place of origin of the appropriated sacrifice.
In all these cases, the NT writers use the LXX coinage, thusiastērion, which literally renders the Heb. word mizbēah (see section 1 above).
8. The altar of the Areopagus address. The only NT writer to use the pagan word bomós is Paul, who employs it properly in the context of his address to the Court of the Areopagus to refer to a special feature of the Athenian city scene, the altars to “unknown gods,” of which epigraphical evidence survives. The matter merits a paragraph because of the importance of the address. Paul’s approach was conciliatory and courteous, but perhaps just touched with that irony which was the common fashion of Athenian speech. “Athenians,” said Paul, “I observe that in every way you are uncommonly religious. As I have moved about your city looking at the objects of your worship, I came upon an altar inscribed TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” (Acts 17:22, 23). Thus it must be tr. In the Gr. there is noun and adjective only, without either a definite or indefinite article. One or two examples of such inscrs. survive, but always in the pl., TO UNKNOWN GODS. In the pl., Eng. can avoid a choice. In the sing., choice must be made between the definite and indefinite article. The definite is better, provided the reference and context of the inscr. are realized. The inscr. in each case refers to the unknown deity concerned with the altar’s foundation, not generally or transcendentally to a god vaguely realized and sought. Paul adapted the inscr. for homiletic ends. He was not deceived about its meaning, but like any perceptive preacher sought an illus. and a point of contact in a known environment. The device captured attention and anchored the theme in experience.
What did the inscr. mean? Plato preserves a tradition that Epimenides, the Cretan religious teacher and miracle worker, was in Athens about 500 b.c. Some said it was 600 b.c., but dates are unimportant in a half-legendary situation. The story was that to combat an epidemic, Epimenides directed the Athenians to loose sheep from Areopagus, and wherever they lay down, they were to build an altar “to the unknown god” of the place and to make sacrifice. Perhaps the story is an etiological myth, a tale invented to explain a visible phenomenon. Perhaps the altars merely represented a scrupulosity which, in a city full of deities from all the Eastern Mediterranean, sought to avoid offense to any in this slightly naive fashion. It is impossible to say more.
9. The altar of Pergamum. In the imagery of Revelation is a reference to one of the most famous altars of the ancient world. It stood on the crag of the hill above the Asian city of Pergamum and was described by the Gr. traveler Pausanias. It was discovered in 1871 and taken to Germany, where it stands reconstructed today in the E Berlin Museum, something like a small version of Italy’s elaborate Victor Emmanuel monument in Rome. The structure, a perron of steps leading to a huge altar, commemorated the defeat of a Gallic invasion two centuries before. The roving Celts, who also reached Rome and Delphi in this era of their folk wanderings, infiltrated Asia Minor where they gave their name to Galatia. Pergamum was a royal city and strong enough to drive them off. It celebrated the deliverance with the altar to Zeus. Its frieze represents the gods of Olympus battling with the giants, shown in the sculpture as a brood of muscular warriors with snake-like tails. The Zeus to whom the altar was dedicated was called “Zeus the Savior,” a blasphemous offense to Christian minds. The altar must be the “Satan’s seat” of the letter’s imagery.
There is a curious footnote. One of the recent archeological curiosities was the discovery of the battered marble figure of a giant in the junkyard of the Worksop Town Council, England. Experts from the British Museum have pronounced it to be part of the frieze from Pergamum’s altar, brought to England by the Earl of Arundel two centuries ago, and fallen on evil days when Worksop Manor was demolished. See High Place.