Part 13

It is distinctly declared as to the shape of the altar, standing east and west, that it “should be broader on the west side, contracted on the middle, and broad again on the east side; for thus shaped they praise a woman: ‘broad about the hips, somewhat narrower between the shoulders, and contracted in the middle [or about the waist].’” Again, it is said, in explanation, that “the altar (_vedi_, feminine) is female, and the fire (_agni_, masculine) is male.”[526] This identifying of the altar with the woman, of the offering with the man, and of their union with worship and covenanting, is repeatedly found in the Brahmanas.[527]

Even as far back as the Vedas themselves the term _yoni_, or doorway of physical life, is used as synonymous with altar.[528] And the production of sacred fire, for purposes of worship, by twisting a stick in softened wood, is described in the Rig-Vedas as a form of this covenant rite. These facts point to this origin of the threshold altar of covenant and sacrifice.

At present in India the most widely recognized visible aid in worship is the representation of the _linga_ and the _yoni_ combined. This symbol nominally stands for Siva; but that seems to be only because Saivism predominates in modern Hindooism. The idea of this symbolic combination long antedates this prominence of Siva worship.[529]

A form of Booddhist prayer in Tibet, said to be repeated more frequently than any other known among men, is “the six-syllabled sentence, ‘_Om mani padme Hūm_,’–‘Om! the Jewel in the Lotus! Hum!’” This prayer is simply a euphemism for the primitive Threshold Covenant, as here explained, with an ejaculatory invocation and ascription before and after it.[530] It seems to be a survival of the thought that here was the beginning of religious rites, and that all covenant worship must continue in its spirit and power.

Every repetition of that prayer, by speech or by mechanism, is supposed to affect the progress of a soul in its crossing the threshold of one of the stages of being in the universe. It is a help to a new birth for some soul somewhere.

There would thus appear to be no room for doubt in this matter in the language and customs of the primitive Aryan peoples, and there are also confirmations of the idea among the Semites. A legend that has a place among the Jews and the Muhammadans, tells of a visit of Abraham to the home of Hagar and Ishmael in Arabia.[531] An Amalekite wife of Ishmael refused hospitality to Abraham, and in consequence Abraham left a message to Ishmael to “change his threshold.” This message Ishmael understood to mean the putting away of his wife and the taking of another, and he acted accordingly. In the Arabic “a wife” is one of the meanings of the term “threshold.”[532]

And the term “gate,” or “door,” had among the rabbis a specific application to the altar of family covenanting. Thus Buxtorf, in his definings of “_janua_” and “_ostium_,” says plainly: “_Apud rabbinos etiam est ‘ostium ventris muliebris.’_” And he quotes the saying of a disappointed bridegroom : “_Ostium apertum inveni._”[533]

Among the early Babylonians and Egyptians, as among other primitive peoples, the twofold symbols of sex are counted the sacred emblem of life, and as such are borne by the gods of life, and by those who have the power of life and death from those gods. The circle and rod, or ring and bolt, conjoined, are in the right hand of the Babylonian sun-god Shamash;[534] as, in the _ankh_, or _crux ansata_, they are in the right hand of every principal deity of ancient Egypt.[535] It is much the same with the Phœnicians and others.[536]

In the innermost shrine of the most sacred Shinto temples of Japan, the circular mirror, and the straight dagger, with the same meaning as the circle and rod in Babylonia and Egypt and Phœnicia, are the only indications of the presence of deity; and the worshipers in those temples can come no farther than the threshold of the shrine containing these emblems.[537]

Wherever, among the primitive peoples in America, as elsewhere, the red hand is found as a symbol of covenant, and of life and strength through covenant, it would seem to point to this primal meaning of the hand stamp of blood at the doorway of life in a sacred covenant. There are indications in Central American sculptures of the sacredness attaching to the covenant rite between the first pair; and the combined symbols of sex are represented there as in the East.[538]

It is a well-known fact that the public exhibit of the primitive Threshold Covenant, as here explained, has been continued as a mode of reverent worship among primitive peoples in the South Sea Islands, down to modern times. The testimony of Captain Cook, the famous navigator, is specific on this point.[539] It is also to be noted that in these islands the two supports of the altar, or table of sacrifice, are seemingly symbols of the two sexes, similar to those used in the far East.[540]

All of the gathered facts concerning the Threshold Covenant in different lands and in different times, as presented in the foregoing pages, would seem to be in accordance with this view of the origin of the rite, as with no other that can be suggested. The main symbolism of both the Old and the New Testament also seem to indicate the same beginning.

V. HEBREW PASS-OVER, OR CROSS-OVER, SACRIFICE.

1. NEW MEANING IN AN OLD RITE.

How the significance of the Hebrew passover rite stands out in the light of this primitive custom! It is not that this rite had its origin in the days of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, but that Jehovah then and there emphasized the meaning and sacredness of a rite already familiar to Orientals. In dealing with his chosen people, God did not invent a new rite or ceremonial at every stage of his progressive revelation to them; but he took a rite with which they were already familiar, and gave to it a new and deeper significance in its new use and relations.

Long before that day, a covenant welcome was given to a guest who was to become as one of the family, or to a bride or bridegroom in marriage, by the outpouring of blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining the doorway itself with the blood of the covenant. And now Jehovah announced that he was to visit Egypt on a designated night, and that those who would welcome him should prepare a threshold covenant, or a pass-over sacrifice, as a proof of that welcome; for where no such welcome was made ready for him by a family, he must count the household as his enemy.[541]

In announcing this desire for a welcoming sacrifice by the Hebrews, God spoke of it as “Jehovah’s passover,” as if the pass-over rite was a familiar one, which was now to be observed as a welcome to Jehovah.[542] Moses, in reporting the Lord’s message to the Hebrews, did not speak of the proposed sacrifice as something of which they knew nothing until now, but he first said to them, “Draw out, and take you lambs according to your families, and kill the passover”–or the threshold cross-over;[543] and then he added details of special instruction for this new use of the old rite.

2. A WELCOME WITH BLOOD.

A lamb was the chosen sacrifice in the welcome to Jehovah. Each household, or family, was to take one lamb for this offering. No directions were given as to the place or manner of its sacrifice; for that seems to have been understood by all, because of the very term “pass-over,” or threshold cross-over. This is implied, indeed, in the directions for the use of the blood when it was poured out: “Kill the passover,” in the usual place; “and ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is at the _threshold_ [Hebrew, _saph_], and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is at the _threshold_.”[544]

In that welcome with blood there was covenant protection from Jehovah as he came into Egypt to execute judgment on his enemies. The Egyptians had already refused him allegiance, and put themselves in open defiance of his authority. They were now to be visited in judgment.[545] But in order to the distinguishing of the Lord’s people from his enemies, the Hebrews were to prepare a blood welcome at their doorway, and the Lord would honor this welcome by covenanting with those who proffered it.

“And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of cattle.... But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.”[546]

In furtherance of this purpose, the Lord asked for the sacrifice of the threshold cross-over by the Hebrews: “For the Lord will pass through [the land] to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts [of the Hebrew homes], the Lord will pass over [cross-over or through] the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”[547] Obviously the figure here employed is of a sovereign accompanied by his executioner, a familiar figure in the ancient East. When he comes to a house marked by tokens of the welcoming covenant, the sovereign will covenant-cross that threshold, and enter the home as a guest, or as a member of the family; but where no such preparation has been made for him, his executioner will enter on his mission of judgment.[548]

3. BASON, OR THRESHOLD.

It is strange that the Hebrew word for “threshold” (_saph_) in this narrative is translated “bason” in our English Bible. It is because of this that the identity of the passover sacrifice with the primitive Threshold Covenant is so generally lost sight of. This word _saph_ occurs many times in the Old Testament text, and in nine cases out of ten it is translated “threshold,” or “door,” or “door-post,” or the like.[549] It would seem that it should be so translated in this instance.

In some cases where _saph_ is translated “bason,” or “cup,” the term “threshold” would be more appropriate, as when included in an enumeration of the temple furniture.[550] Bronze and silver thresholds were often mentioned in the furniture of Babylonian and Assyrian temples;[551] and they might well have had mention among the Hebrews. It is possible, however, that there was a cavity, as a blood receptacle, in the threshold of houses or temples where sacrifices were so frequent; and this would account for the use of the word _saph_ as “bason,” even where it referred to the threshold of the door.

The translators of the Septuagint, living in Egypt and familiar with the customs of that land, rendered _saph_ by _thyra_, “doorway,”[552] in the story of the exodus. Jerome, with his understanding of Oriental life, gives _limen_, “threshold,” for _saph_, at this point.[553] Philo Judæus, out of his Egyptian Jewish experiences, describing the Jewish passover festival, speaks of it as “the feast _diabateria_, which the Jews called _paskha_.”[554] “_Diabateria_” are “offerings before crossing a border,”[555] or threshold sacrifices. Rabbi Ishmael, a Talmudist, in explaining the passage descriptive of the institution of the passover in Egypt, says: “One dug a hole in the [earthen] threshold, and slaughtered into that,” “for _saph_ signifies here nothing else than threshold.”[556]

A striking illustration of the error of translating _saph_ “a bason” or “a cup,” is shown in the rendering of Zechariah 12 : 1–3 in our English Bible. The Lord is there promising to protect the borders of Jerusalem against all besiegers. “Thus saith the Lord, which ... layeth the foundation of the earth:... Behold, I will make Jerusalem a _threshold_ [or, boundary stone, Hebrew, _saph_] of reeling unto all the peoples round about.... I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples.” The figure seems to be that of the besiegers staggering as they come against that foundation, or threshold stone, which the Lord has established. Yet _saph_ is here translated “cup,” and the passage thereby rendered meaningless.

There would seem, indeed, to be little room for doubt that _saph_ should be translated “threshold” in the description of the pass-over sacrifice. In Assyrian, the word _sippu_, from the same root as the Hebrew _saph_, means only threshold, not bason or cup.[557]

4. PASS-OVER OR PASS-BY.

The common understanding of the term “passover,” in connection with the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, is that it was, on the Lord’s part, a passing by those homes where the doorways were blood-stained, without entering them. Yet this meaning is not justified by the term itself, nor by the significance of the primitive rite. Jehovah did not merely spare his people when he visited judgment on the Egyptians. He covenanted anew with them by passing over, or crossing over, the blood-stained threshold into their homes, while his messenger of death went into the houses of the Lord’s enemies and claimed the first-born as belonging to Jehovah.[558]

This word _pesakh_, translated “passover,” is a peculiar one. Its etymology and root meaning have been much in discussion. It is derived from the root _pāsăkh_ “to cross over,” a meaning which is still preserved in the Hebrew word _Tiphsakh_, the name of a city on the banks of the Euphrates,[559] the Hebrew equivalent of the classical Thapsacus.[560] _Tiphsakh_ means “crossing,” apparently so called from the ford of the Euphrates at that place.

Later Jewish traditions and customs point to the meaning of the original passover rite as a crossing over the threshold of the Hebrew homes by Jehovah, and not of his passing by his people in order to their sparing. A custom by which a Hebrew slave became one of the family in a Hebrew household, through having his ear bored with an awl at the door-post of the house, and thereby blood staining the doorway,[561] is connected with the passover rite by the rabbis. “The Deity said: The door and the side-posts were my witnesses in Egypt, in the hour when I passed-over the lintel and the two side-posts, and I said that to Me the children of Israel shall be slaves, and not slaves to slaves; I brought them out from bondage to freedom; and this man who goeth and taketh a lord to himself shall be bored through before these witnesses.”[562]

According to Jewish traditions, it was on a passover night when Jehovah entered into a cross-over covenant with Abraham on the boundary of his new possessions in Canaan.[563] It was on a passover night that Lot welcomed the angel visitors to his home in Sodom.[564] It was at the passover season that the Israelites crossed the threshold of their new home in Canaan, when the walls of Jericho fell down, and the blood-colored thread on the house of Rahab was a symbol of the covenant of the Hebrew spies with her and her household.[565] The protection of the Israelites against the Midianites,[566] and the Assyrians,[567] and the Medes and the Persians,[568] and again the final overthrow of Babylon,[569] all these events were said to have been at the passover season.[570] These traditions would seem to show that the pass-over covenant was deemed a cross-over covenant, and a covenant of welcome at the family and the national threshold.

In the passover rite as observed by modern Jews, at a certain stage of the feast the outer door is opened, and an extra cup and chair are arranged at the table, in the hope that God’s messenger will cross the threshold, and enter the home as a welcome guest.[571] All this points to the meaning of “cross-over,” and not of “pass-by.”

In some parts of northern and eastern Europe there is a custom still preserved among the Jews of jumping over a tub of water on passover night, which is said to be symbolic of crossing the Red Sea, but which shows that the passover feast was a feast of crossing over.[572]

5. MARRIAGE OF JEHOVAH WITH ISRAEL.

It seems clear that the Egyptian passover rite was a rite of threshold covenanting, as ordered of God and as understood by the Israelites. Its sacrifice was on the threshold of the homes of the Hebrews on the threshold of a new year,[573] and on the threshold of a new nationality. Then Israel began anew in all things. Moreover, it was recognized as the rite of marriage between Jehovah and Israel; as the very Threshold Covenant had its origin in the rite of primitive marriage.

That first passover night was the night when Jehovah took to himself in covenant union the “Virgin of Israel,” and became a Husband unto her. From that time forward any recognition of, or affiliation with, another God, is called “whoredom,” “adultery,” or “fornication.”[574] In this light it is that the prophets always speak of idolatry.

Jeremiah recognizes the first passover night as the time of this marriage covenant, when he says:

“Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, That I will make a new covenant With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake, Although I was an husband unto them, saith Jehovah.”[575]

And Jehovah, speaking through Ezekiel of his loving choice of the Hebrew daughter of the Amorite and the Hittite, says: “Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”[576]

It seems to be in recognition of the truth that the Egyptian passover was the rite of marriage between Jehovah and Israel, that the Song of Songs, the epithalamium of the Hebrew Scriptures, is always read in the synagogue at the passover service. This idea of the relation of Jehovah and Israel runs through the entire Old Testament, and shows itself in the Jewish ritual of to-day.

In the primitive marriage rite the stamp of the red hand of the bridegroom is the certification of the covenant union, at the doorway of the family. But in the Egyptian passover it was the virgin of Israel who certified to the marriage covenant by the bloody stamp on the doorway. Hence it was a feminine symbol, in a bush of hyssop, that was dipped in the blood and used for this stamping.[577] The tree, or bush, is a universal symbol of the feminine in nature. This is shown, for example, in the tree or brush-topped pole as the symbol of Ashtaroth, “wife,”[578] as over against the pillar or obelisk as the symbol of Baal, or “lord,” or “husband.”[579]

Footnote 524:

The recognition of this truth is a reason for the infibulation of female children among primitive peoples. (See, for example, Captain J.S. King’s “Notes on the Folk-Lore, and some Social Customs of the Western Somali Tribes,” in the London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 124; also Dr. Remondino’s _History of Circumcision_, p. 51.)

Footnote 525:

See Appendix.

Footnote 526:

See “Satapatha Brâhmana,” 1. Kânda, 2 Adhyâya, 5 Brâhmana, 14–16, in _Sacred Books of the East_, XII., 62 f.; also “Satapatha Brâhmana,” III., 5, 1, 11, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XXVI., 113.

Footnote 527:

“Satapatha Brâhmana,” I., 3, 1, 18; I., 9, 2, 5–11, 21–24; II., 1, 1, 4, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XII., 74, 257, 262, 277; also “Satapatha Brâhmana,” III., 3, 1, 11; III., 8, 4, 7–18, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XXVI., 61, 211–214.

Footnote 528:

See _Rig-Veda_, II., 36, 4; X., 18, 7. Comp. “Satapatha Brâhmana,” I., 7, 2, 14, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XII., 194; also “Satapatha Brâhmana,” IV., 1, 2, 9; IV., 1, 3, 19, with note, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XXVI., 260, 269. See, also, Hopkins’s _Religions of India_, p. 490, and note.

Footnote 529:

Compare Sir Monier Monier-Williams’s _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, pp. 33, 54 f., 223 f., and Wilkins’s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 233 f.

Footnote 530:

Sir Monier Monier-Williams’s _Buddhism_, pp. 371–373. This writer, speaking of the prominence in India of the symbolism of the _linga_ and _yoni_ combined, ascribes it to the theory of the two essences, “Spirit regarded as a male principle, and Matter, or the germ of the external world, regarded as a female.” He says: “Without the union of the two no creation takes place. To any one imbued with these dualistic conceptions the _linga_ and the _yoni_ are suggestive of no improper ideas. They are either types of the two mysterious creative forces ... or symbols of one divine power delegating procreative energy to male and female organisms. They are mystical representatives, and perhaps the best impersonal representatives, of the abstract expressions ‘paternity’ and ‘maternity,’” [and their conjunction in marital union]. (_Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p. 224 f.)

Footnote 531:

This legend is found in _Pirqe de R. Eliezer_, Chap. XXX. The Hebrew words _saph_ and _miphtan_ are here employed for “threshold.” It is also given in Maçoudi’s _Les Prairies d’Or_, chap. 39, p. 94. Here the Arabic is _ʿatabah_, for “threshold.” See, also, Sprenger’s _Life of Mohammad_, p. 53 f.

Footnote 532:

See Lane’s _Arabic-English Lexicon_, s. v. “ʿAtabah.” and Dozy’s _Supplément aux Dictionnaires_ Arabes, s. v. “ʿAtabah.”

Footnote 533:

Buxtorf’s _Lex. Chald. Tal. et Rabb._, s. v. “Pethakh.” See, also, the Talmudic treatise _Niddâ_, “Mishna,” § 2, 5.

Footnote 534:

See, for example, illustration in Maspero’s _Dawn of Civil._, p. 657; also Sayce’s _Relig. of Anc. Babyl._, p. 285.

Footnote 535:

Wilkinson’s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 3, 8, 14, 18, 21, 22, 31, 36, 37, 40, 41, 45, 46, 60, 63, 66, 87, 100, 107, 109, 115, 118, 122, 129, 133, 135, 137, 146, 156, 158, 163, 170, 172, 175, 177, 179, 180, etc.

Footnote 536:

See Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I., 80, 320. See, also, Layard’s _Nineveh and its Remains_, II., 168–170 (Am. ed.); and an article by Hommel, in “Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology” for January, 1893.

Footnote 537:

Hearn’s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, II., 397, note; Lowell’s _Occult Japan_, pp. 270–273.

Footnote 538:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races and Antiq._, III., 504–506.

Footnote 539:

_Voyages of Capt. James Cook_, “First Voyage” at May 14, 1769. Also Voltaire’s _Les Oreilles du Comte de Chesterfield_, Ch. VI. See Appendix.

Footnote 540:

See Cook’s _Voyage to Pacific Ocean_, volume of plates; also Ellis’s _Poly. Res._, II., 217.

Footnote 541:

See Exod. 12 : 1–20.

Footnote 542:

Exod. 12 : 11.

Footnote 543:

Exod. 12 : 21, 27.

Footnote 544:

Exod. 12 : 22.

Footnote 545:

Exod. 2 : 23–25; 3 : 7–10; 5 : 1, 2; 6 : 1–7; 10 : 21–29.

Footnote 546:

Exod. 11 : 4–7.

Footnote 547:

Exod. 12 : 23.

Footnote 548:

Compare Josh. 2 : 1–21; 6 : 16–25.

Footnote 549:

See, for example, Judg. 19 : 27; 1 Kings 14 : 17; 2 Kings 12 : 9, 13; 22 : 4; 23 : 4; 25 : 18; 1 Chron. 9 : 19, 22; 2 Chron. 3 : 7; 23 : 4; 34 : 9; Esther 2 : 21; 6 : 2; Isa. 6 : 4; Jer. 35 : 4; 52 : 19, 24; Ezek. 40 : 6, 7; 41 : 16; 43 : 8; Amos 9 : 1; Zeph. 2 : 14; Zech. 12 : 2.

Footnote 550:

See, for example, Jer. 52 : 19.

Footnote 551:

See pp. 109–111, _supra_.

Footnote 552:

See _Septuagint_, in loco.

Footnote 553:

See _Vulgate_, in loco.

Footnote 554:

Philo’s _Opera_, Mangey, 2 : 292.

Footnote 555:

Liddell and Scott’s _Greek-English Lexicon_, s. v.

Footnote 556:

Cited in Levy’s _Neuheb. Wörterb._, s. v. “Saph.”

Footnote 557:

This on the authority of Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht.

Footnote 558: