ACCOUNTABILITY (ttk-kount'a-bil'f-ty), the abstract term for the use of one's opportunities and talents which all must make to God. Mat.. xii :36 ; Rom. xiv :10 ; Heb. xiii :17, and I Pet. iv :5.
It is the obligation under which every man lives of giving an account of himself to God, in order to future retribution. Matt. xii:36: Koin. xiv :io, 12; 2 Cor. v :to; Heb. xiii :17 ; I Pet. iv:5. The wisdom of God in this constitution of things may be understood by a very little reflec tion. There manifestly wants some husbanding and equalizing power to make the faculties of man turn to the most account. Powers are slum bering for want of a call, instruments rusting for want of an occupation, and energies of every kind are lavished upon idle or evil doing that should be occupied in doing good. A ful con viction of accountability to God, firmly seated in the soul, would change the aspect of the world. ACCUBATION the posture of reclining on couches at table, which prevailed among the Jews in and before the time of Christ.
(1) Roman Custom. We see no reason to th.nk that, as commonly alleged, they borrowed this custom from the Romans after Judea had been subjugated by Pompey. But it is best known to us as a Roman custom, and as such must be described. The dinner-bed, or triclinium, stood in the middle of the dining-room, clear of the walls, and formed three sides of a square which enclosed the table. The open end of the square, with the central hollow, allowed the servants to attend and serve the table. In all the existing representations of the dinner-bed it is shown to have been higher than the enclosed table. Among the Romans the usual number of guests on each couch was three, making nine for the three ' couches, equal to the number of the Muses; but sometimes there were four to each couch. The Greeks went beyond this number (Cic. In Pis. 27).
(2) Lord's Supper. The Jews appear to have had no particular fancy in the matter, and we know that at our Lord's last supper thirteen persons were present. As each guest leaned, during the greater part of the entertainment, on his left elbow, so as to leave the right arm at liberty, and as two or more lay on the same couch, the head of one man was near the breast of the man who lay behind him, and he was, therefore, said 'to lie in the bosom' of the other. This phrase was in use among the Jews (Luke xvi :22, 23; John i :18 ; xiii :23), and occurs in such a manner as to show that to lie next below, or 'in the bosom' of the master of the feast, was considered the most favored place; and is shown by the citations of Kypke and Wetstein (on John xiii:23) to have been usually assigned to near and dear connections. So it was 'the disci ple whom Jesus loved' who 'reclined upon his breast' at the last supper. Lightfoot and others supposed that as, on that occasion, John lay next below Christ, so Peter, who was also highly fa vored, lay next above him. This conclusion is
founded chiefly on the fact of Peter beckoning to John that he should ask Jesus who was the traitor. But this seems rather to prove the con trary—that Peter was not near enough to speak to Jesus himself. If he had been there, Christ must have lain near his bosom, and he would have been in the best position for whispering to his master, and in the worst for beckoning to John. The circumstance that Christ was able to reach the sop to Judas when he had dipped it seems to us rather to intimate that he was the one who filled that place. Any person who tries the posture may see that it is not easy to deliver anything but to the person next above or next below. And this is not in contradiction to, but in agreement with, the circumstances. The mor sel of favor was likely to be given to one in a fa vored place; and Judas, being so trusted and honored as to be the treasurer and almoner of the whole party, might, as much as any other of the apostles, be expected to fill that place. This also gives more point to the narrative, as it aggravates by contrast the turpitude and baseness of his conduct.
(3) Dinner-bed. The frame of the dinner-bed was laid with mattresses variously stuffed, and, latterly, was furnished with rich coverings and hangings. Each person was usually provided with a cushion or bolster on which to support the upper part of his person in a somewhat raised position, as the left arm alone could not long without weariness sustain the weight. The lower part of the body being extended diagonally on the bed, with the feet outward, it is at once per ceived how easy it was for 'the woman that was a sinner' to come behind between the dinner-bed and the wall and anoint the feet of Jesus (Matt. xxvi :7 ; Mark xiv :3).
(4) Improbable Derivation. It is utterly im probable that the Jews derived this custom from the Romans, as is constantly alleged. They cer tainly knew it as existing among the Persians long before it had been adopted by the Romans themselves (Esth. i :6; vii :8) ; and the presump ti•n is that they adopted it while subject to that people. The Greeks also had the usage (from the Persians) before the Romans; and with the Greeks of Syria the Jews had very much inter course. Besides, the Romans adopted the custom from the Carthaginians (Val. Max. xii:t, 2; Liv. xxviii :28) ; and that they had it, implies that it previously existed in Phoenicia, in the neighborhood of the Jews. Thus, that in the time of Christ the custom had been lately adopted from the Romans, is the fast of various probabilities. It is also unlikely that in so short a time it should have become usual and even (as the Tal mud asserts) obligatory to eat the Passover in that posture of indulgent repose and in no other.