ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Aaron

Aaron was Moses’ older brother (eighty-three and eighty years old respectively, according to Exod. 7:7) and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.

Aaron first appears in the account of Moses’ divine commission at the burning bush. God charged Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of bondage (Exod. 3:7–10). In spite of God’s assurance of divine support and ultimate success, Moses hesitated to accept the call, finally citing his lack of rhetorical skills (“I am slow of speech and tongue” [Exod. 4:10]). Finally, God revealed that Aaron was on the way to see Moses. Aaron could “speak well” (Exod. 4:14), so he would serve as Moses’ mouthpiece.

Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1). Indeed, the early plagues often were initiated by Moses commanding Aaron to “stretch out” his staff (Exod. 8:5, 16; cf. 7:9), though later Moses took over this role.

After much struggle, Pharaoh finally allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt. Aaron is not specifically mentioned as playing a role at the climactic moment of the crossing of the Red Sea, but he appears again in Exod. 16 during the first report of the Israelite community’s grumbling about lack of food for the journey. Moses and Aaron were the objects of the grumbling (v. 2), with Aaron continuing his role as the one who speaks for Moses (vv. 9–10). Aaron also supported Moses’ leading position during the first battle in the wilderness (Exod. 17:8–16). When the Israelites fought the aggressive Amalekites, Israel had the upper hand only when Moses kept his walking staff, representing God’s presence, raised above his head. When his arms grew too tired to hold the staff aloft, Aaron and Hur were next to him, hoisting his arms high.

The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron and his sons were to be “set apart” or “consecrated” (Heb. root qdsh) for service to God. They were given special garments that distinctively related them to the sanctuary (i.e., the similarity between the ephod and the innermost curtain of the tabernacle [“blue, purple and scarlet yarn”; Exod. 26:1; 28:6]). Instructions for the installation service are given in Exod. 29, but the event itself is reported in Lev. 8.

Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him. Whether this calf idol represented a false god or the Lord (see Exod. 32:5) is irrelevant because in either case the worship was illegitimate and brought great harm on God’s people. When Moses returned, he confronted Aaron, who gave lame excuses by blaming the people. Unexpectedly, the Levites, his own tribe, assisted Moses by killing many of those who worshiped the idol. For this act, the Levites were ordained to work as priestly assistants.

In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement. The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cushite woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.

Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.

Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1–13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).

Aaron is cited infrequently in subsequent Scripture, with the exception of priestly genealogies (1 Chron. 6:3, 49–50) or in historical reviews (Pss. 77:20; 99:6; 105:26). Psalm 133:2 presents a striking image of the blessings of communal unity by asking the reader to picture oil running down Aaron’s beard. In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).

Aaron's Rod

Aaron’s rod (or staff) is his wooden walking stick, which had a significant role in the accounts of the plagues of Egypt. In Moses and Aaron’s first confrontation with Pharaoh, Aaron threw his rod to the ground, and it turned into a snake. Egypt was a land filled with poisonous snakes, so it is not surprising that the snake was a symbol of power and threat. Although the Egyptian magicians could mimic this act, Aaron’s snake swallowed the snakes produced by their rods, thus showing the superiority of Aaron’s God over their false gods (Exod. 7:8–13). Aaron used his rod by either extending it or striking the ground in order to initiate other plagues as well (turning the Nile into blood [Exod. 7:19], frogs [8:5], and gnats [8:16]). Interestingly, Aaron’s rod was featured in the early plagues, whereas Moses used his rod in some of the later and more powerful plagues as well as in the crossing of the Red Sea, perhaps showing Moses’ prominence (9:23 [hail], 10:13 [locusts], 14:16 [Red Sea]).

The rod was not a magical wand but rather a symbol of the presence of God. It is best to understand the rod as related to a tree that stands for God’s presence. It is a portable tree. That the rod is a portable tree and signifies God’s presence is clearly seen in Num. 17. In the face of dissension from other tribal leaders who disputed Aaron’s leadership, God directed Moses to place a rod from every tribe before him in the tent of testimony. Aaron’s alone budded into an almond tree, signifying that God was with him. His rod was then placed in front of the testimony, according to Heb. 9:4, in the Ark of the Covenant. It may also have been used by Moses to strike the rock and produce water (Exod. 17:5; Num. 20:9).

Aaronites

The descendants of Aaron. The term occurs at 1 Chron. 12:27 (NIV: “family of Aaron”) in reference to Jehoiada, the head of the clan at the time of David, who came to David’s side along with 3,700 fighting men “to turn Saul’s kingdom over to him” (1 Chron. 12:23). But it is equivalent to other expressions such as “sons of Aaron,” used often in the OT.

Abaddon

A transliteration of the Hebrew word for “destruction,” signifying the grave or the underworld. It occurs six times in the OT: three times along with “Sheol,” which refers to the grave or the underworld (Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11; 27:20), once with “death” (Job 28:22), once with the word for “bury” (Ps. 88:11), and once in Job 31:12. Most modern translations render this word “Destruction.” In the NT, the word is used in Rev. 9:11 as the equivalent to the Greek word “Apollyon,” which means “Destroyer,” to refer to the angel of the Abyss.

Abagtha

One of the seven personal attendants of the Persian king Xerxes (Ahasuerus), whom he commanded to bring Queen Vashti to his banquet (Esther 1:10). Working with the harem, he was a eunuch.

Abana

A river in the region of Damascus mentioned by the Syrian general Naaman as surpassing the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:12). Its exact identity is uncertain, but often it is identified with the Nahr Barada, which flows from the Anti-Lebanon Mountains through Damascus. Some ancient versions (LXX, Targum) and Hebrew manuscripts render it “Amana.” See also Amana.

Abarim

A mountain range in northwest Moab, separating the Transjordan Plain from the Jordan Valley. In this range stood Mount Nebo, the spot where Moses ascended to view the Promised Land and later died (Num. 27:12; 33:47–48; Deut. 32:49; 34:1–8). The prophet Jeremiah pictures an announcement of destruction from the peaks of Abarim (Jer. 22:20). See also Nebo.

Abba

An Aramaic term for “father,” used three times in the NT, always coupled with its Greek equivalent, patēr. A term of endearment used to refer to God, it demonstrates that the speaker has an intimate, loving relationship with God. Jesus so addresses God the Father in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). The believer, filled with the Spirit, becomes God’s adopted child and thus can also so speak to God (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The OT provides a background for this in its teaching that God is the father of his people (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 32:6) and, in a special way, of the king (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7).

Abda

(1) The father of Adoniram, who was in charge of forced labor at the time of Solomon (1 Kings 4:6). (2) Son of Shammua, son of Galal, son of Jeduthun, he was a Levite who moved to Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:17). In 1 Chron. 9:16 he is listed by the (full?) name “Obadiah” (“servant of Yahweh”).

Abdeel

The father of Shelemiah, an individual commissioned by King Jehoiakim to arrest Jeremiah and his scribe, Baruch (Jer. 36:26). He was unsuccessful.

Abdi

(1) An ancestor of Ethan, from the Levitical clan of the Merarites. Ethan is listed as a temple musician appointed by David (1 Chron. 6:44). (2) An ancestor of Kish, a Levite from the clan of Merarites, who was commissioned to purify the temple at the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29:12). (3) An Israelite man charged with the offense of intermarrying with a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:26).

Abdiel

The father of Ahi, who was head of a family of Gadites (1 Chron. 5:15).

Abdon

(1) A town located in Asher (Josh. 19:28 [according to some Heb. manuscripts; others have Ebron (so NRSV)]; 1 Chron. 6:74), given to the Levites (Josh. 21:30). (2) An Ephraimite who functioned as a judge in Israel for eight years and was noted for his forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys (Judg. 12:13–15). (3) Son of Shashak, from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:23). (4) Firstborn son of Jeiel and Maakah, Benjamites from Gibeon (1 Chron. 8:30; 9:36). (5) Son of Micah (2 Chron. 34:20 [although in the parallel text, 2 Kings 22:12, the same individual is called Akbor son of Micaiah; see NIV mg.]). Along with others, he was commissioned to inquire of God’s will after the rediscovery of the law of God at the time of Josiah.

Abednego

The Babylonian name given to Azariah by Nebuchadnezzar’s chief official, Ashpenaz, as part of an attempt to turn him into a Babylonian official (Dan. 1:7). He is one of three of Daniel’s Judahite companions, along with Meshach and Shadrach. The three are later appointed as administrators over the province of Babylon (2:49). After being accused of failing to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, they are cast into a fiery furnace. They are kept safe by a fourth “man,” who looks like a “son of the gods.” Afterward, all three are promoted (3:8–30). “Abednego” likely means “servant of Nego” (a form of “Nebo,” the Babylonian god of speech, writing, and water).

Abel

“Abel” is the English spelling of two different Hebrew words. (1) The name of Cain’s brother (Heb. hebel ). As Adam and Eve’s second son, he is mentioned in Gen. 4:2–9 (also v. 25) as the murdered brother of Cain, who slew him out of anger at his being more favored by God for offering a better sacrifice. He is not mentioned again until the Gospels (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51), where he is cast as the first representative of the “righteous blood” shed on earth. (The phrase “the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah” [Matt. 23:35] constitutes a chronological “A to Z” of innocent blood shed in the OT.) He is last referred to in the book of Hebrews. In Heb. 11:4 an explanation is given for why Abel’s sacrifice was favored over Cain’s: it was offered in faith. In Heb. 12:24 Abel’s blood is contrasted with Christ’s. The nature of the contrast is not made explicit, but the context suggests that whereas both Christ and Abel were innocent, it is Christ’s shed blood that is efficacious to mediate the new covenant. The word hebel is also the same one used throughout Ecclesiastes, often translated “vanity” or “meaningless.” Abel’s name, therefore, may symbolize his short life.

(2) The first part of a number of OT place names (Heb. ’abel ) meaning “brook” or “meadow.” It appears several times, as seen in entries that follow here.

Abel Beth Maakah

A city north of Dan. Sheba fled there after his rebellion against David and was besieged by Joab, David’s military commander (2 Sam. 20:1–22). Ben-Hadad, king of Syria, conquered the city by defeating Israel’s King Baasha, thus answering the call of Judah’s King Asa for help (1 Kings 15:20). It was later conquered again, this time by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III from the Israelite king Pekah (2 Kings 15:29). The name means “meadow [or ‘brook’] of the house of Maakah,” and it is possible that “Maakah” refers to the Aramean king who fought with the Ammonites against David (2 Sam. 10:6). See also Abel Maim; Beth Maakah.

Abel Keramim

A place name meaning “brook of vineyards.” The exact location of this town, east of the Jordan, is unknown. It is mentioned only in Judg. 11:33, among the towns devastated by Jephthah when he was pursuing the Ammonites.

Abel Maim

A city mentioned only in 2 Chron. 16:4. But this is in a passage parallel to 2 Kings 15:29, where the name is “Abel Beth Maakah,” suggesting that “Abel Maim” is an alternate or later name. It means “meadow of water.” See also Abel Beth Maakah; Beth Maakah.

Abel Meholah

A place name meaning “meadow [or ‘brook’] of dancing.” The exact location of this town, near the Jordan River, is unknown. It is one of the places to which the Midianites fled when attacked by Gideon (Judg. 7:22) and is mentioned as one of the towns under the governorship of Baana son of Ahilud, one of the twelve governors over Israel put in place by King Solomon to provide the king and the royal household with supplies (1 Kings 4:12). According to 1 Kings 19:16, it is Elisha’s hometown.

Abel Mizraim

A place name that occurs only in Gen. 50:11 and, according to the explanation given there, means “mourning of the Egyptians.” Joseph, along with his household and a large contingent of Egyptians, entered Canaan to bury Jacob. When the Canaanites saw Joseph mourning for his father at “the threshing floor of Atad,” they named the place “Abel Mizraim.” With other place names the Hebrew word ’abel means “brook” or “meadow,” but the word for “mourn” is similar, so its meaning in Gen. 50:11 may be a pun.

Abel Shittim

A place name meaning “brook of acacias.” It is mentioned only in Num. 33:49, as the last stop before crossing the Jordan.

Abez

One of sixteen towns allotted to Issachar in Josh. 19:20.

Abi

Means “my father” or “father of” (often a reference to God) and is found as the first part of a number of personal names. In 2 Kings 18:2 (KJV, RSV, NASB) “Abi” appears as a shortened form of “Abijah” (mother of Hezekiah [see 2 Chron. 29:1]). See also Abijah.

Abi-Albon

An Arbathite, he was one of David’s thirty fighting men (2 Sam. 23:31). He is called “Abiel” in 1 Chron. 11:32.

Abiah

(1) Samuel’s second son, who, along with his older brother Joel, served as judge in Beersheba, but whose corruption drove Israel’s elders to ask Samuel to appoint a king (1 Sam. 8:2–5). (2) Son of Jeroboam, the first king of the northern kingdom (930–909 BC). He died as a boy, in accordance with Ahijah’s prophecy, because of Jeroboam’s idolatry (1 Kings 14:1–18). (3) Son of Rehoboam, called “Abijam” in 1 Kings 15:1–8. He was the second king of the southern kingdom (913–910 BC). He followed in his father’s sinful footsteps but was allowed to rule for David’s sake. His reign was marked by warfare against Jeroboam, which is recounted in more detail and in a more positive light in 2 Chron. 13:1–22 (Abijah defeated Jeroboam, and the Lord struck Jeroboam down). He is listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (1:7). (4) The mother of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29:1 [“Abi” in 2 Kings 18:2, the parallel passage]). (5) The wife of Hezron in the genealogy of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:24 [though some emend the name away; cf. NAB]). (6) A son of Becher, a descendant of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:8). (7) The leader of the eighth of the twenty-four divisions of priests serving in the temple (1 Chron. 24:10). (8) One of the priests in Nehemiah’s time who signed a pledge to lead Israel in covenant obedience (Neh. 10:7). See also Abi; Abijam.

Abiasaph

One of the three sons of Korah (Exod. 6:24). The Korahites were of the line of Kohath, one of the three sons of Levi (see Exod. 6:16–21), and therefore Levitical priests. Ebiasaph (1 Chron. 6:23, 37; 9:19) seems to be the same person. See also Ebiasaph.

Abiathar

A high priest, son of Ahimelek, first mentioned in 1 Sam. 22:20, when he escaped Saul’s slaughter of the priests of Nob. He took refuge with David in the cave of Adullam and, having escaped with the ephod (1 Sam. 23:6–12), became the high priest after David’s reign was established. He was from the line of Eli, son of Aaron, and served with Zadok (line of Eleazar, son of Aaron) during David’s reign (2 Sam. 8:17), although note the reference there to “Ahimelek son of Abiathar.” This is usually considered a copyist’s error, since Ahimelek was Abiathar’s father, and Abiathar is often mentioned as a contemporary of Zadok (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:29, 35; 1 Kings 1:7–8). When Absalom rebelled against David, Abiathar remained supportive (2 Sam. 15). Later, however, he supported Adonijah as David’s successor rather than Solomon, which led to his banishment to his hometown, Anathoth, by Solomon, thus fulfilling Eli’s prophecy (1 Sam. 2:30–35; 1 Kings 2:26–27). He is mentioned once in the NT, Mark 2:26, where Jesus recounts when David took the showbread to feed his men “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” According to 1 Sam. 21:1–9, however, it was Ahimelek, Abiathar’s father, who was high priest at the time. This is often considered to be a copyist’s error, and some Greek manuscripts omit or alter the reference to Abiathar.

ABIB

A month of the Jewish calendar corresponding to late March/early April. It is the month during which the Israelites were delivered from Egypt (Exod. 13:4) and the Passover was celebrated (Exod. 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1). In Neh. 2:1 and Esther 3:7 the month is called “Nisan.” See also Nisan.

Abida

One of the five sons of Midian, Abraham’s son by Keturah (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33).

Abidan

A Gideonite and the leader of the tribe of Benjamin during the early wilderness period (Num. 1:11; 2:22; 7:60, 65; 10:24). He assisted Moses and Aaron in the census (Num. 1).

Abiel

The father of Kish and grandfather of Saul (1 Sam. 9:1; 14:51). Also an alternate name for “Abi-Albon” (1 Chron. 11:32). See also Abi-Albon.

Abiezer

(1) The name of Gideon’s clan and territory, in the tribe of Manasseh, apparently known for grape production (Judg. 8:2). (2) A descendant of Manasseh, Joseph’s son, a Gileadite (Josh. 17:1–2; 1 Chron. 7:18). (3) One of David’s thirty fighting men (2 Sam. 23:27; 1 Chron. 11:28), also mentioned in 1 Chron. 27:12 as leader of David’s fighting divisions during the ninth month.

Abiezrites

The descendants of Abiezer (Judg. 6:11, 24, 34; 8:32). See also Abiezer.

Abigail

(1) The wife of Nabal, a wealthy man from Carmel, she is mentioned prominently in 1 Sam. 25. While David was hiding from Saul in the desert, he sent a word of greeting to Nabal to ask for some food. This would have been a gesture of good faith on Nabal’s part, since his servants had been treated well by David and his men (vv. 7, 15–16). Nabal treated David’s request and his ten messengers with disrespect, so David intended to retaliate, even swearing that not a male would be left alive among Nabal’s people (vv. 21–22). One of Nabal’s servants, however, warned Abigail of Nabal’s behavior and that his life was now in danger. Thinking quickly, and without telling Nabal, she prepared food and brought it to David. She pleaded with David not to shed any blood, which would be to act like the foolish Nabal (“Nabal” in Hebrew means “fool” [v. 25]). She asked for forgiveness on Nabal’s behalf, spoke of the Lord’s favor on David’s “lasting dynasty” (v. 28), and said that she wished to be remembered when David’s current status was behind him and his rule was established (v. 31). David was persuaded by her words. Abigail then returned home and reported to Nabal what she had done. Upon hearing the news, his heart failed and he became “like a stone” for ten days, and then God struck him dead (vv. 37–38). David rejoiced at hearing the news and then made Abigail his wife, along with Ahinoam of Jezreel, both of whom were captured by the Amalekites at Ziklag (30:5) and later were present at David’s anointing (2 Sam. 2:2). Abigail is the mother of Kileab (2 Sam. 3:3 [Daniel, according to 1 Chron. 3:1]).

(2) David’s sister (1 Chron. 2:16–17), the mother of Amasa, one of David’s army commanders (2 Sam. 17:25). The name is spelled “Abigal” in 2 Sam. 17:25.

Abigal

(1) The wife of Nabal, a wealthy man from Carmel, she is mentioned prominently in 1 Sam. 25. While David was hiding from Saul in the desert, he sent a word of greeting to Nabal to ask for some food. This would have been a gesture of good faith on Nabal’s part, since his servants had been treated well by David and his men (vv. 7, 15–16). Nabal treated David’s request and his ten messengers with disrespect, so David intended to retaliate, even swearing that not a male would be left alive among Nabal’s people (vv. 21–22). One of Nabal’s servants, however, warned Abigail of Nabal’s behavior and that his life was now in danger. Thinking quickly, and without telling Nabal, she prepared food and brought it to David. She pleaded with David not to shed any blood, which would be to act like the foolish Nabal (“Nabal” in Hebrew means “fool” [v. 25]). She asked for forgiveness on Nabal’s behalf, spoke of the Lord’s favor on David’s “lasting dynasty” (v. 28), and said that she wished to be remembered when David’s current status was behind him and his rule was established (v. 31). David was persuaded by her words. Abigail then returned home and reported to Nabal what she had done. Upon hearing the news, his heart failed and he became “like a stone” for ten days, and then God struck him dead (vv. 37–38). David rejoiced at hearing the news and then made Abigail his wife, along with Ahinoam of Jezreel, both of whom were captured by the Amalekites at Ziklag (30:5) and later were present at David’s anointing (2 Sam. 2:2). Abigail is the mother of Kileab (2 Sam. 3:3 [Daniel, according to 1 Chron. 3:1]).

(2) David’s sister (1 Chron. 2:16–17), the mother of Amasa, one of David’s army commanders (2 Sam. 17:25). The name is spelled “Abigal” in 2 Sam. 17:25.

Abihail

(1) The mother of Zuriel, leader of the Merarite clans (Num. 3:35). (2) The wife of Abishur, a descendant of Judah (1 Chron. 2:29). (3) A Gadite from Gilead (1 Chron. 5:14). (4) The mother of Rehoboam’s wife, Mahalath (2 Chron. 11:18). (5) The father of Queen Esther and uncle of Mordecai (Esther 2:15; 9:29).

Abihu

The second of Aaron’s four sons (Exod. 6:23). He and his older brother, Nadab, were allowed to approach the Lord on Mount Sinai with Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders (Exod. 24:1, 9). He and his three brothers (the younger two were Eleazar and Ithamar) were made Israel’s first priests (Exod. 28:1). He and Nadab “offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command,” so they were consumed by fire (Lev. 10:1–2; cf. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1 Chron. 24:2).

Abihud

Grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:3), although it is possible that the text should be read as “Gera the father of Ehud” because Ehud’s lineage is given in 1 Chron. 8:6.

Abijah

(1) Samuel’s second son, who, along with his older brother Joel, served as judge in Beersheba, but whose corruption drove Israel’s elders to ask Samuel to appoint a king (1 Sam. 8:2–5). (2) Son of Jeroboam, the first king of the northern kingdom (930–909 BC). He died as a boy, in accordance with Ahijah’s prophecy, because of Jeroboam’s idolatry (1 Kings 14:1–18). (3) Son of Rehoboam, called “Abijam” in 1 Kings 15:1–8. He was the second king of the southern kingdom (913–910 BC). He followed in his father’s sinful footsteps but was allowed to rule for David’s sake. His reign was marked by warfare against Jeroboam, which is recounted in more detail and in a more positive light in 2 Chron. 13:1–22 (Abijah defeated Jeroboam, and the Lord struck Jeroboam down). He is listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (1:7). (4) The mother of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29:1 [“Abi” in 2 Kings 18:2, the parallel passage]). (5) The wife of Hezron in the genealogy of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:24 [though some emend the name away; cf. NAB]). (6) A son of Becher, a descendant of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:8). (7) The leader of the eighth of the twenty-four divisions of priests serving in the temple (1 Chron. 24:10). (8) One of the priests in Nehemiah’s time who signed a pledge to lead Israel in covenant obedience (Neh. 10:7). See also Abi; Abijam.

Abijam

The firstborn son of King Rehoboam, he was the second king of Judah. “Abijam” is the name used in 1 Kings 15:1–8 (KJV, ESV, NRSV; NIV: “Abijah”). Elsewhere he is called “Abijah,” and the use of “Abijam” by the author of 1 Kings may be meant to cast this king in a more negative light. See also Abijah.

Abilene

A region in Syria named after its chief town, Abila, located about eighteen miles northwest of Damascus. Luke reports that at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry the region was governed by Lysanias II (Luke 3:1) as one of four rulers in the Judea province (with Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, and Philip). Josephus, however, only mentions three rulers and makes no reference to Lysanias.

Abimael

A descendant of Shem, one of Noah’s three sons (Gen. 10:28; 1 Chron. 1:22).

Abimelech

(1) The king of Gerar who took Sarah into his house, deceived by Abraham into thinking that she was Abraham’s sister. God warned Abimelek of this in a dream, so he released her and made restitution to Abraham and Sarah. God responded by opening up the wombs of his wife and slave girls (Gen. 20:1–18). He is likely the same person mentioned in Gen. 21:22–24 as one who made a treaty with Abraham at Beersheba.

(2) The king of Gerar during Isaac’s lifetime (Gen. 26:1–35) and likely a son or grandson of the Abimelek mentioned in 20:1–18. As in the earlier incident with Abraham and Sarah, Isaac passed his wife, Rebekah, off as his sister, causing Abimelek great concern when he found out the truth. Abimelek ordered his people to cause no harm to the couple. Isaac planted crops, which did very well and provoked jealousy on the part of the Philistines, and this eventually led to Isaac moving on to Beersheba.

(3) Son of Gideon and his concubine (Judg. 8:31). After Gideon’s death he murdered his seventy brothers in an effort to consolidate power under himself in Shechem. The youn­gest of the brothers, Jotham, escaped and spoke a parable against the citizens of Shechem. Three years later they rebelled against Abimelek under Gaal, but Abimelek was successful in capturing Shechem and killing many of its residents. When he attacked Thebez, he was killed by women who dropped a millstone on his head. That incident is mentioned later in 2 Sam. 11:21 by Joab as he is preparing his messenger for possible criticism by David for his strategy in besieging Rabbah.

(4) Son of Abiathar, and a priest under David (2 Sam. 8:17). It is very likely that a copyist’s error occurs here in which “Abim­elek” and “Abiathar” have been transposed (cf. 1 Sam. 22:20).

(5) The man before whom David pretended to be insane, according to the superscription to Ps. 34. If the incident of 1 Sam. 21:10–15 is in view, where Achish the king of Gath is named, then it is possible that “Ahimelek” is a title for Philistine kings.

Abimelek

(1) The king of Gerar who took Sarah into his house, deceived by Abraham into thinking that she was Abraham’s sister. God warned Abimelek of this in a dream, so he released her and made restitution to Abraham and Sarah. God responded by opening up the wombs of his wife and slave girls (Gen. 20:1–18). He is likely the same person mentioned in Gen. 21:22–24 as one who made a treaty with Abraham at Beersheba.

(2) The king of Gerar during Isaac’s lifetime (Gen. 26:1–35) and likely a son or grandson of the Abimelek mentioned in 20:1–18. As in the earlier incident with Abraham and Sarah, Isaac passed his wife, Rebekah, off as his sister, causing Abimelek great concern when he found out the truth. Abimelek ordered his people to cause no harm to the couple. Isaac planted crops, which did very well and provoked jealousy on the part of the Philistines, and this eventually led to Isaac moving on to Beersheba.

(3) Son of Gideon and his concubine (Judg. 8:31). After Gideon’s death he murdered his seventy brothers in an effort to consolidate power under himself in Shechem. The youn­gest of the brothers, Jotham, escaped and spoke a parable against the citizens of Shechem. Three years later they rebelled against Abimelek under Gaal, but Abimelek was successful in capturing Shechem and killing many of its residents. When he attacked Thebez, he was killed by women who dropped a millstone on his head. That incident is mentioned later in 2 Sam. 11:21 by Joab as he is preparing his messenger for possible criticism by David for his strategy in besieging Rabbah.

(4) Son of Abiathar, and a priest under David (2 Sam. 8:17). It is very likely that a copyist’s error occurs here in which “Abim­elek” and “Abiathar” have been transposed (cf. 1 Sam. 22:20).

(5) The man before whom David pretended to be insane, according to the superscription to Ps. 34. If the incident of 1 Sam. 21:10–15 is in view, where Achish the king of Gath is named, then it is possible that “Ahimelek” is a title for Philistine kings.

Abinadab

(1) The man in whose house the Ark of the Covenant rested for twenty years after it was returned by the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:1; 1 Chron. 13:7). (2) Son of Jesse and older brother of David who was passed over by Samuel when choosing a king (1 Sam. 16:8; 17:13; see also 1 Chron. 2:13). (3) One of Saul’s three sons killed by the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:1–2; see also 1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39; 10:2). (4) Ben-Abinadab, who, according to 1 Kings 4:11, was Solomon’s son-in-law and one of Solomon’s twelve district officials. If “Ben-Abinadab” means “son of Abinadab” (David’s brother), then he is Solomon’s cousin as well.

Abinoam

The father of Barak, Deborah’s army commander (Judg. 4:6, 12; 5:1, 12).

Abiram

(1) Son of Eliab who, along with his brother Dathan and Korah and On, was an instigator of a Levite rebellion against Moses and Aaron. The earth opened up and swallowed them and their families (Num. 16:1–50; 26:9; Deut. 11:6; Ps. 106:17). (2) Son of Hiel of Bethel, who rebuilt Jericho, laying its foundations “at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram,” which may be a reference to child sacrifice (1 Kings 16:34).

Abishag

A young Shunammite woman brought to David’s bed in his old age to keep him warm (1 Kings 1:3, 15). After David’s death, his son Adonijah asked to marry her (1 Kings 2:17), which was a declaration of his continued attempt to secure the throne (see 1 Kings 1), for which Solomon put him to death (1 Kings 2:23–25).

Abishai

Son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and brother of Joab, David’s general (1 Sam. 26:6; 1 Chron. 2:16), he was an accomplished soldier in David’s army. David intervened when Abishai sought to kill the sleeping Saul (1 Sam. 26:5–11). He accompanied his brother Joab as they pursued Saul’s commander, Abner, for killing their brother Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18–24); they later murdered Abner (2 Sam. 3:30). He commanded an army against the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:10–14; 1 Chron. 19:11–15). David prevented him from killing Shimei for cursing David (2 Sam. 16:9–12; 19:21). He led one-third of David’s army against Absalom, David’s rebellious son (2 Sam. 18:2), and an army pursuing Sheba in his rebellion against David (2 Sam. 20:6). When the Philistine Ishbi-Benob threatened David’s life, Abishai rescued David by killing the Philistine (2 Sam. 21:16–17). He struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and established garrisons in Edom (1 Chron. 18:12–13).

Abishalom

A variant spelling of “Absalom” in 1 Kings 15:2, 10. See also Absalom.

Abishua

(1) A Levite, son of Phineas and great-grandson of Aaron (1 Chron. 6:4, 50; Ezra 7:5). (2) A descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:4).

Abishur

Son of Shammai, descendant of Jerahmeel of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:28–29).

Abital

One of David’s wives (2 Sam. 3:4; 1 Chron. 3:3).

Abitub

A Benjamite from Moab (1 Chron. 8:11).

Ablutions

Ablutions include a variety of practices found primarily in the OT through which persons washed in order to participate in the most important activities of the community, usually worship. Although terms referring to washing cover a variety of purposes, such as cleansing the hands or bathing (Gen. 18:4; Ruth 3:3; Acts 16:33; 2 Pet. 2:22), when one speaks of ablutions, the focus is upon the necessary tasks of cleansing after suffering separation from participation in the worship of the assembly because of some impurity (Deut. 21:1–9).

Sometimes ablutions were performed as a means of preparing a person for an activity of heightened importance. The priests of the OT underwent such cleansings, though they were not impure in the usual sense of the word (Exod. 30:19–21). The imagery communicated by such practices expressed the extreme holiness necessary to serve God and his people. Indeed, the sense of holiness and purity that pervaded the sacred rites of the OT was a major motivation for all levels of ablutions. For these heightened moments, however, the biblical record goes into extra detail concerning the process by which one could be washed. Special care was taken to avoid recontamination of the priest, the sacred instruments, or the camp itself, which would interfere with or render useless the rite that had been carried out (Lev. 16:4, 24, 26, 28). As with all ceremonial rites, however, the biblical interest is focused more upon the attitude and the heart of the worshiper than the rite itself. The integrity and the holiness of the participant were the true test of standing pure before God, not the ritual of cleansing (Ps. 24:3–6; Isa. 1:11–16).

In the NT, the pattern of emphasis on the inner person begun in the OT received further expression. In the book of Mark, one of the conflict passages recounts an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the extent of ritual cleansing necessary in one’s life (7:1–16). Jesus proclaimed, in full harmony with the OT, that it has always been the character of the individual that made a person clean or unclean, and that the washings of old were symbolic of that status, not determinative of it. Despite this, it seems that Jewish Christians of the first century chose to continue the practice of ritual washings. The writer of Hebrews argues that the use of such is both an illustration of the pure life (10:22) and a practice that may be considered unnecessary in light of what Christ had accomplished through his perfect work (6:2; 9:10).

Generally speaking, the source of washing for such ceremonial cleansing had to be “living water”; that is, it had to be moving. This could be obtained by pouring the water, by visiting a dedicated ceremonial bath, or by carrying out the washing in a location that already had moving water, such as a river. There is little question, based upon the similarities of early baptismal practices and the ceremonial baths uncovered at Qumran and elsewhere, that NT baptism draws many of its intentions and expressions from the OT ablutions. As such, the same observations about washings made above can be drawn concerning baptism. It is symbolic of an internal reality (Eph. 5:26); it is intended as a means of expressing community between the participant and the greater body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); and it is reflective of a higher calling of Christ to live holy lives (Acts 10:47).

Abner

Son of King Saul’s uncle, Ner (1 Sam. 14:50–51). Abner was Saul’s military commander. He maintained loyalty to the house of Saul during Saul’s struggle with David. Upon Saul’s death, Abner made Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth king over the northern kingdom. In battle with David’s forces, Abner killed Asahel, the brother of David’s military commander, Joab (2 Sam. 2:17–23). Abner rallied support for David’s kingship after Ish-Bosheth accused Abner of sleeping with Saul’s concubine (2 Sam. 3:7–13). Joab later murdered Abner to avenge his brother Asahel’s death (3:22–27).

Abode of the Dead

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life, wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such as respiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequately encompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

The Beginning of Death

Death is introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of the divine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells the first man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you will certainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a useful basis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First, as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor the woman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eating the fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblical notion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointing to the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation and separation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed by Jesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and by Paul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the common punishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen. 9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss of access to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first man and woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, but their fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and the intimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second, the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, as originally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortal in the same manner as God (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), but rather that they were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death but sustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through the provision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once they were cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

The account of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us little about how death affected animals, since the Bible consistently presents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirms human ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans and animals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sin for humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to the fall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortality prior to the fall.

Death in the Old Testament

Death is frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from its initial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presented as that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss. 18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the author of Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines any possible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). The tragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, from God (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and from people. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality and profundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17; cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present death more positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlight the appalling circumstances of the speaker’s life rather than any blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, see Rev. 9:6).

The OT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a good death as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. So Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17) are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, some passages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,” suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death, presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead are never explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death within language used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Although there are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of the dead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show that burial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23; cf. 1 Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriate burial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillborn child is better off than someone who lives a long life but receives no burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation of those not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16; 16:4).

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Belief in some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of the ancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to the state of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoing existence that could even surpass what one may have experienced before death (although such an opportunity was a reasonable expectation only for the upper classes, while the general population probably had more modest expectations of the nature of their existence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefs depicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but the very few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensure them some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there was little hope for any positive experience following death.

The OT, however, has little to say about the state of those who have died. The widespread belief in some form of continued existence beyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in the absence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probably assumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death. Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, such as the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead (sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spirits of the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generally described as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, there are prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death (e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’s death (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Death in the New Testament

The NT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view of death presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence of and punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity is stated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by the notion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead in their sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death, according to Paul, is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and yet to die is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being with Christ, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” than being alive in this body in this world.

Central to both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death in the Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’ death provides the basis for countering the consequences of the original rebellion against God by the first couple (2 Cor. 5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itself destroyed death (2 Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesus offers—eternal life—is available to the believer in the present (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimately abolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe in him will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

The NT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the dead from the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearly presented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of the existence of distinctions among those who have died, such that the rich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used in the LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus is far off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a danger in reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflect something of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among some in Jesus’ day.

The NT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to the state of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from which there will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ will not experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwelling place with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

Abomination

“Abomination” is a translation of the Hebrew words shiqquts and to’ebah used primarily in the KJV (NIV uses terms such as “detestable,” “desecrated,” and “unclean”). The term shiqquts is used of idols (e.g., 2 Kings 23:13, 24; Jer. 7:30; cf. Ezek. 8:10), forbidden practices (e.g., 2 Kings 23:24), and generally anything contrary to the true worship of Israel’s God (e.g., 2 Chron. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; cf. forbidden foods [Lev. 11:10, 13, 42] and ceremonial defilement [Lev. 7:21]). The term to’ebah includes the prohibition of idol worship (Deut. 7:25; 27:15; 32:16) but can more widely apply to immorality (e.g., Lev. 18:22, 26–27), prophecy that leads to paganism (Deut. 13:13–14), blemished animals offered in sacrifice to Yahweh (Deut. 17:1), and heathen divination (Deut. 18:9, 12).

The “abomination of desolation” (NIV: “abomination that causes desolation), or “desolating sacrifice,” refers to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. The description occurs or is alluded to in Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; 2 Thess. 2:4; as well as 1 Macc. 1:54–64. These texts seem to attest to two or three stages of fulfillment of the prophecy.

First, Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; and 1 Macc. 1:54–64 clearly speak of the actions of the Syrian ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC) against the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. He was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Antiochus’s ambition was to use the common culture of the Greeks (Hellenism) to unite the diverse Seleucid Empire. In 167 BC, after being repelled from Egypt by the Romans, Antiochus unleashed his fury on Jerusalem. His soldiers attacked the city on the Sabbath, killing much of the male population and enslaving the remaining women and children (1 Macc. 1:29–36; 2 Macc. 5:24–26). There followed the prohibition of all Jewish rites, along with the rededication of the Jewish temple to the Greek god Zeus. Anyone caught reading the Torah, observing the Sabbath and dietary laws, or circumcising their male babies was killed (1 Macc. 1:54–64; Josephus, Ant. 12.248–64). In December of 167 BC the first pagan sacrifice was offered on the altar in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (1 Macc. 1:54).

Antiochus at first met pockets of resistance from faithful Jews who opposed his orders and were therefore martyred (2 Macc. 6:10–7:42). With Mattathias and his five sons, however, open defiance against Antiochus’s policies ensued. Mattathias, a priest in the town of Modein, refused to sacrifice to heathen gods and killed the king’s officer sent to enforce the edict. This incident sparked a Jewish rebellion led by Mattathias’s family (the Maccabees) that culminated in his son Judas’s defeat of Antiochus’s forces in December of 164 BC. At that time Judas reconsecrated the temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel, and Israel resumed the observance of the Jewish law (1 Macc. 4:52–59). Not long thereafter, Antiochus, who had unsuccessfully tried to invade Persia, died of illness in 164 BC (1 Macc. 6:1–17; 2 Macc. 1:13–17; 9:1–29; Josephus, Ant. 12.354–59). Thus, the prophecies of Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 regarding the rise and fall of Antiochus Epiphanes had come true.

Second, Daniel’s prophecy apparently was not completely fulfilled with Antiochus, for Luke 21:20 labels the Roman assault on Jerusalem in AD 70 as the “desolation.” In fact, the Roman destruction of the Holy City and its temple was an intensification of the OT prediction.

Third, some interpreters would extend the application of the prophecy of the abomination of desolation to the distant future. They contend that the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel’s prediction will occur in connection with the end-time temple to be built by Israel, which the antichrist will desecrate. Supporters of this viewpoint appeal to Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4 (cf. Rev. 11).

Those who identify only two stages of fulfillment for Daniel’s prophecy understand Mark 13:14 and Matt. 24:15 to pertain not to a future end-time temple but to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Luke 21:20). Furthermore, they see in 2 Thess. 2:4 an allusion to the emperor Ca­lig­ula’s (Gaius) plan to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in AD 40 (which, because of his assassination, did not occur).

Abomination of Desolation

“Abomination” is a translation of the Hebrew words shiqquts and to’ebah used primarily in the KJV (NIV uses terms such as “detestable,” “desecrated,” and “unclean”). The term shiqquts is used of idols (e.g., 2 Kings 23:13, 24; Jer. 7:30; cf. Ezek. 8:10), forbidden practices (e.g., 2 Kings 23:24), and generally anything contrary to the true worship of Israel’s God (e.g., 2 Chron. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; cf. forbidden foods [Lev. 11:10, 13, 42] and ceremonial defilement [Lev. 7:21]). The term to’ebah includes the prohibition of idol worship (Deut. 7:25; 27:15; 32:16) but can more widely apply to immorality (e.g., Lev. 18:22, 26–27), prophecy that leads to paganism (Deut. 13:13–14), blemished animals offered in sacrifice to Yahweh (Deut. 17:1), and heathen divination (Deut. 18:9, 12).

The “abomination of desolation” (NIV: “abomination that causes desolation), or “desolating sacrifice,” refers to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. The description occurs or is alluded to in Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; 2 Thess. 2:4; as well as 1 Macc. 1:54–64. These texts seem to attest to two or three stages of fulfillment of the prophecy.

First, Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; and 1 Macc. 1:54–64 clearly speak of the actions of the Syrian ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC) against the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. He was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Antiochus’s ambition was to use the common culture of the Greeks (Hellenism) to unite the diverse Seleucid Empire. In 167 BC, after being repelled from Egypt by the Romans, Antiochus unleashed his fury on Jerusalem. His soldiers attacked the city on the Sabbath, killing much of the male population and enslaving the remaining women and children (1 Macc. 1:29–36; 2 Macc. 5:24–26). There followed the prohibition of all Jewish rites, along with the rededication of the Jewish temple to the Greek god Zeus. Anyone caught reading the Torah, observing the Sabbath and dietary laws, or circumcising their male babies was killed (1 Macc. 1:54–64; Josephus, Ant. 12.248–64). In December of 167 BC the first pagan sacrifice was offered on the altar in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (1 Macc. 1:54).

Antiochus at first met pockets of resistance from faithful Jews who opposed his orders and were therefore martyred (2 Macc. 6:10–7:42). With Mattathias and his five sons, however, open defiance against Antiochus’s policies ensued. Mattathias, a priest in the town of Modein, refused to sacrifice to heathen gods and killed the king’s officer sent to enforce the edict. This incident sparked a Jewish rebellion led by Mattathias’s family (the Maccabees) that culminated in his son Judas’s defeat of Antiochus’s forces in December of 164 BC. At that time Judas reconsecrated the temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel, and Israel resumed the observance of the Jewish law (1 Macc. 4:52–59). Not long thereafter, Antiochus, who had unsuccessfully tried to invade Persia, died of illness in 164 BC (1 Macc. 6:1–17; 2 Macc. 1:13–17; 9:1–29; Josephus, Ant. 12.354–59). Thus, the prophecies of Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 regarding the rise and fall of Antiochus Epiphanes had come true.

Second, Daniel’s prophecy apparently was not completely fulfilled with Antiochus, for Luke 21:20 labels the Roman assault on Jerusalem in AD 70 as the “desolation.” In fact, the Roman destruction of the Holy City and its temple was an intensification of the OT prediction.

Third, some interpreters would extend the application of the prophecy of the abomination of desolation to the distant future. They contend that the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel’s prediction will occur in connection with the end-time temple to be built by Israel, which the antichrist will desecrate. Supporters of this viewpoint appeal to Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4 (cf. Rev. 11).

Those who identify only two stages of fulfillment for Daniel’s prophecy understand Mark 13:14 and Matt. 24:15 to pertain not to a future end-time temple but to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Luke 21:20). Furthermore, they see in 2 Thess. 2:4 an allusion to the emperor Ca­lig­ula’s (Gaius) plan to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in AD 40 (which, because of his assassination, did not occur).

Abortion

Abortion remains an important and vital issue in contemporary society, but the Bible does not comment directly on the practice. There is no law for or against, nor is there even a description or allusion to it, even though its practice was not unknown in the ancient world. Apparently, it was not an issue in biblical legislation.

Perhaps the most frequently cited passages tied to the contemporary abortion debate are Exod. 21:22–25; Job 10:10–11; Ps. 139:13–16; Jer. 1:5. Although these passages certainly speak to the unborn state, they have only indirect relevance, at best, to the issue of abortion.

The Hebrew wording of Exod. 21:22 is obscure and could refer to a miscarriage or full-term delivery; and the harm referred to could be that of either the mother or the child. Also, Exod. 21:22 speaks of accidental death, not a willing decision by a mother to abort a child.

Jeremiah 1:5 refers to God knowing Jeremiah before he was in the womb. This speaks to God’s intention from time past to use Jeremiah as a prophet, and the text should not be generalized of everyone. Clearly, the focus is not on the personhood of the fetus but on the extent of God’s knowledge.

Psalm 139:13–16 is perhaps most relevant to the debate, as the psalmist describes the wonder of God in “creating” and “forming” him in the womb. Since the passage refers to God’s planning of the entire believer’s life (v. 16), that life seems to begin in some sense in the womb. Similarly, Job 10:10–11 speaks of fetal development. Although these passages do not speak directly to the matter of abortion, they imply that God’s care for humans does not begin only at birth.

However, care must be taken not to allow this relative silence to be misunderstood. The Bible is very clear about the sanctity of life, especially that of the innocent. The biblical argument against abortion is one that connects more to larger themes concerning protection of the innocent than to any one verse or to a lack of verses.

Abraham

Abram, eventually named “Abraham,” is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25–25:11. The patriarchal name “Abram” is used exclusively in Genesis, 1 Chron. 1:27, and Neh. 9:7. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.” His prominence as a biblical character is evidenced in the 254 references to him documented in both Testaments.

The historical reliability of the account of Abraham is vigorously debated by scholars, although the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) is the generally accepted time period of Abraham’s life. The narrative of his life is a selective account of key events that serves the theme and purpose of the larger biblical narrative.

The narrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’s life and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years of events. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram was the son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of the barren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran, who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significant events in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at the age of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99 when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised (17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when he died (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the reader quickly through the story in such a way as to highlight a twenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of 75 and 100.

The Abraham narrative in Genesis is a story intentionally structured around the familiar details of life and death, uprooting and resettling, faith and doubt, and dysfunctional relationships. It is distinguished with illustrations of divine activity in family and political relationships. God is speaking (12:1, 7; 15:5, 7, 9), revealing (12:7; 17:1; 18:1), rescuing, judging, and fulfilling words of promise (18:19; 21:1). God’s fingerprint is clearly noted with the summary statements of the Lord’s blessing (24:1) and wealth (24:35).

The covenant that God made with Abraham is a key element in the overall story and foundational for the theology of both Testaments. This divine arrangement is introduced in Gen. 12:1–3 and progressively unfolded with increased detail in Gen. 15; 17. It is structured so that the obligations are borne by the Lord himself. The covenant promises land, seed, and blessing to Abraham and his descendants. In Gen. 15 the Lord officially cut the covenant with Abraham, thereby guaranteeing his commitment to his word. The halving of animals and the walking between the cut pieces by God symbolized by the torch constituted an ancient covenantal ritual affirming God’s responsibility for the covenant particulars.

The NT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimate connection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification of God as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6). The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith who received the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is most importantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1, 12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James 2:21, 23).

Those who exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred to as “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding the covenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlight the promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed of Abraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way, those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessing imparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption of Christ and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).

The promise of land made to Abraham is referenced specifically in Acts (7:5, 16) and Hebrews (11:8, 11), where his obedient faith is featured and the land is discussed in connection with the historical context of his life. See also Abram.

Abraham's Bosom

Abraham’s bosom (or side) describes God’s blessings after death, using the picture of closeness with Abraham at a banquet (perhaps the messianic banquet [see Isa. 25:6–8]). The image appears in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:22–23). The bliss enjoyed by Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham stands in sharp contrast to the rich man’s experience of great torment and suffering. This story is helpful for understanding the intensification of blessings for God’s people following death and, similarly, of sufferings for the lost, but it does not describe the full extent of the eternal destinies of heaven and hell.

Abram

Abraham’s original name, used in Gen. 11:26–17:4. At Gen. 17:5 Abram is renamed “Abraham” because he will be a “father of many nations.” “Abram” is formed from the common Hebrew word ’ab, meaning “father,” plus the root that means “exalted,” although note that Scripture does not assign any particular theological significance to this name. See also Abraham.

Abronah

A campsite of the Israelites on their journey from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. It was situated between Jotbathah and Ezion Geber (Num. 33:34–35), but the exact historical location of Abronah is uncertain.

Absalom

The third of David’s sons, born in Hebron while David was king of Judah alone. His mother was Maakah, daughter of the king of Geshur, a small buffer state northeast of Israel where Absalom fled after murdering his brother Amnon (2 Sam. 13:37). Nothing is known of Absalom’s formative years, but he plays a prominent role in the violence that overtook David following his murder of Uriah (2 Sam. 11). Absalom’s sister Tamar was raped by his older half brother Amnon (13:1–19), and two years later he ordered his men to murder Amnon (13:23–33) before fleeing to Geshur. Joab convinced David to restore him (14:1–21). David snubbed him on his return, and he later rebelled against David, coming close to toppling him before being killed by Joab in the forest of Ephraim after his hair became caught in a tree (18:9–15).

Abshai

Son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and brother of Joab, David’s general (1 Sam. 26:6; 1 Chron. 2:16), he was an accomplished soldier in David’s army. David intervened when Abishai sought to kill the sleeping Saul (1 Sam. 26:5–11). He accompanied his brother Joab as they pursued Saul’s commander, Abner, for killing their brother Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18–24); they later murdered Abner (2 Sam. 3:30). He commanded an army against the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:10–14; 1 Chron. 19:11–15). David prevented him from killing Shimei for cursing David (2 Sam. 16:9–12; 19:21). He led one-third of David’s army against Absalom, David’s rebellious son (2 Sam. 18:2), and an army pursuing Sheba in his rebellion against David (2 Sam. 20:6). When the Philistine Ishbi-Benob threatened David’s life, Abishai rescued David by killing the Philistine (2 Sam. 21:16–17). He struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and established garrisons in Edom (1 Chron. 18:12–13).

Abstinence

Abstinence refers to intentional restraint from participating in some activity.

One of the primary examples of abstinence throughout the Bible is fasting. People abstained from consuming food in times of seeking God’s intervention (Esther 4:16), repenting of some sin (Ezra 10:6), responding to a disaster (2 Sam. 1:12), or preparing for a new venture (Matt. 4:2). One plausible rationale for fasting is that it permits clarity of focus and expresses reliance upon God for sustenance (Ezra 8:23).

Other examples of abstinence in the OT might be expressed in matters of degrees. Food laws prevented some kinds of food from being consumed at all (Lev. 11), other types could not be consumed if found under certain conditions (Lev. 17:15; Deut. 14:21), and still others could not be consumed if prepared in certain ways (Exod. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). Such abstinence was for the expressed purpose of consecrating the people of Israel (Lev. 11:44). Similarly, abstinence from work on the Sabbath was for all the people of Israel (Exod. 20:8–11), while abstinence from fermented drink and any produce of the grapevine was reserved for those under the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:3–4) and demonstrated holiness. The corporate focus in these practices served as an impetus for reflections upon abstinence in the NT. Jesus insisted that fasting be accompanied by proper motives (Matt. 6:16–18), and Paul suggested that abstinence be practiced when an activity might cause another to stumble (1 Cor. 8). Sexual laws called for abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. Paul even allowed for temporary periods of sexual abstinence within marriage so that the couple could devote themselves to prayer (1 Cor. 7:5–6).

Abyss

In classical Greek, abyssos is an adjective meaning “bottomless,” and it was applied to the primeval deep of ancient cosmogonies, an ocean surrounding and under the earth. The LXX uses abyssos to translate the Hebrew tehom in Gen. 1:2 (KJV, NIV: “deep”). In the NT, abyssos refers to the world of the dead (Rom. 10:7; KJV, NIV: “deep”) and especially the subterranean prison of disobedient spirits (fallen angels?; Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1–2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1–3). Some English versions translate abyssos in Revelation as “the bottomless pit” (NRSV, NLT), others as “the Abyss” (NIV). See also Bottomless Pit.

Acacia

An English rendering of the Hebrew word shittim. When referring to the tree, many modern translations use “acacia” (Isa. 41:19; KJV: “shittah tree”); however, when shittim is used in reference to a place name, it often is simply transliterated as “Shittim” (Num. 25:1; Josh. 2:1; Mic. 6:5). More than likely, the place name resulted from an abundant presence of the trees in that location (Josh. 3:1; Joel 3:18).

The acacia tree is readily available in the Sinai and provides a hard wood suitable for crafting objects requiring durability. It was used in the construction of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:10), the poles for moving the ark (25:13), portions of the tabernacle (26:15–37), and parts of the altar of burnt offering (38:1, 6). See also Shittim.

Acbor

(1) The father of Baal-Hanan, king of Edom (Gen. 36:38; 1 Chron. 1:49). (2) One of Josiah’s officials among those sent to inquire of the prophet Huldah regarding the book of the law (2 Kings 22:12, 14). Akbor may have also been called “Abdon” (2 Chron. 34:20). (3) The father of Jehoiakim’s officer Elnathan (Jer. 26:22; 36:12). Since Jehoiakim came to power shortly after Josiah, the father of Elnathan may be identical with Josiah’s official, described above.

Accad

One of the cities associated with and perhaps founded by Nimrod (Gen. 10:10). Outside of the Bible, Akkad was known as the center of the empire established by Sargon the Great (mid-twenty-fourth century BC). His kingdom became known as the Akkadian Empire.

Acceptance

This is a metaphor that illuminates the new relational status that Christ’s redemption brings about between the believer and God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out of the garden and banished from God’s presence. The privileged access that they once enjoyed was lost. As the result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, all human beings are born into the world in a state of alienation from God. This condition of disfavor with God is the root from which stem all other human problems in life.

Adam and Eve’s decision to cover themselves with garments made of fig leaves was their “shortcut” attempt to cover their guilt and shame before God (Gen. 3:7). It is this same impulse that accounts for the many diverse religions in existence today. The assumption that distinguishes all false religions is that the condition of human spiritual alienation can be overcome by the performance of certain prescribed rituals or good works. God’s act of making garments of skin to clothe Adam and Eve with (3:21) anticipated the “covering” that he would provide for sin and shame through his own Son’s atoning death and resurrection. What distinguishes Christianity from other religions is its insistence that only God can initiate reconciliation with those who have broken his law. He alone can provide the necessary means that make it possible for him to forgive and accept them back into fellowship with him.

How is forgiveness related to acceptance? Forgiveness addresses one’s need for the removal of guilt. Acceptance addresses one’s need for a resolution to the problem of shame, the inward sense of unworthiness and inadequacy that one feels before God and others. When the high priest Joshua stood before the angel of the Lord with Satan standing there to accuse him because of his filthy garments, the Lord rebuked Satan; then “the angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes.’ Then he said to Joshua, ‘See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.’ Then I said, ‘Put a clean turban on his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by” (Zech. 3:4–5). This anticipates the new identity and status that Jesus would give to all who receive him. When the prodigal who had shamed his father returned, the father, instead of reproaching him, commanded his attendants to put a new robe on him, a ring on his finger, and sandals on his feet. “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (Luke 15:24).

The NT uses very intimate metaphors to describe the new relationship with God that one enters upon believing. Adoption gives the believer a new legal status as a child of God. This is objective, but it is also experiential (Rom. 8:15–16). Hebrews tells us that Jesus is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters (Heb. 2:11).

Access

Access usually refers to the right of a person of lesser status to appear in the presence of one of higher status and be heard. The word is appropriate in the context of a kingly court (see Esther 1:14; Zech. 3:7). Anyone not granted such access would risk execution when approaching the king for any reason unless the king approved it (Esther 4:11). The word is also appropriate in the context of the Lord’s sanctuary, where it is closely related to approaching the Lord. In the OT, the right to approach the Lord in his sanctuary is limited. For instance, the high priest is the only person granted access to approach the Lord in the inner sanctuary, the holy of holies, and only on the Day of Atonement. Those who fail to approach the Lord properly risk death as a punishment (Lev. 10:1–3). In reality, these two contexts overlap significantly.

Access in the NT focuses on the right to approach God. Unlike the access granted in the OT, the death of Christ grants to all believers the right to approach the Father, making no distinction between Jew and Gentile, since the same Spirit indwells both (Eph. 2:18). Furthermore, Christ’s work secures access to both the kingly throne and the “true tabernacle” of God, where one finds grace and mercy in time of need (Heb. 4:16; 8:1–2; 10:19–22).

Acco

Mentioned once in the OT, Akko is one of the cities that Asher failed to conquer (Judg. 1:31). Renamed “Ptolemais” during the Hasmonean period, this city was home to some believers with whom Paul stayed for a day during his third missionary journey (Acts 21:7). Excavations at Tell el-Fukhkhar uncovered a long history of urban settlement originating in the Middle Bronze Age I (2200–2000 BC). Strategically located at crossroads of coastal and inland roads, eight miles north of modern Haifa, the city played a prominent role as a center of trade.

Accountability

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

Accursed

Being accursed means being subject to judgment from God. “Curse” is used to translate several Hebrew and Greek words. The Hebrew word ’arur appears repeatedly in Deut. 27:15–26; 28:16–19, passages that threaten consequences for both the land and its inhabitants if the latter disobey the covenant stipulations. Jeremiah frequently warned of desolation of the land as a result of the people’s detestable acts.

A related Hebrew term, kherem, indicates giving over to divine wrath and destruction those who are in opposition to God (Josh. 6:17; 7:1; 1 Sam. 15:21). The Hebrew root qll carries the same connotations. One hung on a tree was under God’s curse (Deut. 21:22–23). This judgment likewise could apply to the land (2 Kings 22:19).

Paul employed the Greek term anathema, indicating the object of a curse (Gal. 1:8; cf. Rom. 9:3). This word is used in the LXX to translate both ’arur and kherem. Paul also used the Greek term epikataratos in Gal. 3:10–13, citing Deut. 27:26; 21:23 in his argument to keep the Galatians from returning to observing the law. All humans stand under God’s judgment, but Jesus became accursed for us.

Some OT narratives describe death while hanging on a tree for those who were enemies of God’s people and whose judgment was assured (Josh. 10:26; 2 Sam. 18:9–10). The ram caught in the thicket that served as Isaac’s substitute (Gen. 22:13) is perhaps an adumbration of Jesus’ substitutionary act on the cross (see 1 Pet. 2:24).

Accuser

A human or heavenly opponent. In Scripture (see esp. KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB), “adversary” can refer to one who hinders or helps. Adversaries include David’s soldiers (2 Sam. 19:22), David (1 Sam. 29:4), and God (Num. 22:22). God both raises up (1 Kings 11:14) and delivers one from (Ps. 107:2) adversaries. In Job, the adversary (Heb. satan) works for God (Job 1:7–12). In this passage, many translations treat “the adversary” as if it is the personal name of the Devil.

Aceldama

The place where Judas Iscariot met his demise after betraying Jesus. According to the book of Acts, with the money he received for betraying Jesus to the chief priests, he bought a field, where “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out”; the inhabitants of Jerusalem called the field “Akeldama,” an Aramaic name meaning “field of blood” (Acts 1:18–19). According to Matt. 27:7–8, the field was purchased by the chief priests and subsequently used as a burial place for foreigners. The two passages may be harmonized by supposing that (1) in the Acts account Luke means that Judas indirectly purchased the field because his money was used to purchase it; (2) Judas hanged himself, as Matthew says, but the rapidly decaying body fell from the rope and burst open, as Acts asserts; or (3) as so often with place names, the original of the name was understood differently by different people. Perhaps the place was known as “Field of Blood” because it was purchased with blood money, but the subsequent suicide of Judas at that location caused some early Christians to associate the name with his gory death there.

Achaia

Most narrowly construed, Achaia is a region along the northern coast of the Peloponnesus, the southern peninsula of Greece. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians were sent to this region (1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1). In the NT, the term also has a broader meaning, so that the phrase “Macedonia and Achaia” refers inclusively to all of Greece (Acts 19:21; Rom. 15:26; 1 Thess. 1:7–8).

Achaicus

An acquaintance of Paul mentioned along with Stephanas and Fortunatus (1 Cor. 16:17). These three visited Paul in Ephesus as representatives of the Corinthian church. They may have carried some of Paul’s correspondence to the church there. The name “Achaicus” is derived from the geographical name “Achaia,” suggesting to some interpreters that Achaicus was a slave or former slave, possibly of the household of Stephanas mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:15.

Achan

A Judahite who disobeyed Joshua and kept for himself some of the plunder from Jericho (Josh. 7:1, 21). Achan’s sin was discovered after the Israelite army was defeated by the men of Ai (7:4–21). He was stoned and burned along with his family and possessions (7:25–26). “Achan” resembles the Hebrew word for “trouble” (’akar), and in 1 Chron. 2:7 Achan is known as Achar, the “troubler of Israel” (NRSV). The place where he was killed was known as the Valley of Achor, the valley of “trouble” (Josh. 7:26).

Achar

A Judahite who disobeyed Joshua and kept for himself some of the plunder from Jericho (Josh. 7:1, 21). Achan’s sin was discovered after the Israelite army was defeated by the men of Ai (7:4–21). He was stoned and burned along with his family and possessions (7:25–26). “Achan” resembles the Hebrew word for “trouble” (’akar), and in 1 Chron. 2:7 Achan is known as Achar, the “troubler of Israel” (NRSV). The place where he was killed was known as the Valley of Achor, the valley of “trouble” (Josh. 7:26).

Achaz

(1) Son of Jotham, king of Judah, and father of Hezekiah. His reign is described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28, and his confrontation by the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:1–17. Isaiah’s oracle against the Philistines is dated the year of Ahaz’s death (Isa. 14:28). Hosea and Micah prophesied during his reign (Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Ahaz reigned for sixteen years (743–727 BC). He followed the syncretistic pagan practices of the Israelite kings. When besieged by the Syrian and Israelite kings, with the aim of replacing him with a puppet ruler (734 BC), he sent a massive tribute to elicit Assyrian protection (2 Kings 16:5–9). This resulted in pro-Assyrian religious compromise (16:10–18). The goal of Isaiah’s embassy to the fearful Ahaz was to encourage a response of faith (Isa. 7:9). Though Isaiah offered him any sign of his choosing, Ahaz masked his refusal in a facade of piety about not testing God (Isa.7:10–12; cf. Deut. 6:16). The hypocritical Ahaz did not want a sign because he had no intention of trusting God in this national crisis. The exasperated prophet responded by announcing the sign of Immanuel.

(2) A Benjamite, a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:35–36; 9:41–42).

Achbor

(1) The father of Baal-Hanan, king of Edom (Gen. 36:38; 1 Chron. 1:49). (2) One of Josiah’s officials among those sent to inquire of the prophet Huldah regarding the book of the law (2 Kings 22:12, 14). Akbor may have also been called “Abdon” (2 Chron. 34:20). (3) The father of Jehoiakim’s officer Elnathan (Jer. 26:22; 36:12). Since Jehoiakim came to power shortly after Josiah, the father of Elnathan may be identical with Josiah’s official, described above.

Achim

Son of Zadok and an ancestor of Jesus listed among the fourteen generations between the exile and the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:14).

Achish

A Philistine, king of Gath. When David sought sanctuary at Gath by pretending to be insane, Achish turned him away (1 Sam. 21:10–15). When Saul continued to persecute David, David and his men allied themselves with Achish, who gave David the city of Ziklag (27:1–6). While in Achish’s service, David pretended to carry out raids against his own people, so that Achish came to trust him greatly (27:8–12). Later, Achish’s advisers convinced him that David could not be trusted to fight against Israel (29:1–11). Achish is mentioned in the early reign of Solomon (1 Kings 39–40). Achish is called “Abimelek” in the superscription to Ps. 34.

Achmetha

Also known as Achmetha (modern Hamadan), located about 160 miles southwest of modern Tehran, Iran. Ecbatana was known to Greek and Persian sources in antiquity and was the summer residence of the Persian kings. According to ancient Greek authors, the city was founded by the Medes. The single reference to Ecbatana in the OT comes in Ezra 6:2, where a document thought to be in Babylon is later found to have been deposited in Ecbatana. Several stories in the Apocrypha are set in Ecbatana (Tob. 3:7; Jdt. 1:14; 2 Macc. 9:3).

Achor

A valley in northern Judea (Josh. 15:7), identified with modern El Buqeah. Achor was the place where judgment was rendered to Achan after he stole plunder from Jericho (Josh. 7:24–26). The prophets envision the transformation of Achor into a verdant area (Isa. 65:10; Hos. 2:15).

Achsah

The daughter of Caleb who was given as a wife to Othniel when he captured the city of Debir (Josh. 15:16–17; Judg. 1:12–13). Caleb gave her land in the Negev and later, at her request, the “upper and lower springs” as well (Josh. 15:18–19; Judg. 1:14–15).

Achshaph

A city in northern Palestine whose king was a vassal of the king of Hazor. When Jabin went to war against Joshua, he called for the support of the king of Akshaph (Josh. 11:1), who is listed among the thirty-one kings defeated by Joshua (Josh. 12:20). Akshaph was assigned to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:25).

Achzib

(1) A town (modern Ain Kezbeh) in the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:44). Akzib is also mentioned in a negative context in Mic. 1:14, where the prophet plays on the meaning of ’akzab, “deceitful.” Akzib may appear in Gen. 38:5 [NIV: Kezib]; 1 Chron. 4:22 [NIV: Kozeba]. (2) A town in the territory of Asher (Josh. 19:29) that Asher did not conquer (Judg. 1:31). Phoenician Akzib has been excavated and is located on the Mediterranean coast between Acre (Akko) and Tyre (modern ez-Zib).

Acre

(1) A unit of measurement of land area, originally equivalent to what a pair of oxen could plow in a day (see 1 Sam. 14:14; cf. Isa. 5:10). (2) Another name for the city Akko (see Judg. 1:31). See also Akko.

Acropolis

An acropolis (lit., “high city”) is the elevated portion of an ancient city, typically containing temples, palaces, or other public architecture. In Jerusalem, the temples of Solomon and Herod stood on the highest hill within the city. The most famous acropolis in the Greco-Roman world was that of Athens, where the Parthenon stands. Paul preached within sight of the Athenian acropolis, already ancient by his time, on the nearby Areopagus during his visit to the city (Acts 17:19–34). After Athens, Paul went to preach and teach in Corinth (18:1–11), which also had a famous acropolis, the Acrocorinth.

Acrostic

A literary device, most often used in poetry, in which the first letters of each line form a pattern. Biblical acrostics form an alphabetic pattern whereby successive lines or sections begin with a successive letter of the twenty-two-letter Hebrew alphabet. The lengthiest example is Ps. 119, which consists of twenty-two groups of eight verses. Within each group, the lines in each verse begin with the same Hebrew letter. Lamentations 1–4 also constitutes an impressive acrostic, with the alphabetic pattern repeated once in each of the chapters. Each letter of the alphabet in turn begins a unit of (usually) three lines. In Lam. 3, each of the three lines in each section begins with the same letter (as in Ps. 119). Other (often incomplete) acrostics include Pss. 9–10; 25; 34; 37; 111; 145; Prov. 31:1–31; and probably Nah. 1:2–10.

Acsah

The daughter of Caleb who was given as a wife to Othniel when he captured the city of Debir (Josh. 15:16–17; Judg. 1:12–13). Caleb gave her land in the Negev and later, at her request, the “upper and lower springs” as well (Josh. 15:18–19; Judg. 1:14–15).

Acshaph

A city in northern Palestine whose king was a vassal of the king of Hazor. When Jabin went to war against Joshua, he called for the support of the king of Akshaph (Josh. 11:1), who is listed among the thirty-one kings defeated by Joshua (Josh. 12:20). Akshaph was assigned to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:25).

Acts of the Apostles

This book, commonly referred to simply as Acts, is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke and records the exciting history of the first three decades of the early church. The book begins with the ascension of Jesus, followed by his sending of the Holy Spirit, and ends with the gospel message being proclaimed by Paul as a prisoner in the capital city of the Roman Empire. In the pages in between, the reader is introduced to the key people, places, and events of this strategic and crucial time of Christian history. The book of Acts provides insightful and inspiring reading. It forms the backdrop for understanding much of the NT (especially Paul’s letters), and it provides important models for the contemporary church.

Historical Background

In order to understand the book of Acts, one must become familiar with its historical background. This includes understanding the book’s authorship, recipients, and setting. In terms of authorship, the book technically is anonymous; however, there are good reasons for holding to church history’s traditional view that its author is Luke. This tradition dates back to the early second century and is supported by internal evidence. This evidence further reveals that Luke was a physician and close companion of the apostle Paul (in fact, Luke was actually with Paul for some of the events that he records in Acts; see the “we” passages, found in 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:8–18; 27:1–28:16). Luke was well educated, well traveled, and familiar with both the Jewish and the Greco-​Roman worlds. He was a Hellenistic God-fearer and a Christian. He was also familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, Greco-Roman rhetoric, and ancient histories, thus making him the perfect candidate to write an accurate history of early Christianity.

The specific recipient of Acts is Theophilus (1:1). Theophilus could be characterized as a relatively new believer of high social status, a person educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric and history, and one who possessed the financial means to promote and publish Luke’s work (both the Gospel of Luke and Acts). It is probable that in some way Theophilus served as a bridge to a wider readership. It seems likely that Theophilus was Luke’s ideal reader (i.e., an influential Greco-Roman of high social standing).

The specific setting of Acts is difficult to determine; however, it seems clear that the book was written during a time of crisis for the church. This crisis involved persecution and slander of Christians by both Jews and Gentiles. Both groups were trying to persuade public opinion against Christianity, including the opinion of Greco-Roman authorities. The persecution and slander were taking their toll on the church, and many Christians were demoralized and struggling to remain faithful as witnesses of Jesus. Christianity needed someone to write a response to this crisis. This response had to do three things: (1) accurately relate the history of the church to influential Greco-Romans of high social status; (2) show that Christianity was an ancient religion (ancient religions were considered to be legitimate by Roman authorities) and an asset to the Roman Empire, not a threat; (3) legitimize Christianity over against Judaism. The author of this reponse had to be someone who was respected both inside and outside of the Christian faith community, who knew the church’s history well, and who was educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric. What better authorial candidate than Luke? Finally, the church also needed a person of high social status and financial means to help publish and promote the work; thus, Theophilus was chosen.

Purpose

The book of Acts was written for a variety of purposes. These include apologetics, legitimization, discipleship, and witness to salvation. The apologetic purpose of Acts focuses on how Christianity could be recognized as an ancient, honorable, and officially protected religion in the Roman Empire. Although Judaism had the status of religio licita (legal religion) with Roman authorities for most of the first century, Christianity encountered serious problems in this respect. Acts itself reveals a substantial amount of such evidence in this regard. For example, 16:20–21 shows that at Philippi, Paul and Silas were charged with disturbing the peace by advocating unlawful customs. In Thessalonica, the missionaries were accused of defying Caesar by promoting another king named “Jesus” (17:7). At Corinth, the charge was that of persuading the people toward unlawful worship (18:13). Later in Acts, Paul was charged by the Jewish priestly leaders with being part of an unacceptable sect that was stirring up riots in Jewish communities (24:5–9). In 28:22, when Paul addressed the Roman Jews, they responded by saying that “people everywhere are talking against this sect [Christianity].” Such accusations, accompanied by the fact that Christianity’s founder had been crucified by Roman authorities, made it difficult for the Christians to gain credibility. Christianity’s precarious position with Rome was further exacerbated by a strong Jewish campaign to separate from Christians and to label them as sectarian. This strategy certainly intended for Christianity to be viewed by Rome as religio illicita (illegal or forbidden religion). Thus, Luke writes Acts to defend Christianity by showing that it is not a replacement of Judaism, but rather its legitimate continuation. Therefore, it should be accepted by the Roman authorities as a legal religion just as Judaism was accepted.

Luke’s apologetic message also appears to be directed inwardly, to a struggling church. This inward focus leads to Luke’s next main purpose: legitimization of the Christian faith for its adherents. As part of his defense, Luke intends to equip the church in the midst of an identity crisis due to the constant threats of illegitimacy. This explains Luke’s strategy of retelling the story of the church’s origins so that followers of Christ would understand their true position from God’s perspective. Thus, Luke verifies four things: (1) the Jewish Scriptures prophesied a coming messiah, and Jesus matched these prophecies; (2) the resurrection was foretold in Scripture and verified by eyewitnesses; (3) it was God’s plan all along for Gentiles to be included in God’s redemptive work; (4) Jews who rejected Jesus were acting in the same way their ancestors did; therefore, believers should not be surprised by their negative reaction to Jesus. Luke uses stories such as the one in Acts 2:41–47 to verify that salvation was genuinely being accomplished in the church and that Christians were experiencing the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises to Israel. Luke’s writing is intended to encourage his contemporary church members to remain faithful in their service and witness for the Lord. He reminds them that they are the true (legitimate) “people of God” and that God’s Spirit will help them prevail and will give them abundant life even in the midst of hardship and persecution.

Another key purpose of the book of Acts is to foster discipleship. The prologues of both Luke’s Gospel and Acts verify that Luke is writing to provide instruction and teaching for Theophilus (see Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2). Part of this instruction reveals that the ascension of Jesus was not the end of his relationship with the world, but rather a new beginning. Jesus’ departure did not mean abandonment; in fact, it meant just the opposite. Jesus verifies his continuing presence and work in the world after his departure just as he had lived and worked before. In other words, the same Spirit who directed the ministry of Jesus is now going to direct the ministry of Jesus’ followers. The rest of the book of Acts provides instruction (with many personal examples) on how Christ can fulfill the ministry of believers through the power and direction of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s discipleship teaching includes helping believers learn how to experience and follow God’s Spirit (chap. 2), to boldly witness for Christ in the midst of persecution (chaps. 3–4, 8, 14, 16–17, 19–28), to sacrificially share resources with other Christians in need (chaps. 2, 4, 11), to resolve disputes within the church (chaps. 6, 15), and to take the gospel message of salvation to all people (chaps. 2, 11, 13–28).

The book of Acts places great emphasis on the message of salvation and the responsibility given to believers to share this salvific message with all people. This salvation-witness concept is clearly one of Luke’s key purposes for the book of Acts. The Pentecost event of Acts 2 initiates the theme of salvation for all people and thus sets the agenda for the rest of the book. In this passage, various Jews from many nations hear the good news in their own tongue, which suggests that this news is for peoples of all tongues and nations yet for Jews first. The rest of Acts continues this theme of the universal scope of salvation. Luke makes it clear that this salvation crosses all geographical, ethnic, and social boundaries. In Acts, Luke is bridging the gap between Jesus’ earthly ministry and a later generation of Christ followers who are to take the gospel to a much wider geographical area with even greater ethnic diversity. The message of salvation should be joined with Luke’s emphasis on witness. The centrality of the theme of witness in Acts is verified by Jesus’ words right before the ascension: “And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). The book of Acts tells the story of how the early church received and obeyed the command of Jesus to bear witness of him to the ends of the earth.

Literary Features

These key purposes of Acts are expounded through some distinctive literary features found in the book. One such literary feature is that the book of Acts was written in a literary genre called “apologetic historiography.” This genre can be defined as the story of a subgroup of people told by a member of the group who explains the group’s traditions and history while using Greco-Roman literary features. A good example of this literary genre is Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. Josephus tells the story of the Jews to Greco-Roman readers in hopes that they will better understand Jewish history and traditions and will accept the Jews in the larger Greco-Roman world. This appears to be exactly what Luke is doing in the book of Acts for Christians. However, Luke is not giving a defense of a particular ethnic group; rather, he is defending a multicultural people who transcend ethnic and geographical boundaries. In fact, this is a key part of Luke’s message. Throughout Acts, Luke is trying to explain why his religion is one that crosses ethnic boundaries and is a universal religion inclusive of all ethnicities. As Luke tells the story of Christianity, he is careful to utilize Hellenistic literary features in order to connect with his primary audience. Evidence of these Hellenistic literary features in the book of Acts includes a narrative style illustrating the history through the personal experiences of key characters (Acts tells the history of the early church through characters such as Peter and Paul), the frequent use of speeches, personal observation of at least part of the narrative while maintaining anonymity of authorship (the “we” passages of Acts), and the frequent use of summaries to guide the narrative (Acts contains three major summaries [2:42–47; 4:32–37; 5:12–16] and a number of minor summaries [6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31]).

Outline and Survey

Acts can be outlined according to Jesus’ final words, recorded in 1:8: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

I. Witnesses in Jerusalem (1:1–8:3) II. Witnesses in Judea and Samaria (8:4–12:25) III. Witnesses to the Ends of the Earth (13:1–28:31)

I. Witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–8:3). Immediately following his ascension, Jesus tells his followers to return to Jerusalem and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit. They promptly obey, and after ten days of waiting, the disciples are dramatically filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to share the gospel with those around them. This event occurs at the Jewish Pentecost festival, which was attended by Jews and Jewish proselytes from throughout the Roman Empire. After the Spirit comes at Pentecost, Peter boldly preaches to the crowds, and over three thousand people respond with saving faith (2:41).

Luke next provides an exciting summary of the Spirit-led life within the early church. This life is characterized by the early believers’ participation together in the sharing of worship activities, material possessions, and spiritual blessings (2:42–47). This summary is followed by several dramatic healing miracles accomplished through Peter and the subsequent arrest of Christian leaders by Jewish religious authorities. Instead of squelching the Christian movement, however, these arrests only enhance the spiritual revival and its accompanying miracles. This revival is characterized by extreme generosity and unity within the early church (4:32–37).

The revival joy, however, is marred by the deceitful actions of Ananias and Sapphira, who lie to the church and to the Holy Spirit and are judged by God with immediate death (5:1–11). This story proves that God will go to extreme lengths to protect the unity of his church. Following more persecution and miracles, the disciples choose seven men to oversee distribution of food to Hellenistic widows who have been neglected in daily food distributions (6:1–7). One of these leaders, Stephen, is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Stephen testifies boldly before the Jewish leaders and is promptly executed by stoning (chap. 7). This execution is endorsed by Saul, a zealous Pharisee who begins to lead fierce persecution against the church in Jerusalem (8:1–3).

II. Witnesses in Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:4–12:25). Saul’s persecution forces many of the early church believers to leave Jerusalem. These believers scatter throughout the surrounding areas of Judea and Samaria. As they scatter, however, they continue to preach the gospel (8:4). Philip preaches in Samaria and performs many miraculous signs, producing a spiritual revival in the region. Hearing about this, the apostles send Peter and John to Samaria to minister to the Samaritans (8:18–25), thus confirming the cross-cultural nature of the gospel (Samaritans traditionally were hated by the Jews). Next Luke tells of Philip’s evangelizing of an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40).

Following the Ethiopian’s belief in Jesus, the narrative tells of Saul’s dramatic conversion while traveling to Damascus to persecute Christians there (9:1–19). Saul’s dramatic turnaround is met with suspicion by the other disciples, but eventually he is accepted by the believers with the help of Barnabas (9:27–30). Next Peter travels to the Judean countryside and heals the paralytic Aeneas and raises Dorcas from the dead (9:32–42). These miracles produce an exciting spiritual revival in the region. Following this, God gives Peter a vision to go to the coastal city of Caesarea in order to minister to Cornelius, a Roman army officer. Cornelius is a God-fearer, and through Peter’s witness he responds to the gospel message and receives the Holy Spirit (chap. 10). Peter explains his actions with Cornelius to his concerned Jewish companions and verifies that God has indeed included the Gentiles in his plan of salvation (11:1–18).

This verification is followed by the report of what is happening in the church at Antioch, where Jews begin to share the gospel with larger groups of Gentiles (11:19–21). This cross-cultural evangelism produces a spiritual revival in Antioch, causing the Jerusalem church to send Barnabas to the large Syrian city to investigate (11:22–30). Barnabas confirms that God is indeed at work in Antioch and invites Saul to come and help him disciple the new Gentile believers (11:25–26). Next Luke reports more persecution breaking out against Christians in Jerusalem, resulting in the arrest of James and Peter by King Herod. James is executed, but Peter miraculously escapes from prison with the help of an angel (12:1–19), and the church continues to increase, spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

III. Witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 13:1–28:31). Starting with chapter 13, the narrative shifts its focus from the ministry of Peter to that of Paul (formerly Saul). The church at Antioch begins to take center stage over the church at Jerusalem. This church commissions Paul and Barnabas and sends them off on their first missionary journey, accompanied by Bar­na­bas’s cousin John Mark. The missionaries first sail to Cyprus, where they preach in synagogues and encounter a Jewish sorcerer, Bar-Jesus. Next they sail to Pamphylia, thus crossing into Asia Minor, and preach the gospel in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (this area was known as part of the region of Galatia). In these cities, God provides numerous miracles, and the missionaries experience a great response to the gospel as well as much persecution because of the gospel. On one occasion, Paul is actually stoned and left for dead (14:19–20).

Unfazed, Paul and his team boldly continue their mission. Eventually, they retrace their steps, strengthen the churches that they have started, and sail back to Syrian Antioch, where they give an exciting report to the church (14:26–28). Following this report, Luke tells of an important meeting of church leaders in Jerusalem. The subject of the meeting involves whether or not the new Gentile Christians should be required to follow the Jewish laws and customs. After debating the issue, the leaders side with Paul, determining that the Gentiles should not be burdened with Jewish laws and traditions, but simply must live moral lives and not eat food that has been sacrificed to idols (chap. 15).

Following this meeting, Paul and Barnabas decide to make a second missionary journey. Unfortunately, the two missionaries get into a dispute over whether to take John Mark with them again. The argument is such that the missionaries decide to separate, and Paul chooses a new partner, Silas. They travel by land back to Galatia. Barnabas takes John Mark and sails to Cyprus. Paul and Silas return to Derbe and Lystra and then make their way to Macedonia and Greece. They spend significant time in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth before returning to Caesarea and Antioch (chaps. 16–18). Following his return, Paul makes a third missionary journey, revisiting churches in Galatia and Phrygia and staying in Ephesus for three years before visiting Macedonia and Greece for a second time.

Paul concludes his third missionary journey with a trip to Jerusalem, where he is falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the temple. This accusation creates a riot, and Paul is rescued by Roman soldiers, who arrest him and transfer him to a prison in Caesarea, where he spends two years awaiting trial under the rule of Felix and Festus (23:34–25:22). Paul eventually exercises his right as a Roman citizen to have his case heard by the emperor. He is sent to Rome by boat and is shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Eventually he makes his way to the capital city, where he is placed under house arrest. While in Rome, Paul maintains a rented house and is free to receive visitors and write letters. In fact, it is thought that Paul penned his “prison letters” during this time of house arrest (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). The narrative of Acts ends with Paul ministering boldly in Rome while awaiting his trial.

Acts and the Contemporary Church

The book of Acts provides a model for today’s church on numerous topics. These include understanding the role of the Holy Spirit, practicing community life within the church, dealing with hardship and persecution, overcoming social injustices, and carrying out missions.

Acts reveals that the key issue for Christians is learning to experience and follow God’s Holy Spirit, who enables believers to be bold in their witness for Christ, generous in their physical and spiritual support of each other, and effective in their ministries. Acts consistently reveals that one’s joy, power, and purpose come from the Holy Spirit. According to Acts, learning to follow and depend upon God’s Holy Spirit is the key to having a healthy church.

Acts also shows that the Holy Spirit produces a unique community life characterized by worship, generosity, blessing, and unity. Luke calls this Spirit-led common life koinōnia, which is explained and illustrated in the first five chapters of Acts (see esp. 2:42–47). It should be the desire and goal of every church to re-create this koinōnia community first experienced by the primitive church in Acts.

In addition to its koinōnia, the book of Acts serves as a model for the church in overcoming persecution and hardship. The narrative of Acts consistently reveals the sovereign power of God in overcoming opposition. The early church found great joy and growth in the midst of hardship and persecution, and today’s church can do the same.

Another important example for the church provided by Acts is in the area of social justice. Luke’s primitive church consistently removed ethnic prejudices, eliminated social hierarchy and status within the church, and elevated the role of women. Acts provides inspiration and guidance for today’s church in facing these same social issues.

In addition to overcoming social injustices, the church in Acts provides an excellent example of mission ministry. These believers consistently revealed God’s heart for the nations and made it a priority to share the gospel with all people everywhere. Acts’ emphasis on the universal nature of the gospel, the responsibility of individual Christians to witness for Christ, and the importance of planting new churches and discipling new believers sets a pattern for today’s church in the area of missions.

These examples should serve to inspire and guide the contemporary church as it seeks to follow and experience the Holy Spirit, who is so powerfully revealed in the book of Acts.

Aczib

(1) A town (modern Ain Kezbeh) in the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:44). Akzib is also mentioned in a negative context in Mic. 1:14, where the prophet plays on the meaning of ’akzab, “deceitful.” Akzib may appear in Gen. 38:5 [NIV: Kezib]; 1 Chron. 4:22 [NIV: Kozeba]. (2) A town in the territory of Asher (Josh. 19:29) that Asher did not conquer (Judg. 1:31). Phoenician Akzib has been excavated and is located on the Mediterranean coast between Acre (Akko) and Tyre (modern ez-Zib).

Adadah

One of the southernmost towns allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:22).

Adah

Two women who married men excluded from the Israelite ancestry. (1) Lamech’s wife, in Cain’s genealogy (Gen. 4:19). (2) Esau’s Hittite wife, mother of the Amalekites (Gen. 36:2). As daughter of Elon the Hittite, Adah may (Gen. 26:34) or may not (Gen. 36:2–3) be identical with Basemath.

Adaiah

(1) The father of Jedidah and grandfather of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:1). (2) A descendant of Levi through Ethan (1 Chron. 6:41–42). (3) A descendant of Benjamin through Shimei (1 Chron. 8:21). (4) Son of Jeroham, and a priest who resettled in Judah (1 Chron. 9:12). (5) The father of Maaseiah, a commander under covenant with the priest Jehoiada (2 Chron. 23:1). (6) A descendant of Bani who was guilty of marrying foreign women (Ezra 10:29). (7) A descendant of Binnui also guilty of marrying foreign women (Ezra 10:38–39). (8) A descendant of Judah through Joiarib (Neh. 11:5). (9) Son of Jeroham, and a priest who resettled in Jerusalem (Neh. 11:12; could be the same as #4).

Adalia

One of Haman’s ten sons, all of whom were killed by the Jews in the citadel of Susa, along with five hundred others. At the request of Esther to King Xerxes, their corpses were then displayed by public hanging (Esther 9:7–14). Xerxes had permitted the Jews the right “to destroy, kill and annihilate” their attackers (8:11).

Adam

The name of a person and a word for “humankind.” That the Hebrew word ’adam can be both a personal name and a reference to humankind provides the biblical writers with a valuable means of drawing theological conclusions important to the nature of humankind’s status before God. Unfortunately, in various places it is unclear whether it is a proper name or a more general noun. The origin of the word is usually understood to be related to “red” or “red soil,” and the writer of Genesis makes the link between “the man” and “the soil” more apparent in Gen. 2:7, where man is said to have been created from ’adamah (ground, earth).

The first man was named “Adam.” Because of the difficulties of the word ’adam serving as both a proper name and meaning simply “human,” there is disagreement concerning when the text of Gen. 1–3 is referring to humankind and when it is utilizing “Adam” as a reference to the first man’s name. This discussion often is driven by one’s explanation of origins; however, the general rule applied by many Bible translations is that the presence of the definite article (“the”) indicates that the author has humankind in mind, whereas its absence indicates the use of the proper name.

Humankind was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), who also uniquely breathed into human beings his own breath (2:7), indicating a distinct capacity for relationship between them and God. This emphasis is furthered in the text by God’s granting to humankind stewardship of the rest of his creation (1:28–30). The fall (Gen. 3) apparently arose out of the desire of human beings to usurp God’s position and determine for themselves what is beneficial and what is harmful (knowledge of good and evil). The step of disobedience taken in consuming fruit from the forbidden tree had dire consequences for the relationships between men and women, humankind and creation, and humankind and God. The fall, however, did not eliminate the reality that humankind is still in the image of God and capable of continued relationship with him (5:1–3).

Other OT passages rely on Adam for purposes of genealogy (Gen. 5:4; 1 Chron. 1:1) but also begin to highlight some theological conceptions of him that would become significant in his description elsewhere in Scripture. Job 31:33 may suggest a link between Adam’s attempt to cover his sin (Gen. 3:7, 10) and the propensity that human beings have to do the same (cf. Isa. 43:27). Psalm 8 expresses reflections concerning the creation of humankind, and the wonder of God’s interest and investment of himself in it. The writer of Ecclesiastes seemingly toils over the status of human beings in relation to the earth, since the former die but the latter continues (Eccles. 1:3–4). Such passages demonstrate the corporate responsibility that humankind bears for sin following Adam’s first sin and establish a framework through which the NT writers may be able to address the most significant human problems.

Adam is the center of several significant references in the NT. In particular, passages such as Rom. 5:12–21 and 1 Cor. 15:21–49 establish an Adam/Christ, or First Adam/Second Adam typology. In the Romans passage, Paul draws on the Jewish concept of corporate identity in order to identify the status of death as common throughout all humanity because of the first Adam, and the hope of salvation and grace as available to all humanity because of the second Adam. The 1 Corinthians passage makes its argument along similar lines; however, its interest is in the granting of the possibility of resurrection to humanity in the second Adam, who provides a permanent body, while the first Adam only granted a limited body of dust.

In other places in the NT the priority of Adam and his impact on humanity are the source of theological reflection as well. Luke seems to argue for the solidarity of Jesus with all of humanity by taking his genealogy back to Adam (Luke 3). Paul draws on the priority of Adam being created before Eve, as well as her deception by the serpent, as a rationale for not permitting women certain roles in the church (1 Tim. 2:13–14). The writer of Hebrews draws the connection between humankind and Christ in order to highlight Jesus’ unique capacity for dealing with the sinful human condition (Heb. 2). See also Adam, Town of; Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve

The first human beings. According to Gen. 2, God created Adam (whose name means “humanity” and is related to the word for “ground”) from the dust of the ground and his own breath, showing that humankind is a part of creation but has a special relationship with God. This description contrasts with the Babylonian account of the creation of the first humans from the clay of the ground and the blood of a demon god (Qingu in the Enuma Elish). The Bible thus presents a more dignified understanding of the place of humankind in the world. God placed Adam in a garden in Eden (a name that means “delight” or “abundance”). Even so, God, noting that it was not good for Adam to be alone, created Eve (whose name means “living”), his female counterpart. She was created from Adam’s side (or rib), signifying their equality. She was to be his “helper,” a word that does not denote subordination, since elsewhere in the Bible God is said to be the psalmist’s helper (Pss. 30:10; 54:4). Eve was Adam’s wife, and God pronounced that future marriage will be characterized by leaving one’s parents, being joined as a couple, and consummating the relationship with sexual intercourse (Gen. 2:24).

Adam and Eve were to tend the garden of Eden. They were permitted to eat the fruit of all the trees of the garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating the fruit of this tree, against God’s express prohibition, would be an assertion of moral independence that would meet with God’s punishment.

In Gen. 3 the serpent convinced Eve that it would be good to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam was present with her as the serpent spoke, but he remained silent. After eating the fruit, Eve gave some to Adam, and he ate without protest. Both Adam and Eve were therefore guilty of the first sin. The results were immediate, including the alienation of Adam and Eve, signaled by the fact that they could no longer stand naked before each other without shame.

Adam and Eve were punished for their rebellion. Eve was punished in her most intimate relationships. She would now experience increased pain when giving birth, and her relationship with her husband would become a power struggle as her desire to control him would be met with his attempt to dominate her (Gen. 3:16). Adam felt the consequences of his action in his work, which now would be tinged with frustration (3:17–19). In addition, although they did not die immediately, they were removed from the garden and access to the tree of life, so death would be their ultimate end.

After Adam and Eve departed from the garden, they had children. We know of Cain and Abel, whose conflict is well known from Gen. 4. After the death of Abel, Eve gave birth to Seth. The genealogies of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) and Seth suggest that humanity is divided into those who resist and those who follow God (5:1–32). Surprisingly, in the rest of the OT Adam is mentioned only in the first verse of the genealogy in 1 Chron. 1, and Eve not at all (cf. Hos. 6:7).

In the NT, Adam is mentioned in the Lukan genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:38) and in Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Tim. 2:13–14; Jude 14. In Romans, Paul associates Adam with the entry of sin and death into the world. Paul contrasts Adam with Christ. Whereas Adam’s act introduced sin and death, Christ’s act brought reconciliation with God and life. Paul makes essentially the same point in 1 Cor. 15 (see esp. vv. 22, 45). Christians thus read Gen. 3 through the commentary supplied by Paul and believe that it supports the notion of original sin, that all humans are sinners from birth.

Eve is mentioned twice in the NT. In 1 Tim. 2:11–15 Paul argues that women should learn quietly and not teach or have authority over men because Eve was created after Adam and was the one deceived by the serpent. Debate surrounds the issue whether Paul here addresses a local situation or is citing a universal principle. Paul again mentions the deception of Eve in 2 Cor. 11:3, but here he applies it to men and women who are in danger of being deceived by false teachers.

Adamah

(1) A fortified city in the tribal allotment to Naphtali, in northern Palestine (Josh. 19:36). (2) A Hebrew word meaning “earth” or “ground.” Since the Hebrew word ’adam means either “human” or the proper name “Adam,” wordplays appear early in Genesis: “there was no one [’adam] to work the ground [’adamah]” (2:5); “the Lord God formed a man [’adam] from the dust of the ground [’adamah]” (2:7); “to Adam [’adam] he said, . . . ‘Cursed is the ground [’adamah] because of you’  ” (3:17). The similarity of the words ’adam and ’adamah thus reminds Hebrew readers of the origin of humankind.

Adamant

A stone known for its hardness. Twice the KJV uses “adamant,” as a metaphor for stubbornness (Ezek. 3:9; NIV: “hardest stone”) and hardness of heart (Zech. 7:12; NIV: “flint”). See also Flint.

Adami Nekeb

The NIV and other translations list Adami Nekeb as a single city on the border of the tribal allotment to Naphtali. The KJV lists Adami and Nekeb as two separate cities on Naphtali’s border (Josh. 19:33).

Adar

The sixth month of the Hebrew civil calendar and the twelfth of the religious calendar, beginning during February. An extra Adar was sometimes added to synchronize the Hebrew lunar calendar with the solar year (Esther 3:7).

Adbeel

The third of twelve sons of Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn son by his Egyptian maidservant, Hagar (Gen. 25:13; 1 Chron. 1:29).

Addan

A town of unknown location from which some Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile to Judah with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after. These returning exiles were among those who could not establish their genealogical connections to Israel. The NRSV and others read “Addan” in Ezra 2:59 but “Addon” in Neh. 7:61, while the NIV reads “Addon” both places.

Addar

(1) Grandson of Benjamin through Bela (1 Chron. 8:3), probably the same person as Ard (Gen. 46:21; Num. 26:40). (2) A city on the southern border of Israel’s promised inheritance, also on the southern border of Judah’s tribal allotment (Josh. 15:3). Known also as Hazar Addar (Num. 34:4).

Addi

An ancestor twenty-four generations before Jesus in Luke’s genealogy. Addi was the son of Cosam and father of Melki (Luke 3:28).

Addon

A town of unknown location from which some Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile to Judah with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after. These returning exiles were among those who could not establish their genealogical connections to Israel. The NRSV and others read “Addan” in Ezra 2:59 but “Addon” in Neh. 7:61, while the NIV reads “Addon” both places.

Adin

(1) The ancestor of two groups that returned to Judah from captivity in Babylon, one with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:15 [cf. Neh. 7:20]), the other, led by Ebed, with Ezra around 458 BC (Ezra 8:6). (2) A member of the postexilic community who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:16). However, the names listed in Neh. 10:14–27 may indicate families rather than individuals.

Adina

A descendant of Reuben through Shiza. Adina was one of “the Thirty,” mighty men who strengthened David’s kingship. Adina also led a band of thirty soldiers (1 Chron. 11:42).

Adino

A word in the Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 23:8 that some translations (e.g., KJV, NASB) render as the name of a person. Since ’adino and the following word, ha’etsno (“the Eznite”), are awkward in the sentence and absent elsewhere in the Bible, the NIV follows some LXX manuscripts and 1 Chron. 11:11, substituting “raised his spear” for “Adino the Eznite” (cf. ESV, RSV). See the NIV footnotes on 2 Sam. 23:8.

Adithaim

One of the fourteen towns and villages allotted to the tribe of Judah in the western foothills of southern Canaan (Josh. 15:36).

Adlai

The father of Shaphat, King David’s keeper of herds in the valleys (1 Chron. 27:29).

Admah

One of the cities of the plain, associated with Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 10:19; 14:2, 8; Deut. 29:23). Admah is not specifically mentioned as being destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah, but Deut. 29:23 and Hos. 11:8 mention the city’s destruction in passages about divine judgment. Admah traditionally has been located at the southeastern end of the Dead Sea, although current scholarship places it on the northeast side of the Dead Sea.

Admatha

One of seven top-level officials under King Xerxes (Ahasuerus), who advised him to put away Queen Vashti because of her refusal to obey the king’s command to appear before the banquet (Esther 1:14).

Administration of Law

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

Adna

(1) A descendant of Pahath-Moab guilty of marrying foreign women (Ezra 10:30). (2) The head of Harim’s priestly family in the days of Joiakim (Neh. 12:15).

Adnah

(1) A man of the tribe of Manasseh who commanded one thousand men and defected to David during Saul’s reign (1 Chron. 12:20). (2) A man from the tribe of Judah who commanded three hundred thousand of the experienced fighters whom Jehoshaphat stationed in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 17:14).

Adoni-Bezek

The leader of Bezek who was defeated by men of the tribes of Judah and Simeon early in the conquest of Canaan. The Judahites and Simeonites cut off Adoni-Bezek’s thumbs and big toes; he viewed the amputations as divine retribution for his taking the same action against seventy kings (Judg. 1:4–7).

Adoni-Zedek

The Amorite king of Jerusalem who organized a five-city coalition to attack the city of Gibeon after its capitulation to Joshua (Josh. 10:1–3). After their armies were routed by the Israelites, Adoni-Zedek and his four allies hid in a cave. Joshua captured and executed them (Josh. 10:22–27).

Adonijah

(1) David’s fourth son, a rival to Solomon for the succession to David’s throne. When David became old, Adonijah, whom David apparently did not discipline properly (1 Kings 1:6), strengthened his claim on the throne greatly by garnering the support of Joab and Abiathar (1:7), whose support Absalom had failed to win in his earlier rebellion. When David heard of Adonijah’s actions, he instructed his leaders to install Solomon as king in Gihon, which they did so loudly that Adonijah and his supporters were able to hear the commotion at their own feast (1:33–41). Solomon mercifully chose not to kill Adonijah for his treason (1:50–53). The peace between Solomon and Adonijah quickly came to an end when Adonijah requested that Abishag the Shunammite, a virgin attendant of David, be given to him as a wife. Seeing this as another act of treason (2:22), Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada to kill Adonijah, which he did prior to killing Joab also.

(2) A man listed as one of those who sealed the postexilic covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:16).

Adonikam

The ancestor of two groups that returned to Judah from captivity in Babylon, one with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after, and one with Ezra around 458 BC. Ezra and Nehemiah list returning descendants of Ad­o­ni­kam with Zerubbabel at 666 and 667 men, respectively (Ezra 2:13; Neh. 7:18). Three “last ones,” Eliphelet, Jeuel, and Shemaiah, family heads of Adonikam, returned to Palestine with Ezra, accompanied by sixty men (Ezra 8:13).

Adoniram

Son of Abda, Adoniram was overseer of forced labor for David and Solomon (2 Sam. 20:24; 1 Kings 4:6). In order to finance and support his huge building campaigns, Solomon “put a heavy yoke” (1 Kings 12:4) on the people of Israel, including the conscription of thirty thousand Israelite men whom Adoniram oversaw (5:13–14). When Rehoboam unwisely threatened to increase the burden on the Israelites (12:13–15), the northern tribes rebelled. Rehoboam sent Adoniram to assert his control over the northern tribes, but they stoned to death the unpopular Adoniram (12:18).

Adoption

The voluntary process of granting the rights, privileges, responsibilities, and status of child or heir to an individual or group that was not originally born to the adopter. While birth occurs naturally, adoption occurs only through the exertion of will.

At least two significant figures in the OT were adopted. After Moses’ birth mother kept him alive despite Pharaoh’s command to drown every newborn Hebrew boy in the Nile (Exod. 1:22), Moses was, ironically, adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (2:10). Esther, or Hadassah, was adopted by her uncle (or cousin) Mordecai upon the death of her parents (Esther 2:7)—this adoption plays an important part in Esther’s ability to prevent the Jewish extermination intended by Haman.

Although adoption is fairly uncommon in the OT, God’s adoption of Israel is of the utmost importance. It demonstrates God’s willingness to initiate relationship with humankind, a truth that later culminated in Jesus Christ. God chooses to adopt the nation of Israel as his child (Deut. 7:6; Isa. 1:2; Hos. 11:1) and more significantly as his firstborn son (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Thus God singles out Israel among the nations of the earth, bestowing the highest possible honor.

The concept of adoption is more prevalent in the NT, primarily in the apostle Paul’s writings. Based on the belief that Israel’s exclusive position as the adopted firstborn son of God the Father is no longer deserved, the NT includes those who believe in Jesus Christ as adopted children of God’s eternal family (John 1:12; 11:52; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1). The adopted children of God enjoy all the rights of a natural-born child, including the opportunity to call God “Father,” as Jesus did (e.g., Matt. 5:16; Luke 12:32). Paul in particular uses adoption to describe the Christian’s new relationship with God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:15–16, 21–23; 9:25–26).

Adoraim

One of fifteen cities in Judah and Benjamin that Rehoboam fortified in the wake of the division of his kingdom (2 Chron. 11:9). Adoraim was situated in Judah, approximately twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem. The city was apparently ineffective in halting Pharaoh Shishak’s attack on Jerusalem (2 Chron. 12:2–4; 1 Kings 14:25–26).

Adoram

Son of Abda, Adoniram was overseer of forced labor for David and Solomon (2 Sam. 20:24; 1 Kings 4:6). In order to finance and support his huge building campaigns, Solomon “put a heavy yoke” (1 Kings 12:4) on the people of Israel, including the conscription of thirty thousand Israelite men whom Adoniram oversaw (5:13–14). When Rehoboam unwisely threatened to increase the burden on the Israelites (12:13–15), the northern tribes rebelled. Rehoboam sent Adoniram to assert his control over the northern tribes, but they stoned to death the unpopular Adoniram (12:18).

Adrammelech

(1) A god of the people of Sepharvaim. After the exile of the northern kingdom, the king of Assyria transplanted people from all over his empire into the territory that he had taken from the Israelites. Each of these people groups “made its own gods in the several towns where they settled” (2 Kings 17:29). Those people who had been transplanted from Sepharvaim established worship of Adrammelek and Anammelek in former Israelite territory by sacrificing their own children in fire (2 Kings 17:31). Adrammelek (“Adar is king”) and Anammelek (“Anu is king”) were related to the Babylonian gods Adar, the sun god, and Anu, the moon goddess.

(2) One of the sons of the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib who, along with his brother Sharezer, assassinated his father in the temple of Nisrok and escaped to the land of Ararat. Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib, was next on the throne (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). See also Anammelek.

Adrammelek

(1) A god of the people of Sepharvaim. After the exile of the northern kingdom, the king of Assyria transplanted people from all over his empire into the territory that he had taken from the Israelites. Each of these people groups “made its own gods in the several towns where they settled” (2 Kings 17:29). Those people who had been transplanted from Sepharvaim established worship of Adrammelek and Anammelek in former Israelite territory by sacrificing their own children in fire (2 Kings 17:31). Adrammelek (“Adar is king”) and Anammelek (“Anu is king”) were related to the Babylonian gods Adar, the sun god, and Anu, the moon goddess.

(2) One of the sons of the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib who, along with his brother Sharezer, assassinated his father in the temple of Nisrok and escaped to the land of Ararat. Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib, was next on the throne (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). See also Anammelek.

Adramyttium

A port city on the northwest coast of modern Turkey. Today the city is known as Karatash. The city was of commercial importance, though its power peaked before the NT period. It was the center for worship of Castor and Pollux, Zeus’s twin sons. Paul, Luke, Aristarchus, and Julius the centurion sailed on a ship from this city on their way to Rome (Acts 27:1–2).

Adriatic Sea

The Adriatic Sea is a portion of the Mediterranean Sea that separates Italy from Greece. According to second-century documents, the extent of this sea may have included waters from Malta to the western coast of Crete. It was in these waters that Paul found himself adrift for fourteen days during his trip to Rome to plead his case before Caesar (Acts 27:27).

Adriel

Son of Barzillai the Meholathite, who likely resided in Abel Meholah. Adriel married Merab, Saul’s oldest daughter, who had previously been promised to David (1 Sam. 18:19), although several manuscripts report that he married Michal (2 Sam. 21:8). The marriage may have sealed a treaty between Adriel’s city-state and Saul’s kingdom. Five sons from this marriage were among those whom David surrendered to the Gibeonites to be executed for Saul’s misdeeds.

Adullam

A city in the western foothills of Judah, located about fifteen miles southwest of Jerusalem (Josh. 15:35). Prior to the conquest of Canaan, the patriarch Judah lived for some time in Adullam (Gen. 38:1–5). The Israelites conquered the city several hundred years later under Joshua (Josh. 12:15), and Rehoboam fortified the city after the division of Israel (2 Chron. 11:7).

Adullam became a refuge for David both before and after his enthronement. After fleeing from Saul to the Philistine city of Gath, David stayed at a cave in Adullam, and about four hundred men gathered to him, many of whom were discontented and troubled (1 Sam. 22:1–2). King David’s battles with the Philistines led him back to the stronghold at the cave of Adullam. In one memorable instance, Philistine forces were stationed near Jerusalem in the Valley of Rephaim and in Bethlehem, and three of David’s mighty men broke through Philistine lines and brought water back to David in the stronghold (2 Sam. 23:13–17; 1 Chron. 11:15).

Micah warned the people of Adullam and several nearby cities that disaster was imminent (Mic. 1:10–15); this materialized when Sennacherib captured all the fortified cities of Judah (Isa. 36:1). The Bible does not mention Adullam again until Nehemiah’s returnees from exile reestablish an Israelite presence in the city during the time of Artaxerxes (Neh. 11:30).

Adullamite

A city in the western foothills of Judah, located about fifteen miles southwest of Jerusalem (Josh. 15:35). Prior to the conquest of Canaan, the patriarch Judah lived for some time in Adullam (Gen. 38:1–5). The Israelites conquered the city several hundred years later under Joshua (Josh. 12:15), and Rehoboam fortified the city after the division of Israel (2 Chron. 11:7).

Adullam became a refuge for David both before and after his enthronement. After fleeing from Saul to the Philistine city of Gath, David stayed at a cave in Adullam, and about four hundred men gathered to him, many of whom were discontented and troubled (1 Sam. 22:1–2). King David’s battles with the Philistines led him back to the stronghold at the cave of Adullam. In one memorable instance, Philistine forces were stationed near Jerusalem in the Valley of Rephaim and in Bethlehem, and three of David’s mighty men broke through Philistine lines and brought water back to David in the stronghold (2 Sam. 23:13–17; 1 Chron. 11:15).

Micah warned the people of Adullam and several nearby cities that disaster was imminent (Mic. 1:10–15); this materialized when Sennacherib captured all the fortified cities of Judah (Isa. 36:1). The Bible does not mention Adullam again until Nehemiah’s returnees from exile reestablish an Israelite presence in the city during the time of Artaxerxes (Neh. 11:30).

Adulteress

A translation of the Hebrew word nokriah. The KJV translation, “strange woman,” is accurate, but “foreign woman” is an even more literal rendering. The NIV translates it “wayward woman” or “wayward wife” (Prov. 2:17 makes clear that she is guilty of marital unfaithfulness). The term is parallel to “prostitute” in Prov. 23:27 (ESV, NRSV; NIV: “adulterous woman”). Many prostitutes in ancient Israel may have been foreigners; however, the use of this term in the book of Proverbs is nonethnic, describing a woman who defies Israelite moral standards. The young man is promised that wisdom will guard him from the evil woman (2:16–19; 7:5), who by enticing words (5:3) and provocative gestures (7:6–27) seeks to lead him into sexual infidelity. In the teaching of Proverbs she is the competitor of Woman Wisdom (most clearly in 9:1–6, 13–18).

Adultery

One of the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Narrowly interpreted, the prohibition forbids extramarital relations with a married woman (Lev. 20:10), but it is applied more broadly in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22–24 to cover a variety of sexual offenses.

The prophets invoked the commandment in condemning God’s wayward people (Hos. 4:2; Jer. 7:9). They also used it as a metaphor for spiritual unfaithfulness to the God of the covenant (Hos. 3–4; Ezek. 16:30–34), as does Revelation for succumbing to false teaching (Rev. 2:22).

Jesus brought out the original force of the commandment, saying that a lustful look amounted to adultery (Matt. 5:27–30). He listed this commandment in Mark 10:19 (and pars.) when talking to the rich young ruler. Paul and James also made clear that the prohibition was still in force (Rom. 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11). Jesus taught that adultery springs from the unregenerate heart (Matt. 15:19 pars.), and for Paul adultery was one of “the acts of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19).

The OT penalty for adultery was stoning (Deut. 22:22–24), though it is not clear how rigorously this was enforced. Jesus forgave the woman “caught in adultery” (John 8:3–11) and told her not to repeat her sin. His leniency may have been motivated in part by the hypocrisy of her accusers, who had let the guilty man go free.

The exception clause in Jesus’ teaching that forbids divorce and remarriage (“except for sexual immorality,” which includes adultery) is found in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. Matthew only spells out what is implicit in Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18. Jesus stated that if a man divorces his wife so as to marry another woman (more attractive to him for some reason), this is nothing but legalized adultery. The notorious example of Herod’s marriage to Herodias may be part of the background to this teaching (Mark 6:17).

Adummim

, Pass of A place name that occurs twice with respect to defining the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:7; 18:17). It derives from the Hebrew word for either “ground” (“earth”) or “red.” Located on the leeward side of the Judean hills, the Pass of Adummim was part of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho that connected the hill country and Transjordan through the Jordan Valley. Its underlying bedrock is cenomanian limestone, whose exfoliation and disintegration yields the red soil (terra rosa), from which the slope probably derives its name. Several important biblical events occurred on this route, including the return of Michal to David (2 Sam. 3:14–16) and David’s flight from Absalom (2 Sam. 15–16). On his trips through Jericho to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled this route as well. The ruggedness of this route informs the parable of the good Samaritan, which Jesus told on his final trip along this route to Jerusalem (Luke 10:25–42).

Adventuress

A translation of the Hebrew word nokriah. The KJV translation, “strange woman,” is accurate, but “foreign woman” is an even more literal rendering. The NIV translates it “wayward woman” or “wayward wife” (Prov. 2:17 makes clear that she is guilty of marital unfaithfulness). The term is parallel to “prostitute” in Prov. 23:27 (ESV, NRSV; NIV: “adulterous woman”). Many prostitutes in ancient Israel may have been foreigners; however, the use of this term in the book of Proverbs is nonethnic, describing a woman who defies Israelite moral standards. The young man is promised that wisdom will guard him from the evil woman (2:16–19; 7:5), who by enticing words (5:3) and provocative gestures (7:6–27) seeks to lead him into sexual infidelity. In the teaching of Proverbs she is the competitor of Woman Wisdom (most clearly in 9:1–6, 13–18).

Adversary

A human or heavenly opponent. In Scripture (see esp. KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB), “adversary” can refer to one who hinders or helps. Adversaries include David’s soldiers (2 Sam. 19:22), David (1 Sam. 29:4), and God (Num. 22:22). God both raises up (1 Kings 11:14) and delivers one from (Ps. 107:2) adversaries. In Job, the adversary (Heb. satan) works for God (Job 1:7–12). In this passage, many translations treat “the adversary” as if it is the personal name of the Devil.

Advocate

Several Hebrew terms in Job 16:19–20 have been translated “advocate” in various English versions. The first (Job 16:19) is the Aramaic sahed, parallel to the Hebrew ’ed (“witness”). Sahed appears in Gen. 31:47 in the name that Laban gave to the heap of stones marking the boundary between him and Jacob. Jacob called it “Galeed” (“heap of witness”), and Laban called it “Jegar Sahadutha.” The Hebrew word melits (Job 16:20) can be translated “intercessor” or “advocate,” continuing the thought from v. 19; see also Job 33:23, where a melits is like an angel at a person’s side, giving instruction in what is right and intervening on the person’s behalf. The complication arises because the more common meaning of the root lits is to mock or jeer; melits would be a related noun. In this case, Job 16:20 is a contrast to the preceding advocacy theme and instead refers to the friends who are deemed mockers. This fits better with the plural grammatical construction, and it also looks ahead to Job 17:2, where Job says that mockers surround him. The comprehensive message of the passage, however, is that Job knows that his advocate is in heaven, a testimony to Job’s understanding of the sovereignty of the God who has also afflicted him, and a possible foreshadowing of the ministry of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

In John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 the term paraklētos (lit., “called alongside” [NRSV, NIV: “Advocate”; RSV: “Counselor”]) refers to the Holy Spirit, sent as the Spirit of truth. The advocacy roles of the Spirit are to remain with God’s people, to teach, remind, and testify about Jesus, to convict the world of guilt regarding sin, and to guide into all truth. In 1 John 2:1 Jesus is the paraklētos who speaks in defense of his children. Just as Job 16:19–20 hinted at trinitarian implications regarding the divine advocate, so the NT references affirm the advocacy roles of the persons of the Godhead. See also Paraclete.

Aeneas

A paralytic living in the city of Lydda, near Joppa, in Palestine. Peter ended Aeneas’s eight-year confinement to bed by healing him, and as a result, many in Lydda and its environs were converted. See Acts 9:32–35.

Affliction

Affliction is a condition of physical, mental, or spiritual distress, or the cause of suffering. Afflictions may be a variety of temporal, physical sufferings, such as infertility (Gen. 25:32; 1 Sam. 1:11), injustice and toil (Gen. 31:42), slavery (Exod. 1:12; 3:7, 17; 4:31; Deut. 26:6–7; Neh. 9:9), military oppression (Judg. 2:18; 10:18), loss (Ruth 1:21), displacement and mocking (2 Sam. 16:12), disease and disorders (Mark 3:10; 5:29, 34; Luke 7:21; John 5:4; Acts 28:8), and famine (Acts 7:11). Affliction may be mental or spiritual, arising from the prospects or effects of physical afflictions, feeling the futility of life (Eccles. 1:13), or concern for others in their afflictions (Isa. 63:9; 2 Cor. 2:4).

There are several different causes and reasons for affliction, but there is no simple formula for determining the cause of one’s afflictions, as Job reminds us. Clearly, Job is blameless (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3), but his friends carry on wrongly in their assumptions that his sins are to blame. The agents of affliction include God (2 Kings 17:20; Nah. 1:12), Satan and/or demons (Job 1:12; Acts 5:16), other people (Judg. 10:8; 2 Thess. 1:6), oneself (1 Kings 18:28), or the general condition of life (Job 5:7).

The reasons for affliction also vary. One reason might be called “no reason,” in that “man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7). Troubles, afflictions, and sorrow just happen. In retrospect, this is a condition of living in a cursed world (Gen. 3). But this is a general consequence for the whole human race, not a punishment directed at a specific sin. The widespread afflictions of the curse appear random. In various forms they prevent us from turning to easy living as a refuge from broken relationships and therefore force us to look elsewhere. The intent is that we look to God (see Hos. 5:15). Multiple specific reasons, however, may lie behind any particular affliction. They include punishment for sin (Deut. 29:22), often to induce repentance leading to restoration (Hos. 5:15; Zech. 10:9; 1 Cor. 11:30). Affliction may be dealt out by people as they sin against others (1 Sam. 1:7; 2 Sam. 16:12; 2 Thess. 1:6). One’s own choices may have natural consequences (Prov. 11:24; 13:20; 19:9, 15; 22:3), or consequences come due to a lack of leadership (Zech. 10:2). Some result from being associated with those going through afflictions (Num. 14:28–35; 1 Kings 2:26), suffering afflictions due to following Christ (Matt. 13:21; John 15:18–20; Acts 20:23), or feeling empathy for the afflicted (2 Cor. 2:4). Other afflictions are given as training, prevention, or refining (Isa. 48:10; Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 12:7; Heb. 12:5–13). Suffering affliction may also be substitutionary, on behalf of others (Isa. 53:4–7; and the substitutionary atonement of Christ generally).

In response to others’ afflictions, we are called to sympathy, compassion, comfort, and justice. Appropriate responses to our own afflictions range from patient endurance for the cause of Christ (James 5:11) to lamenting (the psalms and Christ’s example, Matt. 27:46).

Afterbirth

The discharged placenta after a birth, the eating of which alludes to consequences of disobedience to covenant stipulations (Deut. 28:57).

Agabus

The only church-era prophet whose spoken words are recorded in Scripture. Aga­bus was one of a company of prophets who traveled from Jerusalem to the fledgling church at Antioch (Acts 11:27–28). While in Antioch, Agabus predicted by the Spirit that a great famine would come upon the world; Luke notes that Agabus’s prophecy was fulfilled during the reign of Claudius. Agabus also prophesied at the close of Paul’s third missionary journey that Paul would be bound by the Jews at Jerusalem and delivered to the Gentiles (Acts 21:10–11).

Agag

A title used for the king of the Amalekites, like “pharaoh” was used for the kings of Egypt. When Balak king of Moab hired Balaam to curse the Israelites, Balaam blessed Israel in an oracle, including a prophecy that Israel’s king would “be greater than Agag” (Num. 24:7). This indicates that Agag of the Amalekites was a prominent king at the time of the wilderness wanderings (see also Num. 24:20).

God commanded Saul to wipe out the Amalekites completely as retribution for an attack on Israel (see Exod. 17:8–16), but Saul took Agag alive and spared some of the best of the Amalekites’ livestock (1 Sam. 15:7–9). Samuel confronted Saul about this act of disobedience, and Samuel himself then killed Agag (1 Sam. 15:33).

Agagite

Haman, the opponent of Mordecai, is identified as an Agagite (Esther 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5; 9:24). Given Mordecai’s descent from Kish, father of Saul (2:5), the term is intended to recall the Amalekite king (Agag) whom Saul spared (1 Sam. 15). See also Agag.

Agape

Old Testament

Preconditions to love. According to the OT, three preconditions must exist for us to know what it means to love.

First, we have the capacity for relationships because we are made in the likeness of a personal God. God created us to reciprocate love back to him, in a relationship of mutual love.

Second, the true meaning of love depends on a true understanding of God, whose love causes him to pursue human beings even though their hearts have turned away from him for other substitute “loves.” This second point assumes that human beings still love, but they do so in a way distorted by sin. Sin causes human beings to live their lives as though God did not exist. However, God in his mercy has chosen to intervene through his redemptive acts in history and through revelatory speech in order to deliver people from the blindness and corruption of sin. His pursuit of his unfaithful sons and daughters gives us a picture of what true love looks like.

Third, God’s pursuit of human beings in history was by means of election and the establishment of a covenant. God chose to make himself known to a particular people, those who would descend from Abraham. God called Abraham to leave his country and go to a new place that he would inherit as a new homeland, where his descendants would be blessed (Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17). God’s promise to Abraham took the form of an everlasting covenant, by which he guaranteed that he would fulfill what he had promised. He would be the God of Abraham’s descendants, and they would be his people. They would receive the land of Canaan as an inheritance (17:6–8). In response, Abraham’s descendants were to obey God’s covenant by circumcising their male children (17:9–14). This covenant would depend not on human faithfulness but on God’s faithfulness. God would redeem this people to be his own special people.

Several generations later, God addressed the people through Moses, telling them that he chose them for no other reason than that he loved them (Deut. 7:7–8). Through Moses, God freed the people from their slavery in Egypt and gave them the law. The law told them how to live holy lives in response to God. It also included the provisions for atonement through the sacrificial system. In short, loving God involved obeying his statutes.

Love in wisdom books. The OT wisdom books Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes give us further insight into the meaning of love. Proverbs exhorts its readers, “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (4:23). One’s affections are the gateway to the allegiances of one’s heart. Once one’s affections have been hijacked by sinful passions, allegiance to God is subjugated to another “master.” To the degree that sin usurps the throne of the heart, it will steer the course of one’s actions (i.e., one’s “path”).

In the book of Job, Satan is convinced that Job serves God only because God blesses Job, so Satan challenges God to let him afflict Job. Satan insists that if God removes Job’s blessings, Job will curse God to his face (1:10–12). When God agrees to remove the hedge of protection and allows Job to suffer, the depth of Job’s love for God is vindicated. Although perplexed that God would allow him to endure such suffering, he endures without forsaking God. Job loved the giver more than his gifts, so his love did not turn to hatred when the gifts of God were removed.

In the book of Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth (the Teacher) reflects honestly on the many vain pursuits and unexplainable dissonances that characterize life “under the sun.” Only faith-filled love for God can enable one to live each moment of life with joy instead of striving to find meaning in “under the sun” pursuits. This love chooses to trust the inscrutable wisdom of God in the face of life’s many enigmas, uncertainties, and sufferings. One can do this honestly because of the belief that God’s just rule over the affairs of the universe will be vindicated at the future day of judgment (Eccles. 12:14).

Marriage metaphor. The Bible uses the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5–8). This metaphor captures the intimate character of the relationship that God desires to have with his people. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in two ways. First, marriage is a relationship in which knowledge is the most intimate. A spouse can see many of the flaws that are hidden from others. Thus, each spouse must accept and love the other for who that person is, in spite of his or her imperfections. Second, the depth and passion of the expressions of love are most intimate in marriage. Consequently, there is no greater pain than that caused by unfaithfulness to this covenant.

Sadly, as the story of the OT unfolds, God’s “wife” betrays him. How so? His people worship idols in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1–5). Because God is jealous for the exclusive love of his people, idolatry is spiritual unfaithfulness. God wants both the allegiance and the affection of their hearts to be reserved exclusively for him. The people continue the formalities of worship, but their hearts have turned away from God. The book of Hosea illustrates the sense of betrayal that God feels when his people are spiritually unfaithful. God tells Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him. Subsequently, she leaves Hosea for one lover after another. This story is intended to give God’s people a vivid picture of how painful their spiritual betrayal of him is. His heart is crushed by the rebellious and idolatrous condition of his people. Hosea’s wife ends up on the market as a prostitute, and God tells him to buy her back and love her again.

New Testament

The story of God’s love for his people is expanded by what the Father did centuries later when he sent Jesus to pay the ransom for the sins of his people so that they might be healed of their rebellion and receive eternal life (John 3:16; 17:24). The death and resurrection of Christ were necessary because sin had to be atoned for. This love is a free gift that comes to the one who trusts in Christ for forgiveness of sin and a new heart. The new heart inclines one to please God. The gift of the Spirit enables one to bear the “fruit” of love (Gal. 5:22–23). As Abraham’s engrafted children (Gal. 3:7), believers are called by God to live as pilgrims on their way to a heavenly promised land (Heb. 11:9–10; 1 Pet. 2:11).

Christ modeled genuine love by serving us (Mark 10:42–45). His love should motivate us and enable us to practice sacrificial service toward others (Matt. 22:39; 1 John 3:16). It should also cause us to practice forbearance, long-suffering, and forgiveness toward those who wrong us (Matt. 18:21–35). It should cause us to repay evil with good (Rom. 12:14). Our love for truth should motivate us to act in the best interests of others (1 Cor. 13:4–8) in the hope that they may become reconciled to God (2 Tim. 2:24–26).

Agate

A semiprecious quartz stone, composed largely of chalcedony, found in various colors, including white, orange or red, pale blue, and black. Agate is often formed in stripes or other patterns. Agate was the eighth stone used on the breastpiece of judgment worn by the high priest in the most holy place (Exod. 28:19; 39:12). Agate also forms part of the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19).

Age of Accountability

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

Age to Come

The age to come is the time when Christ will return and establish his kingdom in all its fullness and glory. The Jews living in intertestamental times experienced great persecution and sufferings and looked ahead in hope and anticipation to a future coming age of a messiah, with all its associated blessings. Both John the Baptist and Jesus pointed to how this new age had already drawn near with their message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught that “the kingdom of God has come upon you” during his earthly ministry (Matt. 12:28), and he promised that anyone who has been born again can “see” or “enter” the kingdom right then (using present-tense verbs in John 3:3, 5). At the same time, Jesus was equally clear that the kingdom had not come in all its fullness during his earthly ministry, and he instructed his disciples to continue to look ahead and pray specifically, “your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10). Consequently, many have described the kingdom as being both “already” and “not yet” in the sense that God’s kingdom has already begun with Christ’s first coming, even though the fullness of the kingdom still lies in the future. Thus, in one sense “the age to come” began with Jesus’ earthly ministry, especially his death and resurrection. Peter could also describe the giving of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as taking place in “the last days” (Acts 2:17), thus marking the beginning of the age to come. Consequently, believers find themselves living in the tension between already experiencing the transforming power of a new life in Christ and still living in what the Bible elsewhere describes as “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) under the power of Satan as “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). The challenge for believers is to look ahead by faith and “lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age” (1 Tim. 6:19), when Christ will return and fully establish his kingdom. See also Advent, Second; Eschatology; Second Coming.

Agee

A Hararite whose son Shammah, one of the “three mighty men,” with divine help, single-handedly defended a field, defeating the Philistines (2 Sam. 23:9, 11–12).

Aging

In the OT, the law commanded respect for those in advanced years (Lev. 19:32). The fifth commandment (Exod. 20:12) was primarily aimed at the honoring (and supporting) of elderly parents (as implied by Mark 7:9–13). The reward for caring for parents is stated in the motivation clause attached to the commandment: “so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you” (being an example of the reward matching the good deed).

Especially in OT wisdom literature, old age is viewed as a privilege (Prov. 20:29) and a token of divine favor upon the righteous (Prov. 16:31; cf. Gen. 15:15). It was recognized that a person may be “old but foolish” (Eccles. 4:13), but more often age and wisdom were linked. Since wisdom and insight come with experience (Job 12:20; 15:9–10; 32:7), leaders and advisers were drawn from the ranks of the elderly. Hence, in both Testaments community and spiritual leaders are called “elders” (Ruth 4:2; Lam. 5:14; Acts 14:23; 20:17). Rehoboam’s downfall was due in part to his ignoring the advice of “the elders” who had served his father, Solomon (1 Kings 12:6, 8).

A sign of oppressive conditions in the wake of the fall of Jerusalem was a lack of respect for the old, who, like the very young and women, were vulnerable (Lam. 5:12). On the other hand, the future blessing promised by the prophets included Israel having many elderly people (Isa. 65:20; Zech. 8:4).

The reward of the godly person is to live long enough to see several generations of descendants (Ps. 128:6), examples being Jacob (Gen. 50:23) and Job (Job 42:16). The vindication of the Lord’s servant is phrased in traditional symbols of divine favor: “he will see his offspring and prolong his days” (Isa. 53:10). The frailty of age is recognized (e.g., Ps. 71:9, 18; Eccles. 12:2–7), but the experience shared in Ps. 37:25–26 is that God is faithful in providing and supporting.

Agrapha

Sayings attributed to Jesus that are outside the NT Gospels. The term is Greek for “unwritten things,” though it is used to indicate that these alleged sayings were written not in the canonical Gospels but in other sources. Agrapha from Jesus appear in the apocryphal Gospels, the church fathers, and in NT books other than the four Gospels (e.g., Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 7:10; 11:23–25). The authenticity of the many sayings outside the NT is uncertain; each one should be judged on its own merit. The indication in John 21:25 of the wide array of Jesus’ deeds and sayings known in early Christianity should lead one to a point somewhere between blind acceptance of all agrapha and the outright rejection of them.

Agriculture

Agriculture is the practice of producing food through cultivation and harvesting. For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, it was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28–29). This primacy of place in agricultural concerns meant that care and stewardship of the land was the prerogative of every member of society. In fact, individuals, the priesthood, and the monarchy could all possess and care for the land (Num. 27:1–8; 35:1–8; 1 Chron. 27:26–28).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Additional, less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The entire calendar in most ancient Near Eastern societies centered on the agricultural cycle, and many important biblical feasts included some connection with the seasonal calendar. For Israel, some of the first festivals were linked to the agricultural seasons (Exod. 23:14–16; Lev. 23). Cereals were sown at the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (late October) and harvested in middle to late spring at the Feasts of Passover (March) and Weeks/Pentecost (May). Grapes and other fruit were harvested in late summer into the fall.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally 25 to 40 feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Agrippa

Several kings of the Jews, related by birth, had the name “Herod.” The Herods formed a royal dynasty that flourished during the time of Christ and the early church. The founder of the dynasty was Antipater, who was appointed by Caesar in 47 BC as procurator of Judea. The Herods, being partly Edomite (descended from Esau) as well as loyal servants of Rome, were never fully accepted by their Jewish subjects. The family history was characterized by lust, intrigue, and bloodshed. They opposed the Christian faith, sometimes violently, being responsible for the attempted murder of Jesus (Matt. 2:16), the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12), and the execution of the apostle James (Acts 12:2).

(1) Herod I (Herod the Great), son of Antipater, known as King Herod (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). He ruled Palestine in the years 37–4 BC with Roman consent. A skillful politician, he managed to retain the favor of Rome by deftly switching allegiances when necessary. A capable ruler in some respects, he engaged in extensive building works. His finest project was the beautification of the temple, which he hoped would win Jewish favor. The rabbis would later say, “Whoever has not seen Herod’s building has not seen anything beautiful.”

His rule, however, was marred by paranoia, suspicion, and cruel jealousy. He had some of his wives and sons killed for suspected plotting. In Matthew’s Gospel he is visited by wise men looking for “one who has been born king of the Jews.” Subsequently, he massacred the male infants of Bethlehem, trying to rid himself of this new, royal challenger (Matt. 2:1–11). Upon his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip.

(2) Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, also known simply as Herod or as Herod the tetrarch (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19). He was given jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea, which he ruled from 4 BC to AD 39 (Luke 3:1). For this reason, when Pilate heard that Jesus came from Galilee, he sent him to Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6–12).

He is infamous for his role in the death of John the Baptist, which later haunted him (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Jesus referred to him as “that fox,” alluding to his predatory destructiveness for having killed John the Baptist, who criticized him for taking his half brother’s wife, Herodias, in marriage. He also sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31–32). Jesus warned the disciples of the yeast of Herod (Mark 8:15). Yeast was a metaphor sometimes used to describe how evil spreads and corrupts the whole person, perhaps a reference to Herod’s lust for Herodias and his murderous opposition to God’s word and Son. (See also Antipas.)

(3) Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC–AD 6) and son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:22). (See also Archelaus.)

(4) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem; he was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis in the years 4 BC–AD 34 (Luke 3:1). He rebuilt Paneas and named it “Caesarea Philippi” after the emperor and himself (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Apparently, he married his niece Salome III, the daughter of Herodias and his half brother Herod son of Mariamne II.

(5) Herod (Philip), son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, he was married to Herodias, who left him for his half brother Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). Though sharing a common name, this is a different son of Herod the Great than the Herod Philip of Luke 3:1.

(6) Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, also called “King Herod” in Scripture (Acts 12:1). At the height of his power (r. AD 37–44), he ruled an area coextensive with that of his grandfather. He persecuted the early church, killing James the brother of John. Encouraged by the Jews, he imprisoned Peter, intending to put him on trial, until an angel of God miraculously intervened to free him. He died prematurely in Caesarea when struck down for not giving glory to God (Acts 12:20–25).

(7) Herod Agrippa II (reigned in Chalcis AD 48–52, in Iturea AD 52–c. 93), the son of Herod Agrippa I. Prompted by the governor Festus, he gave audience to the apostle Paul to make his defense. He rejected Paul’s attempt to persuade him of the truth of the Christian faith (Acts 25:13–27; 26).

Ague

An increase in internal bodily temperature above normal—98.6° F (37.0° C), with some variation. The sensation often is associated with burning up from the inside (Job 30:30), what the rabbis call “fire of the bones” (b. Git. 70a), along with chills and trembling. Malaria may have been a significant and life-threatening cause. According to Galen, fever may result from either an excess of yellow bile, black bile, or phlegm (cacochymia), or from an excess of blood. In Leviticus it is linked to a wasting away of the eyes (26:16; KJV: “ague”) and reflects God’s punishment for covenant disobedience (cf. Deut. 28:22). Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law and the son of an official from fever (Matt. 8:14 pars.; John 4:52). Concerning the former, Matthew cites from the prophet Isaiah as a fulfillment of God’s promise to forgive and heal his people.

Agur

The son of Jakeh whose oracle is recorded in Prov. 30. Agur directs his oracle to Ithiel and Ukal (Prov. 30:1; see NIV mg.).

Ahab

(1) Son of Omri, king of Israel, whom he succeeded, reigning for twenty-two years (871–852 BC). His son Ahaziah followed him. The summary of Ahab’s reign in 1 Kings 16:29–33 serves as a prologue to the Elijah narrative, identifying the issue that Elijah addressed: Ahab’s patronage of Baal at the instigation of his foreign wife, Jezebel. Ahab was not incorrigibly devoted to Baal, since he gave his children Yahwistic names: “Ahaziah,” “Jehoram,” and “Athaliah” are names that contain the element “Yah.” On the other hand, Jezebel was a fanatical persecutor of the Lord’s prophets (1 Kings 18:4, 13) and a supporter of the Sidonian brand of Baalism (18:19; 19:1–2).

Ahab is condemned by the writer of 1 Kings in superlative terms: “Ahab . . . did more to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him” (16:33). His apostasy prompted Elijah to announce to Ahab a divinely induced drought (17:1). During the drought, Ahab displayed his wrong priorities by seeking fodder for “horses and mules” (of military and economic use) while allowing Jezebel free rein in killing God’s prophets (18:3–5). Ahab blamed the nation’s troubles on Elijah (18:17: “you troubler of Israel”), but it was his own policy that was at fault (18:18).

Ahab was the second king in a relatively stable dynasty of four kings (Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram). It was a period of economic prosperity and military power. He built a lavish palace and fortified important cities (1 Kings 22:39). In 853 BC, at the battle of Karkar on the Orontes, Shalmaneser III of Assyria faced a western coalition. The Israelite contingent supplied by Ahab was the largest (ten thousand foot soldiers, two thousand chariots). On the Moabite Stone, Mesha king of Moab recorded, “Omri was king of Israel and he afflicted Moab for many years” (line 5). Only after Ahab’s death did Moab rebel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:5). The dynasty ended in 842 BC with a prophetically inspired overthrow by Jehu. In the account of this bloodbath, the royal house is repeatedly called “the house of Ahab” (e.g., 2 Kings 8:27; 9:7, 8). Micah condemned Israel for following “all the practices of Ahab’s house” (Mic. 6:16). By his gross unfaithfulness, Ahab sowed the seeds of the destruction of his family.

The picture of Ahab in 1 Kings is one of a man of weak character who allowed a ruthless wife to dominate him. It is plain that he believed the predictions made by God’s prophets, humbling himself when condemned by Elijah (21:27) and making (vain) efforts to prevent Micaiah’s prophecy of doom coming true (22:30). Ahab tamely complied with Elijah’s instructions both before and after the Mount Carmel contest (chap. 18). Ahab was under prophetic threat of death after he released Ben-Hadad, Aramean (Syrian) king, who was devoted to destruction (20:42). Abuse of royal power by Jezebel (with Ahab’s concurrence) meant the dispossession of traditional small landowners such as Naboth and led to Elijah’s prophecy of Ahab’s gruesome death (21:19). Ahab failed externally (chap. 20) and internally (chap. 21) in his role as king. In 1 Kings 22 (cf. 2 Chron. 18) is a record of the carrying out of the death sentence, for Ahab was killed at the siege of Ramoth Gilead, and as Elijah had predicted, “the dogs licked up his blood” (22:38).

(2) Son of Kolaiah, Ahab was a false prophet whom Jeremiah condemned in his letter to the exiles (Jer. 29:21–23).

Aharah

The third son of Benjamin, son of Jacob, according to 1 Chron. 8:1. He is not listed in the genealogy in Gen. 46:21.

Aharhel

A descendant of Judah through Harum. Aharhel is the named ancestor of several families descended from Koz (1 Chron. 4:8).

Ahasai

A descendant of Levi through Meshillemoth. Ahzai was the grandfather of Amashsai, one of the priestly family heads during the time of Nehemiah who was chosen by lot to live in Jerusalem (Neh. 11:13–14).

Ahasbai

Ahasbai is identified in the NIV as “the Maakathite” and in the KJV as “the son of the Maachathite.” He fathered Eliphelet, one of David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:34).

Ahasuerus

The Hebrew form of King Xerxes’ Persian name. The NIV translates “Ahasuerus” as “Xerxes” and places “Ahasuerus” in a footnote (e.g., Ezra 4:6; Esther 1:1). The LXX of the book of Esther uses “Artaxerxes” for Ahasuerus. See also Xerxes.

Ahava

This word appears only in Ezra as the name of a place in Babylonia to which a canal flowed (Ezra 8:15). Ezra’s camp on the Ahava Canal served as the launching point for his expedition to Jerusalem during the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes (Ezra 8:31).

Ahaz

(1) Son of Jotham, king of Judah, and father of Hezekiah. His reign is described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28, and his confrontation by the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:1–17. Isaiah’s oracle against the Philistines is dated the year of Ahaz’s death (Isa. 14:28). Hosea and Micah prophesied during his reign (Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Ahaz reigned for sixteen years (743–727 BC). He followed the syncretistic pagan practices of the Israelite kings. When besieged by the Syrian and Israelite kings, with the aim of replacing him with a puppet ruler (734 BC), he sent a massive tribute to elicit Assyrian protection (2 Kings 16:5–9). This resulted in pro-Assyrian religious compromise (16:10–18). The goal of Isaiah’s embassy to the fearful Ahaz was to encourage a response of faith (Isa. 7:9). Though Isaiah offered him any sign of his choosing, Ahaz masked his refusal in a facade of piety about not testing God (Isa.7:10–12; cf. Deut. 6:16). The hypocritical Ahaz did not want a sign because he had no intention of trusting God in this national crisis. The exasperated prophet responded by announcing the sign of Immanuel.

(2) A Benjamite, a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:35–36; 9:41–42).

Ahaziah

(1) Ahaziah became the eighth king over the northern kingdom of Israel after his father, Ahab, died in battle (1 Kings 22:40). He reigned for only two years (852–851 BC) and “did evil in the eyes of the Lord,” serving and worshiping Baal (22:51–53). Ahaziah died following a fall through the lattice of his upper chamber, but not before being rebuked by the prophet Elijah for having consulted Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, about recovering from his injury (2 Kings 1:2–17). Because he had no heir, his brother Jehoram (Joram) inherited the throne (1:17).

(2) Ahaziah the son of Jehoram became the sixth king of Judah around 843 BC. During his one-year reign he received ungodly advice from his mother, Athaliah. He was a king who “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Kings 8:27). He became an ally of King Jehoram (Joram) of Israel against King Hazael of Aram, but both were killed in Jehu’s revolt (8:28–29; 9:16–29).

Ahban

One of two sons of Abishur and Abihail; the other son was Molid. Ahban appears in the genealogical record of the sons of Hezron, who was a son of the patriarch Judah (1 Chron. 2:29).

Aher

The ancestor of the Hushites, a clan of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:12).

Ahi

(1) A leader of the clans of the tribe of Gad. Ahi was son of Abdiel and grandson of Guni (1 Chron. 5:15). (2) A descendant of Asher through Shomer (1 Chron. 7:34).

Ahiah

One of the leaders of the people who sealed Nehemiah’s binding agreement of reform (Neh. 10:26).

Ahiam

Son of Sharar (or Sakar [see 1 Chron. 11:35]), Ahiam was one of three Hararites among David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:33).

Ahian

A descendant of Manasseh through Shemida (1 Chron. 7:19).

Ahiezer

(1) Son of Ammishaddai and leader of the tribe of Dan. Ahiezer assembled the people of Dan when they encamped (Num. 2:25–26) and led them as the tribe served as head of the Israelites’ rear guard (10:25). (2) The chief of the skilled fighting men from Saul’s tribe of Benjamin who allied themselves with David when Saul banished David from his presence (1 Chron. 12:3).

Ahihud

(1) A descendant of Asher through Shelomi. Ahihud was Asher’s appointed assistant to Moses for assigning the inheritance of the tribes of Israel that settled west of the Jordan River (Num. 34:27). (2) A descendant of Benjamin through Gera (1 Chron. 8:7).

Ahijah

(1) The prophet from Shiloh who superintended the division of Solomon’s united kingdom (928 BC). He predicted to Jeroboam that he would tear away ten tribes from the Davidic house (1 Kings 11:29–39). This prediction was fulfilled after Solomon’s death (1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 10:15). Certain events in Solomon’s reign were written up in “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite” (2 Chron. 9:29). Later, Jeroboam’s wife went in disguise to Ahijah to inquire about her sick son. Ahijah predicted the death of the child and the destruction of Jeroboam’s entire house as a punishment for idolatry (1 Kings 14:1–16). Both predictions came true (1 Kings 14:17–18; 15:29). (2) An Elide priest in the service of Saul (1 Sam. 14:3, 18). (3) A secretary to King Solomon (1 Kings 4:3). (4) The father of Baasha, who conspired against Nadab, son of Jeroboam, and succeeded him as king of Israel (1 Kings 15:27, 33; 21:22; 2 Kings 9:9). (5) Son of Jerahmeel, the brother of Caleb, from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:25). (6) A Benjamite in the ancestry of Saul (1 Chron. 8:7). (7) One of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:36). (8) A Levite who was in charge of the treasuries in the time of David (1 Chron. 26:20 NRSV [NIV mg.]).

Ahikam

One of King Josiah’s royal advisers, Ahikam was the son of Shaphan, King Josiah’s secretary. Ahikam was part of the delegation that Josiah sent to the prophetess Huldah to inquire about the future of the kingdom of Judah in light of its wickedness before the Lord (2 Kings 22:12–14). Ahikam supported Jeremiah during the reign of Jehoiakim; this support saved Jeremiah from being put to death by the people of Judah (Jer. 26:24). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Ahikam’s son Gedaliah as governor over the remnant in Judah after the Babylonian deportation (Jer. 40:5).

Ahilud

The father of Jehoshaphat, who was King David and King Solomon’s recorder (2 Sam. 8:16; 1 Kings 4:3; 1 Chron. 18:15), and of Baana, one of King Solomon’s twelve district governors appointed to supply provisions for the king and the royal household (1 Kings 4:12).

Ahimaaz

(1) The father of Saul’s wife, Ahin­o­am (1 Sam. 14:50).

(2) Son of Zadok the priest. As David fled from Jerusalem during his son Absalom’s conspiracy, he told Zadok and Abiathar, also a priest, to return with their sons to Jerusalem and to bring him information about Absalom’s military plans (2 Sam. 15:27–29). When Zadok and Abiathar learned of Absalom’s plans, they informed Ahimaaz and Abiathar’s son Jonathan. Ahimaaz and Jonathan had to flee to Bahurim and hide in a well when Absalom’s men learned of their presence in nearby En Rogel. After their pursuers could not find them, the two men delivered the news to David (2 Sam. 17:15–22). Ahimaaz was eager to inform David of his son Absalom’s defeat and became the first to tell David of his victory by outrunning another messenger. However, Ahimaaz concealed the news of Absalom’s death (18:19–33).

(3) King Solomon’s district governor over Naphtali and husband of Basemath, Solomon’s daughter (1 Kings 4:15).

Ahiman

(1) Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, descendants of Anak, lived in Hebron when the Israelite spies explored southern Canaan (Num. 13:22). During Joshua’s conquest, Caleb defeated Ahiman in Hebron after his forces had conquered other adjacent territory (Josh. 15:24; Judg. 1:8–10). (2) A gatekeeper of the temple who was among the first to return from captivity in Babylon (1 Chron. 9:17).

Ahimelech

A priest who allowed David and his men to eat the consecrated bread of the tabernacle (1 Sam. 21:1–6; cf. Mark 2:25–26). See also Abiathar.

Ahimelek

A priest who allowed David and his men to eat the consecrated bread of the tabernacle (1 Sam. 21:1–6; cf. Mark 2:25–26). See also Abiathar.

Ahimoth

A descendant of Levi through Elkanah (1 Chron. 6:25). “Elkanah” in 1 Chron. 6:26 may refer either to a son of Ahimoth (NIV, RSV) or to the Elkanah of v. 25 (KJV, NASB).

Ahinadab

Son of Iddo, Ahinadab was one of Solomon’s twelve district governors “who supplied provisions for the king and the royal household.” Ahinadab was governor over Mahanaim, which was east of the Jordan (1 Kings 4:14).

Ahinoam

(1) Saul’s wife, daughter of Ahim­a­az and granddaughter of Zadok the priest (1 Sam. 14:50). (2) One of David’s wives, known as “Ahinoam of Jezreel” (1 Sam. 25:43). When David fled to the Philistine city of Gath, he took Ahinoam and Abigail, his other wife (27:3). Ahinoam and Abigail settled in Ziklag, a Philistine city given to David by Achish. Amalekite raiders later destroyed Ziklag and took Ahinoam and the other family of David and his men, but David recovered Ahinoam by overtaking and defeating the Amalekites (30:1–19). Ahinoam and Abigail accompanied David back to Hebron after Saul’s death and settled there (2 Sam. 3:2). Her son Amnon was David’s firstborn.

Ahio

(1) The son of Abinadab who, along with his brother Uzzah, attempted to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem on a cart (2 Sam. 6:3–7; 1 Chron. 13:7–10). When the oxen stumbled, Uzzah reached out and grasped the ark to steady it, and God struck him down for this “irreverent act” (2 Sam. 6:7). Ahio was in front of the cart at the time. (2) A family head within the tribe of Benjamin who lived in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 8:14). (3) A descendant of Benjamin through Jeiel who also lived in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 8:31; 9:47).

Ahira

Son of Enan and leader of the tribe of Naphtali. During the desert census (Num. 1:1–4), Ahira was Naphtali’s assistant to Moses and Aaron. Ahira assembled the people of Naphtali for encampment (Num. 2:29–30) and led them as they moved (10:27).

Ahiram

A descendant of Benjamin, ancestor of the Ahiramite clan. Ahiram appears in the record of the census that Moses and Eleazar took after the plague on the Israelites for their worship of the Baal of Peor (Num. 26:38).

Ahiramites

The clan descended from Benjamin through Ahira. They appear in the record of the census of Israel taken after the plague (Num. 26:38).

Ahisamach

A descendant of Dan and father of Oholiab, a skilled craftsman who assisted Bezalel son of Uri in furnishing the tabernacle (Exod. 31:6; 35:34).

Ahisamak

A descendant of Dan and father of Oholiab, a skilled craftsman who assisted Bezalel son of Uri in furnishing the tabernacle (Exod. 31:6; 35:34).

Ahishahar

A family leader descended from Benjamin through Bilhan (1 Chron. 7:10).

Ahishar

One of King Solomon’s chief officials, Ahishar was in charge of Solomon’s palace (1 Kings 4:6).

Ahithophel

A Gilonite from the town of Giloh, he was originally King David’s most respected and wise adviser (2 Sam. 15:12; 16:23). Ahithophel allied himself with King David’s son Absalom during Absalom’s rebellion. When David heard of Ahithophel’s defection, he prayed that the Lord would “turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness” (15:31).

Upon Ahithophel’s suggestion, Absalom pitched a tent on the roof of David’s palace in order to sleep openly with David’s concubines (2 Sam. 16:20–22). Ahithophel also counseled Absalom to make an aggressive, immediate attack upon his father’s forces while David was weary in his flight from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 17:1–4). Absalom decided in favor of the more conservative plan of Hushai the Arkite, who had suggested that Absalom attack after gathering in Jerusalem all available Israelite soldiers (17:7–14). However, Hushai the Arkite was in league with David, and through Hushai’s purposefully poor advice the Lord frustrated “the good advice of Ahithophel in order to bring disaster on Absalom” (17:14).

Ahithophel committed suicide in Giloh, presumably anticipating the defeat of Absalom and David’s reprisal for his treason (2 Sam. 17:23). Jehoiada son of Benaiah and Abiathar succeeded Ahithophel as counselors (1 Chron. 27:34).

Ahitub

Four men, all of the priestly line of Aaron. (1) A descendant of Phinehas, brother of Ichabod, and father of Ahijah (1 Sam. 14:3). (2) The father of Ahimelek the priest, who aided David and his men (1 Sam. 21:1–6). (3) Son of Amariah and the father of Zadok, a priest during David’s and Solomon’s reigns (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 6:7). (4) The father of Meraioth and ancestor of Azariah, who was the supervisor of the second temple (1 Chron. 9:11; Neh. 11:11).

Ahlab

A Canaanite city in northwestern Galilee that the tribe of Asher did not conquer. Asher’s failure to conquer this and nearby Canaanite cities caused the intermingling of the Israelites and the Canaanites within Asherite territory (Judg. 1:31–32).

Ahlai

(1) A woman descended from Judah through Sheshan (1 Chron. 2:31). According to 1 Chron. 2:34, “Sheshan had no sons—only daughters.” However, the Hebrew phrase describing Ahlai in 2:31 literally reads “and the sons of Sheshan: Ahlai.” Although the OT normally uses the term banim to speak of sons, it can also refer to descendants or children. Thus, Ahlai was a daughter of Sheshan, probably the one whom Sheshan gave in marriage to his servant Jarha (2:35). This would explain the unusual inclusion of a daughter in a genealogy. To eliminate the confusion, the NIV translates 2:31 as “Sheshan was the father of Ahlai.” (2) The father of Zabad, one of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:41).

Ahoah

Grandson of Benjamin through Bela (1 Chron. 8:4). Ahoah was the ancestor of the Ahohites Dodai (2 Sam. 23:9), Zalmon (2 Sam. 23:28), and Ilai (1 Chron. 11:29), all of whom were associated with David’s military.

Ahohite

A family name used to describe Dodai (2 Sam. 23:9), Zalmon (2 Sam. 23:28), and Ilai (1 Chron. 11:29), descendants of Ahoah (1 Chron. 8:4) and prominent military men during the time of David.

Aholah

Names that Ezekiel assigns to the northern kingdom of Israel (Oholah) and the southern kingdom of Judah (Oholibah) in his graphically sexual extended allegory about their unfaithfulness to God (Ezek. 23). The meanings of the names are related to the Hebrew word for “tent” (ʾohel ), but their precise import is unclear (“Ohalah” means “her tent,” and “Oholibah” means “my tent is in her,” referring to Jerusalem as the location of the temple). The metaphor involves two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, who are married to Yahweh. But the sisters are repeatedly unfaithful, going after other gods and making political alliances. Oholah’s lover was Assyria, by whom she was condemned to defeat and exile.

Aholiab

The son of Ahisamak, of the tribe of Dan, he was a craftsman extraordinaire. He is called an “engraver” who might work on wood or stone, a “designer,” and an “embroiderer” (Exod. 38:23). He was appointed by Moses to work with Bezalel in construction of the tabernacle (35:30–34).

Aholibah

Names that Ezekiel assigns to the northern kingdom of Israel (Oholah) and the southern kingdom of Judah (Oholibah) in his graphically sexual extended allegory about their unfaithfulness to God (Ezek. 23). The meanings of the names are related to the Hebrew word for “tent” (ʾohel ), but their precise import is unclear (“Ohalah” means “her tent,” and “Oholibah” means “my tent is in her,” referring to Jerusalem as the location of the temple). The metaphor involves two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, who are married to Yahweh. But the sisters are repeatedly unfaithful, going after other gods and making political alliances. Oholah’s lover was Assyria, by whom she was condemned to defeat and exile.

Aholibamah

(1) A wife of Esau. She was the daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite (Gen. 36:2). She bore Esau three sons (36:5). (2) One of the chiefs of the Edomites (Gen. 36:41; 1 Chron. 1:52).

Ahumai

A descendant of Judah through Jahath (1 Chron. 4:2). The descendants of Ahumai and his brother Lahad were the clans of the Zorathites (see also 1 Chron. 2:52–53).

Ahuzzam

A descendant of Judah through Naarah (1 Chron. 4:6). “Ahuzzam” (NIV) and “Ahuzam” (KJV) are forms of the Hebrew word ’akhuzzah, meaning “possession” or “inheritance” (see Gen. 47:11).

Ahuzzath

The personal adviser to King Abimelek, king of the Philistines in Gerar. Ahuzzath accompanied Abimelek and Phicol, the commander of Abimelek’s forces, to make a treaty with Isaac after they had ordered him to leave their territory because of his growing power and prosperity (Gen. 26:26–31).

Ahzai

A descendant of Levi through Meshillemoth. Ahzai was the grandfather of Amashsai, one of the priestly family heads during the time of Nehemiah who was chosen by lot to live in Jerusalem (Neh. 11:13–14).

Ai

The Hebrew term behind Ai means “the ruin.” Biblical Ai was situated east of Bethel in the highlands of Ephraim overlooking the Jordan Valley. The commonly accepted location is et-Tell, “the heap,” a mound near present-day Deir Dibwan (ten miles north-northeast of Jerusalem). This determination is based partly on identification of Bethel with Beitin, which is challenged by some.

Excavations at et-Tell reveal two periods of habitation: first, during the Early Bronze Age (c. 3100–2400 BC), followed by an intervening span of more than a millennium during which et-Tell was uninhabited, then again during Iron Age I (c. 1200–1050 BC).

The earliest settlement was an unwalled village. Artifacts reveal a mixture of local and foreign influences, with some early pottery resembling that of nearby Jericho. Later pottery shows traits consistent with northern Syria and Anatolia, suggesting migration of peoples from these regions. Around 3000 BC the village was reconfigured to include an acropolis with a temple and palace complex, and a wall with four gates.

The Early Bronze Age city was destroyed several times, including once by an earthquake (evident from the collapse of the temple wall into a rift opened in its foundation). Each time it was rebuilt and its fortifications strengthened. Beginning c. 2700 BC, et-Tell fell under Egyptian influence, attested by Egyptian building techniques and the presence of imported alabaster and stone vessels. This lasted until c. 2550 BC, when the city’s wall was breached and the citadel fortifications burned. The city was sacked and abandoned c. 2400 BC.

Et-Tell was resettled c. 1200 BC, possibly by persons fleeing the influx of Sea Peoples into the Eastern Mediterranean. The Iron Age I settlement was considerably smaller than the Early Bronze Age city (three versus twenty-seven acres). Settlers built houses on the acropolis and terraced the mound for farming; however, no attempt was made to repair the walls or erect new fortifications. Discovery of multiple grain silos indicates a population increase c. 1125 BC. Lack of all but the earliest Iron Age ware suggests that et-Tell was abandoned c. 1050 BC. Because its houses remained intact, the village clearly was not destroyed.

In the Bible, Ai first appears as a landmark in Abram’s travels (Gen. 12:8; 13:3). In the book of Joshua, it figures prominently as a lesser city in the initial conquest of Canaan (7:3; 10:2; but see 8:25). Following Israel’s initial defeat (7:4–5), Joshua proscribes Ai according to Yahweh’s instruction (8:2), slaying its inhabitants and hanging its king, then reducing the settlement to a ruin (8:25–28). This strikes fear into the neighboring populations (9:3–4; 10:1–2). The disproportionate attention given to its capture sets the conquest within a theological framework: victory depends on obedience to Yahweh. Ai later appears in regard to those who are returning from exile in Babylon (Ezra 2:28; Neh.7:32).

Comparison of archaeological evidence from et-Tell with the traditional dating of the exodus (fifteenth century BC) reveals that the site was unoccupied when Ai would have been sacked by Israel. This has led some to conclude that the account in Josh. 7–8 is etiological (a story explaining the source of the ruins at et-Tell) and therefore legendary, or originally pertained to the sacking of another site—for example, Bethel (8:17). Suggesting that Ai was a temporary stronghold during the conquest, though possible, contradicts details of the biblical account (see 8:1, 23, 25).

Even if a late date for the exodus is proposed (thirteenth century BC), the Iron Age settlement at et-Tell was considerably smaller than the narrative describes, populated by several hundred persons, not thousands (Josh. 8:25). Further, habitation persisted at et-Tell into the period of the judges (contrast 8:28). Evidence of this sort leads some to discount the conquest tradition in favor of a settlement (migration) model of Israel’s entry into the land of Canaan (see Judg. 3:5–6).

It remains altogether possible that et-Tell has been incorrectly identified with biblical Ai, or that the evidence excavated at the site is incomplete. In either case, further archaeological investigation may vindicate the biblical account of the conquest of Ai. It is equally possible, though, that the events of the conquest and settlement are more complex than the biblical narrative indicates.

Aiah

(1) A Horite, the eldest son of Zibeon who lived in Edom (Gen. 36:24; 1 Chron. 1:40). (2) The father of Saul’s concubine Rizpah (2 Sam. 3:7).

Aiath

A location named in connection with Migron and Mikmash (Isa. 10:28) that may be the feminine form of “Ai.”

Aija

A town near Bethel approximately ten miles north of Jerusalem, appearing only in Neh. 11:31 (cf. Ayyah in 1 Chron. 7:28). Perhaps another name for Ai. See Ai; Ayyah.

Aijalon

The Aijalon Valley provided access from the northern Philistine Plain on the Mediterranean Sea through the foothills to the hill country. The city of Aijalon was near the eastern end of the valley. During Israel’s conquest of Canaan, a confederation of Canaanite cities attacked the Gibeonites, who had made an alliance with the Israelites (Josh. 9–10). The Israelites defeated the confederation forces at Gibeon and pursued them west through the Aijalon Valley. En route, God hurled large hailstones on them. Joshua’s prayer that the sun “be still” over Gibeon and the moon over the Valley of Aijalon may have involved the darkening of the sun and moon by the heavy clouds accompanying the hailstorm. Some centuries later, after Jonathan and his armor bearer attacked the Philistine outpost at Mikmash in the hill country, the Israelites struck them down from Mikmash to Aijalon in the valley (1 Sam. 14:31).

The city of Aijalon was among those given to the tribe of Dan (Josh. 19:42; 21:24), but it was later affiliated with Ephraim (1 Chron. 6:69) and inhabited by descendants of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:13). Rehoboam built defensive cities, among them Aijalon, in preparation for the forthcoming attack of Pharaoh Shishak (2 Chron. 11:5–12; cf. 1 Kings 14:26).

Aijeleth Shahar

In Hebrew ’ayyelet hashakhar, a phrase found in the title of Ps. 22 and literally translated as “the doe of the morning.” It may refer to a song or tune.

Ain

(1) A city marking the eastern border of the Promised Land in Num. 34:11. It is located northeast of the Sea of Galilee, possibly associated with Khirbet Ayun or Khirbet Dufna. (2) A Levitical city belonging to Simeon (Josh. 15:32; 19:7; 21:16; 1 Chron. 4:32). Some scholars believe that the Josh. 21:16 reference to Ain is a scribal error and should actually read “Ashan.” Other scholars consider the remaining three references a scribal error as well and connect Ain with Rimmon, the city immediately following Ain in these three lists, associating it with En-Rimmon.

Air

What fills the space between the earth and heavens, providing a domain for flying birds (Gen. 1:6–8, 20–23; Deut. 4:17). “Birds of the air,” or “birds in the sky,” is a common biblical expression (e.g., Gen. 1:26, 28, 30; 2:19–20; Pss. 8:8; 79:2; 104:12; Matt. 6:26; 8:20; 13:32). Moses threw soot into the air, which led to the plague of boils on Egypt (Exod. 9:8–12). People threw dust into the air as an expression of mourning (Acts 22:23). Paul uses the images of boxing and speaking “into the air” to express futility (1 Cor. 9:26; 14:9). As the boundary between earth and heaven, the air is where Christ will meet his church at his coming (1 Thess. 4:17). Paul’s contemporaries also distinguished between lower, impure air (vapor) and upper, pure air (ether). Spirits haunted the vapor. Paul therefore claims that Satan is the evil spirit who rules the air below where Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father (Eph. 1:20–23; 2:2).

Ajah

(1) A Horite, the eldest son of Zibeon who lived in Edom (Gen. 36:24; 1 Chron. 1:40). (2) The father of Saul’s concubine Rizpah (2 Sam. 3:7).

Ajalon

The Aijalon Valley provided access from the northern Philistine Plain on the Mediterranean Sea through the foothills to the hill country. The city of Aijalon was near the eastern end of the valley. During Israel’s conquest of Canaan, a confederation of Canaanite cities attacked the Gibeonites, who had made an alliance with the Israelites (Josh. 9–10). The Israelites defeated the confederation forces at Gibeon and pursued them west through the Aijalon Valley. En route, God hurled large hailstones on them. Joshua’s prayer that the sun “be still” over Gibeon and the moon over the Valley of Aijalon may have involved the darkening of the sun and moon by the heavy clouds accompanying the hailstorm. Some centuries later, after Jonathan and his armor bearer attacked the Philistine outpost at Mikmash in the hill country, the Israelites struck them down from Mikmash to Aijalon in the valley (1 Sam. 14:31).

The city of Aijalon was among those given to the tribe of Dan (Josh. 19:42; 21:24), but it was later affiliated with Ephraim (1 Chron. 6:69) and inhabited by descendants of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:13). Rehoboam built defensive cities, among them Aijalon, in preparation for the forthcoming attack of Pharaoh Shishak (2 Chron. 11:5–12; cf. 1 Kings 14:26).

Akan

Son of Ezer, a descendant of Esau (Gen. 36:27; 1 Chron. 1:42 [NRSV, NASB: “Jaakan”]).

Akbor

(1) The father of Baal-Hanan, king of Edom (Gen. 36:38; 1 Chron. 1:49). (2) One of Josiah’s officials among those sent to inquire of the prophet Huldah regarding the book of the law (2 Kings 22:12, 14). Akbor may have also been called “Abdon” (2 Chron. 34:20). (3) The father of Jehoiakim’s officer Elnathan (Jer. 26:22; 36:12). Since Jehoiakim came to power shortly after Josiah, the father of Elnathan may be identical with Josiah’s official, described above.

Akeldama

The place where Judas Iscariot met his demise after betraying Jesus. According to the book of Acts, with the money he received for betraying Jesus to the chief priests, he bought a field, where “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out”; the inhabitants of Jerusalem called the field “Akeldama,” an Aramaic name meaning “field of blood” (Acts 1:18–19). According to Matt. 27:7–8, the field was purchased by the chief priests and subsequently used as a burial place for foreigners. The two passages may be harmonized by supposing that (1) in the Acts account Luke means that Judas indirectly purchased the field because his money was used to purchase it; (2) Judas hanged himself, as Matthew says, but the rapidly decaying body fell from the rope and burst open, as Acts asserts; or (3) as so often with place names, the original of the name was understood differently by different people. Perhaps the place was known as “Field of Blood” because it was purchased with blood money, but the subsequent suicide of Judas at that location caused some early Christians to associate the name with his gory death there.

Akhenaten

The king of Egypt (c. 1379–1362 BC) during the Eighteenth Dynasty. He was also known as Amenhotep (or Amenhotpe) IV. He followed his father, Amenhotep III (1417–1379 BC), on the throne. His best-known queen was Nefertiti, who bore him six daughters. His sons Smenkhare and Tutankhamen, who successively succeeded him on the throne, were the offspring of an unknown queen.

Akhenaten started ruling from Thebes, but he built a new capital, Akhetaten, today known as Amarna. He was the king of Egypt during the period represented by the Amarna letters. These are letters written by Canaanite kings to their Egyptian overlord around the time Israel entered the Promised Land. The kings requested help, though apparently Egypt never sent it.

Akhenaten is best known for his religious innovations. He suppressed the worship of traditional cults, particularly that of the god Amun, in favor of the sole worship of the sun-disk, Aten. Scholars differ over whether this move was the result of religious insight and piety or was a political ploy to remove power from the priesthood in favor of his own power. The famous Hymn to Aten, however, shows significant personal piety. This hymn has been compared in content to Ps. 104, and some think that the Hymn to Aten influenced the writing of that psalm.

Almost immediately after Akhenaten’s death, his innovations were rejected. His legacy was defaced, and he became known as the “heretic king.”

Akim

Son of Zadok and an ancestor of Jesus listed among the fourteen generations between the exile and the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:14).

Akkad

One of the cities associated with and perhaps founded by Nimrod (Gen. 10:10). Outside of the Bible, Akkad was known as the center of the empire established by Sargon the Great (mid-twenty-fourth century BC). His kingdom became known as the Akkadian Empire.

Akkadian

Akkadian was the language of the Babylonians and the Assyrians. It is the most widely attested of the East Semitic languages (see below), and its name comes from the identification used by the Babylonians and Assyrians themselves (Akkadu, from the name of the Babylonian capital Akkad  [e]). European researchers began the recovery of Akkadian during the seventeenth century. Its interpretation has been considered a relatively well-settled question since around 1857, when Edward Hincks, Jules Oppert, and Henry Creswick Rawlinson were able to produce similar translations of the same unpublished text while working independently.

Linguistically, Akkadian is usually considered to be comprised of two main dialects, Babylonian and Assyrian. Eblaite, the other member of the East Semitic group, is very closely related, however, and is sometimes classed as a third dialect of Akkadian. The various dialects of Akkadian are attested from as early as the middle of the third millennium BC (Old Akkadian [and Eblaite]) until as late as the first century AD (Late Babylonian). The following chronological divisions are usually recognized for Babylonian and Assyrian:

Old Babylonia – 2000-1500 BC – Old Assyrian

Middle Babylonian – 1500-1000 BC – Middle Assyrian

Neo-Babylonian – 1000-600 BC – Neo-Assyrian

Late Babylonia – 600 BC-AD 100

At the present time, as many as one million Akkadian texts have been unearthed. The corpus is known to contain legal, administrative, and economic documents, as well as literary texts, religious material of various types, and personal communications. The majority of these texts remain unpublished, however. Geographically, Assyrian dialects tend to be attested only at sites within the historical boundaries of Assyria, whereas Babylonian texts have been found across a much broader range.

Akkadian is written using cuneiform (“wedge-shaped,” from Lat. cuneus, “wedge”) symbols, which may consist of one or several wedges, and usually it is written from left to right. The writing system is derived from Sumerian, a non-Semitic language predating the rise of Akkadian, and it is by any reasonable evaluation extremely complex. Individual signs may represent several different phonetic values (e.g., /ba/, /bab/, etc.), an individual word (e.g., “sheep,” “chariot,” etc.), or even a particular grammatical concept (e.g., grammatical plurality, or the presence of a human or divine name). Signs may have multiple values even within the same text, and the proper reading for any individual sign must be determined by context and knowledge of the literary genre under consideration.

For the purposes of biblical studies, some of the more significant Akkadian texts presently known are (1) those texts that resemble the creation and flood accounts (Enuma Elish, Atrahasis Epic, Epic of Gilgamesh); (2) ancient Near Eastern treaty documents that are similar to Deuteronomy and pentateuchal legal material; (3) the archives unearthed at Mari and Nuzi that recount various practices in the patriarchal narratives; (4) historical records (e.g., Annals of Sennacherib [cf. 2 Kings 10:34]); (5) city laments written in Sumerian (cf. the book of Lamentations).

Akko

Mentioned once in the OT, Akko is one of the cities that Asher failed to conquer (Judg. 1:31). Renamed “Ptolemais” during the Hasmonean period, this city was home to some believers with whom Paul stayed for a day during his third missionary journey (Acts 21:7). Excavations at Tell el-Fukhkhar uncovered a long history of urban settlement originating in the Middle Bronze Age I (2200–2000 BC). Strategically located at crossroads of coastal and inland roads, eight miles north of modern Haifa, the city played a prominent role as a center of trade.

Akkub

(1) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of the early postexilic period (Ezra 2:42; Neh. 7:45). He and his associates were stationed east at the King’s Gate (1 Chron. 9:17). (2) One of the temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:45). (3) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 11:19; 12:25). (4) A Levitical teacher of the law (Neh. 8:7) at the time of Ezra (conceivably identified with the Akkub of Ezra 2:45). (5) A descendant of David through Jehoiakim and Zerubbabel in the period after the exile (1 Chron. 3:24).

Akrabbim

This name (lit., “scorpions”) is actually a shortened form of maaleh ’aqrabbim (“ascent of scorpions”). This is a mountain pass (NIV: “Scorpion Pass”) that marks part of the southern boundary of Canaan’s border, according to Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3; Judg. 1:36. The pass is actually located southwest of the Dead Sea near the Arabah. The area adjacent to this pass is Akrabattene, which is where Judas Maccabeus defeated the Idumeans (1 Macc. 5:3).

Aksah

The daughter of Caleb who was given as a wife to Othniel when he captured the city of Debir (Josh. 15:16–17; Judg. 1:12–13). Caleb gave her land in the Negev and later, at her request, the “upper and lower springs” as well (Josh. 15:18–19; Judg. 1:14–15).

Akshaph

A city in northern Palestine whose king was a vassal of the king of Hazor. When Jabin went to war against Joshua, he called for the support of the king of Akshaph (Josh. 11:1), who is listed among the thirty-one kings defeated by Joshua (Josh. 12:20). Akshaph was assigned to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:25).

Akzib

(1) A town (modern Ain Kezbeh) in the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:44). Akzib is also mentioned in a negative context in Mic. 1:14, where the prophet plays on the meaning of ’akzab, “deceitful.” Akzib may appear in Gen. 38:5 [NIV: Kezib]; 1 Chron. 4:22 [NIV: Kozeba]. (2) A town in the territory of Asher (Josh. 19:29) that Asher did not conquer (Judg. 1:31). Phoenician Akzib has been excavated and is located on the Mediterranean coast between Acre (Akko) and Tyre (modern ez-Zib).

Alameth

(1) Son of Beker and grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:8) who is not mentioned in the genealogies of Benjamin in the Pentateuch. (2) Son of either Jehoaddah (1 Chron. 8:36) or Jadah (1 Chron. 9:42). (3) A Levitical city in Benjamin (1 Chron. 6:60).

Alammelech

A town located in the Plain of Akko. This was part of the territory allotted to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:26) during the division of the Promised Land.

Alamoth

A term of undetermined meaning that occurs in the heading of Ps. 46 and in 1 Chron. 15:20. Among the suggestions are that it might denote a musical style, pitch, key, tune, change of octave, or female chorus.

Alarm

(1) A particular sound that came from two silver trumpets that God commanded Moses to make (Num. 10:1–2). The sound functioned as a signal for the Israelites to break camp (10:5–6) and was differentiated from other sounds that functioned as a signal for the Israelites to gather together (10:7). (2) A sound used in war so that God would remember Israel and save them from their enemies (Num. 10:9; 31:6). (3) A sound signaling imminent war (Jer. 4:19) that was used by the prophets to signal destruction in oracles against Israel (Hos. 5:8). (4) A sound associated with the day of the Lord (Joel 2:1).

Aldebaran

A constellation mentioned in Job 38:32. In Hebrew ’ayish, it is most often translated as “the Bear” (cf. ’ash in Job 9:9). It is the brightest star in the constellation Taurus. See also Arcturus.

Alemeth

(1) Son of Beker and grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:8) who is not mentioned in the genealogies of Benjamin in the Pentateuch. (2) Son of either Jehoaddah (1 Chron. 8:36) or Jadah (1 Chron. 9:42). (3) A Levitical city in Benjamin (1 Chron. 6:60).

Alexander

(1) Simon’s son (Mark 15:21), a member of a high-priestly family in Jerusalem (Acts 4:6). (2) A Jew in Ephesus (Acts 19:33). (3) A metalworker who becomes the object of Paul’s discipline (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 4:14).

Alexander the Great

Alexander, born in 356 BC, was the son of Philip, king of Macedon. The amazing, swift conquests of Alexander are alluded to in Daniel. Daniel 8:5–8 (cf. 2:40–43; 7:19–24) portrays Greece as the “goat” from the west, with a notable horn between its eyes (representing Alexander), which defeats the ram (the Medo-Persian army). This prophecy was fulfilled when Alexander led the Greek armies across the Hellespont into Asia Minor in 334 BC and defeated the Persian forces at the river Granicus. Alexander again met and quickly defeated the Persians at Issus (“without touching the ground” [Dan. 8:5]). Alexander then turned south, moving down the Syrian coast and conquering Egypt without a blow. He then moved eastward, again defeating Darius the Persian for the last time, east of the Tigris River. Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis (the last two were capitals of Persia) all fell to the young warrior king. Alexander marched his armies as far eastward as the Hydaspes River in India and won a decisive battle there. Because his armies refused to go any farther, however, Alexander was forced to return to Persepolis and then to Babylon. There he died in 323 BC at the age of thirty-three.

Alexander’s chief influence on posterity was Hellenization—the merging of Greek culture with the customs of the peoples he conquered (Hellas is the Greek word for “Greece”). Thus, koinē (“common”) Greek became a universal trade language of the Mediterranean region from 330 BC to c. AD 300.

Algum

A type of tree used to build the terraces of Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 9:11). It was imported from Ophir (2 Chron. 9:10) and Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:8). It is the same tree sometimes rendered “almug” or “almugwood” (1 Kings 10:11–12). Some suggest almug to be sandalwood or the clove tree. Its identity remains unknown.

Algumwood

A type of tree used to build the terraces of Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 9:11). It was imported from Ophir (2 Chron. 9:10) and Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:8). It is the same tree sometimes rendered “almug” or “almugwood” (1 Kings 10:11–12). Some suggest almug to be sandalwood or the clove tree. Its identity remains unknown.

Aliah

An Edomite chief from the genealogical line of Esau (Gen. 36:40; 1 Chron. 1:51). At 1 Chron. 1:51 the NRSV and NASB use the variant name “Aliah.”

Alian

The firstborn son of Shobal, a Horite clan chief from the genealogical line of Seir (Gen. 36:23; 1 Chron. 1:40). At 1 Chron. 1:40 the NRSV and NASB use the variant name “Alian.”

Alien

A person or group of people whose birthplace is other than the location in which they are currently residing. Genesis records God’s covenant relationship with Abraham and his promise to create a vast nation from Abraham’s offspring (Gen. 17:8–20). In the OT context, a foreigner is a person not born into the nation of Israel, determined by lineage traceable to Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Foreigners in the land of Israel were allowed to partake of the Passover only if it was done in accordance with Israelite law (Exod. 12:48; Num. 9:14). The relationship between foreigners and the nation of Israel was not hostile. In fact, God reminds Israel of their own sojourn in Egypt and gives specific laws for the fair treatment of foreigners in their midst (Exod. 23:9; Lev. 19:10, 33–34; 23:22; 25:35; Deut. 10:19).

In the NT, the apostle Paul uses the concept with respect to a person’s relationship to the kingdom of God. In Ephesians he refers to those without Christ as being “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise” (Eph. 2:12), meaning that they exist outside of God’s kingdom. Conversely, those believing in Christ have received “adoption as children” (Gal. 4:5 NRSV), meaning that they are no longer foreigners and are now counted as citizens of God’s kingdom, as the offspring of the king clearly are.

Allammelech

A town located in the Plain of Akko. This was part of the territory allotted to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:26) during the division of the Promised Land.

Allammelek

A town located in the Plain of Akko. This was part of the territory allotted to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:26) during the division of the Promised Land.

Allegory

Allegory is the use of symbolism to express or represent certain truths. It can be understood in two different ways.

First, some writers intentionally express concepts that conceal behind the literal meaning of their words a more significant meaning. For example, in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Hopeful helps Christian see Christ again so that he may avoid the Wicked Gate. Similarly, the dark wood where Dante loses himself at the beginning of the Divine Comedy is intended by the author as a symbol of sin, and the three animals that he encounters there are symbols for three particular sins. In both cases, the author intentionally presents the true meaning of the story through figures or symbols. This use of allegory is sometimes described as a prolonged metaphor.

The second way allegory can be understood is as a perspective taken up by the interpreter or reader. Here the reader assumes that the text has a secondary or hidden meaning underlying the primary, literal meaning of the words. Often, but not always, this kind of allegorical interpretation ignores the literal sense of the words and at times denies the usefulness of the literal meaning all together.

Allegory in the Bible. Some passages of Scripture come very close to the first use of allegory: in Ezek. 17:2 God instructs the prophet to “set forth an allegory [NASB, NRSV: “riddle”] and tell the house of Israel a parable.” In the account that follows the prophet carefully explains each element of the story: the first eagle is Babylon, the twigs carried to a land of trade are the captive Israelites taken to Babylon, and so forth. In Ezek. 24:2–14 the prophet gives a similar account, this time pointing out Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Jesus’ parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1–9 pars.) comes very close to this kind of allegory because each feature of the story is explained by Jesus to convey his teaching regarding the kingdom (13:18–23 pars.). However, care must be taken not to confuse the literary category of parable with this type of allegory. A parable is a particular type of story that only at times bears a resemblance to an allegory.

Allegorical interpretation in the early church. The early church fathers, facing the need to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, focused on the person and work of Christ as a means of reading the Bible (one might call this “christocentric” reading). They explained that the Jews could read the OT and yet reject Jesus as the Messiah because they read according to the letter and not according to the Spirit (“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” [2 Cor. 3:6]). Therefore, the church fathers claimed that the spiritual interpretation of the Bible conveyed its true meaning—the sense that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Alexandrian fathers and allegorization. Clement, traditionally the third bishop of Rome (c. AD 96), provides a very early example of Christian allegorical interpretation. Referring to the story of Rahab and the Israelite spies in Josh. 2, he argues that the scarlet cord is symbolic of a spiritual reality: “And in addition they gave her a sign, that she should hang from her house something scarlet—making it clear that through the blood of the Lord redemption will come to all who believe and hope in God” (1 Clem. 12:7). Another classic example of allegorical interpretation of the OT is the almost universally accepted early Christian understanding of Song of Songs. According to this interpretation, the literal sense of the song (romantic love) could not be its real meaning. Rather, the text refers to the relationship between Christ and his church; thus, the woman represents the church, and the man represents Christ. The passage “He brought me to his banqueting table, and his banner over me is love” (Song 2:4 KJV) refers not to a romantic encounter between lovers but rather to Christ and his delight in the church.

Origen, an early Christian leader and influential biblical scholar from Alexandria, argued that every passage in the Bible had a threefold sense, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit: the literal, moral, and spiritual. Origen usually began with the literal sense of the words, but he insisted that one should move on to the higher sense of the text (moral and spiritual) because it leads the believer closer to Christ. The only way to grasp the spiritual sense of the text, according to Origen, is through revelation. He also was one of the first to claim that Paul himself used allegorical interpretation: in his identification of the wilderness rock with Christ (1 Cor. 10:1–4) and of Sarah and Hagar with two covenants (Gal. 4:22–26). It is debated whether these are examples of allegory or of typology; much depends on how one defines both terms. Many draw a firm distinction between allegory, which derives from a correspondence of ideas, and typology, which derives from a correspondence between historical events. Even in contemporary debate some insist that these passages rely more upon typological connections than allegorical ones.

Allegorical versus typological interpretation. In contrast to those church fathers who followed Origen and others from Alexandria, the fathers of Antioch, especially Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350–428) and John Chry­sos­tom (c. AD 354–407), opposed finding the spiritual sense of the text by means of allegorical interpretation. Rather, these interpreters argued that the spiritual sense of the Bible is not allegorical but is to be found in the literal sense itself. Theodore, when challenged to account for the use of the term “allegory” (Gal. 4:24 KJV, RSV, NRSV), argued that Paul used it to indicate a historical correspondence; that is, Paul was interpreting the OT typologically.

Summary. Positively, allegory emphasizes that the Bible should be approached spiritually, and that it should find practical application in the life of the believer. Often allegory made it possible for the church to apply obscure passages of the Bible that otherwise might have been ignored as irrelevant. Negatively, allegory largely removes the text of the Bible from history and fosters irresponsible and fanciful interpretations. See also Typology.

Alleluia

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase halelu yah. The first word is an imperative form of the verb hallal, which means “to praise.” The second word is a derivation of the name of God, “Yahweh,” typically translated as “Lord,” and is the object of the verb. Thus, “hallelujah” means “praise the Lord.” This phrase has become idiomatic for Christian communities, so that the Hebrew pronunciation of “hallelujah” and its use as an exclamation of praise have been preserved. The phrase occurs twenty-four times in the Psalms, beginning at Ps. 104:35, and appears the most frequently in the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150).

Allemeth

(1) Son of Beker and grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:8) who is not mentioned in the genealogies of Benjamin in the Pentateuch. (2) Son of either Jehoaddah (1 Chron. 8:36) or Jadah (1 Chron. 9:42). (3) A Levitical city in Benjamin (1 Chron. 6:60).

Allon

(1) A descendant of Simeon, grandfather of Ziza (1 Chron. 4:37). (2) A species of tree, most likely an oak (Gen. 35:8).

Allon Bacuth

A location near Bethel that served as the burial place for Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Gen. 35:8). The phrase translates literally as “oak of weeping.”

Allon Bakuth

A location near Bethel that served as the burial place for Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Gen. 35:8). The phrase translates literally as “oak of weeping.”

Allotment

The allotment of land west of the Jordan among the nine and a half tribes was done by casting lots. The result of a lottery was seen as being under God’s direction (Prov. 16:33), so this procedure reflected belief in God’s ownership of the Promised Land. Moses commanded it (Num. 26:52–56), and Joshua carried it out at Shiloh (Josh. 13–19). The use of “lot” in Ps. 16:5–6 as a metaphor recalls that the tribe of Levi was given no allotment, only land from what was allotted to other tribes (Num. 18:20–24).

Almighty

Divine titles using “almighty” indicate God’s supreme, incomparable power. God is named “the Almighty” (shadday) throughout the OT, most frequently in Job. “God Almighty” (’el shadday) is concentrated in the Genesis patriarchal narratives (see also Exod. 6:3; Ezek. 10:5).

In the majority of its occurrences in the NIV, “Almighty” renders tsebaot (lit., “armies” [KJV, NRSV, NASB: “hosts”). Across the OT, “the Lord Almighty” connotes overwhelming forces, earthly and heavenly, under command of Israel’s divine warrior (1 Sam. 17:45; Judg. 5:20). Especially frequent in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Zechariah, and Malachi, it bolsters the prophetic message by leveraging God’s awesome power and authority (cf. James 5:4). Appropriately, the NT book of Revelation marshals these concepts and repeatedly refers to God as “almighty” (  pantokratōr).

Almodad

The firstborn son of Joktan (Gen. 10:26; 1 Chron. 1:20), who lived in a territory in North Arabia.

Almon

A Levitical city within the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 21:18), located northwest of Jerusalem within the immediate vicinity of Anathoth, which was the home of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1). It is a variant of “Alemeth” (1 Chron. 6:60).

Almon Diblathaim

An area in Moab where the Israelites camped during their wilderness wanderings located between Dibon Gad and the mountains of Abarim (Num. 33:46–47). Some associate this place with Beth Diblathaim, modern Deleilat esh-Sherqiyeh, located between Dibon and Madaba. Another possibility is that Almon is a daughter settlement of Beth Diblathaim and is located nearby.

Almond

A tree found in Palestine as early as patriarchal times producing an edible nut and mild oil. It is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring, with blossoms appearing before leaves. The Hebrew word (shaqed ) implies “watching,” “hastening,” or “awakening.” Jacob sent almond delicacies to Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 43:11). The almond-tree design of the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle and later the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20) included almond blossoms on its “stems” and “bowls” fashioned after the same flower. Aaron’s rod budded, blossomed, and produced ripe almonds (Num. 17:8). In a play on words, God showed Jeremiah an almond branch as a symbol of the dependability of divine forwardness. God was watching and about to act, fulfilling his promises to punish the unfaithfulness of the people (Jer. 1:11–12). The usual allegorical interpretation of “the almond tree blossoms” (Eccles. 12:5) is a reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Alms

Provision for the extremely needy. Alms provide what is essential to human survival: food, clothing, and shelter (1 Tim. 6:8). Of the three main expressions of Jewish and early Christian piety, which included prayer and fasting (Matt. 6:1–18), giving to the destitute, literally “the practicing of mercy,” was the most highly prized and appears to have been broadly practiced (Tob. 12:8; 2 Clem. 16:4). The rabbis eventually legislated against extreme almsgiving, fixing the limit at 20 percent of one’s assets (b. Ketub. 50a; cf. 1 Cor. 13:3). The inherent element of mercy suggests that the needy are not necessarily deserving of the gift. Jesus grounded the practice in mindfulness of God’s mercy toward those blessed with surplus (Matt. 5:7) but warned against giving for public recognition (6:1–4). Beggars would gather around the temple, appealing to the charity of pilgrims (Acts 3:1–10). The early church took the initiative to care for the destitute, particularly orphans and widows, a practice that James, the brother of Jesus, impressed upon Paul to maintain in the non-Jewish wing of the church—something the apostle was happy to do, even collecting money for the needy in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:10; 2 Cor. 9:1–5 [cf. James 1:27]). A communal fund was collected in the local synagogue (m. Pe’ah 8:7). Trumpets were blown on days of fasting as a reminder (b. Ber. 6b; b. Sanh. 35a; cf. Matt. 6:2). The early church directed most of its giving to the poor (Tertullian, Apol. 39.6).

Almug

A type of tree used to build the terraces of Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 9:11). It was imported from Ophir (2 Chron. 9:10) and Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:8). It is the same tree sometimes rendered “almug” or “almugwood” (1 Kings 10:11–12). Some suggest almug to be sandalwood or the clove tree. Its identity remains unknown.

Almugwood

A type of tree used to build the terraces of Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 9:11). It was imported from Ophir (2 Chron. 9:10) and Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:8). It is the same tree sometimes rendered “almug” or “almugwood” (1 Kings 10:11–12). Some suggest almug to be sandalwood or the clove tree. Its identity remains unknown.

Aloe

Two types of plants: a tree and a succulent. In the OT “aloe” probably refers to a spice derived from the modern eaglewood tree (Aquilaria agallocha), likely brought from India. The soft aromatic wood of the large and spreading tree constituted a drug, fragrant and highly valued for perfume and incense (Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14). In the NT, a different plant is meant, Aloe vera. The aloin from the pulp of this succulent aloe leaf is the source of bitter, unpleasant-smelling, purgative medicine. The aloes that Nicodemus brought to prepare the body of Jesus (John 19:38–40) may have been dissolved in water and used with myrrh, creating an expensive product used for embalming.

Aloth

Also rendered as “Bealoth” (Josh. 15:24), it was a city in the extreme southern region of Judah (1 Kings 4:16). “Bealoth” can be translated as “(the dwelling place of the) female Baals.” See also Bealoth.

Alphaeus

(1) The father of the disciple James, who is always identified as “the son of Alphaeus” in order to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). (2) The father of Levi the tax collector (Mark 2:14). Some have suggested that this individual is also the father of James the disciple, but this is unlikely. Additionally, some have identified Cle(o)pas (Luke 24:18; John 19:25) with one of the Alphaeus persons, but this is doubtful.

Altar

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed of various materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Some altars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place. They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection or false worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

Old Testament

Noah and the patriarchs. The first reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after the flood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character of the mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’s resting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of the extra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3). They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizing self-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the human race.

Abram built altars “to the Lord” at places where God appeared and spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4, 18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with these altars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments or memorials of significant events. In association with Abram’s altars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord” (12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic procedures associated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation of priests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeeding generations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob (33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience, Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’s intervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9, 13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim, to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Moses and the tabernacle. In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gave Moses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26; cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (of sun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose natural stones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones, perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making this prohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6). Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps for the priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. The requirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern (Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the number representing the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Moses for the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?) and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenant bond created (24:6–8).

For the tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” was made (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden frames sheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was a ledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hung bronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles were slipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood was smeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in the courtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle. Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altar of incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10; 37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for it stood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle, “in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenant law,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from the holy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altar every morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedure and the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishings in Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense after speaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that the incense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb. 9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near the ark.

God, through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the Promised Land they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the other paraphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Age altars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altars and a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22 the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar” by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explained to the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica of the altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering of sacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary both expressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nation at this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In later narratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17), Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said to build altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and in fact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. The established custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in the nation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’s temple and rival worship centers. In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged to the “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple was made before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22, 54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that had been in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Although many of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in the first temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar in the Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They express the psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the place where God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rival altar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). An unnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’s desecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future (1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in the northern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and the other altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13). Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and the suppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of the Lord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars (1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls that of Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusive monotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

With regard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the time of Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on the Assyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front of the temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’s religious reform included the removal of the altars at the high places that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship (2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itself in his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thus repeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’s reform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem (2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, the sacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). The altar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and a horn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on its eastern side for the use of the priests.

The second temple. The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with the express aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that the priests did was to build “the altar on its foundation” (i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed the altar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babylonians destroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because they wanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grant them protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophet Malachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that was manifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’s altar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

New Testament

In the NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of the book of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ (in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined as one who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’s altar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which he offered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument of Hebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritual calendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was not eaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is not required, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenly sanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation (6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altar of incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecuted people, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people of the earth.

Altashheth

A transliteration of Hebrew ’al-tashkhet (KJV: “Altaschith”; NASB: “Al-tashheth”), probably the name of a tune for the singing of several psalms that appears in their superscriptions (Pss. 57; 58; 59; 75). The NIV, NRSV, and ESV translate the phrase as “Do not destroy,” though “Let it not spoil” is another possibility.

Alush

A wilderness campsite, located between Dophkah and Rephidim, used by the Israelites following their exodus from Egypt (Num. 33:13–14).

Alvah

An Edomite chief from the genealogical line of Esau (Gen. 36:40; 1 Chron. 1:51). At 1 Chron. 1:51 the NRSV and NASB use the variant name “Aliah.”

Alvan

The firstborn son of Shobal, a Horite clan chief from the genealogical line of Seir (Gen. 36:23; 1 Chron. 1:40). At 1 Chron. 1:40 the NRSV and NASB use the variant name “Alian.”

Amad

A city allotted to the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:26). The location of Amad is unknown.

Amal

Son of Helem, and the head of an Asherite family, he is described as a brave warrior and outstanding leader (1 Chron. 7:35, 40).

Amalek

The Amalekites inhabited the Negev territory south of Judah (Num. 13:29). Amalek is described as “first among the nations” (Num. 24:20 [cf. 1 Sam. 27:8]); indeed, one story about it is set prior to the lifetime of its eponymous ancestor, Amalek (Gen. 14:7). The OT represents the Amalekites as descended from Esau and thus related to the Edomites (Gen. 36:12, 16). Several texts refer to “the Amalekites and Canaanites,” suggesting that the former were not considered a Canaanite people (e.g., Num. 14:45).

The history of relations between the Amalekites and the Israelites is one of perpetual hostility. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites shortly after the Red Sea crossing. The outcome of the battle included a declaration of perpetual war between the Amalekites and the God of Israel (Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19). There were several subsequent conflicts (Num. 14:45; Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12), continuing in the campaigns of Saul (1 Sam. 15:1–9) and David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:16–20).

The final chapter in the historic struggle between Israel and the Amalekites is Mordecai and Esther’s confrontation with Haman, who is identified as an “Agagite”—that is, a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king spared by Saul (Esther 3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 15:8).

Amalekites

The Amalekites inhabited the Negev territory south of Judah (Num. 13:29). Amalek is described as “first among the nations” (Num. 24:20 [cf. 1 Sam. 27:8]); indeed, one story about it is set prior to the lifetime of its eponymous ancestor, Amalek (Gen. 14:7). The OT represents the Amalekites as descended from Esau and thus related to the Edomites (Gen. 36:12, 16). Several texts refer to “the Amalekites and Canaanites,” suggesting that the former were not considered a Canaanite people (e.g., Num. 14:45).

The history of relations between the Amalekites and the Israelites is one of perpetual hostility. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites shortly after the Red Sea crossing. The outcome of the battle included a declaration of perpetual war between the Amalekites and the God of Israel (Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19). There were several subsequent conflicts (Num. 14:45; Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12), continuing in the campaigns of Saul (1 Sam. 15:1–9) and David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:16–20).

The final chapter in the historic struggle between Israel and the Amalekites is Mordecai and Esther’s confrontation with Haman, who is identified as an “Agagite”—that is, a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king spared by Saul (Esther 3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 15:8).

Amam

A southern city allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:26). The site has not been definitely located, but it was likely in the Negev region.

Amana

A mountain mentioned in Song 4:8, associated with the more commonly known Hermon. It is typically identified as a mountain at the source of the Abana River (variant “Amana”; the modern Barada River). The modern name of the mountain is “Jebel Zebedani.”

Amanuensis

From Latin servus a manu (lit., “servant by hand,” a servant with secretarial duties), this term refers to a scribe hired to write from dictation. Jeremiah had a personal scribe, Baruch, who wrote his words by dictation (Jer. 36:4–32). Paul used the scribe Tertius to write Romans (Rom. 16:22). Silas may have served as Peter’s amanuensis for 1 Peter (1 Pet. 5:12).

Amariah

(1) Son of Meraioth, a Levite descendant of Kohath through the line of Aaron and Eleazar; the father of Ahitub (1 Chron. 6:7, 52). (2) Son of the priest who served in Solomon’s temple, Azariah, a Levite descendant of Kohath through the line of Aaron and Eleazar; the father of Ahitub (1 Chron. 6:11; see also Ezra 7:3). (3) The second son of Hebron, a Levite; Moses’ cousin (1 Chron. 23:19; 24:23). (4) The chief priest in Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 19:11). (5) A priest who, along with others, assisted Kore with the distribution of the contributions made to God and the consecrated gifts during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:14–15). (6) A descendant of Binnui who agreed to divorce his foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:42). (7) One of the priests who sealed the covenant to keep the law during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:3). (8) An ancestor of the provincial leader Athaiah, who settled in Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:4). (9) A priest who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the postexilic period (Neh. 12:2). (10) An ancestor of Zephaniah the prophet (Zeph. 1:1).

Amasa

(1) A relative of David (2 Sam. 19:13) who (according to the Hebrew text; the Versions often harmonize) was the son of either Ithra the Israelite (2 Sam. 17:25; 1 Kings 2:5) or Jether the Ishmaelite (1 Chron. 2:17). Absalom, during the rebellion against David his father, appointed Amasa as the leader of his army. Following Absalom’s defeat, which included his death, David requested that Amasa continue to serve as the military commander (2 Sam. 19:13). Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, David ordered Amasa to summon the men of Judah due to an uprising incited by the Benjamite Sheba and to return before the king within three days. Amasa arrived late; as a result, David sent men out under the command of Abishai to pursue Sheba. When Amasa finally met up with the men, he was greeted by Joab, who killed him with a dagger. Once Amasa’s body was removed from the road, the men followed Joab in pursuit of Sheba (2 Sam. 20:1–13).

(2) Son of Hadlai who, along with other leaders in Ephraim, advised Israel to release the prisoners and plunder taken from Judah (2 Chron. 28:12).

Amasai

(1) A son of Elkanah, the father of one of the Levite clans (1 Chron. 6:25). (2) An ancestor of Heman, a Levitical musician at the time of David (1 Chron. 6:35). He may be one of the Levites assigned the task of blowing the trumpet before the Ark of the Covenant as it entered Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:24). (3) The chief of David’s elite troops called the “Thirty” (1 Chron. 12:18). Offering a Spirit-led pledge of allegiance and prayer for success, he joined David at Ziklag when David was banished by Saul. (4) An ancestor of Mahath, a Levite who aided Hezekiah in the purification of the temple (2 Chron. 29:12).

Amashai

A priest who returned from the Babylonian captivity to live in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 9:12). He may be the same person as Amashsai (Neh. 11:13).

Amashsai

A priest who returned from the Babylonian captivity to live in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 9:12). He may be the same person as Amashsai (Neh. 11:13).

Amasiah

The son of Zikri who volunteered and was appointed as a commander of Jehoshaphat’s army. He was given charge over two hundred thousand warriors (2 Chron. 17:16).

Amaw

A land “near the [Euphrates] river” from where Balaam traveled in order to curse the Israelites (Num. 22:5). “Amaw” appears in the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, which follow an alternate reading of the Hebrew text. Other versions translate the phrase as either “native land” (NIV) or “land of the sons of his people” (NKJV), which follows the Hebrew text. Other ancient sources translate the phrase as “land of the Ammonites.” Some equate Amaw with the Mesopotamian city Amau.

Amaziah

(1) The son of King Joash of Judah who succeeded him on the throne after the murder of his father (2 Kings 12:21). His reign is narrated in 2 Kings 14:1–22; 2 Chron. 25. Amaziah was twenty-five years of age when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years (798–769 BC). He was one of the better kings of Judah, though not measuring up to David’s high standard (2 Kings 14:3). He executed those responsible for his father’s death but spared their sons. Although he enjoyed military success against Edom, he was ensnared by Edomite idolatry. He provoked conflict with Jehoash, the Israelite king, but he was humiliatingly defeated and captured. The result was the demolition of the wall of Jerusalem, the looting of the temple, and the taking of hostages. The Chronicler explains this as a divine punishment for seeking the gods of Edom. Like his father, he was assassinated by conspirators, but he was succeeded by his son Azariah (Uzziah).

(2) “The priest of Bethel” (Amos 7:10), which may signal that Amaziah was head priest of this northern shrine, a position also suggested by the authoritative way in which he rebuked and tried to silence Amos. In reporting Amos to King Jeroboam, he acted like a loyal state employee. He accused Amos of conspiracy against the king, but the words that he attributed to Amos distort his message (7:11), for Amos’s words were not personally directed at Jeroboam, and they omit the fact that Amos preached as God’s spokesman (cf. 7:9). In instructing Amos not to prophesy, Amaziah directly contradicted God’s words (7:15–16). Amaziah’s opposition earned him an oracle personally directed at him and his priestly family (7:17), the only oracle of Amos against an individual. Amaziah would die “in an unclean country” (NIV mg.), preventing him from exercising priestly functions.

(3) A member of the tribe of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:34).

(4) A Levite of the clan of Merari (1 Chron. 6:45).

Ambassador

An ambassador is the official representative of a king or government outside the realm of that ruler. In terms of the underlying Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, the concept of ambassador in the Bible largely overlaps with that of messenger, for which there are several biblical terms. In other words, ambassadors (in the modern sense) are not easily distinguished from the numerous biblical messengers in terms of vocabulary alone. However, several biblical narratives involve royal or government messengers operating in an official capacity, on behalf of Moses (Num. 20:14), Judah (Ezek. 17:15), Babylon (2 Chron. 32:31), and Egypt (2 Chron. 35:21; Isa. 30:4). Several of these ambassadors were charged with forging a treaty with a foreign power.

Paul twice describes his own evangelistic ministry as an embassy on behalf of God. In 2 Cor. 5:20 he describes himself as one of “Christ’s ambassadors,” and in Eph. 6:20 paradoxically as an “ambassador in chains,” referring to his incarceration.

Ambush

A surprise attack by a party lying in wait in a concealed position, often used in the Bible both literally and figuratively. Actual ambushes frequently appear in military contexts, with those lying in ambush concealing themselves in a field or ravine, at a city gate, or behind hills. God commanded that Israel use an ambush to conquer Ai (Josh. 8). In Judg. 9 Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem each ambushed the other, as the Israelites later did to the tribe of Benjamin (Judg. 20). Later King Saul and his army lay in ambush before attacking the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:5), and Jeroboam of Israel used an ambush against Judah after the nations sank into civil war (2 Chron. 13:13). Groups also set ambushes to kill individuals, as the Philistines did numerous times against Samson (Judg. 16), and twice the apostle Paul’s enemies set ambushes to kill him (Acts 23:21; 25:3).

One also finds numerous figurative references to ambushes and lying in wait, most often where the authors use descriptions of ambushes to describe various kinds of evil that people commit against each other. Evil persons commit acts of injustice and offensive words, described as shooting (Ps. 64:4), bloodshed (Prov. 12:6), and even murder (Hos. 6:9) committed from ambush. The figures also describe scenes from nature and hunting: “Like a lion in cover he lies in wait . . . ; he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net” (Ps. 10:9).

Amen

A transliteration of a Hebrew word from the root meaning “to verify, confirm,” therefore expressing support and agreement. The term is used in four ways: (1) To agree with a command (1 Kings 1:36), prophecy (Jer. 11:5; Rev. 1:7), or solemn oath (Num. 5:22), and as a concluding endorsement of an entire book (e.g., Gal. 6:18; Jude 25; Rev. 22:21). (2) To give an affirmative response and express grateful thanks to God in the context of worship (e.g., 1 Chron. 16:36; Ps. 41:13; Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21). (3) By Jesus to introduce important sayings. In the Synoptic Gospels a single “amen” is used (Matt. 5:18; Mark 8:12), while in John’s Gospel the “amen” is doubled (John 1:51; 3:3; 5:19). Some versions adapt the “amen” construction, translating it as, for example, “Very truly I tell you” (NIV) or “Truly I tell you” (NRSV). The formula points to the unique authority of Jesus’ word in contrast to the OT prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord. The construction has no parallel in OT literature, thus pointing to Christ’s exalted status. (4) As a personal name for Christ. He is called “the Amen” in the letter to Laodicea (Rev. 3:14), alluding to Isa. 65:16, where God is twice described as “the God of truth” (lit., “the God of amen”). Jesus is the true and faithful witness of the new creation in contrast to the lamentable failure of the Laodiceans, whose compromise and ineffective witness threatened imminent judgment.

Through habitual use, the “amen” can become nothing more than a liturgical full stop, signifying the conclusion of a prayer. In reality, it signifies wholehearted commitment to what has been said or sung. The seriousness of the “amen” is seen in the instructions of Moses to the people of God (Deut. 27:14–26). The power of the “amen” is rooted in Christ, who is the “Yes” of all God’s promises; this in turn becomes the basis for the confident “Amen” of his people (2 Cor. 1:20).

Amethyst

A gem of purple or violet quartz. Amethyst (Heb. ’akhlamah; Gk. amethystos) is the ninth of the twelve stones in the breastpiece of the high priest (Exod. 28:19; 39:12) and is the twelfth gem in the wall of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:20).

Ami

This man is an ancestor of a family that belonged to the “servants of Solomon” (Ezra 2:57; Neh. 7:59 [under the name “Amon”]) and returned with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after. Little is known about this group except that they likely performed menial functions at the temple, since they are grouped with the “temple servants” (see Nethinim). The name of the group suggests that they were formed during the period of Solomon, although they could have been so named because Solomon had the first temple built.

Amittai

Amittai is twice mentioned as the father of Jonah (2 Kings 14:25; Jon. 1:1). Like his famous son, Amittai may have been from Gath Hepher and lived in the mid-eighth century BC.

Ammah

After Saul’s death, Ammah was the site of a battle between David’s army and forces loyal to Saul’s family (2 Sam. 2:24). David later recovered it from Philistine control (8:1).

Ammiel

(1) A tribal leader of Dan, he was one of those sent by Moses to reconnoiter the Promised Land (Num. 13:12). (2) A resident of Lo Debar during the reign of David in the territory of Manasseh (2 Sam. 9:4–5; 17:27). (3) The father of Bathshua (1 Chron. 3:5 [probably Bathsheba]). (4) Son of Obed-Edom and a doorkeeper of the tabernacle in David’s time (1 Chron. 26:5).

Ammihud

Various tribal leaders in ancient Israel had a father with this name, including Elishama of Ephraim (Num. 1:10; cf. 1 Chron. 7:26), Shemuel of Simeon (Num. 34:20), and Pedahel of Naphtali (Num. 34:28). Genealogical tables in 1 Chronicles also give it as the name for a Levitical official (7:26; 9:4). It also is the name of the father of Talmai, the Aramean chieftain to whom Absalom fled for asylum after murdering his half brother Amnon (2 Sam. 13:37).

Amminadab

This name is found in the family records of both Judah and Levi. He was the father of Nahshon, tribal leader of Judah (Num. 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17). His father was Ram (Ruth 4:19; 1 Chron. 2:10). For the Levites, an Amminadab is a descendant of Kohath and family leader (1 Chron. 6:22; 15:10–11). See also Amminadib.

Amminadib

This word occurs only in Song 6:12 (KJV). If it is a proper name (so LXX, KJV), the identity of the person is unknown (NIV mg.: “Amminadab”). The expression seems to mean “my people is princely” or something similar. English Bibles vary widely in their translations, though most seem to take the expression as a reference to magnificent chariots fit for a bridal party. A good translation might be: “Before I knew it, my desire placed me (among) the noble chariots of my people” (cf. NIV).

Ammishaddai

The tribal leader for Dan in the exodus generation (Num. 1:12; 2:25; 7:66, 71; 10:25).

Ammizabad

Son of Benaiah ben Jehoiada, he was a military division leader during David’s reign (1 Chron. 27:6).

Ammon

Ben-Ammi was the son of Abraham’s nephew Lot and the younger of Lot’s two daughters (Gen. 19:36–38). He is represented as the ancestor of the Ammonites, a Transjordanian people who were a perennial threat to Israel from the wilderness period through to David’s reign.

The nation of Ammon was located east of the Jordan, just north of the Dead Sea. Its capital was Rabbah, and it bordered Gad to the west, the half-tribe of Manasseh to the northwest, and Moab to the south (see also Deut. 3:16). Much of the source of their contention was over the fertile land of Gilead, which encompassed the Jordan River and bordered Ephraim, the western tribe of Manasseh, Benjamin, and Judah.

The exodus and the period of the judges. According to the biblical record, while moving to enter Canaan, Moses and the Israelites avoided Amman (Rabbah) and marched through Sihon instead (Num. 21:24–35). Later the Israelites were told explicitly not to attack the Ammonites, for that territory was given to the descendants of Lot (Deut. 2:19, 37).

The first conflict between the Ammonites and the Israelites is recorded in Judg. 3:13, where the Moabite king Eglon was allied with the Ammonites (and the Amalekites) against Ehud. In Judg. 10:6–7 the Israelites are punished for their idolatry by being put under the thumb of the Philistines and the Ammonites. Jephthah led the Gileadites against the Ammonites, who had provoked them to battle. This story is perhaps better known with respect to Jephthah’s fateful oath to Yahweh to offer up as a burnt offering whatever came out of his door if Yahweh would give him victory over the Ammonites (Judg. 11). It was his daughter who came out to meet him. In Judg. 12 the Ephraimites voiced their displeasure at not having been asked to join in the battle, so they came to Jephthah, threatening to burn his house down. Jephthah responded that he did call but they did not come. A battle ensued between them, which sparked the famous shibboleth/sibboleth incident, in which Jephthah’s forces could identify Ephraimite opponents by their inability to pronounce the sh.

The monarchy. During the early monarchic period, the Ammonite king Nahash besieged Jabesh of Gilead. Rather than negotiate, the Ammonites demanded that the right eye of every Jabeshite male be put out. They appealed to Saul for help, who came and slaughtered many and scattered the rest (1 Sam. 11:1–11). Saul’s act was remembered kindly when, after his death at the hand of the Philistines, the men of Jabesh brought back the bodies of Saul and his sons, burned them, buried the remains, and fasted for seven days (31:11–13). In 1 Sam. 12:12 Samuel refers to the Nahash incident as the impetus for the Israelites’ desire to be ruled by a king.

In 2 Sam. 10–12 David conquers the Am­mon­ite capital of Rabbah, under the rule of Hanun son of Nahash (see also 1 Chron. 19:1–20:3). This is the context in which David’s affair with Bathsheba took place (2 Sam. 11–12). Uriah, her husband, was killed while attacking Rabbah. During the revolt by his son Absalom, David was given material aid from several sources, one of which was “Shobi son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 17:27).

Solomon’s marriages to foreign wives included Ammonites (1 Kings 11:1). As a result, Solomon followed the foreign gods, including “Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites” (11:5). It is not mentioned how many Ammonite wives Solomon had, but one of them, Naamah, was the mother of Rehoboam, the first king of Judah during the divided kingdom (14:31).

The divided kingdom. Later, during the divided monarchy, the Ammonites appear again. Ammon, Moab, and Edom formed a coalition against Jehoshaphat king of Judah (2 Chron. 20:1–30). Jehoshaphat was victorious with God’s assistance. Likewise, during the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, a coalition of Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite forces attacked him, although this time it was at God’s direction because “he did evil in the eyes of the Lord, just as his predecessors had done” (2 Kings 23:36–24:6). According to 2 Chron. 26:8; 27:5, the Ammonites had earlier brought tribute to Uzziah and his son Josiah.

The Ammonites appear on the scene again just before the fall of Judah. During the reign of Zedekiah, a coalition of several nations including Ammon was thwarted by God through Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Jer. 27:1–7).

The exilic and postexilic periods. Am­mon­ite opposition to Judah continued. According to Jer. 41:10, 15, governor Gedaliah’s assassin found refuge among the Ammonites. Later, under Nehemiah, the Ammonites actively resisted the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh. 4:1–3). In the postbiblical period, the Ammonites are mentioned as those among whom Jason, who slaughtered his fellow citizens, was given refuge (1 Macc. 4:26; 5:7).

In addition to the historical books, the Ammonites are mentioned numerous times in the prophetic books. Isaiah predicts that Ephraim and Judah will together “swoop down” and subject Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites (11:14). Jeremiah prophesies against them at some length (49:1–6), mainly because of the worship of Molek, although God will “restore the fortunes of the Ammonites” (v. 6). Likewise, Ezekiel prophesies the destruction of Ammon (21:28–32; 25:1–7, 10).

Eventually, Rabbah became a shell of its former self (see Jer. 25:5) and was rebuilt by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), who renamed the city “Philadelphia.” It became a city of the Decapolis (a group of ten Greek cities [see Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31]).

Ammonites

Ben-Ammi was the son of Abraham’s nephew Lot and the younger of Lot’s two daughters (Gen. 19:36–38). He is represented as the ancestor of the Ammonites, a Transjordanian people who were a perennial threat to Israel from the wilderness period through to David’s reign.

The nation of Ammon was located east of the Jordan, just north of the Dead Sea. Its capital was Rabbah, and it bordered Gad to the west, the half-tribe of Manasseh to the northwest, and Moab to the south (see also Deut. 3:16). Much of the source of their contention was over the fertile land of Gilead, which encompassed the Jordan River and bordered Ephraim, the western tribe of Manasseh, Benjamin, and Judah.

The exodus and the period of the judges. According to the biblical record, while moving to enter Canaan, Moses and the Israelites avoided Amman (Rabbah) and marched through Sihon instead (Num. 21:24–35). Later the Israelites were told explicitly not to attack the Ammonites, for that territory was given to the descendants of Lot (Deut. 2:19, 37).

The first conflict between the Ammonites and the Israelites is recorded in Judg. 3:13, where the Moabite king Eglon was allied with the Ammonites (and the Amalekites) against Ehud. In Judg. 10:6–7 the Israelites are punished for their idolatry by being put under the thumb of the Philistines and the Ammonites. Jephthah led the Gileadites against the Ammonites, who had provoked them to battle. This story is perhaps better known with respect to Jephthah’s fateful oath to Yahweh to offer up as a burnt offering whatever came out of his door if Yahweh would give him victory over the Ammonites (Judg. 11). It was his daughter who came out to meet him. In Judg. 12 the Ephraimites voiced their displeasure at not having been asked to join in the battle, so they came to Jephthah, threatening to burn his house down. Jephthah responded that he did call but they did not come. A battle ensued between them, which sparked the famous shibboleth/sibboleth incident, in which Jephthah’s forces could identify Ephraimite opponents by their inability to pronounce the sh.

The monarchy. During the early monarchic period, the Ammonite king Nahash besieged Jabesh of Gilead. Rather than negotiate, the Ammonites demanded that the right eye of every Jabeshite male be put out. They appealed to Saul for help, who came and slaughtered many and scattered the rest (1 Sam. 11:1–11). Saul’s act was remembered kindly when, after his death at the hand of the Philistines, the men of Jabesh brought back the bodies of Saul and his sons, burned them, buried the remains, and fasted for seven days (31:11–13). In 1 Sam. 12:12 Samuel refers to the Nahash incident as the impetus for the Israelites’ desire to be ruled by a king.

In 2 Sam. 10–12 David conquers the Am­mon­ite capital of Rabbah, under the rule of Hanun son of Nahash (see also 1 Chron. 19:1–20:3). This is the context in which David’s affair with Bathsheba took place (2 Sam. 11–12). Uriah, her husband, was killed while attacking Rabbah. During the revolt by his son Absalom, David was given material aid from several sources, one of which was “Shobi son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 17:27).

Solomon’s marriages to foreign wives included Ammonites (1 Kings 11:1). As a result, Solomon followed the foreign gods, including “Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites” (11:5). It is not mentioned how many Ammonite wives Solomon had, but one of them, Naamah, was the mother of Rehoboam, the first king of Judah during the divided kingdom (14:31).

The divided kingdom. Later, during the divided monarchy, the Ammonites appear again. Ammon, Moab, and Edom formed a coalition against Jehoshaphat king of Judah (2 Chron. 20:1–30). Jehoshaphat was victorious with God’s assistance. Likewise, during the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, a coalition of Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite forces attacked him, although this time it was at God’s direction because “he did evil in the eyes of the Lord, just as his predecessors had done” (2 Kings 23:36–24:6). According to 2 Chron. 26:8; 27:5, the Ammonites had earlier brought tribute to Uzziah and his son Josiah.

The Ammonites appear on the scene again just before the fall of Judah. During the reign of Zedekiah, a coalition of several nations including Ammon was thwarted by God through Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Jer. 27:1–7).

The exilic and postexilic periods. Am­mon­ite opposition to Judah continued. According to Jer. 41:10, 15, governor Gedaliah’s assassin found refuge among the Ammonites. Later, under Nehemiah, the Ammonites actively resisted the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh. 4:1–3). In the postbiblical period, the Ammonites are mentioned as those among whom Jason, who slaughtered his fellow citizens, was given refuge (1 Macc. 4:26; 5:7).

In addition to the historical books, the Ammonites are mentioned numerous times in the prophetic books. Isaiah predicts that Ephraim and Judah will together “swoop down” and subject Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites (11:14). Jeremiah prophesies against them at some length (49:1–6), mainly because of the worship of Molek, although God will “restore the fortunes of the Ammonites” (v. 6). Likewise, Ezekiel prophesies the destruction of Ammon (21:28–32; 25:1–7, 10).

Eventually, Rabbah became a shell of its former self (see Jer. 25:5) and was rebuilt by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), who renamed the city “Philadelphia.” It became a city of the Decapolis (a group of ten Greek cities [see Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31]).

Amnon

(1) The firstborn son of King David (2 Sam. 3:2). He became infatuated with the beauty of his half sister Tamar. Then he listened to counsel to deceive her and David. When she brought him a meal, he raped her. Afterward, he despised her. Tamar’s brother Absalom cared for her and later deceived Amnon and David by inviting Amnon to a feast. There Absalom had Amnon killed (2 Sam. 13). David is portrayed as an ineffective leader throughout. (2) Son of Shimon in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chron. 4:20).

Amok

An Israelite priest who returned to Jerusalem from exile with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:7) and was the father of Eber (Neh. 12:20).

Amon

(1) The fourteenth king of Judah (641–640 BC) and the son of Manasseh, he continued unrepentant in idolatrous worship. He was assassinated by his officials in his second year as king (2 Kings 21:19–26; 2 Chron. 33:21–25; Zeph. 1:4; 3:4, 11). (2) A governor of the city of Samaria under the kingship of Ahab of Israel (871–852 BC), to whom the king committed the prophet Micaiah for uttering an unfavorable prophecy (1 Kings 22:26). (3) One of the descendants of the servants of Solomon who was among the returnees from exile under the leadership of Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:59). (4) An Egyptian god whose center was at the city of Thebes (Jer. 46:25).

Amorites

One of the nations that occupied part of Canaan and the Transjordan (by the Jordan River) before Israel’s conquest. They appear in lists of the peoples (up to ten) occupying Canaan (e.g., Gen. 15:21; Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:23; Neh. 9:8). According to the Table of Nations (Gen. 10), they are descendants of Canaan, one of the sons of Ham. This territory was conquered by Abram and his forces (Gen. 14), and in fact Abram was living “near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite” (14:13). Later the Israelites remain enslaved for four generations because the sin of the Amorites has not reached its full measure (15:16).

The name is of Akkadian origin (amurru) and refers to the western portion of Mesopotamia. By the end of the third millennium BC, Amorites were abundant in Mesopotamian cities, which eventually led to Amorite control over Babylon around 2000–1595 BC. During this time Babylonian kings had Amorite names, one of whom was the famous Hammurabi (1792–1750 BC).

The Amorites were constantly in conflict with the Israelites. They were to be driven out of Canaan, along with the other Canaanite peoples (Exod. 23:23; 33:2). In Num. 21:21 the Amorites are mentioned as one nation through which Israel would need to go in order to reach Canaan. King Sihon refused, a war ensued, and the Israelites were victorious and settled in the land of the Amorites (Num. 21:31).

The Amorites are mentioned numerous times throughout the OT. At times, the name simply represents the general population of Canaan (like “Canaanites” [e.g., Josh. 24:15]). This illustrates that throughout much of the biblical period Amorites were not so much a specific ethnic or cultural designation, but had become assimilated into the general Canaanite population. This Amorite and mixed influence on Israel is expressed at length in Ezekiel’s allegory of unfaithful Jerusalem (Ezek. 16, esp. vv. 3, 45).

Amos

Amos was the first of the writing prophets, ministering during the long reigns of Uzziah (769–733 BC) and Jeroboam II (784–748 BC). During this period Judah and Israel were prosperous and secure, which made Amos’s threats sound ridiculous; however, they were quickly fulfilled. After Jeroboam’s death the northern kingdom rapidly deteriorated (ending in 722 BC).

Amos was a noqed (“sheep raiser”), a word used of Mesha king of Moab (2 Kings 3:4) and indicating a sheep breeder or dealer, not a rustic shepherd (ro’eh). Though a champion of the poor (Amos 2:6–7), Amos may have been wealthy, so that it was his own social class that he criticized. His hometown of Tekoa, ten miles south of Jerusalem, was a center for pastoral work. Amos called himself a boqer (“herdsman”), a word that does not specify what animals he raised, and said that he cared for “sycamore-fig trees” (7:14). The fruit and leaves of sycamores were used as winter feed for stock, so these were two linked professional activities. Amos was no career prophet, and presumably he eventually went back to his profession.

Amos’s Judean origins influenced his preaching to sinful Israel. The book of the prophecy of Amos begins with oracles against eight nations that were once part of the Davidic empire (1:3–2:16) and ends with the promise of a restored Davidic empire (9:11–12). The fact that Amos was from the south yet spoke in the north hinted at a coming Davidic reunification of the twin nations. God’s words through Amos are pictured as coming from Zion (= Jerusalem), the Davidic capital (1:2).

Amos’s prophecy records what he “saw” (1:1), the word indicating “saw [in a vision],” and climaxes with five visions. The priest Amaziah used the term “seer” in a derogatory sense: “Get out, you seer!” (7:12). The altercation with Amaziah is the one incident of Amos’s ministry narrated (7:10–17). Amaziah accused him of sedition because he spoke at the royal sanctuary of Bethel. Amos was told to “eat bread” (literally) back in Judah—that is, earn his living there—with Amaziah implying that Amos was commercially motivated. In response to Amaziah’s taunts, Amos said, “I was neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son,” meaning not a prophet by profession, and he denied being a member of any prophetic guild (cf. “the sons of the prophets” in 2 Kings 2). Instead, Amos stressed the divine initiative and call that alone explained his prophetic activities (7:15).

Amoz

The father of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kings 19:2; Isa. 1:1). All thirteen occurrences of this name appear in the phrase “Isaiah son of Amoz.” An ancient Hebrew seal reads “Amoz the scribe.”

Amphipolis

A Greco-Roman city in northeast Greece that Paul passed through on his way to Thessalonica from Philippi on his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1). Amphipolis was the capital of the first district of Macedonia. It was located between Philippi and Thessalonica, near the Aegean Sea.

Ampliatus

A Christian in Rome who was greeted by Paul as one “whom I love in the Lord” (Rom. 16:8). Since “Ampliatus” typically was a slave name, it is likely that he either was currently a slave or had been one in the past. Because he was known personally by Paul, who had yet to visit Rome, he most likely met Paul before coming to Rome.

Amram

(1) Grandson of Levi, son of Kohath (Exod. 6:16–18; 1 Chron. 6:1–2), and the father of Aaron, Moses, and Miriam (Exod. 6:20; 1 Chron. 6:3). Within various Jewish traditions, Amram receives a generous treatment (see Josephus, Ant. 2.210–23; L.A.B. 9), but the biblical text includes specific mention of Amram only in genealogical lists. We are told, however, that his descendants, the Amramites, were responsible for the care of the sanctuary in the wilderness (Num. 3:27–28) and later for the treasuries (1 Chron. 26:23–26). (2) The son of Bani (Ezra 10:34) who, following the exile, was among those commanded by Ezra to “separate” from his foreign wife.

Amraphel

A member of a coalition of four kings who raided Canaan during Abraham’s lifetime (Gen. 14:1, 9). They defeated five local kings, plundered the area, and kidnapped Lot along with some other people. According to Gen. 14, Abraham set out and defeated these kings, recovered the plunder, and rescued Lot and the other captives. Amraphel was king of Shinar (i.e., Babylon). At one time, Amraphel was thought to be the famous Hammurabi, an early king of Babylon, but today this identification is doubted. He may be an obscure minor king from the area of Babylon predating Hammurabi.

Amzi

(1) A descendant of Levi and ancestor of Ethan, a musician appointed by King David (1 Chron. 6:46). (2) A descendant of Levi and ancestor of Adaiah, a priest during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:12).

Anab

A city located in the hill country of Judah, one of the cities of the Anakites, along with Hebron and Debir. Joshua conquered these cities (Josh. 11:21) and gave them to the tribe of Judah as an inheritance (15:50).

Anah

(1) One of the sons of Zibeon, he was the father of Oholibamah, one of the wives of Esau (Gen. 36:2; 1 Chron. 1:40). Anah is credited with a discovery in the wilderness (Gen. 36:24). What he discovered is subject to debate (NIV, NASB: “hot springs”; KJV: “mules”; others suggest “spirits in the form of serpents”). (2) One of the seven sons of Seir, and a chief among the Horites (Gen. 36:20, 29; 1 Chron. 1:38, 41). The relationship between these two men named “Anah” is unclear due to textual difficulties.

Anaharath

A city located in the Jezreel Valley that belonged to Issachar (Josh. 19:19). Anaharath appears among the list of cities conquered by Pharaoh Thutmose III (c. 1450 BC). It is identified with modern Tell el-Mukharkhash, five miles southeast of Mount Tabor.

Anaiah

One of thirteen assistants who stood by Ezra during the reading of the law to the assembly of Israelites in Jerusalem (Neh. 8:4). Anaiah is also listed among the “leaders of the people” (Neh. 10:22) who sealed the covenant with God following the hearing of the law.

Anakites

The descendants of Anak, the Anakites (NRSV: “Anakim”), known for their height (Deut. 2:10, 21; 9:2), inhabited the Judean hill country when Israelite spies entered the land (Num. 13:21–33; Deut. 1:28). The spies viewed them as Nephilim (Num. 13:33; cf. Gen. 6:4). Arba, a hero among the Anakites, gave his name to Kiriath Arba (Josh. 14:15), later Hebron (Josh. 15:13–14; Judg. 1:20). The Anakites were related to the Rephaites, originally from the regions of Moab and Ammon but destroyed by the time of the conquest (Deut. 2:10–11, 20–21). After Joshua completely destroyed Anakite habitations in the hill country, remnants moved westward and lived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. 11:21–22).

Anamim

One of the sons of Mizraim (Gen. 10:13) and a grandson of Ham. The descendants of Ham became the peoples of North Africa and may be equated with Cyrene in modern-day Libya.

Anamites

One of the sons of Mizraim (Gen. 10:13) and a grandson of Ham. The descendants of Ham became the peoples of North Africa and may be equated with Cyrene in modern-day Libya.

Anammelech

One of the gods (along with Adrammelek) worshiped by the Sepharvites. Part of this worship included the sacrifice of children (2 Kings 17:31). Identification of this deity is uncertain, but it is associated with the Mesopotamian god Anu (the name means “Anu is king”). See also Adrammelek.

Anammelek

One of the gods (along with Adrammelek) worshiped by the Sepharvites. Part of this worship included the sacrifice of children (2 Kings 17:31). Identification of this deity is uncertain, but it is associated with the Mesopotamian god Anu (the name means “Anu is king”). See also Adrammelek.

Anan

One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:26).

Anani

The son of Elioenai and last recorded descendant of Jehoiachin (1 Chron. 3:24). He is possibly mentioned in a letter from Jews to Bogoas, the Persian governor of Judah in the fifth century BC.

Ananiah

(1) The father of Maaseiah and grandfather of Azariah (Neh. 3:23). Some scholars identify him as Anan (Neh. 10:26) or Anani (1 Chron. 3:24) since both names are shortened forms of “Ananiah.” (2) A location in Benjamin about four miles northwest of Jerusalem (Neh. 11:32).

Ananias

A Greek form of the common Hebrew name “Hananiah.” (1) A member of the Jerusalem church whose death was followed by that of his wife, Sapphira, as a result of holding back part of their possessions (Acts 5:1–11). Peter rebuked Ananias and Sapphira’s deception as lying to or testing “the Holy Spirit” (vv. 3, 5). This incident is best understood against the background of Acts 2–4, which describes as closely related being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4; 4:31), the spread of the gospel (2:40; 4:4), and the communal sharing of possessions (2:44–45; 4:32–37).

(2) A disciple at Damascus who helped restore Saul’s eyesight and baptized him in accordance with the Lord’s direction in a vision (Acts 9). In Acts 22:12 Paul describes Ananias as “a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living [at Damascus].” He was the one who informed Paul of his calling as a witness for Jesus to all people (22:12–15).

(3) A high priest in Jerusalem during AD 47–58. He presided over the interrogation of Paul at the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem (Acts 23:1–10) and testified against Paul before Felix (24:1). His character is well illustrated in his command to strike Paul on the mouth, upon which Paul calls him a “whitewashed wall” and sees him unfit for the high priesthood (23:2–5). Being a pro-Roman figure, Ananias was assassinated by the Zealots in AD 66.

Anath

The father of Shamgar the judge (Judg. 3:31; 5:6). This name is also associated with a Canaanite war goddess and with Egyptian and Syrian goddesses as well.

Anathema

A transliterated Greek word meaning “curse” (see NIV). Paul invokes it upon those who pervert or reject the gospel of God’s free grace in Christ. In such instances it is tantamount to pronouncing an outcome of eternal damnation (1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9). Such was Paul’s desire that his fellow Jews be saved that he could wish himself anathema on their behalf (Rom. 9:3). In 1 Cor. 12:3 Paul says no one speaking by God’s Spirit can pronounce a curse (anathema) on Jesus. In the LXX, the anathema refers to what is offered to the deity. Sometimes this offering involved the complete destruction of what had been dedicated, a notable example being the cities of Canaan during the time of Israel’s conquest (Num. 21:3; Josh. 7:1, 11–13). This sense is retained in the NT only in Luke 21:5.

Anathoth

(1) Anathoth (near modern ’Anata, which preserves the name) was just a few miles northeast of Jerusalem in the tribal allotment given to Benjamin. This village was assigned to the Levites (Josh. 21:18; 1 Chron. 6:60). It was the village where Solomon sent Abiathar after he was deposed from the priesthood (1 Kings 2:26). Anathoth was also the hometown of Abiezer, one of David’s thirty mighty men, as well as another of his warriors, Jehu (1 Chron. 12:3). It was listed as a town that would be the object of judgment because of the sins of God’s people (Isa. 10:30). After the exile, men from Anathoth returned from Babylon to Judah (Ezra 2:23), and the town itself was populated again (Neh. 11:32). The city’s most famous resident was the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1). (2) A descendant of Benjamin through his son Beker (1 Chron. 7:8). (3) One of the leaders who sealed the covenant renewal at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 10:19).

Anathothite

Refers to an inhabitant of Anathoth (1 Chron. 12:3 [KJV: “Antothite”]), a Levitical city in Benjamin (Josh. 15:24; 1 Kings 4:16)

Ancestor
. A person from whom a person or group has descended in either a physical or a spiritual sense. For Israel, the concept of one’s ancestors and their God was of great significance in determining both identity and religious practice. Biblical concepts such as covenant and promise primarily found expression in the OT in terms of the ancestral agreements established with God (Deut. 6:10; 9:5; 29:13; 30:20; cf. Gen. 12:1–7). The effect of ancestors on one’s spiritual condition could have either positive or negative implications (Exod. 3:13; Josh. 24:14–15; 2 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 11). The people of Israel are portrayed as suffering judgment both for their sins and for those of their ancestors, but also they could find repentance and hope because of the same relationships (Zech. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:1–5).

There are thirteen primary genealogical lists in the OT and two in the NT, although there are numerous passages that include more limited lineages to identify an individual. Genealogical lists could also function to engender a notion of commonality of relationship outside single family lines, such as when extended family genealogies are given (Gen. 10; 25:12–18; 36:1–30). For priests and kings, it was of utmost importance to be able to establish ancestral identity. This necessity may have played a role in at least two discussions of Jesus. His genealogical lists in both Matt. 1 and Luke 3 established his claim to the line of David, and his spiritual ancestry in the person of Melchizedek in Heb. 7 granted him superior status to the priesthood of Levi.

Worship of ancestors, or the related but distinct cult of the dead, was common in nearly every culture with which Israel interacted and may have even found expression in popular practice among Israelites, as evidenced by the apparent leaving of gifts at several tomb locations throughout Palestine (cf. Ezek. 43:7–9). However, the biblical record is consistent throughout that such practices were prohibited. Among laws centered on the topic of ancestral worship were restrictions on consulting the dead at all (Deut. 18:11), giving offerings to the dead (Deut. 26:14), self-laceration for the dead (Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6), and seeking ancestors to foretell the future (Isa. 8:19; 65:4–8).

Anchor

A device used to secure a ship or other vessel to the bottom of the sea to prevent it from drifting. There is no mention of anchors in the OT, probably because the Israelites were not commonly a seagoing people. This term is, however, used in the NT, specifically in reference to Paul’s shipwreck (Acts 27) and metaphorically to describe the security of our hope in Christ (Heb. 6:19).

Ancient of Days

The designation “Ancient of Days” appears as a title for the sovereign God seated on his heavenly throne in Daniel’s vision of Dan. 7:9, 13, 22. In this symbolic image, the God’s white clothing symbolizes purity and righteousness, his white wool-like hair indicates his antiquity, and his fiery throne depicts his awesome power. In Daniel’s vision a second figure, the heavenly “Son of Man” (or, “one like a human being”) comes with the clouds of heaven before the Ancient of Days and receives authority, glory, sovereign power, the worship of all nations, and an eternal kingdom (Dan. 7:13–14). In the Gospels, Jesus identifies himself as this heavenly Son of Man who will come with the clouds of heaven (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27, 69).

A passage relevant to the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7 is Rev. 1:14–16, where John sees a heavenly figure in whom is combined the features of the heavenly Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. Imagery characterizing the latter figure (white hair, fiery presence) is now applied to Jesus, indicating that the Son of Man is equal to the Ancient of Days in glory and authority.

Andrew

One of the twelve apostles and brother of Peter, his more famous counterpart. Andrew came from Bethsaida in Galilee (John 1:44), though he lived and worked with Peter in Capernaum as a fisherman (Matt. 4:18). At first a disciple of John the Baptist, he, with an unnamed disciple (possibly John), transferred allegiance to Jesus (John 1:35–40). His first recorded act was to bring his brother to Jesus (1:41–42). Subsequently, he was called by Jesus to become a permanent follower (Matt. 4:19) and later was appointed as an apostle (Matt. 10:2).

Anem

A Levitical town allotted to the Gershonites among the tribe of Issachar, meaning “two fountains” (1 Chron. 6:73). Earlier it was known as En Gannim, meaning “fountain of gardens” (Josh. 19:21). It is identified with modern Jenin.

Aner

(1) An Amorite chief who allied himself with Abraham in the pursuit of the four kings who invaded Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 14:13, 24). (2) A Levitical town allotted to the Kohathites from among the tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron. 6:70).

Anethothite

Refers to an inhabitant of Anathoth (1 Chron. 12:3 [KJV: “Antothite”]), a Levitical city in Benjamin (Josh. 15:24; 1 Kings 4:16)

Angel

The English word “angel” refers to nonhuman spirits, usually good. The biblical words usually translated “angel” (Heb. malak; Gk. angelos) mean “messenger” and can refer to one sent by God or by human beings. A messenger must be utterly loyal, reliable, and able to act confidentially (Prov. 13:17). The messenger speaks and acts in the name of the sender (Gen. 24).

Messengers sent by God are not always angels. Yahweh’s prophets were his messengers (Hag. 1:13), as were priests (Mal. 2:7).

Old Testament

There are few references to angels (plural) in the OT. In heaven they praise God and worship him (Pss. 103:20; 148:2). God sends his angels to accompany his people (Gen. 28:12; 32:1) and to protect them (Ps. 91:11) and once sent them to destroy Egypt (Ps. 78:49).

An angel in human form was referred to as a “man of God” (Judg. 13:6), the same term used for a prophet (cf. 1 Kings 13:14).

Angels evoked fear and wonder. They are described as shining (Matt. 28:3; Acts 12:7). When humans bowed to worship angels, they were rebuked because God alone is to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8–9).

God himself, not being a part of the created order, cannot be seen. In order to communicate with people, he sometimes speaks through a form called “the angel of the Lord.” The angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham in human form (Gen. 18; cf. Josh. 5:13–15), but to Moses as fire (Exod. 3:2). When he spoke, it was God speaking (Exod. 3:4, 14). He guided and guarded Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (23:20–23). He appeared within the pillar of fire or cloud (13:21–22; 14:19), being seen through the pillar on occasion as “the glory of the Lord” (16:7–10; 24:16–17; 33:9–11; 40:17, 34–38), and later as he filled Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:11).

In a series of visions of the glory of the Lord (Ps. 18:7–15; Ezek. 1; Rev. 4:7) we encounter four “living creatures” called “cherubim” (Ezek. 10:20–22) that are not explicitly identified as angels and whose visible appearance is part human and part animal. Their form was placed on the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:18) and embroidered on the curtains of the tabernacle (26:1). Cherubim guarded the eastern entry into the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24), implying that Eden, the place where God appeared on earth, was now excluded from the area allocated to humankind.

In Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory, he describes, literally, “flaming ones” (Heb. seraphim) located above God and crying, “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–7). All we know of them is that they had six wings, whereas the cherubim had four (Ezek. 1:11). It may be that seraphim are not a separate class of angels but simply a description appropriate to all angels, since elsewhere we are told (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7) that God’s angels are “flames of fire.”

Angels are also called “holy ones” (Deut. 33:2) and “spirits” or “winds” (Zech. 6:5; cf. Ps. 104:4). Since God’s people are also called “holy ones” (Dan. 7:27; NIV: “holy people”), it may be difficult to know if a given reference is to angels or people (e.g., Deut. 33:3).

Angels are first named in the book of Daniel: Gabriel, whose name means “hero of God” (8:16; 9:21; [cf. Luke 1:19, 26]); Michael, whose name means “who is like God?” (10:13, 21; 12:1 [cf. Jude 9; Rev. 12:7]) and who is also called “one of the chief princes,” “your prince,” and “the great prince.” The Hebrew word for “prince” (sar) also means “commander” (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:55) and thus might refer to Michael’s standing as a commander of God’s angelic armies (cf. Jude 9, where he is called “archangel”). During the intertestamental period, texts outside the Scriptures tend to give more attention to angels in elaborate stories, introducing such names as Raphael and Uriel (see Tobit, 1 Enoch, etc.).

Intertestamental Period and New Testament

During the intertestamental period some Jews came to think that angels ranked higher than humans, since the Greeks asserted that anything physical was evil and only purely spiritual beings could be holy. Increasingly detailed stories about angels served to distance God from the evils of physical reality. The myth of the fall of the angels arose during this time through a series of writings claiming to come from the pen of Enoch (1 Enoch), stimulating a large number of other writings. Some people even went so far as to worship angels (Col. 2:18).

Some references to angels are difficult to understand. In Matt. 18:10 Jesus warns people to treat children well because their angels have constant access to God. The simplest meaning is that angelic messengers will tell God what has happened with these children. Rhoda’s reference to Peter’s “angel” as if it were his ghost probably reflects a local superstition (Acts 12:15) or a sectarian Jewish belief that the righteous become angels when they die. Paul’s comment that a woman should have “authority over her own head” (i.e., her head covered) “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10) remains something of a puzzle, and his unique reference to the language of angels appears to be hyperbole (1 Cor. 13:1).

Paul warns us that Satan can appear as “an angel of light,” meaning that he would work through one who claimed to bring a message in accord with the gospel (2 Cor. 11:14). The devil has his “angels/messengers” (Matt. 25:41), although we know little about them.

Angels do not marry, reproduce, or die (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36). The NT affirms that angels rank below God’s people and serve them (1 Cor. 6:3; Heb.1:4–14; 2:5, 16), as they did Jesus (Matt. 4:11; Mark 1:13; cf. 1 Kings 19:5–7; Luke 22:43). Angels have limited understanding or knowledge of God’s plans and purposes (1 Pet. 1:12), although they reveal God’s word (Rev. 1:1). They bring the spirits of God’s people to heaven when they die (Luke 16:22) and implement God’s judgment on the last day (Matt. 13:39, 49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; Mark 8:38; 13:27; Luke 9:26; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 14:15–19). They rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10). Christians already stand in the greater assembly that includes the angels (Heb.12:22). Eventually, Jesus will welcome his people into the heavenly courtroom in the presence of the angels (Luke 12:8–9; Rev. 3:5). See also Archangel.

Anger

The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).

Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.

On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:5–6). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).

In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.

Angle

In 2 Chron. 26:9; Neh. 3:19–20, 24–25 reference is made to the “angle” (Heb. miqtsoa’) of the Jerusalem wall (NRSV: “the Angle”; KJV: “the turning of the wall”). It refers not to a main corner of the wall but perhaps to a projection of or indentation in the wall’s course.

Angle of the Wall

In 2 Chron. 26:9; Neh. 3:19–20, 24–25 reference is made to the “angle” (Heb. miqtsoa’) of the Jerusalem wall (NRSV: “the Angle”; KJV: “the turning of the wall”). It refers not to a main corner of the wall but perhaps to a projection of or indentation in the wall’s course.

Aniam

One of the sons of Shemida listed among the descendants of Manasseh (1 Chron. 7:19).

Anim

A town in the southern Judean hill country approximately twelve miles south of Hebron. Anim appears only in Josh. 15:50 and is identified with Khirbet (ruin) Ghuwein et-Tahta, just north of the Negev.

Animal Rights

The Bible does not offer a charter of animal rights, but the Mosaic law does require what the rabbis call Tsa’ar Ba’alei Chayim, a prohibition against unnecessarily inflicting pain and suffering on animals. The ox is entitled to food while it works (Deut. 25:4), a principle that Jesus and Paul apply to human beings (Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18), and along with other livestock, a Sabbath every seventh day and year (Exod. 20:8–10; 23:12; Lev. 25:6–7; Deut. 5:14). An ox or sheep could be sacrificed only after remaining seven days with its mother (Lev. 23:26–27). Killing an ox or sheep and her young on the same day is not permitted (Lev. 23:28). Taking the mother along with the young or eggs from a nest is not permitted (Deut. 22:6–7). The law actually begins with the ideal setting of a garden, in which human beings and animals do not eat one another but rather live in peaceful harmony (Gen. 2:19–20). At the root of these laws is reverence for all life: “The righteous care for the needs [lit., ‘life’] of their animals” (Prov. 12:10). Jesus teaches that not a single sparrow is forgotten by or dies apart from the Father (Matt. 10:29; Luke 12:6). At the time, sparrows were bought and sold in the market as economic commodities, a cheap treat. The singular sacrifice of Jesus Christ has saved not only human beings but also countless lives of would-be sacrificial victims.

Animals

Animals play a significant role in both their literal presence in the biblical texts and in their figurative uses. From the beginning of creation, animals were placed under the dominion and care of humanity. The Bible is careful to highlight that humankind is a creation superior to animals and also has a responsibility to see to the betterment of the animal kingdom (Gen. 1:28–30; 2:19–20; Deut. 25:4). Furthermore, the biblical record goes to some lengths to describe the proper means by which humans and animals ought to function in this world and what lines ought not to be crossed (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; Deut. 27:21).

Regarding the consumption of animals, Genesis suggests that such was not the case before the flood (cf. 1:30 with 9:3). Scripture separates animals into those that are unclean, those that are clean, and those that are permissible to be used in offerings. Although the rationale for such distinctions has been the subject of considerable discussion for some time among scholars, the similarities between their divisions and those of humanity (Gentile, Israelite, and priest) may suggest that God utilized the animal kingdom and Israel’s interaction with it as an ongoing reminder of Israel’s greater role in the world of humanity. Other proposed rationales for distinguishing between clean and unclean animals include protection of health, abstinence from pagan practices, the symbolic nature of the animal’s activities for desirable or unpleasant qualities, and the regulations being simply a test of Israel’s faithfulness. Whatever the specific reason, it is clear that God intended the food laws to function more generally as a means of separating Israel from the world (Lev. 11).

Occasionally in the prophetic literature and more regularly in apocalyptic texts, animals serve a symbolic purpose in terms of either their physical characteristics or the demeanor that they exuded (e.g., Isa. 30:6). The lion early on became a symbol of strength and ferocity and so was utilized as a picture of the tribe of Judah, Satan, powerful enemies, and even God (Gen. 49:9; Amos 3:8; Nah. 2:11–12; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 5:5). The lamb was alternately used as a symbol of innocence, sacrifice, and naiveté (Isa. 53:6–7; Jer. 11:19; John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6). Other animals symbolically used in Scripture include the serpent (Gen. 49:17), the dog (Isa. 56:10; 2 Pet. 2:22), the deer (Isa. 35:6; Hab. 3:19), the antelope (Isa. 51:20), and the bull or cow (Ps. 22:12; Amos 4:1–4). Daniel used grotesque portrayals of animals to symbolize the corrupted nature of human kingdoms that were in opposition to the cause of God (Dan. 7).

For many animals listed in Scripture there is some level of disagreement about their identity. For instance, the second animal listed in Exod. 25:5; 26:14 is alternatively identified as a badger, a goat, a porpoise, a manatee, and as a reference not to a specific animal at all but rather to a type of leather. The last of these seems most likely because of availability and also because the specific animals identified as an option are unclean and seem ill-suited for use in connection with tabernacle instruments. Behemoth of Job 40:15 has been identified as an elephant, a water buffalo, or a hippopotamus, though the word itself simply means beast or cattle. The animal identified as a chameleon in Lev. 11:30 is sometimes simply viewed as a large lizard or perhaps even a mole. Finally, the debate continues concerning the identity of the beast that swallowed Jonah (1:17), with most translators preferring to go the more reserved route of “huge fish” rather than the more traditional “whale.” The identification of animals in antiquity, and even up to the nineteenth century, seems to have centered as much on appearance as actual anatomy. This may explain why names applied loosely to creatures that had a similar general appearance in earlier periods found misapplication in some earlier translations.

From an ecological standpoint, God’s care and concern for animals (including but not limited to proper care and humane means of slaughter), as well as his expectations of humankind as stewards of the animal kingdom, leave the clear impression that the biblical ideal for God’s people includes investing energy in preservation. Perceptions of humankind as having unrestrained freedom to do with animals as they see fit seem at odds with the more holistic view of human beings as both lords over creation and caretakers of that which actually belongs to someone else.

Anise

The KJV rendering of the Greek word anēthon in Matt. 23:23, more commonly translated as “dill” in other versions. Dill is an herb grown for its seeds, used to add flavor in cooking. As such, it was a consumable produce considered subject to the laws of firstfruits and tithing.

Anklet

A piece of jewelry worn around the ankle and mentioned once in the Bible (Isa. 3:18 [NIV: “bangle”]). During the biblical period anklets were most often made of bronze, although anklets of gold, silver, and iron have been found. Women usually wore them in groups of three or more. This explains the plural form of this term as well as the reference to the women of Zion and the “ornaments jingling on their ankles” (Isa. 3:16).

Anna

An elderly Jewish prophetess at the time of Jesus’ birth. Anna is the daughter of Penuel, and she is from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). She was married for only seven years and then remained a widow either for eighty-four years (NET) or until the age of eighty-four (NIV, NRSV). This devout woman worshiped daily in the Jerusalem temple and committed herself to prayer and fasting (2:37). Anna was present when the baby Jesus was dedicated, and she responded in worship of God and spoke prophetically about the child (2:38).

Annals of the Kings

In 1–2 Kings there are eighteen references to the “book of the annals of the kings of Israel” (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19; 15:31) and fifteen to the “book of the annals of the kings of Judah” (e.g., 1 Kings 14:29; 15:7). These (now lost) works may identify sources from which information was extracted or at least where further information about a king may be obtained. The titles imply that it was the genius of the biblical author to combine these histories and produce a coordinated history of the two kingdoms.

Annas

An influential high priest who played a part in the trial and death of Jesus (John 18:12–24). Annas served as high priest in AD 6–15 and continued as high priest emeritus while his son-in-law Caiaphas held that position in an official capacity. Immediately after Jesus was arrested (and before being sent to Caiaphas), he was brought to Annas, who questioned him about his disciples and teaching. His name heads the list of important members of the Sanhedrin when Peter and John were arrested (Acts 4:6), suggesting that he was a dominant figure of the high-priestly party.

Annunciation

The act of announcing, usually associated with the arrival of a significant figure. In church history the term has been specifically applied to the announcement of the arrival of a son to Mary whose name would be called “Jesus” (Luke 1:26–35). More generally speaking, however, notice of the coming miraculous birth of any child can appropriately be called an annunciation. For instance, the reporting of the coming of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 18:10), the arrival of Samson to Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13:2–5), and the birth of John to Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:11–20) could also be identified as annunciations. In each case, the arrival of the child is to a barren womb, and thus the miraculous intervention of God in the lives of the human families is emphasized. As is often the case when comparing the events of Jesus’ life with earlier events, his coming took on a heightened importance. Only with the annunciation of Jesus did God reveal that the child would be born of a virgin.

Anoint

The OT priests and tabernacle furnishings were “anointed” (or “smeared”; Heb. mashakh [Exod. 28:41; 40:9]) as a sign of separation to God (consecration) when Moses set up the cultic institution. A number of times it is stated that kings were anointed (Judg. 9:8, 15)—such as Saul (1 Sam. 10:1), David (1 Sam. 16:13), Absalom (2 Sam. 19:10), Solomon (1 Kings 1:39), Jehu (2 Kings 9:6), Joash (2 Kings 11:12), and Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30)—as a sign of appointment to and equipping for sacral office. Anointing is only rarely linked to prophetic office (1 Kings 19:16; Ps. 105:15; Isa. 61:1). David would not agree to slaying Saul because he was “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11). The two “who are anointed” to serve the Lord in Zech. 4:14 (presumably Joshua and Zerubbabel) are, in literal translation of the Hebrew, “sons of oil,” the agents of God’s blessing to Israel.

Though there was no king in Israel at that stage, Hannah prayed in her song that the Lord would give strength to “his king” and “his anointed” (1 Sam. 2:10). The personal pronoun stresses that the king/anointed derives power from and owes obedience to God. The OT never uses the absolute form “anointed” (mashiakh), but always “his anointed” (Pss. 2:2; 18:50), “your anointed” (84:9), or “my anointed” (132:17). “Messiah” (“anointed one”) is not a title in the OT, though there is the hope of an ideal Davidic ruler (Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1). Daniel 9:25–26 is no exception, for there is dispute over who or what is so designated. The title “Christ” (Gk. Christos) applied to Jesus in the NT is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16). When Paul uses the word order “Christ Jesus,” it is plainly titular (i.e., “the Messiah Jesus”).

Jesus’ disciples anointed the sick with oil (Mark 6:13), and this became settled practice in praying for the sick (James 5:14).

Anointed

The OT priests and tabernacle furnishings were “anointed” (or “smeared”; Heb. mashakh [Exod. 28:41; 40:9]) as a sign of separation to God (consecration) when Moses set up the cultic institution. A number of times it is stated that kings were anointed (Judg. 9:8, 15)—such as Saul (1 Sam. 10:1), David (1 Sam. 16:13), Absalom (2 Sam. 19:10), Solomon (1 Kings 1:39), Jehu (2 Kings 9:6), Joash (2 Kings 11:12), and Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30)—as a sign of appointment to and equipping for sacral office. Anointing is only rarely linked to prophetic office (1 Kings 19:16; Ps. 105:15; Isa. 61:1). David would not agree to slaying Saul because he was “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11). The two “who are anointed” to serve the Lord in Zech. 4:14 (presumably Joshua and Zerubbabel) are, in literal translation of the Hebrew, “sons of oil,” the agents of God’s blessing to Israel.

Though there was no king in Israel at that stage, Hannah prayed in her song that the Lord would give strength to “his king” and “his anointed” (1 Sam. 2:10). The personal pronoun stresses that the king/anointed derives power from and owes obedience to God. The OT never uses the absolute form “anointed” (mashiakh), but always “his anointed” (Pss. 2:2; 18:50), “your anointed” (84:9), or “my anointed” (132:17). “Messiah” (“anointed one”) is not a title in the OT, though there is the hope of an ideal Davidic ruler (Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1). Daniel 9:25–26 is no exception, for there is dispute over who or what is so designated. The title “Christ” (Gk. Christos) applied to Jesus in the NT is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16). When Paul uses the word order “Christ Jesus,” it is plainly titular (i.e., “the Messiah Jesus”).

Jesus’ disciples anointed the sick with oil (Mark 6:13), and this became settled practice in praying for the sick (James 5:14).

Anointing

The OT priests and tabernacle furnishings were “anointed” (or “smeared”; Heb. mashakh [Exod. 28:41; 40:9]) as a sign of separation to God (consecration) when Moses set up the cultic institution. A number of times it is stated that kings were anointed (Judg. 9:8, 15)—such as Saul (1 Sam. 10:1), David (1 Sam. 16:13), Absalom (2 Sam. 19:10), Solomon (1 Kings 1:39), Jehu (2 Kings 9:6), Joash (2 Kings 11:12), and Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30)—as a sign of appointment to and equipping for sacral office. Anointing is only rarely linked to prophetic office (1 Kings 19:16; Ps. 105:15; Isa. 61:1). David would not agree to slaying Saul because he was “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11). The two “who are anointed” to serve the Lord in Zech. 4:14 (presumably Joshua and Zerubbabel) are, in literal translation of the Hebrew, “sons of oil,” the agents of God’s blessing to Israel.

Though there was no king in Israel at that stage, Hannah prayed in her song that the Lord would give strength to “his king” and “his anointed” (1 Sam. 2:10). The personal pronoun stresses that the king/anointed derives power from and owes obedience to God. The OT never uses the absolute form “anointed” (mashiakh), but always “his anointed” (Pss. 2:2; 18:50), “your anointed” (84:9), or “my anointed” (132:17). “Messiah” (“anointed one”) is not a title in the OT, though there is the hope of an ideal Davidic ruler (Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1). Daniel 9:25–26 is no exception, for there is dispute over who or what is so designated. The title “Christ” (Gk. Christos) applied to Jesus in the NT is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16). When Paul uses the word order “Christ Jesus,” it is plainly titular (i.e., “the Messiah Jesus”).

Jesus’ disciples anointed the sick with oil (Mark 6:13), and this became settled practice in praying for the sick (James 5:14).

Anon
>

An archaic word that means “at once” or “immediately” (Matt. 13:20; Mark 1:30 KJV).

Antediluvians
>

These were the people who lived before the worldwide flood in Noah’s time. They were divided between two ancestral lines, those of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) and Seth (Gen. 5). Although it is common to speak of the Cainites and Sethites, the second line is depicted as starting with Adam, not Seth (5:3). To label one line as ungodly and the other as godly is overly schematic. The generation of the flood was wholly wicked (Noah excepted), including the offspring of both Cain and Seth (6:5, 11), and was decimated by the flood as a judgment upon universal sin. The line of Seth survived only because of God’s grace shown to Noah (6:8).

The names in the genealogy of Seth bear a striking resemblance to Cain’s descendants (Cain/Kenan, Enoch/Enoch, Mehujael/Mahalalel, Irad/Jared, Methushael/Methuselah, Lamech/Lamech), again implying that the two lines were quite similar. Genesis 6:1–4, admittedly an obscure passage, may depict intermarriage between the lines, reinforcing the guilt of the entire human race.

The increase in population in Gen. 6:1 fits with the procreation theme of Gen. 5. The 120-year limit decreed by God in Gen. 6:3 cannot lay down the limit of a normal life span, for many people in Genesis lived well beyond this supposed limit, and so it is best understood as an announcement that 120 years remain until the flood.

The first ancestral line climaxed with boastful, violent, and vengeful Lamech, who tried to outdo his forefather Cain (Gen. 4:24). Though morally corrupt, Cain’s descendants are credited with significant cultural and technological achievements.

The genealogy of Seth in Gen. 5 is given a fuller treatment than Cain’s, for his line survived the flood. It focuses on the first (Adam’s [vv. 1–5]), seventh (Enoch’s [vv. 21–24]), and ninth generations (Lamech’s [vv. 5:28–31]), climaxing with another Lamech, Noah’s father.

The longevity of the antediluvians is a notable feature (life spans of 930 years, 912 years, etc.), but so too is the reign of death (note the mournful refrain “and then he died” throughout Gen. 5). The sole exception is godly Enoch (5:24). Sumerian lists show a belief that antediluvian kings reigned for thousands of years each. Figures for age and life span are not supplied so that we can calculate the date of creation, nor are birth notices of “other sons and daughters” (e.g., 5:4, 6) inserted to explain where Cain got his wife. Despite the baneful effect of death, in the providence of God life continued.

Antelope

In the list of clean animals in Deut. 14:5, “antelope” (Heb. te’o) may refer to the Arabian or desert oryx (NET: “wild oryx”). The oryx was eaten as food and offered in sacrifice; bones have been found at both domestic and religious sites. Although only the size of a donkey, it has long, straight horns that it uses ferociously in self-defense, and this gave it a reputation for strength and bravery. Another possibility is the equally fierce water buffalo. When Isaiah describes Israel as an antelope lying in a net (Isa. 51:20), this image probably portrays the mighty fallen rather than the weak oppressed.

Three other biblical animals belong to the modern category “antelope”: (1) the dishon (Deut. 14:5), sometimes translated “ibex” (NIV, NRSV) or “pygarg” (KJV [from the Greek for “white-rumped”]), but probably an antelope (NJB), either the “addax” (NAB) or one of the two white-rumped Kobus antelope species known in Israel; (2) the tsebi, a gazelle (Deut. 12:15, 22; 14:5; 15:22; 2 Sam. 2:18; 1 Kings 4:23; 1 Chron. 12:8; Prov. 6:5; Song 2:7, 9, 17; 3:5; 4:5; 7:3; 8:14; Isa. 13:14); (3) the yakhmur (NIV: “roe deer,” “roebuck”; NRSV: “roebuck”), possibly the Bubal hartebeest (Deut. 14:5; 1 Kings 4:23).

Anthothijah

One of the sons of Shashak, from the tribe of Benjamin. His name is found in the longer genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:24).

Anthropology

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

Anthropomorphism

A special type of figure of speech that is quite common in the Bible. Most figures of speech (metaphors, similes, etc.) work by bringing two very separate items into a comparative relationship by using language that is directly appropriate for the one to create colorful imagery for the other. Thus, figures of speech confront the reader with both points of similarity and points of dissimilarity.

Anthropomorphism is a figure of speech in which God is represented with human features or human characteristics. Anthropomorphisms abound in Scripture. Isaiah 59:1, for example, states: “Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.” Likewise, note the colorful anthropomorphic description of God in Ps. 104:2–3: “The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.”

In fact, Scripture typically describes God with a wide range of terminology normally associated with people and not with deity. The Bible refers to God as having hands, arms, feet, a face, a nose, breath, a voice, and ears. He walks, sits, hears, looks down, thinks, talks, remembers, gets angry, shouts, lives in a palace, holds court, prepares tables, anoints heads, builds houses, and pitches tents. He has a rod, staff, scepter, banner, garments, cloak, tent, throne, footstool, vineyard, field, chariot, shield, breastplate, helmet, and sword. He is identified as father, husband, king, judge, potter, and shepherd. All these are human actions or human features that are used figuratively to describe God and his actions.

On the other hand, scholars are divided over whether all of these anthropomorphisms are really figures of speech. Perhaps some of them actually describe literal aspects of God. Perhaps some of the “anthropomorphic” similarities between human beings and God are due to the fact that we are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Thus, we reflect similarity to him in some aspects and dissimilarity in many others. Since God is spirit, the description of God as “looking down” or the mention of his face would be anthropomorphism (i.e., figurative language). On the other hand, many of God’s actions and emotions such as anger, love, patience, mercy, hurt, and compassion are probably literal realities. Although we as human beings understand these emotions because we experience them, this does not necessarily mean that in regard to God they are merely figurative. Although God does not have ears, he does, for example, “get angry,” “love,” and “feel sorrow.”

Antichrist

The term “antichrist” (Gk. antichristos) is used only four times in the Bible (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). John warns his readers that it is already the last hour, and that just as they “have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18; cf. 4:3). John defines the antichrist as the one who denies that God has come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7).

The concept of antichrist-type figures surfaces elsewhere in the NT. Jesus mentions “false messiahs and false prophets” who will “perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:22). Paul speaks of a “man of lawlessness” who will “oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4). In Rev. 13 John describes the most famous antichrist figure of all: the “beast coming out of the sea.” Throughout the OT the false-prophet tradition (e.g., Deut. 13; 18; Jer. 23; Ezek. 12–14) describes religious individuals from within the community who attempt to deceive God’s people. Also, there was a common belief in an oppressive ruler from outside the community who would persecute the righteous (e.g., Dan. 8; 11). By the late first century, when Revelation was written, people would have been familiar with a host of pagan rulers who had exalted themselves as gods (the king of Babylon [Isa. 14], the pharaoh [Ezek. 29], Antiochus Epiphanes [Dan. 11], and Roman emperors such as Caligula, Nero, and Domitian). The evil-ruler tradition and the false-prophet tradition seem to converge in Rev. 13 as the beast from the sea (the antichrist) and the beast from the earth (the false prophet).

Most scholars agree that the original beast described in Rev. 13 was a Roman emperor (either Nero or Domitian) who demanded to be worshiped as God. Supported by a second beast, the cult of Caesar worship enforced by priests throughout the empire, the imperial system demanded that Christians choose between two opposing confessions: Caesar is Lord or Jesus is Lord. More specifically, Revelation indicates that the “beast coming out of the sea” is empowered by Satan (vv. 1–2, 4), masquerades as Christ (vv. 1, 3, 12, 14), accepts worship as a god (vv. 4, 8), wields extensive power (vv. 4, 7), blasphemes and slanders God (vv. 1, 5–6), and ruthlessly persecutes the saints (v. 7). The “beast coming out of the earth” (emperor cult) is also empowered by Satan (vv. 11, 14), promotes the worship of the first beast (vv. 12, 14–15), performs signs and wonders designed to deceive (vv. 13–15), and causes those who refused to worship the first beast to be put to death physically (v. 15) or economically (vv. 16–17). But in spite of their final effort to take God’s place and conquer God’s people, Christ will return to destroy the antichrist and the false prophet in the lake of fire (17:8; 19:19–21).

Antimony

A metalloid that was used in the building of the temple in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 29:2 [NIV: “turquoise”]). Stones were most likely set on or within antimony to signify elegance or wealth when building (Isa. 54:11). The Hebrew term comes from the root pwk, meaning “to paint.” This reflects the surrounding culture in which Egyptians used antimony’s sulfide compound, antimony trisulfide, as cosmetics for their eyes (i.e., “painting” their eyelids). The stable form of this element has a blue-white color that looks like silver. It was used as early as 3000 BC in Mesopotamia as well as in Egypt from at least 2000 BC onward. In Isa. 54:11 the KJV renders the Hebrew term as “fair colours.”

Antinomianism

Antinomianism, which literally means “opposed to the law,” arose as a reaction against legalism, denying the need for legal or moral restraints. The term itself does not appear in Scripture, but the concept can be found in passages such as Rom. 6:1–2, where Paul asks, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” He is referring here to those who claimed that the grace of God was a license to live without rules or boundaries. Paul answers with one of his strongest objections: “By no means!” or “May it never be!” He then argues, “We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” Our new life in Christ frees us to live a life of righteousness before God; we must not return to slavery to sin (see Gal. 5:1).

Antioch

Although there were sixteen cities named “Antioch” during the NT era, only two are mentioned in the NT: Pisidian Antioch and Syrian Antioch. Both cities are mentioned in the book of Acts.

Antioch of Pisidia. Pisidian Antioch was visited by Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey. The visit would have occurred during the late 40s of the first century and is reported in Acts 13:13–52. The author of Acts records this visit right after reporting on the conversion of a wealthy proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who ruled in Cyprus. There is evidence that Sergius Paulus was from Pisidian Antioch; thus it seems reasonable that his connections influenced the missionaries’ itinerary. After leaving Cyprus, the team traveled directly to Pisidian Antioch, which at the time was the capital of the Roman province of Galatia. It also was an influential Roman colony and as such was populated by veteran Roman soldiers and given special political privileges and prominence. The city was known for its breathtaking architecture and sculptures—the most elaborate honoring Caesar Augustus. A number of Jews also lived in the city, and the missionaries met with them in their synagogue and preached the gospel. Their message created great interest and excitement for the whole city. This response, however, made the Jewish leaders jealous, and they began to speak abusively toward Paul and Barnabas, causing the missionaries to focus their ministry on the Gentiles. The Jews ultimately persuaded their city leaders to expel Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:45–51). The team, however, did return to the city on their way back to Syrian Antioch in order to encourage and strengthen the new disciples (14:21). It is also probable that Paul returned to the city during his later missionary journeys.

Antioch of Syria. The most important Antioch mentioned in the NT was the capital city of the Roman province of Syria. The city, mentioned frequently in the book of Acts, played a strategic role in the advance of the gospel. Syrian Antioch was an important political, economic, and religious center during the Roman period.

Antioch as a political center. Syrian Antioch maintained a massive population during this period of history (as large as six hundred thousand people, by some estimates) and was the third-largest city in the Roman Empire, behind Alexandria and Rome. Founded by one of Alexander the Great’s generals, Seleucus I Nicanor, in 300 BC, Antioch became Rome’s military headquarters for the eastern part of the empire primarily due to its strategic location.

Antioch as an economic center. Antioch became a very important commercial center during the NT era. The city was located on the Orontes River and within fifteen miles of a strategic commercial port on the Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, its large and diverse population combined with its numerous natural resources and its location on the great trade route connecting Asia with the Mediterranean world made Antioch a powerful commercial hub.

Antioch as a religious center. Antioch’s diverse population made for a great diversity of religions connected to the city. Its suburb of Daphne was a major worship site for paganism, and the city maintained a large Jewish population throughout its history. Additionally, it was to Antioch that many Jerusalem Christians fled during the early persecution of the church. Here, for the first time, the Jewish Christians began to intentionally focus on sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Acts 11:19–21). The result was a large, multicultural, and vibrant church. The church at Antioch was known for its ethnic and cultural diversity, its generosity (sending an offering to Jerusalem during a famine [see 11:27–30]), and its heart for missions (serving as Paul’s headquarters for his three missionary journeys). Not surprisingly, it was at Antioch that Christ followers were first called “Christians” (11:26).

Antiochus (Epiphanes)

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC) was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Daniel 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc. 1:54–64 speak of his desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. Antiochus profaned the holy of holies by placing in it a statue of Zeus and then sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar. Daniel 9:27, however, promises that the defiler of the temple (Antiochus) will be defeated, which occurred in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus led the Jewish revolt that expelled the forces of Antiochus from Jerusalem (see 1 Macc. 4:36–61; cf. 6:1–17).

Antiochus Epiphanes

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC) was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Daniel 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc. 1:54–64 speak of his desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. Antiochus profaned the holy of holies by placing in it a statue of Zeus and then sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar. Daniel 9:27, however, promises that the defiler of the temple (Antiochus) will be defeated, which occurred in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus led the Jewish revolt that expelled the forces of Antiochus from Jerusalem (see 1 Macc. 4:36–61; cf. 6:1–17).

Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC) was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Daniel 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc. 1:54–64 speak of his desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. Antiochus profaned the holy of holies by placing in it a statue of Zeus and then sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar. Daniel 9:27, however, promises that the defiler of the temple (Antiochus) will be defeated, which occurred in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus led the Jewish revolt that expelled the forces of Antiochus from Jerusalem (see 1 Macc. 4:36–61; cf. 6:1–17).

Antipas

A shortened form of the name “Antipater.” (1) One of the sons of Herod the Great who ruled as tetrarch (“ruler of a fourth [part]”) of Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1). He was responsible for the imprisonment and subsequent beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12). He interviewed Jesus at length following his arrest without getting a response (Luke 23:6–12). (2) A faithful witness to the gospel who was martyred at Pergamum during a period of intense persecution when believers in that city were under pressure to renounce their faith in Christ (Rev. 2:13). See also Herod.

Antipatris

A city built by Herod the Great to honor his father, Antipater, in 9 BC. The city was built on the site of the ancient city of Aphek. Roman soldiers took Paul to Antipatris from Jerusalem by night to avoid a plot on his life, and cavalry took him on to Caesarea the next day (Acts 23:31–33). The city was forty miles from Jerusalem and twenty-five miles from Caesarea on the Via Maris.

Antonia Fortress

The primary military fortification of Jerusalem near the Herodian temple, also called the Antonia Fortress. The fortress was built in approximately AD 6 and served as a palatial residence for King Herod and a barracks for the Roman troops. In addition, Herod required the garments of the high priest be housed in the tower. The fortress, named by Herod after his friend Mark Antony, was actually a major renovation of an existing Maccabean fortification. The fortress was strategically located to overlook the temple so that a garrison could easily deal with any disturbance in the temple.

The tower is not specifically mentioned in the NT, but the Jewish historian Josephus describes it in detail (J.W. 5.238–46). The tower was built upon a rock, seventy-five feet high, overlooking the temple and its courtyards. Josephus describes the tower as being lavishly furnished like a palace, containing baths, courtyards, and spacious apartments. It was capable of housing numerous soldiers.

The tower may have served as an official residence for the Roman procurator. Thus, the tower’s courtyard has traditionally been considered the site of Jesus’ trial before Pilate (John 18:28; 19:13). However, Herod’s palace may have been used for the procurator and as a residence of the governor. The pavement beneath the modern convent Notre Dame de Sion was traditionally considered to be from the courtyard of the tower, but it has been dated to the second century by recent archaeological work.

The fortress was destroyed during Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the modern site of the tower has yet to be determined conclusively.

Antothijah

One of the sons of Shashak, from the tribe of Benjamin. His name is found in the longer genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:24).

Antothite

Refers to an inhabitant of Anathoth (1 Chron. 12:3 [KJV: “Antothite”]), a Levitical city in Benjamin (Josh. 15:24; 1 Kings 4:16)

Anub

A descendant of Judah, and son of Koz (1 Chron. 4:8).

Anxiety

Anxiety is an inner disposition of restlessness over feared or uncontrollable outcomes, and it can have debilitating effects (Ps. 139:23; Prov. 12:25). Its opposite is not carelessness or apathy but rather confident trust in God (Ps. 37; Isa. 26:3–4). Jesus teaches his disciples to trust God’s daily care as a radical alternative to anxiety (Matt. 6:25–34; cf. Eccles. 2:22), and Jesus’ instruction and preparation free them from anxiety over future trials (Matt. 24:25; Mark 13:11). Scripture invites us to move from anxiety to peace by means of prayer (Pss. 94:19; 139:23; Phil. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:7).

Ape

In 1 Kings 10:22; 2 Chron. 9:21 apes (Heb. qof  ) are listed among the exotic luxuries that Solomon’s ships brought to him once every three years from Tarshish. These animals are indicative of his immense wealth. In fact, there is no evidence that true apes in the modern sense (which have no tails) were known in the ancient Near East. The reference probably is to baboons, of which several species were known: the yellow baboon, the Anubis baboon, and the sacred or hamadryas baboon. All have long tails and long faces and make a sound rather like the Hebrew word qof. See also Baboon.

Apelles

A Christian greeted by Paul in Rom. 16:10 as one “whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test.” This appellation probably refers to a Christian who has suffered persecution for the faith and has remained faithful.

Apharsathchites

The KJV rendering of an Aramaic term used in Ezra 4:9; 5:6; 6:6 (NIV: “officials”). At one time it was believed that the term referred to a tribe of people, but it seems to be a more generalized reference to a Persian bureaucrat or government official ranging in function from a representative of the king to an inspector.

Apharsites

The KJV rendering of an Aramaic term used in a list of the associates of Rehum and Shimshai in their letter to the Persian king Artaxerxes opposing the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile (Ezra 4:9). The NIV translates the word “people from Persia” (cf. NRSV, ESV). “Sipporites” and “secretaries” (NASB, NET) have also been suggested.

Aphek

(1) The most significant Aphek in the Bible is about seven miles east of Tel Aviv. The springs nearby become the head­waters of the Yarqon River, flowing to the Mediterranean Sea. Traffic on the international coastal route passing through Israel was forced between the foothills to the east and the river, making this a strategic location. During the transition to the monarchy, the Philistines were at Aphek when the Israelites attacked them from Ebenezer (1 Sam. 4:1) just east in the foothills. The Philistines won the battle, captured the ark, and continued Philistine control of the international coastal highway. At the end of Saul’s life, the Philistines mustered their troops at this northern “boundary” of the Philistine plain before setting off to challenge Israel for control of the Jezreel Valley (1 Sam. 29:1).

(2) Asher’s tribal boundary, north of Mount Carmel, indicates an Aphek near the Mediterranean Sea (Josh. 19:30) from which the Canaanites were not dislodged (Judg. 1:31).

(3) The Arameans attacked the northern kingdom at a third Aphek on the east side of the Sea of Galilee (1 Kings 20:26–30; see also 2 Kings 13:17). The Arabic Fiq preserves this place name. Herod rebuilt the city on the coastal plain, renaming it “Antipatris” after his father. When Paul was sent to Caesarea after the plot on his life was uncovered, the soldiers with him went as far as Antipatris (Acts 23:31–32).

Aphekah

A town situated in the central hills of Judah near Hebron (Josh. 15:53). Its exact location is unknown.

Aphiah

Aphiah was an ancestor of King Saul (1 Sam. 9:1) from the tribe of Benjamin. The meaning of the name is uncertain.

Aphik

(1) The most significant Aphek in the Bible is about seven miles east of Tel Aviv. The springs nearby become the head­waters of the Yarqon River, flowing to the Mediterranean Sea. Traffic on the international coastal route passing through Israel was forced between the foothills to the east and the river, making this a strategic location. During the transition to the monarchy, the Philistines were at Aphek when the Israelites attacked them from Ebenezer (1 Sam. 4:1) just east in the foothills. The Philistines won the battle, captured the ark, and continued Philistine control of the international coastal highway. At the end of Saul’s life, the Philistines mustered their troops at this northern “boundary” of the Philistine plain before setting off to challenge Israel for control of the Jezreel Valley (1 Sam. 29:1).

(2) Asher’s tribal boundary, north of Mount Carmel, indicates an Aphek near the Mediterranean Sea (Josh. 19:30) from which the Canaanites were not dislodged (Judg. 1:31).

(3) The Arameans attacked the northern kingdom at a third Aphek on the east side of the Sea of Galilee (1 Kings 20:26–30; see also 2 Kings 13:17). The Arabic Fiq preserves this place name. Herod rebuilt the city on the coastal plain, renaming it “Antipatris” after his father. When Paul was sent to Caesarea after the plot on his life was uncovered, the soldiers with him went as far as Antipatris (Acts 23:31–32).

Aphrah

A location literally translated as “dust” (Mic. 1:10). Because of the wordplay in this verse and the lack of evidence for a location with this name, it is possible that it is identical with Ophrah. This would leave three options: (1) a location within the territory of the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17); (2) a location within the territory of the tribe of Manasseh (Judg. 6:11); (3) the home of the son of Meonothai (1 Chron. 4:14). See also Ophrah.

Aphses

The KJV rendering of the name “Happizzez” (1 Chron. 24:15).

Apis

A sacred bull worshiped in Egypt, apparently a representation of the Egyptian god Ptah. Jeremiah may mention the bull in his ridicule of the people’s idolatry in his taunt “Why has Apis fled?” (Jer. 46:15 NRSV [following the LXX]), though this would require a textual change from the Hebrew text, which reads “mighty ones” (’abbirim).

Apocalypse

The final book of the Bible is known by its opening line: “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:1 ESV, NRSV, KJV). This phrase could indicate a “revelation about Jesus Christ” (the main character), or a “revelation from Jesus Christ” (the primary giver of the message to John; so NIV), or, as many believe, some of both.

In powerful language and vivid imagery, Revelation presents the conclusion to God’s grand story of salvation, in which he defeats evil, reverses the curse of sin, restores creation, and lives forever among his people. Although the details are often difficult to understand, the main idea of Revelation is clear: God is in control and will successfully accomplish his purposes. In the end, God wins. As a transformative vision, Revelation empowers its readers/listeners to persevere faithfully in a fallen world until their Lord returns.

Genre and Historical Context

Genre. Revelation is best understood in light of its literary genre and its historical context. The literary genre of Revelation—letter, prophecy, and apocalyptic literature—explains much of the strangeness of the book. The entire book is a single letter to seven churches in Asia Minor (note the letter greeting in 1:4–5 and the benediction in 22:21). John is commanded to write what he sees and send it to the seven churches (1:11). A letter to seven churches is in reality a letter to the whole church, since the number “seven” symbolizes wholeness or completeness in Revelation. NT letters were intended to be read aloud to the gathering of Christians, and the same is true of Revelation. The book opens with a blessing on the one who reads the letter aloud and on those who listen (1:3) and closes with a stern warning to anyone (reader or listener) who changes the book (22:18–19). Like other NT letters, Revelation also addresses a specific situation. For this reason, any approach to Revelation that ignores the situation faced by the seven churches will fail to grasp its central message. Many say that the message of Revelation extends beyond the first century, but it certainly does not ignore its first audience.

Revelation is also a letter that is prophetic. In both the opening (1:3) and the closing (22:7, 10, 18–19), the book is described as a “prophecy” (cf. 19:10). In 22:9 the angel identifies John as a prophet: “I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets.” As a prophetic book in line with OT prophetic books, Revelation contains both prediction about the future and proclamation about God’s will for the present, with emphasis falling on the latter.

Finally, Revelation is a prophetic letter that is apocalyptic. In the opening phrase, “the revelation of Jesus Christ,” the term “revelation” is a translation of the Greek term apokalypsis, meaning “to unveil” or “to reveal” what has been hidden. Most believe that apocalyptic literature grew out of Hebrew prophecy. The OT books of Daniel and Zechariah are often associated with apocalyptic literature, and there were many Jewish apocalypses written during the time between the Testaments (e.g., 1–2 Enoch, 2–3 Baruch, 4 Ezra).

In apocalyptic literature there is a revelation from God to some well-known human figure through a heavenly intermediary. God promises to intervene in human history, to defeat evil, and to establish his rightful rule. Such is the case with Revelation, which assumes a situation where God’s people are threatened by hostile powers. God is portrayed as sovereign, and he promises to intervene soon to destroy evil. Through bizarre visions and imagery common to apocalyptic literature, those who hear Revelation are transported to another world for much-needed heavenly perspective. As the hearers move outside their hopeless circumstances and see God winning the war against evil, their perspective is reshaped, and they are empowered to persevere faithfully. They are simultaneously called to live holy and blameless lives as they worship the one, true God.

Historical context. Along with understanding the literary genre of Revelation, one must grasp its historical context in order to read the book responsibly. Revelation itself describes a historical situation where some Christians are suffering for their faith with the real possibility that the suffering could become more intense and widespread. John himself has been exiled to the island of Patmos because of his witness for Jesus (1:9). Antipas, a Christian in Pergamum, has been put to death for his faith (2:13). In his message to the church at Smyrna, Jesus indicates that they should not be surprised by what they are about to suffer (2:10). The book also includes several references to pagan powers shedding the blood of God’s people (6:10; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2). Revelation addresses a situation in which pagan political power has formed a partnership with false religion. Those who claim to follow Christ are facing mounting pressure to conform to this ungodly partnership at the expense of loyalty to Christ.

The two primary possibilities for the date of Revelation are a time shortly after the death of Nero (AD 68–69) or a date near the end of Domitian’s reign (AD 95). Although there is solid evidence for both dates, the majority opinion at present favors a date during the reign of Domitian, when persecution threatened to spread across the Roman Empire. The imperial cult (i.e., the worship of the Roman emperor) was a powerful force to be reckoned with primarily because it united religious, political, social, and economic elements into a single force. As chapters 2–3 indicate, not every Christian was remaining faithful in this difficult environment. Some were compromising in order to avoid religious or economic persecution. Revelation has a pointed message for those who are standing strong as well as for those who are compromising, and this central message ties into the overall purpose of the book.

Purpose and Interpretation

The overall purpose of Revelation is to comfort those who are facing persecution and to warn those who are compromising with the world system. During times of oppression, the righteous suffer and the wicked seem to prosper. This raises the question “Who is Lord?” Revelation says that Jesus is Lord in spite of how things appear, and he will return soon to establish his eternal kingdom. Those facing persecution find hope through a renewed perspective, and those who are compromising are warned to repent. Revelation’s goal is to transform the audience to follow Jesus faithfully.

There are five main theories about how Revelation should be interpreted: preterist, historicist, futurist, idealist, and eclectic. The preterist theory views Revelation as relating only to the time in which John lived rather than to any future period. John communicates to first-century readers how God plans to deliver them from the wickedness of the Roman Empire. The historicist theory argues that Revelation gives an overview of the major movements of church history from the first century until the return of Christ. The futurist theory claims that most of Revelation (usually chaps. 4–22) deals with a future time just before the end of history. The idealist theory maintains that Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the ongoing conflict between good and evil. Revelation offers timeless spiritual truths to encourage Christians of all ages. The eclectic theory combines the strengths of several of the other theories (e.g., a message to the original audience, a timeless spiritual message, and some future fulfillment), while avoiding their weaknesses.

Outline and Structure

There have been many attempts to understand how Revelation is organized. Some see a threefold structure based on 1:19:

What you have seen (past) (1:1–20)

What is now (present) (2:1–3:21)

What will take place later (future) (4:1–22:21)

Others see the book organized around seven dramatic scenes with interludes occurring throughout:

Prologue (1:1–8)

Act 1: Seven Oracles (1:9–3:22)

Act 2: Seven Seals (6:1–17)

Act 3: Seven Trumpets (8:1–9:21)

Act 4: Seven Signs (12:1–14:20)

Act 5: Seven Bowls (16:1–21)

Act 6: Seven Visions (19:1–20:15)

Act 7: Seven Prophecies (21:2–22:17)

Epilogue (22:18–21)

The following outline provides an overview of Revelation in ten stages:

I. Introduction (1:1–20)

II. Messages to the Seven Churches (2:1–3:22)

III. Vision of the Heavenly Throne Room (4:1–5:14)

IV. Opening of the Seven Seals (6:1–8:1)

V. Sounding of the Seven Trumpets (8:2–11:19)

VI. The People of God versus the Powers of Evil (12:1–14:20)

VII. Pouring Out of the Seven Bowls (15:1–16:21)

VIII. Judgment and Fall of Babylon (17:1–19:5)

IX. God’s Ultimate Victory (19:6–22:5)

X. Conclusion (22:6–21)

I. Introduction (1:1–20). Chapter 1 includes both a prologue (1:1–8) and John’s commission to write what he sees (1:9–20). John’s vision focuses on the risen, glorified Christ and his continued presence among the seven churches.

II. Messages to the seven churches (2:1–3:22). Chapters 2–3 contain messages to seven churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. The seven messages follow a similar literary pattern: a description of Jesus, a commendation, an accusation, an exhortation coupled with either warning or encouragement, an admonition to listen, and a promise to those who overcome. These messages reflect the twin dangers faced by the church: persecution and compromise.

III. Vision of the heavenly throne room (4:1–5:14). In chapters 4–5 the scene shifts to the heavenly throne room, where God reigns in majestic power. All of heaven worships the Creator and the Lion-Lamb (Jesus), who alone is qualified to open the scroll because of his sacrificial death.

IV. Opening of the seven seals (6:1–8:1). The unveiling of God’s ultimate victory formally begins here. This section begins the first of a series of three judgment visions (seals, trumpets, and bowls), with seven elements each. When the sixth seal is opened, the question is asked, “Who can withstand it?” Chapter 7 provides the answer with its two visions of God’s people; only those belonging to God can withstand the outpouring of the Lamb’s wrath.

V. Sounding of the seven trumpets (8:2–11:19). The trumpet judgments, patterned after the plagues of Egypt, reveal God’s judgment upon a wicked world. Again, before the seventh element in the series, there is an interval with two visions (10:1–11; 11:1–14) that instruct and encourage God’s people.

VI. The people of God versus the powers of evil (12:1–14:20). Chapter 12 offers the main reason why God’s people face hostility in this world. They are caught up in the larger conflict between God and Satan (the dragon). Although Satan was defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ, he continues to oppose the people of God. Chapter 13 introduces Satan’s two agents: the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth. The dragon and the two beasts constitute an unholy trinity bent on seducing and destroying God’s people. As another interval, chapter 14 offers a glimpse of the final future that God has in store for his people. One day the Lamb and his followers will stand on Mount Zion and sing a new song of redemption.

VII. Pouring out of the seven bowls (15:1–16:21). The seven golden bowls follow the trumpets and seals as the final series of seven judgments. As the bowls of God’s wrath are poured out on an unrepentant world, the plagues are devastating indicators of God’s anger toward sin and evil. The only response from the “earth dwellers” (MSG; NIV: “inhabitants of the earth” [17:2, 8]; this is a common term in Revelation for unbelievers) is to curse God rather than repent (16:9, 11, 21).

VIII. Judgment and fall of Babylon (17:1–19:5). This section depicts the death of Babylon, a pagan power said to be “drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus” (17:6). The funeral laments for the deceased Babylon of chapter 18 give way to a celebration as God’s people rejoice over Babylon’s downfall (19:1–5).

IX. God’s ultimate victory (19:6–22:5). This climactic section describes God’s ultimate victory over evil and the final reward for the people of God. This scene includes the return of Christ for his bride (19:6–16), Christ’s defeat of the two beasts and their allies (19:17–21), the binding of Satan and the millennial reign (20:1–6), the final defeat of Satan (20:7–10), and the final judgment and the death of death itself (20:11–15). Chapter 21 features a description of the new heaven and new earth, where God’s long-standing promise to live among his people is fully realized.

X. Conclusion (22:6–21). Revelation closes with final blessings for those who heed the message of the book and warnings for those who do not. Jesus’ promise to return soon is met with John’s prayer, “Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20).

Characters and Themes

The foregoing outlines are helpful for understanding Revelation, but perhaps an even better way to grasp the message of the book is to look closely at its main characters and story line. The following seven themes capture the overall theological message of this dynamic prophetic-apocalyptic letter.

1. God. Revelation presents God as a central character in the story. He is sovereign and firmly in control of history, as his description from 1:4–8 suggests: “the Alpha and the Omega” (the beginning and the end), “the one who is, and who was, and who is to come” (God of the past, the present, and the future), and “the Lord God, . . . the Almighty” (ruler over the universe). The throne room vision of chapters 4–5 also clearly asserts God’s sovereign rule. The throne of God itself stands as a central symbol in the book, representing God’s sovereignty over all things. As a main character, God rightly receives worship. He is worshiped because he is the creator (e.g., 4:11; 14:7) and the righteous judge who condemns evil and vindicates his people (15:3–4; 16:5–7; 19:1–2). Revelation also describes God as one who desires to be fully and intimately present with his people. God cares for and protects his people (e.g., 7:2–3; 14:1; 21:4). As the book closes, God announces the fulfillment of his long-standing promise to live among his people (21:6–7; cf. Exod. 29:45–46; Lev. 26:11–12). God’s children have unhindered access to their loving Father as they serve him, see his face, and bear his name—all in his presence (22:1–5).

2. God’s enemies. Although God reigns supreme, he has enemies who oppose him and his people. As God’s chief enemy, Satan (also known as the dragon, the devil, the serpent, the accuser) works through worldly systems with the intent of thwarting God’s plan. Chapter 12 summarizes this cosmic conflict. In that scene, God defeats the dragon, who then turns his anger against the woman and the rest of her offspring. The dragon’s evil partners include the beast from the sea (traditionally called the “antichrist”) and the beast from the earth (the “false prophet”). The first beast often has been identified with Rome, the dominant pagan power in the first century, although the reference likely extends beyond Rome to any political-economic power that demands absolute allegiance (see 13:1–8; 19:19–20; 20:10). The second beast uses miraculous signs to deceive people into worshiping the first beast. This opponent represents religious power organized in support of the first beast (13:11–18; 19:20; 20:10). The dragon, the beast from the sea, and the false prophet constitute the unholy trinity. God’s enemies also include people (usually called the “inhabitants of the earth”) who follow the beast (13:8, 12), indulge in the ways of this world (17:2), and persecute believers (6:10; 11:10).

3. The Lamb of God. Jesus, the Lamb of God, plays a central role in God’s redemptive plan. In Revelation the Lamb is clearly identified as a divine figure who shares in the authority, glory, and worship reserved for God (5:6, 9–14; 7:10, 17; 12:10; 21:22–23; 22:1, 3). Expressions that refer to God are also used of Jesus, thereby affirming Jesus’ deity (e.g., “Alpha and Omega,” “Lord” [see also 1:4–5]). Revelation highlights the Lamb’s sacrificial death as the key to his victory over evil, paradoxical though it may be (1:5, 18; 5:9). As the slaughtered yet risen Lamb (1:17–18), Jesus is able to identify with his suffering people (1:9; 12:17; 20:4). The Lamb promises to return as the warrior-judge to defeat God’s enemies and rescue God’s people (1:7; 3:11; 16:15; 19:11–21). The famous battle with the forces of evil is recorded in 19:20: “But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet.” The two beasts are then condemned to the lake of fire, and their followers become the banquet meal for the birds of prey.

4. God’s people. The people of God figure prominently in the book of Revelation. John uses a variety of terms and images to portray God’s people (e.g., church, saints, great multitude, bride of the Lamb, new Jerusalem). These people have been redeemed by the Lamb, and they continue to rely upon his sacrificial death in spite of opposition (1:5; 5:9; 14:3–4). They are a genuinely multicultural people, as indicated by the seven uses of a fourfold formula: every “tribe, language, people, and nation” (5:9; 7:9; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; cf. 17:15). They are also a persecuted people (1:9; 2:9–10; 7:14; 11:9–10; 12:10; 13:16–17) and at times even a martyred people (6:9–11; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Throughout Revelation, God’s people are characterized as those who obey the commandments of God (1:2, 9; 6:9; 12:17; 14:12; 20:4; 22:9) and who hold fast to the testimony of Jesus (1:2, 9; 6:9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4). They are a tempted people who are warned throughout the book to endure in faith (13:10; 14:12; 18:4). Like their Savior, they conquer evil by holding fast to their confession even to the point of death (12:11).

5. God’s judgment. God’s judgment of evil plays a crucial role in the book. The central section of Revelation contains three series of seven judgments: the seals (6:1–8:1), the trumpets (8:2–11:19), and the bowls (15:1–16:21). God sends these plagues on his enemies to demonstrate his power and to vindicate his people. These images of judgment also encourage repentance and remind people that God will win the battle against evil. Using two images of judgment—the grain harvest (14:14–16) and the winepress (14:17–20)—chapter 14 presents a clear choice: fear and glorify God (14:7) or face God’s inescapable and eternal judgment (14:11, 19). God’s final judgment on “Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes” is reported in 17:1–19:6. Babylon represents the worldly system that has blasphemed God and persecuted his people. God’s final judgment of the satanic trinity, their followers, and death itself is described in 19:11–21; 20:7–15. Evil has been destroyed, preparing the way for the restoration of creation.

6. The paradise of God. The story culminates in God’s ultimate restoration of his people and his creation—the paradise of God. What God began to do in Gen. 1–2 he now completes in Rev. 21–22. The river of life replaces the sea. The tree of life supplies food for all. God’s throne as a symbol of God’s sovereign rule over all reality serves as the source of life. God has kept his promise to conquer his enemies, vindicate his people, and restore his creation. The Abrahamic covenant of Gen. 12, that God would bless “all peoples on earth” (v. 3), is fulfilled as the tree of life provides healing for the nations (Rev. 22:2). The new heaven and new earth is identified primarily as the place where God lives among his people (22:4). In the paradise of God there will be no more Satan or sin or death or evil of any kind. God’s people will bask in his glory and respond in worship.

7. The present struggle. A final theme of Revelation is the believer’s struggle to live out God’s story in the present. The Lamb’s followers rely upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus for their victory, but they continue to live in enemy territory. They long for the new heaven and new earth, but they must wage war in the present against the forces of evil. Jesus challenges the seven churches to “overcome” or “conquer,” a requirement for inheriting his promises of eternal life, provision, justice, victory, and the presence of God (21:7). A voice from heaven summarizes what it means to overcome: “They [Christians] triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11).

They triumph in the same way that Jesus triumphed: victory through faithfulness, even if it includes suffering. This calls for rejecting false teaching, resisting idolatry, living righteously, and refusing to compromise. Triumphing includes authentic faith that results in obedience to Jesus. Above all, to triumph or overcome means to follow the Lamb.

These seven themes of Revelation reveal how the book offers hope to those who are suffering for the cause of Christ and warning to those who are compromising with the world. Revelation presents the final chapter in God’s grand plan to defeat evil, reverse the curse of sin, transform creation, and live forever among his people. For first-century readers or twenty-first-century readers, Revelation offers a dramatic and empowering vision of what it means to follow Jesus.

Apocalyptic

The word “apocalypse” means “revelation.” It is used in Rev. 1:1 to identify what follows as information that would otherwise be known only in heaven. “Apocalyptic” therefore refers to uncovering something that is hidden—revealing secrets. It focuses on the gracious acts of God whereby he informs his servants of his plans and purposes about what is happening and will happen on earth. Scholars have identified those texts that resemble the form of the book of Revelation as “apocalyptic literature,” including the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah.

Apocalyptic texts also appear outside of the Bible, although many of them are inspired by biblical accounts. The record of Enoch’s journey into the heavens (Gen. 5:24) stimulated the imagination of many during the Second Temple period, resulting in the production of a large number of apocalyptic works purporting to record what Enoch learned while in the heavens. These then formed the basis for a distinctive, and ultimately misguided, interpretation of contemporary Jewish experience (see, e.g., 1 Enoch, Jubilees). The popularity of apocalyptic literature grew significantly after the appearance of John’s Revelation, particularly in later gnostic literature and the works of various forms of Jewish mysticism.

The genre of apocalyptic literature. For there to be apocalyptic literature, some things must be accepted as true: God exists and is in sovereign control over what happens on earth; God has a plan, and humankind cannot know anything of that plan unless it be revealed. This literature claims to be the result of a gracious act of God. It may be delivered through a vision of God himself. Alternately, it might involve seeing things in the heavens either as a vision or as a guided tour.

God’s revelation occurred in many ways on many occasions (Heb. 1:1–2). The entire Bible is, in this sense, an apocalypse—a revelation. Some forms of this revelation, however, are easier to understand than others.

As a literary form, apocalyptic literature might best be described as verbal cartoons. The images that are so graphically portrayed would have had, for the original readers, something of the instant impact that a political cartoon might have on us today. In order to understand such images, one must be familiar with the symbols being used. The cartoons and posters from the two World Wars—in which animals such as the lion of England, the Russian bear, the Uncle Sam character, and bestial monsters depicted the enemy at the time—are a sufficient example to shed light on how the original readers would have read these biblical works. To understand individual pictures such as the beast of Rev. 13 or the four-headed leopard of Dan. 7, one had to know something of the specific historical background.

Earlier images could be adapted and reapplied. So, for example, Joseph’s vision of his family as the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 37:9) is used to identify the woman of Rev. 12:1 as the personification of the nation of Israel—the line from which the Savior would come.

God’s revelation to his people. Apocalyptic literature functions in much the same way that Jesus used his parables (Matt. 13:11). It is often used in situations where God’s people appear to be under physical threat. The symbols and the patterns used enable those on the inside to follow what is happening while leaving those on the outside none the wiser. The ability of God’s people to understand the revelation identifies and discriminates them from God’s enemies, who appear confused.

Apocalyptic literature is not always about the future, let alone about the end of the world. Mostly it is designed to enable the believer to see past the confusions and fears of present experience, and to be reminded that God is in control and that everything is going according to his plans and purposes. God’s plans may include calling upon his people to face a range of challenges or to suffer persecution. These visions enable believers to see meaning and purpose in these experiences and to keep their focus faithfully on God.

The book of Job offers some insight into the nature of apocalyptic literature, even though it is not usually regarded as such. The narrator (without explaining how he knows these things) begins by informing the reader of the events that transpired in God’s heavenly court. This enables the reader (unlike Job or his friends) to put Job’s experience in proper context. Eliphaz’s challenge then has powerful irony when he asks Job, “Do you listen in on God’s council? Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?” (15:8). The resolution of their deliberations is made possible only when God comes to earth in visible form and reveals his judgment on the matter. This is designed to evoke not a blind faith but an informed faithfulness that allows for the reality of God’s superior wisdom and his right to determine all things for his glory.

When the king had a dream in Gen. 41:15–16 (cf. Dan. 2:27–28), the point is made that no one can discover the mind of God. However, God has graciously revealed his plans to his servants, who can then explain them to a world that lives in darkness and ignorance of these things.

The one who received such revelations often needs an interpreting angel (Dan. 7:16; Zech. 1:9; cf. Gen. 28:10–17; Exod. 3:1–6). The seer, like the reader, is initially confused. The interpreting angel answers the seer’s questions, and the reader can in turn understand what is happening.

Understanding apocalyptic literature. Given the historical distance between the modern reader and the original authors of the biblical apocalyptic texts, we might be tempted to think that they cannot be understood with any certainty. They are nonetheless God’s revelation to his people and were given with the intention that they be understood. Comprehending an apocalyptic vision requires us to search the Scriptures to see how these symbols and patterns were interpreted, and then to see how they are again used to give us some insight into God’s power, grace, and calling upon his people in each age.

For example, the beasts representing four successive kingdoms (Dan. 7:1–7, 15–23) later are redrawn into a composite symbol of any contemporary human power operating under Satan’s rule (Rev. 13:1–3). The similarities between Babylon and Rome identified both as agents of Satan’s regime; the connection then became an apocalyptic accusation (1 Pet. 5:13) offering assurance to God’s people. Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus (Matt. 2:16) follows the pattern of Pharaoh’s attempt on Israel (Exod. 1–2), so the picture of Satan as the red dragon attacking the woman giving birth identifies the one behind Herod’s actions while pointing to the God who brought his people out of Egypt as the one who will save those who put their trust in Jesus.

Apocrypha

The word “apocrypha” is derived from a Greek word meaning “secret” or “hidden” and refers to texts regarded by some Jews and Christians as religiously valuable but not meeting the criteria of canonicity. The more specific title “New Testament Apocrypha” distinguishes certain writings from those commonly referred to as “the Apocrypha,” a collection of works written by Jews (with later Christian editing in places) between approx. 200 BC and AD 90, recognized as Scripture by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches but generally rejected by Protestants (see Apocrypha, Old Testament). What is loosely called New Testament Apocrypha is no single collection but actually a vast, amorphous corpus that can only be selectively discussed here. (The Apostolic Fathers, texts written mainly in the late first century and second century, and later church fathers are not considered here as part of this grouping.) In broadest terms, these texts concern themselves with Jesus Christ and his apostles, but often from a perspective that differs from the NT portraits. Nevertheless, many of the works appear to be either dependent upon or influenced by the genres and characters of the NT, principally gospels, letters, apostolic acts, and apocalypse.

These writings remain outside of the Christian canon for the following reasons. First, the texts, at least in their final form, were published in the postapostolic period (the second century), whereas all of the NT writings were believed to have been written by an apostle (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) or an apostolic associate (Mark, Luke). Some apocryphal writings (e.g., Gospel of Thomas) may simply adapt earlier, apostolic tradition. Second, the point of view in these writings does not represent a broad constituency in the early church. Some appear to reflect the ideology of various gnostic groups, which became prominent in the second century throughout the Mediterranean, with centers in Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt. Although a diverse phenomenon, gnosticism generally embraced secret knowledge as a vehicle for salvation from the material world, a development of extreme Platonism. Therefore, Jesus saves through an esoteric teaching, not his atoning death. The diminution of the cross led to the orthodox rejection of this perspective. In attempting to refute gnostics, Irenaeus of Lyons (died c. AD 195) appropriates what he calls the “rule of faith” (regula fidei), which was passed on by the apostles and everywhere accepted by the churches (Haer. 1.8.1; 1.9.4). Other apocryphal texts appear to represent a conservative Jewish-Christian perspective. The church gradually shifted from being primarily a Jewish religious group that accepted non-Jews to what Christians themselves described as a “third race” in distinction from Jews and pagans. Relationships between Jews and Christians continued to sour because of mutual persecution, competition, and misunderstanding. By the second century, some Christian writers claimed God had rejected Israel (e.g., the author of Epistle of Barnabas). Many texts emphasize celibacy, fasting, and other rigorously ascetic practices, which go beyond the moderate guidelines in the NT. These factors contributed to the marginalization of Jewish believers in Jesus, making their writings suspect. Like the gnostic texts, the primary concern was a diminished Christology. Consequently, many of these writings were not copied (and therefore preserved) by Christian copyists and thus eventually were lost. However, many texts were discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. Scraps of papyri have also been recovered from various sites in the dry sands of the desert. But many of the apocryphal writings survive only in fragments (e.g., Acts of Paul ).

The New Testament Apocrypha provide a window into the various ways Christians attempted to live out their faith in Jesus Christ, the rise of ascetic monasticism, and why orthodox Christianity ultimately parted ways with both rabbinic Judaism and gnosticism. The diversity of the church’s past may provide context and insight for the challenges of the present.

Gospels

The apocryphal Gospels often amplify or add to material that is more limited in the canonical Gospels. This is especially the case with Jesus’ youth and the passion narrative. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas depicts, among other things, the child Jesus making sparrows out of clay and then bringing them to life. The Gospel of Peter, which dates probably from the middle of the second century and is likely dependent on Mark’s Gospel, begins with Jesus’ trial and breaks off in what is presumably a resurrection appearance to a group of disciples. According to some scholars, the Gospel of Peter is cited by Origen (c. AD 185–255) as evidence that Jesus’ purported brothers were Joseph’s from an earlier marriage, thereby protecting the perpetual virginity of Mary (Comm. ser. Matt. 10.17). This gospel reflects a strong anti-Jewish bias. The Protevangelium of James relates the miraculous birth of Jesus’ mother, Mary.

Other apocryphal Gospels single out a particular apostle who alone is given special revelation. A complete version of the Gospel of Thomas was discovered among the Nag Hammadi writings and is perhaps the earliest apocryphal gospel. The emphasis on Thomas suggests a Syrian provenance. Containing little narrative, the text is primarily a collection of Jesus’ sayings (loosely grouped according to theme), some of which are dependent on the Gospel of Luke (e.g., 47, 104). James, the brother of the Lord, is given prominence (12), but there are also polemics against traditional Jewish piety: prayer, fasting, alms, and circumcision (6, 14, 53, 104). The Gospel of Judas, which is dated to around the middle of the second century and survives in one or two copies, consists primarily of dialogues between Judas Iscariot and Jesus during his passion. Judas is presented as the only disciple to recognize Jesus’ true origin and identity. In response, Jesus praises him: “You will exceed all of [the other apostles]. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me” (43). This text reflects a gnostic point of view (probably Sethian, representing a group that venerated the biblical figure of Seth and viewed Jesus as his reincarnation, as in the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Apocalypse of Paul  ). Whereas Peter makes a confession of faith in the canonical Gospels, Judas says, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo” (35). (In gnostic mythology, Barbelo [Coptic for “Great Emission”] is the divine Mother of all, who is often described as the “Forethought of the Father,” the “Infinite One.”) The Gospel of Judas has Jesus reject the God of Israel (21) and attack the Christian church and its leadership (26–27).

The church fathers often mention Jewish gospels (Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Ebionites), including a Hebrew version of Matthew (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.4). Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215) cites a saying of Jesus from the Gospel of the Hebrews: “He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest” (Strom. 2.9.45; 5.14.96). Epiphanius (c. AD 310/320–403) preserves part of the Gospel of the Ebionites: “It came to pass that John was baptizing, and Pharisees and all Jerusalem went out to him and were baptized. And John had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather girdle about his waist, and his food, it is said, was wild honey, the taste of which was that of manna, as a cake dipped in oil” (Pan. 30.13.4–5). The Ebionites (the “poor”) were a Jewish-Christian group. The wording may reflect a vegetarian perspective, a popular form of asceticism, which annoyed Epiphanius, who claimed that the Ebionites “were resolved to make the word of truth into a lie and to put a cake in the place of locusts.” However, the text only claims that the wild honey had the taste of manna, “as a cake dipped in oil.” The discovery of papyri in Egypt has also provided agrapha (unwritten sayings) of Jesus. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840 depicts a debate between Jesus and a Pharisaic chief priest over viewing the holy utensils in the temple in an impure state.

Apostolic Acts

This subgenre typically involves a narrative of an apostle’s missionary activity (e.g., Andrew, Peter, John, Paul, Philip) from the time of Jesus’ resurrection to his own martyrdom (or, in the case of John, simply his death). Books of acts also feature other important individuals in the early history of the church, such as Barnabas and even Pilate. Some function to explain how the Christian faith reached a community. The Acts of Thomas, which originates probably in Syrian Christianity, depicts his missionary activity in India. They are partly dependent on Luke’s book of Acts, but they reflect a greater interest in biographical detail. The Acts of Paul and Thecla provides a physical description of the apostle: “a man of small stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness.” Contrary to popular assumption and the impression that one gets from Paul’s letters (2 Cor. 10:10), the depiction in its cultural context is flattering. Thecla is presented as a young, engaged woman from a prominent family in Iconium. She believes Paul’s gospel, which emphasizes sexual abstinence (see 1 Cor. 7:1–16). She breaks off her engagement, and the apostle permits her to become a teacher. The details may be a reaction against developments in the early church, which struggled over sexuality and women’s roles in leadership. In the Acts of Peter, Luke’s presentation of a conflict between Simon Magus and Simon Peter is greatly expanded; this version describes, among other things, Simon Magus levitating over Rome, only to be grounded by the prayers of Peter (4, 6, 9, 11–18, 23, 31).

Letters

The letter genre was not especially popular for those writing Christian apocryphal literature. In one letter, Abgar, king of Edessa, writes Jesus, inviting him to visit his city. Jesus responds with a courteous letter relating that he must fulfill his mission but, following his ascension, will send a disciple (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.13). There are also fourteen letters between Paul and the Stoic philosopher Seneca (c. 4 BC–AD 65). No one treats these letters as authentic, but they do provide insight into early Christian curiosities. Paul mentions a letter to the Laodiceans, which has not survived (Col. 4:16), so someone in the fourth century or earlier patched together phrases mainly from Philippians and Galatians to provide such a letter. The work known as 3 Corinthians, which contains a letter from the Corinthian church and Paul’s reply, probably serves the same purpose.

Apocalypses

An apocalypse features a seer who receives revelation from a supernatural revealer. Apocalypses are attributed to, among others, Paul, Peter, Thomas, Stephen, and James. They typically feature revelations made by Jesus to his disciples in the period between his resurrection and ascension. The book of Revelation appears to have had little influence on these works. Many of them are gnostic. But the Apocalypse of Peter, which most likely originated in Palestinian Jewish Christianity during the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132–135), was highly valued, particularly for its depiction of hell, in which twenty-one sinners suffer in ways appropriate to their sin.

Apocrypha, Old Testament–The Greek word apokrypha means “hidden” or “concealed,” and later it came to refer to religious books considered to be of inferior quality to the OT and the NT. During the third century, several church fathers (e.g., Origen [d. 253], Irenaeus [d. c. 200], Tertullian [d. 220]) used this term to distinguish these works from canonical works. Currently, the phrase “Old Testament Apocrypha” refers to Jewish literary works written between approximately 200 BC and AD 90 that were included in the earliest Greek codices of the LXX.

The Apocrypha and the Development of the Canon

By the first century AD, many Jews believed that prophecy continued only until about the time of Ezra, around the end of the fifth century BC, and thus several of the apocryphal works were associated with famous biblical characters such as Jeremiah, Baruch, or Solomon, most likely in order to give them credibility. In Matt. 23:34–35; Luke 11:49–51 Jesus appears to limit the OT canon to the books known to be in the Jewish canon. Both passages record Jesus stating that the Jewish nation will be held responsible for the blood of the prophets from “the blood of Abel” (see Gen. 4:8–10), the first recorded murder, “to the blood of Zechariah” (see 2 Chron. 24:20–22), the last recorded murder. The implication is that biblical history spans from Genesis to Chronicles (most likely the last book in the order of the Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus), which is equivalent to saying from Genesis to Malachi in the English Bible.

Based upon this evidence, it is doubtful that the early Jews ever considered the apocryphal works part of their canon. In reality, the early Greek codices were Christian collections from the fourth to fifth centuries AD. Apparently, by that time there were significant questions concerning which books made up the OT canon. By the end of the first century AD, Christians had been dispersed all over the Roman Empire, so it is more than likely that few Christians would have had contact with Jews or exposure to their scriptural canon. It is reasonable to assume that during this period of uncertainty, the apocryphal books were thought by some to be part of the Jewish OT canon. A major turning point occurred in the fourth century AD when Jerome (c. 345–420) was asked to write a standardized translation of the Latin Bible. Jerome used original Greek and Hebrew texts to correct his Latin translation. He did not believe that the apocryphal books were part of the OT since they were not included in the Hebrew manuscripts. Nevertheless, some argue that he was coerced into adding them to the Latin Vulgate by Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who believed that at least part of the apocryphal books were to be included in the OT canon. The Latin Vulgate became the standard translation of the Roman Catholic Church for well over a thousand years, and thus the Old Testament Apocrypha were gradually accepted in the church. Another major turning point occurred during the Protestant Reformation when Luther’s views were argued at the Council of Trent (convened three times between 1545 and 1563) that the Apocrypha were not part of the OT canon. The Roman Catholic Church had used 2 Macc. 12:43–45 to substantiate its doctrines of purgatory and praying for the dead; likewise Tobit and other apocryphal works were used to substantiate works of righteousness (i.e, not faith alone for salvation). On April 8, 1546, at the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Apocrypha were indeed part of the Christian canon and pronounced anathema upon those who disagreed.

Since the time of Luther, Protestants have rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha. However, the Roman Catholic Church has argued that fifteen apocryphal works are part of their authoritative Scriptures. The Greek Orthodox Church includes two additional works (3 Maccabees; Psalm 151) in its authoritative canon.

Arguments against including Apocryphal Books in the Canon

There are significant arguments for not including these books in the church’s authoritative canon.

1. The NT never cites any apocryphal books as inspired; Jesus’ usage of Scripture suggests that only the books in the Hebrew Bible were authoritative (Matt. 23:34–35; Luke 11:50–51).

2. None of the apocryphal books claims to be the word of the Lord, as do many OT books (Num. 35:1, 9; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 1:10, 18, 24; Jer. 1:2; Ezek. 1:3; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1).

3. The OT canon is confirmed by many sources: 2 Esd. 14:45 (twenty-four books); Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.37–42 (twenty-two books); Melito (all OT books except perhaps Esther); the Jerusalem List (all thirty-nine books); Origen (twenty-two books). All of these sources list the same thirty-nine OT books except that they are grouped differently (with the exception of Melito, who may omit Esther).

4. There is little evidence to suggest that there were two different OT canons, one that developed in Palestine and one in Egypt. In fact, Philo, a Jew from Alexandria, never quotes from an apocryphal book as authoritative.

5. There are significant historical inaccu­racies in the Apocrypha. For example, the events in the book of Tobit (1:3–5) are chronologically incompatible: Tobit is said to live in Nineveh about 722 BC and yet also to have seen the division of the united kingdom in about 931 BC.

6. There are theological inconsistencies. For example, 2 Macc. 12:43–45 espouses praying for the dead, but canonical books maintain that decisions about one’s eternal destiny can be made only before death (Heb. 9:27). Eleven out of fifteen apocryphal books contain some type of inaccuracies. Those that do not either are very short (i.e., Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men; Prayer of Manasseh) or their content makes it difficult to determine if they contain errors (i.e., Wisdom of Solomon; Susanna).

7. Many early church fathers spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the Apocrypha (Melito, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome); no major church father accepted all of the apocryphal books until Augustine. The apocryphal books have never been universally accepted by the church.

8. The earliest list of OT canon by Melito (c. AD 170) does not include them.

9. During the Council of Trent, Martin Luther’s views against the canonicity of the Apocrypha were discussed, citing the NT, early church fathers, and Jewish teachers in support. The Roman Catholic Church responded by canonizing the Apocrypha.

The Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha

Even though the apocryphal books should not be considered part of the authoritative canon, they are useful for understanding Jewish thought and interests in the intertestamental period and the development of certain concepts during this period (e.g., the importance of the Torah, the apocalyptic view of history, the kingdom of God).

Traditionally, the Apocrypha consisted of fifteen books that were included in Roman Catholic Bibles and were usually identified as deuterocanonical (i.e., second canon) works. However, more recently this number has been reduced to thirteen since 4 Ezra (sometimes called 2 Esdras or Apocalypse of Ezra) and the Prayer of Manasseh were never found in the oldest Greek codices of the LXX: Vaticanus (c. AD 350), Sinaiticus (c. AD 400), and Alexandrinus (c. AD 450). These two works are now correctly considered pseudepigraphal books (i.e., false writings that were never thought to be part of the biblical canon).

The list below follows the Roman Catholic canon. In addition to these texts, several other writings are included in the Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, and Ethiopian canons: 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, Psalms 152–55, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch (Letter of Baruch), 3 Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch), 4 Baruch (Paralipomena of Jeremiah), and 1–3 Megabyan (Ethiopic Maccabees).

Books included in the Old Testament Apocrypha. The following thirteen books are included in the Old Testament Apocrypha.

• Wisdom of Solomon (latter part of the first century BC): This work contains Jewish wisdom traditions and describes the benefits of wisdom and the joys that accompany righteous living, as well as punishments for the wicked.

• Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus; c. 180 BC): This book is very similar to the biblical book of Proverbs, also containing Jewish wisdom traditions. It includes moral and ethical maxims, proverbs, songs of praise, theological and philosophical reflections on life, and customs of the day.

• Tobit (c. 180 BC): A romantic story teaching that God comes to the aid of those who remain faithful to his laws. Tobit, a righteous Israelite living in Nineveh, is an example to the rest of the captives even in the midst of great adversities. Tobit becomes blind and prays to God to restore his sight. At the same time in Media, Sarah, Tobit’s niece, who had lost seven bridegrooms in succession, prays to God for deliverance from the demon Asmodeus. God sends the angel Raphael to deliver them both.

• Judith (c. 150 BC): Nebuchadnezzar sends Holofernes to punish the people west of Babylon for their insubordination. The author exhorts the Jews to remain obedient to the law amid foreign occupation by the Babylonians. The people of Judea pray to God for help; in answer, Judith beguiles Holofernes, gets him thoroughly drunk, and then decapitates him.

• 1 Esdras (or 3 Ezra; c. second to first century BC): This book is a retelling of parts of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It begins abruptly describing the reinstitution of the Passover by King Josiah in Jerusalem about 622/621 BC and continues to Ezra’s reforms about 458 BC. The majority of the book emphasizes Ezra’s reforms.

• 1 Maccabees (c. latter part of the second century BC): This book describes Judean history and especially the military campaigns of the Maccabees from the accession of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in about 175 BC to the reign of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BC). This work is a very accurate history and is the primary source of recorded events during this period.

• 2 Maccabees (c. end of second century to beginning of first century BC): This book is much more theologically oriented than 1 Maccabees in recording events of Jewish history from the time of the high priest Onias III and the Syrian king Seleucus IV (c. 180 BC) to the defeat of Nicanor’s army (c. 161 BC). It appears to adopt an anti-Hasmonean viewpoint by highlighting concepts such as the resurrection of the body and the efficacious nature of martyrdom.

• Baruch (c. second to first century BC): This claims to be a letter from Baruch to those living in Jerusalem. It begins with a confirmation that Jerusalem was destroyed because of Israel’s sinfulness and was to be read on a feast day as a confession of their sin (1:14).

• Epistle of Jeremiah (third to first century BC): The date of this work is now confirmed by a first-century BC Greek manuscript from Cave 7 of Qumran. The text contains 72 or 73 verses and is most likely influenced by Jer. 10:1–16. This letter, supposedly from Jeremiah to Jewish captives soon to be taken to Babylon, describes the folly of worshiping idols.

• Additions to Esther (c. second to first century BC): These six additions (e.g., Mordecai’s dream and its interpretation, prayers of Mordecai and Esther) to the Greek text of Esther apparently were introduced to highlight the religious aspect of the story that the author felt was lacking.

• Susanna (c. second to first century BC): This work and the next two were added to the book of Daniel sometime during the first century BC. Susanna is tried and found guilty because of the lies that two elders of Israel told about her after she refused their sexual advances. Daniel, however, inspired by God, cross-examines the two men, proves that they have lied, and exonerates Susanna.

• Bel and the Dragon (c. second to first century BC): This work contains two stories demonstrating the wisdom of Daniel. In the first, he outwits the priests of Bel who go each night through a secret entrance to eat the offerings left for Bel. Daniel reveals their deception and proves their great statue of Bel, the patron deity of Babylon, to be a worthless idol. In the second story, Daniel is thrown into the lions’ den for killing a dragon that the Babylonians believed to be a god. However, the angel of the Lord protects Daniel and brings Habakkuk from Judea with food for him. On the seventh day, Daniel is removed from the lions’ den and his enemies are thrown in.

• Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men (c. second to first century BC): Before being thrown into the fiery furnace (cf. Dan. 3:23), Abednego (“Azariah” in Hebrew) prays, asking God to bring glory to his name through this ordeal. Then follows the song of the three young men (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego), who sing praise and glory to God.

Books no longer in the Old Testament Apocrypha. The following two books are no longer included in the Old Testament Apocrypha.

• 2 Esdras (or 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Ezra; c. first century AD): An apocalyptic book dealing with the problem of evil in the world, or more specifically why an all-powerful, loving God allows such great evils to befall humankind. The reason why turns out to be human sinfulness.

• Prayer of Manasseh (c. second to first century BC): According to 2 Chron. 33:10–13, Manasseh prayed to God while in captivity and asked for forgiveness for his many sins. God responds by forgiving him and allowing him to return to Israel. This work purports to record this amazing prayer.

Apollonia

A town in eastern Macedonia visited by Paul on his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1). It is located north of the Chalcidian Mountains on the Egnatian Way between Amphipolis and Thessalonica. It is usually associated with the modern city of Pollina.

Apollos

The most significant role that Apollos plays in the NT is, interestingly, not related to the narrative about him or his service in the advance of the gospel. The name “Apollos” was used by immature Christians in Corinth as a figurehead for their group. They competed with other Corinthian groups for status and honor, following the practices of the secular culture with little Christian discernment. Apollos’s outstanding communication skills, knowledge, and skill at argumentation fit the secular Corinthian cultural values of intellect, knowledge, wisdom, and rhetorical skill. The group may have used his name without his approval and not in his presence. Apparently, Apollos was rather put off by the Corinthians; Paul asked Apollos to go to Corinth, but he preferred to minister in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:12).

Apollos was born in Alexandria (Acts 18:24) and probably educated there. He came to Ephesus, perhaps on business, after Paul had left the city during his second missionary journey. In addition to his knowledge of the OT, Apollos had been instructed in the way of the Lord (i.e., partial Jesus tradition) and was teaching accurately his knowledge of Jesus. He knew only the baptism of John—that is, the baptism of repentance. When Priscilla and Aquila “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (18:26), this probably entailed an explanation of the atoning significance of Jesus’ death, God’s vindication of Jesus in the resurrection, and the personal experience of the Holy Spirit for all believers. After ministering in Ephesus (18:24), he went to Corinth (19:1; cf. 1 Cor. 3), where he was able to overwhelm the Jews in argument that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:28). Apollos returned to Ephesus sometime thereafter and was present in that city when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:8). Apollos probably remained a faithful member of the Pauline missionary band, for he is mentioned later in Paul’s letter to Titus and was probably a courier of that letter with Zenas (Titus 3:13).

Some have suggested that Apollos was the author of Hebrews, but this is only speculation.

Apollyon

The Greek name, meaning “destroyer,” for the angel of the Abyss, the bottomless pit. The Hebrew form is “Abaddon” (Rev. 9:11). The name may derive from Apollo, an important Greek god.

Apostasy

Although apostasy originally referred to a political revolt or rebellion, in the Bible this term is used specifically to describe rebellion against God. While there is a sense in which every human being has consciously and deliberately sinned and fallen short of God’s standards (Rom. 3:23), apostasy is normally used only in reference to those who have known the truth but later flagrantly and high-handedly turn their back on it and reject God.

Apostasy involves a turning back from the faith on the part of those who were previously considered believers. Paul warns, “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Peter similarly tells believers, “Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position” (2 Pet. 3:17). This abandoning or falling away from the faith necessarily involves individuals who at one time appeared to possess faith. The author of Hebrews points out the unlikelihood of restoration of “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away” (6:4–6) and those who “deliberately keep on sinning,” since “no sacrifice for sins is left” (10:26).

There are many examples of individuals who began well and ended poorly. Israel’s king Saul is a tragic illustration of a downward spiral from being chosen by God to flagrant disobedience. Paul encouraged Timothy to “fight the battle well” by “holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.” Among them are “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:18–20). Jude wrote his short epistle to encourage his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you” (vv. 3–4). As Paul looked ahead to the future, he warned how the time will come “when people will not put up with sound doctrine,” but will have “itching ears” and “will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4). Peter similarly spoke of how there would be “false teachers among you” who “will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them,” and how “many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute” (2 Pet. 2:1–2). Jesus warned that in the future “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Jesus did not say that any of the elect will be deceived, but he did say that the false teaching would be so subtle that even the elect could almost be deceived.

The topic of apostasy raises a number of difficult questions, including whether people can lose their salvation, as well as how to minister to friends and loved ones who have rejected the faith they once held dear. Although Christians are divided on the claim “once saved, always saved,” it is important to note that only God is able to see into a person’s heart and evaluate the person’s spiritual condition. God may yet bring those who are still alive back to faith in himself before they die, and even those who have already died may have repented in their final moments of consciousness unbeknownst to any observers. Apostasy is different from backsliding in that it is more serious and permanent, yet we may not always be able to distinguish one from the other until eternity.

Apostasy is clearly presented in Scripture as a possible spiritual danger for believers. Paul warns, “If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” (1 Cor. 10:12). The only appropriate response is to make every effort “to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).

Apostate

Although apostasy originally referred to a political revolt or rebellion, in the Bible this term is used specifically to describe rebellion against God. While there is a sense in which every human being has consciously and deliberately sinned and fallen short of God’s standards (Rom. 3:23), apostasy is normally used only in reference to those who have known the truth but later flagrantly and high-handedly turn their back on it and reject God.

Apostasy involves a turning back from the faith on the part of those who were previously considered believers. Paul warns, “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Peter similarly tells believers, “Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position” (2 Pet. 3:17). This abandoning or falling away from the faith necessarily involves individuals who at one time appeared to possess faith. The author of Hebrews points out the unlikelihood of restoration of “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away” (6:4–6) and those who “deliberately keep on sinning,” since “no sacrifice for sins is left” (10:26).

There are many examples of individuals who began well and ended poorly. Israel’s king Saul is a tragic illustration of a downward spiral from being chosen by God to flagrant disobedience. Paul encouraged Timothy to “fight the battle well” by “holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.” Among them are “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:18–20). Jude wrote his short epistle to encourage his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you” (vv. 3–4). As Paul looked ahead to the future, he warned how the time will come “when people will not put up with sound doctrine,” but will have “itching ears” and “will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4). Peter similarly spoke of how there would be “false teachers among you” who “will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them,” and how “many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute” (2 Pet. 2:1–2). Jesus warned that in the future “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Jesus did not say that any of the elect will be deceived, but he did say that the false teaching would be so subtle that even the elect could almost be deceived.

The topic of apostasy raises a number of difficult questions, including whether people can lose their salvation, as well as how to minister to friends and loved ones who have rejected the faith they once held dear. Although Christians are divided on the claim “once saved, always saved,” it is important to note that only God is able to see into a person’s heart and evaluate the person’s spiritual condition. God may yet bring those who are still alive back to faith in himself before they die, and even those who have already died may have repented in their final moments of consciousness unbeknownst to any observers. Apostasy is different from backsliding in that it is more serious and permanent, yet we may not always be able to distinguish one from the other until eternity.

Apostasy is clearly presented in Scripture as a possible spiritual danger for believers. Paul warns, “If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” (1 Cor. 10:12). The only appropriate response is to make every effort “to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).

Apostle

A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) who received Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he granted authority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as they testified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broader usage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) and Andronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of his calling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).

Apostolic Council

Often referred to as the Jerusalem council, this is the meeting recorded in Acts 15 between representatives of the church at Antioch (most notably Paul and Barnabas) and of the Jerusalem church (led by James and Peter). The council was convened to address the question of whether Gentile Christians should be required to be circumcised and to keep the Mosaic law. Certain Jewish Christians who were Pharisees had asked that Gentiles observe the law upon coming to faith in Christ. Paul, Barnabas, and others opposed such a move and called for the meeting in Jerusalem. At the meeting, the council members sided in large measure with the position of Paul and Barnabas, concluding that Gentiles need not be circumcised or submit to Mosaic law, though they still asked Gentile believers to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat from strangled animals, and sexual immorality (vv. 19–21). Many scholars have suggested that Paul gives his own account of this meeting in Gal. 2:1–10, though others have maintained that he is describing a different occasion than the events of Acts 15. See also Acts of the Apostles.

Apostolic Fathers

An assortment of Christian writings likely from the first through the third centuries AD. In view of their early date and the conjectured association of their authors with the apostles, scholars began labeling these writings the “Apostolic Fathers.” Some of these writings enjoyed immense popularity within various parts of the early church. Many early Christians considered different ones among them to be sacred Scripture. Many of them found places in ancient codices with writings of the NT. They remain some of the earliest extant Christian writings, produced around or shortly after the writings of the NT. They constitute an invaluable resource for studying Christianity shortly following the period of the apostles. Concerning the Bible, they offer scholars early evidence of how different early Christians viewed and handled the writings of our Bible. While they attest to the importance or even scriptural status of many of our biblical writings, they also witness to a similar status for other writings among ancient Christians, writings not included within the Protestant canon of Scripture. The traditional contents of the Apostolic Fathers are as follows.

1 Clement. A lengthy letter sent by “the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the church of God which sojourns in Corinth.” Later Christian traditions identify the author as a certain Clement, supposedly the third bishop of Rome after Peter. This seems unlikely, however, because the type of bishop conceived of by the later tradition did not exist in Rome around the end of the first century, when 1 Clement was written by an unknown author. Many other early Christian writings feature or are (falsely) attributed to this Clement as well. Apparently, news reached Rome that some of the younger men in the Corinthian congregation had usurped authority from the older, established leaders. The letter urges the Corinthians to avoid jealousy and to submit to their established leaders. It often uses passages from the OT and from several writings of the NT, including some of Paul’s letters. It also quotes Wisdom of Solomon (a writing in the Apocrypha) in addition to another writing unknown to us now. Many early Christians came to hold 1 Clement itself in high regard. Some considered it to be Scripture.

2 Clement. A short sermon on Isa. 54:1 from the middle of the second century AD by an unknown author, though later tradition attributes it to Clement. It encourages Christians to endurance and repentance so that they may enjoy eternal life and experience the resurrection. It draws from numerous writings that the author considered sacred to persuade the audience: Isaiah, Ezekiel, an unknown writing, and some words of Jesus. It shows awareness of Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and possibly James, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Several sayings from Jesus that it deploys are best preserved in the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Egyptians.

Letters of Ignatius. A collection of seven letters to different churches and to Polycarp by the bishop Ignatius in the early second century AD as he was being taken to Rome for execution. He commonly stresses the dangers of false teaching, the unity of the church only in the bishop, and the value and necessity of his impending martyrdom. Scholars traditionally understand Ignatius to have been primarily concerned with docetic and Jewish tendencies in his warnings against false teachers. He relied heavily on Paul, especially as a model martyr who shared in the sufferings of Christ and whose martyrdom benefitted the church, but, unlike 1 Clement, he drew little from the OT. It seems certain that he used Matthew, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians. Minimal evidence exists for his use of Luke, while echoes from other Pauline letters (Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians) are common, as are parallels with 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas. It remains unclear whether such echoes and parallels demonstrate literary knowledge or simply widespread traditions ultimately stemming from those documents.

Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians. Ignatius mentored Polycarp, who died as a martyr in the mid-second century, having served as a bishop for forty years. Polycarp wrote this letter, the lone surviving writing from him, to the Philippians in response to their request for a discussion of righteousness and a problem with a certain elder. He stresses the connection between right behavior and right beliefs. He drew heavily from various NT writings, especially Pauline writings. He also seems to have considered 1 Clement to have the same authoritative status as Paul’s letters.

Martyrdom of Polycarp. A writing of unknown date that describes the martyrdom of Polycarp. Polycarp, an old man, is to be executed unless he renounces Christ. According to the account, Polycarp famously responds, “For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?” (Mart. Pol. 9:3). Most or all of the account is clearly legendary. It also explicitly describes Polycarp’s death through the lens of Jesus’ death as represented in the Gospels.

Didache. This writing, whose title means “teaching,” dates anywhere from the mid-first to the mid-second century AD. It possibly stems from an early group of Christians who wrestled with how to keep the Jewish law as part of their following Jesus. It discusses the “two ways,” of life and of death; baptism and the Lord’s Supper (though focusing on the purifying nature of water and without mentioning Jesus’ words of institution or his sacrificial death); and the necessity of endurance for salvation at the end. Scholars debate whether the Gospel of Matthew used the Didache.

Epistle of Barnabas. A writing from the mid-second century AD later falsely attributed to Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas. It wrestles with a common early Christian issue: how to relate God’s new action in Christ to the Jewish Scriptures and to God’s relation to Jews. Especially through engaging in a long-standing Greco-Roman practice of allegorically interpreting sacred writings, Barnabas argues that the OT always “really” pointed to Jesus and Christians. The laws were never meant to be kept literally, and Israel has forfeited its covenant with God because it misunderstood the laws, engaged in idolatry, and was disobedient. The epistle also stresses the urgent nature of the present time and the necessity for Christians to endure and to live rightly in order to experience final salvation. Like Jude in the NT, the author cites the pseudepigraphic work 1 Enoch. He also cites and uses like Scripture Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and several unknown writings. Many early Christians also considered Barnabas to be Scripture and used it as such.

Shepherd of Hermas. A lengthy early Christian apocalypse from the second century AD in Rome. It wrestles with issues of postbaptismal sin, the possibilities of repentance, and the relations of the rich and the poor. It focuses particularly on observing God’s commands and self-control and does not contain much theological speculation about Christ. The Holy Spirit and angels take on many of Christ’s functions. It rarely directly uses the OT, though it does constantly echo Jewish wisdom tradition. Similar to Barnabas, many early Christians treated it as a sacred writing.

Epistle to Diognetus. A short second- or third-century apology for Christians, which also stresses the tangible aspects of Christian piety and service toward others.

Fragments of Papias. Fragments of the now lost writings of Papias, an important early Christian leader contemporary with Polycarp. They give us some of the earliest Christian reflection on the authorship and composition of Matthew and Mark, as well as thoughts on the millennium. Papias mentions his preference for the “living voice” of eyewitnesses of Jesus as opposed to the writings of those who were not. He thus participates in a common ancient Mediterranean sensitivity about authentic sources.

Apothecary

The KJV term for a “perfumer” or “perfume-maker” (see NIV). Perfumers mixed aromatic oils and spices to create ointments for medicinal, cosmetic, or religious purposes. A professional perfumer was required to prepare anointing oils and incense used in worship at the tabernacle (Exod. 30:25, 37; Neh. 3:8). See also Perfume, Perfumer.

Appaim

Son of Nadab and the father of Ishi (1 Chron. 2:30–31) in the family of Jerahmeel. He was a descendant of Judah.

Appeal to Caesar

In the Roman Empire all citizens possessed the right of appeal to Caesar, stemming from the time of Augustus. There is some dispute as to how long it took for this right to be applied to the provinces, and in some cases Roman citizens were refused their rights. In the NT, Paul availed himself of this right in Acts 25 when he appeared before Festus. Paul was brought to trial by the Jewish leaders on false charges that he had led a Gentile into the temple. Festus asked him to return to Jerusalem for trial, but Paul, wary that the Jews would try to kill him, asked that his case be heard by the emperor. Paul was granted his appeal and sent to Rome, even though it was later determined he had done nothing wrong. Acts ends with Paul awaiting trial in Rome.

Appendage of the Liver

In the KJV the “caul of the liver” describes the upper lobe or “covering” of that organ, reserved along with the kidneys and the fat on the kidneys and other visceral organs to be burned upon the altar as food for God (e.g., Exod. 29:13; Lev. 3:10 [NIV: “long lobe of the liver”]). In one text in the KJV “caul” denotes a headband (Isa. 3:18), and in another the covering or encasement of the heart (the pericardium), to be ripped open by God, rampaging like a mother bear robbed of her cubs (Hos. 13:8).

Apphia

A Christian at Colossae greeted by Paul (Philem. 2). Apphia may be Philemon’s wife and Archippus’s mother. If so, as a wealthier member of the church in her home, she would have served as a patroness (cf. 1 Cor. 16:19). Since Paul addresses her as “sister,” some have concluded that she held a leadership role in the Colossian church.

Appii Forum

The Forum of Appius (KJV: “Appii Forum”) was a market station forty-three miles south of Rome on the Appian Way. Some Roman believers traveled to this town to meet Paul on his way to imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:15).

Appius

The Forum of Appius (KJV: “Appii Forum”) was a market station forty-three miles south of Rome on the Appian Way. Some Roman believers traveled to this town to meet Paul on his way to imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:15).

Apple

The Hebrew word tappuakh is most often rendered “apple (tree),” though some have suggested other fruits, arguing that the apple was not introduced into biblical lands until after the period of the OT.

In Song of Songs, the man is said to be an apple tree among the trees of the forest (Song 2:3). He provides shade for the woman, who partakes of the tree’s fruit. Later in the same book, the apple tree is also the location of lovemaking; the woman says that the man arouses her under the apple tree (Song 8:5). The apple tree stands out among all the other trees by its fruit and its scent. In love poetry it provides an ideal setting for intimacy because of its shade and the intimations of fruitfulness (fertility). In Song 2:5, apples are mentioned along with raisin cakes as food that will sustain the woman in her lovemaking, thus serving as a kind of aphrodisiac. In an equally sensuous passage (Song 7:8), the woman’s breath is said to smell like apples, thus implying that she is pleasant to be near as the man kisses her.

Excluding references to the “apple of the eye,” the apple tree occurs outside of Song of Songs only in Joel 1:12 and Prov. 25:11. In Joel 1:12, the apple tree is listed among trees that will be destroyed in the context of God’s judgment. In other words, the fertility of the orchards and forests will disappear. Proverbs 25:11 compares words spoken at the right time to golden apples set in a silver basket, a highly desirable combination. See also Apple of the Eye.

Apple of the Eye

This English and Hebrew idiom (lit., “the little man of the eye,” a reference to the pupil) designates a thing of value to the beholder. God values and protects Jacob (Deut. 32:10) and the city of Jerusalem (Zech. 2:8). The psalmist desires to be the apple of God’s eye (Ps. 17:8) and to enjoy safety from the wicked. In the father’s exhortations to the son in Proverbs, the son is urged to keep the law as the apple of his eye (Prov. 7:2).

Apple Tree

The Hebrew word tappuakh is most often rendered “apple (tree),” though some have suggested other fruits, arguing that the apple was not introduced into biblical lands until after the period of the OT.

In Song of Songs, the man is said to be an apple tree among the trees of the forest (Song 2:3). He provides shade for the woman, who partakes of the tree’s fruit. Later in the same book, the apple tree is also the location of lovemaking; the woman says that the man arouses her under the apple tree (Song 8:5). The apple tree stands out among all the other trees by its fruit and its scent. In love poetry it provides an ideal setting for intimacy because of its shade and the intimations of fruitfulness (fertility). In Song 2:5, apples are mentioned along with raisin cakes as food that will sustain the woman in her lovemaking, thus serving as a kind of aphrodisiac. In an equally sensuous passage (Song 7:8), the woman’s breath is said to smell like apples, thus implying that she is pleasant to be near as the man kisses her.

Excluding references to the “apple of the eye,” the apple tree occurs outside of Song of Songs only in Joel 1:12 and Prov. 25:11. In Joel 1:12, the apple tree is listed among trees that will be destroyed in the context of God’s judgment. In other words, the fertility of the orchards and forests will disappear. Proverbs 25:11 compares words spoken at the right time to golden apples set in a silver basket, a highly desirable combination. See also Apple of the Eye.

Apron

KJV and RSV translation of a Hebrew word in Gen. 3:7 (khagor, khagorah; NIV: “coverings”; NRSV: “loincloth”) that refers to a garment that was wrapped around the body’s midsection. The garment was very basic in nature and served the purpose of maintaining modesty once maturity had been reached. In the NT, the apron appears to be outerwear of some sort. Aprons (and handkerchiefs) that had touched Paul’s skin were used to heal the sick (Acts 19:12).

Aqueduct

A conduit used to transport water from one place to another. It could be either a trough cut into rock or soil, or pipes made from stone or other materials. Aqueducts were used in OT times to transport water into cities from nearby springs. The “aqueduct of the Upper Pool” in Jerusalem is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2. Its location is uncertain, though it is said to be “on the road to the Washerman’s Field.” Hezekiah’s tunnel was an underground aqueduct that took water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam (2 Kings 20:20). The conduit was in existence prior to Hezekiah, but he fortified and improved it in preparation for an imminent attack by the Assyrians instigated by his rebellion against them (2 Chron. 32:1–3, 30). (See also Tunnel.)

In NT times, the Romans built many aqueducts to carry water from springs and mountain streams to cities. Often these were underground conduits, but also they were constructed as large, arched structures made of stone and mortar that gradually sloped downward. The remains of an impressive Roman aqueduct that transported water from the Carmel Mountains to the coast can still be seen in the ruins of Caesarea Maritima. The reference in Rev. 3:14–22 to the “lukewarm” church at Laodicea likely alludes to the tepid water that arrived via aqueduct from springs five miles south of the city.

Aquila

Aquila and Priscilla were important coworkers with the apostle Paul in his missionary effort. They joined Paul in cooperative efforts and also worked in relative independence. They were Christian workers in what came to be important centers of early Christianity: Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome.

Aquila was a Jew from Pontus, the husband of Priscilla (the diminutive form, “Prisca,” is used by Paul in his letters). Mentioned in six verses in the NT as a pair, four of these list Priscilla first, probably indicating her wealth, social status, or prominence in the Christian community. They probably heard and trusted in the gospel in Rome and left that city after the expulsion edict of Claudius (Acts 18:2). Paul met them in Corinth, where they housed and probably worked their trade with him (18:3) before traveling with Paul to Ephesus (18:18–19). They provided hospitality to Apollos while in Ephesus, also demonstrating knowledge of the faith and teaching skill when they explained the way of God more adequately to him (18:26). People of some financial means, they were able to travel and to house churches in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19) and Rome (Rom. 16:3–5). In Rom. 16:4 Paul mentions that they “risked their lives” for him, and that the churches of the Gentiles were grateful to them, probably indicating sponsorship of house churches, teaching ministry, and other missionary work. Since they are first in the list of greetings in Rom. 16:3, it is likely that they were prominent Christians in Rome. They later traveled back to Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19).

Aquila and Priscilla

Aquila and Priscilla were important coworkers with the apostle Paul in his missionary effort. They joined Paul in cooperative efforts and also worked in relative independence. They were Christian workers in what came to be important centers of early Christianity: Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome.

Aquila was a Jew from Pontus, the husband of Priscilla (the diminutive form, “Prisca,” is used by Paul in his letters). Mentioned in six verses in the NT as a pair, four of these list Priscilla first, probably indicating her wealth, social status, or prominence in the Christian community. They probably heard and trusted in the gospel in Rome and left that city after the expulsion edict of Claudius (Acts 18:2). Paul met them in Corinth, where they housed and probably worked their trade with him (18:3) before traveling with Paul to Ephesus (18:18–19). They provided hospitality to Apollos while in Ephesus, also demonstrating knowledge of the faith and teaching skill when they explained the way of God more adequately to him (18:26). People of some financial means, they were able to travel and to house churches in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19) and Rome (Rom. 16:3–5). In Rom. 16:4 Paul mentions that they “risked their lives” for him, and that the churches of the Gentiles were grateful to them, probably indicating sponsorship of house churches, teaching ministry, and other missionary work. Since they are first in the list of greetings in Rom. 16:3, it is likely that they were prominent Christians in Rome. They later traveled back to Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19).

Ar

A Moabite term used as the name of a city (Deut. 2:18, 29), a region (Deut. 2:9), or both. As a city, Ar is located near the Arnon River (Num. 21:28), the northern border of Moab (Num. 21:15). Isaiah predicts the destruction of Ar (Isa. 15:1). No one site has been associated with this place. Ar can also mean “city” in general, not just a specific location. As a region, Ar can be synonymous with Moab.

Ara

Son of Jether, and a leader in the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:38). The meaning of the name is uncertain.

Arab

A town located in the hill country southwest of Hebron. This was part of the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:52). It is possibly the home of Paarai the Arbite, one of David’s men (2 Sam. 23:35).

Arabah

One of several major topographical features of Israel (Deut. 1:7; Josh. 11:16). The Arabah corresponds to the Great Rift Valley running north to south through the land. Situated within it is the Jordan River Valley, which extends southward from the Sea of Galilee (Kinnereth) sixty-five miles to the Dead Sea (Sea of the Arabah). The Dead Sea and its surroundings are also part of it, as is the desert region to the south, which extends 103 miles to the Gulf of Aqaba. Almost the entire region sits below sea level, with the Sea of Galilee roughly seven hundred feet below, and the Dead Sea thirteen hundred feet below.

The Hebrew for “Arabah” (ha’arabah), where the term is preceded by the article, refers to the whole or a portion of this territory (see Deut. 1:1; Josh. 12:1; 1 Sam. 23:24). Conversely, the plural form occurs in connection with two specific localities. The first, “the plains of Moab” (’arebot moab), lies north of the Dead Sea and east of the Jordan. Here the Israelites encamped prior to entering Canaan (Num. 22:1), and Moab led Israel into apostasy (25:1–3). The second census was taken here prior to the crossing of the Jordan (26:3–4). Moses delivered his final addresses on the plains of Moab and died in its vicinity (Deut. 34:1). The second, “the plains of Jericho” (’arebot yerikho), lies opposite the first, west of the Jordan. Here the Israelites entered Canaan (Josh. 4:13). Here too the Israelite males were circumcised and the Passover celebrated (Josh. 5). Finally, it was here that manna ceased (Josh. 5:12). Much later, Judah’s last king, Zedekiah, was apprehended in the plains of Jericho while fleeing the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:1–5).

“The way of the Arabah” (derek ha’arabah) occurs five times, once indicating a road leading from the Gulf of Aqaba (Deut. 2:8), possibly the King’s Highway (see Num. 20:17, 21). Elsewhere the construction indicates a course or direction (2 Sam. 4:7; 2 Kings 25:4). Without the article, ’arabah is rendered “desert,” “wasteland,” or “wilderness” (e.g., Job 39:6), and the Arabah could be conceived of as a desert or lowland generally (Isa. 33:9; Zech. 14:10).

In contemporary usage, “Arabah” applies exclusively to the region south of the Dead Sea. See also Valley of the Arabah.

Arabia

A large peninsula lying between the Red Sea on the west and the Persian Gulf on the east. In the Bible the term is actually seldom used (2 Chron. 9:14; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:24; Ezek. 27:21; 30:5; Gal. 1:17; 4:25), and when it is, it refers more to the general area than to any specific group of people or geographic location. It seems to stand as a designation for that expanse of land that lies to the south and east of Canaan and the Transjordan peoples. On several occasions the term “Arabs” is used to designate the people from those regions (2 Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh. 4:7; Acts 2:11). Elsewhere they are referred to as “eastern peoples” (Gen. 29:1; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10) or “people of the East” (1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; Jer. 49:28; Ezek. 25:4; 25:10). In Gen. 25:6 Arabia is referred to as the “land of the east,” and in Isa. 2:6 simply as “the East” (although this may refer simply to Syria and Mesopotamia).

Clearly, Arabia is a presence in the Scripture, although its role is not nearly as dominant or even as clear as that of other nations or regions, whether superpowers such as Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt or lesser nations such as the Am­mon­ites or the various Canaanite peoples. Still, the importance of Arabia should not be overlooked.

Like many other peoples in the OT, how these people are evaluated by biblical writers is diverse, which is compounded by the fact that the various referents for “Arabs” or “Arabia” can only really be determined, if at all, from a close examination of the context. Nevertheless, we see that “all the kings of Arabia and the governors of the territories” gave gifts to Solomon (2 Chron. 9:14). The Arabs are also said to bring tribute to Jehoshaphat (17:11). Elsewhere in the historical books their relationship with the Israelites is more hostile (e.g., 2 Chron. 21:16; 22:1; Neh. 4:7).

Neither do they escape the attention of the prophets. In Isa. 21:13–16 their troubles are predicted at the hands of other nations (notably the Babylonians and the Assyrians, both of whom waged battles at later points in Israel’s history). Isaiah also refers to Dedanites and Kedar, the first being an Arabian tribe and the second a home of Bedouin tribes. Both references assume their nomadic lifestyle. According to Jer. 25:24, they will be among many nations who will drink of the cup of God’s wrath. According to Ezek. 30:5, Arabia will fall by the sword (Nebuchadnezzar’s) as one of several allies of Egypt.

In the NT, Arabs were among those present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11). After his conversion Paul journeyed to Arabia (Gal. 1:17), by which is meant the Nabatean kingdom, stretching from the Transjordan southwest toward the Sinai Peninsula. Interestingly, Paul’s reference to Mount Sinai as being in Arabia (Gal. 4:25) may suggest a location other than the traditional one of the Sinai Peninsula—for example, across the Gulf of Aqaba (the eastern arm of the Red Sea) in or near Midian (see Exod. 2:11–3:3)—although there is no consensus on this matter.

Arabim

The NASB transliteration of the name of the brook mentioned in Isa. 15:7. The NIV translates it as “Ravine of the Poplars,” the KJV as “brook of the willows,” and the NRSV as “Wadi of the Willows.” This brook may be associated with the wadi el-Chesa in Moab at the southern end of the Dead Sea.

Arad

(1) A Canaanite city located in the Negev Desert, approximately eighteen miles northeast of Beersheba. This was the site of the defeat by the king of Arad when the Israelites attempted a southern entrance into Canaan, the result of which was the capture of several of their own people (Num. 21:1; 33:40). Later, the king of Arad is listed among the conquered kings of Canaan (Josh. 12:14). The city was destroyed and renamed “Hormah” (Num. 21:2–3). The area is also mentioned as a reference point for the land of the Kenites, the descendants of Moses’ father-in-law (Judg. 1:16).

A large, fortified city of approximately twenty-two acres existed on this site in the Early Bronze Age II (3000–2700 BC). Apparently, the Arad of this period had extensive trade connections with Egypt, as may be inferred from the discovery of numerous Egyptian ceramic pieces and pottery, or ostraca. The site was abandoned in the Late Bronze Age I (1550–1400 BC) and not resettled until the Early Iron Age (1200–1000 BC), when a squared fortress was built on its ruins. A temple/shrine built during the Iron Age is perhaps the most significant discovery in Tel Arad. There is remarkable similarity between the details of the building plans of this temple/shrine and the description of the tabernacle in Exod. 27 and the Solomonic temple in 1 Kings 6. In addition to this Arad temple, numerous ostraca with inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Arabic have been discovered. Although fragmented, the inscriptions found on these ostraca appear to be letters to commanders of Arad with military and administrative instruction. This site was clearly associated with the worship of Yahweh, as one ostraca mentions the “House of Yahweh.” It remains unknown, however, if this refers to the Arad shrine or to the Solomonic temple.

(2) Son of Beriah (1 Chron. 8:15).

Arah

(1) The head of the family of Babylonian exiles who are listed as returnees under the leadership of several Jewish leaders, one being Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:5; Neh. 7:10). Later in the postexilic period, Tobiah, the adversary of Nehemiah, married a woman from the family of Arah (Neh. 6:18). (2) Son of Ulla, listed in the preexilic genealogy of the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:39).

Aram

(1) Shem’s son (Gen. 10:22; 1 Chron. 1:17) and ancestor to the Arameans. (2) Kemu­el’s son, grandson of Abraham’s brother Nahor (Gen. 22:21). (3) Shemer’s son in the genealogy of Asher (1 Chron. 7:34). (4) The KJV has “Aram” in the genealogy of Christ (Matt. 1:3; Luke 3:33), whereas other translations have “Ram” (consistently in the Luke passage; the Matthew reference has further complications and thus the versions differ, only some having Ram [KJV, NIV, NASB] and others Ami [NRSV, NLT, NET]). (5) An important Aramean nation located in modern Syria. Many English translations inaccurately refer to this state as “Syria.”

Aram Maacah

A small buffer state northeast of Israel, it was among a group of Syrian states that combined to attack Israel after David’s message of sympathy to the Ammonites was misconstrued (1 Chron. 19:6–7).

Aram Maakah

A small buffer state northeast of Israel, it was among a group of Syrian states that combined to attack Israel after David’s message of sympathy to the Ammonites was misconstrued (1 Chron. 19:6–7).

Aram Naharaim

Literally, “Aram of the Two Rivers.” This is a region of the northern Euphrates above the point where it is joined by the River Harbor in the west of what is now Syria, and thus northwest of Mesopotamia proper. Associated with the patriarchs, its proximity to Israel also made it a place from which opposition might come. Genesis 24:10 notes that it was here that Abraham’s servant came to the city of Nahor and met Rebekah at the well, while Deut. 23:4 indicates that this was Balaam’s home region. Cushan-Rishathaim, Israel’s first foreign oppressor in Judges, came from here (Judg. 3:8), while both 1 Chron. 19:6 and the title of Ps. 60 indicate that the Ammonites hired mercenaries from the region when engaged in war against David.

Aram Zobah

A minor state in the Anti-Lebanon among a group of Syrian states that attacked Israel after David’s message of sympathy to the Ammonites was misconstrued (1 Chron. 19:6), but which he ultimately defeated (2 Sam. 8:3; cf. Ps. 60:1). See also Zobah.

Arameans

Descendants of Shem (Gen. 10:22) and Nahor (Gen. 22:21) identified in the LXX and English translations as “Syrians.” According to the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, Arameans originated from Upper Mesopotamia in the early second millennium. Abraham is referred to as a “wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), which suggests that the Hebrews descended from Arameans.

The Arameans gradually grew until increasing numbers, famine, drought, or other agents forced them to spread east and west. Their eastern expansion faced opposition by the Assyrian Empire, whose sources record numerous conflicts between their kings and the “Ahlamu” (the Assyrian reference to the Arameans).

The western expansion impacted ancient Israel as early as the days of Saul (1 Sam. 14:47). David defeated the alliance of the Ammonites with the Aramean king Hadadezer (2 Sam. 8:3–8; 10–12). King Asa of Judah made a treaty with an Aramean king in his war against Baasha of Israel (1 Kings 15:16–22). King Ahab was defeated and killed in his battles with the Arameans (1 Kings 22:1–38). Later, God provided a “deliverer” (possibly an Assyrian king or officer), which relieved Aramean pressures upon Israel (2 Kings 13:3–5). This allowed Jehoash of Israel to defeat the Arameans and regain previously lost territories. In the eighth century BC the Aramean king Rezin, in alliance with Israel and Tyre, attempted to force Ahaz of Judah into their league to oppose the growing Assyrian threat (2 Kings 16:5–9; Isa. 7:1–9). By the end of the eighth century, all Aramean territories had become provinces in the Assyrian Empire.

Very little is known about Aramean society. They were nomadic pastoralists who established tribal states throughout Mesopotamia. By the ninth century BC, these states developed into monarchies, their kings competing for power and greater territories. There was never an Aramean empire. Although the Arameans were polytheistic, Hadad was the most prominent deity and the patron of the kings. The Aramaic language had a long-lasting influence in the ancient world. It was adopted as the official language of international diplomacy during the time of the Persian Empire and remained so even into the Hellenistic era.

Aramitess

An archaic way of referring to a woman from Aram/Syria (NIV: “Aramean”). The only use of the term is found in the KJV of 1 Chron. 7:14 in reference to the mother of Makir, a son of Manasseh.

Aran

The son of Dishan mentioned in the genealogy of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36:28; 1 Chron. 1:42). Aran became a clan of Edom.

Ararat

Ararat refers to a mountainous region in eastern Asia Minor. The LXX uses “Armenia” for Ararat (except at Isa. 37:38), implying the modern country of Armenia or eastern Turkey (Kurdistan), two hundred miles southeast of the Black Sea around Lake Van (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.3).

As early as the thirteenth century BC, Assyrian texts call this area “Urartu” (inscription of Shalmaneser I). As a kingdom, Urartu reached its peak of power in the eighth century. The same location occurs in 2 Kings 19:37 (cf. Isa. 37:38). These texts show that Ararat could be the enemy not only of Assyria (2 Kings 19:37) but also of Babylon (Jer. 51:27). Along with the kingdoms of Minni and Ashkenaz, Ararat is summoned by God to fight against Babylon and vindicate Zion. In God’s hands such nations are instruments, and God’s supremacy will be preserved.

The best-known reference to Ararat is as the location where Noah’s ark comes to rest after the flood. Genesis 8:4 actually speaks of the “mountains of Ararat,” not one particular mountain. In Gen. 8:2–14 the perspective is of the rain stopping and the floodwaters slowly receding in an extended process during which the ark is deposited on the Ararat mountain range. Tradition has favored Agri Dag, an extinct volcano rising 16,916 feet on the northeastern border of Turkey, as a viable site for Ararat. See also Armenia.

Ararite

Five times within the lists of David’s mighty men the designation “Hararite” appears (2 Sam. 23:11, 33 [2×]; 1 Chron. 11:34–35). Those called “Hararites” presumably came from a place called “Harar” (note, e.g., the NLT of 2 Sam. 23:11: “Shammah son of Agee from Harar”); however, Harar is not mentioned directly in the Bible, and its location remains unknown. “Ararite” was apparently a Hebrew alternative spelling for “Hararite” (2 Sam. 23:33; see the NASB).

Araunah

A Jebusite (called “Ornan” in Chronicles) who sold David a threshing floor on which the king constructed an altar (2 Sam. 24:16–25; 1 Chron. 21:15–27). This story legitimized the locale for the construction of the Solomonic temple (1 Chron. 22:1; 2 Chron. 3:1) by asserting that it was the place where the sacrifice of David averted the destroying angel of pestilence (2 Sam. 24:16, 25).

Arba

A man whose name literally means “four,” Arba was the leader of the Anakites, a tribe of giants (Deut. 2:10, 21; 9:2) that lived near Hebron. The town was originally called Kirath Arba (“city of Arba”; Josh. 14:15; 15:13; 21:11).

Arbathite

A resident of Beth-araba (2 Sam. 23:31) or more generally the Arabah or Jordan Valley. See also Abi-Albon.

Arbite

Paarai the Arbite appears in David’s list of thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:35), showing that he came from the village of Arab, located in the hill country near Hebron (Josh. 15:52). See also Arab.

Arbitrator

One who serves as a facilitator of reconciliation between two parties. The role of a mediator was taken by different individuals and offices in the OT, as seen in Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–32), Moses asking God to forgive Israel (Exod. 32:31–32), and the Israelites begging Moses to speak to God on their behalf (Exod. 20:19). In addition, judges, prophets, kings, and priests assumed intermediary functions at times. Mediation functions bidirectionally: from God to humans, and from humans to God. The prophets are quintessentially the first kind of mediators (God to humans), while the priests took, mostly, the second function (humans to God).

In the NT, the role of mediator is given to Christ, since he alone, as God incarnate, is qualified for it (the “one mediator between God and mankind” [1 Tim. 2:5]). This implies that insomuch as reconciliation between sinful humankind and a holy God is conceivable, Christ alone can facilitate that mediation.

Hebrews develops a theology of mediation by comparing Christ to angels, Moses, and the prophets, declaring that Christ is superior to each in every aspect. Hebrews says that Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Many NT passages present Christ engaging in prophetic ministry as he proclaims and interprets God’s will for the lost world. His priestly work consists not only of giving himself as the ultimate sacrifice but also of interceding for humans before God and giving the “priestly blessing” from his heavenly abode.

Christ’s mediation is to be appreciated in terms of both who he is and what he has done. The eternal mystery surrounding Christ is his incarnate person (God-man) and his atoning death (cleansing all guilt). Through the patristic period and the following scholastic movement, theological reflection on Christ was channeled to the meaning of incarnation, emphasizing Christ’s unique status as both true God and true human that makes redemptive work possible.

By comparison, the Protestant Reformers brought Christ’s salvific and mediatory work into the forefront of their theology. The Reformed tradition developed the mediatory role of Christ in a threefold manner: prophet, priest, and king.

Arch

The KJV translation of a Hebrew word (’elam) more commonly translated “porch” or “portico” (even in its own translation elsewhere) in Ezek. 40:16–36. The word refers to an entrance room or foyer to the main building of the temple (1 Kings 6:3; 7:12–21) and in one place to a covered porch (7:6). This entrance to the temple measured thirty feet wide and fifteen feet deep. The height of the room is generally believed to be thirty feet, though this is uncertain because of a corruption of the original text (compare 1 Kings 6:3 with 2 Chron. 3:4). This vestibule also was the location of the two named pillars, Jakin and Boaz, and was richly adorned with gold.

Archaeology

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archaeology and Biblical Studies

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archangel

A chief or first angel. The word “archangel” refers to a particular class of angels; it also refers to a rank in the angelic hierarchy. In the OT, no particular angel is identified as the highest in the angelic hierarchy. Michael and Gabriel are the two named angels in the OT. In the book of Daniel, Michael is identified as “one of the chief princes,” which is taken to mean archangels (10:13). The distinction between Michael and Gabriel in the book of Daniel is that of function, not hierarchy. Michael functions as a warrior (10:13, 21; 12:1), whereas Gabriel functions as a re­vealer of mysteries (8:16; 9:21). In the NT, Michael is specifically called “the archangel” and is the divine warrior who contends with the devil over the body of Moses (Jude 9); and Michael and his angels engage in a heavenly battle against Satan and his angels (Rev. 12:7). In 1 Thess. 4:16 the imagery used is of God as a divine warrior par excellence who comes down from heaven with a shout, with the voice of his archangel, and with a trumpet declaring his victory as he comes to gather his people.

Angelology is more developed in Second Temple period (intertestamental) literature, wherein the identities and functions of angels are clarified. The archangels comprise one class of angels within the angelic hierarchy. Scripture refers to other classes of angels, such as cherubim (e.g., Gen. 3:24; Exod. 25:18–22; Pss. 18:10; 80:10; 99:1), seraphim (Isa. 6:2, 6), watchers (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23), Satan and fallen angels (Matt. 9:34; 25:41; Eph. 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 10:12). For example, 1 En. 6 gives the names of the twenty fallen watchers (cf. Gen. 6:1–4), and 1 En. 20 has the earliest reference to the seven archangels: Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Zerachiel, Gabriel, and Remiel. There are, however, other lists that give alternate names to the seven archangels. In 3 En. 17:1–3 the archangels are Michael, Gabriel, Shatqiel, Baradiel, Shachaqiel, Baraqiel, and Sidriel. In the Testament of Solomon four of the seven archangels are mentioned: Michael, Ouriel, Raphael, and Gabriel (1:6; 2:4; 5:9; 18:6). In the book of Tobit, the angel Raphael disguises himself in human form and finally reveals his identity thus: “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels, who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord” (12:15; cf. Rev. 8:2).

The archangels also perform various other functions. In Tobit, Raphael functions as a protective guide and healer. In 3 En. 17:1–3 the seven archangels are in charge of the seven heavens, and each is accompanied by 496,000 ministering angels. In Rev. 12:7–9 Michael commands the angel army that battles the dragon and its army. In T. Levi 3:3–6 the archangels are regarded as temple personnel; they serve and offer proprietary sacrifices on behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones in uppermost heaven, the holy of holies (cf. Jub. 2:2; 1 En. 14:23). In a similar fashion, in Rev. 8:1–10:11 the seven angels appear before God and also serve at the altar to offer incense and to take the prayers of the saints before the throne. See also Angel.

Archelaus

The son of Herod the Great who, following his father’s death and by permission from the Roman emperor Augustus, ruled over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (Edom) from 4 BC to AD 6. Archelaus is mentioned once in the NT (Matt. 2:22). Joseph, warned by an angel of the Lord, had taken Jesus and Mary to Egypt to escape the murderous intentions of Herod the Great. After the death of Herod, Joseph was told to return to Israel, but on arriving he discovered that Archelaus now governed Judea. Being afraid of him and warned in a dream, he settled in Nazareth in the district of Galilee, an area ruled by another of Herod’s sons, Antipas.

The reason for Joseph’s apprehension is not explained, but it accords well with what is known of Archelaus from incidents recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus. Archelaus had placed an offensive Roman eagle over the gate of the temple. Two Jewish rabbis, Judas and Matthias, urged their disciples to tear down this idolatrous symbol and were executed. At a Passover festival an insurrection broke out, but in the reprisals that followed many innocent pilgrims were among the three thousand who were executed. Archelaus had inherited his father’s cruelty, and no Jew was safe in his territory. Eventually, he was removed by the Romans for incompetence, and his territories were placed under the direct rule of Rome. This explains why the province of Judea was ruled by Roman procurators during the public ministry of Jesus.

Archeology

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archer

Archers were significant to warfare. As early as 2370 BC the composite bow emerged as an adaptation to the equipment of enemies. Usually stationed on city walls (2 Sam. 11:24), archers gained more mobility through chariots (2 Kings 9:24).

In contrast to the shepherding patriarchs (e.g., Isaac, Jacob), the nonchosen line is self-reliant, symbolized by their bows (Ishmael [Gen. 21:16], Esau [27:3]). Except for Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:20), most of the archers of the OT are foreigners (1 Sam. 31:3; 1 Kings 22:34; 1 Chron. 10:3; 2 Chron. 35:23), with some Israelites (1 Sam. 2:4; 1 Chron. 8:40).

Archevites

Apparently a group from the area of Uruk who were transplanted to Israel by the Assyrians at the collapse of the northern kingdom. In the KJV of Ezra 4:9 the Archevites (NIV: “Uruk”; NRSV: “people of Erech”; NET: “Erechites”) are identified as part of the group that wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes complaining about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Chronologically, these letters to Artaxerxes belong to a later time than that of Zerubbabel.

Archippus

A Christian whom Paul encouraged to complete “the ministry you have received in the Lord” (Col. 4:17) and called a “fellow soldier” (Philem. 2). Since he is greeted in Philemon immediately after Philemon and Apphia, he is frequently understood to have been a close relative and a member of their household, perhaps a son or a brother. Archippus’s relationship to Philemon and Apphia cannot be verified either way. Paul described him as a “fellow soldier,” which probably indicates a position of leadership. The nature of the ministry received from the Lord that Paul refers to in Col. 4:17 is not specified.

Archite

(1) A people group descended from Canaan, Ham’s son (Gen. 10:17; 1 Chron. 1:15). These peoples were most likely residents of Irqata, modern Tell Arqa, located eighty miles north of Sidon in Syria. The city was conquered by Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria and by Thutmose III of Egypt. It appears in the Amarna letters and was renamed “Caesarea Libani” during the Roman period. (2) A clan located southwest of Bethel that became part of Benjamin (Josh. 16:2). Hushai, David’s counselor, was an Arkite (2 Sam. 15:32; 16:16; 17:5, 14; 1 Chron. 27:33). Their territory was the southern boundary marker of the tribe of Joseph (Josh. 16:2) and included the town of Ataroth (Num. 32:3, 34).

Architecture

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

Archives

In Ezra 6:1 the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase bet siprayya’ as “house of the rolls,” referring to archives stored in the royal treasury of Babylon. Most modern versions render the phrase as “archives.” King Darius ordered the archives to be searched to determine whether Cyrus had in fact issued orders for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:17). Similar archives were kept by most royal dynasties in the ancient Near East.

Arcturus

The KJV rendering of a constellation mentioned in Job 9:9; 38:32 (NIV, NRSV, NASB: “Bear”). The constellation in question has been identified alternatively as Ursa Major and Ursa Minor (“the bear”) or as the Dipper (TEV). As with other constellations in the Bible, the purpose of its mention is to acknowledge the vast ordering of the universe at the hands of God and the immensity of his power and sovereignty. See also Aldebaran.

Ard

(1) Son of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21). (2) Son of Bela and grandson of Benjamin (Num. 26:40), called “Addar” in 1 Chron. 8:3 (erroneously?), who was the progenitor of a significant clan, the Ardites, in the tribe of Benjamin.

Ardon

One of three sons of Caleb by his wife Azubah (1 Chron. 2:18).

Areli

The son of Gad who fathered a significant clan, the Arelites, in the tribe of Gad (Gen. 46:16; Num. 26:17).

Areopagite

A name used for members of the famous Athenian council, the Areopagus. Dionysius, one of the few converts of Paul’s preaching in Athens, held such a position (Acts 17:34 KJV).

Areopagus

(1) A limestone hill (also known as Mars Hill) in Athens, situated northwest of the famous Acropolis. (2) An ancient and prestigious council of Athenians that met on Mars Hill and in former days exercised judicial and legislative authority. Paul was invited to address the Areopagus and explain his teaching about Jesus and the resurrection. Among the converts from this occasion, two are named: Dionysius, himself a council member, and Damaris, a woman about whom nothing else is said (Acts 17:16–34).

Aretas

The name of several Arabian kings. Paul mentions Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea and father-in-law of Herod Antipas, who divorced his daughter to marry Herodias, his brother’s wife (see Mark 6:17 pars.). This led to war and the subsequent destruction of Antipas’s army, which the people blamed on his murder of John the Baptist (Josephus, Ant. 8.116). Following the death of Emperor Tiberius (AD 37), Aretas apparently had gained control of Damascus, where Paul, being pursued by the king’s ethnarch, escaped in a basket through a window in the wall (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor. 11:32–33).

Argob

(1) A man killed alongside King Pek­a­hi­ah of Israel during Pekah’s revolt (2 Kings 15:25). However, many scholars believe that this is a scribal error and that this reference to Argob is misplaced from v. 29, thus referring to a place instead of a person. Some Bible translations omit this name from this verse altogether. (See also Arieh.) (2) A region in Bashan in Moab taken over by the Israelites after they defeated King Og (Num. 21:33–35; Deut. 3:4). This region was assigned to half of the tribe of Manasseh (Deut. 3:13–14). Jair defeated the cities in the region and renamed them (1 Kings 4:13). This area is located east of the Sea of Galilee. More specific boundaries are harder to define, and the boundaries of this region may have shifted over time.

Aridai

One of Haman’s ten sons, who were killed by the Jews and whose corpses were hung in public at the request of Esther to King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) of Persia (Esther 9:7–14).

Aridatha

One of Haman’s ten sons, who were killed by the Jews and whose corpses were hung in public at the request of Esther to King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) of Persia (Esther 9:7–14).

Arieh

Arieh, along with Argob, is either one of Pekah’s fellow conspirators in the assassination of Pekahiah, king of Israel, or one of his victims (2 Kings 15:25). The text is unclear (see also Argob).

Ariel

(1) One of the men sent by Ezra to Iddo in Kasiphia to bring back ministers for the temple (Ezra 8:16). (2) A term used of two Moabite warriors killed by Benaiah (ESV: “two ariels of Moab”; NIV: “Moab’s two mightiest warriors”; NRSV, NASB, NET: “two sons of Ariel of Moab”; 2 Sam. 23:20; 1 Chron. 11:22). (3) A poetic term used to refer to Jerusalem (Isa. 29:1–10). In Isa. 29:2 (NIV, NET) the prophecy compares “Ariel” (Jerusalem) with an “altar hearth” (cf. ’ariel, “altar hearth,” in Ezek. 43:15–16).

Arimathea

A town of Judea whose exact location is uncertain. It is mentioned in all four Gospels, only in connection with Joseph, a rich man and member of the Sanhedrin, in whose tomb Jesus was laid (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51; John 19:38).

Arioch

(1) The king of Ellasar who joined a coalition against five kings of the Dead Sea region (Gen. 14:1, 9). Abram was swept up in this conflict because his nephew Lot was captured in Sodom (14:12). Several similar-sounding names (for both Arioch and Ellasar) are known from extrabiblical sources, though none of them can be identified with confidence with the biblical king. (2) The captain of the guard in the court of Nebuchadnezzar who was commanded to kill the wise men of Babylon, including Daniel (Dan. 2:14–15). Arioch protected Daniel by warning him of the king’s order and then securing an audience for Daniel with the king (2:24–25).

Arisai

One of Haman’s ten sons, all of whom were killed by the Jews after their father had been hung on the gallows that he built for Mordecai (Esther 7:10; 9:7–10). King Xerxes granted Esther’s request that their corpses be hung in public (9:13–14).

Aristarchus

A native of Thessalonica who was a close companion of Paul. Associated with Paul’s Gentile mission, he and Gaius were seized by a mob and brought to the theater in Ephesus (Acts 19:29). Later he journeyed to Jerusalem (possibly as one of the delegates of the Macedonian churches) accompanying the collection for poor relief (Acts 20:4). When Paul appealed for his case to be heard by Caesar, Aristarchus sailed with him to Rome (Acts 27:2). Writing from prison in Rome, Paul commends him as a Jewish coworker (along with Mark and Justus) and fellow prisoner (Col. 4:10, 11; Philem. 24).

Aristobulus

The head of a household greeted by Paul (Rom. 16:10). According to church tradition, he was the brother of Barnabas and one of the seventy disciples, who eventually became a missionary to Britain. Others have suggested that he was the son of Aristobulus, grandson of Herod the Great and brother of Agrippa I.

Ark

God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all the inhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark” (Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14–16). Apart from the Genesis flood narrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Bible where this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coating of pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people from drowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht), but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder, sail, or any navigational aid.

Noah was told to make it of “gopher wood” (Heb. goper), which the early Jewish Aramaic translations (Targumim) identified as cedar (NIV, NRSV, NET: “cypress wood”). The Hebrew word goper occurs only here in the Bible, but the Akkadian equivalent (kupru) is found at a similar point in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was, then, the right kind of wood for a boat. The ark was to have “rooms”—that is, cubicles (lit., “nests”)—for the different animals to be housed in and kept apart from other animals.

After the general description of the ark (Gen. 6:14), details were provided by God on how to build it (6:15). Its length (300 cubits), width (50 cubits), and height (30 cubits) were specified. “Cubit” literally means “forearm” (the distance from elbow to tip of middle finger), so the ark was approximately 450 feet (140 meters) long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.5 meters) high (see NIV mg.). We cannot be exactly sure if “roof” (6:16) is the correct translation of the Hebrew word tsohar, which may refer to a hatchway or skylight (Vulg.: fenestra [“window”]; note the NIV 1984 mg.: “Make an opening for light”). Another possibility is “pitched roof.” The usual Hebrew word, gag, is not used because that refers to a flat roof (see Josh. 2:6, 8; 2 Sam. 11:2). The instruction to “finish it to a cubit above” (RSV) refers to the pitch of the roof or its overhang. The “window” (Heb. khallon) that Noah opens in Gen. 8:6 is probably to be equated with this skylight in the roof, not a window in the side (since Noah cannot see out). In Gen. 8:13 Noah removes the “covering” (Heb. mikseh) from the ark, so as to see the surface of the earth. (Gen. 5:1-32; Gen. 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen. 8:1-22).

The ark was to have a door in its side, which was closed by God (Gen. 6:16; 7:16). The structure was also to have three decks, which suggests that the ark was viewed as a microcosmos, with its three levels matching sky, earth, and sea. Genesis 6:17 explains why an ark is needed. The destruction will be by means of water, and the ark will carry Noah and his family (eight persons), as well as at least one pair of every living creature. The NT refers to Noah’s construction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20) and his entering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).

Ark of Bulrushes

The KJV term for the watertight “papyrus basket” (NIV) in which Moses’ mother placed him to save him from Pharaoh’s decree that all Hebrew infant boys be drowned in the Nile (Exod. 2:3).

Ark of the Covenant

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, that represented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb. ’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported by means of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The most important aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attached to the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, which was the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, the ark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between God and Israel.

In a few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collection box (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10; 2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers to Joseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scriptures mention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association with the Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God of Israel,” and the “ark of God.”

The Function and Locations of the Ark

The ark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used for worship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy note that it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is often referred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since the Hebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the common Hebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and the designations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant” (Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod. 27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark also contained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb. 9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location of the ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering and worship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be called the “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifying the ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in the wilderness and indicating where they should rest.

In the book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1; 6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dry ground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to be swept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between the ark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associated with the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that the presence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecrated Levitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by three layers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6, 15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away. In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, and Uzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark to steady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10). Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at the Gilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

The function of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy sought divine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a war symbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21). This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Eastern religious concepts and practices that associated the presence of a god with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and success in battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” links God’s roles as king and warrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool” (1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. Other Canaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembled gold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet, signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron. 28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” and the psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’s footstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked to the formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of [God]” as the centralized place of worship.

The Ark of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eli until it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in their territory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of the ark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’s presence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ false presumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military success and reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Following a plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returned and remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually, King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcing the political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remained in a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple (2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the late monarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assets seized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark was never replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, and Jeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). The ark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48).

The book of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence and purpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14 contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenly holy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercy seat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark. Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant being located in the heavens.

The Ark and the Holiness of God

The Ark of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessary separation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those who approach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing from impurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationship with God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparably linked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to be present among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation. The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with the glory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibility through the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tent in which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence or revelation is not limited to a specific location.

The NT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. God is both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation for sin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonement accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’s sufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replaced the yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgiveness of God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ and salvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross. The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement and reconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence while at the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence. Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ, when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to live with and among them eternally.

Ark of the Testimony

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, that represented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb. ’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported by means of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The most important aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attached to the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, which was the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, the ark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between God and Israel.

In a few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collection box (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10; 2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers to Joseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scriptures mention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association with the Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God of Israel,” and the “ark of God.”

The Function and Locations of the Ark

The ark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used for worship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy note that it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is often referred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since the Hebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the common Hebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and the designations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant” (Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod. 27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark also contained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb. 9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location of the ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering and worship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be called the “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifying the ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in the wilderness and indicating where they should rest.

In the book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1; 6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dry ground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to be swept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between the ark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associated with the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that the presence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecrated Levitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by three layers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6, 15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away. In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, and Uzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark to steady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10). Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at the Gilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

The function of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy sought divine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a war symbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21). This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Eastern religious concepts and practices that associated the presence of a god with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and success in battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” links God’s roles as king and warrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool” (1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. Other Canaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembled gold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet, signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron. 28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” and the psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’s footstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked to the formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of [God]” as the centralized place of worship.

The Ark of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eli until it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in their territory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of the ark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’s presence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ false presumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military success and reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Following a plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returned and remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually, King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcing the political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remained in a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple (2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the late monarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assets seized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark was never replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, and Jeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). The ark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48).

The book of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence and purpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14 contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenly holy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercy seat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark. Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant being located in the heavens.

The Ark and the Holiness of God

The Ark of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessary separation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those who approach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing from impurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationship with God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparably linked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to be present among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation. The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with the glory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibility through the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tent in which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence or revelation is not limited to a specific location.

The NT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. God is both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation for sin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonement accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’s sufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replaced the yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgiveness of God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ and salvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross. The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement and reconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence while at the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence. Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ, when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to live with and among them eternally.

Arkite

(1) A people group descended from Canaan, Ham’s son (Gen. 10:17; 1 Chron. 1:15). These peoples were most likely residents of Irqata, modern Tell Arqa, located eighty miles north of Sidon in Syria. The city was conquered by Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria and by Thutmose III of Egypt. It appears in the Amarna letters and was renamed “Caesarea Libani” during the Roman period. (2) A clan located southwest of Bethel that became part of Benjamin (Josh. 16:2). Hushai, David’s counselor, was an Arkite (2 Sam. 15:32; 16:16; 17:5, 14; 1 Chron. 27:33). Their territory was the southern boundary marker of the tribe of Joseph (Josh. 16:2) and included the town of Ataroth (Num. 32:3, 34).

Arm

Denoting the forearm of human beings or the shoulder of animals, the arm is frequently used as an image of power. Often used with the adjectives “outstretched,” “mighty,” or “holy,” God’s arm represents his power in creating the heavens and the earth (Jer. 27:5; cf. Ps. 89:10) and in redeeming his people in the exodus (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 32:21) and from the exile (1 Kings 8:41; Ezek. 20:33–34). The same image is evoked in describing God’s punishment of the disobedient Israelites (Jer. 21:5) as well as the enemy nations (Isa. 30:30; 48:14).

Armageddon

Commonly believed to be the place of the final, cataclysmic battle that climaxes in the visible return of Christ (Rev. 16:16). The literal rendering “mount of Megiddo” is somewhat problematic, for there is no Mount of Megiddo. The apocalyptic indications relate Zech. 12:11 (the only apocalyptic reference to Megiddo, although there it is the “plain of Megiddo”) with Ezek. 38–39 (where the final battle in history takes place on the “mountains of Israel”). At the least, Armageddon represents the place where the kings of the world will gather for the final battle before God judges the world. The choice of Megiddo may result from the fact that it was the place where the righteous Israelites repeatedly fought off attacks by wicked nations (cf. 2 Kings 23:29).

Armenia

In the KJV, the name of the place to which the murderers of the Assyrian king Sennacherib escaped in 2 Kings 19:37 (cf. Isa. 37:38). The NIV and NRSV, following the Hebrew word, have “Ararat.” Armenia connects eastern Asia Minor (today Turkey) to the Iranian plateau. See also Ararat.

Armlet

A band worn around the upper arm. These bands were part of the spoil collected by the Israelites during their destruction of certain Midianites (Num. 31:50), and one was taken from Saul after his death by the Amalekite who killed him on Mount Gilboa (2 Sam. 1:10).

Armoni

The son of Saul and Rizpah who, along with his brother Mephibosheth and five of Saul’s grandsons, was handed over to the Gibeonites by David as a form of retribution for Saul’s slaughter of the Gibeonite people (2 Sam. 21).

Armor

The Bible depicts war and warlike acts throughout. The arms are both offensive and defensive in nature. The most common types of offensive weapons are swords, axes, spears, bows and arrows, slings, and stones. Defensive weapons include the shield and the helmet. An army’s arsenal was usually kept in a storehouse called an armory (1 Kings 10:17; Isa. 22:8; Neh. 3:19).

Arms

Sword. In the OT, the word “sword” (khereb) appears for the first time in Gen. 3:24 after Adam and Eve have been evicted from the garden of Eden. A flaming sword was placed there “to guard the way to the tree of life.” Thus, the first use of the sword is defensive. Later in Genesis, Jacob’s sons use swords to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:25–26). In most cases the word describes the weapon of choice for most of antiquity. Swords were manufactured of iron (1 Sam. 13:19; Joel 3:10). Some were short and easy to maneuver (Judg. 3:16), while others were long and heavy (1 Sam. 21:9). They could be single- or double-edged, and they were worn in a sheath or scabbard (1 Sam. 17:51; 2 Sam. 20:8). The sword was also supported by a girdle made of leather studded with nails (1 Sam. 18:4; 2 Sam. 20:8). Sometimes, the sword was used figuratively to speak of God’s judgment (Lev. 26:6; Isa. 1:20; Jer. 47:6; 50:35–37; Ezek. 21:9, 28; Hos. 11:6). In the NT, the most common word describing a sword is the Greek machaira, which is used to describe the weapons wielded by the mob that came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:47, 55; Mark 14:48), as well as the weapon used by Peter to cut off Malchus’s ear (John 18:10). Another Greek word translated “sword” is rhomphaia, which describes a longer sword, generally worn over one’s shoulder (Rev. 1:16; 6:8; 19:21). The word “sword” is also used figuratively in the NT. The word of God is designated as “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) and as a “double-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12).

Spear. Four main words in the Bible are translated as “spear” or “javelin.” The Hebrew word romakh is translated “spear” or “javelin,” and it appears fifteen times in the OT. The spear was made of iron (Joel 3:10), and those who fell prey to it never survived its penetration (Num. 25:7; 1 Kings 18:28). The other Hebrew word used for the spear is khanit, which appears about fifty times in the OT. It is used to describe Goliath’s spear when he fought David (1 Sam. 17:7), Saul’s spear when he hurled it at David (1 Sam. 18:10–11), and the Assyrian-made “glittering” spear (Nah. 3:3). The third word is khidon, which appears about ten times in the OT. It describes a weapon in the arsenals of Joshua (Josh. 8:18, 26), Goliath (1 Sam. 17:6), and the Babylonians (Jer. 6:23). In the NT, the word “spear” (Gk. longchē) occurs only once, referring to the weapon used to pierce Jesus’ side at his crucifixion (John 19:34).

Bow and arrow. The bow and arrow was an important offensive weapon in Israel and the surrounding cultures. In the Bible, bow and arrow, either in combination or individually, appear in both a literal (2 Kings 9:24; Isa. 37:33) and a figurative sense (Pss. 11:2; 64:7; Isa. 49:2; Lam. 3:12; Zech. 9:13). There is extrabiblical evidence suggesting that the Egyptians and the Syrians also used the bow and arrow as part of their military arsenal.

Sling. Primitive but effective, the sling was used not only in Israel but also in Egypt and Babylon. Easy to manufacture, it used stones as ammunition; thus it was the weapon of choice for those lacking raw material to build weapons made of metal. Besides David’s use of the sling in his encounter with Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40), men from the tribe of Benjamin used the sling with remarkable accuracy (Judg. 20:16).

Ax. Besides its primary role for cutting down trees (Deut. 19:5; Judg. 9:48; Jer. 10:3), the ax probably was used in war as well. (See also Ax, Ax Head.)

Armor

Shield. The shield is one of the most ancient defense weapons. Two Hebrew words are used to depict a shield. The magen appears for the first time in Gen. 15:1, where it is used figuratively to speak of God’s protection of Abraham. It is used in the same manner one other time, in Deut. 33:29. It is frequently used as a figure of speech by the psalmists to denote the same idea of divine protection (Pss. 3:3; 7:10; 18:2, 30; 28:7; 33:20; 59:11; 84:9, 11; 115:9–11; 119:114; 144:2). When used literally, the term refers to a shield made of wood and sometimes overlaid with leather. Solomon used gold to manufacture shields (1 Kings 10:17), while Rehoboam manufactured them of bronze (1 Kings 14:27). This type of shield was used as a defensive weapon by the Israelites throughout their history (Judg. 5:8; 1 Chron. 5:18; 2 Chron. 9:16; 14:8; 17:17; 23:9; Neh. 4:16). It was also used by the Syrians (Isa. 22:6), Assyrians (Isa. 37:33), Egyptians (Jer. 46:3), and Persians (Ezek. 27:10). The other Hebrew term translated “shield” is tsinnah. This was larger than the magen and was meant to cover the fighter’s entire body. It was the type of shield carried by Goliath’s shield bearer (1 Sam. 17:7, 41), manufactured by King Solomon (1 Kings 10:16), used by the Gadites who joined David while fleeing from Saul (1 Chron. 12:8), and used by Israel’s army during the reigns of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:12) and Asa (2 Chron. 14:8). The Greek word thyreos is the LXX rendering of the Hebrew tsinnah, and it appears only once in the NT. Paul uses the word figuratively when speaking about the “shield of faith” (Eph. 6:16).

Helmet. The helmet had the obvious defensive purpose of protecting a combatant’s head. It was made of leather or light metal, such as bronze (1 Sam. 17:5, 38). In both Testaments, salvation is spoken of figuratively as a “helmet” (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:17; 1 Thess. 5:8).

Coat of mail. Body armor was used for the protection of the warrior not only in Israel but also in other ancient Near Eastern nations. The Hebrew term shiryon is variously translated as “coat of mail” (ESV, RSV, NRSV), “coat of scale armor” (NIV), or “habergeon” (KJV). Goliath wore this type of body armor (1 Sam. 17:5, 38), and his was manufactured of bronze. Despite wearing a shiryon, Israel’s king Ahab was fatally wounded in battle (1 Kings 22:34). In an attempt to strengthen Judah’s military power, King Uzziah also provided coats of mail for his army (2 Chron. 26:14). It was also used during postexilic times, Nehemiah’s workers having benefited from its protection (Neh. 4:16). Shiryon (Gk. thorax) is used figuratively to speak of a “breastplate” of righteousness and of love (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:14; 1 Thess. 5:8).

Arms

The Bible depicts war and warlike acts throughout. The arms are both offensive and defensive in nature. The most common types of offensive weapons are swords, axes, spears, bows and arrows, slings, and stones. Defensive weapons include the shield and the helmet. An army’s arsenal was usually kept in a storehouse called an armory (1 Kings 10:17; Isa. 22:8; Neh. 3:19).

Arms

Sword. In the OT, the word “sword” (khereb) appears for the first time in Gen. 3:24 after Adam and Eve have been evicted from the garden of Eden. A flaming sword was placed there “to guard the way to the tree of life.” Thus, the first use of the sword is defensive. Later in Genesis, Jacob’s sons use swords to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:25–26). In most cases the word describes the weapon of choice for most of antiquity. Swords were manufactured of iron (1 Sam. 13:19; Joel 3:10). Some were short and easy to maneuver (Judg. 3:16), while others were long and heavy (1 Sam. 21:9). They could be single- or double-edged, and they were worn in a sheath or scabbard (1 Sam. 17:51; 2 Sam. 20:8). The sword was also supported by a girdle made of leather studded with nails (1 Sam. 18:4; 2 Sam. 20:8). Sometimes, the sword was used figuratively to speak of God’s judgment (Lev. 26:6; Isa. 1:20; Jer. 47:6; 50:35–37; Ezek. 21:9, 28; Hos. 11:6). In the NT, the most common word describing a sword is the Greek machaira, which is used to describe the weapons wielded by the mob that came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:47, 55; Mark 14:48), as well as the weapon used by Peter to cut off Malchus’s ear (John 18:10). Another Greek word translated “sword” is rhomphaia, which describes a longer sword, generally worn over one’s shoulder (Rev. 1:16; 6:8; 19:21). The word “sword” is also used figuratively in the NT. The word of God is designated as “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) and as a “double-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12).

Spear. Four main words in the Bible are translated as “spear” or “javelin.” The Hebrew word romakh is translated “spear” or “javelin,” and it appears fifteen times in the OT. The spear was made of iron (Joel 3:10), and those who fell prey to it never survived its penetration (Num. 25:7; 1 Kings 18:28). The other Hebrew word used for the spear is khanit, which appears about fifty times in the OT. It is used to describe Goliath’s spear when he fought David (1 Sam. 17:7), Saul’s spear when he hurled it at David (1 Sam. 18:10–11), and the Assyrian-made “glittering” spear (Nah. 3:3). The third word is khidon, which appears about ten times in the OT. It describes a weapon in the arsenals of Joshua (Josh. 8:18, 26), Goliath (1 Sam. 17:6), and the Babylonians (Jer. 6:23). In the NT, the word “spear” (Gk. longchē) occurs only once, referring to the weapon used to pierce Jesus’ side at his crucifixion (John 19:34).

Bow and arrow. The bow and arrow was an important offensive weapon in Israel and the surrounding cultures. In the Bible, bow and arrow, either in combination or individually, appear in both a literal (2 Kings 9:24; Isa. 37:33) and a figurative sense (Pss. 11:2; 64:7; Isa. 49:2; Lam. 3:12; Zech. 9:13). There is extrabiblical evidence suggesting that the Egyptians and the Syrians also used the bow and arrow as part of their military arsenal.

Sling. Primitive but effective, the sling was used not only in Israel but also in Egypt and Babylon. Easy to manufacture, it used stones as ammunition; thus it was the weapon of choice for those lacking raw material to build weapons made of metal. Besides David’s use of the sling in his encounter with Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40), men from the tribe of Benjamin used the sling with remarkable accuracy (Judg. 20:16).

Ax. Besides its primary role for cutting down trees (Deut. 19:5; Judg. 9:48; Jer. 10:3), the ax probably was used in war as well. (See also Ax, Ax Head.)

Armor

Shield. The shield is one of the most ancient defense weapons. Two Hebrew words are used to depict a shield. The magen appears for the first time in Gen. 15:1, where it is used figuratively to speak of God’s protection of Abraham. It is used in the same manner one other time, in Deut. 33:29. It is frequently used as a figure of speech by the psalmists to denote the same idea of divine protection (Pss. 3:3; 7:10; 18:2, 30; 28:7; 33:20; 59:11; 84:9, 11; 115:9–11; 119:114; 144:2). When used literally, the term refers to a shield made of wood and sometimes overlaid with leather. Solomon used gold to manufacture shields (1 Kings 10:17), while Rehoboam manufactured them of bronze (1 Kings 14:27). This type of shield was used as a defensive weapon by the Israelites throughout their history (Judg. 5:8; 1 Chron. 5:18; 2 Chron. 9:16; 14:8; 17:17; 23:9; Neh. 4:16). It was also used by the Syrians (Isa. 22:6), Assyrians (Isa. 37:33), Egyptians (Jer. 46:3), and Persians (Ezek. 27:10). The other Hebrew term translated “shield” is tsinnah. This was larger than the magen and was meant to cover the fighter’s entire body. It was the type of shield carried by Goliath’s shield bearer (1 Sam. 17:7, 41), manufactured by King Solomon (1 Kings 10:16), used by the Gadites who joined David while fleeing from Saul (1 Chron. 12:8), and used by Israel’s army during the reigns of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:12) and Asa (2 Chron. 14:8). The Greek word thyreos is the LXX rendering of the Hebrew tsinnah, and it appears only once in the NT. Paul uses the word figuratively when speaking about the “shield of faith” (Eph. 6:16).

Helmet. The helmet had the obvious defensive purpose of protecting a combatant’s head. It was made of leather or light metal, such as bronze (1 Sam. 17:5, 38). In both Testaments, salvation is spoken of figuratively as a “helmet” (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:17; 1 Thess. 5:8).

Coat of mail. Body armor was used for the protection of the warrior not only in Israel but also in other ancient Near Eastern nations. The Hebrew term shiryon is variously translated as “coat of mail” (ESV, RSV, NRSV), “coat of scale armor” (NIV), or “habergeon” (KJV). Goliath wore this type of body armor (1 Sam. 17:5, 38), and his was manufactured of bronze. Despite wearing a shiryon, Israel’s king Ahab was fatally wounded in battle (1 Kings 22:34). In an attempt to strengthen Judah’s military power, King Uzziah also provided coats of mail for his army (2 Chron. 26:14). It was also used during postexilic times, Nehemiah’s workers having benefited from its protection (Neh. 4:16). Shiryon (Gk. thorax) is used figuratively to speak of a “breastplate” of righteousness and of love (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:14; 1 Thess. 5:8).

Army

The army of Israel was primarily a volunteer military force directed by God and his word. Deuteronomy 20 establishes the guidelines for warfare, Num. 1 describes organization, and Num. 2:17 highlights God’s strategic position as commander in the sacred event of war. Israelite warriors were men twenty years and older from the nation’s tribes, clans, and families. The Levites were appointed tabernacle caretakers and not counted in the census for military duties. The priest was responsible for addressing the nation prior to a battle and then leading the battle procession in connection with the Ark of the Covenant.

The Israelite army structure is not overly developed in the biblical material. Under God as commander in chief was the king, who then worked in connection with his commanders and officers to execute God’s will by means of a tribal confederation. Prior to the monarchy, God worked through Moses and Joshua to rally the men for battle. Samuel warned the nation that the king would abuse the volunteerism of the army and take their sons and make them render military service with his chariots and horses (1 Sam. 8:11–12). This warning was realized under the leadership of Solomon and Rehoboam. Army divisions included a list of family heads, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, and their officers. In addition, a period of their service was noted (1 Chron. 27).

Army size was not a matter of importance for success in battle. God as divine warrior led the nation in battle and determined the outcome in keeping with his sovereign purposes. Only a few Israelites were necessary to defeat thousands (Lev. 26:8; Deut. 32:8). The defeat of Pharaoh and his army in the exodus and the conquest provides the most dramatic premonarchy illustrations of God’s defiance of the numbers. During the monarchy, God orchestrated the defeat of the vast Aramean army with a smaller Israelite army (1 Kings 20:27). On the other hand, when the Israelites were disobedient to the covenant, they would be put to flight (Josh. 7).

The Israelite army fought all kinds of battles under God’s direction. War was a sacred event that involved, for example, the making of sacrifices (1 Sam. 13), consecration of oneself (Josh. 3:5), abstinence (1 Sam. 21:5; 2 Sam. 11:11), the ritual cleanness of the camp (Deut. 23:9–4), the leadership of priest and prophet (Josh. 6; Jer. 34), and the presence of the ark.

Arnan

A descendant of Hananiah mentioned in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles that records the postexilic descent of the line of David (1 Chron. 3:21).

Arni

An ancestor of Jesus mentioned in some manuscripts of Luke 3:33 (followed by NRSV, NET) but thought to be the same descendant of Hezron as Ram (so NIV; KJV has Aram; 1 Chron. 2:9–10; Ruth 4:19) and Aram (Matt. 1:4).

Arnon

The wadi and gorge that runs into the east side of the Dead Sea opposite En Gedi. It formed the northern boundary of Moab (Num. 22:36; Judg. 11:18) and southern boundary of the kingdom of Sihon the Amorite (Deut. 2:24, 36). Its first mention in the OT is as a campsite of the migrating Israelites (Num. 21:13–36). The Israelites captured all the territory of the Transjordan north of the Arnon River (Deut. 3:8–17; 4:48; Josh. 12:1–2). This was given as an inheritance by Moses to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 13:8–33). In the days of Jephthah, the Ammonite king attempted unsuccessfully to regain the territory from the Arnon to the Jabbok Rivers (Judg. 11). During Jehu’s reign, the Syrian king Hazael captured from Israel the Transjordan territory as far south as the Arnon Gorge (2 Kings 10:32–33). It is also mentioned in prophetic poetry in connection with Moab (Isa. 16:2; Jer. 48:20).

Arod

The sixth son of Gad and founder of the Arodites (Num. 26:17). He is called “Arodi” in the parallel genealogy in Gen. 46:16. Despite the different spellings, there is no doubt that the two genealogies list the same person.

Aroer

(1) A settlement on the northern rim of a deep gorge along the Arnon River (modern Wadi Mujib in Jordan), east of the Dead Sea. Because the gorge served as a natural border for surrounding territories, Aroer was a strategically attractive stronghold. The ancient site has been identified with Khirbet ’Ara’ir, and excavations have uncovered a fortress from the Late Bronze Age (1300–1200 BC), with evidence of earlier rudimentary constructions. Aroer was controlled by Sihon the Amorite until Moses defeated him (Deut. 2:36; 4:48; Josh. 12:2) and incorporated the settlement within Reuben’s territory (Deut. 3:12; Josh. 13:9, 16), although Gad was involved in rebuilding it (Num. 32:34). Later, the settlement likely marked the starting point for David’s census (2 Sam. 24:5). The Moabite Stone (line 26) reports that Mesha, king of Moab, rebuilt Aroer after conquering it (c. 940 BC). Later, Hazael of Syria gained dominance over the Transjordan as far south as Aroer (2 Kings 10:33; cf. Isa. 17:2). By Jeremiah’s time, Aroer had once again come under Moab’s control (Jer. 48:19).

(2) A city in Transjordan near Rabbah (modern Amman). This Aroer, part of Gad’s territory, bordered Ammonite land (Josh. 13:25; cf. Judg. 11:33).

(3) A city located fourteen miles southeast of Beersheba in the Negev, where David distributed spoils from his encounter with the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:28; cf. 1 Chron. 11:44). Excavations at modern ’Ar’arah have not yet confirmed its identification with the ancient city since the earliest remains date only from the seventh century BC.

Arpachshad

(1) The son of Shem and grandson of Noah, born two years after the flood (Gen. 10:22; 11:11–13; cf. 1 Chron. 1:17–18, 24). Arphaxad fathered Shelah at age thirty-five, although the genealogy in Luke 3:36, following the LXX, inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah. Arphaxad had other sons and daughters and lived to be 438 years old. Shem’s genealogy in Gen. 11 traces Abram’s ancestry through Arphaxad’s line. (2) A ruler of the Medes in Ecbatana (modern Hamadan in Iran), whom Nebuchadnezzar defeated (Jdt. 1:1, 5, 13, 15).

Arpad

The capital city of Bit-Agusi in northern Syria identified with modern Tell Erfad, about twenty-five miles north of Aleppo. It was conquered twice by the Assyrians, once in 740 BC by Tiglath-pileser III and again in 720 BC by Sargon II. The Assyrians taunted Israel with the destruction of this city as proof that their God could not stop the Assyrian advance (2 Kings 18:34; 19:13; Isa. 10:9; 36:19; 37:13). Jeremiah mentions Arpad in a prophecy against Damascus in Syria (49:23). Arpad is spelled “Arphad” in the KJV of Isa. 36:19; 37:13.

Arphaxad

(1) The son of Shem and grandson of Noah, born two years after the flood (Gen. 10:22; 11:11–13; cf. 1 Chron. 1:17–18, 24). Arphaxad fathered Shelah at age thirty-five, although the genealogy in Luke 3:36, following the LXX, inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah. Arphaxad had other sons and daughters and lived to be 438 years old. Shem’s genealogy in Gen. 11 traces Abram’s ancestry through Arphaxad’s line. (2) A ruler of the Medes in Ecbatana (modern Hamadan in Iran), whom Nebuchadnezzar defeated (Jdt. 1:1, 5, 13, 15).

Artaxerxes

Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) was the fourth king of the Persian Empire (464–424 BC), after Cyrus, Cambyses (not mentioned in the Bible), and Darius. It was an appeal by provincial officials to Artaxerxes at the beginning of his reign that brought a halt to an early attempt to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7–23). Ezra went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his reign (458 BC; Ezra 7:7). The appearance of beneficence in Artaxerxes’ decree (7:11–26) was spoiled by the revelation of the self-serving political motivation behind its apparent generosity (7:23). Ezra’s nonuse of the sweeping powers given to him by Artaxerxes further suggests that Persian royal assistance might not be the kind of help really needed by God’s people. Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’ reign (445 BC; Neh. 1:1). The positive impression made on the reader by Artaxerxes’ personal favoritism toward Nehemiah, allowing him to return to rebuild the walls of his native city, Jerusalem (Neh. 2:3, 5), is undercut by Nehemiah’s disparagement of his royal master (1:11: “this man”). Nehemiah’s second mission took place sometime later than the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes’ reign (5:14; 13:6) but before the king’s death.

Artemas

Artemas was an early Greek convert to Christianity. His name reflects that his parents viewed him as a gift from the Greek goddess Artemis. Both he and Tychicus are mentioned as possible substitutes for Titus in Crete so that Titus could join Paul in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). An ancient tradition suggests that Artemas was one of the seventy-two disciples mentioned in Luke 10:1–20 and that he also became the bishop of Lystra.

Artemis

(1) In classical Greek mythology, Artemis is the goddess of the hunt, and she has associations with woods, wildlife, and chastity. She was the daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo, born on the island of Delos.

(2) Artemis of the Ephesians is a conflation of several goddess traditions. The Carians and the Lelegians worshiped the “Great Mother” during the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC) in Ephesus. Cybele and Hecate were among other goddesses worshiped in the region. With the arrival of the Iconians at Ephesus around 1000 BC, aspects of these and other Asiatic traditions eventually merged with those of the Greek Artemis. By the NT era, the well-established iconography of the resulting patroness of Ephesus depicts her with several rows of small, egglike ornaments across her chest (thought to be breasts) and a mural crown on her head.

Temples to Artemis at Ephesus included a clay-floored structure from the eighth century BC, later destroyed by flood. A replacement was erected around 550 BC, funded by the Lydian king Croesus. Called the “Artemesion,” it was numbered among the seven wonders of the world compiled by Herodotus. However, it was burned by the fame-seeking arsonist Herostratus on July 21, 356 BC, the birth date of Alexander the Great. (Plutarch suggests that Artemis was too preoccupied with the birth of Alexander to intervene.) A spectacular replacement was finally completed about 200 BC, and it persisted into the NT era.

By then Artemis was known as the protector, nurturer, and overseer of Ephesus. Cult practices became a source of civic identity and pride, especially the procession along the Sacred Way, when her statue, dressed by women devotees, was carried to the temple by night, bathed in light. Temple rituals overseen by priestesses involved incense and animal sacrifice; women appealed to her for aid with marriage, childbirth, and child rearing.

The only mention of Artemis in the Bible is in Acts 19:23–41, the incident of the Ephesian riot and demonstration in the amphitheater. This was instigated by Demetrius the silversmith over his concerns that Paul’s ministry was creating an economic hazard for him and his tradesmen, who made silver shrines of Artemis. They also feared that the temple and Artemis herself would suffer a decline in stature. The intercession of the city clerk eventually quieted the mob, but not until they had spent two hours chanting, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Arubboth

A city that served as one of Solomon’s twelve administrative districts (1 Kings 4:10) under Ben-Hesed, governor of the third district over Sokoh and the land of Hepher. This indicates that the city was southeast of Dor and southwest of Megiddo in the northern Plain of Sharon. It is likely located at the modern site of ’Arrabeh in the territory of Manasseh, nine miles north of Samaria.

Arumah

A town in which Abimelek lived (Judg. 9:41). Abimelek was Gideon’s son who was born to him by his concubine in Shechem (Judg. 8:31). Arumah is where Abimelek remained while Gaal, son of Ebed, was trying to overthrow Shechem (Judg. 9:26–41).

Arvad

Arvad was the northernmost of the Phoenician cities. With its natural harbor, it became one of the most important Phoenician ports, along with Byblos, Tyre, and Sidon. The Arvadites were a Canaanite tribe (Gen. 10:18; 1 Chron. 1:16) known to provide Tyre with oarsmen and guards (Ezek. 27:8, 11).

Arvadites

Arvad was the northernmost of the Phoenician cities. With its natural harbor, it became one of the most important Phoenician ports, along with Byblos, Tyre, and Sidon. The Arvadites were a Canaanite tribe (Gen. 10:18; 1 Chron. 1:16) known to provide Tyre with oarsmen and guards (Ezek. 27:8, 11).

Arza

A steward of King Elah who lived in Tirzah. It was in Arza’s home that Elah, in a drunken stupor, was assassinated by Zimri (1 Kings 16:9).

Asa

(1) The third king of Judah (1 Kings 15:8–24; 2 Chron. 14:1–16:14), succeeding his father, Abijah, and reigning for forty-one years (908–867 BC). Early in his life, Asa was a good king, obeying God and removing the worship of foreign gods from the land. He even removed an idolatrous object that his own grandmother Maakah had set up and removed her from leadership in the land. As a result, God blessed him, even providing a tremendous military victory over Zerah, an Ethiopian leader who had attacked Judah with a million-man army (2 Chron. 14:9–15). Later in life, however, he showed a lack of confidence in God when he enlisted the king of Aram to help him against the en­croachment of Baasha, the king of Israel, even paying him with gold and silver objects from the temple. Although Baasha withdrew, Asa’s actions caught up with him when he developed a serious foot disease, from which he died.

(2) A Levite who resettled in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:16).

Asahel

(1) One of the three sons of Zeruiah. He and his brothers, Joab and Abishai, were nephews of David who served prominently in his army. Asahel was noted as a swift runner (2 Sam. 2:18). His speed and persistence cost him his life at the hands of Abner and led to a division between David and Joab. Abner had been King Saul’s general. After Saul was killed by the Philistines, Abner sided with Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth for two years. Most of Israel followed Ish-Bosheth, while Judah followed David. In one battle, Abner and the men of Israel were put to flight (2:17). The swift Asahel decided to chase Abner down. Abner warned him off, but Asahel refused to relent, so when he caught up, Abner killed him. When a rift developed between Ish-Bosheth and Abner, Abner determined to bring the loyalty of Israel over to David. He met peaceably with David toward that end. But when Joab heard, he was upset. He tricked Abner into a meeting without David’s knowledge and killed him in revenge for Asahel’s death.

(2) A Levite who taught in the cities of Judah during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:8). (3) A Levite who assisted in collecting resources for cleansing the temple during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:13). (4) The father of Jonathan, who was one of those who resisted Ezra’s attempts to force Jewish men to divorce their pagan wives (Ezra 10:15).

Asaiah

(1) A servant of King Josiah and a member of the group sent to Huldah to hear Yahweh’s decrees concerning the Book of the Law (2 Kings 22:11–20). (2) A clan leader within the tribe of Simeon who participated in the capture of the Valley of Gedor from the Meunites (1 Chron. 4:34–43). (3) A Levite descendant of Merari who assisted in moving the Ark of the Covenant from Obed-Edom to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 6:30; 15:6, 11). (4) A leader who returned from the exile (1 Chron. 9:5). There is some debate concerning his ancestry. The normal vocalization suggests that he was from Shiloh; an alternate vocalization proposed is “Shelah,” so that all three sons of Judah are mentioned in the text.

Asaph

(1) One of the Levites appointed by David to lead in worship. Asaph was part of the procession to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. Along with Heman and Ethan, also mentioned in the Psalter, he was appointed by the Levites to the bronze cymbals (1 Chron. 15:19). Subsequently, David assigned Asaph continuing duties (16:7, 37). He served further under Solomon at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron. 5:11–14). Asaph is described as singer (1 Chron. 15:17), the chief (15:19), who played cymbals (15:19), gave thanks to God (16:7), ministered before the ark (16:37), prophesied under direction of the king (25:2), and gave direction to his sons (25:2). The sons of Asaph served under his direction (25:2), prophesied and sang with lyres, harps, and cymbals (25:1, 6), and served as gatekeepers (26:1). The descendants of Asaph continued these duties after the exile (Ezra 2:41; 3:10; Neh. 11:22; 12:46). Twelve psalms are associated with Asaph (Pss. 50; 73–83). They reflect his prophetic ministry by including sections of prophecy or of God speaking. God’s covenant and justice are frequent topics of these psalms.

(2) The father of Joah, a secretary to Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18, 37).

(3) The keeper of King Artaxerxes’ forest who provided timber for Nehemiah’s building proj­ects in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:8).

Asarel

The last of the four sons of Jehallelel (1 Chron. 4:16). The LXX renders his name as Eserael, which some believe to be an alternate form of “Israel.”

Asarelah

Son of Asaph (1 Chron. 25:2), he was one of the sanctuary musicians appointed by David. He is most likely identical with Jesarelah (1 Chron. 25:14) and Azarel (1 Chron. 25:18). His name is translated as “God holds.”

Ascension

The visible and bodily ascent of Jesus from earth to heaven concluding his earthly ministry, which then continued through the promised Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost.

A detailed historical account of the ascension is given only by Luke (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:4–11 [cf. Mark 16:19, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel]). The event, however, was anticipated in John’s Gospel (John 6:62; 20:17).

The ascension is frequently implied throughout the NT by reference to the complex of events that began with the death of Jesus and ended with his session at the right hand of God in glory. Paul writes of the divine-human Christ’s ascent to the heavenly realms as the beginning of his supreme cosmic reign in power (Eph. 1:20–23) and as the basis for holy living (Col. 3:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:16). In Hebrews, the ascension is a crucial stage that marks off the completed work of Jesus on earth, in which he offered himself as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin (9:24–26), from his continuing work in heaven as our great high priest, which is described in terms of sympathy (4:14–16) and intercession (7:25). Peter makes the most direct reference to the ascension, explaining that Jesus, who suffered, is resurrected and “has gone into heaven” (1 Pet. 3:22). Therefore, just as Jesus, the righteous sufferer, was vindicated by God, so too will his people who suffer for doing good.

Paul understands the OT as predicting Christ’s ascension (Eph. 4:7–10; cf. Ps. 68:18) and containing incidents that in some way prefigure it (2 Kings 2:11–12).

The ascension is significant for at least three reasons. First, Christ’s death could not have full effect until he entered the heavenly sanctuary. From heaven he acts as advocate and communicates to believers through the Holy Spirit all the gifts and blessings that he died on the cross to gain (Heb. 4:14–16; 1 John 2:1). Second, glorified humanity is now in God’s presence, guaranteeing that we likewise will be raised up with body and soul to share the glory yet to be revealed (John 14:2; 17:24; Eph. 2:4–6). Third, the ascension previews the manner of Christ’s second coming (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ ascension was followed by his enthronement in heaven, where he reigns (1 Cor. 15:25) and from which he will physically return in the same glorified body as judge (Luke 21:27). See also Advent, Second; Second Coming.

Asenath

The daughter of Potiphera, priest of On in Egypt, she was given as wife to Joseph and became the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:45, 50–52; 46:20). An ancient fictional novel-like writing, Joseph and Aseneth, narrates a story of her conversion to marry Joseph. Its date and authorship remain unknown, though likely it was written between the first century BC and the third century AD.

Aser

The name of a person, a tribe of Israel, and possibly a city. The relationship of these three grows out of the biblical propensity for identifying groups and places by the ancestor who founded it. (1) The eighth son of Jacob. He was born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid (Gen. 30:12–13). (2) Some have identified the mention in Josh. 17:7 of Asher as a marker from which Manasseh proceeds in the north as a reference to the city; more likely, however, it simply refers to the shared borders of the two tribes. See also Asher, Tribe of.

Ash

A translation of the Hebrew word ’oren, a type of tree mentioned in Isa. 44:14 as a source of wood for making an idol. English translations variously identify the tree as a fir, pine, laurel, or, based on alternative manuscripts, cedar.

Ashan

A city in the southern lowlands of Judah, slightly northwest of Beersheba. It was first given to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:42) and later reassigned to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 19:7; 1 Chron. 4:32). It is possibly the same city listed as a city of refuge and given to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:59), although it is elsewhere called “Ain” (Josh. 21:16).

Asharelah

Son of Asaph (1 Chron. 25:2), he was one of the sanctuary musicians appointed by David. He is most likely identical with Jesarelah (1 Chron. 25:14) and Azarel (1 Chron. 25:18). His name is translated as “God holds.”

Ashbea

At 1 Chron. 4:21, the KJV has “house of Ashbea,” while the NIV has “Beth Ashbea” (similarly, NRSV, NET), in reference to a guild of linen workers. It is uncertain whether the proper name “Ashbea” refers to a person or a place.

Ashbel

The son of Benjamin and head of the Ashbelites who immigrated to Egypt with Jacob (Gen. 46:21; 1 Chron. 8:1). The name literally means “man of Baal.” He is also called “Jediael” in 1 Chron. 7:6.

Ashchenaz

The first son of Gomer, who is the first son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2–3); thus Ashkenaz is a great-grandson of Noah. A “kingdom of Ashkenaz” appears along with those of Ararat and Minni, which were called upon to oppose Babylon (Jer. 51:27). The name is associated with the neo-Assyrian Ishkuza, which Herodotus records as being the Scythians.

Ashdod

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). Ashdod was situated in the coastal plane of Canaan, roughly two and one-half miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea, near the main coastal route sometimes called the “Way of the Philistines.” The site has been identified (Tel Ashdod) and extensively investigated.

Historical Overview

Ashdod predates the Philistine presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. The first fortified settlement dates to the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC). Records from Ugarit (Late Bronze Age [1550–1200 BC]) reveal that Ashdod participated in the trading of dyed garments and wool (substantiated by the presence of murex shells in situ), and that its population was largely West Semitic. Discovery of part of a stone doorjamb bearing a partial hieroglyphic inscription denoting a high-ranking Egyptian official suggests that Ashdod was additionally the site of an Egyptian stronghold palace. Incursion of Sea Peoples into the region began in the late thirteenth century BC. A layer of ash indicates that Ashdod was partly destroyed at this time. This is followed by evidence of a Philistine presence at Ashdod beginning in the early twelfth century BC.

The Philistines thrived at Ashdod during the Early Iron Age (1200–1000 BC). Expansions of the walls about the acropolis and settlement of the lower city indicate a growing population. Destruction of the city’s fortifications during the first half of the tenth century BC may be attributed to Pharaoh Siamon (960 BC) or possibly to a campaign later in David’s reign.

Ashdod’s fortifications were rebuilt, although they were partly destroyed c. 760 BC (perhaps by Uzziah [2 Chron. 26:6]). In 712/711 BC the Assyrian army, under orders from Sargon II, sacked Ashdod (Isa. 20:1). The remains of some three thousand persons attest to this event, as do three fragments from a victory stela discovered at the acropolis. Ashdod was an Assyrian vassal until Assyria’s collapse, at which point Ashdod became vulnerable to Egypt, then to Babylon. Pharaoh Psamtik I sacked the city after a lengthy siege (c. 640 BC), and Nebuchadnezzar II later subjugated it (c. 600 BC). Items bearing Hebrew inscriptions indicate trade with Judah during the latter seventh century BC.

Ashdod declined during the Babylonian period (626–539 BC) but regained prominence under the Persians, becoming an administrative center for the region. Ashdod (now called “Azotus”) further prospered during the Hellenistic period (post-332 BC), up to the time it was captured by John Hyrcanus (114 BC). The town again dwindled in significance during the Roman period relative to the nearby port, Ashdod Yam, and was destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt (AD 67), although habitation persisted into the Byzantine period.

Ashdod in the Bible

Ashdod is mentioned in relation to both the overall success of the Israelite conquest of Canaan (Josh. 11:22; the feared Anakim remained only in Philistine territory [see Num. 13:28]) and its unfinished nature (Josh. 13:3). Joshua 15:46–47 lists Ashdod in the territory allotted to Judah. That this territory remained largely unconquered by Israel features prominently in the narrative of Judges and Samuel.

When the Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4), it was taken to Dagon’s temple at Ashdod (5:1–2). Excavation of Tel Ashdod has yet to identify this cult site, although an incense stand portraying a procession of musicians may pertain to Dagon’s cult (see 1 Sam. 10:5). In 1 Macc. 10:84 is reported Jonathan’s burning of Azotus (Ashdod) and destruction of Dagon’s temple during the Hellenistic period.

Among the prophets, oracles portend the destruction of Ashdod and the other Philistine cities (Amos 1:6–8; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5–6). Jeremiah 25:20 mentions “the people left at Ashdod,” possibly alluding to Psamtik I’s destruction of the city. Conspicuously absent is any mention of Gath, which by this time had been subjugated or destroyed (1 Chron. 1:18; 2 Chron. 26:6; also 2 Kings 12:17).

Reference is also made to Ashdodites. Notably, “the people of Ashdod” were among those opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls during the postexilic period (Neh. 4:7). Intermarriage with the “women from Ashdod” was common among returning Jews (Neh. 13:23), and “the language of Ashdod” was spoken by their children (Neh. 13:24).

Overall, the biblical testimony concerning Ashdod coheres remarkably well with the archaeological evidence from Tel Ashdod.

Ashdothpisgah

In the KJV this refers to Mount Pisgah, which is in Moab, northeast of the Dead Sea (Deut. 3:17; 4:49; Josh. 12:3; 13:20). In other English translations it is commonly taken literally, “slopes of Pisgah.”

Asher

The name of a person, a tribe of Israel, and possibly a city. The relationship of these three grows out of the biblical propensity for identifying groups and places by the ancestor who founded it. (1) The eighth son of Jacob. He was born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid (Gen. 30:12–13). (2) Some have identified the mention in Josh. 17:7 of Asher as a marker from which Manasseh proceeds in the north as a reference to the city; more likely, however, it simply refers to the shared borders of the two tribes. See also Asher, Tribe of.

Asherah

A cult object as well as a goddess attested throughout the Levant.

In the OT, Asherah refers primarily to a wooden cult object (see Deut. 16:21). That these were objects and not trees is evident from descriptions of their (NIV: “Ashe­rah poles”) being “made” (1 Kings 14:15) and “set up” (14:23). The word appears in common cultic settings—upon hilltops and under leafy trees (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10)—and even in Yahweh’s temple (2 Kings 23:6). They appear also with other cult objects, notably altars and “sacred stones” (Exod. 34:13), and idols and incense stands (2 Chron. 34:4). Whether the Asherah poles were carved images is uncertain, though presumably they provided a stand-in for the goddess or deity.

The Israelites were instructed to destroy the Asherah poles upon entering Canaan (Exod. 34:13; also Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Instead, they fashioned their own (1 Kings 14:15, 23), assimilating them into worship of Yahweh (2 Kings 23:6). Later efforts at removing the poles were sporadic and temporary (compare 2 Kings 18:4 with 21:3, 7). Despite the apparent pervasiveness of these cult objects, archaeologists have yet to retrieve one.

In a handful of instances, “Asherah” denotes a deity. In Judg. 3:7 “the Asherahs” (here indicating “goddesses”) is grammatically parallel to “the Baals”; likewise “Asherah” corresponds to Baal and “the starry hosts,” designating a specific deity (2 Kings 23:4). In 1 Kings 18:19 Elijah speaks of the “prophets of Asherah,” who presumably spoke in the goddess’s name.

Twice Asherah is associated with her cult object: 1 Kings 15:13 (= 2 Chron. 15:16) mentions “an abominable thing” made “for Ashe­rah,” which the NIV renders as “a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah”; 2 Kings 21:7 mentions “the carved likeness of Asherah,” rendered as “the carved Asherah pole” (NIV). In 2 Kings 23:7 the narrator refers to a place where women did “weaving for Asherah.” It is unclear what these weavings were, though possibly they were cult garments or coverings for the cult image.

Outside the Bible, Asherah is attested in Mesopotamian, Hittite, and Philistine texts. The most comprehensive portrait of the goddess, however, comes from the Ras Shamra tablets (Ugarit). Designated “Athirat,” she was consort to El and Mother of the gods (who are called “the seventy sons of Athirat”). She is further designated as “Lady Athirat of the Sea” (in the Baal myth Sea is Athirat’s son); alternate renderings include “the Lady who treads on the Sea,” and “Lady Athirat of the Day.” In the Kirta Epic, Athirat is portrayed as the patron goddess of Tyre and Sidon (see Ashtaroth).

Inscriptions discovered at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (associated with Iron Age Israel) mention Yahweh and “his Asherah.” Disagreement exists over whether the term here reflects a cult object, a shrine, or the goddess. Also debated is whether this represents a combination of Yahwistic belief or a form of Yahwism predating monotheism.

Ashes

Domestic fires, sacrifices, or large conflagrations produced ashes (1 Kings 20:38 KJV; 2 Kings 23:4; Job 2:8; Ps. 147:16). Ashes had physical and figurative significance. With dust and sackcloth, ashes were placed on the head and body to signify mourning and grief (2 Sam. 13:19; Job 2:8), personal or national (Esther 4:3; Isa. 58:5), or repentance (Jon. 3:6; Matt. 11:21). Such grief was associated with prayer and fasting.

Figuratively, persons or things could be viewed as worthless through the imagery of ashes (Isa. 44:20), and ashes could communicate destruction and human mortality when used with dust (Gen. 18:27; Job 30:19; Ezek. 27:30; Mal. 3:19; see also Sir. 10:9; 17:32). Ashes of the red heifer were special and used for ritual cleansing (Num. 19:9–10, 17–19).

Ashhur

Son of either Hezron or Caleb (1 Chron. 2:24). The Hebrew text suggests that he was conceived in Caleb Ephrathah, while other ancient versions suggest that he was born to Caleb and Ephrathah after the death of Hezron. If the latter is correct, he may be identified as the same person as Hur in 1 Chron. 2:19. He also perhaps established the village of Tekoa, since he is identified as the “father” or “founder” of Tekoa (1 Chron. 2:24; 4:5).

Ashima

A deity of unknown origin made and worshiped by the people in Hamath after being relocated to Samaria by Sargon II (late eighth century BC; 2 Kings 17:30). One possible interpretation of “Ashima” is that it means “the name” and thus refers to Anat or Astarte or Asherah, all manifestations of Baal. A form of this name was found at the Jewish community in Elephantine c. 400 BC as a consort of Yahweh. Another possible reference to Ashima is found in Amos 8:14, where Israel swore oaths by the “sin of Samaria” (NRSV: “Ashimah of Samaria”), “shame” being another possible translation of the word “Ashima.”

Ashkelon

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). It was situated approximately midway between Ashdod (north) and Gaza (south) on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Historical Overview

Evidence of settlement dates to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 BC), although the earliest references to the city stem from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200–1200 BC). Ashkelon is mentioned among the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC) as an enemy of Egypt and in the Amarna tablets (1400 BC), where the city’s ruler affirms fealty to the pharaoh. Excavation confirms an Egyptian presence at Ashkelon during the Late Bronze Age; the city remained under Egyptian control until the incursion of the Sea Peoples (early twelfth century BC), after which Ashkelon was occupied by the Philistines.

Ashkelon remained under Philistine control until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria and Israel (734–732 BC), when it became an Assyrian vassal. During Sennacherib’s reign Ashkelon’s king joined Hezekiah in revolt against Assyria and was deported (701 BC). In 604 BC, following Assyria’s demise, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon and deported the survivors, several of whom received rations at the Babylonian court (cf. Dan. 1:5).

During the Persian period Ashkelon was reestablished as a Tyrian market city, thus becoming prosperous once more. The city was never conquered by the Hasmoneans (mid-second to mid-first centuries BC; 1 Macc. 10:86; 11:60), and eventually it asserted its independence, signified by the minting of its own coins (beginning 111 BC). Herod the Great was purportedly a native of Ashkelon, and he lavished the city with public works projects. During the First Jewish Revolt, Ashkelon successfully defended itself against Jewish attack.

Excavations have located the council house and an elaborately painted tomb (Roman period), as well as the remains of a church and a synagogue (Byzantine period). Ashkelon came under Muslim control (seventh century AD), then briefly under Crusader control (AD 1153). The city was destroyed by Saladin (AD 1191) as he retreated before Richard the Lionheart.

Ashkelon in the Bible

Ashkelon was listed among the territory still to be conquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3). Judah took the city but ultimately was unable to keep it (Judg. 1:18–19). The OT subsequently reckoned Ashkelon as part of Philistine territory, beginning with Judg. 14:19, which recounts one of Samson’s exploits.

Ashkelon shared in the affliction visited on the Philistines for taking the Ark of the Covenant, which they attempted to forestall by reparations or “sympathetic magic” (1 Sam. 6:17 [the “gold tumors” were likely meant to bear away the source of the Philistines’ suffering]). Ashkelon and Gath represent the Philistines overall as David anticipates their response to news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2 Sam. 1:20).

The remaining references occur in the prophets, who portended the destruction of Ashkelon and the other Philistine cities at various times (Jer. 25:20; 47:5, 7; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4, 7; Zech. 9:5). Notably, Zeph. 2:7 expected that Judah would finally take possession of Ashkelon.

Ashkenaz

The first son of Gomer, who is the first son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2–3); thus Ashkenaz is a great-grandson of Noah. A “kingdom of Ashkenaz” appears along with those of Ararat and Minni, which were called upon to oppose Babylon (Jer. 51:27). The name is associated with the neo-Assyrian Ishkuza, which Herodotus records as being the Scythians.

Ashnah

(1) A city in the lowlands, probably related to the modern ruin Aslin (Josh. 15:33). (2) A city in the southern lowlands in the district of Libnah (Josh. 15:43). Both of these cities were in the allotment of Judah.

Ashpenaz

The chief eunuch in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 1:3), whom the king charged with the task of bringing in and training some young Israelite men to serve in his court. Ashpenaz changed the names of Daniel and his three friends to Babylonian names. Following the king’s orders, he refused to let the four young men follow a strict diet of vegetables and water, but Daniel found a way to avoid the diet required by Nebuchadnezzar.

Ashriel

Asriel was a great-grandson of Manasseh (Num. 26:31); less likely, he was the son of Gilead (1 Chron. 7:14). The Asrielites were given land on the western side of the Jordan (Josh. 17:2).

Ashtaroth

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

Ashteroth Karnaim

A city in Gilead near, or possibly also known as, Ashteroth Karnaim or Ashtaroth. It was inhabited by the Rephaim and subdued by Kedorlaomer king of Elam in the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:5). Amos makes a wordplay with the name of the city, which means “double-horned” and thus symbolizes strength. The Israelites boast of defeating a city whose name is synonymous with military might (Amos 6:13).

Ashtoreth

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

Ashur

One of the sons of Shem, Ashur is usually identified as the progenitor of the Assyrian people (Gen. 10:22). The name “Ashur” is also associated synonymously with the nation of Assyria, being applied to the people, capital, god, and whole of the nation itself. According to Gen. 10, the people would have been descendants of Shem and therefore Semitic, like the children of Israel.

Ashurbanipal

In 668 BC Ashurbanipal succeeded his father, Esarhaddon, in Assyria, while his brother Shamash-shum-ukin became the ruler of Babylon. Esarhaddon had made his vassals swear loyalty to the two sons before his death. They were able to rule peacefully alongside each other for seventeen years, with Ashurbanipal as the superior. Then a civil war broke out between them in 651 BC, which Ashurbanipal won, though at great cost. Less is known of him after this victory, and perhaps the decline of Assyria begins at that point.

Early in his reign he conquered Egypt as far south as Thebes, while to the east he defeated the Medes, which helped pave the way for the rise of the Persians. He may be the king who captured Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11–12).

Ashurbanipal had not been intended for the throne until an older brother died. This meant that his education had been different than it would have been as a crown prince. Most significantly, he learned to read and write Assyrian cuneiform texts, a formidable task. But as king he collected an impressive library of “canonical” works, which has been invaluable to historians since its rediscovery.

Ashuri

The Hebrew vocalization of a group identified as part of the brief kingdom of Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:9; several modern versions read “Ashurites”). This vocalization, however, is largely in doubt due to disagreement in ancient texts and the fact that this group would otherwise be unknown to us. Therefore, many interpreters believe that the original reference was to either the Asherites or the Gesherites.

Ashurites

In Gen. 25:3, the Ashurites are listed among the descendants of Dedan, the grandson of Abraham by Keturah. While some think the Ashurites here are to be considered the foundation of the Assyrian kingdom, more likely this is a reference to a tribe near Egypt that is mentioned in South Arabian inscriptions. The KJV also identifies “the company of the Ashurites” (bat-’ashurim) in Ezek. 27:6 as ivory workers for Tyre, but most modern translations, using alternate word division and vowels for the Hebrew, take this as a reference to a type of wood, not a people group. See also Ashuri.

Ashvath

A descendant of Asher, from the house of Japhlet (1 Chron. 7:33).

Asia

A Roman province in western Asia Minor, not to be confused with the modern designation for the larger continent. The exact boundaries are difficult to determine, but the region, formed in 133–130 BC, and since the time of Augustus ruled by proconsuls, included the older kingdoms of Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and part of Phrygia, as well as several islands. Paul and his companions enjoyed an especially successful mission in Asia (Acts 19:10, 22, 26–27; Rom. 16:5). He later wrote letters to Christians in Colossae and Ephesus (Ephesians; 1 Timothy). Inscriptions attest to the wealth of many Ephesians. Through Timothy, Paul warns those pursuing wealth in the city (1 Tim. 6:9–10; cf. Rev. 3:17). The apostle John eventually settled in Ephesus and later was exiled to the island of Patmos, where he wrote to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4–3:22).

Asia Minor

Asia Minor, the land area of modern-day Turkey, was initially settled by the Hatti people between 2500 and 2000 BC. Toward the end of that period, the Indo-European Hittites, drawn to the mild climate, began a slow settlement alongside the indigenous Hattis, mixing peaceably with them. By 1750 BC, the Hittites had become the dominant people group.

In the twelfth century BC the Hittites fell to the Sea Peoples. They developed coastal cities along the Aegean, which by the eighth century were conquered by the Greeks. The Lydian king Croesus came to power in 560 BC in Sardis and subdued the Greeks, only to fall in 546 BC to Cyrus of Persia. In 334–333 BC Alexander the Great defeated the Persians in two key battles and won Asia Minor. After Alexander’s death, one of his generals, Seleucus, took over. Then, in 190 BC the Romans defeated the Seleucids and assumed control. This inaugurated an extended period of peace, during which time Jewish communities of the Diaspora settled throughout the region.

The missionary journeys of the apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) took him into and around much of Asia Minor, and directly or indirectly he was responsible for the establishment of most of the first-century churches there. The following cities of Asia Minor are mentioned in the NT.

Eastern Mediterranean

Tarsus. The birthplace of the apostle Paul (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3), Tarsus is located on the Mediterranean coast, nine miles northeast of modern-day Mersin. Tarsus became the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia in 67 BC. Cleopatra and Mark Antony met and built their fleet in this grand city. When his life was threatened after his conversion, Paul was sent to Tarsus from Jerusalem (9:30).

Antioch. Antioch (Antakya) is located just inland from the Mediterranean coast, on the east bank of the Orontes River. Jewish and Gentile believers who fled Jerusalem after the death of Stephen planted a church here, where followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” Barnabas brought Saul from Tarsus to Antioch, where they labored together for a year, teaching the church, prior to setting off on their first missionary journey (Acts 11:19–30). Paul later returned, along with Silas, bearing the requirements for Gentile believers from the Jerusalem council (15:22–35).

Southern Ports

Seleucia. Known today as Samandağ, Seleucia was Antioch’s port, the place from which Saul, Barnabas, and John Mark embarked on their first missionary journey in AD 47 (Acts 13:4).

Perga in Pamphylia. Perga is just east of Antalya on the southern Mediterranean coast. Archimedes’ student Apollonius the mathematician lived here in the late third century BC. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas disembarked in Perga for destinations in southwestern Asia Minor, while John Mark left them to return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13–14). On their return trip of the same journey, Paul and Barnabas stopped in Perga again, this time preaching before heading to Attalia (14:25).

Galatia

The following cities became part of the politically defined Roman province of Galatia in 25 BC. They are to be distinguished from ethnic Galatia, which is a region further north, around modern-day Ankara.

Pisidian Antioch. Modern Yalvaç, or Pisidian Antioch, is northeast of Isparta in the lake region. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue here and generated enormous interest in the gospel (Acts 13:14–43). The following Sabbath, nearly the entire city came out to listen to them. Jealous Jewish leaders incited a persecution, causing Paul and Barnabas to reorient their ministry to Gentiles and then leave the region for Iconium (13:26–51). They returned on their way back to Antioch to strengthen the disciples and appoint elders (14:21–23).

Iconium. Iconium, today called Konya, is about sixty-five miles southeast of Pisidian Antioch. It is one of the most ancient settlements of the region, dating to the third millennium BC. Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue here on their first missionary journey, initially winning Jewish and Gentile converts but angering other Jews. Paul and Barnabas eventually feared for their safety and escaped to Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:1–6). However, they came back on the return trip to Antioch (14:21–23). Iconium is also noteworthy as the home of the ascetic St. Thecla from the apocryphal second-century Christian text Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Lystra. Frequently mentioned with Derbe (Acts 14:6; 16:1), Lystra (modern Hatunsaray) is nineteen miles south of Iconium. Paul and Barnabas fled here from Iconium and preached. Paul healed a lame man, and as a result he and Barnabas were presumed by the enthusiastic crowd to be Zeus and Hermes. At the instigation of Paul’s Jewish opponents, the crowd’s sentiments turned, and Paul was nearly stoned to death. He and Barnabas left for Derbe the following day (14:6–20), but they came back on their return trip (14:21–23). Paul returned on his second missionary journey, where he met his protégé, Timothy (16:1–2).

Derbe. About fifty miles southeast of Lystra and slightly north of present-day Karaman is Derbe. Paul and Barnabas fled here after Paul’s stoning in Lystra on their first missionary journey, preached the gospel, made many disciples, and appointed elders (Acts 14:21–23). Among the disciples likely was Gaius, who later accompanied Paul during his third missionary journey (Acts 20:4).

Western Aegean Ports

Troas. Troas was a major northwest seaport located about twelve miles southwest of Troy. On his second missionary journey, Paul, traveling with Silas and Timothy, was prevented from entering Bithynia by the Spirit of Christ and went instead to Troas. Here he had a vision beckoning him to Macedonia, which he promptly obeyed (Acts 16:6–11). Because this is the first of the so-called “we” passages in Acts, Luke may have joined the group here (16:10). Paul also stopped at Troas on the return to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey. There he raised Eutychus after the latter’s traumatic fall (20:4–12). Troas is mentioned twice more, suggesting that Paul spent time here in addition to the above visits (2 Cor. 2:12–13; 2 Tim. 4:13).

Adramyttium. A few miles south of Troas was the port of Adramyttium. It was the origin of the ship that transported Paul from Caesarea to Myra around AD 60 en route to Rome (Acts 27:2).

Assos. Assos is an acropolis sitting 774 feet above sea level, up from the village of Behramkale. It overlooks the Bay of Edremit and has a splendid view of Lesbos. Doric columns from the seventh-century BC temple of Athena are prominent at the site. According to Acts 20:13–14, on his return from his third missionary journey, Paul went overland from Troas to Assos, and there he joined his traveling companions on their ship. From here on the way to Miletus, they made several nearby island stops off the coast of Asia Minor: Mitylene on Lesbos, Chios, and Samos (20:14–16).

Miletus. Located about twenty miles south of Ephesus, at the point where the Meander River met the Gulf of Latmus (now silted over), was the important southwestern seaport of Miletus. The city was significant in the NT era for its four harbors. A center for commerce, scholarship, geometry, and science, it was also the prototype for principles of city planning later applied throughout the Roman Empire. On his third missionary journey, Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders took place here (Acts 20:15–38). Later he left the ill Trophimus in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20).

Southwestern Ports

Patara. Sitting on the Mediterranean coast at the mouth of the Xanthus River, about forty miles west of present-day Demre, Patara was a flourishing harbor and commercial center in antiquity. Paul changed ships here as he returned to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey, after island stops in Kos and Rhodes (Acts 21:1–2).

Myra. Myra is a coastal ruin due south of present-day Demre. In the NT era, the seaport featured a Roman theater, Roman baths, and two rock-cut necropolises. Here, Paul changed ships around AD 60 on his way to Rome while in the custody of a centurion (Acts 27:5). Myra is perhaps best known as the home of the fourth-century bishop St. Nicholas, who was from nearby Patara.

Cnidus. At the tip of the long, narrow Datca peninsula on the extreme southwestern corner of Asia Minor lies Cnidus. Founded around 360 BC, the acropolis rises 1,000 feet above sea level. The port included two harbors and four theaters but was most famous for its fourth-century BC statue of Aphrodite, carved by the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles. Around AD 60 the ship carrying Paul to Rome stopped here because of slow winds and changed course (Acts 27:7).

Seven Churches of Revelation; Lycus Valley

The seven churches of Rev. 1–3 lay along a north-south elliptical route in western Asia Minor. Laodicea, the seventh, forms a tight geographic triangle with Hierapolis and Colossae in the Lycus Valley.

Ephesus. Known today as Selçuk, ancient Ephesus is located on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor at the mouth of the Cayster River. It was founded in the eleventh century BC by the Ionians and later ruled successively by the Athenians, Spartans, Persians, and Greeks. Roman governance began in 190 BC. Later, Ephesus became the capital of the province of Asia, as well as its most important commercial center. During the NT era, the Artemision (see Artemis) was an important pilgrimage site.

Paul stopped in Ephesus briefly on his second missionary journey, leaving Priscilla and Aquila. They later encountered and mentored Apollos there (Acts 18:19–26). On his third journey, Paul remained in Ephesus for three years, teaching, performing miracles, and healing the sick (19:1–22) until the riot incited by Demetrius the silversmith (20:1). He wrote 1 Corinthians in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) and later wrote to the Ephesians from his Roman prison cell (Eph. 3:1) as well as to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3).

In Rev. 2:1–7 the Ephesian church is commended for its perseverance but chastised for having lost its first love.

Smyrna. Smyrna (modern İzmir) is located about thirty-five miles north along the coast from Ephesus. In 195 BC it became the first city in Asia Minor to erect a temple for the imperial cult, and by the next century it was known as “the ornament of Asia.” In its letter, which mentions no negatives, the church is encouraged to be faithful in its suffering (Rev. 2:8–11).

Pergamum. About seventy miles north of Smyrna is Pergamum (modern Bergama). The dazzling acropolis sits one thousand feet high and about sixteen miles inland from the Aegean. The Attalids, who ruled 263–133 BC, allied Pergamum with Rome and built it into a major religious and intellectual center, constructing the great altar to Zeus Soter, the temple to Athena Nicephorus, and the large complex dedicated to Asclepius Soter. They also established a ruler cult and built a library containing two hundred thousand volumes, which at its peak was second only to the library at Alexandria.

The letter to the church (Rev. 2:12–17) references Satan’s throne, which many believe to be a reference to the altar to Zeus. The church is commended for its faithfulness and yet is admonished for tolerating those advocating pagan practices within the community.

Thyatira. Thyatira (now called Akhisar) is about thirty-five miles southeast of Pergamum. It was mainly noted as having a significant concentration of trade guilds, especially those connected with textiles. Lydia, Paul’s disciple and host in Philippi, was a dealer in purple cloth from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). The church is commended for its good deeds but criticized for tolerating the false teacher Jezebel (Rev. 2:18–29).

Sardis. Forty-five miles east of Smyrna, on the banks of the Pactolus, is Sardis, where Croesus, the sixth-century BC Lydian king, was said to have panned for gold. He also built an impressive Ionic temple to Artemis here. Archaeological evidence points to the presence of a significant Jewish community in Sardis, about which the NT is silent.

The letter to Sardis is a stern warning to wake up, highlighting the church’s incomplete deeds and impurity (Rev. 3:1–6).

Philadelphia. Philadelphia (modern Alaşehir) is twenty-six miles southwest of Sardis on the Cogamis River. The city was noted for its wine production, and it was nicknamed “Little Athens” during the Roman era. Its letter is thoroughly positive; the church is commended for its deeds and faithfulness (Rev. 3:7–13).

Laodicea. Laodicea is located about a hundred miles east of Ephesus, in a valley where the Lycus River joins the Meander; Hierapolis is just to the north, and Colossae just to the east. Laodicea was founded in the third century BC by the Seleucid king Antiochus II, who named it after his wife. Cicero served as proconsul there in 51 BC.

Laodicea was a prosperous city, a center for banking, eye salve (“Phrygian powder”), and wool production. Its water was supplied via aqueducts from Hierapolis’s hot springs, but it arrived lukewarm and heavy with mineral impurities—no match for either its hot source or Colossae’s cold springs. The Laodicean letter employs all of this background in its harsh message to the church, which it describes as tepid, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:14–22).

Hierapolis. Eight miles to the north of Laodicea, Hierapolis sits atop dramatic white cliffs created by its hot springs (Col. 4:13). The city was home to the reputed entrance to the underworld, the Plutonium, and had an enormous necropolis.

Colossae. Colossae, ten miles east of Laodicea, was a center for dyed red wool. Although wealthy in the late fourth century BC, it was later eclipsed by Laodicea.

The churches in Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae (the oldest of the three cities) were begun by Epaphras and shared letters, including Paul’s letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:13–16). The slave Onesimus carried it, along with the Letter to Philemon, to Colossae, where Philemon hosted the house church (Col. 4:9; Philem. 10–12).

Asiarch

A title of honor given to certain men who resided in the Roman province of Asia. The exact nature of their role and purpose is open to some debate, but it is generally agreed that they were part of an influential ruling class, with possible ties to the emperor cult of Rome. Paul had friends in this class, and they played a role in keeping him from danger in Ephesus by advising him not to go into the theater (Acts 19:31).

Asiel

A prince in the tribe of Simeon during the reign of Hezekiah and the great-grandfather of Jehu (1 Chron. 4:35–40). In intertestamental literature, “Asiel” is the name of an ancestor of Tobit (Tob. 1:1) and of one of the five scribes under Ezra involved in the restoration of the Scriptures (2 Esd. 14:24).

Askelon

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). It was situated approximately midway between Ashdod (north) and Gaza (south) on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Historical Overview

Evidence of settlement dates to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 BC), although the earliest references to the city stem from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200–1200 BC). Ashkelon is mentioned among the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC) as an enemy of Egypt and in the Amarna tablets (1400 BC), where the city’s ruler affirms fealty to the pharaoh. Excavation confirms an Egyptian presence at Ashkelon during the Late Bronze Age; the city remained under Egyptian control until the incursion of the Sea Peoples (early twelfth century BC), after which Ashkelon was occupied by the Philistines.

Ashkelon remained under Philistine control until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria and Israel (734–732 BC), when it became an Assyrian vassal. During Sennacherib’s reign Ashkelon’s king joined Hezekiah in revolt against Assyria and was deported (701 BC). In 604 BC, following Assyria’s demise, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon and deported the survivors, several of whom received rations at the Babylonian court (cf. Dan. 1:5).

During the Persian period Ashkelon was reestablished as a Tyrian market city, thus becoming prosperous once more. The city was never conquered by the Hasmoneans (mid-second to mid-first centuries BC; 1 Macc. 10:86; 11:60), and eventually it asserted its independence, signified by the minting of its own coins (beginning 111 BC). Herod the Great was purportedly a native of Ashkelon, and he lavished the city with public works projects. During the First Jewish Revolt, Ashkelon successfully defended itself against Jewish attack.

Excavations have located the council house and an elaborately painted tomb (Roman period), as well as the remains of a church and a synagogue (Byzantine period). Ashkelon came under Muslim control (seventh century AD), then briefly under Crusader control (AD 1153). The city was destroyed by Saladin (AD 1191) as he retreated before Richard the Lionheart.

Ashkelon in the Bible

Ashkelon was listed among the territory still to be conquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3). Judah took the city but ultimately was unable to keep it (Judg. 1:18–19). The OT subsequently reckoned Ashkelon as part of Philistine territory, beginning with Judg. 14:19, which recounts one of Samson’s exploits.

Ashkelon shared in the affliction visited on the Philistines for taking the Ark of the Covenant, which they attempted to forestall by reparations or “sympathetic magic” (1 Sam. 6:17 [the “gold tumors” were likely meant to bear away the source of the Philistines’ suffering]). Ashkelon and Gath represent the Philistines overall as David anticipates their response to news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2 Sam. 1:20).

The remaining references occur in the prophets, who portended the destruction of Ashkelon and the other Philistine cities at various times (Jer. 25:20; 47:5, 7; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4, 7; Zech. 9:5). Notably, Zeph. 2:7 expected that Judah would finally take possession of Ashkelon.

Asnah

An ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:50 [missing from the list in Neh. 7]). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign (“Asnah” appears to be Egyptian) has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to do menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

Asnappar

The Aramaic name of Ashurbanipal, who was the son of Esarhaddon, grandson of Sennacherib, and the last great king of Assyria (r. 668–627 BC). He is mentioned once in the Bible, in Ezra 4:10, which notes that he deported several people groups to Samaria and elsewhere in Trans-Euphrates. More notably, he created the great cuneiform library in Nineveh.

Asp

A generic term applied to any number of poisonous snakes in older translations of the biblical text. In its place, most modern versions use “viper” or “cobra” in both Testaments. Whatever the actual species of snake, the creature is used in imagery suggesting severe danger that seeps like poison into every crevice of one’s being. This poisonous nature could be applied to a lascivious lifestyle (Deut. 32:33), the temptation of riches (Job 20:14, 16), a lying tongue (Rom. 3:13), or just wickedness in general (Ps. 58:4). In one instance (Isa. 11:8), this danger is utilized to relate the radical transformation of reality that Yahweh’s salvation of the world will one day bring, when children will be able to play in the serpent’s nest without fear.

Aspatha

One of Haman’s ten sons, who were killed by the Jews under a permission of self-defense granted by King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) (Esther 8:11). At the request of Esther to the king, their corpses were hung in public display (9:7–14).

Asriel

Asriel was a great-grandson of Manasseh (Num. 26:31); less likely, he was the son of Gilead (1 Chron. 7:14). The Asrielites were given land on the western side of the Jordan (Josh. 17:2).

Asrielites

Asriel was a great-grandson of Manasseh (Num. 26:31); less likely, he was the son of Gilead (1 Chron. 7:14). The Asrielites were given land on the western side of the Jordan (Josh. 17:2).

Ass

This animal appears in the accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1–11; Mark 11:1–11; Luke 19:28–44; John 12:12–16). The term “colt” is a translation of the Greek word pōlos, which designates a “young animal.” These Gospel accounts fulfill and allude to OT passages such as Gen. 49:11; Zech. 9:9, where the LXX employs pōlos to translate the Hebrew word ’ayir. Although ’ayir does not technically denote a “colt” or a “foal” (rather, it designates a “male donkey” or “jackass”), it is usually translated that way due to the employment of pōlos in the LXX and the Gospels. While two donkeys—a mother and her foal—appear in Matthew’s account (21:2, 7), Zechariah’s prophecy refers only to a single “purebred male donkey.”

Assassins

Arising when Felix was procurator of Judea (AD 52–60), a group of revolutionary Jews favored freedom and equality to the point of opposing any kind of human rule (even Jewish). The group is called the Sicarii, after the short dagger they often used (Lat. sica). Josephus reports that they would conceal the daggers under their clothing, assassinate their enemies in broad daylight, especially during festivals, and escape in the crowd, sometimes feigning surprise and indignation at the murder and thus removing suspicion against themselves (Josephus, Ant. 20.8.5; J.W. 2.13.3). This original cloak-and-dagger group is mentioned in the NT only at Acts 21:38, where the commander of the soldiers arresting Paul assumed that he was an Egyptian revolutionary who had led four thousand Assassins (ESV, NASB; Gk. sikarioi; NIV: “terrorists”). Although certainly zealous in their actions, the Assassins’ relationship to the Zealots is debated. See also Zealots.

Assayer

An archaic term for one who tries or attempts. In the KJV the word refers specifically to one who tries or tests metal in order to determine the amount of precious metal present, and then is applied in a metaphorical sense to those who test the spiritual mettle of people. Jeremiah’s call identifies him as one who would test the metals, or purity, of the people of Israel (Jer. 6:27).

Assembly

Primarily, the Israelite community united by a common bond to (or in covenant with) their God (Deut. 33:4; Josh. 8:35; 18:1; 1 Kings 8:5). Previous scholarship distinguished congregation (’edah) from assembly (qahal ), defining the former as the gathering of Israelites for a specific goal and the latter as the gathering of Israel as the special (covenant) people of God. This viewpoint was anchored in the LXX’s preponderant rendition of ’edah as synagōgē and qahal as ekklēsia. This sharp distinction between the two terms can no longer be sustained. The difference in the frequency of the two terms in the Hebrew Bible corresponds to the growth of the Scriptures: ’edah predominates in Genesis through Numbers, whereas qahal occurs more often in Deuteronomy, the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets, and the Writings. The association of the verbal form of qahal with both nouns (’edah and qahal ) further buttresses the point (Exod. 35:1; Lev. 8:3; Num. 1:18; 10:7; Judg. 20:1; 21:5–8; 1 Chron. 13:2–5).

The terms also refer to Israelite gatherings for special purposes such as worship, war, lawcourt, and councils. They also refer to the assemblage of other peoples or beings such as divine beings, evildoers or enemies, beasts, and bees.

The NT uses both ekklēsia and synagōgē to refer to synagogue gatherings (Acts 7:38; 13:43). English versions translate both terms as either “congregation” or “assembly.” These translations render the ekklēsia in Heb. 2:12 as either “assembly” or “congregation,” whereas they translate synagōgē in James 2:2 as “assembly” or “meeting.” See also Church.

Asshur

One of the sons of Shem, Ashur is usually identified as the progenitor of the Assyrian people (Gen. 10:22). The name “Ashur” is also associated synonymously with the nation of Assyria, being applied to the people, capital, god, and whole of the nation itself. According to Gen. 10, the people would have been descendants of Shem and therefore Semitic, like the children of Israel.

Asshurites

In Gen. 25:3, the Ashurites are listed among the descendants of Dedan, the grandson of Abraham by Keturah. While some think the Ashurites here are to be considered the foundation of the Assyrian kingdom, more likely this is a reference to a tribe near Egypt that is mentioned in South Arabian inscriptions. The KJV also identifies “the company of the Ashurites” (bat-’ashurim) in Ezek. 27:6 as ivory workers for Tyre, but most modern translations, using alternate word division and vowels for the Hebrew, take this as a reference to a type of wood, not a people group. See also Ashuri.

Assir

(1) Son of Korah, and head of one of the Korahite clans (Exod. 6:24). (2) Two descendants of Korah several generations into his genealogy (1 Chron. 6:22–23). (3) Possibly one of the sons of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) in 1 Chron. 3:17 (so the KJV), but here the word most likely indicates an appellation of Jehoiachin himself (NIV: “Jehoiachin the captive” [see 2 Chron. 36:9–10]), not a separate proper name (cf. LXX: Iechonia-asir).

Assos

A seaport in the Aegean Sea. Paul met Luke and others there on his return trip following his third missionary journey (Acts 20:13–14).

Assurbanipal

In 668 BC Ashurbanipal succeeded his father, Esarhaddon, in Assyria, while his brother Shamash-shum-ukin became the ruler of Babylon. Esarhaddon had made his vassals swear loyalty to the two sons before his death. They were able to rule peacefully alongside each other for seventeen years, with Ashurbanipal as the superior. Then a civil war broke out between them in 651 BC, which Ashurbanipal won, though at great cost. Less is known of him after this victory, and perhaps the decline of Assyria begins at that point.

Early in his reign he conquered Egypt as far south as Thebes, while to the east he defeated the Medes, which helped pave the way for the rise of the Persians. He may be the king who captured Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11–12).

Ashurbanipal had not been intended for the throne until an older brother died. This meant that his education had been different than it would have been as a crown prince. Most significantly, he learned to read and write Assyrian cuneiform texts, a formidable task. But as king he collected an impressive library of “canonical” works, which has been invaluable to historians since its rediscovery.

Assyria

Geography and Origins

The geographic center of Assyria consisted of a triangle between the Kurdish mountains, the Tigris River, and the Upper Zab River (which flows into the Tigris). This triangle sits within the modern-day country of Iraq and for the most part contained the four most important cities in the history of ancient Assyria: Ashur, Nineveh, Arbela, and Calah. At the height of its power, the Assyrian Empire stretched far beyond this geographical region, but this heartland served as the political and social base throughout its history.

Although there were some individual city-states such as Ashur and Nineveh in this heartland during the third millennium BC, Assyria as a unified political entity did not arise until the mid-second millennium. Other than a brief alliance of some of the city-states under Shamshi-Adad I in the eighteenth century BC, which was not called Assyria, the first Assyrian political state began with Ashur-uballit I (c. 1364–1329 BC). From the earliest times the lack of certain resources in the heartland and the location of these city-states along major trading routes made commerce a central component of the Assyrian economy.

Political and Military History

The Middle Assyrian Period (1364–934 BC). The first great ruler of Assyria was Ashur-uballit I, who ruled for thirty-five years. During his reign, he controlled Babylon to the south, but during the fifty years following his death, his descendants lost control of Babylon due to the rise of the Kassite dynasty there. In 1273 BC, with the rise of Ashur-uballit’s great-grandson Shalmaneser I, Assyria began to grow into an empire that dominated the ancient Near East. He defeated the Hittites and the Arameans and annexed the territory of Mitanni, to the west. The brutal method of warfare and treatment of captives for which Assyria would become famous can already be seen in Shalmaneser’s descriptions of his military campaigns.

After the death of Shalmaneser I, his son Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC) expanded the Assyrian state even more through a series of successful military campaigns. He defeated the resurging Hittites to the west and a number of people groups in the mountains to the north and east. But most important, he conquered and reclaimed Babylon to the south. This had two significant implications. With Babylon now subdued, the only major check on Assyrian power was eliminated, leaving the Assyrians free to expand. Second, elements of Babylonian culture were more easily appropriated into Assyrian culture. It even appears that the statue of the god Marduk was carried from Babylon back to Assyria. Eventually Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated in a palace revolt led by his son. The internal strife of the empire (which came to fruition in this coup), coupled with external factors that resulted in an increased threat from the west, resulted in a period of decline for the Assyrian Empire that would last a little less than a century.

Although Assyria regained internal stability and prosperity under Ashur-resha-ishi I (c. 1132–1115 BC), the next resurgence of Assyrian power came with the ascension of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BC) to the throne. At the very beginning of his reign, Tiglath-pileser successfully countered an attack from the west by the Mushku. His successful campaign against the Mushku began an expansion to the west that brought territory and spoils to the Assyrian Empire but also resulted in conflict with the Arameans, who were based in Syria but interested in expanding into Mesopotamia. When Tiglath-pileser’s troops clashed with Aramean forces at Jebel Bishri in central Syria, the Assyrian victory resulted in the acquisition of all of Syria and allowed Tiglath-pileser to press the borders of the Assyrian Empire all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. To the south Tiglath-pileser also led successful campaigns that resulted in the capture of major Babylonian cities such as Babylon and Sippar. By the time of his death in 1076 BC, the Assyrian Empire stretched from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Arabian Gulf in the southeast, a dominance unrivaled in the previous history of the ancient Near East. This sweeping success of Tiglath-pileser also resulted in cultural developments, including substantial building projects and the compilation of legislation and edicts by professional scribes.

The Neo-Assyrian Empire (934–612 BC). After the death of Tiglath-pileser, Assyria entered another period of decline due to the absence of a sufficient administrative structure to rule the enormous territory of the empire as well as the increasing pressure by the Arameans. However, Assyria again gained stability under Ashur-dan II (c. 934–912 BC). He began to renew military campaigns to recover lands previously held and fortified the capital city of Ashur. His two successors, Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC) and Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884 BC), continued the successful military campaigns and ambitious building projects. This revival of the Assyrian Empire under Ashur-dan II marks the beginning of what historians call the Neo-Assyrian Empire, an era of power that would last for three hundred years and grow to supersede the accomplishments of all prior Assyrian reigns.

In 883 BC Ashurnasirpal II came to power. Under him the Assyrian army became better organized and thus more efficient and engaged in military campaigns regularly instead of sporadically. There was also an increase in the brutality exercised by the Assyrian army in order to dissuade smaller states from attempting to resist Assyria’s expansion. Ashurnasirpal II also built the small town of Calah into a major city and relocated the capital of Assyria there.

Shortly after inheriting the Assyrian empire in 858 BC, Ashurnasirpal II’s son Shalmaneser III turned his attention to the north and the west and began moving to assert Assyrian control over those territories. In 853 BC he dismantled a northern alliance and then proceeded southward. At Qarqar Shalmaneser’s forces clashed with the Damascus coalition, which consisted of a number of nations, including Israel under King Ahab, that had banded together to resist the Assyrian encroachment. This battle is not mentioned in the Bible, but the lopsided nature of the victory claimed by the Assyrians seems overstated, since Shalmaneser continued to fight against the Damascus coalition over the next decade. By 841 BC, King Jehu of Israel, Tyre, and Sidon had voluntarily submitted to Assyrian control. As Shalmaneser grew old, he delegated more and more authority to those under him, creating friction among his subordinates and sons over the direction of the monarchy. Even though Shalmaneser’s son Shamshi-Adad V (823–811 BC) emerged as the monarch after his father’s death, instability within the kingdom and the rapidly increasing external threat of the Urartian Empire to the north resulted in a weakening of the Assyrian Empire that would last for almost a century until the rise of Tiglath-pileser III in 744 BC.

With the ascension of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) to the throne, the empire entered a hundred-year period that would be the golden age of Assyrian rule in the ancient Near East. In addition to reclaiming lands lost in the previous century to Urartu, he reasserted Assyrian control over Damascus, Hamath, Byblos, Tyre, and Samaria. Shortly afterward, King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Damascus banded together to resist Assyrian hegemony in what is called the “Syro-Ephraimite coalition.” When they tried to force King Ahaz of Judah to join them, he appealed to Tiglath-pileser for help in exchange for fealty, against the counsel of Isaiah (see 2 Kings 16; 2 Chron. 28; Isa. 7). In 734 BC Tiglath-pileser crushed the coalition, captured Gaza, and developed it into a trade center between Assyria and Egypt. In addition to improving the military and restructuring the administration of the empire, Tiglath-pileser instituted the policy of deporting and exiling subjects who rebelled against him, a policy that his successors would continue.

The next king over Assyria, Shalmaneser V, ruled for only about four years (726–722 BC). His chief importance is that he conquered Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel (see 2 Kings 17–18), though he was killed around the same time. The next king, Sargon II (721–705 BC), exiled the northern Israelites and settled in their place peoples from Syria and Babylonia. Sargon also built an entirely new capital, Dur-Sharrukin, just a few miles north of Nineveh.

In 704 BC Sargon’s son Sennacherib came to the throne and established the Assyrian capital at Nineveh. The kingdom of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem, became a top priority for Sennacherib because Judah was not only refusing submission to Assyria but also allying itself with Egypt and Ethiopia against Assyria. In 701 BC Sennacherib invaded Palestine, and at Eltekeh the Assyrian forces clashed with a coalition of Egyptian and Ethiopian forces that had come to the aid of Hezekiah, king of Judah. After defeating these forces, Sennacherib marched toward Jerusalem. Along the way he laid waste to the Judean countryside and exiled the inhabitants. The brunt of the damage was done in the Shephelah region, especially the city of Lachish. Although Sennacherib is not named explicitly, these are the circumstances that seem to be reflected in Mic. 1:8–16. When Sennacherib’s army reached Jerusalem, it laid siege to the capital city. Although Sennacherib had gone to Libnah, he sent his Rabshakeh (a senior official in the Assyrian army) to press his claims. The account of the ensuing standoff between Hezekiah and the Rabshakeh is given in three places in the Bible: 2 Kings 18–19; 2 Chron. 32; and Isa. 36–37. According to the Bible, the angel of the Lord slaughtered much of the Assyrian army, forcing the survivors to retreat and thus delivering Jerusalem. Variant accounts are given by Josephus (Ant. 10.1.4–5) and Herodotus (Hist. 2.141).

After the death of Sennacherib in 681 BC, his son Esarhaddon took control of the Assyrian Empire until 669 BC. During his reign Assyria gained superficial control of Egypt. Before his death he appointed Ashurbanipal as his heir over Assyria (668–612 BC), but he made Shamash-shuma-ukin the king over Babylonia. This fateful move eventually led to the downfall of Assyria because it resulted in civil war. With its resources already depleted by the vast empire, Assyria crumbled in the late seventh century BC to a coalition of Babylonian, Median, and Scythian forces. The end came quickly, and in 612 BC Nineveh was sacked (see the book of Nahum) and the Neo-Babylonian Empire was born.

Culture and Religion

A key characteristic of Assyrian culture was militarism. War was not simply a means of survival but also lay at the heart of the entire Assyrian social structure, from the king down to the poorest peasant. Assyrian inscriptions are replete with boasting about military campaigns and victories, which were a central requirement for a king’s reign to be considered successful. Among the general population, the duty of a warrior was held in high esteem, and all men were viewed as potential soldiers.

Because of the militaristic and imperial bent of the culture, the society enjoyed a high standard of living under successful monarchs. In addition to the natural bounty of the Assyrian heartland, the control over a large area of subjected vassal states resulted in enrichment through taxes and tributes. The militaristic character of the culture is also evident in the Assyrian’s favorite forms of recreation: hunting, archery, and javelin throwing, among others.

However, even though Assyrian culture could be quite prosperous, there was little literary production. Instead, the Assyrians were largely content to borrow from the Babylonians for works on science, religion, and history. During his reign Ashurbanipal sent servants throughout Babylonia to collect as much Babylonian literature as could be found. He then assembled a library in Nineveh to house these texts. The library contained a large number of reference works on the practice of divination and lexical works. There are also literary works such as myths and epics, hymns and prayers, and some historical accounts.

Assyrian religion was also influenced by Babylonian beliefs and practices. Both cultures were polytheistic, though there are lists that give a hierarchical order of certain gods. The principal god of the Assyrian culture was Ashur, but the goddess Ishtar and the gods Ninurta, Shamash, Adad, and Sin were also important. The Babylonian deities Marduk, Enlil, and Nebo also found their way into Assyrian religious practice, and the most important religious festival in Assyria, the New Year’s festival, was heavily influenced by Babylonian religion. Each god or goddess had a cultic center with a ziggurat and priests and a schedule of religious rituals. In Assyrian religion the king played an especially prominent role because he was the chief priest and, though not actually divine, was considered to be the representative of the deity, and his presence was required at some religious ceremonies such as the New Year’s festival.

By the time of the Neo-Assyrian period, divination played an important role in Assyrian religion because it was believed that one could read the will of the gods, including the events of the future, through highly developed rituals. Those who had been trained in divination, frequently Babylonians, could discern the signs through extispicy (examining the entrails of sacrificial animals), hepatoscopy (reading animal livers), astrology (studying the stars), or other unusual events such as dreams or birth defects. This religious environment also produced widespread use of witchcraft and magic, which provided an avenue of religious involvement for the commoner not available in the official cults.

Astaroth

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

Astarte

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

Astrologer

A person who studies the stars and their supposed effect on human personality and history. Such individuals were well known in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, though the former is more represented in the biblical texts.

In several places the OT prophets either ridicule or attack astrologers and their practice (Isa. 47:13; Dan. 2:27; 4:7; 5:7, 11; Amos 5:26), and the practice is strictly forbidden in the law codes (Deut. 4:19). Although there are several texts that may apply to astrology in the NT, the only explicit mention of the practice is in connection with the magi (Matt. 2) and Simon, Bar-jesus, and Elymas (Acts 8:9; 13:6, 8). However, in light of admonitions against astrology and the fact that it is an affront to faith in God, the birth narrative of Jesus should not be read as an approval of the practice but rather as an extraordinary event in which the heavens themselves proclaim the coming of the one born “king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2).

Asuppim

The KJV transliteration of a Hebrew word in 1 Chron. 26:15, 17 that more-recent versions translate as “storehouse” (NIV) or “gatehouse” (ESV).

Aswan

Called “Aswan” in the NIV and mentioned in prophecies against Egypt, this southern Egyptian village (modern Aswan) is located on the east bank of the Nile, just north of the first cataract of the Nile, at the southern border of ancient Egypt (Ezek. 29:10; 30:6). Aswan was valued for its granite quarries, whose stones were called “syenite.” Syene’s fate was closely tied to nearby Elephantine Island.

Asyncritus

A Roman Christian greeted by Paul at the end of his letter to the church in Rome (Rom. 16:14).

Atad

After Jacob’s death in Egypt, Joseph and a large company with him set out to bury Jacob, according to his instructions, in the cave near the field of Machpelah that Abraham had bought from the Hittites. Along the way, they stopped for seven days and mourned at the threshing floor of Atad (Gen. 50:10–12). “Atad” is likely the name of the owner of the threshing floor (for an analogous phrase, see 2 Sam. 6:6; 24:16, 18), although it could be part of the name of the threshing floor itself. In Judg. 9:14–15; Ps. 58:9, atad simply means “thorn.”

Atarah

The second wife of Jerahmeel, and the mother of Onam (1 Chron. 2:26).

Ataroth

(1) A town captured by the tribe of Gad from Og of Bashan and Sihon of the Amorites (Num. 32:3, 34). This town is mentioned on the Moabite Stone (lines 10–11) as being defeated by King Mesha around 830 BC. It is most likely identified with modern Khirbet Attarus. (2) A border town between Benjamin and Ephraim on the west side of the Jordan (Josh. 16:2, 7). This town was previously controlled by the Archites. It is not clear if this Ataroth is the same as Ataroth Addar mentioned in Josh. 16:5.

Ataroth Addar

A city on the southeastern border of Ephraim with Benjamin (Josh. 16:5; 18:13). It is most likely to be identified with Khirbet Attara.

Ater

(1) The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:16; Neh. 7:21). Ater is also listed as one who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:17). (2) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of the early postexilic period (Ezra 2:42; Neh. 7:45).

Athach

A location to which David sent some of his plunder when he arrived in Ziklag (1 Sam. 30:30). Some associate this location with Ether (Josh. 15:42; 19:7) because the location Ashan is found alongside both Ether and Athak in their respective lists.

Athaiah

A descendant of Judah who, after returning from the exile in Babylon, settled in Jerusalem (Neh. 11:4).

Athak

A location to which David sent some of his plunder when he arrived in Ziklag (1 Sam. 30:30). Some associate this location with Ether (Josh. 15:42; 19:7) because the location Ashan is found alongside both Ether and Athak in their respective lists.

Athaliah

(1) Daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, later the wife of the Judean king Jehoram and the mother of the succeeding short-lived king, Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25–27; 2 Chron. 22:2). On first introduction to the Bible reader, she is ominously described as “a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel,” a dynasty that profoundly damaged the spiritual life of the northern kingdom. Through her, this infection entered the southern kingdom. She encouraged her son Ahaziah to follow “the ways of the house of Ahab,” promoting the false worship of Baal in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 22:3). On the death of her son at the hands of Jehu, she exterminated the royal family of Judah and reigned over the land (2 Kings 11). Only Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, escaped the purge and remained hidden for six years. In the seventh year of her reign (836 BC) Jehoiada the priest brought Joash out of hiding and organized a palace coup against Athaliah, and she was executed. The destruction of the paraphernalia of Baal worship and slaying of the priest of Baal followed immediately on her death.

(2) Son of Jeroham, a Benjamite, who returned from exile (1 Chron. 8:26).

(3) The father of Jeshaiah, whose son, with seventy members of this lay family, returned from exile with Ezra (Ezra 8:7).

Atharim

The route that the Israelites were taking into Canaan when they were attacked by the king of Arad (Num. 21:1). The Israelites prayed and then retaliated, defeating their attackers. This route has been identified as south of the Dead Sea. The meaning of this word is uncertain; some Greek versions translate the word as “spies” (see also the KJV).

Athens

Athens is located five miles northeast of the port of Piraeus on the Saronic Gulf. It was the chief city of the ancient Greek province of Attica (2 Macc. 9:15; Acts 17:15–18; 18:1; 1 Thess. 3:1) and is the capital of modern Greece. The name “Athens” probably derived from the name of the goddess Athena.

As early as the fourth millennium BC there was already evidence of settlement, and during the Mycenaean period (c. 1300–1225 BC) Athens was a fortified city. However, it was in the fifth century BC, under the reign of Pericles (495–429 BC), that the glory of Athens reached its zenith. During this time the Parthenon was built, and arts, philosophy, drama, and Greek culture were developed to their highest point. The Romans conquered the city in 146 BC, but it continued to be an intellectual and cultural center. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Athens’s importance declined as well.

Paul visited this city on his second missionary journey. His debate with the Greek philosophers in the agora (the marketplace) brought him before the city council of Athens, the Areopagus, where religious matters were settled (Acts 17:16–34). Traditionally, the site is identified as Mars Hill, located on the west side of the Acropolis. Interestingly, Paul founded no church in Athens.

Athlai

A Jew who was influenced by Ezra’s admonitions to send away his foreign wife as an act of faithfulness to the covenant (Ezra 10:28).

Atonement

The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.

Old Testament

In the OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins were atoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, and an amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrifice was reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given them the blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basic operating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of the blood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer. However, there have been significant scholarly debates regarding whether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understanding of atonement.

The meaning of “to atone.” First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popular suggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease, to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert. Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little or nothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purify the tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impurities that attach to them on account of the community’s sin. This theory, though most probably correct in what it affirms, unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacle and furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mention atonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev. 8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts in Leviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sin for the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning of kapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meanings overlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in some passages, and another one in others.

There has also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying a hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2). This has traditionally been understood as an identification of the offerer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’s sins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and the argument made instead that it only signifies that the animal does indeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offer it. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seen as complementary to what has traditionally been understood by this gesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when the priest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sin and wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm the correctness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thus best seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; it dies in his stead.

The relationship between God and the offerer. Second, granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins, the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on the relationship between God and the offerer. The question here is whether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offering expiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does it propitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does it appease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath is removed? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seems logical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On the other hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possibly be a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there are certainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passages where something like “appease” or “pacify” appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30; Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect of atonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

In conjunction with this last point, it is also important to note that there are a number of places where it is said that God does the kapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8 calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept this atonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 God will “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3 (ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions” (ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV), God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity. Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for your name’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as “ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egypt for your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will “make atonement” for all the sins that Israel has committed. It may be that in most of these passages “atone” is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However, as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages, the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or is taking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins of the people. It is important to remember God’s declaration in Lev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of the sacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, no matter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that God graciously grants to his covenant people.

That leads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa. 52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my [the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB: “guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issues with regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song” (as it is often called), one of them being whether the term translated “guilt offering” should really be thought of along the lines of the guilt offering described in the book of Leviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditional Christian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here a picture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning for the sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on his servant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to be God’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

New Testament

The relationship between the Testaments. When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should be made.

First, God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NT consideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinful and unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is the means of averting this wrath.

Second, salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in Christ Jesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the same time, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who “justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom. 3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless his own justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God is both just and justifier.

Third, as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, so also in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement. It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. If Jesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it is God himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not an unwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing of atonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth, the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately, the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessary atonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayals of Christ’s work of atonement. It has become common of late to refer to the different “images” or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. This is understandable on one level, but on another level there is something misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authors speak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear that they intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christ really is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins, and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placed on the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection to the OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.” The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery. In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective, Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice in the OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the different portrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some of these may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while others perhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a “window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted that the individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in some cases they overlap.

• Ransom. Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransom paid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in these passages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption” in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same word are also translated “redeem” or “redemption” in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used in Rev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased” people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that of slaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slave market. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic” view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for the purchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense of Christ’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom the ransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those who are ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to the law.

• Curse bearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the picture of Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. The language is especially striking because rather than saying that Christ bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.” This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully took into his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penalty bearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayal depicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of our sins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, because Christ has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous and no longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much of the argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it also intersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of this picture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understood by Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “the just for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as well as in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sin for us” so that we might become the “righteousness of God.”

• Propitiation. There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or “atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greek verb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. This is the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrew verb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, as to whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”) or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avert wrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of “propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is implied in expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account of our sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although the specific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in those passages where it is said either that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or that his blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has not traditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though many scholars would argue that it was), at the very least we should recognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use of the Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. The Gospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in the Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account of Jesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion was precisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John 19:14).

• Sacrifice. This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above, but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept in the NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ is portrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). He came, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of the sacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, final sacrifice” within that system, “that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Of course, it is not just the death of Christ that secures our redemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection and heavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regard to the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life, his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him to be the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “was raised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it was particularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

Atonement Cover

The mercy seat, or “atonement cover” (NIV, NLT), was the cover on the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle and the place of atonement for Israel (Exod. 25:21). It was made of pure gold, forty-five inches long, and twenty-seven inches wide (25:17). Above the mercy seat were two cherubim made of gold, one at each end (25:18–20). There, God spoke with Moses (Num. 7:89). Upon entering the holiest place, the priest was required to burn incense over the mercy seat; otherwise, he would face judgment and die (Lev. 16:13). On the Day of Atonement the blood of the bull and the goat was sprinkled on the mercy seat.

In the NT, the Greek term hilastērion is used for the mercy seat itself (Heb. 9:5) and for the “sacrifice of atonement” or “propitiation” (Rom. 3:25), the blood of which was dripped onto the mercy seat. In Rom. 3:25 Christ himself is identified as the hilastērion, the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.

Atroth Beth Joab

Its name mean­ing “crowns of the house of Joab,” this town is listed in the genealogy of Hur, a descendant of Judah (1 Chron. 2:54). Although its exact location is unknown, it was somewhere near Bethlehem.

Atroth Shophan

One of the towns built by the descendants of Gad on the east side of the Jordan River. This is the land that was conquered from Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan (Num. 32:35).

Attai

(1) Grandson of Sheshan, a descendant of Judah. He was born to Sheshan’s daughter and the Egyptian slave Jarha (1 Chron. 2:35–36). (2) One of David’s warriors from the tribe of Gad who came to help him at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:11). (3) Son of Rehoboam (and grandson of Solomon) by his wife Maakah, whom Rehoboam loved more than any of his other wives (2 Chron. 11:20).

Attalia

Founded by Attalus I Philadelphus of Pergamum (159–138 BC) on Asia Minor’s southern coast near the mouth of the Cestrus (Aksu) River, Attalia (modern Antalya or Adalia) served as a port city for Perga. Paul passed through Attalia on his first missionary campaign (Acts 14:25–26). See also Asia Minor, Cities of.

Augustan Cohort

An auxiliary unit in the Roman army made up of non-Roman citizens who could gain citizenship through their service. This particular unit was stationed in Syria and held some level of favor as related to its association with the famed emperor. The centurions of this cohort escorted Paul on his journey from Caesarea to Rome (Acts 27:1 [NIV: “Imperial Regiment”]).

Augustus

Title given by the Roman senate to the emperor Octavian (r. 31 BC–AD 14) in 27 BC, meaning “august,” “revered,” or “exalted.” Augustus was the ruler of the Roman Empire when Jesus was born and ordered the census that led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1). Octavian was born in 63 BC and later adopted by Julius Caesar as his heir.

He first gained power upon Julius Caesar’s death in 44 BC. Initially, Octavian ruled as part of a triumvirate with Antony and Marcus Lepidus, supposedly in order to avenge the murder of Caesar. He gained sole control of Rome at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, defeating Antony and Cleopatra, both of whom committed suicide. In the next year, Octavian annexed Egypt into the Roman Empire. The Roman senate bestowed on him the name “Augustus” in 27 BC to honor him for his victories. From that point on, he was known as Caesar Augustus. The title “Augustus” was handed down to Octavian’s successors as emperors.

Augustus appointed Herod the Great to his position of power despite Herod’s initial support of Antony. Augustus is known for establishing the Roman Empire and becoming its first emperor. The Senate declared him a god at his death.

Author

“Author of life” is a title applied to Jesus by Peter in Acts 3:15 (KJV: “Prince of life”), where he uses it ironically to highlight that people had killed the one who was the source of life. Elsewhere, the Greek word behind “author” (archēgos) is translated as “prince,” “leader,” “captain,” or “pioneer” (Acts 5:31; Heb. 2:10; 12:2).

Author of Life

“Author of life” is a title applied to Jesus by Peter in Acts 3:15 (KJV: “Prince of life”), where he uses it ironically to highlight that people had killed the one who was the source of life. Elsewhere, the Greek word behind “author” (archēgos) is translated as “prince,” “leader,” “captain,” or “pioneer” (Acts 5:31; Heb. 2:10; 12:2).

Authority

The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinct elements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he or she has the right to tell others what to do and decide how matters should be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she has not only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the power to control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. When the angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority (Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same sense of authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod. 18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense of authority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewise regarding the one who “overcomes” in the book of Revelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rule the nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Both ideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in that context.

The authority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, being evidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the crowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who had authority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29). Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10), natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32), culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitate the dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallel passages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains. John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge (5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and to grant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority of Christ over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme of the book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for the sake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority in opposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the Great Commission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18; cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right and as power always to coincide in the end.

On this same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first to God and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be done in good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord” throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over those whom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20). For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on the Corinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over” others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant must respect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19). Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph. 5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slaves must yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), and laypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).

Respect for authority also extends to secular governments, whatever the character of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to kill David (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would kill Saul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons to distrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he is subjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts 16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands the church to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God has established them, so that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In 1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secular rulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authority even when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they do prevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks of revolutionary enthusiasm.

Ava

Geographical location whose residents were deported by the Assyrians and resettled in Samaria shortly after 721 BC (2 Kings 17:24). The biblical text explains that after their resettlement, “ each national group made its own gods” (2 Kings 17:29–31). Since the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, it is almost certain that Avva should be identified with the Elamite city Ama, especially since Akkadian m is often rendered w in Hebrew (the Hebrew w often is spelled v in English). Their deities were Ibnahaza and Dirtaq. It is possible that this is the same city as Ivvah (2 Kings 18:34; 19:13; Isa. 37:13).

Aven

Meaning “idolatry” or “wickedness,” the name of certain locations. (1) Abbreviated form of “Beth-Aven,” meaning “house of idolatry,” Hosea’s name for Bethel (10:8). (2) “Valley of Aven,” where Syria was to be punished, mentioned in Amos’s criticism of Syria (Amos 1:5). It may be the plain between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. (3) Term used by Ezekiel as a derisive pun on the Egyptian city “On” (Heliopolis), center for the worship of the sun god, Re, in his prophecy against the wickedness of Egypt (Ezek. 30:17).

Avenger

The term “avenger” occurs sixteen times in the NIV, usually in the phrase “avenger of blood” (  go’el haddam). The Hebrew word go’el may be translated “redeemer,” “avenger,” or “near relative” and referred to a kinsman who acted on behalf of a close relative. The term was used of one who avenged (repaid) the death of a murdered relative (Num. 35:12), received restitution for crimes against a deceased relative (Num. 5:7–8), bought back family property that had been sold (Lev. 25:25), purchased a relative who had been sold into slavery (Lev. 25:48–49), or married a relative’s widow in order to raise up heirs for her deceased husband (levirate marriage) (Deut. 25:5–10). The “avenger of blood” refers specifically to the first of these functions, a murder victim’s near relative who would exact justice by executing the murderer. This was in line with the OT principle of “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Punishment was to be in proportion to the degree and severity of a crime. In the NT, this role of justice is assigned to government authorities (Rom. 13:4).

This procedure for justice for the avenger of blood is found in Num. 35:9–27; Deut. 19:11–13; Josh. 20. If a person was found guilty of intentional murder on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), the avenger of blood served as executioner.

In cases of accidental manslaughter, the accused could flee to one of six cities of refuge, where the city assembly would judge the case and provide protection from the avenger of blood (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–14; Josh. 20:1–9). Numbers 35:12 designates that “they will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly” (cf. Josh. 20:9). Deuteronomy 19:4–7 explains the necessity of this protection: the avenger may be filled with rage and take revenge without concern for whether the death was accidental or intentional. If the accused left the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could take his life (Num. 35:27). This held true until the death of the high priest, at which time the accused could leave the city without fear of reprisal. The primary purpose of the laws related to the avenger of blood was to provide consistent justice and so reduce blood feuds and continued cycles of retaliation and revenge.

Avith

The city of the Edomite king Hadad son of Badad (Gen. 36:35; 1 Chron. 1:46). The site has not been identified.

Aviv

A month of the Jewish calendar corresponding to late March/early April. It is the month during which the Israelites were delivered from Egypt (Exod. 13:4) and the Passover was celebrated (Exod. 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1). In Neh. 2:1 and Esther 3:7 the month is called “Nisan.” See also Nisan.

Avva

Geographical location whose residents were deported by the Assyrians and resettled in Samaria shortly after 721 BC (2 Kings 17:24). The biblical text explains that after their resettlement, “ each national group made its own gods” (2 Kings 17:29–31). Since the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, it is almost certain that Avva should be identified with the Elamite city Ama, especially since Akkadian m is often rendered w in Hebrew (the Hebrew w often is spelled v in English). Their deities were Ibnahaza and Dirtaq. It is possible that this is the same city as Ivvah (2 Kings 18:34; 19:13; Isa. 37:13).

Avvim

Although little else is known about either one, Avvim was a city within Benjamin’s borders (Josh. 18:23), and the Avvites were a people who lived in the coastal region prior to the arrival of the Philistines and were destroyed by the Caphtorites (Deut. 2:23).

Avvites

Although little else is known about either one, Avvim was a city within Benjamin’s borders (Josh. 18:23), and the Avvites were a people who lived in the coastal region prior to the arrival of the Philistines and were destroyed by the Caphtorites (Deut. 2:23).

Awe

Awe mingles dread with wonder, especially toward God (Ps. 33:8 KJV). Translations use “awe” almost exclusively for God and his deeds. Modern translations use “awe,” “awesome,” and “awe-inspiring” to render numerous Hebrew and Greek terms.

The Bible never records a person encountering God without being visibly shaken by God’s awesomeness. Awe is a personal disposition more than an emotional state. In God’s presence Moses hides his face (Exod. 3:6), and Isaiah declares, “Woe to me!” (Isa. 6:5).

Awel-Marduk

The son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In Hebrew tradition, he is known by the name “Evil-Merodach” (derived from “Awel-Marduk,” a variant of the Babylonian name “Amel-Marduk”). Reigning in the years 562/561–560 BC, he pardoned King Jehoiachin of Judah, who had been imprisoned by Nebuchadnezzar. Thereafter, Jehoiachin dined at the king’s table (2 Kings 25:27–30; Jer. 52:31–34; confirmed by Babylonian records). Allegedly because of his ineffective policies, his brother-in-law Neriglissar murdered him and usurped the throne.

Awesome

Awe mingles dread with wonder, especially toward God (Ps. 33:8 KJV). Translations use “awe” almost exclusively for God and his deeds. Modern translations use “awe,” “awesome,” and “awe-inspiring” to render numerous Hebrew and Greek terms.

The Bible never records a person encountering God without being visibly shaken by God’s awesomeness. Awe is a personal disposition more than an emotional state. In God’s presence Moses hides his face (Exod. 3:6), and Isaiah declares, “Woe to me!” (Isa. 6:5).

Awl

A tool used to bore holes in objects. In biblical times this instrument could have been made out of stone, bone, or metal. One of the uses for this tool in ancient times included the piercing of ears (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Such piercing was done to servants as a means of marking them as permanent slaves.

Awning

A deck covering on ships (Ezek. 27:7) used to shield passengers from the sun. A different vocalization of the Hebrew elsewhere also refers to the covering on Noah’s ark (Gen. 8:13) and the tabernacle (Exod. 26:14).

Ax

The ax is an edge tool com­prising a heavy end with a sharpened blade attached to a wooden handle, and it is used for chopping into trees and logs (Judg. 9:48; Isa. 10:34). The ax is one of a complement of metal tools, along with the hammer, saw, plowshare, sickle, pickax, and goad (cf. 1 Kings 6:7). Similar items are the knife, sword, and spear.

The earliest metallic ax heads were copper and date as far back as 4000 BC. As the material culture of the Near East advanced, copper implements were replaced by bronze and finally iron. Bronze Age axes had a bronze hollow cylinder that slid over the wood shaft, with a short mass of bronze off to one side that widened and flattened into a sharp blade. They were dangerous to use. So many accidental injuries and deaths occurred due to the head slipping off the shaft that Israel’s law used it as an example of unintentional death (Deut. 19:5).

In 1 Sam. 13:19–20 the Philistines are shown to be controlling metallurgical technology. To prevent Israel from fashioning “modern” weapons of war, they would not permit Israel to work any metal for agricultural or other uses. Thus, Saul and his son Jonathan were the only Israelites of that time to have swords. Much later, well into the Iron Age, the premium value placed on a good iron ax head is seen in the anecdote in which an ax head fell off the handle and into the water, and the workman lamented to God’s prophet Elisha that the item was borrowed (2 Kings 6:1–6). Such was its worth that the prophet miraculously restored it.

The ax has symbolic value in the Bible. Axes cut, and “cutting off” is a common theme in the law. Those who break the covenant are “cut off” from the people (Exod. 31:14). Thus, John the Baptist cried, “The ax is already at the root of the trees” to cut off unrepentant Israelites (Matt. 3:10).

Ax Head

The ax is an edge tool com­prising a heavy end with a sharpened blade attached to a wooden handle, and it is used for chopping into trees and logs (Judg. 9:48; Isa. 10:34). The ax is one of a complement of metal tools, along with the hammer, saw, plowshare, sickle, pickax, and goad (cf. 1 Kings 6:7). Similar items are the knife, sword, and spear.

The earliest metallic ax heads were copper and date as far back as 4000 BC. As the material culture of the Near East advanced, copper implements were replaced by bronze and finally iron. Bronze Age axes had a bronze hollow cylinder that slid over the wood shaft, with a short mass of bronze off to one side that widened and flattened into a sharp blade. They were dangerous to use. So many accidental injuries and deaths occurred due to the head slipping off the shaft that Israel’s law used it as an example of unintentional death (Deut. 19:5).

In 1 Sam. 13:19–20 the Philistines are shown to be controlling metallurgical technology. To prevent Israel from fashioning “modern” weapons of war, they would not permit Israel to work any metal for agricultural or other uses. Thus, Saul and his son Jonathan were the only Israelites of that time to have swords. Much later, well into the Iron Age, the premium value placed on a good iron ax head is seen in the anecdote in which an ax head fell off the handle and into the water, and the workman lamented to God’s prophet Elisha that the item was borrowed (2 Kings 6:1–6). Such was its worth that the prophet miraculously restored it.

The ax has symbolic value in the Bible. Axes cut, and “cutting off” is a common theme in the law. Those who break the covenant are “cut off” from the people (Exod. 31:14). Thus, John the Baptist cried, “The ax is already at the root of the trees” to cut off unrepentant Israelites (Matt. 3:10).

Ayyah

A city mentioned in 1 Chron. 7:28. It was part of the possessions of Ephraim and, in some traditions, has been equated with Ai. Although the Greek tradition identifies the city with Gaza, this seems unlikely.

Azal

(1) A Benjamite and descendant of Saul, through Jonathan, who fathered six sons (1 Chron. 8:37–38). (2) In Zech. 14:5 (most versions citing the Greek) the prophet mentions the flight of Israel from Jerusalem to a place outside the city that some translations leave as a proper name, “Azal” or “Azel.” The Hebrew word has a preposition and may be rendered as “near to” or “beside.”

Azaliah

The father of Shaphan, Josiah’s scribe who played a role in discovering the Book of the Law (2 Kings 22:3; 2 Chron. 34:8).

Azaniah

The father of Jeshua, who was one of the Levites who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law in Jerusalem (Neh. 10:9).

Azarel

In the KJV, “Azareel” or “Azarael.” (1) One of David’s ambidextrous warriors, who was related to, but rebelled against, Saul (1 Chron. 12:6). (2) One of the musicians appointed by David for work in the sanctuary (1 Chron. 25:18). (3) Son of Jeroham, commander over the tribe of Dan, appointed by David (1 Chron. 27:22). (4) One of the priests guilty of marrying a foreign wife (Ezra 10:41). (5) The father of Amashsai, who was appointed to live and serve in Jerusalem when Nehemiah was governor (Neh. 11:13). (6) One of the musicians who celebrated the completion of the wall (Neh. 12:36 [perhaps the same person as in 11:13]).

Azariah

(1) An official in Solomon’s administration, the high priest (1 Kings 4:2). (2) A second official, son of Nathan, in Solomon’s administration, in charge of district officers (1 Kings 4:5). (3) The king of Judah around 769–733 BC (also known as Uzziah). He likely ruled as coregent with his father starting in 792 BC before he was sole ruler. The account of his rule is recorded in 2 Kings 14:21–22; 15:1–7; 2 Chron. 26:1–23. (See also Uzziah.) (4) A descendant of Judah through Ethan (1 Chron. 2:8). (5) Another descendant of Judah through Obed, whose son is also called “Azariah” (1 Chron. 2:38–39). (6) A descendant of Levi through his father, Ahimaaz, and the father of Johanan (1 Chron. 6:9). (7) A descendant of Levi through his father, Johanan. This Azariah is said to have served in Solomon’s temple and was the father of Amariah (1 Chron. 6:10–11).

(8) A descendant of Levi through his father, Hilkiah, and the father of Seraiah (1 Chron. 6:13–14). Ezra the scribe was the son of Seraiah and a descendant of this Azariah (Ezra 7:1). (9) A temple musician, a Kohathite (1 Chron. 6:36). (10) A priest, son of Hilkiah (1 Chron. 9:11), likely the same as the Azariah in 1 Chron. 6:13–14. (11) A prophet during the reign of King Asa (910–869 BC) who encouraged the king to purify the worship of Judah (2 Chron. 15:1–8). (12) Two of King Jehoshaphat’s (870–848 BC) seven sons. They were all given many gifts, but the eldest brother, Jehoram, became king of Judah (2 Chron. 21:2). The NIV differentiates by calling one son “Azariahu.” (13) Son of Jehoram, and a military commander who entered into an alliance with the priest Jehoiada against Athaliah (2 Chron. 23:1) in order to install Joash as king (836–798 BC).

(14) Son of Obed, and a military commander who entered into an alliance with Jehoiada against Athaliah (2 Chron. 23:1). (15) A priest who took the lead in confronting King Uzziah when he burned incense to the Lord in the sacred precincts of the temple (2 Chron. 26:17, 20). (16) Son of Jehohanan, and an Ephraimite leader who confronted the army of Samaria under Pekah (752–732 BC) and demanded that they return Judean prisoners to their homes (2 Chron. 28:12). (17) Son of Jehallelel, and a Gershonite priest from the tribe of Levi who supported Hezekiah’s (727–698 BC) religious reforms (2 Chron. 29:12). (18) The father of Joel, a Levite who supported Hezekiah’s religious reforms (2 Chron. 29:12). (19) The chief priest during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:10–13). (20) Son of Meraioth, a descendant of Aaron, and an ancestor of Ezra (Ezra 7:3). (21) Son of Maaseiah, and a builder of the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. 3:23).

(22) A man who returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:7). (23) A priest who aided Ezra in teaching the people the law (Neh. 8:7). (24) One of those who sealed the covenant that was proclaimed when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt (Neh. 10:2). (25) A leader of Judah who participated in the ceremony that dedicated the wall of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:33). (26) The son of Hoshaiah who, along with Johanan son of Kareah and others, rejected the word of God through Jeremiah to stay in Judah rather than flee to Egypt (Jer. 43:2). (27) One of the three friends of Daniel who experienced captivity in Babylon beginning in 605 BC; he was renamed “Abednego” (Dan. 1:7). He refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue and was thrown into the fiery furnace, from which God saved him (Dan. 1:6, 11, 19; 2:17).

Azariahu

Variant of the name “Azariah,” one of the seven sons of Jehoshaphat listed in 2 Chron. 21:2 (see NIV, NASB, NET).

Azaz

A descendant of Reuben (1 Chron. 5:8).

Azazel

Azazel appears only in Lev. 16 (NIV: “scapegoat”), instructions for the Day of Atonement, on which lots were cast over two goats, one for God and the other for Azazel. After sacrificing the first goat, the high priest confessed the Israelites’ wickedness over the second goat and sent it into the desert.

There are multiple interpretations of the Hebrew word ’aza’zel, one of which is “the goat [’ez] of removal.” The term “scapegoat” (originally “escapegoat”) comes from this interpretation. Nevertheless, a goat “for the goat of escape” is redundant. Instead, “Azazel” is likely the name of a demon of the wilderness. In 1 En. 8–13 Azazel is developed into a significant malevolent celestial creature.

Azaziah

(1) A lyre player and music leader during the reign of David (1 Chron. 15:21). (2) The father of Hoshea, one of the leaders of the tribe of Ephraim during the reign of David (1 Chron. 27:20). (3) A Levite and temple overseer during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:13).

Azbuk

The father of a Nehemiah, known only from Neh. 3:16. Azbuk’s son ruled a half-district in Judah and helped the renowned Nehemiah repair Jerusalem’s wall.

Azekah

Between the protected hill country of Judah and the open coastal plain lies a range of low rolling hills cut through by significant valleys. Toward the western end of the Elah Valley, Azekah stands guard. Because of its strategic location, it played an important role in critical conflicts between Israel and its enemies.

As Joshua and the Israelites routed the Jerusalem confederation (Josh. 10), the enemies of Israel fled westward from the central Benjamin plateau, through the Aijalon Valley, and south beyond Azekah. Some centuries later, the major threat to Israel was the Philistine presence on the coast. The Philistines sought to expand their control into the hill country and camped on the south side of the Elah Valley between Sokoh and Azekah; the Israelites were on the opposite side of the valley. David challenged and killed the Philistine champion, Goliath, and the Philistines fled west past Azekah toward Ekron, one of their own cities (1 Sam. 17).

After Solomon’s death, Rehoboam fortified a ring of cities to protect the southern kingdom. Among them was Azekah (2 Chron. 11:5–12), southwest of Jerusalem. At the end of the Judean monarchy, the Babylonians attacked Jerusalem and the other cities that were still holding out. Lachish and Azekah were the only fortified cities left in Judah (Jer. 34:6–7). A poignant letter discovered in the gate area of Lachish reads, “We were watching for the smoke signals of Lachish . . . because we do not see Azekah” (Lachish letter 4).

The inheritance of the tribe of Judah included Azekah among nearly forty other towns in the Shephelah region (Josh. 15:33–44). These tribal demographics continued into the postexilic period (Neh. 11:30).

Azel

(1) A Benjamite and descendant of Saul, through Jonathan, who fathered six sons (1 Chron. 8:37–38). (2) In Zech. 14:5 (most versions citing the Greek) the prophet mentions the flight of Israel from Jerusalem to a place outside the city that some translations leave as a proper name, “Azal” or “Azel.” The Hebrew word has a preposition and may be rendered as “near to” or “beside.”

Azem

A town that was part of the traditional allotment given to the tribe of Judah, Simeon, or two towns with the same name. Ezem was located in the Negev area of Judah (Josh. 15:29) and also was part of the allotment given to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 19:3; 1 Chron. 4:29). Simeon’s tribal allotment was entirely surrounded by the allotment of Judah, so confusion about the town is not impossible. The exact location of the town is unknown.

Azgad

The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:12; Neh. 7:17). The same clan sent Johanan and 110 men at the time of Ezra around 458 BC (Ezra 8:12). Azgad is also listed as one who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:15).

Aziel

A shortened form of the name “Jaaziel” in 1 Chron. 15:20 (KJV, ESV). He was one of the musicians who played when the ark was moved from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David.

Aziza

One of the Israelites who repented of marrying a foreign woman after hearing Ezra’s charge of guilt concerning the matter (Ezra 10:27).

Azmaveth

(1) One of David’s mighty men, part of the thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:31; 1 Chron. 11:33). He was from Bahurim near Jerusalem. (2) Son of Jehoaddah, a descendant of Saul through Jonathan (1 Chron. 8:36; 9:42). (3) The father of Jeziel and Pelet of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 12:3). This Azmaveth is possibly the same as the Azmaveth of the thirty mighty men. (4) The son of Adiel in charge of the palace treasury under David (1 Chron. 27:25). (5) A town north of Jerusalem where forty-two men returned from exile (Ezra 2:24; Neh. 7:28). The town supplied singers for the dedication of the wall (Neh. 12:29). The town is also known as Beth Azmaveth and Bethasmoth. This village is identified with modern Hizmeh, five miles north of Jerusalem.

Azmon

A place on the southern border of the land promised to Israel and allotted to Judah (Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:4) in the area of Kadesh Barnea. Some identify the site with Ain el-Qoseimeh, while others believe that it should be identified with Ain Muweileh.

Aznoth Tabor

A location in the southwestern region of Naphtali (Josh. 19:34). Some identify the name with a city, while others believe that it was simply a landmark in the area of Tabor.

Azor

An otherwise unknown postexilic ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Matt. 1:13–14 as the son of Eliakim and the father of Zadok.

Azotus

The Greek name for the Philistine city of Ashdod, where Philip preached (Acts 8:40).

Azriel

(1) A patriarch of the eastern half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron. 5:24). (2) The father of Jerimoth, an official in the service of David from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Chron. 27:19). (3) The father of Seraiah, who was ordered to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch by Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:26).

Azrikam

(1) A leader in Ahaz’s palace who was slain by an Ephraimite along with a prince and the vizier of Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:7). (2) A postexilic descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:23). (3) A descendant of Benjamin and King Saul (1 Chron. 8:38). (4) The grandfather of She­mai­ah, a Levite leader who settled in Jerusalem following the return from the exile (1 Chron. 9:14; Neh. 11:15).

Azubah

(1) The wife of Caleb who bore him three sons (1 Chron. 2:18–19). (2) The mother of King Jehoshaphat and daughter of Shilhi (1 Kings 22:42; 2 Chron. 20:31).

Azur

(1) The father of the prophet Hananiah, a contemporary of Jeremiah in the days of Zedekiah (Jer. 28:1). (2) The father of Jaazaniah, a figure known to Ezekiel (Ezek. 11:1). Jaazaniah is identified as a wicked leader in Jerusalem. (3) One of the signatories of the covenant under Nehemiah (Neh. 10:17).

Azzah

The biblical site of Gaza is located at Tell Harube/Tell ’Azza, which is beneath the modern Palestinian city of Gaza. It is strategically situated in southern Palestine near the Egyptian border and is approximately three miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Initial excavations were led by W. J. Phythian-Adams in 1922 under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Additional excavations were directed by Asher Ovadiah in 1967 and 1976.

In the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC), Gaza was under the control of Egypt. It is first mentioned in the annals of Thutmose III as the provincial capital of Canaan, and it functioned as an Egyptian administrative center in the Amarna and Taanach letters. At the beginning of the Iron Age (1200 BC), the Sea Peoples (especially the Philistines) took control of this coastal region. This scenario is reflected in Deut. 2:23, which states that the Caphtorites (i.e., the Philistines) displaced the Avvites. Joshua 11:22 also states that after the Israelite conquest, the giant Anakim only remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (they were most likely assimilated into Philistine culture, perhaps as mercenaries). These three cities, along with Ekron and Ashkelon, comprise the Philistine Pentapolis (Josh. 13:3; 1 Sam. 6:17–18). The Pentapolis remained unconquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3), even though Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza were included in Judah’s allotment (15:45–47). The Judahites took brief control of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, which they were unable to maintain due to the Philistines’ employment of “iron chariots” on the plains (Judg. 1:18–19). During the period of the judges, Gaza is prominently featured in the exploits of Samson. The city is described as having a gate and a multistoried temple (Judg. 16:1–3, 26). After David’s conquests of the Philistines, King Solomon is said to have dominion over a vast region including Gaza (1 Kings 4:24). In the second half of the eighth century BC, Gaza became an Assyrian vassal (under Tiglath-pileser III). King Hezekiah also briefly subdued the region (2 Kings 18:8), but Gaza remained an Assyrian vassal until the end of the seventh century, when the city was briefly occupied by Pharaoh Necho II and then fell to Nebuchadnezzar (see Jer. 47:1–2, 5). Gaza is mentioned in a number of prophetic oracles against Philistia (Jer. 25:20; 47:1; Amos 1:6–7; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5). It appears only one time in the NT, when Philip is traveling toward Gaza and encounters the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26).

Azzan

The father of Paltiel, a leader in the tribe of Issachar who represented his tribe when the allotments of the land of Canaan were distributed (Num. 34:26).

Azzur

(1) The father of the prophet Hananiah, a contemporary of Jeremiah in the days of Zedekiah (Jer. 28:1). (2) The father of Jaazaniah, a figure known to Ezekiel (Ezek. 11:1). Jaazaniah is identified as a wicked leader in Jerusalem. (3) One of the signatories of the covenant under Nehemiah (Neh. 10:17).