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).

“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.

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.

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

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

(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.

(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.

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).

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).

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 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.

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.

(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.

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.

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).

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).

(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.

(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).

(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).

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.

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.

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.

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

(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).

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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.

(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).

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).

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).

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.

(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).

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).

(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).

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

(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.

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.

(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).

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.”

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.”

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.

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

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.”