Sermon and Worship Resources

Matches

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.

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).

Arphaxad

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

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.

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.

Asher

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).

Ashkenaz

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).

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.

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.

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.”

Asshur

Asshurites

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.”

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.

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.

Avith

The city of the Edomite king Hadad son of Badad (Gen. 36:35; 1 Chron. 1:46). The site has not been identified.

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).

Baal-Hanan

(1) A king of Edom (Gen. 36:38). (2) A man in charge of the olive and sycamore trees in the Shephelah during the reign of David (1 Chron. 27:28).

Baalbek

The name “Heliopolis” is Greek for “city of the sun.” (1) The Greek name for the city referred to in Hebrew as “On” or “Aven” (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20; cf. Ezek. 30:17) (the Hebrew spellings are similar). It is one of the oldest cities in Lower Egypt, dating from the predynastic period. Its ruins are found at Tel Al-Hisn, Ain Shams, and Matariyeh, which are about ten miles northeast of Cairo.

Heliopolis was the center of worship for Re, the sun god, and Atum, the creator god. The priests of Heliopolis were among the most powerful in Egypt. They officiated at all the major festivals and produced one of the major versions of Egyptian religion and mythology. The prominence of the priesthood is reflected in the description of Joseph marrying Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20). The Egyptians called the city by a name that means “city of pillars.” Its temples were embellished with many obelisks, to catch the first rays of the morning sun. Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of the obelisks and temples in Heliopolis (Jer. 43:13; cf. Ezek. 30:17). The city flourished as a seat of learning until it was eclipsed by Alexandria.

(2) The Greek name for Baalbek in Lebanon.

Babel

The Hebrew name for Babylon. In standard English translations this name is consistently translated as “Babel” only in Gen. 11:9 and sometimes in 10:10 (NRSV, NET). Although all its other occurrences are translated as “Babylon,” there is no distinction in the Hebrew. In the Babylonian language (Akkadian) the name means “Gate of God”; in Gen. 11:9 the Hebrew author connects the name “Babel” (babel ) to the similar-sounding Hebrew word for “confused” (balal ). This connection is best understood as a wordplay rather than an actual etymology.

Located on the Euphrates River about fifty-five miles south of modern Baghdad, the city was a major political and economic power throughout Mesopotamian history. Most significantly in Israel’s history, it was the capital of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which arose in the seventh century BC and brought Judah into exile.

According to Genesis, this city was founded by Nimrod (10:10) and was the site of the division of languages (11:1–9). The tower described in 11:1–9 was most likely a ziggurat, a Mesopotamian temple structure in the shape of a staircase. The intent to build a tower “that reaches to the heavens” (11:4) fits well with the Babylonian view that ziggurats joined heaven and earth. See also Tower of Babel.

Babylon

Babylon was the capital city of Babylonia, an ancient kingdom located in Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, an area now in the modern country of Iraq. The city of Babylon was located on the banks of the Euphrates River, about fifty-five miles from the modern city of Baghdad. Babylon plays a major role in the Bible, especially during the time of the OT prophets. Babylon or the Babylonians are mentioned in the books of 2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah. Babylon also appears at the very beginning of the biblical story (Gen. 10–11) as well as at the very end (Rev. 14; 16–18; cf. 1 Pet. 5:13).

History

The Sumerian and Akkadian period. Around 3000 BC one of the earliest civilizations of the ancient world developed in the southernmost region of Mesopotamia. The Sumerians developed several innovations that nurtured and contributed to the rise of large, complex, urban civilizations. These developments included irrigation, writing (especially in regard to government documentation), the city-state, the accumulation of capital, the wheel, the potter’s wheel, monumental architecture, the number system based on the number sixty (we still use this for time as well as for geometry—e.g., sixty minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle), schools, and the cylinder seal.

The Akkadian king Sargon conquered most of Mesopotamia around 2350 BC. He built his capital at Akkad and established Akkadian as the main language of Mesopotamia, a feature that was to remain characteristic for many centuries. The city of Babylon first appears in nonbiblical literary documents during this time, but only as a minor provincial city.

The Old Babylonian period. At about the same time, a group of people called “Amorites” (lit., “those from the west”) started migrating in fairly large numbers eastward into southern Mesopotamia. Embracing much of the old Sumerian-related culture as well as the Akkadian language, these Amorites soon became a regional power, and they built the city of Babylon into one of the most important cities in Mesopotamia. One of the most famous kings to rise to power during this “Old Babylonian” era was Hammurabi (c. 1728–1686 BC [many scholars now refer to him as Hammurapi]). It was his extensive diplomatic and military skill that enabled Babylon to rise to power so quickly and in such a spectacular fashion. Hammurabi’s actual empire lasted only a brief time, but his legacy was long-lasting, and the entire central-southern region of Mesopotamia continued to be known as Babylonia for over a thousand years.

After Hammurabi died, Babylon declined in power. For the next few hundred years Mesopotamia was characterized by chaos and power struggles. Then around 800 BC the Assyrians (from the northern end of Mesopotamia) rose to power and dominated the entire region. The Assyrians also played a major role in the Bible, appearing frequently in the books of 2 Kings and Isaiah.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire. In the last quarter of the seventh century BC, however, the Babylonians steadily grew in power. A large migration of Arameans into Babylonia had taken place, and the people in Babylonia had replaced Akkadian with Aramaic as their spoken language. The Chaldeans, a large and powerful group living in the Babylonian region, intermarried with the descendants of these migrating Arameans to develop a civilization now known as Neo-Babylonia. Once again the city of Babylon rose to splendor and prominence. Eventually this new Babylonia wrested control of much of the ancient Near East from the Assyrians and their Egyptian allies, decisively defeating them in 612 BC to become the new superpower empire of the ancient Near East. A powerful dynasty was started by Nabopolassar (626–605 BC) and continued by Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 BC), the most powerful and prominent of Babylon’s kings.

Babylon controlled most of the ancient Near East at a critical time in biblical history. Nebuchadnezzar, the most famous Babylonian king of this era, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it completely in 587/586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar appears in the Bible numerous times, especially in the books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Daniel. He was the one responsible for taking the leadership of Judah into exile in Babylonia after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Surprisingly, this powerful empire did not last very long. As discussed below, several of the OT prophets prophesied the end of Babylon, and indeed Babylon crumbled quickly and eventually disappeared from history. How did this happen?

Persian and Greek rule. First of all, Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon (555–539 BC), tried to revise the religion of the people away from the worship of their main god, Marduk, but he only alienated himself from the powerful nobles of Babylon as well as from the general population. Leaving his son Belshazzar in charge, Nabonidus moved to Arabia for ten years. When he finally returned, the Persians were threatening Babylon, and Nabonidus had little power to stop them. Sealing the Persian victory was the defection of Ugbaru, one of the most powerful Babylonian princes. Thus, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylon without meeting any substantial resistance from the city (539 BC). Apparently, the Babylonians greeted Cyrus more as a liberator than as a conqueror. Babylon thus became a city within the Persian Empire.

About fifty years later the city of Babylon revolted against the Persians, and the Persian king Xerxes recaptured it (482 BC), sacked it, demolished its spectacular fortifications, burned the great temple of the Babylonian god Marduk, and even carried away the statue of Marduk as a spoil of war. However, the Greek historian Herodotus, writing around 450 BC, indicates that Babylon had not been completely destroyed.

In the next century Alexander the Great conquered the entire region, defeating the Persians in 331 BC. Alexander was welcomed warmly by the remaining citizens of Babylon, and thus he treated the city favorably at first. However, in 324 BC a close friend of Alexander’s died, and Alexander tore down part of the city wall east of the royal palace to build a funeral pyre platform in his friend’s honor, thus destroying a significant part of the city.

The fall of Babylon. After Alexander died, Seleucus, one of his four generals, seized Babylon (312 BC) and plundered the city and the surrounding area. The next Seleucid king, Antiochus I (281–261 BC), dealt the death blow to the city of Babylon. He built a new capital for the region fifty-five miles to the north and then moved the entire civilian population of Babylon to the new city. The once great city of Babylon, now depopulated and seriously damaged physically by the Seleucid kings, fell into oblivion. Although Antiochus IV (173 BC) tried for a brief period to revive the city, Babylon, for all practical purposes, had ceased to exist.

The ruined site is mentioned a few other times in history. The Roman emperor Trajan spent the winter of AD 116 in Babylon, finding nothing there except ruins. The spectacular fall of Babylon and the city’s state of terrible desolation then became proverbial. In the second century AD Lucian wrote that Nineveh vanished without a trace, and that soon people will search in vain for Babylon. In fulfillment of biblical prophecy (e.g., Jer. 50–51), the city of Babylon went from being the most important and most spectacular city in the world to being a desolate, insignificant pile of rubble.

The Splendor of Babylon

During the time of Nebuchadnezzar the city of Babylon was developed into a spectacular city, certainly one of the most impressive cities in the ancient Near East. The city was built on the banks of the Euphrates River with a large, imposing bridge connecting the two banks. Huge public buildings, palaces, and temples lined the banks of the river. The city was enclosed by two walls. The gates of the outer walls have not yet been located, but archaeologists have identified nine large, impressive gates of the inner wall. The most famous of these is the Ishtar Gate, which has been dismantled and reconstructed in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. The walls of this gate are lined with bright blue glazed ceramic tile and decorated with numerous reliefs of lions and dragons. A major structure in the city was the great temple of Marduk, the central Babylonian deity, but the city also had temples dedicated to numerous other gods. Connected to the great temple was a spectacular processional street running through the heart of the city. The city also contained large residential homes as well as three immense royal palaces.

A fourth-century BC Greek historian mentions that Nebuchadnezzar built an amazing garden for one of his wives. This garden, commonly known as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, was designated by the ancient Greeks as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Archaeologists, however, have been unable to locate such a garden in the excavations of Babylon, and some scholars doubt its existence.

Babylon in the Bible

The terms “Babylon” and “Babylonian,” in addition to the related terms “Chaldea” and “Chaldean,” appear over three hundred times in the Bible, indicating the important role that Babylon plays in Israel’s history.

Old Testament. Genesis 10:10 states that Babylon was one of the first centers of the kingdom of the mighty warrior Nimrod, but the puzzling nature of Nimrod and the difficulties encountered in interpreting Gen. 10 make it difficult to state much about this reference with certainty.

The better-known incident in Genesis regarding Babylon is the story about the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). Note that in Gen. 9:1–7 God commands Noah and his family to scatter over the earth and replenish its population. The builders of the tower of Babel are doing just the opposite of the divine injunction, trying to stop the scattering.

Genesis 11:2 locates the tower of Babel on “a plain in Shinar” (cf. 10:10; 14:1), the broad, alluvial plain of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers south of modern Baghdad. Most scholars suspect that the tower of Babel was a ziggurat, an elevated temple tower. Common in Mesopotamia, these were worship centers where priests climbed up extensive stairways to offer their sacrifices to the gods. A temple shrine usually capped the top of the ziggurat. This elevated shrine was understood to be the “gateway to the gods,” a place where human priests and their deities supposedly met. The tower of Babel story in Genesis, however, introduces a humorous wordplay regarding this tradition. “Babel” (as well as “Babylon”) means “gateway to the gods” or “gate of the gods” in the local Mesopotamian languages. Ironically, however, in Hebrew the word babel is related to balal, meaning “to confuse.” Thus, Gen. 11:9 presents a colorful wordplay or parody on the name of Babel. In a humorous criticism of the future great city, that verse suggests ironically that the name “Babel” does not really refer to the “gate of the gods” as the Mesopotamians intended, but rather to the judgmental confusion that God brought against them.

Thus, the city of Babel/Babylon carried negative connotations from the very beginning of the biblical story. Genesis 11 introduces Babel as a symbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God. Later in Israel’s history the city of Babylon will continue to have negative associations, and once again it becomes a powerful symbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God.

The books of 1–2 Kings tell the tragic story of how Israel and Judah turn away from God to worship idols, ignoring the warnings that God gives them through the prophets. As foretold, the northern kingdom, Israel, is thus destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BC. However, the southern kingdom, Judah, also fails to take heed and continues to worship pagan gods in spite of repeated warnings and calls to repentance from the prophets. Prophets such as Jeremiah repeatedly proclaim that if Judah and Jerusalem do not repent and turn from their idolatry and acts of injustice, then God will send the Babylonians to destroy them (see esp. Jer. 20–39). Jeremiah refers to the Babylonians 198 times, and the prophet personally experiences the terrible Babylonian siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 39 and 52 describe the actual fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian army. This same tragic story is recounted in 2 Kings 24–25. Thus, in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar and his army completely destroy Jerusalem, burning the city and the temple to the ground and carrying off most of the population into exile in Babylonia.

Babylon appears in the OT prophetic literature in another context as well. Because of the apostasy of Israel and Judah, the prophets preach judgment on them. But the prophets also preach judgment on the enemies of Israel and Judah for exploiting or attacking and destroying God’s people. Jeremiah, for example, prophesies against numerous nations and cities (Jer. 46–49), but he focuses especially upon Babylon (Jer. 50:1–51:58). Likewise, judgment on Babylon is a central theme in Isa. 13; 14; 21; 47. In the OT, no other foe brought such terrible destruction on Jerusalem. In later literature this particular event thus becomes the prototypical picture of horrendous death and destruction, and Babylon becomes the literary symbol epitomizing all of Israel’s enemies.

New Testament. Babylon appears again at the end of the biblical story. In Rev. 17–18 John describes the enemy of God’s kingdom as a harlot dressed in scarlet and riding on a beast. One of the titles written on her head is “Babylon the Great” (17:5). Some commentators believe that John is describing a literal resurrected city of Babylon. That is, they propose that Babylon will be rebuilt on its original site and become the center of government for the antichrist. Many other scholars, however, maintain that the harlot of Rev. 17–18 symbolizes ancient Rome, not a modern rebuilt Babylon. They argue that the term “Babylon” is used symbolically in Revelation. Supporting this view is the apostle Peter’s apparent use of the term “Babylon” to refer to Rome in 1 Pet. 5:13 (“she who is in Babylon . . . sends you her greetings”). Most NT scholars conclude that in this verse “she” is a reference to the church and that “Babylon” is a coded or symbolic reference to Rome.

Babylonia

History

The Splendor of Babylon

Babylon in the Bible

Bag

Various Hebrew and Greek words are rendered as “bag,” representing a flexible container used to carry provisions, money, measuring weights, or spices and other valuables. A bag could be made of animal skins, leather, or cloth. A small bag might be fastened to a belt, while a traveler’s bag large enough to carry several days’ provisions would be slung over the shoulder. Its construction could range from a simple bundle of cloth tied with string to a more fabricated carrying case. In the OT, Joseph put grain in his brothers’ traveling bags (Gen. 42:25); later the brothers were advised to present Joseph with gifts of spices and nuts to be toted in their bags (43:11). David carried a shepherd’s provision bag and used it to hold the stones that he chose for his sling when he killed Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40, 49). Bags were used to hold currency or precious metals (2 Kings 5:23; 12:10; Isa. 46:6). Merchants carried measuring weights of metal or stone in a bag. The Bible stresses the importance of carrying honest measuring standards in those bags (Deut. 25:13; Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11). Job pours out his hopelessness to God, longing for his sins to be metaphorically tied up in a bag (14:17).

In the Gospels, two kinds of bags are mentioned. One is the traveler’s bag used to carry food and clothing while on a journey. Jesus tells his disciples not to take such a bag when he sends them out as apostles to preach, heal, and drive out demons (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4). Just before his arrest, Jesus reverses that advice, instructing his disciples to take not only a bag (for provisions) and purse (for money) but a sword as well (Luke 22:35–36). A different Greek word is used for the moneybag or box that Judas is in charge of and from which he pilfers (John 12:6).

Bakemeats

The KJV translation of the Hebrew word ma’akhal in Gen. 40:17 (NIV: “baked goods”; NRSV: “baked food”).

Baking

Usually of bread, a daily household chore typically done by women (Lev. 26:26; 1 Sam. 8:13; 28:24) and an indispensable element of biblical hospitality (Gen. 18:6). Abigail provides two hundred loaves of bread to David (1 Sam. 25:18) to welcome the servants of God. Three methods of baking are over fire-heated coals (1 Kings 19:6), on a griddle over a fire (Lev. 2:5), and in an oven (Lev. 2:4) providing uniform heat (Hos. 7:4).

Balm

Probably the aromatic resin of the terebinth tree, this substance was used as a remedy (Jer. 46:11; 51:8). From centers of production, it was exported throughout the Levant and Egypt (Gen. 37:25; 43:11; Ezek. 27:17). Several biblical texts associate balm production with the region east of the Jordan, including Gilead. Jeremiah’s sarcastic question attests to the origin and use of balm: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jer. 8:22).

Balm of Gilead

Ban

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).

Bank

The basic activities of banking include amassing capital and deposits, extending credit, and brokering the transmission of funds. The Bible describes and comments on such practices in both Testaments but ascribes them to bankers only in the NT.

In ancient Israel trading and mercantilism were facilitated by the use of silver, gold, and livestock as stores of value, media of exchange, and means of payment (Gen. 13:2; 17:12; 23:15). Buying and selling among individuals with payment in silver was particularly common (Gen. 37:28; 1 Sam. 13:21), as was exporting and importing among nations (1 Kings 10:28–29; 2 Chron. 1:16–17; Neh. 13:16). However, livestock was acceptable currency in the settlement of taxes, sacrifices, and other obligations (Num. 31:28–40). What it lacked in portability it made up for in practicality; unlike precious metals, herds grew and multiplied.

By the time of the monarchy, not only was there a treasury of wealth dedicated to God and funded through offerings (Josh. 6:19, 24; 1 Kings 7:51), but also the king maintained his own treasury (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 20:13). From both, Judah paid tributes and fines. In times of subjugation both were plundered.

The OT stresses honesty in commercial dealings, which requires both fair scales (Lev. 19:36; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; Hos. 12:7; Amos 8:4–6) and an established system of weights and measures. The basic unit of weight for precious metals was the sanctuary shekel, which equaled twenty gerahs, about ten grams (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25). The largest unit of measurement was the talent, which equaled three thousand shekels (Exod. 38:24–26; Ezra 7:22; 8:26).

The law regulated lending practices primarily to protect the poor against exploitation. It did not permit the charging of interest by Israelite lenders to fellow Israelites, and it set up rules regarding the taking, holding, and return of collateral (Exod. 22:25; Deut. 23:19; 24:6, 10–13, 17; Neh. 5:1–13; Ezek. 33:15). Every seven years creditors were required to release obligors from their debts (Deut. 15:1–3). However, these rules did not apply when the borrowers were foreigners.

By NT times, banking activities were more developed and formalized. The NT describes the depositing of money for interest (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23). Coins were in widespread use in the Roman Empire, but locally minted and diverse. For example, the denarius was Roman, and the drachma Greek (Luke 20:24; Matt. 17:24). Thus, the services of money changers were commonplace. They usually set up their distinctive, grid-marked tables in and around temples and public buildings. The NT Greek word for “banker,” trapezitēs, comes from the word for “table,” trapeza. At the Jerusalem temple, the practices of the money changers famously provoked the righteous anger of Jesus, causing him to overturn their tables (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15).

Banker

Banking

Banquet

A banquet is a joyful celebration, usually involving wine, abundant food, music, and dancing. Banquets celebrated special occasions such as the forging of a relationship (Gen. 26:26–30), the coronation of a king (1 Chron. 12:28–40), the completion of the temple (2 Chron. 7:8), victory over one’s enemies (Gen. 14:18–19; Ps. 23:5), weddings (Gen. 29:22; John 2:1–11; Rev. 19:9), birthdays of royals (Mark 6:21), and the reunion of estranged relatives (Luke 15:23–24). Banquets also symbolized one’s status, since they were by invitation only. One’s seating arrangement corresponded to one’s social status in the group, since there were “higher” and “lower” positions (Luke 14:8–9). During the meal, people reclined on bedlike seats.

In the OT, the image of a banquet anticipates a future occasion when God will remove the reproach of his people (Isa. 25:6). It also becomes a metaphor for special access to God, who protects, blesses, and honors his people (Ps. 23:5).

The plot of the book of Esther revolves around banquets. The book opens with two big banquets held by Ahasuerus (Esther 1) that conclude with the removal of Vashti as queen, soon replaced by Esther. Esther invites the king and Haman to a banquet in order to expose the insidious plot of the latter (Esther 7). The book culminates with a great banquet that is the prototype for an annual banquet celebrating the Jews’ victory over their enemies, Purim (9:2–32).

Jesus uses the banquet as a metaphor for the presence of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 9:14–17). He tells a parable of a king who has planned a wedding banquet for his son. Those who were invited have refused to attend (i.e., the Jewish leaders), so the king commands his servants to go out into the streets and gather as many people as they can find, both good and bad (Matt. 22:1–10).

Jesus also uses the imagery of a banquet to describe the final future manifestation of the kingdom. He exhorts his disciples to be prepared for the unexpected return of the bridegroom, lest they be excluded from the wedding banquet (Matt. 25:1–13). At the Last Supper, he commands the disciples to continue the practice of sharing bread and wine after his departure, to remember his atoning death and to anticipate his future coming (Matt. 26:26–29). This future banquet will celebrate Christ’s final union with his bride, the church (Rev. 19:6–9).

Barren

A barren woman is one who is infertile and without children. The biblical world placed great value on the blessing of having children. This value and the division of labor between the genders in an ancient agricultural society affected how society esteemed women and how a woman viewed her own identity. Being without children brought despair. This can be seen in Rachel’s despondent plea (Gen. 30:1) and in the fact that wives would offer a servant in their place to bear a child (16:3; 30:3, 9).

In most of the stories about women and infertility, God reversed their circumstances: Sarah (Gen. 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (30:22), Samson’s mother (Judg. 13:2–3), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:2), the Shunammite (2 Kings 4:16), Elizabeth (Luke 1:7). For Michal, barrenness appears as a punishment (2 Sam. 6:23).

Caring for the barren is part of God’s praiseworthy caring for the needy (Ps. 113:5–9).

Barrenness

Caring for the barren is part of God’s praiseworthy caring for the needy (Ps. 113:5–9).

Basemath

(1) According to Gen. 26:34, the wife of Esau, daughter of Elon the Hittite. However, according to Gen. 36:2, the daughter of Elon who was married to Esau was named “Adah.” Also, 36:3–4 claims that Esau had a wife named “Basemath” who was the daughter of Ishmael and the sister of Nebaioth. This Basemath was the mother of Reuel. However, 28:9 makes the claim that the daughter of Ishmael married to Esau was Mahalath. In light of these differences, two possibilities arise. First, “Basemath” may have been a nickname used to describe both Adah and Mahalath (who were “sweet smelling”). Second, a scribal error may be involved here.

(2) The daughter of King Solomon married to Ahimaaz, one of Solomon’s twelve district governors over Israel, who presided over Naphtali (1 Kings 4:15).

Bashemath

(2) The daughter of King Solomon married to Ahimaaz, one of Solomon’s twelve district governors over Israel, who presided over Naphtali (1 Kings 4:15).

Basket

A woven vessel of various materials and sizes. Of the five OT uses, the most common cane basket carried foodstuffs: baked goods (Gen. 40:16–18), unleavened bread, oiled cakes and wafers, the Nazirite’s offering (Exod. 29:3, 23, 32; Lev. 8:2, 26, 31; Num. 6:15, 17, 19), or meat (Judg. 6:19). A tapered basket was used for carrying field products home (Deut. 28:5, 17) or firstfruits to the priest (Deut. 26:2, 4). A different tapered basket was used for figs (Jer. 24:1–2), clay (Ps. 81:6), and for the heads of Ahab’s sons (2 Kings 10:7). The grape-gathering basket (Jer. 6:9) was differentiated from a loosely woven fruit basket (Amos 8:1), which with a cover could be used to carry captive fowl (Jer. 5:27).

The twelve baskets used after feeding the five thousand (Matt. 14:20; Mark 6:43; Luke 9:17; John 6:13) are distinct from the larger type used after the feeding of the four thousand (Matt. 15:37; 16:10; Mark 8:8). This larger basket could also be the kind in which Paul escaped (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor. 11:33).

Basmath

(2) The daughter of King Solomon married to Ahimaaz, one of Solomon’s twelve district governors over Israel, who presided over Naphtali (1 Kings 4:15).

Bathshua

(1) The Canaanite wife of Judah son of Jacob, and mother of Er, Onan, and Shelah (1 Chron. 2:3 NLT [NIV: “daughter of Shua”]; see Gen. 38:1–12). “Bath-shua” literally means “daughter of Shua” (see Gen. 38:2) and is translated as such in Gen. 38:12. (2) A variant appearing in 1 Chron. 3:5 (KJV; see NIV mg.) for the name “Bathsheba,” wife of King David and mother of Solomon.

Bdellium

A common translation of the Hebrew word bedolakh (see esp. KJV, ESV, NASB; NIV: “resin”), which occurs twice in the OT, both times in the Pentateuch. In Gen. 2:12 bdellium is identified as a stone, and it is named in conjunction with gold and onyx as provided in the land of Havilah. In Num. 11:7 bdellium’s color is used to describe the color of wilderness manna.

Beans

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Beast

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.

Becher

(1) Son of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21; 1 Chron. 7:6 [NRSV: “Becher”]), and the father of nine sons (1 Chron. 7:8). The name is absent from two other genealogies of Benjamin (Num. 26:38; 1 Chron. 8:1). (2) A descendant of Ephraim (Num. 26:35). The name is spelled “Bered” in 1 Chron. 7:20.

Bed

A surface to recline on for the purpose of sleep, convalescence, contemplation, and sexual activity. Construction ranged from a portable straw mat (Mark 6:55; Acts 9:34) to raised frames crafted of wood, metal, or stone inlaid with precious metals and jewels (Deut. 3:11; Amos 6:4) and topped with luxurious coverings (Prov. 7:16, 17; 31:22). The mats of poor people might be rolled up and stowed away during the day to save space when they slept in a common room (Luke 11:7). The rich reclined on permanent structures in rooms designated for sleeping (Exod. 8:3; 2 Kings 6:12), but people of more modest means also had bedrooms (2 Kings 4:10).

The most commonly cited use of a bed is not for sleeping (Ps. 132:3; Luke 11:7) but for convalescing (Gen. 48:2; Exod. 21:18; 2 Sam. 13:5; Ps. 41:3; Matt. 8:14; Acts 28:8) or dying (Gen. 49:33; 2 Kings 1:4, 6, 16). Elijah restores life to a boy after placing him on a bed (1 Kings 17:19; cf. Elisha in 2 Kings 4:21, 34, 35). Murder is attempted (1 Sam. 19:13, 15, 16) or accomplished in bed (2 Sam. 4:7, 11; 2 Chron. 24:25).

The bed is for sexual activity, whether honorable (Song 1:16; Heb. 13:4) or not (Gen. 39:7, 10, 12; 49:4; 2 Sam. 13:11). People mope and mourn on beds (1 Kings 21:4; Ps. 6:6; Song 3:1; Hos. 7:14), loaf (Prov. 26:14), plot evil (Ps. 36:4; Mic. 2:1), meditate and rejoice (Pss. 4:4; 63:6; 149:5), and experience visions (Dan. 2:28; 4:5; 7:1). The bed is a metaphor for the grave (Job 7:13; 17:13; Ezek. 32:25).