The Temple of Belus, which is supposed to occupy its site,
is described by the Greek historian Herodotus as a temple
of great extent and magnificence, erected by the
Babylonians for their god Belus. The treasures
Nebuchadnezzar brought from Jerusalem were laid up in this
temple (2 Chr. 36:7).
The Birs Nimrud, at ancient Borsippa, about 7 miles
south-west of Hillah, the modern town which occupies a part
of the site of ancient Babylon, and 6 miles from the
Euphrates, is an immense mass of broken and fire-blasted
fragments, of about 2,300 feet in circumference, rising
suddenly to the height of 235 feet above the desert-plain,
and is with probability regarded as the ruins of the tower
of Babel. This is "one of the most imposing ruins in
the country." Others think it to be the ruins of the
Temple of Belus.
After passing through various vicissitudes the city was
occupied by Cyrus, "king of Elam," B.C. 538, who
issued a decree permitting the Jews to return to their own
land (Ezra 1). It then ceased to be the capital of an
empire. It was again and again visited by hostile armies,
till its inhabitants were all driven from their homes, and
the city became a complete desolation, its very site being
forgotten from among men.
On the west bank of the Euphrates, about 50 miles south of
Bagdad, there is found a series of artificial mounds of
vast extent. These are the ruins of this once famous proud
city. These ruins are principally (1) the great mound
called Babil by the Arabs. This was probably the noted
Temple of Belus, which was a pyramid about 480 feet high.
(2) The Kasr (i.e., "the palace"). This was the
great palace of Nebuchadnezzar. It is almost a square, each
side of which is about 700 feet long. The little town of
Hillah, near the site of Babylon, is built almost wholly of
bricks taken from this single mound. (3) A lofty mound, on
the summit of which stands a modern tomb called Amran
ibn-Ali. This is probably the most ancient portion of the
remains of the city, and represents the ruins of the famous
hanging-gardens, or perhaps of some royal palace. The utter
desolation of the city once called "The glory of
kingdoms" (Isa.13:19) was foretold by the prophets
(Isa.13:4-22; Jer. 25:12; 50:2, 3; Dan. 2:31-38).
The Babylon mentioned in 1 Pet. 5:13 was not Rome, as some
have thought, but the literal city of Babylon, which was
inhabited by many Jews at the time Peter wrote.
In Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; and 18:2, "Babylon" is
supposed to mean Rome, not considered as pagan, but as the
prolongation of the ancient power in the papal form. Rome,
pagan and papal, is regarded as one power. "The
literal Babylon was the beginner and supporter of tyranny
and idolatry...This city and its whole empire were taken by
the Persians under Cyrus; the Persians were subdued by the
Macedonians, and the Macedonians by the Romans; so that
Rome succeeded to the power of old Babylon. And it was her
method to adopt the worship of the false deities she had
conquered; so that by her own act she became the heiress
and successor of all the Babylonian idolatry, and of all
that was introduced into it by the immediate successors of
Babylon, and consequently of all the idolatry of the
earth." Rome, or "mystical Babylon," is
"that great city which reigneth over the kings of the
earth" (17:18).
The salt-marshes at the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris
were called Marratu, "the bitter" or
"salt", the Merathaim of Jer. 50:21. They were
the original home of the Kalda, or Chaldeans.
The most famous of the early kings of Babylonia were Sargon
of Accad (B.C.3800) and his son, Naram-Sin, who conquered a
large part of Western Asia, establishing their power in
Palestine, and even carrying their arms to the Sinaitic
peninsula. A great Babylonian library was founded in the
reign of Sargon. Babylonia was subsequently again broken up
into more than one state, and at one time fell under the
domination of Elam. This was put an end to by Khammu-rabi
(Amraphel), who drove the Elamites out of the country, and
overcame Arioch, the son of an Elamite prince. From this
time forward Babylonia was a united monarchy. About B.C.
1750 it was conquered by the Kassi, or Kosseans, from the
mountains of Elam, and a Kassite dynasty ruled over it for
576 years and 9 months.
In the time of Khammu-rabi, Syria and Palestine were
subject to Babylonia and its Elamite suzerain; and after
the overthrow of the Elamite supremacy, the Babylonian
kings continued to exercise their influence and power in
what was called "the land of the Amorites." In
the epoch of the Kassite dynasty, however, Canaan passed
into the hands of Egypt.
In B.C. 729, Babylonia was conquered by the Assyrian king
Tiglath-pileser III.; but on the death of Shalmaneser IV.
it was seized by the Kalda or "Chaldean" prince
Merodach-baladan (2 Kings 20:12-19), who held it till B.C.
709, when he was driven out by Sargon.
Under Sennacherib, Babylonia revolted from Assyria several
times, with the help of the Elamites, and after one of
these revolts Babylon was destroyed by Sennacherib, B.C.
689. It was rebuilt by Esarhaddon, who made it his
residence during part of the year, and it was to Babylon
that Manasseh was brought a prisoner (2 Chr. 33:11). After
the death of Esarhaddon, Saul-sumyukin, the viceroy of
Babylonia, revolted against his brother the Assyrian king,
and the revolt was suppressed with difficulty.
When Nineveh was destroyed, B.C. 606, Nabopolassar, the
viceroy of Babylonia, who seems to have been of Chaldean
descent, made himself independent. His son Nebuchadrezzar
(Nabu-kudur-uzur), after defeating the Egyptians at
Carchemish, succeeded him as king, B.C. 604, and founded
the Babylonian empire. He strongly fortified Babylon, and
adorned it with palaces and other buildings. His son,
Evil-merodach, who succeeded him in B.C. 561, was murdered
after a reign of two years. The last monarch of the
Babylonian empire was Nabonidus (Nabu-nahid), B.C. 555-538,
whose eldest son, Belshazzar (Bilu-sar-uzur), is mentioned
in several inscriptions. Babylon was captured by Cyrus,
B.C. 538, and though it revolted more than once in later
years, it never succeeded in maintaining its independence.
(2.) Another word (kees) so rendered means a bag for
carrying weights (Deut. 25:13; Prov. 16:11; Micah 6:11). It
also denotes a purse (Prov. 1:14) and a cup (23:31).
(3.) Another word rendered "bag" in 1 Sam. 17:40
is rendered "sack" in Gen. 42:25; and in 1 Sam.
9:7; 21:5 "vessel," or wallet for carrying food.
(4.) The word rendered in the Authorized Version
"bags," in which the priests bound up the money
contributed for the restoration of the temple (2 Kings
12:10), is also rendered "bundle" (Gen. 42:35; 1
Sam. 25:29). It denotes bags used by travellers for
carrying money during a journey (Prov. 7:20; Hag. 1:6).
(5.) The "bag" of Judas was a small box (John
12:6; 13:29).
The bread was generally in the form of long or round cakes
(Ex. 29:23; 1 Sam. 2:36), of a thinness that rendered them
easily broken (Isa. 58:7; Matt. 14:19; 26:26; Acts 20:11).
Common ovens were generally used; at other times a jar was
half-filled with hot pebbles, and the dough was spread over
them. Hence we read of "cakes baken on the coals"
(1 Kings 19:6), and "baken in the oven" (Lev.
2:4). (See
BREAD.)
The "doctrine of Balaam" is spoken of in Rev.
2:14, in allusion to the fact that it was through the
teaching of Balaam that Balak learned the way by which the
Israelites might be led into sin. (See NICOLAITANES.) Balaam was constrained to utter
prophecies regarding the future of Israel of wonderful
magnificence and beauty of expression (Num. 24:5-9, 17).
(1.) This word occurs in the Authorized Version (Gen.
37:25; 43:11; Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8; Ezek. 27:17) as the
rendering of the Hebrew word tsori_ or _tseri, which
denotes the gum of a tree growing in Gilead (q.v.), which
is very precious. It was celebrated for its medicinal
qualities, and was circulated as an article of merchandise
by Arab and Phoenician merchants. The shrub so named was
highly valued, and was almost peculiar to Palestine. In the
time of Josephus it was cultivated in the neighbourhood of
Jericho and the Dead Sea. There is an Arab tradition that
the tree yielding this balm was brought by the queen of
Sheba as a present to Solomon, and that he planted it in
his gardens at Jericho.
(2.) There is another Hebrew word, basam_ or _bosem,
from which our word "balsam," as well as the
corresponding Greek balsamon, is derived. It is rendered
"spice" (Cant. 5:1, 13; 6:2; margin of Revised
Version, "balsam;" Ex. 35:28; 1 Kings 10:10), and
denotes fragrance in general. Basam also denotes the
true balsam-plant, a native of South Arabia (Cant. l.c.).
(2.) The flag borne by each separate tribe, of a smaller
form. Probably it bore on it the name of the tribe to which
it belonged, or some distinguishing device (Num. 2:2,34).
(3.) A lofty signal-flag, not carried about, but
stationary. It was usually erected on a mountain or other
lofty place. As soon as it was seen the war-trumpets were
blown (Ps. 60:4; Isa. 5:26; 11:12; 13:2; 18:3; 30:17; Jer.
4:6 21; Ezek. 27:7).
(4.) A "sign of fire" (Jer. 6:1) was sometimes
used as a signal.
The banners and ensigns of the Roman army had idolatrous
images upon them, and hence they are called the
"abomination of desolation" (q.v.). The principal
Roman standard, however, was an eagle. (See Matt. 24:28;
Luke 17:37, where the Jewish nation is compared to a dead
body, which the eagles gather together to devour.)
God's setting up or giving a banner (Ps. 20:5; 60:4;
Cant. 2:4) imports his presence and protection and aid
extended to his people.
The guests were first refreshed with water and fragrant oil
(Luke 7:38; Mark 7:4). A less frequent custom was that of
supplying each guest with a robe to be worn during the
feast (Eccles. 9:8; Rev. 3:4, 5; Matt. 22:11). At private
banquets the master of the house presided; but on public
occasions a "governor of the feast" was chosen
(John 2:8). The guests were placed in order according to
seniority (Gen. 43:33), or according to the rank they held
(Prov. 25:6,7; Matt. 23:6; Luke 14:7).
As spoons and knives and forks are a modern invention, and
were altogether unknown in the East, the hands alone were
necessarily used, and were dipped in the dish, which was
common to two of the guests (John 13:26). In the days of
our Lord the guests reclined at table; but the ancient
Israelites sat around low tables, cross-legged, like the
modern Orientals. Guests were specially honoured when extra
portions were set before them (Gen. 43:34), and when their
cup was filled with wine till it ran over (Ps. 23:5). The
hands of the guests were usually cleaned by being rubbed on
bread, the crumbs of which fell to the ground, and were the
portion for dogs (Matt. 15:27; Luke 16:21).
At the time of the three annual festivals at Jerusalem
family banquets were common. To these the "widow, and
the fatherless, and the stranger" were welcome (Deut.
16:11). Sacrifices also included a banquet (Ex. 34:15;
Judg. 16:23). Birthday banquets are mentioned (Gen. 40:20;
Matt. 14:6). They were sometimes protracted, and attended
with revelry and excess (Gen. 21:8; 29:22; 1 Sam. 25:2,36;
2 Sam. 13:23). Portions were sometimes sent from the table
to poorer friends (Neh. 8:10; Esther 9:19, 22). (See
MEALS.)
The mode of baptism can in no way be determined from the
Greek word rendered "baptize." Baptists say that
it means "to dip," and nothing else. That is an
incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both
(1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to
put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore
as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere
word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not
only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of
the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and
baptisms required by the Mosaic law. These were effected by
immersion, and by affusion and sprinkling; and the same
word, "washings" (Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or
"baptisms," designates them all. In the New
Testament there cannot be found a single well-authenticated
instance of the occurrence of the word where it necessarily
means immersion. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39;
9:17, 18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea
that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by
immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly
improbable.
The gospel and its ordinances are designed for the whole
world, and it cannot be supposed that a form for the
administration of baptism would have been prescribed which
would in any place (as in a tropical country or in polar
regions) or under any circumstances be inapplicable or
injurious or impossible.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the two symbolical
ordinances of the New Testament. The Supper represents the
work of Christ, and Baptism the work of the Spirit. As in
the Supper a small amount of bread and wine used in this
ordinance exhibits in symbol the great work of Christ, so
in Baptism the work of the Holy Spirit is fully seen in the
water poured or sprinkled on the person in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That which is essential in
baptism is only "washing with water," no mode
being specified and none being necessary or essential to
the symbolism of the ordinance.
The apostles of our Lord were baptized with the Holy Ghost
(Matt. 3:11) by his coming upon them (Acts 1:8). The fire
also with which they were baptized sat upon them. The
extraordinary event of Pentecost was explained by Peter as
a fulfilment of the ancient promise that the Spirit would
be poured out in the last days (2:17). He uses also with
the same reference the expression shed forth as descriptive
of the baptism of the Spirit (33). In the Pentecostal
baptism "the apostles were not dipped into the Spirit,
nor plunged into the Spirit; but the Spirit was shed forth,
poured out, fell on them (11:15), came upon them, sat on
them." That was a real and true baptism. We are
warranted from such language to conclude that in like
manner when water is poured out, falls, comes upon or rests
upon a person when this ordinance is administered, that
person is baptized. Baptism is therefore, in view of all
these arguments "rightly administered by pouring or
sprinkling water upon the person."
The subjects of baptism. This raises questions of greater
importance than those relating to its mode.
1. The controversy here is not about "believers'
baptism," for that is common to all parties. Believers
were baptized in apostolic times, and they have been
baptized in all time by all the branches of the church. It
is altogether a misrepresentation to allege, as is
sometimes done by Baptists, that their doctrine is
"believers' baptism." Every instance of adult
baptism, or of "believers' baptism," recorded
in the New Testament (Acts 2:41; 8:37; 9:17, 18; 10:47;
16:15; 19:5, etc.) is just such as would be dealt with in
precisely the same way by all branches of the Protestant
Church, a profession of faith or of their being
"believers" would be required from every one of
them before baptism. The point in dispute is not the
baptism of believers, but whether the infant children of
believers, i.e., of members of the church, ought to be
baptized.
2. In support of the doctrine of infant baptism, i.e., of
the baptism of the infants, or rather the
"children," of believing parents, the following
considerations may be adduced:
The Church of Christ exists as a divinely organized
community. It is the "kingdom of God," one
historic kingdom under all dispensations. The commonwealth
of Israel was the "church" (Acts 7:38; Rom. 9:4)
under the Mosaic dispensation. The New Testament church is
not a new and different church, but one with that of the
Old Testament. The terms of admission into the church have
always been the same viz., a profession of faith and a
promise of subjection to the laws of the kingdom. Now it is
a fact beyond dispute that the children of God's people
under the old dispensation were recognized as members of
the church. Circumcision was the sign and seal of their
membership. It was not because of carnal descent from
Abraham, but as being the children of God's professing
people, that this rite was administered (Rom. 4:11). If
children were members of the church under the old
dispensation, which they undoubtedly were, then they are
members of the church now by the same right, unless it can
be shown that they have been expressly excluded. Under the
Old Testament parents acted for their children and
represented them. (See Gen. 9:9; 17:10; Ex. 24:7, 8; Deut.
29:9-13.) When parents entered into covenant with God, they
brought their children with them. This was a law in the
Hebrew Church. When a proselyte was received into
membership, he could not enter without bringing his
children with him. The New Testament does not exclude the
children of believers from the church. It does not deprive
them of any privilege they enjoyed under the Old Testament.
There is no command or statement of any kind, that can be
interpreted as giving any countenance to such an idea,
anywhere to be found in the New Testament. The church
membership of infants has never been set aside. The ancient
practice, orginally appointed by God himself, must remain a
law of his kingdom till repealed by the same divine
authority. There are lambs in the fold of the Good Shepherd
(John 21:15; comp. Luke 1:15; Matt. 19:14; 1 Cor. 7:14).
"In a company of converts applying for admission into
Christ's house there are likely to be some heads of
families. How is their case to be treated? How, for
example, are Lydia and her neighbour the keeper of the city
prison to be treated? Both have been converted. Both are
heads of families. They desire to be received into the
infant church of Philippi. What is Christ's direction
to them? Shall we say that it is to this effect:
'Arise, and wash away your sins, and come into my
house. But you must come in by yourselves. These babes in
your arms, you must leave them outside. They cannot believe
yet, and so they cannot come in. Those other little ones by
your side, their hearts may perhaps have been touched with
the love of God; still, they are not old enough to make a
personal profession, so they too must be left outside...For
the present you must leave them where they are and come in
by yourselves.' One may reasonably demand very
stringent proofs before accepting this as a fair
representation of the sort of welcome Christ offers to
parents who come to his door bringing their children with
them. Surely it is more consonant with all we know about
him to suppose that his welcome will be more ample in its
scope, and will breathe a more gracious tone. Surely it
would be more like the Good Shepherd to say, 'Come in,
and bring your little ones along with you. The youngest
needs my salvation; and the youngest is accessible to my
salvation. You may be unable as yet to deal with them about
either sin or salvation, but my gracious power can find its
way into their hearts even now. I can impart to them pardon
and a new life. From Adam they have inherited sin and
death; and I can so unite them to myself that in me they
shall be heirs of righteousness and life. You may without
misgiving bring them to me. And the law of my house
requires that the same day which witnesses your reception
into it by baptism must witness their reception
also'" (The Church, by Professor Binnie, D.D.).
John refused at first to confer his baptism on Christ, for
he understood not what he had to do with the "baptism
of repentance." But Christ said, "'Suffer it
to be so now,' NOW as suited to my state of
humiliation, my state as a substitute in the room of
sinners." His reception of baptism was not necessary
on his own account. It was a voluntary act, the same as his
act of becoming incarnate. Yet if the work he had engaged
to accomplish was to be completed, then it became him to
take on him the likeness of a sinner, and to fulfil all
righteousness (Matt. 3:15).
The official duty of Christ and the sinless person of
Christ are to be distinguished. It was in his official
capacity that he submitted to baptism. In coming to John
our Lord virtually said, "Though sinless, and without
any personal taint, yet in my public or official capacity
as the Sent of God, I stand in the room of many, and bring
with me the sin of the world, for which I am the
propitiation." Christ was not made under the law on
his own account. It was as surety of his people, a position
which he spontaneously assumed. The administration of the
rite of baptism was also a symbol of the baptism of
suffering before him in this official capacity (Luke
12:50). In thus presenting himself he in effect dedicated
or consecrated himself to the work of fulfilling all
righteousness.
The prosperity of the church at Antioch led the apostles
and brethren at Jerusalem to send Barnabas thither to
superintend the movement. He found the work so extensive
and weighty that he went to Tarsus in search of Saul to
assist him. Saul returned with him to Antioch and laboured
with him for a whole year (Acts 11:25, 26). The two were at
the end of this period sent up to Jerusalem with the
contributions the church at Antioch had made for the poorer
brethren there (11:28-30). Shortly after they returned,
bringing John Mark with them, they were appointed as
missionaries to the heathen world, and in this capacity
visited Cyprus and some of the principal cities of Asia
Minor (Acts 13:14). Returning from this first missionary
journey to Antioch, they were again sent up to Jerusalem to
consult with the church there regarding the relation of
Gentiles to the church (Acts 15:2: Gal. 2:1). This matter
having been settled, they returned again to Antioch,
bringing the decree of the council as the rule by which
Gentiles were to be admitted into the church.
When about to set forth on a second missionary journey, a
dispute arose between Saul and Barnabas as to the propriety
of taking John Mark with them again. The dispute ended by
Saul and Barnabas taking separate routes. Saul took Silas
as his companion, and journeyed through Syria and Cilicia;
while Barnabas took his nephew John Mark, and visited
Cyprus (Acts 15:36-41). Barnabas is not again mentioned by
Luke in the Acts.
During the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, he was the
keeper of the deed of purchase Jeremiah had made of the
territory of Hanameel (Jer. 32:12). Being accused by his
enemies of favouring the Chaldeans, he was cast, with
Jeremiah, into prison, where he remained till the capture
of Jerusalem (B.C. 586). He probably died in Babylon.
(2.) A Gileadite of Rogelim who was distinguished for his
loyalty to David. He liberally provided for the king's
followers (2 Sam. 17:27). David on his death-bed,
remembering his kindness, commended Barzillai's
children to the care of Solomon (1 Kings 2:7).
(3.) A priest who married a daughter of the preceding (Ezra
2:61).
(2.) A covered dish or urn (Heb. k'for) among the
vessels of the temple (1 Chr. 28:17; Ezra 1:10; 8:27).
(3.) A vase (Heb. mizrak) from which to sprinkle anything.
A metallic vessel; sometimes rendered "bowl"
(Amos 6:6; Zech. 9:15). The vessels of the tabernacle were
of brass (Ex. 27:3), while those of the temple were of gold
(2 Chr. 4:8).
(4.) A utensil (Heb. saph) for holding the blood of the
victims (Ex. 12:22); also a basin for domestic purposes (2
Sam. 17:28).
The various vessels spoken of by the names "basin,
bowl, charger, cup, and dish," cannot now be
accurately distinguished.
The basin in which our Lord washed the disciples' feet
(John 13:5) must have been larger and deeper than the
hand-basin.
(2.) That used (Heb. salsilloth') in gathering grapes
(Jer. 6:9).
(3.) That in which the first fruits of the harvest were
presented, Heb. tene, (Deut. 26:2, 4). It was also used for
household purposes. In form it tapered downwards like that
called corbis by the Romans.
(4.) A basket (Heb. kelub) having a lid, resembling a
bird-cage. It was made of leaves or rushes. The name is
also applied to fruit-baskets (Amos 8:1, 2).
(5.) A basket (Heb. dud) for carrying figs (Jer. 24:2),
also clay to the brick-yard (R.V., Ps. 81:6), and bulky
articles (2 Kings 10:7). This word is also rendered in the
Authorized Version "kettle" (1 Sam. 2:14),
"caldron" (2 Chr. 35:13),
"seething-pot" (Job 41:20).
In the New Testament mention is made of the basket (Gr.
kophinos, small "wicker-basket") for the
"fragments" in the miracle recorded Mark 6:43,
and in that recorded Matt. 15:37 (Gr. spuris, large
"rope-basket"); also of the basket in which Paul
escaped (Acts 9:25, Gr. spuris; 2 Cor. 11: 33, Gr. sargane,
"basket of plaited cords").
Bay in Zech. 6:3, 7 denotes the colour of horses, but the
original Hebrew means strong, and is here used rather to
describe the horses as fleet or spirited.
When used in contradistinction to man (Ps. 36:6), it
denotes a brute creature generally, and when in
contradistinction to creeping things (Lev. 11:2-7; 27:26),
a four-footed animal.
The Mosaic law required that beasts of labour should have
rest on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10; 23:12), and in the
Sabbatical year all cattle were allowed to roam about
freely, and eat whatever grew in the fields (Ex. 23:11;
Lev. 25:7). No animal could be castrated (Lev. 22:24).
Animals of different kinds were to be always kept separate
(Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:10). Oxen when used in threshing were
not to be prevented from eating what was within their reach
(Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor.9:9).
This word is used figuratively of an infuriated multitude
(1 Cor. 15:32; Acts 19:29; comp. Ps. 22:12, 16; Eccl. 3:18;
Isa. 11:6-8), and of wicked men (2 Pet. 2:12). The four
beasts of Daniel 7:3, 17, 23 represent four kingdoms or
kings.
In the New Testament it denotes sometimes a litter with a
coverlet (Matt. 9:2, 6; Luke 5:18; Acts 5:15).
The Jewish bedstead was frequently merely the divan or
platform along the sides of the house, sometimes a very
slight portable frame, sometimes only a mat or one or more
quilts. The only material for bed-clothes is mentioned in 1
Sam. 19:13. Sleeping in the open air was not uncommon, the
sleeper wrapping himself in his outer garment (Ex.
22:26,27; Deut. 24:12,13).