A place whose precise location has not been identified with certainty but is situated somewhere north of the Sea of Galilee below Mount Hermon. It is possible that it corresponds to the modern Banias. Baal Gad was a part of the territory of Og, king of Bashan, and it marked the northern limit of Joshua’s conquest (Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5).

The location of a vineyard belonging to Solomon (Song 8:11). It might be identical to Hammon of Asher (Josh. 19:28).

A city located near the border of Ephraim and Benjamin where Absalom held a feast and invited his brother Amnon in order to assassinate him for the rape of his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13). It is possible that this city is identical to the Hazor that was resettled in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:33).

Also known as Seir, Mount Hermon, and Mount Baal Hermon, this is part of the territory of the half-tribe of Manasseh east of the Jordan (1 Chron. 5:23; cf. Josh. 13:11), which was taken by the Israelites under Moses from Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 3:8–9). Located northeast of Dan, it is the highest mountain in the traditional territory of Israel. According to Judg. 3:3, the Hivites remained in this region following the conquest.

A Transjordanian city allotted to the tribe of Reuben, also known as Beth Meon and Beth Baal Meon (Num. 32:38; Josh. 13:17; 1 Chron. 5:8). Ezekiel 25:9 identifies Baal Meon as a frontier town of Moab, indicating that at some point the Moabites, who bordered Reuben’s territory on the south, expanded their borders into the territory of Reuben. Jeremiah also includes this city in the list of cities belonging to Moab that would be destroyed by the Babylonians (Jer. 48:23). This city may be identified with the modern Ma’in, which is about three miles southeast of Heshbon.

A Moabite deity, sometimes translated as “Baal of Peor” (see Num. 25), who was a local manifestation of the West Semitic god Baal. While the Israelites were staying in the region of Mount Peor in Moab, they were seduced by the Moabites into sexual immorality and the worship of Baal Peor. This incident is referenced in biblical literature several times as a paradigm of Israel’s sin and God’s judgment (Deut. 4:3; Josh. 22:17; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10 [where Baal Peor is treated as a place name]).

The location of David’s defeat of the Philistine army (2 Sam. 5:20; 1 Chron. 14:11), about five miles southwest of Jerusalem. The name means “Baal/Lord who breaks out.” While “Baal” is also the proper name of a Canaanite deity, David’s statement after the defeat of the Philistines clearly intends the title to refer to the God of Israel.

A city whose precise location is uncertain; it may border the region of Ephraim (see 1 Sam. 9:4). It could be identified with Khirbet Marjameh, a site located near Mount Baal Hazor. The Bible mentions this city as the hometown of a man who brought bread to Elisha (2 Kings 4:42). It may be the same as Shalisha, an area that Saul passed through when he was searching for lost donkeys (1 Sam. 9:4).

An unidentified location in the territory of Benjamin where the army of Israel took battle positions in their fight against the Benjamites during the period of the judges (Judg. 20:33). The name means “Baal/Lord of the palm tree.” It is to be distinguished from the location of the same name that lies on the southern border of Palestine.

(1) A location near where the Israelites camped before they crossed the Red Sea (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33:7). The exact location of this site is unknown. (2) One of the most important gods in the pantheon of Ugarit, who appears throughout the poetic and ritual texts uncovered in that city in the twentieth century.

Meaning “Baal/Lord of the covenant,” this was Shechem’s local manifestation of the Canaanite deity Baal. Like the Baal worshiped at Ugarit, Baal-Berith was likely associated with fertility and vegetation (Judg. 9:27). Soon after the death of Gideon, the Israelites began to worship Baal-Berith (Judg. 8:33), and money from his temple at Shechem was given by the Shechemites to Abimelek (Judg. 9:4). The significance of “covenant” in this name and the relationship to El-Berith of Judg. 9:46 remain uncertain.

(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).

A deity of the Philistine city Ekron who appears only in 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16. “Baal-Zebub” probably means “Baal/Lord of the flies,” but it is possible that the original name of this deity was “Baal-Zebul,” perhaps meaning “Baal the prince.” This possibility finds support in the appearance of a similar name for a god in Ugaritic texts, the presence of the root zbl in the titles of other gods, and in the NT references to Beelzeboul as the name of a demon or prince of the demons (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19). It is likely, therefore, that the author of 2 Kings intentionally changed the name “Baal-Zebul” to the similarly sounding pejorative “Baal-Zebub” for polemical reasons, and that by oral or another textual tradition the original name was remembered in the NT. Not much is known about this specific deity other than that it is one of the many local manifestations of the god Baal.

(1) The town where the Ark of the Covenant was kept before moving it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2). Sometimes referred to as “Baalah of Judah” (1 Chron. 13:6), it is also known as Kiriath Jearim (Josh. 15:9–11). The city is located on the northern border of Judah, modern Deir el-Azar, eight miles west of Jerusalem. (See also Kiriath Jearim.) (2) A town on the southern border of Judah (Josh. 15:29). This city may be the same as Balah (Josh. 19:3) and Bilhah (1 Chron. 4:29). It was occupied by the tribe of Simeon. Its location is unknown.

(1) The town where the Ark of the Covenant was kept before moving it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2). Sometimes referred to as “Baalah of Judah” (1 Chron. 13:6), it is also known as Kiriath Jearim (Josh. 15:9–11). The city is located on the northern border of Judah, modern Deir el-Azar, eight miles west of Jerusalem. (See also Kiriath Jearim.) (2) A town on the southern border of Judah (Josh. 15:29). This city may be the same as Balah (Josh. 19:3) and Bilhah (1 Chron. 4:29). It was occupied by the tribe of Simeon. Its location is unknown.

A city allotted to Dan (Josh. 19:44). Its probable location is in the coastal plain, about twenty-seven miles west of Jerusalem. Solomon built up this and other cities by using forced labor (1 Kings 9:18; 2 Chron. 8:6). The Hebrew name of this city (ba’alah) is spelled differently from the name of the city referred to in 1 Chron. 4:33 (ba’al [some LXX manuscripts supply Balat or Balaad]), and it is unlikely that they are identical.

This city, also known as Ramah in the Negev, was part of the allotment of Simeon (Josh. 19:8) and is located in the south of Israel. Archaeologists have proposed Tel Malhata as a possible location. It is likely that it is the city referred to as Ramoth Negev, where David sent some of the plunder from his defeat of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:27).

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.

(1) The town where the Ark of the Covenant was kept before moving it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2). Sometimes referred to as “Baalah of Judah” (1 Chron. 13:6), it is also known as Kiriath Jearim (Josh. 15:9–11). The city is located on the northern border of Judah, modern Deir el-Azar, eight miles west of Jerusalem. (See also Kiriath Jearim.) (2) A town on the southern border of Judah (Josh. 15:29). This city may be the same as Balah (Josh. 19:3) and Bilhah (1 Chron. 4:29). It was occupied by the tribe of Simeon. Its location is unknown.

(1) The town where the Ark of the Covenant was kept before moving it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2). Sometimes referred to as “Baalah of Judah” (1 Chron. 13:6), it is also known as Kiriath Jearim (Josh. 15:9–11). The city is located on the northern border of Judah, modern Deir el-Azar, eight miles west of Jerusalem. (See also Kiriath Jearim.) (2) A town on the southern border of Judah (Josh. 15:29). This city may be the same as Balah (Josh. 19:3) and Bilhah (1 Chron. 4:29). It was occupied by the tribe of Simeon. Its location is unknown.

A Hebrew name (meaning either “my husband/lord” or “my Baal”) that occurs only in Hos. 2:16. Apparently, Israelites had been using this name for Yahweh. On the one hand, since ba’al can mean “lord” or “husband,” this can be construed as an appropriate name for God. Since “Baal,” however, is also the name of one of the Canaanite deities whose worship plagued the history of both Israel and Judah, Hosea saw this name as inappropriate for the God of Israel.

A transliteration of the Hebrew plural for “Baal,” appearing primarily in the KJV (e.g., Judg. 2:11; 10:10). Most modern translations use the plural form “Baals.” The plurality probably refers to various local Canaanite manifestations of a single deity.

The king of Ammon at the beginning of the exile of Judah. He conspired with Ishmael to assassinate Gedaliah, the governor of Judah installed by the Babylonians after the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 40:14).

(1) Son of Rimmon, brother of Rekab, a Benjamite who was a leader of one of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands during his kingship. Along with his brother, he assassinated Ish-Bosheth, David’s rival, and brought his head to David. David rewarded him and Rekab with execution (2 Sam. 4). (2) One of the leaders who returned to Israel with Zerubbabel after the exile (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). It is possible that this is the same individual mentioned in Neh. 3:4 as the father of Zadok. (3) Son of Ahilud, and one of the twelve district governors appointed by King Solomon to supply provisions for the king and the royal household one month each year (1 Kings 4:12). (4) Son of Hushai, and one of the twelve district governors appointed by King Solomon to supply provisions for the king and the royal household one month each year (1 Kings 4:16). (5) A signer of the covenant to keep the law of Moses at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:27). (6) The father of Heled, one of the mighty men of David’s army (1 Chron. 11:30).

(1) Son of Rimmon, brother of Rekab, a Benjamite who was a leader of one of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands during his kingship. Along with his brother, he assassinated Ish-Bosheth, David’s rival, and brought his head to David. David rewarded him and Rekab with execution (2 Sam. 4). (2) One of the leaders who returned to Israel with Zerubbabel after the exile (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). It is possible that this is the same individual mentioned in Neh. 3:4 as the father of Zadok. (3) Son of Ahilud, and one of the twelve district governors appointed by King Solomon to supply provisions for the king and the royal household one month each year (1 Kings 4:12). (4) Son of Hushai, and one of the twelve district governors appointed by King Solomon to supply provisions for the king and the royal household one month each year (1 Kings 4:16). (5) A signer of the covenant to keep the law of Moses at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:27). (6) The father of Heled, one of the mighty men of David’s army (1 Chron. 11:30).

One of the wives of Shaharaim the Benjamite (1 Chron. 8:8).

Son of Malkijah, a Levite, included in the genealogy of the temple musician Asaph (1 Chron. 6:40).

A king of Israel (906–883 BC) who gained ascendancy to the throne by means of a violent takeover, resulting in the death of his predecessor, Nadab (1 Kings 15:27–28). At the beginning of his reign Baasha killed the entire family of Jeroboam I, thus fulfilling Ahijah’s prophecy concerning the future of the wicked king’s line (14:10–11). Due to Baasha’s wickedness, however, his own family would suffer the same fate, as prophesied by Jehu (16:2–4). Baasha’s evil reign, characterized by continual war against Asa the king of Judah, lasted twenty-four years.

A West Semitic weather and warrior deity. There is evidence that “Baal,” meaning “lord,” was a proper name for a deity as early as the third millennium BC and may have been identified with the god Hadad.

Excavations from the city of Ugarit have uncovered second-millennium BC texts dealing with the cult and mythology of Baal. These texts depict Baal as a god of weather and storm whose provision of precipitation ensures the seasonal cycles of crops. The Baal Cycle from Ugarit also depicts him defeating Yamm, the god of the sea, and Mot, the god of death. Some of these associations shed light on polemics against Baal in the OT. Yahweh’s withholding rain at Elijah’s request (1 Kings 17:1), for example, undermines Baal’s claim to control the weather. Further, descriptions of Yahweh as a storm god, such as Ps. 29, may be understood as polemical statements that Yahweh, not Baal, is the one who really controls the storm.

The worship of Baal along­side Yahweh received official sponsorship in Israel under Ahab (1 Kings 16:31–33) and in Judah under Manasseh (2 Kings 10:18–27). The worship of this deity was grounds for the exile of Israel (2 Kings 17:16).

A pejorative term used of Paul by a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18). The Greek term that it translates (spermologos) originally applied to birds pecking at grain. It became an expression used negatively for a person whose argument lacked sophistication and simply scavenged parts of several arguments together in order to pass them off with pretense. Thus, the argument would be viewed as worthless. The group of philosophers applied it to Paul because they believed him to be proclaiming both monotheism and the worship of Jesus, which they understood as a contradiction.

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.

A proposed translation of tukki, an animal in 1 Kings 10:22; 2 Chron. 9:21. Some prefer the translation “baboon” because of its proximity in those verses to the term translated as “ape” as well as its close relationship to an Egyptian term translated as “ape.” Another suggestion is “peacock” because of its close relationship to the Tamil term for “peacock.” The exact meaning remains uncertain. See also Ape.

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.

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.

A valley mentioned in Ps. 84:6. Worshipers are said to pass through this valley on the way to worship in Zion. The translation and significance of the name are debated. The Hebrew word baka’ may mean “balsam tree,” thus “Valley of the Balsam.” In 2 Sam. 5:22–24; 1 Chron. 14:13–16, David was to wait until he heard the sound of marching in the balsam trees (NIV: “poplar trees”) (signifying the advance of the heavenly army) before he attacked the Philistines. The word baka’ also is similar to the Hebrew word for “weeping,” thus “Valley of Weeping.” Perhaps the name of the valley alludes to both words.

Descended from Beker, the Bekerites (NRSV: “Becherites”) were a clan from the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 26:35).

A deliberate turning away from and rejection of God. This language is found most frequently in the OT, especially in Jeremiah, where warnings are often accompanied by God’s invitations to his people to repent and return to him from their sinful ways (e.g., Jer. 3:11–12, 22).

The word “badger” is not found in the NIV but occurs in other translations: in the KJV as a (mis)translation of takhash, which the NIV renders as “durable leather” (e.g., Exod. 25:5); and where shapan is translated as “rock badger” (NRSV, NET) rather than, as in the NIV, “hyrax” (e.g., Lev. 11:5). The word shapan refers to the Syrian hyrax, which fits the description of a vegetarian rock dweller that appears to chew constantly. See also Hyrax; Leather.

A material made from the skin of animals, leather was used for various articles, including belts (2 Kings 1:8) and sandals (Ezek. 16:10). Leviticus gives detailed instructions on how to deal with contaminated leather articles and textiles (Lev. 13:48–59). John the Baptist’s leather belt and garment of camel’s hair recalled Elijah’s style of dress (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The instructions for building the tabernacle refer frequently to takhash skin (NIV: “durable leather”; Exod. 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Num. 4:6, 8, 10–12, 14, 25), a fine leather also used for sandals (Ezek. 16:10). Various suggestions for the animal represented by this term include badger (KJV), porpoise (NASB), sea cow (NIV 1984), dolphin (MSG), manatee (HCSB), seal (ASV), goat (ESV), and others. Perhaps the most likely candidate is the dugong, a large marine animal that lives in the Red Sea. Its skin would be hard enough to protect the tabernacle and its furniture as well as to be made into shoes. Other interpreters suggest that takhash actually refers to the color of the skin.

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).

An aerophone (a musical instrument that produces sound by vibration of air), this instrument pushes air, held in a bag, past reeds. In the NASB it is listed as one of the instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s band that initiated worship of his golden statue (Dan. 3:5, 10, 15). Most versions, however, understand this instrument to be the dulcimer (KJV) or double-pipe (cf. NIV). See also Dulcimer.

A resident of Bahurim (1 Chron. 11:33; cf. “Barhumite” in 2 Sam. 23:31). See also Bahurim.

A village to the northeast of Jerusalem, probably located in Benjamin near Anathoth, it came to prominence during David’s reign. After Abner had come over to him, David demanded that Ish-Bosheth arrange for his wife, Michal, to be returned to him, since Saul had taken her and given her to Paltiel (1 Sam. 25:44). Paltiel followed her as far as Bahurim on her return before being dismissed by Abner (2 Sam. 3:16). Later, when David was fleeing from Absalom, he was cursed at Bahurim by Shimei, a member of Saul’s family (2 Sam. 16:5–13). On David’s return, Shimei was among the first to meet him (19:16–23), but although David promised not to kill him and prevented Abishai from doing so, he later directed Solomon to execute him (1 Kings 2:8). Others in the town remained loyal, including an unnamed householder who hid two of David’s spies in a well while they were escaping from Absalom’s men, and whose wife misled Absalom’s men as to their location (2 Sam. 17:17–20).

The KJV rendering of bayit as the name of a worship site in Moab (Isa. 15:2). Other versions translate the word in this verse as “house” or “temple.”

A Levite descendant of Asaph who returned to Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:15).

Listed in Ezra 2:51; Neh. 7:53 as an ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel (in 539 BC or soon after). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service for menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

A Levite chosen to return and serve in Jerusalem following the exile. Bakbukiah served as a leader of thanksgiving and prayer (Neh. 11:17; 12:9) and as a gatekeeper to the storerooms (12:25).

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

Street in Jerusalem during the time of King Zedekiah (Jer. 37:21; NIV: “street of the bakers”). This street is most likely where the majority of the bakers were located in Jerusalem, as it was common to group trades together in one area. Jeremiah was promised bread from the bakers’ street during his imprisonment.

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).

Toward the end of the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, Moses led the people of Israel to the plains of Moab, across the Jordan from Jericho (Num. 22:1). From this place, Israel would soon cross into the Promised Land. However, Israel had just defeated Sihon and Og (Num. 21:21–35), two Transjordanian kings, putting fear in the minds of the Moabites and their king, Balak.

To counteract the threat, Balak tried to enlist the aid of a well-known diviner, Balaam, who lived in Pethor, a site in northwest Mesopotamia (Num. 22:5). The king wanted to weaken Israel by having Balaam curse the Israelites. However, God made it clear to Balaam that he would not endorse any action against his people. Balaam at first refused to go with the Moabite messengers, but after being enticed by an even bigger payment, he left for Moab. God allowed him to go, but with a warning that Balaam could do only what God himself commanded him to do. God emphasized this last point by famously putting an invisible angel in the path of Balaam’s donkey so that it could not pass. In frustration, Balaam whipped the donkey until God gave the animal voice to object to the beating, and then the Lord opened the diviner’s eyes to the angel’s presence. The episode puts Balaam in a negative light, having his donkey alert him, the diviner, to the angel’s presence.

Nonetheless, Balaam continues on his journey, but due to God’s command, he could only bless and not curse Israel. At Balak’s urging, he tries to curse Israel four times, but each time he delivers an oracle of blessing. The final oracle directed to Israel (Num. 23:15–19) contains the most memorable words of Balaam as he predicts, “A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel” (24:17), which comes to fulfillment in the rise of the Davidic dynasty.

Thus, Balak of Moab’s attempt to thwart Israel by prophetic curse fails. However, Num. 25 reports that a different tactic does succeed in bringing harm, though not utter ruin, to the people of God. Some Israelites start sleeping with women of Moab and Midian and worshiping their gods. The damage is stopped by the swift action of Phinehas the priest. Although Balaam is not named in this chapter, Num. 31:16 reports that he was the one who originated the plot. Apparently, Balaam was determined to get the payment. Later Scripture holds him up as a negative example of a false teacher who cares only about money (Judg. 11; 2 Pet. 2:15; Rev. 2:14). The Israelites kill him along with many other Midianites (Num. 31:8).

Interestingly, archaeologists have uncovered an inscription on a plaster wall at Deir ’Alla, a site eight miles east of the Jordan River in the country of Jordan, that mentions Balaam the diviner and states that he had night visions. Thus, we have a rare instance of a biblical character attested in an extrabiblical text. The inscription has been dated to the eighth century BC.

The Moabite king who, after witnessing the Israelite destruction of the Amorites, sent for Balaam the prophet to curse the Israelites (Num. 22:1–24:25). Balak’s actions are recalled throughout the Bible (Josh. 24:9; Judg. 11:25; Mic. 6:5; Rev. 2:14).

The father of the Babylonian king Marduk-Baladan (2 Kings 20:12; Isa. 39:1). Marduk-Baladan reigned during the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah (727–698 BC).

A town allotted to the tribe of Simeon, whose territory was within the tribal boundary of Judah (Josh. 19:3). Also called “Bilhah” (1 Chron. 4:29) and “Baalah” (Josh. 15:29). See also Baalah.

The Moabite king who, after witnessing the Israelite destruction of the Amorites, sent for Balaam the prophet to curse the Israelites (Num. 22:1–24:25). Balak’s actions are recalled throughout the Bible (Josh. 24:9; Judg. 11:25; Mic. 6:5; Rev. 2:14).

Three different Hebrew words and one Greek word are translated in the NIV as “balances” or “scales,” and all probably signify the same basic instrument. Balances in the ancient world consisted of two plates or pans suspended from the ends of a horizontal bar that itself was suspended by a cord or rested on a fulcrum. The object to be weighed was placed in one of the pans, and an object of already-known weight, usually a stone, was placed in the other. Economic transactions depended on the use of proper balances and accurate weights. Standards for weights varied, and it was relatively easy for a merchant or trader to cheat by using substandard weights (Lev. 19:36; Prov. 11:1; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10; Hos. 12:7; Amos 8:5; Mic. 6:11).

Most references to balances in the Bible are figurative. Job complains that his misery could be weighed on scales (Job 6:2), and he declares that if God weighed him with honest scales, God would find him blameless (31:6). Belshazzar, on the other hand, was “weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Dan. 5:27). Isaiah declares that God “weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance” (40:12), and that God regards the nations as “dust on the scales” (40:15). The psalmist asserts that if humans, whether of low or high degree, were placed on scales, they would actually cause the pan into which they were placed to rise (Ps. 62:9; cf. ESV, NRSB, NASB)! The rider on the black horse in the book of Revelation is portrayed as weighing out vengeance against the earth on a pair of scales (6:5; cf. Ezek. 5:1–12).

When done deliberately through shaving the head, baldness is a physical expression of mourning in the OT. In Scripture, most instances of baldness are self-imposed. Often a corporate act, baldness is accompanied by wearing sackcloth, sprinkling dust on one’s head, weeping, and rolling in ashes (Ezek. 27:30–31). The prophets declare that God’s people will exhibit baldness as their prosperity turns into mourning (Isa. 3:24; Mic. 1:16). Sometimes God commands against baldness and all mourning when he himself has brought the devastation as punishment (Jer. 16:6), or when it is inappropriate for his priests (Lev. 21:5). Apart from an act of mourning, baldness is named as an outcome of extreme exertion in battle (Ezek. 29:18). Baldness is ceremonially clean unless accompanied by leprous-like spots (Lev. 13:40–46). A memorable story concerning baldness occurs when the prophet Elisha curses a group of youths for ridiculing his baldness, leading to the dismembering of forty-two of them by two bears (2 Kings 2:23–25).

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).

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).

A type of shrub producing a fragrant, valuable oil that the ancients refined for use as a perfuming agent. Not native to Israel, balsam had to be imported from Abyssinia (ancient Ethiopia) or Arabia. The NASB translates the Hebrew term bosem as “balsam” in Song 5:1, 13; 6:2, although the term is most often translated “perfume” or “spice” (e.g., Exod. 25:6; 1 Kings 10:2; 2 Chron. 9:24 NIV). Balsam served as a perfume in Esther (2:12 GNT) and was counted among the royal treasures of Judah (2 Kings 20:13 GW). See also Spices.

Hebrew word meaning “height” or “elevation.” It is transliterated once in Ezek. 20:29 to refer to a particular high place of unknown location. When translated, the word is used to refer to high places in general, in either a literal or a metaphorical sense. The term can also refer to Canaanite places of worship. Usually, if not always, the bamah was condemned as a false place of worship.

Literally, “high places,” this is one of the stops along the Israelite journey from Egypt (Num. 21:19–20). It is located north of the Arnon River near Mount Nebo (Pisgah). This place may be identical to Bamoth Baal (Num. 22:41; Josh. 13:17).

The place where Balak, king of Moab, took Balaam to curse Israel (Num. 22:41). This city was part of the inheritance given to the tribe of Reuben by Moses; it was one of the cities surrounding Heshbon (Josh. 13:17). Bamoth Baal may be identical to Bamoth (Num. 21:19–20), given the similarity of names and geographical location. Although the exact location is unknown, both names are placed in the same region.

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).

The RSV rendering in Matt. 27:27 and Mark 15:16 of the Greek word speira, referring to a division of Roman soldiers (NIV: “company”; NRSV, NASB: “cohort”; KJV: “band”; NKJV: “garrison”). This grouping of approximately six hundred soldiers was one-tenth of a Roman legion. In these two texts, they are gathered in the Praetorium, the governor’s official residence in Jerusalem, on the occasion of Jesus’ arrest.

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

(1) An ancestor of Ethan, one of the musicians appointed by David (1 Chron. 6:46). (2) An ancestor of Uthai, a Judahite who resettled in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:4). (3) An ancestor of men who returned to the land with Zerubbabel and Joshua after the exile (Ezra 2:10). Another group of returnees from the family of Bani came with Ezra (8:10). These families are possibly referred to again in the list of men who had taken foreign wives in the time of Ezra (10:29, 34). (4) The father of Rehum, who supervised repairs in Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:17). (5) Two Levites who attended Ezra during the reading of the law (Neh. 8:7), led worship (9:4–5), and signed the covenant along with Nehemiah (10:13). Both are mentioned in Neh. 9:4. It is not clear how the various mentions of Bani in this section of Nehemiah should be distinguished. (6) A leader of the people who signed the covenant along with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:14). (7) The father of Uzzi, a Levite descended from Asaph (Neh. 11:22). See also Binnui.

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).

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).

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).

A person enters bankruptcy upon legally declaring inability to repay debts. God commanded that obligations be repaid, but he also established a type of bankruptcy procedure for Israel’s poorest debtors. They could render six years of life in servitude, but creditors had to release their servants every seventh year (Exod. 21:2). Additionally, the liberation at Jubilee (Lev. 25:10) gave the poor some protection against oppressive terms of service (cf. Neh. 5:3–5).

A key biblical theme concerns the kinsman-redeemer, who could buy back close relatives from slavery and restore their land to the family (Lev. 25:25, 47–48). The book of Ruth tells how Boaz redeemed Ruth from poverty and alienation back to Naomi’s ancestral land. This theme continues with Jesus Christ, who came as a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). With his blood he purchased the freedom of a spiritually bankrupt people, sold into bondage to sin (1 Pet. 1:18–19).

A flag, streamer, emblem, or carved object raised on a pole. On the ancient battle field, raised banners and blown trumpets served as the primary tools for mass communication. They could indicate troop movements and serve as rallying points (Isa. 18:3). Once the battle was won, banners proclaimed victory. Cloth banners usually were colored and carried symbols to represent a particular group, whether it was a military unit, clan, tribe, or nation (Num. 2:2; Ps. 60:4). The actual appearance of Israelite banners is unknown, but the images of banners from other nations have been found carved into ancient reliefs. For example, the Narmer Palette (c. 3000 BC) shows three different kinds of banners raised above the heads of soldiers.

The earliest reference to a banner in the Bible occurs after the Israelites defeated the Amalekites at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. To commemorate the victory, Moses built an altar and named it Yahweh nissi, “The Lord is my banner” (Exod. 17:15). In a sense, Moses’ raised hands served as banners to encourage the Israelites by assuring God’s presence and victory (17:11–13).

When Moses placed the bronze serpent on a pole, he raised it as a banner for the Israelites to look upon it and be healed (Num. 21:8). Jesus drew a parallel between the raised serpent and the raising up of the Son of Man (John 3:14). Metaphorically, Jesus was a banner lifted up to proclaim salvation for the world.

An interesting use of banner is in Song 6:4, where the woman is described as “majestic as troops with banners.” The man is so in awe of his beloved that it mesmerizes him and causes his heart to race. The NIV renders Song 2:4 as “let his banner over me be love,” the idea being that the man would make his love for his beloved public.

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).

The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of great significance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to the greater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure of symbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantal circumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption. It is the visible response to the gospel, reflecting the internal response to the gospel: the climactic moment in the journey of reconciliation of the believer with God.

The word “baptism” (Gk. baptisma) carries with it the sense of washing by dipping (Gk. baptizō); the word can also carry the sense of being overtaken or subsumed, or of joining or entering into a new way of life. In either sense, a distinct change in the recipient is envisioned. Through baptism, Christians both demonstrate their desire for and symbolize their understanding of being washed clean of sin; they also proclaim their surrender to and subjugation by Christ. All this intellectual underpinning occurs in what can be a deeply emotional ceremony.

Baptism in the Bible

The immediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for the coming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allow Jesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits of the new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water was inferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continued John’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:1–2).

Baptism was immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded the disciples to “make disciples . . . , baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “who have been with us the whole time . . . from John’s baptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermon proclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostles baptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13; 8:38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).

For the apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were . . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).

Though the NT does not explicitly command baptism (the command in Acts 2:38 is understood to be directed toward a specific group), it assumes that all believers will be baptized (Acts 19:2–3). The expectation of baptism is as good as a command, and Christians should understand baptism as a matter of obedience. Accounts of baptism in Acts are always preceded by reports of belief, and new believers are immediately baptized. Baptism also carries the idea of conveyance: no one self-baptizes; rather, believers baptize others as an initiation into the family of believers.

Baptismal Practices

Historically in the church, the manner of baptism involves the application of water to the recipient by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. These practices vary among Christians, but no one practice has a clear biblical warrant above the others. Paul, however, appeals to symbolism in his discussions of baptism. He describes those baptized “into Christ Jesus” as being “baptized into his death,” “buried with him through baptism into death” that they might be raised to a new life “just as Christ was raised from the dead” (Rom. 6:3–4; see also Col. 2:12). Immersion may be the best vehicle to retain this striking symbolism of Paul.

The timing of baptism has caused controversy within the church. Some churches (especially Baptist) believe that baptism is for those who have made a conscious decision for Christ—believer’s baptism. Baptism is an expression of both the change in one’s life and one’s devotion. With this act, the person unites with the church as well as with Jesus himself. This is a deeply moving experience for the celebrant, one to be remembered forever. The celebrant metaphorically is buried with Christ in order to be raised up with him. Baptism does not of itself convey salvation but rather is an act of obedience, and obedience indicates active affirmation of the gospel.

Some churches (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian) practice infant baptism (paedobaptism). Baptism is at least partly a covenant act similar to circumcision; by this act the child’s parents announce their own membership in the body of Christ and their desire that the child be considered a member as well. Baptism does not convey salvation, but it does convey a type of grace. Entering early adulthood, the child will be given a chance to affirm his or her faith through confirmation. Obviously, the child will have no conscious memory of the original baptism, but the child will grow from infancy with the knowledge of having been entered conditionally into the church by his or her parents. Infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents that the child must claim later, at which time some church traditions have a ritual of confirmation. The warrant for infant baptism is the passages where a “household” or other unspecified group is baptized (see Acts 2:38; 16:15, 31, 34). Also, Paul seems to relate Christian baptism to OT circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), an event for the child performed at the parents’ request (Lev. 12:3). (See also Infant Baptism)

Advocates of believer’s baptism also see value in the ceremonial incorporation of infants into the church. These churches offer child dedication, a similar ceremony but without the water component.

Another source of debate is the concept of rebaptism. Some churches require that prospective members who were baptized as infants be baptized anew as believing adults. It is claimed that the previous baptism is invalid, since an infant cannot possess the proper faith. For other churches, rebaptism is strictly forbidden as unscriptural.

Notably, while most Christian groups see baptism as fundamental to their fellowship, many groups also make allowances for baptism received in extraordinary ways. For instance, the Catholic Church allows for “baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire,” where in extreme cases baptism is credited though having never been performed. Catholic doctrine also allows for “extraordinary ministers” who may not even be Christians to perform baptism, as long as the intended goal is a valid Christian baptism.

The Function of Baptism

Baptism should not be seen as a saving act; Paul tells a jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (Acts 16:31). It is later, after the jailer has washed Paul’s and Silas’s wounds, that the family is baptized. Paul does write to Titus about salvation, saying, “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). But here Paul is invoking OT imagery rather than NT baptism, as he nowhere uses these terms to refer to baptism. Peter writes, “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21). It is not the baptism that saves, nor the washing, but rather the working of faith in relationship with God.

It is a shame that baptism has become a source of division in today’s churches. Paul emphasizes that “we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor. 12:13). Having been baptized into Jesus Christ should be a unifying element among Christians, not a source of contention.

Baptism for the dead is a mysterious practice mentioned in Paul’s argument for the reality of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:29–34. There is no mention of this elsewhere in Scripture. Although a number of different explanations have been offered for this practice, the usual understanding is that some people in Corinth had been baptized on behalf of those who had already died. There is nothing in Paul’s argument suggesting that he supported or approved of this practice, or even that believers themselves were necessarily involved in this practice (note that in this passage he speaks of “those,” not “we”). Paul simply used this illustration as another logical argument against those who denied the bodily resurrection. In essence, Paul argued, “If you do not believe in the resurrection, why are you so concerned about the dead?”

Baptism for the dead has been practiced by a few splinter groups throughout history and since 1840 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The goal of this practice is to provide a means for making a public profession of faith for a friend or loved one who has died without being baptized in order to make possible that person’s salvation. Yet this practice is built on a serious misunderstanding of both salvation and baptism. The standard Christian understanding is that one’s eternal destiny is set at the time of death (see Luke 16:26).

The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT to take place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of the Messiah.

Spirit baptism in the Bible. The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out of the Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spirit with Jesus’ being received by the Father and being granted messianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Cornelius in particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45) with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).

Seven passages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/with the Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit in contrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred to as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages refer to Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spirit baptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tongues of fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciples spoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival, three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’ prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in 11:16.

The final reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through their common experience of immersion in the one Spirit.

A second baptism? While in 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that all Christians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Acts where the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. The question then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’s initial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normative for the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularly prominent in Pentecostal traditions.

Examples such as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of a second and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 the disciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes to them at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’s preaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spirit only after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearing Gentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on his household. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After he lays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.

In understanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Acts describes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particular recounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. It is possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming of the Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected the reception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears to be the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates an incomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’s baptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Filled with the Spirit. Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spirit baptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled” with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit” frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such as in Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead to worship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can also result in empowerment for ministry.

The immediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 is speaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in 4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.” Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’s life, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look after the widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”

John the Baptist announces that one more powerful than he will “baptize . . . with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16). A baptism of fire connotes judgment, yet Luke characterizes this as “good news” (Luke 3:17–18), for judgment signals the arrival of God’s eschatological kingdom in Jesus (cf. 12:49). John’s words evoke Isa. 4:4, which announces that Jerusalem/Zion will be cleansed “by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.” They also resonate with numerous OT and intertestamental texts that predict God’s fiery judgment (e.g., Zeph. 1:18; Mal. 4:1). As a sign of the end times (Joel 2:28; Acts 2), God’s eschatological community, the church, experiences the baptism (1 Cor. 12:23) and fire (1 Thess. 5:19) of the Spirit.

The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT to take place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of the Messiah.

Spirit baptism in the Bible. The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out of the Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spirit with Jesus’ being received by the Father and being granted messianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Cornelius in particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45) with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).

Seven passages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/with the Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit in contrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred to as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages refer to Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spirit baptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tongues of fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciples spoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival, three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’ prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in 11:16.

The final reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through their common experience of immersion in the one Spirit.

A second baptism? While in 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that all Christians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Acts where the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. The question then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’s initial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normative for the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularly prominent in Pentecostal traditions.

Examples such as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of a second and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 the disciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes to them at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’s preaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spirit only after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearing Gentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on his household. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After he lays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.

In understanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Acts describes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particular recounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. It is possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming of the Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected the reception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears to be the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates an incomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’s baptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Filled with the Spirit. Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spirit baptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled” with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit” frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such as in Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead to worship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can also result in empowerment for ministry.

The immediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 is speaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in 4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.” Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’s life, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look after the widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”

(1) Usually occurs in English Bibles as a translation of a Hebrew word (beriach) that can refer either to part of the frame of a structure such as the tabernacle (Exod. 26:28; 36:33 [NIV: “crossbar”]) or to a beam used to lock a gate in place (e.g., Judg. 16:3; Job 38:10; Ps. 147:13). Gate bars were made sometimes of wood (Nah. 3:13) and sometimes of metal (1 Kings 4:13; Ps. 107:16; Isa. 45:2). (2) Bar is Aramaic for “son.” When it appears in names, often in a hyphenated or combined form, it means “son of”; for example, Acts 4:36 explains that “Barnabas” means “son of encouragement.”

Reputed to have led the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome in Judea, AD 132–135. Originally named “Bar Kosiba,” supporters called him “Bar Kokhba” (“son of the star”), giving him a messianic association in connection with Num. 24:17, a text understood in many ancient Jewish sources as referring to one or two messianic deliverer figures. Detractors manipulated his name as “Bar Koziba” (“son of the lie”).

We have few sources for Bar Kokhba and his revolt. Evidence indicates that he enjoyed the title nasi (“prince”) among his followers. The revolt remained confined to a relatively small area in Judea, and though debate continues, it is unlikely that Bar Kokhba captured Jerusalem. A ban on circumcision and Hadrian’s desire to reestablish Jerusalem as a pagan city perhaps contributed to unrest leading to the revolt. Ultimately, the Romans crushed the revolt, banned Jews from Jerusalem, and reestablished the city as a pagan city, Aelia Capitolina. Bar Kokhba’s fate remains unknown.

A Jewish sorcerer (Semitic “Elymas,” meaning “wise magician”) in the service of the proconsul of Paphos. As Paul predicted, Bar-Jesus became blind as a consequence of his opposition to Paul and Barnabas as they proclaimed the gospel to the proconsul (Acts 13:6).

Aramaic for “son of Jonah” (see NIV). This is the surname of Simon Peter, identifying his father as Jonah (Matt. 16:17) or John (John 1:42).

A prisoner mentioned in all four Gospels. Barabbas is a prisoner of particular note according to Matthew (27:16), an insurrectionist and murderer according to Mark (15:7) and Luke (23:19), a rebel according to John (18:40). His mention in all four Gospel accounts is significant. Barabbas was being held in prison when the Jewish chief priests and elders brought Jesus before Pilate following Judas’s betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane. After witnessing Jesus’ silence before those who were accusing him, Pilate asked the crowd whether they would rather he release to them Barabbas or Jesus. The practice of releasing a prisoner is described as either Pilate’s custom (Mark 15:8) or a Jewish Passover custom (John 18:39). Persuaded by the chief priests and elders, the crowd demanded the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.

The father of Elihu, one of Job’s four friends who argue with him about the reason for his suffering (Job 32:2, 6).

(1) Son of Zerubbabel, and a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:20). Berekiah and four siblings are listed separately after two other brothers and a sister, perhaps because they have a different mother or were born after Zerubbabel returned from exile. (2) Son of Shimea, and the father of Asaph (1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17). (3) Son of Asa, a Levite (1 Chron. 9:16). (4) A gatekeeper for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 15:23). He may be the same Berekiah as in 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17 or in 9:16. (5) Son of Meshillemoth, an Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:12). (6) Son of Me­shez­a­bel, and the father of Meshullam, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:4, 30; 6:18). (7) Son of Iddo, and the father of Zechariah the prophet (Zech. 1:1, 7; Matt. 23:35).

(1) Son of Zerubbabel, and a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:20). Berekiah and four siblings are listed separately after two other brothers and a sister, perhaps because they have a different mother or were born after Zerubbabel returned from exile. (2) Son of Shimea, and the father of Asaph (1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17). (3) Son of Asa, a Levite (1 Chron. 9:16). (4) A gatekeeper for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 15:23). He may be the same Berekiah as in 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17 or in 9:16. (5) Son of Meshillemoth, an Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:12). (6) Son of Me­shez­a­bel, and the father of Meshullam, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:4, 30; 6:18). (7) Son of Iddo, and the father of Zechariah the prophet (Zech. 1:1, 7; Matt. 23:35).

A military commander of Israel during the time of the judges, commanded by God through the prophetess Deborah to lead an army in battle against Sisera, commander of the Canaanite forces. Barak agrees on the condition that Deborah accompany him, which she does, but only after passing the honor of killing Sisera from Barak to a woman, the wife of Heber the Kenite (Judg. 4:6–24). Deborah praises the victory (5:19–22). Barak is listed as a hero in 1 Sam. 12:11; Heb. 11:32.

The father of Elihu, one of Job’s four friends who argue with him about the reason for his suffering (Job 32:2, 6).

An epithet used by Luke and Paul to signify someone who speaks a foreign, unintelligible language (Acts 28:2, 4 [NIV: “islanders”]; 1 Cor. 14:11; cf. Ps. 113:1 LXX [114:1 MT]). The Greek term, barbaros, occurs six times in the NT, all of them rendered as “barbarian” by the KJV, whereas more-recent versions tend to use terms such as “foreigner” (though see Rom. 1:14 NRSV; Col. 3:11 NRSV, NIV). However, such terms perhaps miss the negative connotation. The word itself is onomatopoeic, representing the unintelligible sound of a language foreign to the hearer: bar-bar-bar. The basis for such a distinction was partly overcome at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–36). The term could also be used more generally for a member of another nation, which, before Christ, had not been included in God’s covenant (Rom. 1:14). Paul also mentions, as a class of barbarian, the Scythians (Col. 3:11), who had a bad reputation among Romans and Jews (2 Macc. 4:47; 3 Macc. 7:5). Their depiction by Herodotus is particularly terrifying: a nomadic people north of the Black Sea (and therefore not far from the Colossians in Asia Minor) who never washed and who drank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle, making napkins of the scalps and drinking bowls from skulls of the vanquished (Hist. 4.19, 46, 64–65, 75). Paul maintains that deeply engrained cultural evil can be overcome in Christ (Col. 3:1–11; see also Gal. 3:28). In subsequent centuries, missionaries were phenomenally successful in reaching the barbarian tribes.

A resident of Bahurim (1 Chron. 11:33; cf. “Barhumite” in 2 Sam. 23:31). See also Bahurim.

Listed in Ezra 2:53 and Neh. 7:55 as an ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel (in 539 BC or soon after). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign (“Barkos” may be Aramaic for “son of the god Kos”) has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to do menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

An annual cereal grass (genus Hordeum). Barley was considered one of the blessings of the Promised Land (Deut. 8:8), but when the barley crop failed, it produced devastating results (Exod. 9:31; Joel 1:11). Barley was among the grain offerings (Num. 5:15; cf. Ezek. 45:13) and was used for livestock feed (1 Kings 4:28), eaten raw, or made into bread (2 Kings 4:42). Gideon’s surprise attack against the Midianites was symbolized in a dream by barley bread (Judg. 7:13), and Hosea used barley to purchase his wife (Hos. 3:2). Jesus used barley bread to feed the multitude (John 6:9, 13).

Barley harvest began in the spring, prior to wheat harvest (cf. Exod. 9:31–32). The firstfruits of the harvest were offered to God before the grain was eaten (Lev. 23:9–14). Ruth gleaned in the field of Boaz throughout the barley and the wheat harvests (Ruth 1:22; 2:23).

A storehouse, usually used to store grain. It is better rendered as “granary.” In biblical times it was often underground, a place to keep grain safe from the elements and concealed from tax collectors. In the NT, sometimes buildings were built and used to store grain (Luke 12:18).

A name given by the apostles to Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, missionary companion of Paul, and cousin of John Mark (Acts 4:36). Luke interprets the name “Barnabas” to mean (in Aramaic) “son of encouragement,” although this etymology is debated. Barnabas was known in the early church for his generosity and reconciling spirit.

Barnabas first appears in the book of Acts as a model of generosity for the Jerusalem church when he sells a piece of property to support the poor in the church (4:36–37). His example contrasts sharply with Ananias and Sapphira, who are judged by God for lying to the Holy Spirit concerning their own gift to the church. Barnabas next appears as the member of the Jerusalem church courageous enough to bring Saul, the former persecutor, to the leaders of the Jerusalem church (9:26–27). Later, when reports of Gentile conversions in Antioch were received in Jerusalem, Barnabas was sent to Antioch to supervise the work there. Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Saul with him to Antioch (11:22–26). There they ministered together, at one point delivering famine relief to Jerusalem (11:30).

The church in Antioch received a revelation from the Holy Spirit to send Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary outreach (Acts 13:2). Accompanied by Barnabas’s cousin John Mark, they traveled to Barnabas’s home island of Cyprus and then to the Roman province of Galatia. Mark deserted the group in Perga and returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas established churches in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13–14). After returning to Antioch, Barnabas accompanied Paul to the Jerusalem council to settle the Judaizing controversy concerning whether Gentiles must keep the law and be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15).

Upon returning to Antioch, Paul suggested a return to the churches in Galatia. Barnabas proposed taking John Mark, but Paul refused, and the ensuing conflict resulted in Paul’s departure to Galatia with Silas, with Barnabas taking John Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:36–41). This is the last we hear of Barnabas in Acts.

Paul mentions Barnabas five times in his letters (1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; Col. 4:10). He refers to Mark as Barnabas’s cousin (Col. 4:10), speaks of their Jerusalem famine visit (Gal. 2:1, 9), and relates an episode of apparent hypocrisy when Barnabas withdrew from Gentile table fellowship under pressure from Jewish Christians (Gal. 2:13).

Later church writings attributed additional traditions to Barnabas. Clement of Alexandria claimed that Barnabas was one of the seventy sent out by Jesus in Luke 10 and also identified him as the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. Tertullian said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, and the fifth or sixth century Acts of Barnabas describes his later ministry and martyrdom in Cyprus. None of these later traditions have sufficient evidence to confirm their historicity.

The KJV rendering of a Hebrew word (kad ) referring to the container (NIV: “jar”) in which the widow of Zarephath had a handful of flour (1 Kings 17:12, 14, 16). Miraculously, the contents of this container did not run out.

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).

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).

(1) Joseph, having the necessary qualifications, was the unsuccessful candidate when lots were cast to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles (Acts 1:21–26). (2) Judas, a leading Christian and prophet (Acts 15:32), was commissioned along with Silas to convey to the newly planted churches (13:1–14:28) the decision of the Jerusalem council not to require circumcision of Gentile believers (15:22).

A disciple of Jesus, and one of the twelve apostles. His name appears in the Synoptic lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) and as a witness to Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1:13). Nothing else is known of him unless, as suggested by a ninth-century tradition, his other name was “Nathanael,” a disciple mentioned in John’s Gospel (1:45). The evidence is not conclusive, but Nathanael was closely associated with the apostles before and after the resurrection (John 1:35–51; 21:1–2); Jesus promised him divine revelation, which would accord well with apostolic status (1:50–51); and he is connected to Philip in John’s Gospel (1:45) just as Bartholomew is in the Synoptic lists of the apostles (Matt. 10:3).

Mark 10:46–52 tells of this blind beggar who properly identifies Jesus as the “Son of David” (cf. Matt. 20:29–34; Luke 18:35–43). Because blindness can be a symbol of unbelief (Isa. 43:8), restoring sight was a sign of the coming Messiah (Isa. 29:18; Matt. 11:2–6). The Bartimaeus story is part of a larger unit (Mark 8:22–10:52), framed by Jesus’ healing of another blind person (8:22–26). Seeing and believing, Bartimaeus is cast as an ideal disciple, “following” Jesus (10:52). Mark’s use of the name implies a well-known disciple (cf. Jairus in 5:22).

(1) The secretary of Jeremiah the prophet. Baruch performed several services for Jeremiah. He recorded a deed of purchase that was central to a message about return after exile (Jer. 32:12). The transaction process involved two copies signed by witnesses and stored in an earthen jar for preservation. He recorded Jeremiah’s dictated messages (36:18). Baruch also read Jeremiah’s words of warning to officials and to the people at the temple on a fasting day, when visitors would be coming to Jerusalem (36:10, 14). For this service he had to go into temporary hiding with Jeremiah (36:19, 36). Baruch was also blamed as the supposed source of Jeremiah’s oracle telling Judah not to go to Egypt (43:1–3). When he became discontent, he was rebuked but promised basic safety (45:1–5).

Baruch may have edited the arrangement of the material in Jeremiah or other books. His name was also associated with subsequent Jewish and Christian books of pseudepigrapha. Two clay impressions of a seal, similar to others of the sixth century BC, purport to belong to “Berekyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe.” These are the long forms of the biblical names “Baruch son of Neriah.” Based on the way the letters in “the scribe” were written, these bullae (seal impressions) appear to be modern forgeries.

(2) A Levite who worked to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:20).

(3) The father of a Judahite, Maaseiah, who lived in Jerusalem after the return from exile (Neh. 11:5).

(1) An old man from Rogelim in Gilead who was one of a group of wealthy men from the Transjordan who provided David and his troops with food and equipment when they reached Mahanaim while fleeing from Absalom (2 Sam. 17:27–29). Barzillai’s loyalty was recognized when David invited him to join him in Jerusalem on his return, though this was tactfully declined on the grounds of advanced age but with the request that David take his son Kimham instead (19:31–39). This loyalty was further recognized when David instructed Solomon to deal loyally with Barzillai’s descendants (1 Kings 2:7).

(2) The father of Merab’s husband, Adriel, from Abel Meholah (2 Sam. 21:7–9).

(3) A priestly figure among the returning exiles. Although his wife was descended from Barzillai the Gileadite, he could not prove his identity and was excluded from the priesthood as unclean (Ezra 2:61–63; Neh. 7:63–65).

(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).

Bashan lay in the Transjordan, to the east and northeast of the Sea of Galilee, and north of Gilead. It was a high plateau (Ps. 68:15), proverbial for oak forests (Isa. 2:13; 33:9; Ezek. 27:6; Zech. 11:2) and fat livestock (Deut. 32:14; Ps. 22:12; Ezek. 39:18; Amos 4:1). After Israel’s defeat of King Og of Bashan (Num. 21:31–35; Deut. 3:1–11), Bashan was allocated to Manasseh (Num. 32:33). Israel retained Bashan until Solomon’s time (1 Kings 4:13), but later it became disputed territory (2 Kings 10:32–33). The prophets longed for a permanent return to its pasturelands (Ps. 68:22; Jer. 5:19; Mic. 7:14).

A group of Amorite villages captured by the Manassehite Jair (Num. 32:41; Deut. 3:14) during the Israelite conquest of the land east of the Jordan River. The name means “the villages of (the person) Jair.” These villages were located in the Bashan region east of Galilee. Moses granted these villages to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Deut. 3:13). Curiously, the sons of a later Gileadite judge, also named “Jair,” are said to have controlled thirty towns in Gilead, which are also called “Havvoth Jair” (Judg. 10:4), apparently implying a connection between the judge Jair and the naming of the region.

The number of villages that comprised the region appears to fluctuate somewhat throughout Israelite history. Some biblical texts (Deut. 3:13–14; Josh. 13:30; 1 Kings 4:13) indicate that Havoth Jair consisted of sixty villages, while Judg. 10:4 seems to view thirty villages comprising the region (associated with the thirty sons of the Gileadite judge). Alternatively, 1 Chron. 2:22 indicates that Jair comprised twenty-three villages, which together with the surrounding villages of Kenath total sixty villages (1 Chron. 2:23). This may be due to differing traditions as to which villages were to be included within the region proper, or it may indicate fluctuations in population and/or actual changes in territorial boundaries throughout Israelite history.

(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).

Various kinds and sizes of hollow bowls were used in biblical times. Common vessels were made of clay, but more luxurious basins were made from brass (Exod. 27:3), silver (Num. 7:13), or gold (1 Kings 7:38). Basins were used for food and wine (Judg. 5:25; Prov. 23:30), for washing (Exod. 30:18; John 13:5), and for collecting the blood from sacrificed animals (Exod. 12:22). The basins in the temple were large vessels that could hold around four hundred liters of water (1 Kings 7:38), whereas the sprinkling bowls were much smaller so that they could be used by a single person (Num. 7:13).

In the apocalyptic literature, bowls indicate something stored up to be distributed later. The twenty-four elders hold golden bowls of incense in the presence of the Lamb, which represent the prayers of believers (Rev. 5:8). The seven angels have golden bowls of God’s wrath, which will be plagues poured out on the earth (16:1; 21:9).

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).

(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).

A person of uncertain or questionable parentage (used figuratively in Zech. 9:6 to speak of foreigners as “a mongrel people” [NIV, NRSV]). Bastards were excluded from the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation of descendants (Deut. 23:2 KJV, RSV). They were therefore marginalized and often considered to be under divine condemnation (1 En. 10:9). The unusual circumstances behind Jesus’ birth perhaps made him vulnerable to this accusation (Mark 6:3; John 8:41), which opponents of Christianity made later (Origen, Cels. 1.28, 32; Gos. Thom. 105). The author of Hebrews appropriates the concept to explain why God disciplines his legitimate children (Heb. 12:8).

In ancient times the bat was classified with birds (as a “flying thing”) rather than with mammals. In the OT food laws, bats were designated unclean (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18). It is thus appropriate that Israel’s idols should be abandoned to bats when the nation flees to the cavernous places in which bats lived (Isa. 2:20–21). Over thirty different species of bat are found in Israel, some eating insects and others fruit, but the Hebrew word (’atallep) does not distinguish between them.

A measurement used to determine the volume of liquid. According to Ezek. 45:11, 14, a bath is the equivalent of an ephah (a dry measure of 10–20 liters). Also, it was one-tenth of a homer (a dry measure of 100–200 liters). It was used to measure water (1 Kings 7:26) as well as wine and oil (2 Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Song of Songs 7:4 compares the female protagonist’s eyes to “the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim.” Hesh­bon (modern Tell Hisban in Jordan) was a Trans­jordanian site in traditionally Moabite territory. Presumably, the gate of Bath Rabbim was a prominent landmark, of comparable fame and beauty to the otherwise unknown “tower of Lebanon” (Song 7:4). Excavations in the 1960s and 1970s uncovered a large pool at Tell Hisban, dated to the ninth or eighth century BC. “Bath Rabbim” means “daughter of the great,” and the epithet may have been applied more broadly to the city of Heshbon itself.

Bathing was built into the very structure of the culture of the biblical world. Jewish ritual baths, miqwa’ot, were found throughout the Mediterranean world in both private homes and public places. Likewise, bathhouses were common in the Greco-Roman landscape of urban life. Ancient literary and archaeological sources attest to the traditions of curative bathing throughout the Mediterranean basin.

Homer wrote of bathing in warm water as a luxury and part of a hero’s welcome. Greek philosophers describe taking a hot bath as reserved for the aristocracy. In contrast, the Spartans bathed only in cold water. The Greeks incorporated full bathing facilities into their gymnasium programs. It was customary in the Roman Empire for men and women to bathe separately. Some of Rome’s extant public baths have inscriptions indicating separate spaces for the sexes. Some of the emperors, however, tolerated mixed bathing.

In the OT, bathing is often part of purification rituals. The Israelites had cleansing rituals that included bathing in running water (Lev. 15:13). In the NT, washing or bathing (baptizing) can be either literal or metaphorical (Luke 12:50; Rom. 6:3–4; 1 Cor. 10:2; 12:13; Col. 2:12; Rev. 7:14; 22:14). Baptizing is presented as a symbol of purification from sin (Acts 22:16) or spiritual pollution, and water baptism became the initiation rite for the early Christian community. Early Jewish Christian communities had a preference for using the Jewish ritual baths or pools for their baptisms because their water was channeled in from natural sources. See also Baptism.

Originally the wife of one of David’s senior soldiers, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3), she married David after they committed adultery and he arranged for Uriah’s murder (11:6–27). Bathsheba had become pregnant by David, but the sin’s punishment included the child’s death (12:10). After this, she bore Solomon to David (12:24). In David’s latter days she played a part in Solomon’s succession (1 Kings 1:11–27) and Adonijah’s demise (2:13–25). She is listed in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt. 1:6).

(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.

The RSV rendering in Matt. 27:27 and Mark 15:16 of the Greek word speira, referring to a division of Roman soldiers (NIV: “company”; NRSV, NASB: “cohort”; KJV: “band”; NKJV: “garrison”). This grouping of approximately six hundred soldiers was one-tenth of a Roman legion. In these two texts, they are gathered in the Praetorium, the governor’s official residence in Jerusalem, on the occasion of Jesus’ arrest.

In the KJV, one of the Levites who helped rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Bavai (NIV, NRSV: “Binnui”; NASB: “Bavvai”) was the son of Henadad and governed half the region of Keilah, eighteen miles southwest of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:18). Some textual evidence suggests that Binnui in Neh. 3:24 is the same person. See also Binnui.

The KJV translation in Zech. 6:3, 7 of the Hebrew term ’amots. The KJV understands the word to refer to the color of the fourth set of horses and translates it “bay” in both verses. Modern translations link the word to a Hebrew root meaning “to be strong” and translate it as “powerful” (NIV, referring to all the horses) or “strong” (NASB, referring to the fourth set of horses).

The KJV translation in Ps. 37:35 of the Hebrew term ’ezrakh, meaning “native.” Although the bay tree (Laurus nobilis) is native to the Mediterranean region, there is no indication in the text that it is referring to that tree specifically. The NRSV follows the LXX by reading “cedar,” a word spelled similarly to “native” in Hebrew. The NASB translation, “tree in its native soil,” accurately represents the Hebrew text.

Listed in Ezra 2:52; Neh. 7:54 (KJV: “Bazlith”) as an ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel (in 539 BC or soon after). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to do menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

Listed in Ezra 2:52; Neh. 7:54 (KJV: “Bazlith”) as an ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel (in 539 BC or soon after). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to do menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

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.

A city of Manasseh given to the Levites as a city of refuge (Josh. 21:27). The parallel (1 Chron. 6:71) lists Ashtaroth instead (Deut. 1:4; Josh. 9:10), suggesting that “Be Eshterah” was shortened from “Beth Ashtarah” (“house of Ashtarah”), an earlier worship center for the Canaanite goddess. The site apparently survives as Tel Ashtarah, located twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee on the King’s Highway, a major trade route.

A form of jewelry, most likely made of gold or silver, apparently small enough to adorn larger pieces (Num. 31:50; Song 1:11) or to tie together to make a necklace (Song 1:10; NIV: “strings of jewels”).

One of the Benjamite mighty men who came to David’s aid at Ziklag when he was oppressed by Saul (1 Chron. 12:5). Generically, these men are described as ambidextrous and as armed with bows (1 Chron. 12:1–2).

(1) A town in southern Judah in the Negev on the border of Edom (Josh. 15:24). The location is unknown. (2) A town in the ninth of Solomon’s administrative districts under the authority of Baana son of Hushai (1 Kings 4:16). Some translations render this instance “Aloth” (NIV, NET, KJV). This may or may not be a location different from the city in the Negev. See also Aloth.

A large segment of wood cut from logs (Hab. 2:11) for, among other purposes, roofing and upper floors (2 Chron. 3:7; Song 1:17), a weaver’s shuttle (Job 7:6), and a spear shaft (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:7; 2 Sam. 21:19; 1 Chron. 11:23; 20:5). The psalmist depicts God laying beams for the upstairs of heaven (Ps. 104:3). Jesus teaches that people often focus on the speck in the eye of another while ignoring the roof beam in their own (Matt. 7:3–5; Luke 6:41–42).

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).

The only Hebrew term used for this animal in the Bible is dob. It refers to the Syrian brown bear (Ursus syriacus), which was last seen in the land of Israel in the early twentieth century AD. In the Bible, the bear is often paired with the lion (1 Sam. 17:34–37; Prov. 28:15; Lam. 3:10; Hos. 13:8; Amos 5:19) and is thought to be dangerous especially when bereft of its cubs (2 Sam. 17:8; Prov. 17:12; Hos. 13:8). “Bear” imagery is also employed in apocalyptic visions (Dan. 7:5; Rev. 13:2) and in descriptions of God himself (Lam. 3:10–11; Hos. 13:8; cf. Amos 5:19). The bear is also ironically paired with the cow in Isa. 11:7, and it functions as an agent of divine judgment in 2 Kings 2:24.

Israelite men, like most of their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, wore full beards, as is plain from casual references to bearded faces (e.g., 1 Sam. 21:13; 2 Sam. 20:9; Ps. 133:2; Jer. 41:5). A way of shaming a man was to forcibly shave him (e.g., 2 Sam. 10:4–5), and Isaiah’s threat of an Assyrian invasion of Judah comes in the form of the imagery of shaving the head and pubic hair (lit., “the hair of your legs”; Isa. 7:20). This divinely wrought judgment (“the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River”) will also include the shaving off of the beard. The beards of captives of war were shaved as a sign of disgrace (Isa. 3:17; 15:2; Jer. 48:37); Ezekiel, in one of his prophetic signs, shaved his head and his beard in imitation of what will happen to the inhabitants of Jerusalem when taken captive (5:1–4). The suffering of God’s servant included his opponents pulling out his beard (Isa. 50:6). On the other hand, the voluntary shaving off of the beard was one of several traditional signs of mourning and sorrow (Jer. 41:5), as was pulling out hair from the beard (Ezra 9:3). These customs apparently do not come under the ban in Lev. 19:27; 21:5 (the latter especially applied to priests) against clipping the beard in conformity with Canaanite religious practice.

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.

Gold was sometimes hammered into thin sheets for gilding other surfaces. This technique was used for various temple furnishings, including the altar and the inner sanctuary (1 Kings 6:20–35) and also for idols (Isa. 40:19). Hammered gold could also be made into objects such as candlesticks (Exod. 25:18) or shields (1 Kings 10:16–17).

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil. Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes, cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Olive oil was produced in several different ways, but there were some common characteristics of all the different production methods. Olive trees were numerous in Israel and often were cultivated and planted in groves. The Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was so named because of the large olive groves there (2 Sam. 15:30). Olives were harvested sometime in the fall by handpicking them or hitting the tree to make the olives fall (Deut. 24:20). Next, the olives were partially crushed so that the kernels (pits) could be removed without crushing them. Crushing the kernel would result in ruining the oil. Then the pits were removed by hand, and the pitted olives were crushed to procure the oil. The olives could be crushed by foot (Mic. 6:15 NRSV), by beating them with a heavy stick, or by placing them in a shallow stone trench and rolling a stone wheel over them. Finally, the crushed olives were placed in a woven sieve to allow the oil to drain out. The remains of the olives were then soaked in water and pressed at least twice more. This produced more oil, though of much lower quality. As a result, oil was sold according to its quality level. By the time of the monarchy in Israel, there were several large mills that produced large quantities of oil both for use in the country and for export. The finest quality oil—the clear, pure oil drained off before pressing—was specially processed and suitable for ceremonial use.

Oil was one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economic impact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for other needed materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example, Elisha preformed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts (2 Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2 Kings 20:13; 2 Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detail the trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oil was one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consisted of flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle (1 Kings 17:12–16). This was also the typical way in which grain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1, 4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly and produced bright light (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lamps were used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than a hand, were used to give people light when they were walking and traveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carried as a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and the temple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was also used for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2; Num. 28:5).

Oil was used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hair for beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes, mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle had special anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25). Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixing it with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke 10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for and anoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

Hammered silver was used in a similar way to hammered gold for the decoration of less valuable objects. Jeremiah 10:6–10 describes its use as part of a vain attempt to cover up the worthlessness of idols.

The word “scourge” refers to both the act of whipping and the whip used in such action. Such a whip usually was laced with sharp rocks or bones capable of decimating the victim’s body.

Rehoboam notes that he would scourge with scorpions, a reference to the stinging of whips (1 Kings 12:11–14). Job refers to a scourge of sudden death (Job 9:22–23), and Isaiah notes God’s punishment the rebellious have sought to avert (Isa. 28:15).

In the NT, Jesus predicts his own scourging (Matt. 20:19; 27:26 [the fulfillment]) and the scourging and death of his followers (23:34). Paul challenges the authority of a tribune to scourge (mastizō) an untried Roman citizen (Acts 22:25).

The Beatitudes are a series of “blessings” announced by Jesus in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3–10) and Luke’s parallel Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20–22). Matthew’s version contains eight beatitudes, with a ninth (5:11–12) expanding on the eighth. Luke has four beatitudes but balances these with “woes” against the rich and powerful. Each beatitude has two parts. The first begins with a statement of blessing followed by the identity of the one being blessed (e.g., “blessed are the poor in spirit”). The second part explains why the person is blessed (e.g., “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”). In Matthew, the phrase “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” appears in vv. 3, 10, serving as an inclusio for the central message of the Beatitudes: the kingdom of heaven is present and powerful to those who are in relationship with Jesus.

The Beatitudes introduce a new reality to those who respond to the kingdom offered by Jesus. They present a radical reversal for the downtrodden: the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, and the persecuted. From society’s perspective, they are weak and disadvantaged, but Jesus calls them “blessed.” The beatitudes in Matt. 5:6–10 reveal attitudes and actions that are pleasing to God: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (v. 6), “the merciful” (v. 7), “the pure in heart” (v. 8), and “the peacemakers” (v. 9).

Luke’s beatitudes are shorter and less spiritualized than Matthew’s. For example, Luke has “blessed are you who are poor” instead of Matthew’s “poor in spirit,” and “blessed are you who hunger now” instead of Matthew’s “hunger and thirst for righteousness.” This is in line with Luke’s greater emphasis throughout his Gospel on the danger of riches, the plight of the poor, and issues of social justice.

A gate of Herod’s temple where John and Peter healed a lame man (Acts 3:2, 10; NIV: “gate called Beautiful”). This name is used only in the NT, and so its identification and location must be surmised by other names for it. Two temple gates known from other historical sources are the likely candidates for the Beautiful Gate: the Golden Gate or the Nicanor Gate. Josephus describes a beautiful gate located in the east of the temple, known to this day as the Golden Gate. The Nicanor Gate is probably the gate described in the book of Acts. Its construction was funded by a wealthy Alexandrian Jew. It is located either on the east side of the court of women leading from the court of the Gentiles or on the western side of the court of women at the entrance to that court.

The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:11; Neh. 7:16). The same clan sent Zechariah and twenty-eight men at the time of Ezra, around 458 BC (Ezra 8:11). Four members of this clan were later found guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:28). Bebai is also listed as one who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:15).

Son of Zophah of the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:37).

(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.

Descended from Beker, the Bekerites (NRSV: “Becherites”) were a clan from the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 26:35).

Son of Aphiah, and the father of Zeror, he was an ancestor of King Saul (1 Sam. 9:1 KJV: “Bechorath”).

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).

The father of the Edomite king Hadad. Hadad succeeded Husham and defeated the Moabite city of Midian (Gen. 36:35; 1 Chron. 1:46).

(1) A judge listed in a speech by Samuel in a catalog of judges sent by God to deliver Israel (1 Sam. 12:11). His name comes between those of Jerub-baal (= Gideon) and Jephthah. Presumably because a judge by this name is not found elsewhere in the OT, the LXX and the Syriac Peshitta read “Barak” (so also NIV, NRSV). Since the name means “in Dan,” Jewish tradition understood it as an alternate name for Samson (from the tribe of Dan). He may be an otherwise unknown judge. (2) Son of Ulam, a descendant of Manasseh (1 Chron. 7:17).

An Israelite from the sons of Bani who was forced to send away his foreign wife according to the instruction of Ezra (Ezra 10:35). The name is perhaps a shortened form of Obadiah.

A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:16; 1 Chron. 3:8). In the list in 1 Chron. 14 (v. 7) he is named “Beeliada” (formed from the divine name “Baal” rather than “El”: “Baal/El knows”).

Occurs seven times in the Gospels (Gk. Beelzeboul ), designating “the prince of demons” (possibly Satan himself) (Matt. 12:24). It derives from “Baal-Zebub,” the name of a Philistine deity (2 Kings 1), meaning “Baal/Lord of the flies” (a deliberate Hebrew distortion of the name “Baal-Zebul”). See also Baal-Zebub.

Occurs seven times in the Gospels (Gk. Beelzeboul ), designating “the prince of demons” (possibly Satan himself) (Matt. 12:24). It derives from “Baal-Zebub,” the name of a Philistine deity (2 Kings 1), meaning “Baal/Lord of the flies” (a deliberate Hebrew distortion of the name “Baal-Zebul”). See also Baal-Zebub.

(1) The Hebrew word be’er means “well” and occurs in compound names for key places, for instance, Beer Lahai Roi (“the well of the Living One who sees me” [Gen. 16:14]) and Beersheba (“well of the oath/seven” [Gen. 21:31]). In Israel’s wanderings, the nation came to Beer (Num. 21:16), north of the Arnon River. The name “Beer” commemorates the joyous occasion when God gave the people water in the desert. In celebration, the people sang the so-called Song of the Well (Num. 21:17–18). The site may be Wadi eth-Themed in northeastern Moab and possibly linked with Beer Elim (Isa. 15:8).

(2) An alcoholic beverage produced from grains, such as wheat or barley, through a fermentation process. Beer is mentioned in the Bible only a handful of times (in the NIV, see 1 Sam. 1:15; Prov. 20:1; 31:4, 6; Isa. 24:9; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; Mic. 2:11; many other versions use terms such as “strong drink” or “liquor”), but it was prevalent in some ancient Near Eastern cultures, especially Egypt. See also Strong Drink.

A city in Moab (Isa. 15:8). The name means “well of the terebinths.” It is often associated with Beer (Num. 21:16), one of the places where the Israelites stopped during their wilderness journey in Sinai, from which they continued to Mattanah.

A place in the Negev whose exact location and meaning are uncertain. It appears first in the narrative of Gen. 16, where Hagar is fleeing from Sarai, her mistress. After the death of Abraham, Beer Lahai Roi becomes the residence of Isaac (Gen. 24:62; 25:11). All three narratives that speak of this place support a location toward the Egyptian border (between Kadesh and Bered). The water source that gave rise to the name was located on the way to Shur (Gen. 16:7). The most likely translation is “well of the Living One who sees me.”

A Reubenite leader exiled by Tig­lath-pileser III (1 Chron. 5:6).

(1) The Hittite father of Judith, Esau’s first wife (Gen. 26:34). The marriage displeased Esau’s parents (26:35). (2) The father of the prophet Hosea (Hos. 1:1). Rabbinic tradition identifies him as Beerah, a leader of the Reubenites who was sent into exile under Tiglath-pileser (1 Chron. 5:6), but this is uncertain. The name “Beeri” means “my well” or “of a well.”

One of four cities (along with Gibeon, Kephirah, Kiriath Jearim) that tricked Joshua into making a covenant with Israel so that they would not be destroyed (Josh. 9:17). When the treachery was discovered, the inhabitants were allowed to live but were forced to become the Israelites’ servants (9:26–27). It later became part of the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18:25; 2 Sam. 4:2–3). Ish-Bosheth was assassinated by two Beerothites, Rekab and Baanah (2 Sam. 4:2–9), possibly in retaliation for Saul’s persecution of the Beerothites (2 Sam. 4:3). Joab’s armor bearer Naharai was also from Beeroth and was one of David’s thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:37). Many men returned to Beeroth after the exile, indicating that the inhabitants assimilated into the Israelite population (Ezra 2:25; Neh. 7:29). The location of Beeroth is contested due to confusion in Eusebius’s Onomasticon. Many scholars propose the location of Beeroth as el-Bireh, east of Ramallah.

A place of unknown location to which the Israelites traveled during their wilderness journey (Deut. 10:6 ESV, NASB [cf. NRSV]; NIV: “the wells of Bene Jaakan”; cf. Num. 33:31–32). See also Bene Jaakan.

A person who comes from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2; 23:37; 1 Chron. 11:39 [NIV: “Berothite”]).

Located in the biblical Negev, this city was significant for the patriarchs and continued as the recognized southern boundary of the political entity of Israel. The biblical Negev is shaped somewhat like a bow tie, with Beersheba at its center. Because the Negev receives between eight and twelve inches of rainfall per year, water is a critical issue.

Beersheba (Heb. be’er sheba’) means both “well of the seven” and “well of the oath.” The encounters between Abraham and the Philistine leaders Abimelek and Phicol had to do with water rights (Gen. 21:22–32). When Abimelek’s servants seized a well that Abraham had dug, he, in order to demonstrate that his own claim on the well was valid, offered seven lambs to Abimelek, and the two made a treaty. The narrative incorporates both meanings of sheba’. Although Abraham was a formidable presence in the region, it is evident that it was under Philistine control at this time (Gen. 21:33–34). Abraham remained there for a long time, returning to Beersheba after the test on Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:19).

These same elements and names recur in the interactions between Isaac and the Philistine leaders (Gen. 26:12–33). Isaac grew to be exceedingly wealthy, so the Philistines stopped up the wells that had been dug in the time of Abraham. Abim­e­lek urged Isaac to move away, which he did, but the tensions over water rights continued. Finally, Isaac went to Beersheba, where God reaffirmed to him the covenant with Abraham, and, in a mirror event, he and Abimelek reaffirmed their treaty, complete with an oath and the digging of another well.

Beersheba continued to be a center for the seminomadic patriarchs. Isaac lived there with his family; after Jacob tricked Esau out of Isaac’s blessing, Jacob left Beersheba and headed for Harran (Gen. 28:10). Near the end of his life, as he set out for Egypt to rejoin Joseph, Jacob stopped in Beersheba to offer sacrifices to God (46:1–5). Much later, as Elijah fled from Jezebel and made his way back to Horeb, the source of the covenant, he stopped at Beersheba (1 Kings 19:1–8).

Beersheba figured into the inheritance for two tribes. It was listed among the southernmost towns in Judah (Josh. 15:28), but Simeon’s inheritance within the allotment of Judah included Beersheba (19:2), and descendants of Simeon lived in Beersheba (1 Chron. 4:28). From the period of the judges until the end of the united monarchy, the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” indicated the extent from north to south of Israel (e.g., Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:23; 2 Sam. 3:10). After the secession and demise of the northern kingdom, Beersheba still indicated the southern boundary (e.g., 2 Chron. 19:4; 30:5). In the postexilic period the people of Judah inhabited territory from Beersheba to the Hinnom Valley (Neh. 11:27–30).

According to 2 Kings 23:8, Josiah “desecrated the high places, from Geba to Beersheba. . . . He broke down the gateway at the entrance of the Gate of Joshua, the city governor, which was on the left of the city gate.” The site of Tel Sheva (identified as ancient Beersheba) has a structure just inside and to the left of the Iron Age gate, where steps indicate a second story, very possibly the governor’s house. Of equal importance is the discovery of three stone blocks of a horned altar, found in secondary usage in a storeroom wall. The horn on a fourth block had been broken off. These were seemingly removed from a basement house, a building that had been destroyed, perhaps in Hezekiah’s reform and purge of the land (2 Kings 18; 2 Chron. 31).

Found only in Job 40:15, “Behemoth” is a transliteration of the Hebrew plural word behemot (lit., “beasts”), meaning “the Beast” par excellence. The failure to identify the creature with any known animal species is deliberate. Some scholars suggest that it is possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant, but such mundane alternatives domesticate what is meant to be a mysterious, larger-than-life creature of fearsome strength, “which I [God] made along with you [Job].” Job complained that God had treated him like a monster who needed to be guarded (7:12). The poem implies that God can tame both Behemoth and Job.

A unit in Israel’s weight and currency system. It is half a shekel (Exod. 38:26), which means that it weighed around 5.5 grams. The Hebrew root (bq’) means “to split.” See also Weights and Measures.

(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.

Descended from Beker, the Bekerites (NRSV: “Becherites”) were a clan from the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 26:35).

Son of Aphiah, and the father of Zeror, he was an ancestor of King Saul (1 Sam. 9:1 KJV: “Bechorath”).

This term is technically a title derived from the Akkadian word belu(m), with the meaning “lord” or “master.” Initially the term referred to Enlil, the father of the Mesopotamian gods. Eventually, Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, became the chief god of the pantheon, and he was given the title “Bel.” Consequently, the term became interchangeable with his name. Bel occurs three times in the Bible, all of them within the context of the prophetic condemnation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Isa. 46:1; Jer. 50:2; 51:44). Thus, in Scripture Bel stands as a representative of Babylon and its rulers. See also Baal.

(1) Son of Beor, and the king of Edom who ruled from Dinhabah (Gen. 36:32–33; 1 Chron. 1:43–44). (2) Son of Azaz, and one of those who settled in the area of Aroer in the Transjordan most likely in the early ninth century BC (1 Chron. 5:8–9). (3) Son of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21; Num. 26:38, 40; 1 Chron. 7:6–7; 8:1, 3). (4) An earlier name for Zoar, one of the five cities of the Valley of Siddim (Gen. 14:2).

Descendants of Bela, a Benjamite (Num. 26:38).

Occuring in the Bible only once (2 Cor. 6:15 [NRSV: “Beliar”]), “Belial” (Gk. Beliar) has a mythological connotation in the OT associated with Sheol, chaos, and death (Heb. beliyya’al [2 Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:4; cf. Ps. 41:8]), and it could also mean “worthlessness,” “ruin,” or “wickedness” (1 Sam. 25:25). The term is widely attested in Second Temple Jewish literature, especially in the DSS, referring to God’s archenemy, whose domain is darkness and whose counsel is wickedness (Mart. Isa. 1:8–9; 2:4; 4:2; T. Dan 1:7; 1QM 1:1–3, 13–15; 13:11; cf. 1QS 2:19; CD-A 4:12–19). Paul employs this conviction to show that the eschatological conflict is between Christ, who is the light, and Belial, who is the darkness (2 Cor. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

Occuring in the Bible only once (2 Cor. 6:15 [NRSV: “Beliar”]), “Belial” (Gk. Beliar) has a mythological connotation in the OT associated with Sheol, chaos, and death (Heb. beliyya’al [2 Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:4; cf. Ps. 41:8]), and it could also mean “worthlessness,” “ruin,” or “wickedness” (1 Sam. 25:25). The term is widely attested in Second Temple Jewish literature, especially in the DSS, referring to God’s archenemy, whose domain is darkness and whose counsel is wickedness (Mart. Isa. 1:8–9; 2:4; 4:2; T. Dan 1:7; 1QM 1:1–3, 13–15; 13:11; cf. 1QS 2:19; CD-A 4:12–19). Paul employs this conviction to show that the eschatological conflict is between Christ, who is the light, and Belial, who is the darkness (2 Cor. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1 Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).

Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

In 1 Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1 Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2 Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2 Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, . . . you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1 Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2 Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1 Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1 Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).

Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

In 1 Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1 Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2 Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2 Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, . . . you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1 Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2 Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1 Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

An instrument used to blow air on a fire and thus make it stronger. In the Bible bellows are mentioned only in Jer. 6:29, where they are part of a figurative portrayal of an intense refining process on Judah that ultimately does not remove the wicked. Ancient Egyptian bellows utilized two bags made of animal skin, which an operator would step on one after the other, thus forcing out air, similar to a modern foot pump. This type of bellows may be in view in Jer. 6:29.

Traditionally identified with John the son of Zebedee, the Gospel of John depicts him as the ideal eyewitness to Jesus and as the ideal author. He first explicitly appears in John 13–21. In representing the Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel of John (John 21:24–25), the author thus claims a privileged place for its revelation about Jesus, perhaps in relation to the Gospel of Mark, which many in the early church considered to have Peter as its primary source of testimony.

The regent of Babylon under his father, Nabonidus, during Babylon’s final years (?–539 BC). Because the first three successors of Nebuchadnezzar were short-lived, and because Nabonidus left Babylon to stay in the Arabian city of Teima for a decade, Belshazzar may be considered the first significant acting king after Nebuchadnezzar. This is probably why Nebuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “father” in Dan. 5:2, 18. A prophecy of the doom of Babylon came as “the handwriting on the wall” at a banquet hosted by Belshazzar. Belshazzar was indicted for not having learned to be humble before the Most High God.

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

The name assigned to Daniel by King Nebuchadnezzar’s chief official, Ashpenaz, when he brought Daniel to Babylon to train and mold him for government service (Dan. 1:6–7). The name may mean “May the lord protect his life.”

The Hebrew word ben (lit., “son”) represents several types of relationships. It can be used to describe a direct male descendant (Gen. 4:17), as well as Israel’s relationship to God (Exod. 4:22), a member of a people group (Gen. 42:5), or a member of a specific profession or trade (1 Kings 21:35).

A valley on the southern slopes of Jerusalem, variously referred to as “Valley of Hinnom,” “Valley of Ben Hinnom” (lit., “son of Hinnom”), “Valley of the Sons of Hinnom,” or even just “the Valley” (e.g., Jer. 2:23). At least two kings of Judah, Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (33:6), sacrificed their own sons in the fire at the Topheth, a site in the valley. The practice, which certainly extended beyond just royalty, was condemned by the prophets, Jeremiah in particular (Jer. 7:31–32; 32:35). King Josiah, as part of his reform movement, defiled the Topheth to prevent further child sacrifice (2 Kings 23:10). Three different gorges south of Jerusalem are candidates for the identified location of this valley. “Valley of Hinnom” becomes in Greek “Gehenna,” which in all its occurrences in the NT refers to hell.

The husband of Taphath, daughter of King Solomon, he was one of the king’s twelve district governors of Israel (1 Kings 4:7, 11). He was responsible for supplying provisions for the king and the royal household for one month out of the year from his location in Naphoth Dor.

The son born of the incestuous union of Lot with his younger daughter (Gen. 19:38), he is the eponymous ancestor of the Ammonites, longtime enemy of Israel. The name “Ben-Ammi” means “son of my kin/people.” Both the Moabites and the Ammonites are associated with the incest of Lot with his daughters (Gen. 19:36–38; Deut. 2:19).

One of King Solomon’s twelve district governors of Israel responsible for supplying provisions for the king and the royal household for one month each year (1 Kings 4:9). He was governor over Makaz, Shaalbim, Beth Shemesh, and Elon Bethhanan, land recently taken from the Philistines.

One of the twelve district governors of Israel, appointed by King Solomon, responsible for supplying the king and the royal household with provisions for one month each year (1 Kings 4:13). He was the governor over Ramoth Gilead, located in the central Transjordan region, along with the settlements of Jair and the district of Argob.

Several kings of Aram Damascus had the name “Ben-Hadad.” The name means “son of Hadad,” Aram’s national god, and it could be taken by any king of Aram. It is debated whether the OT refers to two or three individuals by this name, but most likely it is three.

(1) Ben-Hadad I, son of Tabrimmon, was bribed with a large amount of silver and gold by King Asa of Judah to break his treaty with King Baasha of Israel, thus providing relief for the embattled Judah. Ben-Hadad I attacked the towns of Israel, successfully conquering several of them as well as the territory of Naphtali (1 Kings 15:16–22).

(2) Ben-Hadad II (but possibly the same person as Ben-Hadad I) attacked Samaria during the reign of King Ahab, who defeated him at Aphek. Ben-Hadad II begged for his life, and Ahab spared him, in the process regaining the cities that Ben-Hadad I had taken from Ahab’s father, Omri, and obtaining market rights in Damascus (1 Kings 20). Based on extrabiblical inscriptions, it is possible that Ahab later participated in a twelve-member alliance headed by Ben-Hadad II (also identified as Hadadezer) that defeated Shalmaneser III’s Assyrian forces at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BC. Ben-Hadad II later laid siege to Samaria again (2 Kings 6:24), but a miraculous intervention by God caused his forces to abandon their camp and flee (7:5–7). Later, Ben-Hadad II fell ill and, as prophesied by Elisha, did not recover, since one of his officers, Hazael, suffocated him and seized his throne (8:7–15). Ben-Hadad II is perhaps the king of Aram who sent Naaman to Elisha, via King Joram of Israel, to be cured of his leprosy (5:1–6).

(3) Ben-Hadad III was the son of King Hazael (2 Kings 13:24), who had gained the throne by murdering Ben-Hadad II. As prophesied by Elisha, King Jehoash defeated Ben-Hadad III three times and repossessed several cities that had been taken from his father, King Jehoahaz (13:14–25). Ben-Hadad III’s oppressive actions made him the subject of prophetic condemnation (Jer. 49:27; Amos 1:4).

One of five royal officials, along with nine Levites and two priests, sent by Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to teach the Book of the Law to the people in Judah (2 Chron. 17:7). The name “Ben-Hail” means “son of strength.”

Son of Shimon in the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:20).

The name of one of King Solomon’s twelve district governors charged with supplying provisions for the king and the royal household for one month of the year (1 Kings 4:10). Ben-Hesed’s district included Arubboth, Sokoh, and the Hepher region, thus supporting the view that the area probably corresponded with most of Cisjordanian Manasseh.

One of the twelve district governors appointed by King Solomon to supply provisions for the king and the royal household for one month of the year (1 Kings 4:8). He was in charge of the hill country of Ephraim.

(1) The youngest son of Jacob and Rachel. Rachel died en route to Ephrath (Bethlehem) while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18). Before she died, Rachel named her son “Ben-Oni,” meaning “son of my sorrow.” Jacob later renamed him “Benjamin,” meaning “son of my right hand.” Benjamin is the youn­gest of Joseph’s eleven brothers (35:22–26), and Joseph specifically requested to see him when the other brothers journeyed without him to Egypt to buy grain during a famine (42:1–16). (2) Son of the Benjamite Bilhan (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) Son of the Israelite Harim (Ezra 10:32), among those who pledged to divorce a foreign wife. (4) One of those who helped to dedicate the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:34). He may be the same Benjamin as the one in Ezra 10:32. See also Benjamin, Tribe of.

One of the two sons of Ishi (1 Chron. 4:20). It is possible that he was grandson of Ishi and son of Zoheth, since his name literally means “son of Zoheth.”

(1) Son of Jehoiada, and one of David’s famed mighty men (1 Chron. 27:34 reverses the names of father and son). He was in command of David’s personal guards, known as the Kerethites and the Pelethites. His great feats earned him a reputation like one of David’s mightiest three (2 Sam. 20:23; 23:22–23). He was at Solomon’s coronation (1 Kings 1). He killed Joab at Solomon’s order and became his general (1 Kings 2:25–46). (2) An Ephraimite from Pirathon who was one of David’s mighty men, one of “the thirty” (2 Sam. 23:30). (3) A Levite who was a gatekeeper assigned to play the harp when David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:18–20). (4) A priest who was a trumpeter when David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:24). (5) An ancestor of Jahaziel, who prophesied at the time of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:14). (6) A Simeonite who was one of those who attacked the Meunites in Hezekiah’s time and took their pasture (1 Chron. 4:24–41). (7) An overseer appointed by Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:13). (8) The father of Pelatiah, a leader who did not believe that God would destroy Judah and was struck down (Ezek. 11:1, 13). (9) Four different men who had returned to Jerusalem after the exile and had taken foreign wives (Ezra 10:25, 30, 35, 43).

This term occurs twice in the NIV (NRSV: “chairs”; NET: “seats”) in reference to the sitting places of those selling doves when Jesus cleansed the temple (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15). The underlying Greek word (kathedra) referred to a seat or chair (cf. Matt. 23:3, where the Greek term is used of “Moses’ seat”). “Benches” occurs in the KJV of Ezek. 27:6, translating the Hebrew word qeresh, whereas modern English translations take the word in that verse to refer to the deck of a ship.

A location inherited by the tribe of Dan (Josh. 19:45). The modern Israeli town Bene-baraq is located about 2.5 miles north of the biblical site, which is identified as the modern town el-Kheirîyah. It is known as being the home of the renowned Rabbi Akiba.

An Israelite campsite during their wilderness journey (Num. 33:31–32). It is possibly located on or near the border of Edom (33:37). In Deut. 10:6 the site is called in Hebrew be’erot bene ya’aqan, which the NIV renders as “the wells of Bene Jaakan” (NASB: “Beeroth Bene-jaakan” [cf. NRSV]).

Authorized by the divine image and example (Gen. 1:26–28), “benediction” is literally the “good word” that activates for its recipients such divine benefits as keeping, favor, grace, and peace (Num. 6:24–27). Whether invoked by fathers (Gen. 27; 2 Sam. 6:20), priests (Gen. 14:18–19; Lev. 9:22), or the community (Ruth 2:4), benedictions signal God’s rule over all of life, as does Jesus’ command to bless our enemies. In the NT, benedictions may be condensed (“Grace be with you”) or expanded with divine references and joined to doxologies or prayers (Col. 1:2–14; 4:13).

The prophetic hymn of Zechariah at John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1:68–79). Opening with the word Benedictus (“Blessed”) in the Latin Vulgate, it glorifies God for acting to save his people and prophesies that John will be the Lord’s forerunner.

A Levite of the postexilic community who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:13).

(1) The youngest son of Jacob and Rachel. Rachel died en route to Ephrath (Bethlehem) while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18). Before she died, Rachel named her son “Ben-Oni,” meaning “son of my sorrow.” Jacob later renamed him “Benjamin,” meaning “son of my right hand.” Benjamin is the youn­gest of Joseph’s eleven brothers (35:22–26), and Joseph specifically requested to see him when the other brothers journeyed without him to Egypt to buy grain during a famine (42:1–16). (2) Son of the Benjamite Bilhan (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) Son of the Israelite Harim (Ezra 10:32), among those who pledged to divorce a foreign wife. (4) One of those who helped to dedicate the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:34). He may be the same Benjamin as the one in Ezra 10:32. See also Benjamin, Tribe of.

A gate located in the northeast part of Jerusalem. Jeremiah tried to leave for the Benjamin territory during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, but he was apprehended at this gate (Jer. 37:13). It should be associated with the People’s Gate (“gate of the people” [Jer. 17:19]). “Benjamin Gate” might be a later name for the Ephraim Gate.

A Levite, son of Merari, during David’s reign (1 Chron. 24:26–27).

One of several locations east of the Dead Sea that the Gadites and the Reubenites requested as a land allotment in which to raise cattle (Num. 32:3). Later, the Reubenites built up “Baal Meon” (Num. 32:38), probably another name for Beon.

(1) The father of Bela, king of Edom (Gen. 36:32; 1 Chron. 1:43). (2) The father of Balaam, who was hired by King Balak of Moab to curse the Israelites (Num. 22:5).

The king of Sodom who, along with four other kings, rebelled against Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, in the valley of Siddim (Gen. 14:2). In their defeat, Abraham’s nephew Lot was taken captive by the survivors, who fled to the hill country.

(1) One of the Benjamites who joined David’s company after the latter’s banishment from Saul’s presence (1 Chron. 12:3). (2) A valley located near Tekoa in the desert west of the Dead Sea, where King Jehoshaphat of Judah and his army celebrated the victory that God won for them against a coalition of invading Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites (2 Chron. 20:26). The word berakhah means “blessing,” and according to the biblical narrative, the valley received its name on account of the praise given to God there. The modern location is uncertain.

(1) Son of Zerubbabel, and a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:20). Berekiah and four siblings are listed separately after two other brothers and a sister, perhaps because they have a different mother or were born after Zerubbabel returned from exile. (2) Son of Shimea, and the father of Asaph (1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17). (3) Son of Asa, a Levite (1 Chron. 9:16). (4) A gatekeeper for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 15:23). He may be the same Berekiah as in 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17 or in 9:16. (5) Son of Meshillemoth, an Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:12). (6) Son of Me­shez­a­bel, and the father of Meshullam, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:4, 30; 6:18). (7) Son of Iddo, and the father of Zechariah the prophet (Zech. 1:1, 7; Matt. 23:35).

Son of Shimei in the genealogical account of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:21).

(1) One of the Benjamites who joined David’s company after the latter’s banishment from Saul’s presence (1 Chron. 12:3). (2) A valley located near Tekoa in the desert west of the Dead Sea, where King Jehoshaphat of Judah and his army celebrated the victory that God won for them against a coalition of invading Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites (2 Chron. 20:26). The word berakhah means “blessing,” and according to the biblical narrative, the valley received its name on account of the praise given to God there. The modern location is uncertain.

(1) Son of Zerubbabel, and a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:20). Berekiah and four siblings are listed separately after two other brothers and a sister, perhaps because they have a different mother or were born after Zerubbabel returned from exile. (2) Son of Shimea, and the father of Asaph (1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17). (3) Son of Asa, a Levite (1 Chron. 9:16). (4) A gatekeeper for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 15:23). He may be the same Berekiah as in 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17 or in 9:16. (5) Son of Meshillemoth, an Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:12). (6) Son of Me­shez­a­bel, and the father of Meshullam, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:4, 30; 6:18). (7) Son of Iddo, and the father of Zechariah the prophet (Zech. 1:1, 7; Matt. 23:35).

A city (NRSV: “Beroea”) in southern Macedonia (modern Veria) forty-five miles southwest of Thessalonica. After fleeing Thessalonica, Paul and Silas preached there to receptive Jews who “examined the Scriptures every day” to confirm Paul’s message (Acts 17:11). Sopater of Berea accompanied Paul (Acts 20:4).

(1) Son of Zerubbabel, and a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:20). Berekiah and four siblings are listed separately after two other brothers and a sister, perhaps because they have a different mother or were born after Zerubbabel returned from exile. (2) Son of Shimea, and the father of Asaph (1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17). (3) Son of Asa, a Levite (1 Chron. 9:16). (4) A gatekeeper for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 15:23). He may be the same Berekiah as in 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17 or in 9:16. (5) Son of Meshillemoth, an Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:12). (6) Son of Me­shez­a­bel, and the father of Meshullam, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:4, 30; 6:18). (7) Son of Iddo, and the father of Zechariah the prophet (Zech. 1:1, 7; Matt. 23:35).

(1) Son of Shuthelah and grandson of Ephraim, who was Joseph’s youngest son (1 Chron. 7:20). In the account of the census that Moses took of Israel, the same person is apparently listed by the name “Beker” (Num. 26:35). (2) One of two places, along with Kadesh, between which the well of Beer Lahai Roi was located (Gen. 16:14).

(1) Son of Zerubbabel, and a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:20). Berekiah and four siblings are listed separately after two other brothers and a sister, perhaps because they have a different mother or were born after Zerubbabel returned from exile. (2) Son of Shimea, and the father of Asaph (1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17). (3) Son of Asa, a Levite (1 Chron. 9:16). (4) A gatekeeper for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 15:23). He may be the same Berekiah as in 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:17 or in 9:16. (5) Son of Meshillemoth, an Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:12). (6) Son of Me­shez­a­bel, and the father of Meshullam, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:4, 30; 6:18). (7) Son of Iddo, and the father of Zechariah the prophet (Zech. 1:1, 7; Matt. 23:35).

Daughter of Agrippa I, great-granddaughter of Herod the Great, sister of Agrippa II and Drusilla. Bernice was married to her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, who died in AD 48. In Acts 25–26 she appears as the queen consort of her brother King Agrippa II, who was in Caesarea visiting Festus, the Roman governor of Judea (AD 59–62). During their stay, Bernice witnessed Paul’s imprisonment defense prior to his being sent to Rome for appeal to Caesar. Later, Bernice was briefly married to Polemo, king of Cicilia. She then resumed her significant role in Agrippa’s reign. In AD 75 she went to Rome as the lover of Titus Vespasian, ten years her junior, until he dismissed her as politically untenable.

Son of Zophah in the genealogical account of Asher (1 Chron. 7:36). Appearing only once in the OT, he is not the eponym of the Beriites, who come from the same tribe but descend from Beriah (Num. 26:44).

(1) The fourth son of Asher (Gen. 46:17), and the father of Heber and Malkiel (1 Chron. 7:30–31). He left Canaan and went to Egypt with his father and the rest of Jacob’s family. He is the ancestor of the Beriites (Num. 26:44). (2) A son of Ephraim, named “Beriah” because tragedy (ra’ah) had come to his family when two of his sons were killed by the men of Gath (1 Chron. 7:23). (3) A Benjamite who was a son of Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:13). (4) A Levite who was a son of Shimei (1 Chron. 23:10). He and his brother Jeush were considered one family with one responsibility because they did not have many sons (1 Chron. 23:11).

The descendants of Beriah, the fourth son of Asher. He is found in all three genealogical accounts of Asher (Gen. 46:17–18; Num. 26:44–47; 1 Chron. 7:30–40).

The Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 20:14 mentions “Berites,” presumably a group of people otherwise unknown. Some ancient versions appear to support a slight revision of the text to read “chosen ones” or “Bikrites” (see 2 Sam. 20:1).

Meaning “Baal/Lord of the covenant,” this was Shechem’s local manifestation of the Canaanite deity Baal. Like the Baal worshiped at Ugarit, Baal-Berith was likely associated with fertility and vegetation (Judg. 9:27). Soon after the death of Gideon, the Israelites began to worship Baal-Berith (Judg. 8:33), and money from his temple at Shechem was given by the Shechemites to Abimelek (Judg. 9:4). The significance of “covenant” in this name and the relationship to El-Berith of Judg. 9:46 remain uncertain.

Daughter of Agrippa I, great-granddaughter of Herod the Great, sister of Agrippa II and Drusilla. Bernice was married to her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, who died in AD 48. In Acts 25–26 she appears as the queen consort of her brother King Agrippa II, who was in Caesarea visiting Festus, the Roman governor of Judea (AD 59–62). During their stay, Bernice witnessed Paul’s imprisonment defense prior to his being sent to Rome for appeal to Caesar. Later, Bernice was briefly married to Polemo, king of Cicilia. She then resumed her significant role in Agrippa’s reign. In AD 75 she went to Rome as the lover of Titus Vespasian, ten years her junior, until he dismissed her as politically untenable.

The king of Babylon in 721–710 BC, Marduk-Baladan was a Chaldean who later led two Babylonian revolts against the Assyrian king Sennacherib. He also sent emissaries to King Hezekiah of Judah (Isa. 39:1). The Neo-Assyrian Empire had dominated Babylon for nearly half a century. Although there were pro-Assyrian sentiments in some cities, the peoples in Babylon were not unified. Some Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Arameans opposed Assyria. Marduk-Baladan took the throne for nine months in 703 BC and with Elamite support returned in 700 BC, only to be routed by Assyria. Marduk-Baladan’s communication with Hezekiah probably came during his brief control of Babylon. Hezekiah had revolted against Assyria prior to Sennacherib coming to the throne in 704 BC; thus Marduk-Baladan was exploring a possible alliance with Hezekiah against Babylon. Seeing this as a lack of trust in God, Isaiah condemned Hezekiah and prophesied that it would be Babylon that would destroy Judah. In 2 Kings 20:12 the MT reads “Berodach-Baladan” (similar to “Merodach,” the Hebrew form of “Marduk”), but several Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin witnesses agree with the reading in Isa. 39:1.

A city (NRSV: “Beroea”) in southern Macedonia (modern Veria) forty-five miles southwest of Thessalonica. After fleeing Thessalonica, Paul and Silas preached there to receptive Jews who “examined the Scriptures every day” to confirm Paul’s message (Acts 17:11). Sopater of Berea accompanied Paul (Acts 20:4).

A place on the northern boundary of Israel in Ezekiel’s description of the future land (Ezek. 47:16). Berothah is probably the same as Berothai, a city of Hadadezer that David plundered (2 Sam. 8:8). It is possibly to be identified with Bereitan, modern Brital, Lebanon.

A city in the kingdom of Zobah from which David took a large quantity of bronze (2 Sam. 8:8). However, the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 18:8 identifies this city as Kun, about seven miles north of Berothai. This city is possibly located at the modern site of Bereitan in Lebanon. Berothai is most likely identical to Berothah mentioned in Ezek. 47:16, a city located between Damascus and Hamath as the northern boundary of the restored Israel in Ezekiel’s vision.

A person who comes from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2; 23:37; 1 Chron. 11:39 [NIV: “Berothite”]).

Listed in Ezra 2:49; Neh. 7:52 as an ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel (in 539 BC or soon after). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to do menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

The father of Meshullam, who helped in Nehemiah’s effort to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem by repairing the Jeshanah Gate with Joiada (Neh. 3:6).

The KJV rendering of the Hebrew word mat’ate’ in Isa. 14:23, translated as “broom” in more-recent versions.

A wide ravine that drained a large portion of the western Negev into the Mediterranean and formed a natural boundary between the settled area to the north and the nomadic tribes to the south. The nomadic Amalekites crossed the Besor to raid David’s town at Ziklag, and a third of David’s army of six hundred stayed at the Besor when he crossed it in pursuit (1 Sam. 30:1–2, 9–10, 21).

Mentioned four times, bestiality refers to sexual acts performed with animals (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21). Bestiality inverts the created order by mixing image bearers with animals (Gen. 1:27–28) and is condemned as “perversion.” The nations purged from Canaan were guilty of these abominations (Lev. 20:23).

(1) The oldest of four sons of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gen. 22:24). (2) A town that had belonged to King Hadadezer of Zobah, from which David took a large quantity of bronze after defeating the king (1 Chron. 18:8). Some versions follow the Hebrew text, which has the variant name “Tibhath” (NRSV, NASB, ESV, KJV), while others substitute “Tebah” (NIV, NLT).

A town in the southern portion of the tribal allotment to Asher under Joshua (Josh. 19:25). It is possibly to be identified with modern Abtun, in the vicinity of Mount Carmel.

A town assigned to the tribe of Naphtali after Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land (Josh. 19:38). The inhabitants of Beth Anath were not driven away upon Israel’s arrival, and by the time of the judges they were required to do forced labor (Judg. 1:33).

A city assigned to the tribe of Judah after Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land. It was located about three miles north/northeast of Hebron (Josh. 15:59).

A village in the wilderness of Judah located on the border with Benjamin about five miles north-northwest of the Dead Sea (Josh. 15:6, 61; 18:18, 22).

Appearing only once in the Bible, this city serves as a picture of terrible judgment when “mothers were dashed to the ground with their children” (Hos. 10:14). The city cannot be identified with certainty, but the vast majority of scholars identify it with the Transjordanian city of Arbela (modern Irbid).

The home of linen workers descending from the tribe of Judah. It was probably located in the region of Mareshah (1 Chron. 4:21).

A village north of Jerusalem that appears twice in the OT. The location appears in connection with the returnees from exile during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 7:28). The village was built by singers who served at the dedication of the rebuilt wall (12:29).

A town in the north­ern part of Moab (Josh. 13:17). It also appears as Baal Meon (Num. 32:38; 1 Chron. 5:8; Ezek. 25:9) and Beth Meon (Jer. 48:23). The names Baal Meon and Beth Baal Meon appear as well on the ninth-century BC Moabite Stone (lines 9, 30).

A location near the Jordan River where Joshua led the Ephraimites to capture the fleeing Midianites (Judg. 7:24). Athough some suggest that it could be west of the Jordan River in the vicinity of Wadi Far‘‘ah, its precise location is uncertain.

Descendants of the tribe of Simeon lived in this town before David was crowned king over Israel (1 Chron. 4:31). The modern town of Jebel el-Biri might be located on the same place as the ancient town of Beth Biri.

A town within the boundaries of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:11 in connection with the Israelite defeat of the Philistines at Mizpah. The victory was attributed primarily to Yahweh, who created confusion in the Philistine camp (1 Sam. 7:10).

(1) A town located in the lowland of Judah (Josh. 15:41). The name means “house/temple of Dagon” and is a reference to Dagon, the god of the Philistines (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:2–7). (2) A city on the southern border of the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:27), located about five miles southeast of the modern city of Haifa.

Jeremiah mentions Beth Diblathaim in his oracles against the nations and specifically against Moab. It may be that Beth Diblathaim is the same as Almon Diblathaim, a town encountered by the wandering Israelites on their way to the Promised Land (Num. 33:46–47). If so, Beth Diblathaim was located somewhere on the King’s Highway between Mount Hor and the plains of Moab.

An important city-state located northeast of Israel on the banks of the Euphrates River. Beth Eden played an important role in the Aramean kingdom. During the time of the eighth-century BC prophet Amos, Beth Eden had recovered from an earlier Assyrian invasion led by Shalmaneser III and again rose to fame. Beth Eden is included in God’s judgment against the nations that neighbor his people, Israel (Amos 1:5).

A town in the northern kingdom of Israel. The town was located between Jezreel and the capital Samaria. It was at Beth Eked that Jehu slaughtered forty-two relatives of King Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings 10:12–14). The two modern cities that might be located on the ancient ruins of Beth Eked are Beit Qad and Kafr Ro’i.

One of the towns allotted to the tribe of Asher, mentioned only in Josh. 19:27. It may be identified with Tel Mimas, located some seven miles northeast of Akko where Upper Galilee descends to the Mediterranean coast.

In 1 Chron. 2:50–51 Beth Gader is identified as son of Hareph, and grandson of Hur, from the tribe of Judah. Some suggest that later Beth Gader was a town located south of Jerusalem, in the vicinity of Bethlehem.

A Moabite town named along with Kiriathaim and Beth Meon in Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations (Jer. 48:23). Its site is uncertain, although modern-day Khir­bet el-Jemeil has been suggested as a possible location.

Appearing only once in the OT, this town is linked with the returnees from exile during the time of Nehemiah. The village, located on the east plain of Jericho, was built by singers who served at the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:29).

This place, whose name means “place of the garden,” is where King Jehu of Israel fatally wounded King Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings 9:27). Ahaziah would die at Megiddo. Since the location must be somewhere between Jezreel toward Samaria and Jerusalem, scholars suggest that modern-day Jenin should be connected with ancient Beth Haggan.

A town (or possibly a valley) in the region of Gad and located east of Jordan (Josh. 13:27). The place is identical with Beth Haran, a fortified city taken during the conquest of the Promised Land (Num. 32:36).

A town (or possibly a valley) in the region of Gad and located east of Jordan (Josh. 13:27). The place is identical with Beth Haran, a fortified city taken during the conquest of the Promised Land (Num. 32:36).

A town located between Jericho and the Jordan River, mentioned as the territories of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are outlined (Josh. 15:6; 18:19, 21). Today it is identified with modern Deir Hajlah.

A city allotted by Joshua to the Levites (Josh. 21:22). The city was divided into two parts, Lower Beth Horon and Upper Beth Horon. The twin city of Beth Horon, first mentioned in Josh. 10:10–11, is located in the mountains of Judah in the valley of Aijalon. During the Israelite conquest of the land, many Amorites were killed at Gibeon and others pursued as far as Beth Horon. In the distribution of the land, Lower Beth Horon was allotted to Ephraim, while Upper Beth Horon was on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin (16:3, 5; 18:13–14). During Solomon’s reign, Beth Horon was rebuilt after being burned by the Egyptians during one of their northern incursions (1 Kings 9:15–17).

The Chronicler reveals that the city was built by Sheerah, granddaughter of Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:24). Lower and Upper Beth Horon are described as “fortified cities, with walls and with gates and bars” (2 Chron. 8:5). The last mention of Beth Horon is made in conjunction with some Israelite troops who killed three thousand Judeans from Samaria to Beth Horon (2 Chron. 25:13). Modern-day Beit ’Ur el-Foqa has been identified with ancient Upper Beth Horon, while ancient Lower Beth Horon has been identified with modern-day Beit ’Ur et-Tahta.

A geographic location referred to four times in the OT. It is one of the towns in Moab where the Israelites camped as they were poised to enter Canaan (Num. 33:49). It is listed among the territories taken from Sihon by the Israelites (Josh. 12:2–3) and as one of the towns given to the tribe of Reuben by Moses (Josh. 13:20). In Ezekiel’s prophecy against Moab it is mentioned as one of the frontier towns that will be the first to be destroyed (Ezek. 25:9).

A town within the boundaries of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:11 in connection with the Israelite defeat of the Philistines at Mizpah. The victory was attributed primarily to Yahweh, who created confusion in the Philistine camp (1 Sam. 7:10).

This town is mentioned for the first time in the book of Joshua in its abbreviated form, Lebaoth. Joshua 15:32 identifies Lebaoth as part of the tribe of Judah, while 19:6 has Beth Lebaoth as one of the cities belonging to the tribe of Simeon. Probably due to a scribal error, the city appears as Beth Biri in a Simeonite genealogy (1 Chron. 4:31).

A city in far northern Israel usually called “Abel Beth Maakah.” Located approximately seventeen miles north of Hazor and four miles west of Dan at modern Tell Abel el-Qamh, (Abel) Beth Maakah sat at an important road junction, squarely in the path of northern invaders. Both the Arameans (1 Kings 15:20) and the Assyrians (2 Kings 15:29) destroyed the city when they first entered Israel. See also Abel Beth Maakah.

A city in far northern Israel usually called “Abel Beth Maakah.” Located approximately seventeen miles north of Hazor and four miles west of Dan at modern Tell Abel el-Qamh, (Abel) Beth Maakah sat at an important road junction, squarely in the path of northern invaders. Both the Arameans (1 Kings 15:20) and the Assyrians (2 Kings 15:29) destroyed the city when they first entered Israel. See also Abel Beth Maakah.

One of the locations inherited by the tribe of Simeon within the territory of Judah (Josh. 19:5). It was occupied by Shimei and his descendants until the reign of King David (1 Chron. 4:31).

One of the locations inherited by the tribe of Simeon within the territory of Judah (Josh. 19:5). It was occupied by Shimei and his descendants until the reign of King David (1 Chron. 4:31).

A Moabite town (Jer. 48:23) also known as Baal Meon (Num. 32:38; 1 Chron. 5:8; Ezek. 25:9), Beth Baal Meon (Josh. 13:17), and Beon (Num. 32:3). The Moabite Stone (line 9) reports it being rebuilt by a Moabite king Mesha, who also built a reservoir in it.

Likely a palace or fortress. If “Millo” means “fill,” as its Hebrew etymology suggests, it may refer to the foundations of a prominent structure in the upper city. Shechem’s Beth Millo is mentioned in connection with the “citizens of Shechem” who crowned Abimelek king (Judg. 9:6, 20). Jerusalem’s Beth Millo (2 Kings 12:20) may be identified with a stone structure on the east side of the City of David.

One of the towns constructed by the Gadites in the land given to them by Moses after they defeated the Amorites (Num. 32:3, 36; Josh. 13:27). It is located east of the Jordan Valley, and its name is present at Tell Nimrim. It may be associated with the “waters of Nimrim” (Isa. 15:6; Jer. 48:34).

A town found within the territory allotted to the tribe of Issachar (Josh. 19:21). Based on the cities listed with it, the town probably was located east of Mount Tabor, but the exact location cannot be determined.

A southern Judean town located near the boundary of Edom (Josh. 15:21, 27). It was one of the towns reoccupied by Judeans following their return from exile (Neh. 11:26). A proposed location is north of Beersheba, but a definitive location cannot be determined.

A Transjordanian town located just east of the northern end of the Dead Sea. It was part of the holdings of King Sihon of the Amorites until the Israelite invasion as they passed by on their way to enter Canaan (Deut. 4:46). It is also from the valley near Beth Peor that Moses delivered his speeches in Deuteronomy. Already in Deut. 4:3 Moses refers to the sin of the Israelites in Num. 25:1–9 concerning Baal Peor, whose worship certainly was located in Beth Peor (i.e., “house of Peor”). That incident is referred to again in Hos. 9:10 as the incident that turned Yahweh against his people. Moses was buried in the valley opposite Beth Peor, although “to this day no one knows where his grave is” (Deut. 34:6). See also Baal Peor.

Son of Eshton from the tribe of Judah, mentioned only in 1 Chron. 4:12. Since this is one of the few cases where a personal name appears in the OT preceded by beth (“house, dynasty”), it has sometimes been interpreted as the name of a place (perhaps in the region between Bethlehem and Hebron). “Rapha” appears in other Semitic names and may simply be the short form of “Yahweh/God has healed.”

An Aramean town or district on the road to Hamath. It is probably to be identified with Rehob of Num. 13:21, the northernmost point of the journey of the Israelite spies sent into Canaan by Moses at God’s command. It has been conjectured as modern Banias, five miles northeast of Dan, or as Hunin, west of Banias. Danites migrated to the north and captured Laish, in the valley that is part of Beth Rehob (Judg. 18:28). Ammonites hired Syrian soldiers as mercenaries from Beth Rehob and Zobah to fight against David (2 Sam. 10:6).

Known as Scythopolis at the time of Jesus, Beth Shan is a town located at the junction of the plain of Jezreel and the Jordan Valley, west of the Jordan River. This strategic site, with fertile lands and abundant water, overlooks major roads running west toward the Mediterranean and north and south through the Jordan Valley. The name also designates the district surrounding the town.

Modern Tel Beth-Shean (Arabic: Tell el-Husn) has been the site of three archaeological excavations. In 1921–33 the University of Pennsylvania began work on the Early Arab and Byzantine levels and later reached the Middle and Early Bronze Age strata, discovering that Beth Shan served as an administrative center for Egypt during the time of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I (1550–1150 BC). The most significant finds of this excavation included three basalt stelae with inscriptions from the reigns of the Egyptian rulers Seti I and Ramesses II and a life-size statue of Ramesses II. Excavations in Beth Shan were renewed briefly in 1983 and in earnest between 1989 and 1996 by the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with significant artifacts uncovered at almost every stratum. The combined efforts of these excavations have found evidence of continuous occupation from the late Neolithic period (5500–4500 BC) to the Crusader and Ayyubid periods (AD 1099–1291).

Beth Shan is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with Joshua’s division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. Although located within the territory of Issachar, it was portioned to the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:11) but remained under the control of the Canaanite inhabitants because they possessed iron chariots. When the Israelites gained strength, they put the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out (Josh. 17:12–13, 16; Judg. 1:27).

During the period of the monarchy, after the Israelites were defeated in battle on Mount Gilboa, the Philistines fastened the bodies of Saul and his three sons to the wall of Beth Shan and placed Saul’s weapons in the temple of Ashtaroth. When news of this atrocity spread, men from Jabesh Gilead retrieved the bodies and buried them (1 Sam. 31:7–13). David later retrieved the bones of Saul and his sons and reburied them in Zela (2 Sam. 21:14). Although Beth Shan had been under the control of the Philistines during Saul’s reign, it is listed within one of Solomon’s administrative districts (1 Kings 4:12).

Not mentioned again in biblical sources, the town continued to play a role in the historical events of the area. After Alexander the Great’s conquests, Greeks settled in Beth Shan and changed the town’s name to “Scythopolis.” It became one of the towns designated as belonging to the Decapolis, a confederation of ten towns primarily situated east and south of the Sea of Galilee. This was the only city of the Decapolis located west of the Jordan River.

Scythopolis was the site of some conflict during the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc. 5:52; 12:40–42). Jews retook control of the area during the reign of the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus, but its inhabitants were spared from massacre because of kindness shown to the local Jews (2 Macc. 12:29–31). In 63 BC the Roman general Pompey won control of the city from the Jews. The city continued to be occupied during the Roman and Byzantine periods and was conquered in AD 636 by the Arabs, who renamed it “Beisan.”

Known as Scythopolis at the time of Jesus, Beth Shan is a town located at the junction of the plain of Jezreel and the Jordan Valley, west of the Jordan River. This strategic site, with fertile lands and abundant water, overlooks major roads running west toward the Mediterranean and north and south through the Jordan Valley. The name also designates the district surrounding the town.

Modern Tel Beth-Shean (Arabic: Tell el-Husn) has been the site of three archaeological excavations. In 1921–33 the University of Pennsylvania began work on the Early Arab and Byzantine levels and later reached the Middle and Early Bronze Age strata, discovering that Beth Shan served as an administrative center for Egypt during the time of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I (1550–1150 BC). The most significant finds of this excavation included three basalt stelae with inscriptions from the reigns of the Egyptian rulers Seti I and Ramesses II and a life-size statue of Ramesses II. Excavations in Beth Shan were renewed briefly in 1983 and in earnest between 1989 and 1996 by the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with significant artifacts uncovered at almost every stratum. The combined efforts of these excavations have found evidence of continuous occupation from the late Neolithic period (5500–4500 BC) to the Crusader and Ayyubid periods (AD 1099–1291).

Beth Shan is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with Joshua’s division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. Although located within the territory of Issachar, it was portioned to the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:11) but remained under the control of the Canaanite inhabitants because they possessed iron chariots. When the Israelites gained strength, they put the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out (Josh. 17:12–13, 16; Judg. 1:27).

During the period of the monarchy, after the Israelites were defeated in battle on Mount Gilboa, the Philistines fastened the bodies of Saul and his three sons to the wall of Beth Shan and placed Saul’s weapons in the temple of Ashtaroth. When news of this atrocity spread, men from Jabesh Gilead retrieved the bodies and buried them (1 Sam. 31:7–13). David later retrieved the bones of Saul and his sons and reburied them in Zela (2 Sam. 21:14). Although Beth Shan had been under the control of the Philistines during Saul’s reign, it is listed within one of Solomon’s administrative districts (1 Kings 4:12).

Not mentioned again in biblical sources, the town continued to play a role in the historical events of the area. After Alexander the Great’s conquests, Greeks settled in Beth Shan and changed the town’s name to “Scythopolis.” It became one of the towns designated as belonging to the Decapolis, a confederation of ten towns primarily situated east and south of the Sea of Galilee. This was the only city of the Decapolis located west of the Jordan River.

Scythopolis was the site of some conflict during the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc. 5:52; 12:40–42). Jews retook control of the area during the reign of the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus, but its inhabitants were spared from massacre because of kindness shown to the local Jews (2 Macc. 12:29–31). In 63 BC the Roman general Pompey won control of the city from the Jews. The city continued to be occupied during the Roman and Byzantine periods and was conquered in AD 636 by the Arabs, who renamed it “Beisan.”

The name “Beth She­mesh” means “house of the sun,” which suggests the presence of a temple to a sun god at that location.

(1) A city allocated to the tribe of Dan, in Josh. 19:41 it is called “Ir Shemesh,” which means “City of Shemesh.” It is also described as being located on the northern boundary of Judah (Josh. 15:10), as one of the cities that Judah allotted to the Levites (Josh. 21:16), and as being “in Judah” (2 Kings 14:11).

Beth Shemesh is best known for its role in the story of the Philistine capture of the Ark of the Covenant. After keeping the ark with disastrous consequences for seven months, the Philistines returned it to the border town of Beth Shemesh. The ark’s safe arrival was a joyous occasion for the town until some of the residents looked inside the ark and were struck down by God (1 Sam. 6).

Beth Shemesh belonged to the second administrative district of Solomon (1 Kings 4:9) and was the location where King Jehoash (Joash) of Israel engaged King Amaziah of Judah in battle. The victorious Jehoash then marched on to Jerusalem and plundered the temple (2 Kings 14:11–14; 2 Chron. 25:21–24). During the reign of King Ahaz, the Philistines seized many towns in the lowlands of Judah, including Beth Shemesh (2 Chron. 28:18).

Beth Shemesh has been identified with Tel Beth-Shemesh, located in the northeastern Shephelah (lowland) of Judah, twelve miles west of Jerusalem, overlooking the Sorek Valley. Early excavations, conducted in 1911–12 by Duncan Mackenzie for the Palestine Exploration Fund and in 1928–33 by Elihu Grant from Haverford College, uncovered six levels of occupation. Finds in Stratum VI consisted solely of pottery shards. In Stratum V (Middle Bronze Age, 2200–1550 BC) a massive city wall, a well-preserved house, and several tombs were uncovered. Stratum IV (Late Bronze Age, 1550–1200 BC) finds included several structures, a Ugaritic cuneiform tablet, an ostracon with a Proto-Canaanite inscription, and a spectacular jewelry hoard. Stratum III (Iron Age I, 1200–1000 BC) finds included many residences, bichrome Philistine pottery, and the remains of industrial metalworking. Excavations in Stratum II (Iron Age II, 1000–586 BC) showed that the city had been rebuilt in a concentric layout. Finds included jar handles, seal impressions, tombs, and evidence of olive oil production. Stratum I (Hellenistic to Medieval periods) discoveries included pottery, coins, and architectural remains.

Discoveries of the recent excavations in 1990–2000 by Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman for Tel Aviv University include an elaborate system of fortifications (tenth to seventh centuries BC), an ironsmith workshop, and a unique subterranean water reservoir coated with hydraulic plaster and with a capacity of eight hundred cubic meters. These excavations confirmed that Beth Shemesh was destroyed in 701 BC by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Although Judean families resettled the city for a short time, they abandoned it when the entrance to the reservoir was deliberately blocked with 150 tons of debris by the Philistines (and/or the Assyrians), who wanted control of the area.

(2) A city within the territory of the tribe of Issachar (Josh. 19:22).

(3) A fortified city within the territory of the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:38). The Israelites were unable to drive out its Canaanite inhabitants, so they used them for forced labor (Judg. 1:33).

(4) A city in Egypt also known as Heliopolis, mentioned in Jer. 43:13 (NRSV). Here the MT has beth shemesh and the LXX has Heliou poleōs (Jer. 50:1 LXX), but the NIV translates the name literally as “the temple of the sun” and places “Heliopolis” in a footnote.

The place where the Midianite army fled after the surprise attack by Gideon and his three hundred men (Judg. 7:22). The exact location is unknown, but it is likely somewhere in the Jordan Valley near Abel Meholah. The name “Beth Shittah” means “house of the acacia tree.”

A town near Hebron allotted to the tribe of Judah in the southern hill country. The name (“house of the apple”) appears only in Josh. 15:53 and is preserved by the modern village of Taffuh, located three miles west of Hebron.

A place mentioned twice in Ezekiel. First, Beth Togarmah appears as one of several trading partners of the Phoenician city of Tyre (27:14); Beth Togarmah’s goods were “work horses, war horses, and mules.” Second, Beth Togarmah, “from the far north,” is named as one of the military allies of Gog of Magog (38:6). Scholars generally identify Beth To­gar­mah with Armenia. Togarmah, who settled in the area subsequently known as Beth Togarmah, was a son of Gomer and a great-grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:3; 1 Chron. 1:6).

A town in the southern Judean mountains twelve miles south of Jerusalem. The ancient site should be associated with Khirbet et-Tubeiqah, a mere quarter mile away from Burj es-Sur. It was a Judean town (Josh. 15:58) associated with the descendants of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:45). Rehoboam fortified it (2 Chron. 11:7). In the postexilic period it ruled a small administrative district (Neh. 3:16).

During the Maccabean revolt it served as a fortress guarding the border with Idumea (1 Macc. 4:61). Judas defeated Lysias in 165 BC and fortified it (4:29) only to lose it in 163 BC (6:50). It remained in Seleucid hands (10:14) until Simon captured it in 144 BC (11:65). It declined and was abandoned in the first centuries AD.

A town (or possibly a valley) in the region of Gad and located east of Jordan (Josh. 13:27). The place is identical with Beth Haran, a fortified city taken during the conquest of the Promised Land (Num. 32:36).

A southern Judean town located near the boundary of Edom (Josh. 15:21, 27). It was one of the towns reoccupied by Judeans following their return from exile (Neh. 11:26). A proposed location is north of Beersheba, but a definitive location cannot be determined.

The name “Beth She­mesh” means “house of the sun,” which suggests the presence of a temple to a sun god at that location.

(1) A city allocated to the tribe of Dan, in Josh. 19:41 it is called “Ir Shemesh,” which means “City of Shemesh.” It is also described as being located on the northern boundary of Judah (Josh. 15:10), as one of the cities that Judah allotted to the Levites (Josh. 21:16), and as being “in Judah” (2 Kings 14:11).

Beth Shemesh is best known for its role in the story of the Philistine capture of the Ark of the Covenant. After keeping the ark with disastrous consequences for seven months, the Philistines returned it to the border town of Beth Shemesh. The ark’s safe arrival was a joyous occasion for the town until some of the residents looked inside the ark and were struck down by God (1 Sam. 6).

Beth Shemesh belonged to the second administrative district of Solomon (1 Kings 4:9) and was the location where King Jehoash (Joash) of Israel engaged King Amaziah of Judah in battle. The victorious Jehoash then marched on to Jerusalem and plundered the temple (2 Kings 14:11–14; 2 Chron. 25:21–24). During the reign of King Ahaz, the Philistines seized many towns in the lowlands of Judah, including Beth Shemesh (2 Chron. 28:18).

Beth Shemesh has been identified with Tel Beth-Shemesh, located in the northeastern Shephelah (lowland) of Judah, twelve miles west of Jerusalem, overlooking the Sorek Valley. Early excavations, conducted in 1911–12 by Duncan Mackenzie for the Palestine Exploration Fund and in 1928–33 by Elihu Grant from Haverford College, uncovered six levels of occupation. Finds in Stratum VI consisted solely of pottery shards. In Stratum V (Middle Bronze Age, 2200–1550 BC) a massive city wall, a well-preserved house, and several tombs were uncovered. Stratum IV (Late Bronze Age, 1550–1200 BC) finds included several structures, a Ugaritic cuneiform tablet, an ostracon with a Proto-Canaanite inscription, and a spectacular jewelry hoard. Stratum III (Iron Age I, 1200–1000 BC) finds included many residences, bichrome Philistine pottery, and the remains of industrial metalworking. Excavations in Stratum II (Iron Age II, 1000–586 BC) showed that the city had been rebuilt in a concentric layout. Finds included jar handles, seal impressions, tombs, and evidence of olive oil production. Stratum I (Hellenistic to Medieval periods) discoveries included pottery, coins, and architectural remains.

Discoveries of the recent excavations in 1990–2000 by Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman for Tel Aviv University include an elaborate system of fortifications (tenth to seventh centuries BC), an ironsmith workshop, and a unique subterranean water reservoir coated with hydraulic plaster and with a capacity of eight hundred cubic meters. These excavations confirmed that Beth Shemesh was destroyed in 701 BC by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Although Judean families resettled the city for a short time, they abandoned it when the entrance to the reservoir was deliberately blocked with 150 tons of debris by the Philistines (and/or the Assyrians), who wanted control of the area.

(2) A city within the territory of the tribe of Issachar (Josh. 19:22).

(3) A fortified city within the territory of the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:38). The Israelites were unable to drive out its Canaanite inhabitants, so they used them for forced labor (Judg. 1:33).

(4) A city in Egypt also known as Heliopolis, mentioned in Jer. 43:13 (NRSV). Here the MT has beth shemesh and the LXX has Heliou poleōs (Jer. 50:1 LXX), but the NIV translates the name literally as “the temple of the sun” and places “Heliopolis” in a footnote.

In John 1:28 many manuscripts name Bethabara as the place where John was baptizing (followed by the KJV), although the oldest and most widely attested reading has it as Bethany. The sixth-century AD Madaba Map corroborates the Bethabara hypothesis.

(1) A village about two miles east of Jerusalem on the way to Jericho (John 11:18). It is mentioned twice in Matthew (21:17; 26:6), four times in Mark (11:1, 11, 12; 14:3), twice in Luke (19:29; 24:50), and three times in John (11:1, 18; 12:1). Bethany is identified as a place where Jesus lodged several times, primarily because his friends Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived there (John 11:1; 12:1). It was here that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and dined at the house of Simon the leper. Simon’s house in Bethany is where Mary anointed Jesus’ body before his death and resurrection (Matt. 26:6–13; John 12:1–2).

(2) John the Baptist ministered in a place called “Bethany” beyond/across the Jordan (John 1:28). It was here on the east side of the Jordan that Jesus called his first disciples (John 1:35–42). The modern town of El-’Aziriyeh is traditionally associated with first-century Bethany. See also Bethabara.

The ancient site of Bethel is probably to be identified with the modern village of Beitin, 10.5 miles north of Jerusalem. Its location is described and pinpointed in Gen. 12:8; Judg. 21:19. Bethel’s situation and importance are explained by its copious springs and its location at the intersection of major ancient highways, the north-south mountain road and the east-west road from Jericho to the coastal plain.

From the patriarchs to the judges. The first mention of Bethel in the Bible is in Gen. 12:8, where Abram camped “east of Bethel” on his first entry into the Promised Land. He camped there again on his return from a stay in Egypt (13:3). On the first occasion Abram erected “an altar to the Lord.” When Abram returned to that spot, he “called on the name of the Lord.”

It was Jacob who gave it the name “Bethel,” meaning “house of God,” due to the dream he received in that location. In the dream he saw a ladder reaching to heaven, and God spoke to him (28:10–19). Its former name was Luz. God later appeared in Mesopotamia and spoke to Jacob, identifying himself as “the God of Bethel,” instructing him to return to his native land. The title taken by God implied that God would be faithful to his earlier promise to bring Jacob back to his land (31:13). Later God specifically instructed Jacob to settle in Bethel (35:1–6). Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died in Bethel and was buried there (35:8). God appeared to Jacob a second time in Bethel and spoke to him, reiterating the promise to give him the land of Canaan (35:9–15; cf. 28:13). All God’s dealings with Jacob are connected to the theophanies and divine promises associated with Bethel.

Bethel is mentioned a number of times in the account of Joshua’s capture of Ai, a city that lay to the east of Bethel (Josh. 7). The king of Bethel is listed among the kings defeated by Joshua (12:16). Under Joshua, the city was apportioned to Benjamin (18:13, 22), but the Canaanites repopulated it after the near extinction of the tribe of Benjamin (Judg. 20–21). Bethel was reconquered by the house of Joseph and incorporated into Ephraimite territory (Judg. 1:22–25; 1 Chron. 7:28), and later it became a fortress on its southern tribal border. Deborah held court between Ramah and Bethel (Judg. 4:5). Under the judgeship of Samuel, Bethel was one of his regular stops in his yearly circuit (1 Sam. 7:16). It continued throughout this period to be a sanctuary where offerings were made (see 1 Sam. 10:3).

From the monarchy to the exile. This long-term cultic association explains the choice of Bethel as one of the two chief sanctuaries of the northern kingdom, the other center being in Dan. Jeroboam I built a royal shrine at Bethel to rival Jerusalem and to prevent the Israelites from drifting back to the Davidic dynasty (1 Kings 12:26–33). The prophet Ahijah’s criticism of Jeroboam’s actions was not due to Ahijah’s commitment to a central sanctuary at Jerusalem (14:1–16) but rather arose from the use of bull images (golden calves). This was not an innocent move by Jeroboam, returning to pre-Jerusalem and more ancient cultic symbols. It is not adequate simply to view Jeroboam’s calves as a “pedestal” upon which the Lord was believed to be enthroned (as accepted by W. F. Albright), for an explicit link is made with the idolatrous golden calf set up by Aaron in the desert: “Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28 [cf. Exod. 32:8]). This became known as the chief sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It tainted the northern kingdom (see 2 Kings 10:29) and eventually led to that kingdom’s judgment by God at the hands of the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:21–23).

The southern king Abijah captured Bethel from Israel in the latter part of Jeroboam’s reign (2 Chron. 13:19), but then it later returned to northern control. The unnamed “man of God” in 1 Kings 13 predicted the later destruction of the Bethel altar by King Josiah (1 Kings 13:1–3), a prediction subsequently fulfilled (2 Kings 23:4, 15–18). Bethel was visited by Elijah before his translation to heaven (2 Kings 2:2–4), and a company of prophets dwelt there. Elisha revisited Bethel after his master’s translation and cursed the forty-two youths who insulted him (2 Kings 2:23–25).

Hosea condemned the great wickedness of Bethel, presumably because of the false worship that went on there (Hos. 10:15), but more positively, he recalled that this was the location where God had talked with the patriarch Jacob (12:4). Jeremiah also explained the sad fate of Israel to be a result of their trust in Bethel (Jer. 48:13). Amos, in his condemnation of the worship system of the northern kingdom, ironically called to the people, “Go to Bethel and sin” (Amos 4:4). Later he dropped the irony and spoke plainly: “Do not seek Bethel” (5:5), predicting its destruction (5:6; cf. 3:14). It was in Bethel that Amos was criticized by the head priest Amaziah (7:10–17) and was told to no longer prophesy there because it was “the king’s sanctuary.”

From the exile to the Roman period. The city was destroyed by the Assyrians about the time of their capture of Samaria (722 BC), but the shrine was revived in the form of a syncretistic cult at the close of the Assyrian period by the foreign peoples deported to the area (2 Kings 17:24–41). Some descendants of the inhabi­tants of Bethel were among those who returned from Babylonian exile in the first great caravan (Ezra 2:28; Neh. 7:32), and these Benjamite returnees resettled in their hometown (Neh. 11:31). Bethel prospered in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

(1) A son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. He and his brother Adrammelek murdered their father “while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok” several years after he withdrew from his siege of Jerusalem. Sharezer and Adrammelek escaped to Ararat, and Esar-had-don took the Assyrian throne (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). Ancient records confirm that Sennacherib was murdered by a son, but they mention only one assailant. (2) A man whom the people of Bethel sent, along with Regem-Melek, during the time of Zechariah to inquire of God about worship practices (Zech. 7:2). Alternative interpretations of the Hebrew text would make Sharezer one who sent to inquire of God rather than one who was sent.

A citizen of Bethel. Only Hiel, who rebuilt Jericho in the time of Ahab, is called a Bethelite (1 Kings 16:34 KJV, NET).

A Hebrew word in Song 2:17 that is either a proper noun (KJV, NASB: “mountains of Bether”) or an adjective (e.g., NIV: “rugged hills”; NRSV: “cleft mountains”).

A pool in Jerusalem where Jesus healed a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years (John 5:2). Other names for the pool, including “Bethzatha” and “Bethsaida,” appear in various manuscripts. Eusebius also calls it the “sheep pool.” The name means “house of mercy,” and the pool is associated with the cleansing of the sheep for the temple sacrifice. Some manuscripts of John 5 report that the pool was stirred by angels, which allowed for the healing of whoever entered it first at that time. Archaeology has revealed the location of the pool near St. Anne’s Church. It is a two-pool complex surrounded by five porticoes.

There were at least two towns called “Bethlehem” (meaning “house of bread”). (1) A town in Zebulun, in the north, about seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josh. 19:15).

(2) The well-known town about four miles south of Jerusalem in Judah, situated on a couple of hills about 2,300 feet above sea level. The ancient name was “Ephrath” or “Ephrathah” (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Ps. 136:2; Mic. 5:2; see also Bethlehem Ephrathah). With the possible exception of the story of the judge Ibzan (Judg. 12:8–10), most references to Bethlehem are to the town in Judah, which still exists.

Bethlehem first enters biblical history when Jacob’s wife Rachel dies there while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). After the conquest, the town was inhabited by Ephrathites descended from Caleb, one of whom was called “father of Bethlehem” (in the sense of civic leader; 1 Chron. 2:51; 4:4; cf. 2:54). Judges mentions two Levites passing though, one who moved from Bethlehem to Ephraim (Judg. 17:7–9), and another who lived in Ephraim but took a concubine from Bethlehem (19:1). The most important references to Bethlehem from this era, however, are in Ruth. It was from Bethlehem that Elimelek’s family set out for Moab (Ruth 1:1), and to Bethlehem that Ruth and Naomi returned (1:22). Two generations later, it was into this same Bethlemite family that the future king David was born (Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Sam. 16:1).

Bethlehem is mentioned frequently as David’s hometown (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:12, 58; 20:6). Several of the mighty men on whom David depended so much were from there, including the brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18, 32) and Elhanan (2 Sam. 23:24). At one point, when Bethlehem was temporarily garrisoned by Philistines, some of the mighty men risked their lives to fetch David water from the town well (2 Sam. 23:14–17; 2 Chron. 11:16–26). Bethlehem was later fortified by David’s grandson Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:6).

In the eighth century the prophet Micah promised that although Judah’s defeat was inevitable, a new king would arise from this otherwise insignificant town to save the whole of Israel (Mic. 5:2). Both the place and the clan retained their identity through the exile, and 123 men of Bethlehem returned to Judah (Ezra 2:21; see also Neh. 7:26).

Luke stresses that Jesus was born in David’s city (Luke 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16); Joseph had taken Mary to his ancestral home, Bethlehem, for a Roman census. The angels announced Jesus’ birth to some shepherds in the vicinity of town (Luke 2:1–20). Matthew makes a more specific connection to Micah’s prophecy; indeed, it was on the basis of this prophecy that Herod decided where to send the magi (Matt. 2:1–8) and where to slaughter the baby boys (2:16). Matthew sees in this slaughter a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Rachel, who died at Bethlehem, would mourn her children (Matt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). Ironically, some Jews rejected Jesus because they thought that he came from Galilee (John 7:42). Constantine the Great, the fourth-century Roman emperor, built a church above a cave in Bethlehem, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. Today the city boasts a population of about thirty thousand and is one of the most visited sites in Israel, especially during the Christmas season, when thousands of Christians make a pilgrimage to the traditional place of Jesus’ birth.

“Ephra­thah” or “Ephrath” distinguishes Bethlehem in Judah (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7, 19; Ruth 4:11; Mic. 5:2) from Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh. 19:15). Some Ephrathites lived in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:2; 1 Sam. 17:12), but the clan may have been more widespread. See also Bethlehem.

There were at least two towns called “Bethlehem” (meaning “house of bread”). (1) A town in Zebulun, in the north, about seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josh. 19:15).

(2) The well-known town about four miles south of Jerusalem in Judah, situated on a couple of hills about 2,300 feet above sea level. The ancient name was “Ephrath” or “Ephrathah” (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Ps. 136:2; Mic. 5:2; see also Bethlehem Ephrathah). With the possible exception of the story of the judge Ibzan (Judg. 12:8–10), most references to Bethlehem are to the town in Judah, which still exists.

Bethlehem first enters biblical history when Jacob’s wife Rachel dies there while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). After the conquest, the town was inhabited by Ephrathites descended from Caleb, one of whom was called “father of Bethlehem” (in the sense of civic leader; 1 Chron. 2:51; 4:4; cf. 2:54). Judges mentions two Levites passing though, one who moved from Bethlehem to Ephraim (Judg. 17:7–9), and another who lived in Ephraim but took a concubine from Bethlehem (19:1). The most important references to Bethlehem from this era, however, are in Ruth. It was from Bethlehem that Elimelek’s family set out for Moab (Ruth 1:1), and to Bethlehem that Ruth and Naomi returned (1:22). Two generations later, it was into this same Bethlemite family that the future king David was born (Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Sam. 16:1).

Bethlehem is mentioned frequently as David’s hometown (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:12, 58; 20:6). Several of the mighty men on whom David depended so much were from there, including the brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18, 32) and Elhanan (2 Sam. 23:24). At one point, when Bethlehem was temporarily garrisoned by Philistines, some of the mighty men risked their lives to fetch David water from the town well (2 Sam. 23:14–17; 2 Chron. 11:16–26). Bethlehem was later fortified by David’s grandson Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:6).

In the eighth century the prophet Micah promised that although Judah’s defeat was inevitable, a new king would arise from this otherwise insignificant town to save the whole of Israel (Mic. 5:2). Both the place and the clan retained their identity through the exile, and 123 men of Bethlehem returned to Judah (Ezra 2:21; see also Neh. 7:26).

Luke stresses that Jesus was born in David’s city (Luke 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16); Joseph had taken Mary to his ancestral home, Bethlehem, for a Roman census. The angels announced Jesus’ birth to some shepherds in the vicinity of town (Luke 2:1–20). Matthew makes a more specific connection to Micah’s prophecy; indeed, it was on the basis of this prophecy that Herod decided where to send the magi (Matt. 2:1–8) and where to slaughter the baby boys (2:16). Matthew sees in this slaughter a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Rachel, who died at Bethlehem, would mourn her children (Matt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). Ironically, some Jews rejected Jesus because they thought that he came from Galilee (John 7:42). Constantine the Great, the fourth-century Roman emperor, built a church above a cave in Bethlehem, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. Today the city boasts a population of about thirty thousand and is one of the most visited sites in Israel, especially during the Christmas season, when thousands of Christians make a pilgrimage to the traditional place of Jesus’ birth.

A location near Jerusalem where Jesus sent his disciples to find a donkey for the triumphal entry (Matt. 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29). Later Jewish sources believe it to be a suburb of Jerusalem that was located outside the city wall and surrounded by its own wall. It was located about a mile east of the summit of the Mount of Olives. Frescoes found at that location show two disciples untying both a donkey and a colt (cf. Matt. 21:2). According to archaeologists, the city was occupied from the second century BC until the eighth century AD. Many artifacts have been discovered at this location, including graffiti depicting a cross.

A town located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, near the Jordan River, about five miles east of Capernaum, although the precise location is disputed. The two sites most commonly suggested are el-Araj and et-Tell. The answer may be found in the relationship between the two sites. The ruins of et-Tell are two miles north of el-Araj. In the first century they may have been on opposite sides of the Jordan River, el-Araj on the west and et-Tell on the east. Both were Bethsaida, but el-Araj was the “village” (Mark 8:23) and “Bethsaida in Galilee” (John 1:44; 12:21), and et-Tell was the polis (“city”).

The name “Bethsaida” is Aramaic, meaning “house of fishing” or “house of the fisherman.” The Jewish historian Josephus records that Herod the Great’s son Herod Philip built up the city in terms of the number of inhabitants and grandeur and advanced it from a village to a city. He renamed it “Julias” in honor of Augustus Caesar’s daughter (Ant. 18.2.1). Philip was buried in the city following his death in AD 33 (Ant. 18.4.6).

Bethsaida is the third most mentioned town in the Gospels, and it was at the heart of Jesus’ ministry. It was the birthplace of Peter and Andrew and the home of Philip (John 1:44; 12:21). Jesus performed several miracles at or near the town. Near Bethsaida Jesus walked on water (Mark 6:45–52) and fed the five thousand (6:30–44). In Bethsaida Jesus healed a blind man (8:22–26). Unfortunately, the miracles do not seem to have had much effect on the inhabitants, and in Matt. 11:21 // Luke 10:13 Jesus denounces the city along with Chorazin for its lack of repentance.

(1) Son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, born to him by his wife, Milkah (Gen. 22:20–23), and the father of Rebekah and Laban. He appears at the most significant point in the marriage arrangement of his daughter Rebekah when he hands her over for marriage to Isaac (Gen. 24:50–51). Bethuel and his son Laban are referred to as “the Aramean” (Gen. 25:20; 28:5; 31:20, 24); the same term is used to describe Jacob prior to his settlement in Egypt (Deut. 26:5). (2) A place allotted to the tribe of Simeon when Israel took over Canaan under the leadership of Joshua (Josh. 19:4 [“Bethul”]; 1 Chron. 4:30). The possible location of this place is modern Khirbet el-Qarjeten.

A pool in Jerusalem where Jesus healed a man who had been sick for thirty-eight years (John 5:2). Other names for the pool, including “Bethzatha” and “Bethsaida,” appear in various manuscripts. Eusebius also calls it the “sheep pool.” The name means “house of mercy,” and the pool is associated with the cleansing of the sheep for the temple sacrifice. Some manuscripts of John 5 report that the pool was stirred by angels, which allowed for the healing of whoever entered it first at that time. Archaeology has revealed the location of the pool near St. Anne’s Church. It is a two-pool complex surrounded by five porticoes.

A town located on the east side of the Jordan. It was part of the inheritance that Moses allotted to the tribe of Gad (Josh. 13:26). The line from Heshbon to Ramath Mizpah to Betonim possibly marks the border between Reuben and Gad.

Betrothal is a commitment designed to lead to marriage, comparable to being engaged today. There are a number of instructions in the OT law regarding proper conduct involving a woman who is betrothed or engaged (Exod. 22:16; Deut. 20:7). There are also references to Mary being betrothed to Joseph prior to Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5). However, the most significant references are the figurative descriptions of God betrothing himself to his people: “I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord” (Hos. 2:19–20). Hosea’s experience with his unfaithful betrothed and then wife, Gomer, is a classic picture of God’s faithfulness to his unfaithful people. On one occasion, Paul uses the imagery of betrothal to picture his commitment to the churches he served: “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him” (2 Cor. 11:2).

A transliteration of the Hebrew word be’ulah (“married”), this is a symbolic name promised to the personified Zion (Isa. 62:4). The new names in Isa. 62:4 signify the restoration of the relationship between God and Zion, as husband and wife (cf. 54:1–8), which was lost due to her sons’ iniquities (cf. 50:1). The restoration of Zion’s status is also highlighted with her marriage to her sons (62:5).

Wreathlike scrollwork of a spiral design above and below the animal figures of the bronze panels of the ten movable stands for the lavers in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:29 [NRSV: “beveled work”]). These contributed to the elegance, style, and beauty of highly functional and ceremonial pieces.

To lead astray by means of deceptive devices, sorcery, witchcraft, or any power unassociated with God and thus demonic or Satanic. God’s response to mediums, spiritists, sorcerers, or witches is one of unconditional rejection (Lev. 19:31; 20:6; 2 Kings 23:24). The apostle Paul asks the churches in Galatia, “Who has bewitched you?” (Gal. 3:1), essentially asking, “Who has led you astray?”

To lead astray by means of deceptive devices, sorcery, witchcraft, or any power unassociated with God and thus demonic or Satanic. God’s response to mediums, spiritists, sorcerers, or witches is one of unconditional rejection (Lev. 19:31; 20:6; 2 Kings 23:24). The apostle Paul asks the churches in Galatia, “Who has bewitched you?” (Gal. 3:1), essentially asking, “Who has led you astray?”

In Josh. 24 “beyond the River” (NRSV; NIV: “beyond the Euphrates River”) refers to the land of Abraham’s birth, east of the Euphrates. Because Israel’s ancestors worshiped other gods there, and God took Abraham from there to bring him to Canaan, it signified a threshold in redemptive history. Joshua invoked this place and memory when he called Israel to renew the covenant.

Israel under David defeated Aramean troops from there (2 Sam. 10:16–19; 1 Chron. 19:16–19). Since prophets later said Israel would be exiled there (1 Kings 14:15), and Judah’s punishment would come from there (Isa. 7:20), the place name came to imply threat.

In 522 BC Darius I reorganized the vast Persian Empire into twenty satrapies, each comprised of provinces (Esther 1:1; 8:9). The satrapy of “Beyond the River” (Ezra 4:10–11 NRSV; NIV: “Trans-Euphrates”) extended from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and Yehud (Judah) was one of its provinces. In the mid-fifth century Persia built a network of fortresses there to maintain imperial control of local affairs and curtail rebellion.

The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:17; Neh. 7:23). Bezai is also listed as one of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:18).

(1) Grandson of Uri and son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, who was equipped by God’s Spirit with skill to engage in all types of craftsmanship needed for the construction of the tabernacle, its furnishings, and the making of the sacred garments of the priests, the anointing oil, and fragrant incense (Exod. 31:1–11; 35:30–35; 36:1–5; 37:1; 38:22). He was given Oholiab as an assistant, and they had artisans to train and work under them. (2) A member of the clan of Pahath-Moab, listed as one of those guilty of marrying a foreign woman (Ezra 10:30).

(1) The location of a battle in which Judah and Simeon defeated the Perizzites and Canaanites under Adoni-Bezek (Judg. 1:4–7). His capital was likely at Khirbet Bezqa, northwest of Jerusalem. (2) The site where Saul took a census of the people and gathered his army to fight the Ammonites attacking Jabesh Gilead (1 Sam. 11:8). This site is affiliated with Khirbet Ibziq, south of Mount Gilboa. Some scholars believe that the two sites are the same, identifying them with Khirbet Ibziq, northeast of Shechem.

(1) A Reubenite town east of the Jordan designated as a city of refuge (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8) and a Levitical city (Josh. 21:36; 1 Chron. 6:78). The Moabite Stone (line 27) lists Bezer as a town rebuilt from ruins by King Mesha of Moab. (2) Son of Zophah, a descendant of Asher (1 Chron. 7:37). (3) The NIV reading in 2 Pet. 2:15 for the name of Balaam’s father. Other versions read “Beor” (ESV, NASB, NKJV), following the OT, or “Bosor” (KJV, NRSV; see NIV mg.), which is a transliteration of the Greek.

Reading, understanding, interpreting, and properly applying the word of God to life and ministry is the work of Bible study. The essence of this work is the systematic and methodical analysis of the biblical text. The methods that one uses to understand the text of Scripture will vary in keeping with one’s presuppositions concerning the nature of the Bible and the preunderstandings of the interpreter. A methodical study of the Bible considers the nature and state of the biblical text, the issues related to the interpreter, and a procedure for discovering authorial intent.

The Nature of the Bible

Revelation. We begin with the assumption (or presupposition) that the Bible is the revealed word of God, the contents of which were progressively made known to authors guided by the Holy Spirit. God guided the authors of Scripture, using their personalities and writing styles, so that the canonical books of the Bible were composed exactly as God intended. These books in their original form are inspired and inerrant. The word of God is true and trustworthy and thus a reliable rule for faith and practice.

The ability of God to communicate with his creation, along with his desire to make himself known to his human creatures, is the essence of revelation. The preservation of God’s communication, the revelation of his will to people in the word of God, is what makes the Bible a unique literary document, distinguished from all other literary productions. God manifests himself in a general way to all people through creation and conscience (general revelation) and in a special way to select individuals at particular times (special revelation). These communications and manifestations are available now only by consulting certain sacred writings. The revelation given by God and recorded by people in the canon of Scripture is what God spoke in the past. However, the living and abiding nature of the word (Heb. 4:12) spoken in a past, historical context continues to be relevant. The voice of God can still be heard today. Just as revelation determines how theology is formulated, so revelation determines how a biblical text is to be read in the process of literary analysis.

Given the nature of the Bible’s origin, it is historically accurate in what it teaches. This accuracy is not limited to spiritual and doctrinal issues; it is inseparably connected with the historical and factual. Thus, when the Bible makes reference to political and historical figures, it speaks with authority and accuracy.

Accessibility and clarity. The word of God is a written text revealed and inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16–17), who engaged about fifty authors over a period of approximately eleven hundred years. The OT text was originally recorded in Hebrew and Aramaic (Gen. 31:47; Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26; Jer. 10:11). The NT text was originally recorded in Koine Greek. Since the text was composed using the languages and literary conventions of the day, it was written to be intelligible and understandable. The biblical text has been distributed throughout the world and translated into just about every major language, so that the text continues to be accessible to many people today.

As Martin Luther observes in The Bondage of the Will, the clarity of the Bible is twofold. There is external clarity that can be discerned through the laws of grammar, and there is internal clarity attained through the work of the Holy Spirit illuminating the reader of Scripture. Related to these points is the perspicuity of Scripture, which refers to the clarity of Scripture in its main points. Unnuanced, these principles can create unfortunate misunderstandings. The clarity and perspicuity of Scripture relate to the result or the outcome of Bible study and only to major teachings. The intended message of Scripture is clear, understandable, and accessible.

Historical, literary, and theological aspects. While the Bible is written to be clear and accessible, the process of discerning the clarity is complex and involves a thorough examination of the historical, literary/linguistic, and theological aspects of each biblical text. Since the Bible is a document characterized by literary, historical, and theological impulses, it must be interpreted with these impulses in mind.

The historical character of the text affirms that the historical details (culture, setting, time, people or characters in the story, and readers of the composition) of a narrative are absolutely essential to the meaning and the message of the text. Historical details create the stage for what God is doing with his people in time and space. Historical details remind the reader that the written word has a context. The text is anchored to time and place.

The literary character of the text involves both the rhetorical strategies and the linguistic factors of a written text that are critical to the communication process. The act of literary communication involves the author/sender sending a message or text to the reader/recipient. The Bible must be interpreted in keeping with the act of literary communication: author, reader, and text. Literary types, structural development, and discourse function are formal features of the text that contribute to the communicating author’s intended meaning. The OT uses at least five basic literary types or genres: law, historical narrative, poetry, wisdom, and apocalyptic. The NT uses some of the same literary types, as well as parables and the epistolary, or letter, form. Gospel can also be considered a distinct literary form.

Finally, the text has a theological aspect, an ideology, a message, and an intention that God reveals on the historical stage by means of appropriate literary devices.

Unity and diversity. There is a definite unity to the diversity of the Bible that must be grasped in the interpretive process. Opinions vary depending on one’s understanding of the origin and nature of Scripture. Some readers stress the diversity of the biblical text, choosing to highlight apparent contradictions and irresolvable situations. Others go to the other extreme and may be in danger of oversimplifying, collapsing contexts, and ignoring the message of the text. Consider, for example, the importance of not reading too much into the discussion of faith and works as developed by Paul and James. The diversity of emphasis in these two authors is not contradictory in the overall message of the Bible.

Diversity obviously exists in the languages, writers, cultures, and message of various books of the Bible. However, given the reality of divine authorship, these diverse pieces are woven together coherently. There are longitudinal themes such as kingdom, covenant, and messiah that run from the OT into the NT. In addition, there is the developed use of terminology across both Testaments with terms such as “redemption” and “the word.”

The unity/diversity aspect of the biblical text ultimately contributes to an enriched understanding of both biblical and systematic theology. Biblical theology tends to consider the diversity of the writers and the different time periods and is willing to let diverse themes stand together. Systematic theology, which builds upon the findings of biblical theology, is more attentive to the unity of Scripture. These approaches complement each other and encourage what is called an “analogy of faith.” Once again, Luther gave shape to this phrase by opposing the ecclesiastical tradition of the church in favor of Scripture as the basis of dogma. The “analogy of faith” principle advocates that doctrine must cohere and not contradict the holistic teaching of Scripture. Doctrine cannot be a formulation of a few proof texts.

Summary. These summations concerning the nature of Scripture are by no means exhaustive, but they do provide a foundation for determining the nature and use of various interpretive methods. The process of interpretation will be given more attention below, but at this point it is worth emphasizing that methods of Bible study must contribute to the discovery of the author’s intended meaning. Since God is the ultimate author, our concern is to know his intended meaning. This goal is not without challenge. Many conclude that original authorial intent is unattainable because of the distance between our present cultural and historical situation and that of the biblical writers. An additional obstacle is the variety of interpretations that arise from community use of the biblical text. The challenges of time, culture, geography, and language can be faced successfully to arrive at the clear meaning of Scripture by means of a methodical analysis of all aspects of the biblical text.

The Role of the Interpreter

Before considering the relation of the interpreter to the process of Bible study methods, it is helpful to sort out who is the audience of a text. Written texts are composed with someone in mind, an original audience or recipients, who may or may not read the finished product. Beyond the original readers there is an extended audience of readers throughout time, including us, who read and interpret the word of God and seek to apply it to their lives.

Preunderstandings and presuppositions. The readers of the biblical text apply the methods of Bible study in order to understand the intended meaning of Scripture. In addition to the science of methodology there is an art to interpretation that involves recognizing personal preunderstandings brought to the text and presuppositions influencing an interpretation of the textual data.

So how do we differentiate a preunderstanding from a presupposition? “Preunderstanding” refers to the preconceived notions and understandings that one brings to the text, which have been formulated, both consciously and subconsciously, before one actually studies the text in detail. This includes specific experiences and encounters with the text that tend to make us assume that we already understand it. Sensitivity to preunderstanding reminds us that we are never approaching the text for the first time, completely neutral or totally objective. Our personal experiences, cultural influences (music, movies, literature), family background, church, race, and nationality are factors influencing our preunderstanding. These preunderstandings are ultimately corrected or nurtured by the constant influence of the biblical text.

Presuppositions, on the other hand, are the faith commitments held by Christians that do not change each time they study the Bible (in contrast to preunderstanding). This article, for example, began with a statement of presuppositions regarding God and the Bible. The analogy of faith deems such presuppositions to be unchangeable constants.

Approach to the text. How, then, should the interpreter approach the text? Although total objectivity is not a realistic goal, Christian readers do want to understand what God has revealed for them. So, the text is approached through faith and by means of the Holy Spirit, who gives understanding of the word that God authored. In order for this to happen, the reader must stand before the biblical text and allow it to speak rather than standing behind it to push it in a predetermined direction. The goal of Bible study is discovery of meaning, not creation of meaning.

A critical factor in Bible study is the realization that the process is an exercise with sacred dimensions. The primary object in this task is to know God, to understand his will, and to love and trust him, which is Paul’s desire for all Christians (Col. 1:9–14; Eph. 1:15–23; 3:14; Phil. 3:8–13). God is glorified when we find our joy and delight in him through an enriched understanding of his word. This can happen when one depends upon the Holy Spirit for understanding (1 Cor. 2:9–16). The study of the sacred text is a delicate balance of thinking, working, and analyzing while reverently and humbly depending upon the Spirit.

The Methods of Bible Study

Terminology. The activity of interpretation is best described as a spiral, a twist of assorted factors that take the reader from the intention of the original context to the present context of life within the community of the church. The process involves terms and procedures that can be confusing. The word “hermeneutics” is most commonly understood to describe the science and art of biblical interpretation. The goal of hermeneutics is to discern the original intent of the text (“what it meant”) and the contemporary significance of the text (“what it means”). Scholars regularly discuss which of these two is primary in hermeneutical process. The term, however, is broad enough to cover both aspects.

The English word “exegesis” is derived from a Greek term meaning “to lead out.” When applied to Bible study, it defines the nature of the work as taking meaning out of the text and not reading meaning into it. The exegetical process involves the study of words, syntax, grammar, and theology. Another critical term, “contextualization,” refers to an aspect of the interpretive process involving cross-cultural communication of the text’s significance for today.

Defining these key terms in hermeneutics brings to the surface an ongoing discussion associated with Bible study, the question of meaning, which is defined in several ways. Meaning is understood by some as the author’s intention. Some scholars explain meaning as referent (what the author is talking about), others describe it as sense (what is being said about the referent), and finally it can be understood as significance (a contemporary, cross-cultural significance).

Inductive Bible study. How one gets to meaning involves a process of study, the crux of which is the practice of inductive Bible study. Although this objective process can be defined in several ways, it is distinguished by four key elements.

(1) The first element is observation. This involves a careful, close reading of the text to determine exactly what it says. This step makes repeated use of the who, what, when, where, and why questions that enable the reader to become fully saturated with the particulars of the passage. Attention to textual detail will result in accurate interpretation. Observation requires a will to observe, exactness in making observations, and persistence and endurance in the process. Observation is focused on the words of the passage, the structure (the relations and interrelations between terms), the literary form, and the atmosphere or tone. (2) Interpretation follows. The goal of this element is to define meaning and to answer the question, What does this text mean? (3) Correlation, the third element, asks, How does this text relate to the rest of the Bible (cf. analogy of faith)? (4) The fourth element, application, asks, What does this text mean to me?

Each step in the inductive process is elaborate and includes its own particular interests and issues that are critical for determining meaning. Take, for example, the issues of meaning associated with the second step, interpretation. This process must be fully engaged for accuracy in interpretation. The business of interpretation involves a constant interaction of parts. Microaspects are observed in light of macrofeatures, and vice versa.

The interpretive process of the text is fairly standard. Given the nature of inductive analysis, the inductive process begins at the microlevel of examining and interpreting terms, words, and sentences. It then highlights the next structural levels of paragraphs, units of paragraphs, chapters, and then the book itself.

Context and literary type. Since context and literary type are critical elements in the exercise of analysis, attention will be given to each. It is often said that context determines meaning. This statement is a reminder that a term, a theme, or a structural element is ultimately governed by a larger set of factors. The term “trunk,” for example, in the context of a family vacation could refer to what is packed, whereas in the conversation of lumberjacks it could be a reference to a tree. Context takes into consideration all historical referents. In addition, context includes all the individual parts of a composition (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters). Examination of a book’s particular historical context involves also looking at the geography, politics, economics, and cultural practices of a given audience featured. The danger of ignoring context in biblical study is that original authorial intent is replaced with all kinds of self-centered textual understandings.

Literary type is also a critical factor in the inductive process. Another word for literary form is genre, derived from a French term that can be translated “kind, sort, style.” It denotes a type or species of literature or literary form. Genre analysis profitably yields an understanding of the author’s intention in a given literary composition. For example, genre triggers the reader’s expectations and reading strategy. Genre guides the reader in understanding how to read and interpret a given text. For example, we read and interpret a story differently from the way we read and interpret a poem. Each of these genres has its own rules and strategies for communicating meaning. Genre analysis involves observing the form along with the mood, setting, function, and content of the text.

Each literary type has a set of distinctive characteristics that must be examined. To understand what the biblical authors are saying (and what God is saying through them), we must play by the rules of the literary genre that they selected. Genre is a generalization or an abstraction within which variation occurs. Thus, a genre may be defined broadly and include many texts that share fewer traits, while on the other hand it may be defined in a more narrow way and include fewer texts sharing many more traits.

The process of genre analysis is undertaken inductively. The analysis begins with the literary class, continues with the individual texts, and then interacts with both. Genre can be understood only by analyzing the parts of a given text. Although there are plenty of helpful textbooks devoted to virtually every literary type, one must keep in mind that genre descriptions arise out of the details of the text. Genre is not a predescribed form that is imposed on the text for the discovery of authorial intent.

Once the historical, literary, and theological aspects of the particular book are settled, the book is then analyzed in its specific canonical context (NT or OT) and then considered in the overall canon (the Bible). The results of this process are then pursued in relation to the interests of biblical and systematic theology.

Summary. The method of inductive Bible study is not only a specific procedure of analysis, but also a guide for a variety of methodical practices. The process of inductive Bible study encourages a spirit of attention to detail and reminds the reader of the overall goal in interpretation: to know what the text meant and means. In addition, the very nature of the inductive method promotes a curiosity and yields a definite joy of discovery. The inductive process is a guide to the interpreter in an analysis of either the Hebrew or the Greek text.

Other methods of Bible study. There are other methods of Bible study associated with distinct views of the Bible’s nature and origin. These critical methods of interpretation arise out of a discussion regarding how the Bible should be interpreted. The history of this discussion goes all the way back to the third century AD with the debates between the Alexandrians and Antiochians. The sixteenth-century Reformation, the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and the twentieth century were significant turning points that yielded new ways of conceiving the world and the biblical text. Thus, it is important to understand that there are no neutral methods of biblical interpretation.

Historical-critical approaches. The more-popular critical methods of Bible study came to the forefront in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries with the rise of deism and rationalism. The prevailing opinion of this time was the fundamental similarity of all historical texts and all historical events. The historical-critical method was founded on the principles of criticism, analogy, and correlation. The supernatural origin of the Bible is denied, and it is considered to be a book like all other historical documents. The biblical text is viewed as a tradition created. It is an artifact of the evolutionary process preserved and passed along to a subsequent generation and must be approached with an attitude of doubt.

In contrast to the approach taken in this article, the historical-critical understanding of the locus of revelation is not the biblical text revealed by God. The locus of revelation shifts outside the text. The reader no longer looks to the text to hear the word of God. The reader now looks behind or beyond the biblical text to another story, one that is independent of the biblical text. Instead of studying a process of progressive revelation, the historical-critical methodologies are committed to sorting out complex historical traditions. Sources are identified, sorted chronologically, and studied for their distinctive themes. The methods are sometimes organized according to the particular interests of schools of thought: history of religions, history of traditions, history of forms, history of redactions.

Literary approaches. Finally, there are methods of Bible study associated with the set of literary presuppositions. First, this approach to the biblical text takes an ahistorical view of the text. In other words, there is no concern for its historical cause and effect. It is concerned only with a synchronic analysis of the finished product. Second, the text is viewed as an autonomous entity. Once a text is completed, it has a life of its own. The interpretive process is then devoted to the text’s final form, looking at the whole instead of the parts. Meaning comes from the language and style of the text. Finally, meaning is understood as aesthetics; it is not related to authorial intention or a historical occasion. Theoretically, the literary approach views the text as if it is cut off from an author and from a historical context. In this construct, meaning shifts from the past to the present. Interpretation then is an interaction of text and reader. The methods of interpretation associated with these literary presuppositions include literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, structuralism, narrative criticism, and reader response criticism.

A cipher through which supposedly hidden messages are discovered in the OT by taking a sequence of equally spaced Hebrew letters and identifying in them a meaningful message. The chance of finding such a message is enhanced by the lack of vowels in Hebrew writing, which allows greater flexibility when interpreting the results. There are significant problems with the claim that the codes are intentional, including that it has been established that similar messages can be discovered in virtually any text; furthermore, it runs counter to the Bible’s claim to clearly reveal God’s word (cf. Deut. 29:29).

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Every faithful translation of the Bible is the word of God. In this respect, Christianity is very different from Islam, which considers the Arabic version of the Qur’an exclusively holy. It is true that only the original versions of the biblical books, which were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were verbally inspired, and this means that individual translations, like copies, can contain errors. Translations also necessarily involve some degree of interpretation. However, all language is created by God, and in the incarnation the Word became fully human as well as fully divine. In God’s hands, every human language is as capable as any other of expressing his truth.

Since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been at work to reverse the effect of human sin at Babel (Gen. 11:9), not by reducing all languages to one, but by redeeming the diversity and richness of the world’s languages so that all can hear God speak to them in their own tongue (Acts 2:1–11). Indeed, translations of Scripture themselves transform the languages and cultures in which they are written, endowing them with new or revised concepts of God, humanity, sin, and the means of salvation.

The History of Translation

Bible translation began long before the Bible as we know it was complete. In the fifth century BC the Israelites who returned from exile spoke Aramaic. Thus, they needed the Levites to translate the Hebrew law for them (Neh. 8:8). This Levitical teaching was probably an early example of a Targum, a translation into Aramaic with interpretation and expansion. We do not know exactly when the Targumim began to be written down, but some of the earliest fragments that have been found are among the DSS.

By about the third century BC the dominant languages of Palestine were Greek and Aramaic. Many NT quotations from the OT use an established Greek translation of the OT. This was known as the Septuagint (LXX), after the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, six from each tribe of Israel, on the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt (285–247 BC). The NT was written in similar “common” (koinē) Greek, but in some places the Gospels and Acts translate words that Jesus and Paul originally spoke in Aramaic (Mark 5:41; 15:34; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; see also John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16).

Until Pentecost, God’s revelation was translated only into the languages spoken by the Jewish people in their everyday life. At Pentecost, however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was marked by a display of miraculous linguistic gifts, and a new era of Bible translation had begun (Acts 2). As Christians obeyed Christ’s command to take the word of God into all the world, they began to translate it into all the languages used by the growing church.

Within three centuries, Scripture was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. The earliest translations into these languages were then revised and improved in the subsequent centuries until some, such as Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, emerged as acknowledged standards. Other early translations included Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Old Slavonic. Many of these languages were already written, but as missionaries ventured further, they sometimes had to start by reducing spoken languages to writing. Ulfilas, missionary to the Goths, was the first to do this.

All of the thirty-three translations prior to the Reformation had to be copied out by hand, and almost all were “secondary translations” made from the Latin. Moreover, despite the efforts of early reformers such as John Wycliffe (AD 1330–84), the Catholic Church continued to use the Latin text itself, which was accessible only to the educated. In the sixteenth century, however, the printing press was invented, Renaissance scholars rediscovered the value of consulting texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, and Protestantism realized that believers need the Bible in their mother tongue.

The most influential sixteenth-century translator into English was William Tyndale (1494–1536). His work on the NT and parts of the OT was gradually expanded and revised by other scholars, culminating in the 1611 King James Version, which is still widely used. Meanwhile, other European translations were produced in German (by Martin Luther), Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and French.

The Reformation also gave new momentum to mission outside Europe, and by the end of the eighteenth century the number of languages having the Bible had roughly doubled. A much greater global achievement, however, began in the nineteenth century, when the newly formed Bible societies, with other mission agencies, were instrumental in the translation and publication of portions of Scripture in over four hundred languages. Famous translators from this century include William Carey in India, John Robert Morrison in China, Henry Martyn in Persia, and Adoniram Judson in Burma. About five hundred more translations were added in the first half of the twentieth century. Progress was, nevertheless, slow. Many languages were difficult to analyze, and it was particularly hard to produce translations that read smoothly, using the genres and idioms that a native speaker would use.

Since the 1950s, linguistic science has revolutionized the way that translation is carried out, and organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators have set themselves the task of giving every person in the world the Scriptures in their everyday language. Increasingly, translation is carried out by linguistically trained native speakers of the target languages, working wherever possible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Translators understand better than before how extended discourses are constructed at levels above the sentence, and how social and pragmatic factors affect meaning. The combination of linguistics and technology has also greatly increased the speed with which translations can be produced; sometimes a first draft in a new language can be generated from a closely related language using a computer program.

Types of Translation

All translators aim for both accuracy and acceptability, but the work of translation constantly involves compromise between these two factors. There are, broadly speaking, two types of translation: formal correspondence and functional equivalence.

In a formal correspondence translation (also called “literal”), the translator, as far as possible, preserves the word order and structure of the original text and translates each word the same way every time it occurs, even if the result is slightly wooden. This is helpful for word studies, and it preserves patterns of repetition that give structure to the text. There is always a danger, however, that the closest formal match to the original actually conveys a meaning different from the original in a particular context. Literalness is not the same as accuracy. Pushed to its extreme, formal correspondence produces the kind of semitranslation found in interlinear texts (where the English is reproduced word for word below a line of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek); it is not grammatically acceptable, cannot be used on its own for public or private reading, and loses many of the nuances of the original. However, formal correspondence translations that avoid such extremes are important for detailed Bible study.

In a functional equivalence translation (also called “dynamic,” “idiomatic equivalence,” or “meaning-based”), the translator aims to produce the same response in a modern reader as the original text would have done in an ancient reader. To achieve this, the syntactic structures and figures of speech of Greek and Hebrew are replaced by their equivalents in the target language. A word may be translated many different ways in different contexts, even when it has a single basic meaning in the original. While this preserves some nuances, it loses others, obscuring structure and the deliberate echo of one verse in another. In this case there is always a danger that the translator has misunderstood the original meaning and the response that it would have produced. Pushed to its extreme, this type shades into paraphrase, and it may be overly subjective or jeopardize the historical particularity of the text. However, dynamic equivalence translations that avoid such pitfalls are valuable for evangelism, new readers, and public and devotional reading.

In practice most translations sit somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. Some intermediate translations are a deliberate compromise, aiming to keep as close as possible to the original while communicating its meaning clearly in a common language that is accessible to all. The NIV is a widely used example. One problem in using such a translation is knowing when form has been preserved at the expense of meaning, and when meaning has been preserved at the expense of form. For serious study, therefore, it is useful to compare intermediate translations with translations of the other two types, and to learn from the introductory material what translation principles have been used.

To illustrate the differences between the types of translation, consider how Rom. 3:21 is rendered by the NASB (formal correspondence), the NIV (intermediate), and the NLT (functional equivalence):

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)

But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. (NLT)

Further Choices in Translation

Within this spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.

First, what are the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as determined by the discipline of textual criticism?

Second, what style should be used? An elevated or archaic style is sometimes preferred in order to convey the dignity of the word; others use a deliberately colloquial style in order to maximize accessibility. Different books of the Bible themselves have different styles and genres, ranging from vivid stories and evocative poems to precise doctrinal formulations, and a translation may attempt to reflect this diversity. At the same time, the style and range of vocabulary chosen will depend to some extent on the needs of the target audience.

Third, should the translation contain complexity and ambiguity when the original does, or should it clarify and simplify? Some parts of Scripture were never easy reading even in the original (see 2 Pet. 3:15–16). However, it is sometimes necessary to disambiguate in order to produce grammatically acceptable text in the target language. In modern books it is also normal to divide text into paragraphs and chapters, often with subheadings. Ancient texts, however, were written without any such breaks, so this too is an interpretation of the text for the sake of clarity.

Fourth, what should the translator do when there is no equivalent word or phrase in the target language? Many people groups have never seen a sheep! Sometimes a choice must be made between coining a new word and refocusing the meaning of an existing word. This is particularly difficult when deciding how to refer to God in a pagan culture. Translating gesture can also be challenging. For example, in Jer. 31:19 the Hebrew is literally “I slapped my thigh,” which is an indication of distress; but in Western culture slapping one’s thigh would probably mean enjoying a good joke, so the NIV translates the Hebrew as “beat my breast.” Footnotes may be necessary to ensure that the meaning is fully understood.

Finally, in cultures that have possessed the Bible for many generations tradition plays a role. A previous translation of a particular verse may be so well known that, unless it is seriously wrong, it is preferable to let it stand than to “modernize” it. Conversely, tradition may so change the meaning of “biblical” words (such as “saint”) that verses containing them need to be retranslated.

As a result of all these decisions, there is scope for many different translations even in a single language. Where several translations exist, serious study should always include comparison between translations along with the use of commentaries. Where available resources as yet permit only one translation in a language, the type of translation to be produced must be chosen with great care. In either case, new translations will always be needed. On the one hand, although God’s word never changes, scholars can improve our textual, linguistic, and exegetical understanding of the Hebrew and Greek originals. On the other hand, the human languages into which the Bible is translated are in a process of constant change.

Gender-Neutral Translations

Recent English-language translations have grappled in particular with the question of gender neutrality. All languages differ in the way they denote gender. Until recently, the masculine gender in English was also the inclusive gender; hence, “man” could simply mean “person” or “humanity.” In many cases, the biblical languages work the same way, so that the older dynamic translations could, like formal correspondence translations, mirror the original. Feminist concerns, however, have changed English usage. It is increasingly unacceptable to use the masculine gender inclusively, and everyday language now substitutes plurals (“person,” or “they” with singular meaning) or expansions (“man or woman,” “he or she”). This introduces a divergence between formal correspondence translations, which preserve the gender usage of the original, and functional equivalence translations, which prefer inclusive forms to masculine forms if the meaning of the original is entirely inclusive. To complicate matters further, many careful readers of Scripture disagree on where masculine nuances exist and how important they are, in each specific instance, to the meaning of the text.

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

There is no consensus on the definition of, or preferable method for, biblical theology. This article explores the variety of ways biblical theology has been understood and practiced.

Biblical theology has been defined in var­i­ous ways: (1) theology based upon Scripture (or theology derived primarily from a study of Scripture), as opposed to theology based upon confessional statements or philosophy; (2) theology in harmony with Scripture; (3) theology that is descriptive of the Bible’s contents; (4) a study of the theology found in the Bible; (5) the study of the main themes of the Bible; (6) the formulation of the theology of the entire Bible (in distinction from the theology of the OT, the theology of the NT, or the theology of the various books of the Bible, such as the theology of Isaiah or of Matthew); and (7) the ways the Bible has been studied throughout the history of the church.

One of the major weaknesses with these definitions is that they can function primarily as a way of distinguishing those theologies that are preferred from those that are dismissed. Although they may differ from one another, every Christian theologian formulates theology in reference to the Bible. Biblical theologies have a direct correlation to both the text of Scripture and the ways in which the authors of Scripture thought.

Biblical Theology as a Recent Discipline

Biblical theology is a relatively recent discipline. There are two reasons for this. First, the term “biblical theology” does not seem to have been used prior to the seventeenth century. Second, the focus on the historical progression of biblical themes did not become a significant part of biblical studies until the eighteenth century. This historical focus characterizes most biblical theologies of the last two centuries.

In his 1787 lecture at the University of Altdorf, Johann Philipp Gabler made a distinction between biblical theology (a historical discipline) and dogmatic theology (a didactic or instructive discipline that is usually called “systematic theology” in our own time). Prior to Gabler, biblical scholars engaged in what was sometimes called “exegetical theology,” but this usually was a discipline subordinate to systematic theology rather than a discipline in its own right. It involved showing the relationship between biblical texts and the various doctrines of systematic theology.

Influential writers of the early church such as Irenaeus and Marcion wrestled with issues that would become a significant concern of later biblical theologians, such as the relationship between the Testaments and the Christian’s use of the Mosaic law, but they lacked the historical focus in the study of Scripture that would characterize modern biblical scholarship.

The Biblical Theology Movement

Biblical theology as a discipline should be distinguished from the biblical theology movement, a primarily neoorthodox mid-twentieth-century movement in biblical studies that grew out of the controversy between fundamentalism and modernism in America. Neoorthodoxy, as expressed by Karl Barth, was characterized by the idea that the Bible itself is not the word of God but rather is a record of revelation and a witness to the word of God. Through the Scripture we encounter the divine Word in Christ. Biblical scholars of this movement affirmed the value of historical criticism (opposing a literalistic interpretation of the Bible) and at the same time acknowledged the need for a new direction that would affirm the unity of the gospel and make the results of historical criticism more useful for the church.

Defining Theology

Some explanations of biblical theology begin with a definition of theology. This is not a simple task, for there are many different ways that theology has been conceptualized. When Christians speak of theology, they usually are referring to either (1) the study of God (as revealed in Scripture and/or history), (2) the study of Scripture (the teaching that arises from the canonical books), or (3) the study of what the church (or a branch of the church) believes and teaches.

One’s understanding of theology is linked with the understanding of revelation. Those who believe that God has revealed himself primarily through Scripture will seek to develop a theology derived from Scripture. Those who believe that God has revealed himself primarily through his actions in history (such as the exodus from Egypt or the resurrection of Jesus Christ) will seek to develop a theology that comes out of understanding those events (keeping in mind that Scripture is often the primary witness to these actions). Those who view theology as a study of what the church believes will combine a study of Scripture and history with a careful analysis of various expressions of theology within a faith community. In spite of varying definitions of theology, with very few exceptions Christian theologians are concerned with working out the implications of the Christian Scriptures (the books of both Testaments) for the life of the church, as well as social analysis and critique.

Biblical Theology and Other Types of Theology

Systematic theology. Biblical theology often is defined in distinction from systematic theology. There are a number of ways that students of Scripture have differentiated biblical theology from systematic theology.

Gabler viewed biblical theology as a historical, descriptive discipline, distinct from systematic theology, which is an instructive, prescriptive discipline. From his perspective, biblical theology focuses on what biblical authors said about sacred matters, while systematic theology reveals what current theologians think about sacred matters in light of their own time and church background. This perspective forced recognition of the difference between the teaching of the biblical writers and the systematic theology professed in various churches.

Some later biblical theologians considered biblical theology to be a historical discipline in contrast to systematic theology, which is a logical discipline (using laws of logic to organize and synthesize theology).

A different emphasis is found when biblical theology is viewed as a descriptive task in contrast to systematic theology, which is prescriptive in nature. A distinction has often been made between systematic theology, viewed as a prescriptive task (explaining what the Scripture “means” in the time and situation of contemporary believers), as distinct from biblical theology, which is a study of what the Scripture “meant” at its time of writing.

Another way to contrast the two is to speak of biblical theology as a discipline that studies the Bible diachronically (i.e., with an emphasis on what is revealed throughout various time periods), while systematic theology is a discipline that studies the Bible synchronically (with the goal of producing a unified system by focusing on what the Scripture as a whole teaches). Biblical theology as a diachronic and sequential study has also been contrasted with systematic theology viewed as a logical arrangement of what is observed sequentially in Scripture.

In summary, those distinguishing biblical theology from systematic theology, with various nuances and emphases, describe biblical theology as a historical, descriptive, diachronic, and sequential discipline that focuses on what the Scripture “meant” at its time of writing, in contrast to systematic theology, which is didactic, logical, prescriptive, and synchronic, explaining what the Scripture “means” to contemporary readers.

The results of one’s biblical theology can be used to formulate systematic theology in light of the cultural and historical context of the contemporary theologian. Systematic theologians do this in a variety of ways. Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally placed Scripture alongside the tradition of the church in this task, while Protestants value Scripture above tradition when constructing theology. Among Protestants, some interpret Scripture in light of tradition, reason, and experience, while others emphasize the role of the Spirit in helping believers understand the word of God.

Historical theology. Biblical theology is often viewed as a discipline that follows the task of biblical exegesis and precedes historical theology, which itself precedes systematic theology.

Old Testament / New Testament theology. OT theology and NT theology can be viewed as two branches of biblical theology or as intermediate steps between exegesis and biblical theology. Other theological disciplines sometimes considered to be subsequent to systematic theology include ethical theology, homiletical theology, and pastoral theology.

Biblical Theology and Exegesis

Those focusing on biblical theology as a diachronic study often speak of biblical theology as a study of the progression and development of significant themes throughout Scripture, or throughout the progress of revelation. From this perspective, biblical theologians take the work done by biblical exegetes in their careful study of Scripture and observe themes that appear with regularity. When biblical theology is viewed in this way, it is common to see it as the study of the theology found within each book of the Bible and a comparison, analysis, and compilation of these theologies.

The work of biblical theologians is based upon, and is an extension of, the work done by biblical exegetes. The biblical exegete interprets and explains a passage of Scripture in light of linguistics, semantics (often including philological study), grammar, syntax, textual criticism, literary structure (of both the passage itself and the book within which the passage is found), compositional and rhetorical strategies of the author (including chiasm, plot, theme and character development, and parallelism), genre, historical and sociological background of the text, and geographical setting.

There is always fluidity in the relationship between biblical exegesis and biblical theology, for while the results of biblical exegesis inform biblical theology, the observations of biblical theologians assist biblical exegetes in their understanding of each biblical book as a whole, as well as the relationships between smaller units of Scripture within the book in which they are found. As a result, there is a circular (or spiral) interaction between biblical exegesis and biblical theology. An understanding of each part of Scripture informs one’s formulation of biblical theology, while an understanding of biblical theology increases one’s understanding of each part. Ultimately, every biblical passage informs the work done by the biblical theologian, while each text of Scripture is understood in a clearer manner by the exegete as the unity and diversity within the canon as a whole is seen with greater clarity.

Methods of Biblical Theology

There are a variety of ways in which biblical theology has been practiced and a number of ways in which these methodologies have been classified. Differences in the way the Bible is understood have resulted in various kinds of biblical theologies. For example, while some have focused on the final form of the biblical text, others have focused on the reconstruction of the biblical text (in light of historical critical methods), and still others have focused on the study of events referred to in the biblical text as reconstructed in light of tradition criticism or historical criticism.

Classifications of the various methods for biblical theology (with some overlap between the categories) include (1) systematic, (2) diachronic, (3) central theme, (4) confessional, (5) descriptive, (6) tradition-history, (7) salvation-historical, (8) christological, (9) promise-fulfillment, (10) allegorical, (11) typological, (12) canonical, (13) literary, (14) cultural-linguistic, and (15) sociological. The first three of these methods for biblical theology will be considered here in greater detail.

The systematic (or dogmatic) method organizes biblical theology in light of the structures used by systematic theology, such as the three themes of God, humanity, and salvation. This synchronic approach characterized the earliest biblical theologies. The greatest weakness in this method is that it often leads to imposing on the text of Scripture a framework that is incongruous with the content and teaching of Scripture. This unbalanced distortion leads to overemphasizing some ideas of the biblical writers and underemphasizing others.

The diachronic (or historic) method structures biblical theology in terms of the historic progression of themes or ideas communicated by the writers of Scripture. It focuses on the way God’s revelation unfolds throughout the canon, with a concern for the historic time periods of revelation. An example of this approach is the salvation-history method, which focuses on the progress and history of redemption. A diachronic study of the Bible is difficult because there is no consensus concerning the time or sequence of writing for most of the books of the OT. For example, some believe that the Mosaic law (as found in the Pentateuch) preceded the OT prophets, while others are convinced that the law was largely written as a response to the teachings of the prophets of Judah and Israel.

The central theme (or cross-section) method selects a unifying theme that is prominent in Scripture and observes how this theme is addressed throughout the historic progression of Scripture. Significant themes that can be traced throughout Scripture and that have been suggested as a center of biblical theology (a way of providing unity to the study of Scripture) include (1) God’s covenant(s) with his people, (2) the relationship between God and his people, (3) the history of redemption or salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), (4) the kingdom or reign of God, (5) promise and fulfillment, (6) reconciliation, (7) the presence of God, (8) the love and mercy of God, and (9) the providence of God. Many have rejected the possibility of finding a center or dominant theme around which each part of Scripture can be organized, and they reject approaches that force a particular theme upon texts that resist such a simplified analysis and classification.

Questions for Biblical Theologians

A number of questions have arisen as biblical exegetes have attempted to formulate biblical theology.

1. Is biblical theology a theological endeavor?

This question seems to arise when the biblical text is viewed as an object of study rather than as God’s self-revelation to humanity. Biblical theology has often been understood as the discipline that focuses on what a text meant, as distinct from systematic theology, which focuses on what a text means. Emphasizing the descriptive aspect of biblical theology at the expense of its normative role in the community of faith can lead to viewing Scripture as an object of study. If Scripture is viewed as the living word that is understood only by those with a desire to hear and obey the voice of God, a sharp distinction between what the text meant and what it means will be avoided. Those who reject the possibility of a merely cognitive understanding of Scripture will reject the idea of orthodoxy apart from orthopraxis and affirm that attempts at exegetical understanding (what the text meant) are not only incomplete and deficient but also distorted without obedience to God (which is, at the very least, part of what the Scripture means today). Those affirming biblical theology as a theological discipline will emphasize the theological nature of Christian Scripture as it addresses issues of the character and nature of God and the implications of this for human morality.

2. How does one find unity from biblical books that speak with diverse voices? Is there thematic unity? Would biblical theology better be replaced by biblical theologies derived from various portions of Scripture?

As biblical theology came to be understood as a historical discipline, the differences between the teachings of the two Testaments were highlighted. This has led some to reject the possibility of biblical theology.

(a) Some reject biblical theology because they see the differences between the theology of the two Testaments as insurmountable and irresolvable. They view the OT not only as pre-Christian, but also as sub-Christian. Examples include the call of God for Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:16–18) and the prayers of imprecation (cursing) in the psalms (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Similarly, when the revelation of Jesus Christ as seen in the NT is viewed as the climax of the progress of God’s revelation, how does the OT retain value? Is the OT always secondary and the NT primary?

(b) Those from the history-of-religions school moved away from, and even rejected the idea of, biblical theology, replacing it with a focus on the evolutionary development of Israel’s religion in light of the religions of Israel’s neighbors.

(c) Some of those who have rejected biblical theology focus on the historical-critical study of the text, often rejecting the historicity of the events described in the text. In response, some have defended the value of the history in the biblical narratives, while others have pursued biblical theology without considering the issue of the historicity of the events described in Scripture, focusing on the theology that comes out of the final form of Scripture.

(d) Recent biblical interpreters have focused on the differences in the theology of the writers of the various canonical books (e.g., the contrast in the way Jesus is presented in the Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel, or the differences in the way faith is understood by James and Paul, or the varying perspectives on the poor and oppressed seen in Exodus as compared with Proverbs). As a result, the movement has been away from observing similarities and toward highlighting these differences (thus a move away from unity).

3. Is it possible to summarize accurately everything the Bible teaches? Can one produce a biblical theology that values each biblical text?

It appears that all attempts to formulate a biblical theology will, of necessity, be selective, for it is impossible to construct a biblical theology in which all texts are weighted equally. This being the case, which portions of Scripture will be used? Which will be central? Which will be ignored? How will these decisions be made?

4. What is meant by the term “Bible”?

Different faith communities have diverse canons of authoritative Scripture. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have a canon that includes what Protestants sometimes refer to as the deuterocanonical books, which Protestants reject. Differences in the locus of study for a biblical theology will, of course, affect the biblical theology that is produced.

The father of Sheba, the Benjamite who rebelled against David. Joab’s men laid a siege against Sheba in Abel Beth Maakah, and his head was handed to them (2 Sam. 20:1–22). There is no further mention of Bikri in the OT.

Term used in the LXX and the Latin Vulgate of 2 Sam. 20:14 (so RSV, NRSV) for the people group identified in the Hebrew text as the Berites.

Jehu’s “chariot officer.” Jehu ordered Bidkar to throw Joram king of Israel onto the field of Naboth the Jezreelite after Jehu had shot Joram with an arrow (2 Kings 9:24–26). Bidkar had been with Jehu when they heard Elijah prophesy this event. See also 1 Kings 21:18–24.

An object on which a corpse is laid and taken to the grave. The Hebrew word translated as “bier” (mittah) in 2 Sam. 3:31 can also refer to a bed or a couch. In 2 Chron. 16:14 a different Hebrew word (mishkab) is used to describe the bier (NASB: “resting place”) upon which Asa’s body was permanently laid within his grave. Jesus touched the bier of a young man before raising him from the dead (Luke 7:14).

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

One of two door guards of the Persian king Xerxes (Ahasuerus) who plotted to assassinate the king. The plot was discovered and reported by Mordecai, after which Bigthana was hanged (Esther 2:21–23).

The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:2, 14; Neh. 7:7, 19). The same clan sent Uthai and Zakkur and seventy men at the time of Ezra around 458 BC (Ezra 8:14). Bigvai is also listed as one who sealed the covenant renewal led by Ezra (Neh. 10:16).

The father of Sheba, the Benjamite who rebelled against David. Joab’s men laid a siege against Sheba in Abel Beth Maakah, and his head was handed to them (2 Sam. 20:1–22). There is no further mention of Bikri in the OT.

Term used in the LXX and the Latin Vulgate of 2 Sam. 20:14 (so RSV, NRSV) for the people group identified in the Hebrew text as the Berites.

Bildad is the second of Job’s friends introduced in Job 2:11, where he is said to come from an otherwise unknown place, Shuah. Bildad’s speeches (Job 8; 18; 25) reflect his staunch conviction that God deals with people (including Job) exclusively through the principle of retributive justice: God punishes sin and rewards good. Although he shares this perspective with his friends, Bildad applies it more vehemently. Bildad incorrectly attributes the death of Job’s children to some unspecified sin that they had committed (8:4) and inappropriately encourages Job to seek God’s forgiveness for his sin, claiming that it would lead to his restoration (8:5–6).

A town of western Manasseh that was given to some of the Levites descended from Kohath (1 Chron. 6:70). Probably the same town as Ibleam (Josh. 17:11), Bileam lay about fifty miles north of Jerusalem.

(1) The fifteenth of twenty-four heads of priestly families whom David assigned for temple service by lot (1 Chron. 24:14). (2) A priest who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Joshua (Neh. 12:5, 18), possibly also called Bilgai (10:8).

(1) The servant of Rachel, given to her by Laban (Gen. 29:29). Rachel gave her to Jacob as a concubine, and Bilhah bore Dan and Naphtali (30:5–8). Later, Reuben has sexual relations with Bilhah (35:22). (2) Location in the territory of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:29), probably also in Josh. 15:29; 19:3; 19:44, with alternate spellings.

(1) A descendant of Seir through Ezer, a Horite chief who lived in Edom (Gen. 36:27; 1 Chron. 1:42). (2) A descendant of Benjamin through Jediael, and the father of seven sons (1 Chron. 7:10).

Divorce involves the separation of a husband and a wife and the management of children and property, and it raises the question of the right to remarry.

According to Deut. 24:1–4, a man was permitted to divorce his wife if he found in her anything “indecent” (’erwat dabar, lit., “nakedness of a thing,” referring to sexual impropriety; cf. Lev. 18:6–19; 20:11, 17–21; 1 Sam. 20:30 NRSV). The marriage could be restored, but only if the woman had not married anyone else in the meantime.

The rabbis of Jesus’ day debated this law vigorously. Rabbi Hillel’s supporters read “indecent thing” as “anything or obscenity.” So they argued for divorce on the grounds of “any cause” and proceeded to list things such as burning food or developing wrinkles as sufficient cause for a man to divorce his wife. Rabbi Shammai’s school understood the passage to refer only to sexual sin.

Some Pharisees put this question to Jesus in Matt. 19:1–12. Jesus asserted, “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (v. 6). This they countered with the specifics from Deut. 24. Jesus affirmed that divorce was God’s way of limiting the damage caused by “hardness of heart” (ESV, NASB). He then ruled in favor of the view that only the sexual violation of the marriage can justify a man divorcing his wife (Matt. 19:9). Such a divorce gives the innocent party the right to remarry. For a man to divorce his wife while the marriage is sexually pure makes any subsequent marriage an act of adultery, for which he is responsible. Even Jesus’ own disciples were shocked by this statement (v. 10).

It is significant that under biblical law, the innocent party in the event of adultery, whether husband or wife, was free to remarry.

A second divorce law is found in the OT at Exod. 21:7–11. This law concerns the rights of a female slave-concubine. The dignity of such a female slave was to be protected under God’s covenant with Israel. She could not be sold, nor could she be freed in the seventh year, as a male slave would be (Exod. 21:1–6). If the man later wanted to separate from her, he would have to let her go free. This would be the equivalent of a certificate of divorce for a free woman. It is noteworthy that where the slave was purchased as a concubine for a son, she was to have “the rights of a daughter” (Exod. 21:9). She had the right to go free if he married another wife and deprived her of food and clothing or ceased to make love to her. A good example is the experience of Sarai’s slave Hagar (Gen. 16; 21:9–21).

It is difficult to know how to apply this case to the overall biblical teaching on divorce and to different cultural circumstances. This case, though problematic, does speak to modern situations of domestic abuse and desertion (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10–13).

A third case concerns mixed marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. A Christian is not to marry a non-Christian (2 Cor. 6:14–16; cf. Deut. 7:1–7; Ezra 9). In 1 Cor. 7:12–16 Paul addresses this issue. He does so in light of the old covenant law that required God’s people to marry within the community of Israel. Circumstances had changed significantly with the coming of the new covenant. God’s people are now identified by faith in Christ, not ethnicity. Paul’s ruling here addresses one of two possible situations. Either the couple married as non-Christians and only one of them later converted, or two Christians married and one of them later abandoned the faith.

For a Jewish Christian, the first question was whether the marriage should continue or whether, on the precedent of Ezra 9, it should be terminated. Under the old covenant, for a marriage and children to be holy, both husband and wife had to establish their identity as Israelites. When Paul speaks of the unbelieving husband (1 Cor. 7:14) or children of this union as “sanctified,” he is speaking about the integrity of the marriage and the legitimacy of the children, not about their salvation. Without faith in Christ, no one is saved (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 2:16; Heb. 11:6).

Paul’s ruling is thus that the wife of the unbelieving husband should continue with the marriage because it is legitimate. “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so” (1 Cor. 7:15). Under such circumstances, the wife (or husband [7:14]) is free, which implies the option of remarriage (7:39). She should not persevere in hope that he will be converted. She is the innocent victim.

Throughout the Bible there always remains the possibility of restoration of the original marriage except when remarriage to another has occurred (Deut. 24:4).

One of several leaders who accompanied Zerubbabel and Joshua when the people of Israel returned from captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem and Judah (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7).

A descendant of Asher through Japhlet, and the head of a family (1 Chron. 7:33).

Binding can mean physically restraining a person or people (Judg. 15:13; 2 Kings 25:7; Job 16:8; Pss. 119:61; 149:8), mending, as with a wound (Isa. 61:1; Ezek. 34:16; Hos. 6:1), or taking a legally constraining oath (1 Sam. 14:27–30; Neh. 10:29; Jer. 50:5). The opposite of binding is loosing or setting free, which can describe literally being freed from bonds (e.g., Acts 16:26) or the release from something that is binding.

The law, a binding covenant between Israel and God, is to be literally bound on one’s forehead as a reminder (Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Non-Israelites who wish to identify with the God of Israel can bind themselves to his laws (Isa. 56:6). In Num. 30:6, 9, 13, an oath taken by a young woman still in her father’s house will be binding only if the father is not against it. If he is against it, it is not binding and she is loosed from it (30:5). This is the same in the case of a married woman, whose approval has to come from the husband. However, for widows or divorced women, all pledges they make are binding since there are no men in their lives to void the pledges (30:9).

While contracts were binding, some had time limits. For example, the seventh year and the fiftieth year (Jubilee) allowed for cancellation of such binding contracts as slavery or land ownership (Lev. 25:10–54; 27:24).

The binding of Isaac (Gen. 22), traditionally known as the Akedah, has theological significance for both Christians and Jews. It is interpreted as a form of resurrection, a coming from the dead for Isaac after Yahweh had instructed his father, Abraham, to sacrifice him (Heb. 11:17–19). God inquires of Job whether he can “bind the chains of the Pleiades” or “loosen Orion’s belt” (Job 38:31).

The book of Proverbs encourages the wise to metaphorically bind love and faithfulness around their necks (3:3) and their parents’ commands and teachings to the heart (6:21) and the finger (7:3); it also talks of folly being bound up in the heart of a child (22:15), perhaps alluded to by Paul in Rom. 11:32 when he says that God has bound all people to disobedience that he may have mercy on them.

Introducing his ministry in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1, which talks of binding up the brokenhearted, a reference to his healing ministry. Further, binding and loosing are found in Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; cf. John 20:23), where it may be referring to the binding of demons and loosing of demoniacs bound or oppressed by demons (cf. Mark 3:14–16; 6:7; Luke 13:6). Since Jesus has the power to bind and loose (John 8:36), he chooses to empower his followers to do the same. Binding Satan is the subject of the ultimate eschatological battle in Jewish lore (T. Levi 18:11–12) and becomes central in Christianity. Jesus encounters satanic forces embodied in humans and looses such people from the chains of Satan (Mark 5:3; Luke 13:12, 16). Ultimately, Satan is to be bound for a millennium and loosed only for eternal damnation (Rev. 20:1–3).

Paul invokes Jewish law about marriage by claiming that one is bound in marriage only as long as one’s partner is alive (Rom. 7:2). In this way, Paul explains how Christians are dead to the law, because Jesus has died on their behalf, thus setting them free from the law (Rom. 7:4–6; cf. Heb. 9:15). To the Corinthians also he talks of the binding nature of marriage but with a caveat: if the marriage is between a believer and a nonbeliever, and if the nonbeliever leaves, then the believer is not bound (1 Cor. 7). But for Paul, being set free from sin (Rom. 8:2) means being bound to God (6:22).

A descendant of Benjamin, King Saul, and Jonathan through Moza. Binea’s son is called both “Raphah” and “Rephaiah” (1 Chron. 8:37; 9:43).

(1) The father of Noadiah, a Levitical contemporary of Ezra (Ezra 8:33). (2) A descendant of Pahath-Moab who was among those guilty of marrying foreign women (Ezra 10:30). (3) The ancestor of thirteen men who were guilty of marrying foreign women (Ezra 10:38 [but see NIV mg.]). (4) Son of Henadad, he completed two sections of Nehemiah’s wall (Neh. 3:18 [“Bavvai” in some versions; see NIV mg.], 24). He was one of the Levites who ratified the document of rededication (Neh. 10:9). (5) The head of a family from which 648 returnees accompanied Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (Neh. 7:15 [probably “Bani” in Ezra 2:10]). (6) One of the Levitical leaders who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:8). See also Bavai.

Over 350 species of birds have been recorded in the land of modern-day Israel. The OT employs thirty-five different words for birds (both wild and domestic), but the identification of these words with known species has proved to be very difficult. Like other words for animals, terminology for birds often is employed in personal names (e.g., Jonah, Oreb, Zippor, Zipporah). There is significant evidence for fowling practices in ancient Israel, usually by means of nets and snares (Pss. 124:7; 140:5; Prov. 6:5; 7:23; Lam. 3:52; Hos. 7:12; Amos 3:5). Small birds and chickens are occasionally even depicted on Iron Age II (1000–586 BC) seals and vessels from sites such as el-Jib (Gibeon) and Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah).

Like other animals in the Bible, birds are depicted as agents of God. Divine agency is especially evident in instances such as the ravens feeding Elijah (1 Kings 17:4–6) and the dove bringing an olive leaf to Noah (Gen. 8:11). The Bible also employs bird-related imagery such as in descriptions of divine judgment (Prov. 30:17; Jer. 12:9). Birds may also serve as ominous signs of impending judgment (Hos. 8:1). God’s “wings” can offer both healing (Mal. 4:2 KJV, RSV) and protection (Ruth 2:12; Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). The metaphor of the soul or spirit as a bird is referenced in the description of the Holy Spirit descending like a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The observation that birds “do not sow or reap” is employed as an image of worry-free living (Luke 12:24; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 147:9). Jesus’ reference to “when the rooster crows” (Mark 13:35) is not strictly literal but rather refers to a watch of the night: the quarter of the night after midnight.

The prominence of sacrificial birds (especially doves and pigeons) in ritual literature indicates that they were likely raised for such purposes in ancient Israel. All birds could be eaten except those listed as unclean in Lev. 11:13–19 (twenty species) and Deut. 14:12–18 (twenty-one species). Generally speaking, birds of prey and those that feed on carrion or fish were considered unclean. Birds often served as food for the poor (Matt. 10:29–31; Luke 12:6–7). Poor people could offer birds as a substitute for expensive livestock (Lev. 5:7; 12:8; 14:21–22; cf. Luke 2:24), while the poorest of the poor were permitted to bring grain (Lev. 5:11). Finally, in one purgation ritual a live bird is used to carry away impurities (Lev. 14:52–53; cf. 16:22).

King of Gomorrah, he was part of a five-king alliance that rebelled against Ked­or­la­o­mer king of Elam (Gen. 14:1–16). Ked­or­la­o­mer defeated Birsha and his allies and plundered the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but Abram recovered the plunder and captives.

Births in the ancient world were the domain of women. The women who bore children were often assisted in the birthing process by midwives (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:15–20). Although work was forbidden on the Sabbath, Jewish law permitted midwives to assist laboring women with births on the Sabbath because childbirth was viewed as saving a life.

Many women utilized a birthing stool (Exod. 1:16). Upon birth, the newborn often was washed with water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in cloths (Ezek. 16:4; Luke 2:7, 12). The OT required women to undergo a rite of purification following childbirth (Exod. 13:2, 20; 34:20; Lev. 12:6–8; Luke 2:22–24). This purification lasted forty days after the birth of a son and eighty days after the birth of a daughter and concluded with the sacrifice of both a burnt offering and a sin offering.

Birthing was valued, and women who were considered to be infertile often faced great shame (1 Sam. 1:10–11; Luke 1:25). Jewish tradition drew additional connections between childbirth and a woman’s character. For instance, death in childbirth was threatened for women who did not follow the law. Pain in childbirth was associated with the sin of Eve (Gen. 3:16), and conversely, absence of pain was interpreted as a sign that a woman was particularly righteous. According to Josephus, Moses was borne with no pain to his mother, and the Protevangelium of James indicates the same about Mary’s labor with Jesus.

The birthing process posed significant risk to both woman and child. Estimates of mortality rates for babies vary, but it is thought that as many as 50 percent of children did not survive beyond the age of five, with many failing to live through the first week outside the womb. Conservative guesses place the death rate for mothers around 5 percent. Death rates during childbirth were higher among Greek women, who often married younger than their Jewish counterparts and frequently suffered complications in childbirth due to their youth.

The Bible sometimes employs the language of birth as a spiritual metaphor. In John 3:3–6 Jesus instructs Nicodemus about the need for spiritual birth by explaining that he must be born again. In Rom. 8:22 Paul describes the whole of creation as experiencing the pain of childbirth as it awaits redemption, and in Gal. 4:19 he says that he is in labor for a second time with the Galatians as he desires the formation of Christ in them.

The predominant form of birth control available to men in the ancient world was coitus interruptus. Onan does this to avoid impregnating Tamar (Gen. 38:8–9) and faces God’s judgment for his action, although this may reflect punishment for refusing to fulfill his levirate duty rather than punishment for withdrawing prematurely. However, because large families were an asset in primarily agrarian societies, contraception frequently was condemned. Later Jewish literature forbids the use of birth control by males because of the command to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28) but sometimes permits contraceptive use by women, particularly those who are nursing an older child. The second-century AD physician Soranus instructed a woman wishing to prevent pregnancy to avoid deep penetration, to hold her breath at the moment of ejaculation, and immediately to squat down, begin sneezing, wipe herself, and drink something cold. Other birth control methods for women in the ancient world included ointments consisting of old olive oil, honey, or cedar resin to be spread on the cervix prior to intercourse. Various plants, including silphium, asafetida, wild carrot, and the seeds of Queen Anne’s lace were taken orally to either prevent or terminate pregnancy. Abortion and infanticide, though condemned by Judaism (cf. Exod. 21:22–25), were practiced by some. Acacia gum and dates were among ingredients in vaginal suppositories that were believed to function as abortifacients. Infanticide occurred through exposure at birth (cf. Exod. 1:15–16; Acts 7:19) and often targeted female babies.

Congenital defects are treated symbolically in the law of Moses along with crippling diseases and permanent injury. Israelite worship, managed by the priesthood, pointed away from itself to heavenly things. Thus, it was important for sacred things to be undistorted. Dwarfs and hunchbacks were disqualified for priestly work, along with those suffering from various injuries (Lev. 21:16–23).

Along the same lines, some who opposed Israel were genetically defective (2 Sam. 21:20), deviating from the human form in their gigantism and polydactyly. Not only were they in the land promised to Israel, but they were something beyond the ordinary—they physically embodied evil opposition to God.

In the NT, symbols take second place to the spiritual reality of Christ, come to save all peoples. An entire chapter of the Gospel of John, the story of the man born blind (John 9), is devoted to a birth defect and its spiritual meaning. Jesus argues that now those who willfully will not see the truth of the gospel are the real blind ones; the man born blind can spiritually see better than they do and is accepted by Jesus.

The birthright consists of the material blessings of a father being passed on to his sons. By right, the oldest son received a double portion of the inheritance received by the children (Gen. 25:29–34; Deut. 21:15–17; Luke 15:11–32). The birthright is often connected to, but needs to be distinguished from, the blessing. The blessing generally involved more of a focus on a spiritual allotment, but it crossed paths with the birthright with respect to future leadership and authority of the person (Gen. 27; 49). Royal succession was also a birthright, though God could countermand this privilege (1 Kings 2:15; 2 Chron. 21:3).

In the NT, Jesus’ birthright includes the throne of David, a position of honor as God’s unique Son, and creation itself (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:4–6). The low regard with which Esau viewed his birthright is also used as a warning in Hebrews to encourage Christians not to take their spiritual inheritance lightly (Heb. 12:16–17).

Traditionally, twin rocks upon which midwives would seat women for childbirth. The term appears once in the NRSV (NIV: “delivery stool”), translating a Hebrew word (’abenayim) that literally means “two stones” (Exod. 1:16). However, the same Hebrew word means “potter’s wheel” in Jer. 18:3, suggesting that the obstetric understanding could be metaphoric.

A descendant of Asher through Malkiel, or possibly the name of a place (1 Chron. 7:31 [KJV: “Birzavith”]).

One of the men who wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes in Aramaic (Ezra 4:7). The name could be an abbreviated form of “Ben-Selam,” meaning “son of peace,” or the abbreviated form of the Aramaic name “Bel-Salam,” meaning “Bel is peace.”

An older translation of the Greek word episkopos, which the NIV translates as “overseer.” The word occurs five times in the NT (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25).

The word episkopos was used in the Greco-Roman world to describe a large variety of financial, political, and religious officials. The LXX uses the word to describe priestly authorities (2 Kings 11:18), temple inspectors (2 Kings 12:11), and military officers (Num. 31:14; 2 Kings 11:15), among other roles. The DSS evidence an official (Heb. mebaqqer) similar to the overseer in the NT. Nearly anyone with duties of ruling and oversight could be called an overseer in ancient Greco-Roman and pre-Christian Jewish writings.

Overseers first appear in the NT in Acts 20:28. This verse is in the context of Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of the Ephesian church, charging them to watch carefully over the welfare of the church. A comparison of Acts 20:17 and 20:28 shows that “elder” (presbyteros) and “overseer” (episkopos) are basically interchangeable terms (the two are explicitly equated in Titus 1:5–7). The overseer in Acts 20:28 is specifically equipped by the Holy Spirit to rule (shepherd), which is the same job of elders (e.g., Acts 14:23; 15; 16:4; 1 Thess. 5:12–13; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet. 5:5). This shepherding function is primarily one of protecting the church from the false teachers who, Paul knows, will sneak in and distort the truth of God’s word once he leaves (Acts 20:29–31). Although overseers are not specifically mentioned in Eph. 4:11, the idea of shepherding (pastoring) the flock of God is one of the gifts given to the church for its edification by Jesus Christ.

In Phil. 1:1 Paul addresses the church in Philippi, making a distinction between the entire body of the saints and the roles of overseer and deacon.

In 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:7 is found the most information about the roles of overseers, whereas 1 Tim. 3:1 describes the office of oversight. The job of the overseer is defined more in terms of virtues than specific duties (1 Tim. 3:2–7; Titus 1:7–9). In this regard, the qualifications for overseers are quite similar to standard lists of virtues in contemporary Greco-Roman literature. The overseer must be of outstanding moral character, self-controlled in all areas of life, an experienced Christian, and a good leader in his own household. However, two specific Christian duties stand out in the biblical lists: teaching and refuting error (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9). These two abilities are especially important in the Pastoral Epistles because false teaching is a particularly pressing threat in the churches addressed. Overseers must also discipline errant church members (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:2). Although it is difficult to draw hard-and-fast distinctions between the various teaching and authority roles mentioned in the NT, an overseer is primarily called to watch over, protect, and teach the church in an official capacity.

Finally, in 1 Pet. 2:25 Jesus Christ is called the “Shepherd and Overseer” of all Christians. Jesus is the paradigm for the loving care and protection of the church that all undershepherds (overseers/bishops) are called to emulate.

There is evidence that in the early church some (such as Clement of Rome) saw an overseer as equal to an elder. As early as the beginning of the second century, others (such as Ignatius) argued that overseers were the chief figures in a detailed church hierarchy, as well as being direct successors to the apostles.

A bridle is gear that fits over an animal’s head; attached to the bridle is a bit, a metal mouthpiece that allows one to control the animal. The terms “bridle” and “bit” are used metaphorically in both Testaments, demonstrating some manner of control (Job 41:13; Ps. 32:9; James 1:26). For example, James uses this metaphor to challenge believers about the difficulty and importance of controlling their tongue (James 3:1–12).

Apparently one of two wives of Mered the Judahite (1 Chron. 4:17–18), though the Hebrew text is unclear on this point. Bithiah may have been a princess, or the phrase “Pharaoh’s daughter” may refer only to her Egyptian descent. The name “Bithiah” means “daughter of Yah(weh)” and may indicate that she had converted to the religion of Israel.

A translation of the Hebrew word bitron, a term of uncertain meaning that appears only in 2 Sam. 2:29. Abner, commander of Ish-Bosheth’s army, marched through Bithron while fleeing from David. The most common explanations are that “Bithron” refers to a ravine or a mountain pass, possibly the Jabbok (KJV, TEV), or that it indicates the forenoon (NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASB).

A region in northern Asia Minor bordering the Black Sea that, along with Pontus, was ruled as one province by the Romans. Paul and his missionary companions desired to enter Bithynia during his second missionary journey but were prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit, so they traveled to Macedonia instead (Acts 16:7). The Christians in Bithynia received greetings from Peter (1 Pet. 1:1).

An ambiguous term referring to bitterness or something bitter. The NIV uses “gall” six times to translate three different Hebrew words and one Greek word, although other translations use various other words in these texts. The first of these is merorah, translated in Deut. 32:32 as “bitterness.” In the book of Job it is understood to mean “gall” (16:13 [here meaning “bile”]), “venom” (20:14), and the “liver” (20:25). The second word is ro’sh, which occurs about a dozen times and most often refers to poison or something poisonous (e.g., Ps. 69:21; Lam. 3:19). Some understand this word to refer to hemlock, while others believe it to be opium poppies or some other drug-yielding plant. Although identifications are numerous, perhaps it is best to understand ro’sh as an ambiguous term encompassing almost any drug, lethal or not. Another word sometimes translated as “gall” is la’anah, which frequently means “bitter” or “bitterness” (e.g., Prov. 5:4; Lam. 3:15). This word is also rendered as “wormwood” in some versions. The Greek word cholē functions as the catchall rendering for these Hebrew words. It occurs many times in ancient sources, though only twice in the NT, once as the gall mixed with wine offered to Jesus at his crucifixion (Matt. 27:34; cf. Ps. 69:21), and again as the metaphorical gall that symbolized the “bitterness” of Simon the Magician (Acts 8:23). It is likely that cholē is the word from which the English word “gall” is derived.

A food eaten with lamb and unleavened bread at the Passover meal. The herbs were often comprised of whatever bitter greens were available. Though not specifically identified, they included lettuce, endive, parsley, watercress, cucumber, and horseradish, all of which were plentiful in areas of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine, and Egypt. The bitter herbs recalled the misery of slavery in Egypt (Exod. 12:8; Num. 9:11). They were dipped into a fruit puree (kharoset sauce), which represents the mortar that Israelites used for Pharaoh’s building projects. In John 13:26–27 Jesus, instead of dipping a “piece of bread” (Gk. psōmion), probably dipped bitter herbs, sharing them with Judas Iscariot (cf., in the Greek texts, Mark 14:20, where Jesus does not specify what is being dipped; Matt. 26:23, where Jesus talks about dipping a hand).

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

The KJV translation of the Hebrew qippod (Isa. 14:23; 34:11; Zeph. 2:14). Bitterns, a kind of heron, are found in the Middle East and live in marshy reed beds. This fits the biblical association with desolate places, particularly with swampland. Moreover, these verses do seem to refer to different kinds of birds, which makes the translation “hedgehog” or “porcupine” (e.g., RSV) unlikely. However, bitterns roost close to the ground, which conflicts with the behavior that Zephaniah describes of roosting on columns. Most modern translations and commentaries prefer to identify the qippod as some kind of owl, although we cannot be sure of the exact species. The NIV translates the term as “owl” (Isa. 14:23) and “screech owl” (Isa. 34:11; Zeph. 2:14).

A tarlike substance used as mortar for setting bricks, as in Gen. 11:3 (NIV: “tar”) with the building of a ziggurat. It was also used, along with pitch, as a waterproofing agent for Noah’s ark (Gen. 6:14) and for the reed basket in which Moses was placed as an infant (Exod. 2:3).

A city in the Negev belonging to Judah (Josh. 15:28). It is on the extreme southern end near Beersheba.

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

Commonly used to denote the color of objects. A sunless sky is “black” (Exod. 10:15; 1 Kings 18:45; Rev. 6:12). Some birds (Lev. 11:13, 14) and horses (Zech. 6:2, 6; Rev. 6:5) are associated with that color. Depending on the context, black may represent death, judgment, and evil. Of special significance is the blackness preceding Jesus’ death (Mark 15:33 pars.). However, when describing hair, the color may also indicate youthful beauty (Song 5:11). See also Colors.

The KJV rendering of the Hebrew word ’aba’bu’ot in Exod. 9:9–10 (RSV, NASB: “sores”; NIV, NRSV: “festering”).

Any contemptuous expression that rejects God’s authority and questions his nature. In the OT, three words primarily convey this sense of utterly offensive speech or action.

The first, na’ats, means “to speak or act with contempt,” rejecting God’s authority (Num. 14:23; Deut. 31:20). Blasphemers include wicked enemies who mock God (Pss. 10:3, 13; 74:18), and God’s people who reject the authority of his word (Isa. 1:4; 5:24). The second, gadap, is synonymous with na’ats. When Sennacherib’s field commander publically undermined the people’s confidence in God, Isaiah prophesied that Sennacherib would suffer divine punishment for this blasphemy (2 Kings 19:5–7; Isa. 37:6–7). It also refers to actions that defy and thus blaspheme God (Num. 15:30). The third, naqab, literally means “to pierce a hole” and indicates the intent to cause damage. It appears twice in Lev. 24:15–16 in conjunction with cursing God; the penalty is death.

This provides the foundation for the NT material. When the Pharisees wrongfully attributed Jesus’ power to drive out demons to Beelzebul, Jesus declared that every sin and blasphemy would be forgiven, even speaking a word against the Son of Man, but not blaspheming or speaking against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22–32). The Spirit’s work was evident in the powerful demonstration they had seen. To attribute Jesus’ work to Satan was a complete affront to the majesty of God.

When this “son of man” claimed divine power and attributes, some of the Jewish leaders accused him of blasphemy. In the OT, blasphemy involved denigrating the majesty, authority, and power of God. Although Jesus did not say anything contemptuous of God, his audience thought that he had blasphemed God on several occasions. Early in his ministry he claimed to forgive sins when he healed the paralyzed man. The response of the Pharisees and teachers of the law was to think, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21). The Gospel of John records ongoing tension between Jesus and his opponents. They were prepared to stone him “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Finally, when Caiaphas put Jesus under oath before the Sanhedrin to declare if he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus responded by referring to Dan. 7:13–14 and Ps. 110:1: they would see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt. 26:64–66 pars.). In their minds, this was clearly blasphemous (see John 19:7).

Stephen was accused of speaking words of blasphemy against Moses and God (Acts 6:11), and Saul of Tarsus, in his vendetta against Christians, went from one synagogue to another trying to force early Christians to blaspheme (Acts 26:11). Later, knowing that he was “the worst of sinners,” he acknowledged that he was a “blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man” (1 Tim. 1:13–16). Knowing the seriousness of the offense, Paul declared that he handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan so they would be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:20).

The source of all blasphemy will make its appearance in the final eschatological confrontation: on the heads of the beast will be a blasphemous name (Rev. 13:1; cf. 17:3), and it will utter blasphemy against God, his temple, and his people (13:5, 6). Paul describes this same scenario in 2 Thess. 2:3–4, where “the man of lawlessness” sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Finally, when the bowls of wrath are poured out on the earth, those who refuse to repent will curse God (Rev. 16:9, 11, 21), the final blasphemy.

Rendering in the NIV and most modern translations of the Hebrew word shiddapon. The term refers to crop destruction caused by hot winds that blow in from the desert east of Palestine. “Blight” accompanies other terms (e.g., “mildew”) denoting unfavorable things that would and did arise in the land of Israel as a result of the people’s disobedience (e.g., Deut. 28:22; 1 Kings 8:37; Amos 4:9). The KJV uses the archaic “blasting.”

A personal servant of Herod Agrippa I mentioned in Acts 12:20. He was likely the chamberlain in charge of Herod’s bed quarters. The citizens of Tyre and Sidon persuaded him to help them make peace with Herod regarding an issue with the supply of food.

The KJV and the NRSV use the antiquated English word “fuller” where the NIV uses “washerman, launderer” (2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2; Mal. 3:2). The term is derived from an equally antiquated transitive verb, “to full,” which refers to felting wool together by beating it. Other translations make a distinction between the process of “washing” designated by one form of this Hebrew verb and the process of “fulling,” which only appears as a Hebrew noun. See also Washerman’s Field.

The physical defect on a sacrificial animal that makes it an unacceptable offering to the Lord (Lev. 22:17–25), or the physical defect on a priest that disqualifies him from performing certain priestly functions (Lev. 21:17–24). In the NT, Christ is the once-for-all sacrificial lamb without blemish or defect. In Christ, Christians are presented to God as holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19).

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in a worldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimate dispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes of magicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain or retribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately the final judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source of every good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strength to prosper (Deut. 8:17).

Some view the nature of blessing and curse as simply a gift from God, while others see it as an act in which one party transmits power for life to another party. Perhaps the common thread between views is the idea of relationship.

Terminology. In the OT, the key Hebrew terms for blessing are the verb barak and the noun berakah. When the context of their use identifies a person or a living creature as the object of blessing, the basic idea is to provide someone with special power that will ultimately enhance his or her life. The blessing theme is also illuminated by means of words such as “grace,” “favor,” “loyalty,” and “happiness.”

In the NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are best understood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits. The makarios word group describes a state or status of being fortunate, happy, or privileged.

The OT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, making contemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises the ideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.

Old Testament. The sovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation. The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), to Jacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through the priests (Num. 6:24–26).

The theme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 and Lev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of these books. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is not symmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, the blessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for the purpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy also includes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse, on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associated with the relationship.

The creation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology of blessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessing in Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and human beings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, the blessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8), Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation of Israel and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, the blessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipients in material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts 17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

The blessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhance and prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creation is the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving it a sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life such as baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), and work (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.

God promises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing is designed for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’s character, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embraces God’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’s warnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to those detailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf. Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). The Deuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned when God-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’s apparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).

New Testament. In the NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both food and joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt. 6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and it focuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift that originates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritual individuals.

Regarding curse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to free us from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3 anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will be completely removed and the blessing associated with creation will prevail.

Rendering in the NIV and most modern translations of the Hebrew word shiddapon. The term refers to crop destruction caused by hot winds that blow in from the desert east of Palestine. “Blight” accompanies other terms (e.g., “mildew”) denoting unfavorable things that would and did arise in the land of Israel as a result of the people’s disobedience (e.g., Deut. 28:22; 1 Kings 8:37; Amos 4:9). The KJV uses the archaic “blasting.”

Blindness was a common ailment in the ancient world. Some causes included old age (Gen. 27:1), trauma, or divine punish­ment (John 9:2). Israel was given special instructions to care for the blind (Lev. 19:14). True love helped the blind (Job 29:15), and misleading them was a serious violation (Deut. 27:18).

Blindness constituted a ritual blemish, but the blind themselves were not rendered “unclean,” though they could not function as priests (Lev. 21:18). Even blind animals were unfit for sacrifice (Lev. 22:22), a barometer of the people’s hearts that the prophets had to remind them of (Mal. 1:8). According to the Temple Scroll, the Qumran sect expanded the biblical qualifications and refused entrance to any blind person (11Q19 45:12–13). Now viewed as impurity, blindness in its midst would defile the whole community and dilute the emphasis of the community on “sight” as an eschatological sign (1Q28a 2:3–10; cf. Isa. 29:18; 35:5). Jesus and his disciples’ healing of the blind may have also been a critique against such separatistic practices (cf. Matt. 9:27–31; 12:22).

In figurative language, the Bible frequently describes the spiritual condition of people in terms of blindness. Isaiah capitalizes on the metaphor of blindness to describe the rebellious and apostate groups: prophets, priests, and rulers who were divinely afflicted with blindness (Isa. 43:8; 56:10; 59:10; cf. Zeph. 1:17). The anthropology represented in the OT posited three “zones” of interactive relationship: hands-feet (action), mouth-ears (speech), and heart-eyes (emotion with thought). The zone of heart-eyes related to blindness, since the notion of a dark heart emanated through the eyes. This tradition surfaced in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 6:22–23; cf. 1 John 2:9–11).

Jesus highlighted the onset of the messianic age by fulfilling Isaiah’s promise to proclaim “recovery of sight to the blind” (Luke 4:18). Forty-six of fifty-two references to blindness in the NT are Gospel stories of Jesus’ healing. Because Jesus’ ministry was one of opening blind eyes (cf. Isa. 42:7, 16, 18), calling the Pharisees “blind guides” was a sharp description (Matt. 15:14; 23:16, 24). But on others, Jesus would impose blindness, the very reverse of his mission (John 9:39–41), since he came as the “light of the world” (8:12). Spiritual blindness as applied to unbelievers could be used to describe the failure or hard-heartedness of some to accept the true identity of Jesus Christ. Using similar language, Paul describes the pagan unbelievers: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4).

Nearsightedness and blindness can also be used to describe believers who have grown dull to the truth (2 Pet. 1:9) or tepid in their faith (Rev. 3:17). Believers are blind when they fail to grasp their true spiritual condition.

Blindness was a common ailment in the ancient world. Some causes included old age (Gen. 27:1), trauma, or divine punish­ment (John 9:2). Israel was given special instructions to care for the blind (Lev. 19:14). True love helped the blind (Job 29:15), and misleading them was a serious violation (Deut. 27:18).

Blindness constituted a ritual blemish, but the blind themselves were not rendered “unclean,” though they could not function as priests (Lev. 21:18). Even blind animals were unfit for sacrifice (Lev. 22:22), a barometer of the people’s hearts that the prophets had to remind them of (Mal. 1:8). According to the Temple Scroll, the Qumran sect expanded the biblical qualifications and refused entrance to any blind person (11Q19 45:12–13). Now viewed as impurity, blindness in its midst would defile the whole community and dilute the emphasis of the community on “sight” as an eschatological sign (1Q28a 2:3–10; cf. Isa. 29:18; 35:5). Jesus and his disciples’ healing of the blind may have also been a critique against such separatistic practices (cf. Matt. 9:27–31; 12:22).

In figurative language, the Bible frequently describes the spiritual condition of people in terms of blindness. Isaiah capitalizes on the metaphor of blindness to describe the rebellious and apostate groups: prophets, priests, and rulers who were divinely afflicted with blindness (Isa. 43:8; 56:10; 59:10; cf. Zeph. 1:17). The anthropology represented in the OT posited three “zones” of interactive relationship: hands-feet (action), mouth-ears (speech), and heart-eyes (emotion with thought). The zone of heart-eyes related to blindness, since the notion of a dark heart emanated through the eyes. This tradition surfaced in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 6:22–23; cf. 1 John 2:9–11).

Jesus highlighted the onset of the messianic age by fulfilling Isaiah’s promise to proclaim “recovery of sight to the blind” (Luke 4:18). Forty-six of fifty-two references to blindness in the NT are Gospel stories of Jesus’ healing. Because Jesus’ ministry was one of opening blind eyes (cf. Isa. 42:7, 16, 18), calling the Pharisees “blind guides” was a sharp description (Matt. 15:14; 23:16, 24). But on others, Jesus would impose blindness, the very reverse of his mission (John 9:39–41), since he came as the “light of the world” (8:12). Spiritual blindness as applied to unbelievers could be used to describe the failure or hard-heartedness of some to accept the true identity of Jesus Christ. Using similar language, Paul describes the pagan unbelievers: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4).

Nearsightedness and blindness can also be used to describe believers who have grown dull to the truth (2 Pet. 1:9) or tepid in their faith (Rev. 3:17). Believers are blind when they fail to grasp their true spiritual condition.

The word for “blood” in the Bible (Heb. dam; Gk. haima) is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. In ancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, and early Christian usage blood had both positive and negative connotations. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:3–4), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.

Jewish Background

Blood played a major role in the Jewish sacrificial system. The blood of the sacrifice was handled with care and was applied to the sacrificer. This ritual treatment provided indirect contact between the person to be purified and the altar. An example of such indirect treatment is seen in a purification rite involving a pair of birds. One bird is slaughtered in the presence of the impure person. The surviving bird is dipped into the blood of the slaughtered bird, and the person is sprinkled with the same blood. Indirect contact is thus established between the impure person and the living bird. When the bird next was released, the impurities of the person flew away with the bird (Lev. 14:6–7, 49–53).

Sin offerings followed a similar concept of indirect contact. On Yom Kippur, the annual Day of Atonement, the high priest made a series of sin offerings (Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:3–19). Sin offerings likewise were used to consecrate altars (Exod. 29:35–37; Lev. 6:23; Ezek. 43:18–27). The use of an animal sacrifice for the cleansing of altars meant indirect contact between the altar and the sacrificial animal when the blood of the animal was dotted on the horns and poured out into the trough at the base of the altar. The animal thus received the impurity. The blood effected indirect contact between the impure person and the receiving sacrifice or altar.

Greco-Roman Background

Blood played a crucial role in ritualistic sacrifice in ancient Greek culture and was incorporated into the later (Greco-) Roman cults as well. It was used in oath rituals and as an agent of purification in Greek religious practice. Both persons and shrines underwent blood purifications. The use of special utensils for the handling of blood implied the significance of the substance in Greek tradition and the rituals of which it was part.

The mystery cults in the Greco-Roman world attached a broad range of soteriological understanding to blood. In this understanding, the purification function of blood was the most salient concept attached to blood in mystery cult usage. Generally speaking, blood was considered a literal agent of purification. However, within Mithraism, for example, blood had a symbolic function and benefited the cult initiate.

Old Testament Usage

The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).

Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).

The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).

During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).

Whenever blood is involved in a religious occurrence, one can speak of a ritual, ceremony, or rite. The rite of circumcision likewise was a blood ceremony (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26). Rabbinic tradition reveals that during circumcision ceremonies Scripture was read with an emphasis on blood. An example of such a reading is found in Ezek. 16:6: “Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ ”

New Testament Usage

Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).

The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.

Theological Observations

When the phrase “blood of Christ” is used, scholars debate whether it refers to the death of Christ or the life of Christ as released from his body. When, under the old covenant, an animal was killed as part of the sacrificial system, the animal’s blood was shed. Scholars wonder if the shedding of the animal’s blood was an indication that life had ended or that the life of the animal was now released from its body and presented as an offering to God. In the same vein, when Christ died on the cross and his blood flowed, was it an indication that his life had ended or that his life had been released from his body and was presented as an offering to the Father? Scholars who hold the second view contend that OT references to blood as the source of life (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:1; Deut. 12:23) are taken up in the NT. Although the death of Christ was unfortunate, the emphasis lies on his life having been set free for the purpose of bringing salvation. Scholars who hold the first view, which is the traditional view, point out that the overwhelming majority of the time when the word “dam” is used in the OT, it has a negative connotation, pertaining to death or violence. Hence, when the Hebrews heard the phrase “blood of Christ,” a correlation with death rather than life likely came to mind. Indeed, Heb. 9:14–15 relates the “blood of Christ” to his death as a ransom.

The guilt that results from the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of an innocent life. The person who incurred bloodguilt was considered not only morally but also ritually impure; this impurity attached not just to the person, for the land was made ritually impure as well. The only way this impurity could be removed was by the execution of the guilty individual (Num. 35:29–34). The person responsible for carrying out the sentence was referred to as the “avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19–27; Deut. 19:6–13 [see also Avenger]). This responsibility fell to the slain person’s nearest kin. For those whose taking of innocent life was accidental (manslaughter), there were cities of refuge established to which the accused could flee from the avenger, and a judicial process was set up to determine innocence or guilt (see also Cities of Refuge).

In addition to the legal sections of the OT, bloodguilt comes under repeated condemnation in narrative, poetry, and prophecy. Already in Gen. 4 the murder of Abel is narrated, with God declaring that Abel’s blood “cries out to me from the ground” (4:10). Numerous accounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles narrate both the shedding of innocent blood and the ensuing vengeance that was carried out (e.g., 2 Sam. 16:8).

Proverbs warns the young not to join with those who lie in wait to shed innocent blood (1:11–18). The psalms, as well as condemning those who shed innocent blood, also pay special attention to the fact that God himself plays the role of the avenger of blood (Pss. 5:6; 9:12; 79:10). Lamentations attributes the exile directly to the incurrence of bloodguilt (Lam. 4:13–14).

The prophets were especially concerned with bloodguilt. God would not accept sacrifices from those whose hands were “full of blood” (Isa. 1:15; cf. 59:1–7). Their sacrifices were unacceptable for two reasons: (1) since they had incurred bloodguilt, they were ritually impure and therefore not in a position to be able to offer sacrifices; (2) the sacrifices that they were offering had come into their possession as a result of their oppression and murder of the poor; that is, they were not the legitimate owners of that which they were sacrificing (see also Jer. 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; 26:15; Ezek. 22–24).

In the Gospels, the chilling words “His blood is on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25) are pronounced with regard to perhaps the most heinous instance of bloodguilt in the Bible (see also Matt. 23:30, 35; 27:4–8; Luke 11:50–51; Acts 5:28).

This color overlaps with purple in the Bible (see Ezek. 23:6) to describe a dye extracted from murex shellfish along the coastline of Palestine. The Hebrew word, tekelet, is also sometimes translated “violet” (e.g., 2 Chron. 2:7, 14; 3:14 NET). Blue was used in the tabernacle (e.g., Exod. 25:4; 26:1, 4, 31), the temple (2 Chron. 2:7, 14; 3:14), and the priestly garments (Exod. 28:5–8, 15; 39:1). The color “dark blue” may occur in the NT (Rev. 9:17 NIV), but the Greek word (huakinthinos) may also be translated “sapphire” (NRSV). Jewish men, including Jesus, wore blue tassels on the four corners of their cloak as a reminder to obey God’s commandments (Num. 15:38; cf. Deut. 22:12; Matt. 9:20; 14:36). See also Colors.

A nickname, meaning “sons of thunder,” given by Jesus to the brothers James and John when he appointed them as apostles (Mark 3:17). Mark does not explain the significance of the name, but it may refer to their fiery temperament (cf. Mark 9:38; Luke 9:54). Alternatively, if meant in a positive way like Simon’s nickname, “Peter/Rock” (cf. Mark 3:16; Matt. 16:18), it could signify their future role as thunderous witnesses to the gospel.

Pigs were widely domesticated in the ancient Near East, and in biblical times they probably resembled the wild European boar, which still existed in the forests (Ps. 80:13). These animals would have been brown or gray and much hairier than modern domestic breeds, the boars having tusks and the piglets stripes. In Israel, however, pigs were regarded as one of the most unclean of all creatures, both ritually (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8; Isa. 65:4; 66:3, 17) and physically (2 Pet. 2:22). To associate anything of value with swine subjected it to ridicule and rendered it worthless (Prov. 11:22); it was wasteful and abhorrent (Matt. 7:6). The presence of herds of domesticated pigs became a mark of Gentile territory, and when Jesus once cast out some demons in such an area, he allowed them to enter swine, which promptly drowned themselves in the lake (Mark 5:1–20 pars.). Thus, when the prodigal son in Jesus’ parable ends up herding pigs, this represents the most degrading occupation an Israelite could imagine (Luke 15:15–16).

Old Testament

Phoenicians and Philistines. As a people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked and timber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites of biblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring or shipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises on alliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenician states to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and had access to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians (the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity for their seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily between Syria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout the Mediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia (Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).

Another seagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose base of power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. The Bible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the Sea Peoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in the twelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).

The perennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precluded joint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and the Phoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritime activities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of the Philistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remained confined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attempt to take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. When they did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert a military and political presence among the agrarian Israelites and Judahites rather than to establish permanent settlements and Philistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at Medinet Habu (in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III) depict a naval battle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs include pictures of Philistine ships and sailors.

Israelite seafaring. One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes the Danites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg. 5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlapped with the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlapped substantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg. 5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked in the port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. In another passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It is noteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughly between Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance of natural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificial harbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of such a project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet of breakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported from Italy—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors in this region.

Solomon’s fleet. The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign of Solomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1 Kings 9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir (1 Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, to which a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. The story confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians in the area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram [the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew the sea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men” (1 Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have been imported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1 Kings 9:11). Even at the height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embark on sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.

The success of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only on warm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial control of the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. This favorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout the biblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on the seas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel was an essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and with it to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. The Phoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean, could never independently control the long overland route from Phoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory of Israel and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerful Israelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiram sent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen and supplies for the construction of the temple (1 Kings 5:10–12). Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships” that would return to port every three years bringing “gold, silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1 Kings 10:22).

Jehoshaphat. In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted to repeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber (1 Kings 22:48–49; 2 Chron. 20:35–37). According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they could set sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of the story disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political and economic conditions of Israelite seafaring.

By this time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, with the northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politically closer to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel, Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, married Jezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal (1 Kings 16:31). According to 1 Kings, King Ahaziah of Israel (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat by sending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomon in the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion, possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northern dominance. According to 2 Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat did cooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that the ships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat for too close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In 1 Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’s venture there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overland route between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success of any voyage originating from Ezion Geber.

However the contradiction between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles regarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions of the story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commanded the interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, and its successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of all three.

Ships of Tarshish. Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon and Jehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1 Kings 10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associated with the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron, lead, tin, gold, and silver (1 Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer. 10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish” is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of their cargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekiel observes, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for your wares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Your oarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).

In the Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan (Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of the eastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples of the Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia” [see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that the ships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeastern Turkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul [Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony of Tartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This location figures in the interpretation of the identification of the destination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he were avoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head toward Spain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus in Cilicia.

In addition to these two geographical options, some have attempted to explain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as deriving from the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the many references to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used to transport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar has proposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos, meaning “oar.”

Descriptions of ships and seafaring. Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek. 27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. The picture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built and manned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber for the construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, among other places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen (v. 7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were from the Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list a large number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety of cargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and the Israelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheat from Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm” (v. 17)—thus filling out the picture of what the Israelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury items imported by their country from elsewhere.

In 1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician ships that had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, each measuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wine and were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies in the western Mediterranean.

Ships and sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded a ship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on the Mediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features of ancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Not only the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumably non-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing of a god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god (1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure. When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the same strategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits of ancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods who controlled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance, are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples (presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the port cities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.

Psalm 107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from an Israelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on the sea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters” (i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God of Israel, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm. This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a storm and the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safe haven.

Noah’s Ark

According to the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen. 6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, the ship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as having six decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozen cubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (a rough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships are described as providing space for the builder’s family and every living creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but its dimensions are not given.

Because of the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historical antiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblical text, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship in history, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming, completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also 450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore and aft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with early twentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant length rendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. The largest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the Greek Syracusia (third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis (second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s “Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered in modern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Pliny the Elder; and Ptolemy IV’s Tessarakonteres (third century BC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This last ship was not designed for cruising in open water.

New Testament

Fishing in the Sea of Galilee. Several of Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing and traveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both from boats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermen on the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto the beach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish (Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enough to transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boats could be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort to rowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesus stood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark 4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen miles long. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea to avoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g., Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).

In 1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-first century AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had been scuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “Jesus Boat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in length and has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of wood were used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life. While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or his disciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and it provides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.

A second source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT is the account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the case of Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paul learned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats: among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, he recalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea” (2 Cor. 11:25).

Paul’s journeys. A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives some idea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean.

1. Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleucia in Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus (Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). After journeying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where he embarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing again through the port at Salamis (14:26).

2. The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but rather with a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustrating that although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, the overland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul would repeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travel was fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternative land route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It is during the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts of Paul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed the short distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the island of Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast from Berea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey, Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus (18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call not mentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of sea travel so far mentioned.

3. The third missionary journey once more began with a long overland trip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had many associates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean, from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point, Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while his companions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, he sailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south of Cyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship again hugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Paul disembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate the variety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailing in deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there were reasons to make frequent stops.

4. Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to a trial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. From the account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at sea in the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and it carried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiers and prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’s friend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’s owner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and took soundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’s course could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds: twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to the lee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, but the only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.

When extended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option was simply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in a harbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learn something of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many of which are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hull of the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), the lifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchors were deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncoming waves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargo and gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah, sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see also the protective emblems in 28:11).

When all other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on a sandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage to the boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, the decision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of the ship (27:41).

Metaphors and illustrations. Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. James likens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship: although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a great ship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of the unwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph. 4:14). In 1 Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience is likened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’s faithfulness as an anchor for the soul.

(1) One of two bronze pillars erected by Solomon at the portico of the temple (1 Kings 7:15–22). Its name means “in him [is] strength.” Together with the other pillar, Jakin, the names form a prayer: “May he [the Lord] establish strength in him [Solomon].” The pillars may have been engraved with a royal inscription, but they were broken up at the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:13). (2) A man of Bethlehem who married Ruth the Moabite during the time of the judges. Boaz was an older, wealthy landowner who honored God in his words (Ruth 2:4, 12; 3:10) and deeds. He honored the Mosaic custom of allowing the disadvantaged to glean in his fields, but he went beyond this in providing for Naomi and Ruth. He also extended the custom of levirate marriage (see Deut. 25:5–10) to accord Ruth’s son to her deceased husband, although his own name appears in all the genealogies of David.

The second son of Azel (1 Chron. 8:38; 9:44), he was a descendant of Saul from the tribe of Benjamin.

A place near Gilgal where the angel of the Lord rebuked Israel for not tearing down the altars to foreign gods and proclaimed that the Lord would not drive out all the inhabi­tants of the land (Judg. 2:1–5). Thereupon the people wept, made sacrifices, and named the place “Bokim,” which means “weeping ones.”

The human body has its origin in the act of creation by God depicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “very good” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation (1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, in contrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as a prison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage. This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of human sexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriage relationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of the man and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where we find a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16) and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

Old Testament. In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body to the dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3). The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of proper burial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a health regulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberate desecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving an enemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring of proper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, as exemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

The Hebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be used of a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), though this word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”). This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/body distinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body” (whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body, not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within an overall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “the fruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf. Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to a male body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

New Testament. Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), and the Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements of drink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart of the gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3). For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himself body and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt. 26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, which would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possible the inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark 16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers (e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine and gospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they too will be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52), a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bible embraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physical creation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will be raised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In what is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor. 5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death he will not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothed with [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “away from the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication of bodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home with the Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leaving this earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in 1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies (e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable” and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (though gloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication is provided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, which could pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7), appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingest food and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paul made use the “body” analogy for the character of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26), viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependent members or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correct the self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christian community as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showed that their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at their suppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says that the believer’s “body” is united to Christ, making sexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believers are to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used a little differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18, 24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of the body (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction and rule. Believers are to pre­sent their “bodies” as a living sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom. 12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to the equation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind together make up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. See also Gestures.

An individual or group employed for the protection and security of a particularly important person or persons. Kings, leaders, and wealthy individuals or families may employ a bodyguard against real or imagined dangers. David was the captain of Saul’s bodyguard (1 Sam. 22:14), as well as Achish’s bodyguard for life (28:2). After he became king, David made Benaiah son of Jehoiada the captain of his own bodyguard (2 Sam. 23:23; 1 Chron. 11:25).

A skin disease caused by inflammation of hair follicles. Boils are the sixth plague sent by God upon the Egyptians (Exod. 9:8–12), described as the “festering boils” causing pain. These boils, along with the other plagues, show Yahweh’s power so that his name is declared in all the earth (6:1–7; 9:16). As a contracted skin disease, boils are examined by a priest in order to determine if someone who has them is ritually clean or unclean (Lev. 13:18–23). In one case, God hears King Hezekiah’s prayers and heals the boil that has afflicted him (2 Kings 20:7; Isa. 38:21). Boils are employed as one of the covenant curses for disobedience (Deut. 28:27, 35).

The second son of Azel (1 Chron. 8:38; 9:44), he was a descendant of Saul from the tribe of Benjamin.

A place near Gilgal where the angel of the Lord rebuked Israel for not tearing down the altars to foreign gods and proclaimed that the Lord would not drive out all the inhabi­tants of the land (Judg. 2:1–5). Thereupon the people wept, made sacrifices, and named the place “Bokim,” which means “weeping ones.”

An expression for a range of responses to a crisis or difficulty, from courage (Acts 4:29, 31; 2 Cor. 3:12; Eph. 3:12; Phil. 1:20; 1 Thess. 2:2) to shameless persistence (Luke 11:8). After Paul and Silas had been jailed in Philippi, they were willing to endure more persecution to preach to the Thessalonians (Acts 16:16–24; 1 Thess. 2:2). To the Philippians, the apostle reflects on his bold preaching (Phil. 1:20). The Christians’ relationship with Christ also gives them boldness to enter into God’s presence (Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16). The agent of Christian boldness is the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31).

In Exod. 9:31 the KJV rendering of the Hebrew word gib’ol, meaning “in bloom” (NIV) or “in bud” (NRSV).

A KJV rendering of the Hebrew word mera’ashot (lit., “at the heads”), referring to a long pillow or cushion (1 Sam. 19:13, 16; 26:7–16).

A bond typically represents a close relationship in Scripture. It can carry positive or negative connotations, as do related words such as “bondage.” In the sense of “chains,” bonds literally hold a slave to the master or a prisoner to the jail. God’s exiled people are likewise said to be held in bonds, from which he will rescue them (Jer. 30:8). Spiritually speaking, “bond” may describe the firm covenant relationship between God and his people (Jer. 2:20; 5:5; Ezek. 20:37). In the new covenant, believers are freed from bondage to sin and become Christ’s bondspeople (Rom. 6:16–22). This relationship with Christ in turn joins Christians to one another; in Ephesians this unity is called “the bond of peace” (4:3).

Of the 206 bones that comprise the adult skeletal structure, the Bible mentions only a few: rib (Gen. 1:21–22), hip (Gen. 32:25), skull (Judg. 9:53), jaw (Isa. 30:28), and legs (John 19:31–33). The Hebrew noun ’etsem shows evidence of both collective “limbs” (masc. pl.) and an individual sense of bones (fem. pl.). Nevertheless, while bones could be isolated, anatomical description tended more toward a holistic sense so that bones could refer to physical and psychological collapse in laments (Jer. 23:9) or to the entire person as a corpse (Gen. 50:25; 1 Sam. 31:13).

Overwhelmingly, however, anatomical “units” are used metaphorically for human emotions or attitudes: shame becomes “decay in [the] bones” (Prov. 12:4), fear makes “bones shake” (Job 4:14), and a sad spirit “dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). The phrase “bone of my bones” is an idiom, a kinship formula used to describe unity and close relatives (Gen. 2:23; cf. 2 Sam. 5:1).

The KJV rendering of two different Hebrew words: migba’a, the headband or cap of priests other than the high priest (e.g., Exod. 28:40; Lev. 8:13); pe’er, a headdress (Isa. 3:20) or turban (Ezek. 44:18).

Amos is largely concerned with judgment oracles against the nations, particularly Judah and Israel. Memorable for the numerical parallelisms that begin a series of speeches against various nations (“For three sins of X . . . , even for four . . . [1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6]), the book also concludes with a powerful anticipation of the restoration of Israel and “David’s fallen tent,” which the NT understands to point to Jesus, David’s greater son.

Historical Background

The superscription pinpoints Amos’s prophecy to a time “two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel” (1:1). The precise date of the earthquake is unknown, but we can approximately date the reign of Uzziah to 769–733 BC and of Jeroboam II to 784–748 BC, so it appears that Amos operated sometime in the confluence of Uzziah’s reign with Jeroboam’s (769–748 BC).

The era of these two kings was a time of great material prosperity (2 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 26:6–8). Assyria was relatively weak, though it had conquered one of Israel’s closer enemies, Syria, with its capital at Damascus. In the absence of these or other major rivals, Israel and Judah could grow. However, along with economic growth came spiritual confusion and ethical darkness, which Amos addresses.

Although Amos preaches during a period of prosperity for Israel, he foresees God’s coming judgment against their sins in the form of a powerful enemy (3:11; 5:3, 27; 6:6–14; 7:9, 17; 9:4). This enemy would turn out to be Assyria, which would begin its powerful westward expansion under Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and eventually incorporate Israel under Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in 722 BC. Judah would find itself under the shadow of this emergent superpower.

Amos came from Tekoa, a town just five miles south of Bethlehem, which itself is four miles south of Jerusalem. Although he was from Judah, his ministry was primarily directed toward the northern kingdom, prompting a northern priest, Amaziah, to tell him to go back to where he came from (7:10–17). Amos describes himself as a shepherd who tended flocks (1:1; 7:15) and as one who took care of sycamore-fig trees (7:14). Debate has been incessant about whether this points to his placement in the lower or upper classes of society.

Literary Considerations and Outline

The book of Amos contains a number of oracles, mostly judgment, but some salvation. These oracles are directed toward the surrounding nations (Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab) and then Judah and Israel, and in that order. The order, beginning with foreign nations and then moving to Judah and finally Israel, is intentional. The original audience that Amos addresses was located in Judah and especially in Israel. One can imagine a sympathetic audience to the declaration of violent judgment on the nations, but then Amos skillfully moves to God’s own people. As the following structure demonstrates, Israel was the main audience that received the most sustained chastisement:

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Introduction to the Message (1:2)

III. The Prophetic Oracles (1:3–6:14)

A. Oracles of Judgment against the Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:5)

1. Syria (represented by Damascus; 1:3–5)

2. Philistia (represented by Gaza; 1:6–8)

3. Tyre (1:9–10)

4. Edom (1:11–12)

5. Ammon (1:13–15)

6. Moab (2:1–3)

7. Judah (2:4–5)

B. Oracles of Judgment against Israel (2:6–6:14)

IV. The Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:15)

Notable in the final section is the concluding oracle, which is one of the few salvation oracles in the book. Amos 9:11–15 in particular looks forward to the future restoration of Israel: the restoration of the house of David, which is pictured as a renewal of David’s fallen tent.

Theological Message

Amos has a message of divine judgment against God’s people, particularly those in the northern kingdom. God is sovereign and will see to the appropriate punishment. God controls the nations, so he can raise up an enemy to bring destruction on Israel as well as other offending nations. Although the nations are the tool of his anger, there should be no mistake that it is God himself who is behind their punishment (1:4; 3:2, 14; 9:4).

The punishment is for idolatry and ethical violations, particularly social injustice. God’s people worshiped false gods (2:8; 5:5, 26; 7:9–13; 8:14). Also, the wealthy classes indulged in sins and oppressed the lower classes (2:7–8; 5:12; 8:6).

Amos is also well known as the first to use the language of the “day of the Lord” (5:18–20). Although this appears to be the first mention of this day in Scripture, the way Amos refers to it indicates that it was already known in his society. The people thought that the day of the Lord would be good for them, but Amos says that because of their sins, it will be horrible. The day of the Lord is the day of God’s coming as a warrior to judge sinners.

New Testament Connections

The NT shares Amos’s concern for social justice (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:22; James 2:1–10). More specifically, Amos is quoted in the NT a number of times, showing that the NT authors believe that his expectations for the future are coming to fulfillment in their time (compare Amos 5:15 with Rom. 12:9; Amos 5:25 with Acts 7:24). Most interesting is the early church’s understanding of Amos 9:11–12, quoted by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:16–17. Here one of the leaders, James, argues that the addition of the Gentiles into the people of God fulfills God’s promise to reunify Israel.

The book of Daniel contains gripping stories and complex visions of the end of history. While the former are easy to follow and provide clear moral lessons to readers, the latter are quite difficult to interpret. Set in a time when the people of God were living under the thumb of powerful pagan nations, the purpose of the book is to provide comfort and hope in the knowledge that God is in control and, in spite of present difficulties, will provide victory for his people.

Historical Background

Authorship and date. The book does not name an author. The first six chapters are stories about Daniel in a foreign court, and the last six chapters narrate four visions received by Daniel.

The traditional view holds that the events described in the book took place in the period 605–537 BC, and that the book, no matter when it was written, faithfully reflects actual events and the visions that Daniel received. Although the book nowhere insists that he is the author, it is possible, if not likely, that we are to think of Daniel as the author of at least the visions. Indeed, in 12:4 the angel tells him, “Roll up and seal the words of the scroll.” Daniel himself or a later inspired author could have given the book in its final form.

However, some scholars reject the idea that the book accurately reflects events of the period in question. They point to historical problems such as questions concerning the identity of Darius the Mede as well as the specificity of the prophecies particularly and argue that the book must have been written by an anonymous person after the predicted events. Indeed, they point to what they believe is an actual prophecy at the end of the book (11:40–45) that did not take place to suggest that the book was written in the mid-160s BC.

Those who believe that God could provide Daniel with a glimpse of the future do not have a problem with the precision of the description of future events. Further, 11:40–45 may be a picture of the antichrist in the far-distant future. It seems best to side with the traditional understanding of the book of Daniel as having been written early and reflecting an accurate depiction of Daniel’s life.

Ancient Near Eastern historical context. The book of Daniel begins with a Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, dated to 605 BC. Nebuchadnezzar, who according to Babylonian sources had just become king of Babylon, demands tokens of Judean submission: vessels from the temple and hostages from the royal family and nobility, including Daniel and three friends. Since 626 BC the Babylonians have been on the uprise, displacing Assyria as the superpower of the day. The action of Dan. 1–4 takes place in Babylon during the reign of the powerful empire builder Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel lives longer than the king, and Dan. 5 is set during the rule of a man named “Belshazzar.” The story concerns the end of the Babylonian Empire, and it was initially puzzling that Babylonian sources rediscovered beginning in the nineteenth century AD named Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon rather than Belshazzar. However, texts discovered more recently have resolved the problem, demonstrating that Belshazzar (known in the Babylonian texts as Bel-shar-usur) was the son of Nabonidus and his coregent: Belshazzar ruled in the city of Babylon while Nabonidus ruled from an oasis (Teima) in what is today Saudi Arabia. The visions recorded in Dan. 7–8 are dated to the time of this Belshazzar.

Daniel even survived the fall of the Babylonian Empire and found a place of importance in the Persian Empire (Dan. 6), which succeeded it. The first ruler of this Persian Empire was Cyrus, though Dan. 6 speaks of a king named “Darius.” Some believe this is a historical mistake because there was a King Darius who ruled some years after Cyrus, but it is likely that “Darius” is either another name for Cyrus or perhaps a subruler in charge of Babylon. The visions found in Dan. 9–12 are dated to the time of Darius/Cyrus.

Daniel almost certainly died during the reign of Darius/Cyrus, but his prophetic vision extended beyond even the Persian Empire, which ended with the conquest by the Greek Alexander the Great in 333 BC.

Text. An interesting feature of the original text of Daniel is that it is written in two languages. Daniel 1:1–2:4a; 8:1–12:13 is in Hebrew, while Dan. 2:4b–7:28 is in Aramaic. This extensive use of two languages is unique in a single biblical book. Although the Aramaic begins when the text announces that the astrologers answered the king in Aramaic, no persuasive reason has been offered for why the text continues in Aramaic until the end of chapter 7.

The evidence from the eight partial and fragmentary manuscripts of Daniel from the DSS supports the antiquity and authenticity of the text that is used to translate the book into modern languages, including English. It also supports the use of two languages in the book.

Early Greek versions of Daniel have additions that are found in modern Bibles that include the Apocrypha. The first of these is the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, which is found after Dan. 3:23. The story of Susanna appears in some Greek manuscripts before Dan. 1 and in others after Dan. 12. Bel and the Dragon concludes the book.

Literary Considerations and Outline

There are two major parts of the book. The first half (Dan. 1–6) is composed of six stories of Daniel in a foreign court, and the second half (Dan. 7–12) is composed of four apocalyptic visions. A more detailed outline of the book is as follows:

I. Daniel in a Foreign Court (1:1–6:28)

A. Daniel and his friends in the Babylonian court (1:1–21)

B. God’s wisdom versus Babylonian wisdom (2:1–49)

C. God saves the three friends from the fiery furnace (3:1–30)

D. Nebuchadnezzar’s pride takes a fall (4:1–37)

E. Writing on the wall (5:1–31)

F. Daniel in the lions’ den (6:1–28)

II. Four Visions (7:1–12:13)

A. The four beasts and the one like a son of man (7:1–28)

B. The ram and the goat (8:1–27)

C. The seventy weeks (9:1–27)

D. The scope and end of history (10:1–12:13)

The stories of the first six chapters may be identified as court narratives that focus on Daniel and the three friends and their interactions with the rulers. Such interaction often brings them into conflict with the Babylonian wise men and other officials. Of course, Daniel and his friends are successful in the various court contests and conflicts because their God is with them.

The visions of the last six chapters have been called “apocalyptic.” Apocalyptic literature has a distinct form from even the type of prophecy that we read in a book such as Jeremiah (see Apocalyptic). In Jeremiah, God gives a message to the prophet, who is told to communicate with the people so that they might change their behavior and thus avoid punishment. God never speaks to Daniel. He has a vision, and an angel interprets the vision for him. He is told not to preach the message of the vision. The purpose of such visions is not to elicit repentance but rather to assure God’s faithful people that, although they are presently being oppressed, God is with them and will win the victory in the end.

Apocalyptic literature features an intense use of striking images. Beasts arise out of a sea, a humanlike figure rides a cloud chariot, and a goat butts heads with a ram. Although this imagery strikes modern readers as odd, it communicated clearly to its ancient audience, which knew that the sea and its monsters represented evil and chaos, the cloud rider was God on his storm chariot, and the ram represented Persia and the goat Greece.

Theological Message

Though varied in genre with six stories and four visions, the basic message of the book of Daniel is clear and repeated in each: in spite of present difficulties, God is in control and will have the victory. The book intends to instill in its readers a sense of calmness in the midst of crisis: although persecuted and/or living in a culture toxic to their faith, not only can they survive but they can thrive.

Daniel 1 illustrates this theme among the stories. Young Daniel and his friends are forced to go into exile in Babylon. Though faithful, they are subjected to the pagan curriculum of the court to become wise men. Such study would have included astrology and other forms of divination. Furthermore, they are required to eat a diet that will assure that they become robust. But by refusing to eat the rich food prescribed by the king and consuming only vegetables and water, they give God room to work. Thus, when later they are proclaimed to be “better nourished” than those who eat the king’s diet, they know that it is not because of the king’s diet but because of God. They are also more learned than others in the court. Daniel 2 demonstrates how their exceptional wisdom is not the result of their Babylonian education, but because of God’s wisdom. So in spite of their present situation, they not only survive but also thrive, as evidenced by their promotions in the king’s court.

Daniel 7 illustrates this important theme among the apocalyptic visions. The vision begins with the description of hybrid beasts that arise from the sea. They are evil kingdoms that oppress the people of God. However, the vision looks beyond the present to the arrival of the “one like a son of man” on his cloud chariot, who will lead the saints of the Most High God in a victorious battle against these forces of evil.

New Testament Connections

Daniel’s visions look to the far future when God will appear and bring history to a close with a tremendous victory over the forces of evil. Not surprisingly, Daniel’s imagery permeates the apocalyptic materials in the NT that speak of the second coming of Jesus Christ. For instance, in the book of Revelation evil is imaged as a sea monster (Rev. 13) that reminds the reader of the four sea beasts of Dan. 7. Jesus, the one who defeats this epitome of evil, is called “Son of Man” in the NT and is pictured as appearing on a cloud at the end of time (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; cf. Rev. 1:7).

Deuteronomy concludes the Torah. It is the fifth scroll or chapter of the work traditionally ascribed to Moses. Its title is derived from the LXX and literally means “the second law.” The name is appropriate in view of the fact that in it Moses takes a final opportunity, before the people go into the promised land and he ascends Mount Nebo to die, to speak to the people about their obligations before God. Many of the laws of the book, most notably the Ten Commandments (compare Deut. 5 with Exod. 20), may be found in an earlier form elsewhere in the Torah, but there are also many new laws as well (see below, “Genre and Message”). In essence, this final sermon by Moses takes the form of a covenant by which the people of God reaffirm their relationship to Yahweh.

Author and Date

Deuteronomy is the capstone of the literary work known as the Torah. With Deuteronomy, however, a few more comments need to be made. In one sense, this book is the one most closely associated with Moses, as it contains speeches that he made to the people of Israel before they entered the land. However, these speeches are placed within a narrative framework that does not name an author. Some scholars date its composition as late as the seventh century BC, long after the time of Moses, because although 2 Kings 22 describes the rediscovery of a portion of the law that leads that generation to centralize its worship, indicating that the book is Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 12), these scholars suspect that the book was written, rather than found, at this time.

More in keeping with the evidence of the book itself is the conclusion that it originates with Moses’ speech, although we must also allow that it was updated and edited later in the history of Israel.

Genre, Outline, and Message

The book intriguingly takes the form of an ancient treaty similar to treaties formulated in countries that surround Israel. This observation is in keeping with the understanding of the book as a covenant renewal, since biblical covenants are essentially treaties between God and his people established through a mediator, in this case Moses. Such ancient treaties have the following five-part structure, and Deuteronomy roughly follows this pattern:

I. Preamble Introducing the Parties to the Treaty (1:1–5)

II. Historical Prologue (1:6–3:29)

III. Law (4–26)

IV. Curses and Blessings (27–30)

V. Witnesses and Other Arrangements for the Future (31–34)

The richness of Deuteronomy’s message makes it hard to summarize the book. Yet behind the concept of a covenant/treaty stands the metaphor of God as a great king over his servant people. The various parts of the covenant feed into this idea. The preamble introduces the parties: God and Israel. Moses mediates the covenant between the two. The historical prologue then narrates the history of the relationship up to the present. The purpose is to make explicit how gracious the king has been toward his people in the past. This history provides the background for the next and longest section in Deuteronomy, the law. God has established this relationship with Israel by grace, and Israel should respond by obeying his commands. Law naturally leads to the curses and the blessings. If the Israelites obey, they will experience God’s blessing, but if they disobey, they will feel his curse. Since the treaty/covenant is a legal document, there are witnesses, who will observe the relationship and, if Israel is disobedient, will confirm the justice of the judgment. This last section simply looks to the future maintenance of the covenant.

The Deuteronomic covenant is a reaffirmation of the covenant formulated at Sinai (Exod. 19–24), and as such it emphasizes the law. This law casts its long shadow over much of the biblical material that comes after Deuteronomy. For instance, the history that follows (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in contrast to Chronicles) seems to look at the history of Israel through the lens of the distinctively Deuteronomic law. Virtually every king is evaluated as to whether he keeps the law of centralization (a law, by the way, not found in earlier collections [Deut. 12]). Furthermore, some prophets (e.g., Jeremiah) bring their message of judgment specifically because the Israelites have broken the law of the covenant and therefore deserve the curses.

Thus, the significance of Deuteronomy is hard to overestimate. It is the capstone of the Pentateuch, and it informs the theology of much of the OT that follows.

Continuing Relevance

Deuteronomy is a renewal of the covenant between God and his people at a point of potential crisis in the community. Their leader Moses is about to die, and the Israelites are given the opportunity to reaffirm their allegiance to God and their determination to keep his law. As we know from the history that follows, they failed to keep their word. As we read the story of Christ’s temptation (Matt. 4:1–11) in light of Deuteronomy, we observe that Satan tries to provoke him to sin in a way similar to Israel in the wilderness by using hunger, the testing of God, and idolatry. Jesus is obedient where the Israelites have been disobedient, and in resisting these temptations he quotes Deuteronomy three times. Jesus is the obedient Son of God.

The law of Deuteronomy is not totally in effect today. Some of the laws concern rituals that are fulfilled in Christ, and other laws are shaped to address the needs of the ancient Israelite culture. For instance, when the roofs of houses were living areas, it made sense to promote life by requiring that barriers be built around their edges to keep people from falling off (Deut. 22:8). Even so, the general principles are still in effect, and even in regard to the law requiring roof barriers, we may learn that it is important to build fences around, say, swimming pools.

Finally, it has long been noted that Deuteronomy pays special attention to protections for the socially vulnerable in society. Widows, orphans, and resident aliens are given special consideration in the laws of Deuteronomy.

Title

The English title “Ecclesiastes” comes to us from the LXX by way of the Vulgate. The Greek title is from a word that means “assembly” or “gathering” (the common NT word for “church” is ekklēsia). This may reflect an understanding of the Hebrew title for the book, “Qoheleth,” since the Hebrew root qhl, from which “Qoheleth” is derived, can mean “to assemble.” “Qoheleth” is the Hebrew name not only of the book but also of the main character, which, in keeping with the notion of “assembly,” has commonly been translated “Preacher” or “Teacher.” It is highly questionable whether this reflects the Hebrew meaning, however, and it is best to treat “Qoheleth” as a nickname.

Authorship and Date

Throughout much of the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation, “Qoheleth” was thought to be a nickname for Solomon himself, and so Solomon was assumed to be the author. The so-called pessimism of the book (to which we will return below) is thought to represent Solomon’s rather dismal, perhaps penitent, view of things toward the end of his life. A connection between Solomon and Qoheleth is forged on the basis of 1 Kings 8, which refers to Solomon “gathering” (Heb. qhl) the people together for the dedication of the temple. Furthermore, the book begins with “the words of Qoheleth [NIV: “the Teacher”], son of David, king in Jerusalem.”

Thus, there seems to be good reason to conclude that Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, perhaps somewhere toward the end of his life (c. 930 BC). There are, however, several important factors that make this identification difficult to maintain.

For one thing, there is evidence within the book itself. For example, the traditional reference to Solomon specifically would be quite odd, given what we see in 1:16: “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me.” Only David preceded Solomon ruling in Jerusalem, yet this statement gives the impression that there was a long line of kings whose wisdom was exceeded by this later “Qoheleth.”

One should also keep in mind that nowhere does the book mention Solomon as the author. It is widely accepted today among scholars of various persuasions that “Qoheleth” is not a secretive name for Solomon, but rather an attempt by an anonymous author to signal Solomon while also making it clear that he himself is not claiming to be Solomon. This is not a tactic of deception but rather a literary device used by an author to make a sustained theological point, one that does not come to a conclusion until the end of the book.

Two other important factors point away from Solomonic authorship and toward anonymous authorship at a considerably later date. First, the Solomonic persona is not sustained throughout the book. The further one reads in the book, the less kingly the author sounds. The persona is sustained well in chapters 1–3. But beginning with chapter 4 and in several other places afterward, there seems to be a gap between the author and kingship (e.g., 4:1–3). In fact, the author even seems to harbor a touch of animosity for the institution of kingship (5:8–9; 10:20). Second is the factor of language. Hebrew scholars have long noted that the Hebrew language, like all languages, developed and changed over time (cf. the differences between King James English and modern English). The Hebrew of Ecclesiastes has features (e.g., certain vocabulary, general style) that have led scholars, almost universally, to conclude that someone living in the tenth century BC could not have written it. Proposed dates vary anywhere from sometime before the exile (587 BC), to the exilic (587/586–539 BC) and postexilic periods (fifth century BC), even as late as the Hellenistic period (fourth century BC or later).

The general consensus, therefore, is that the book known as Ecclesiastes is an anonymous work by an author assuming a Solomonic identity, not for the purpose of deceiving his readers, but as a vehicle for what he wants to express. This type of literary device, whereby the writer takes on a pseudonym, became quite common after the exile as a means of inspiring contemporary readers to remain faithful to God. For readers today, it is probably more helpful to think of “Qoheleth” not as a pseudonym but rather as a nickname, or a literary device, such as when any author creates a character and speaks through it in the first person.

Outline and Structure

I. Frame Narrative Introduction (1:1–11)

II. The Words of Qoheleth (1:12–12:7)

III. Frame Narrative Summary and Conclusion (12:8–14)

Ecclesiastes has an overall structure that is easily discerned simply by reading through the book. The words of Qoheleth are found in 1:12–12:7; here the main character speaks in the first person. The sections 1:1–11 and 12:8–14 are in the third person and form the narrative frame of the book. Note that (after a general introduction in 1:1) 1:2 and 12:8, with the well-known refrain that everything is “meaningless” (see below), are virtually identical. The frame narrator, as he is sometimes called, begins and ends on the same note. The purpose of 1:1–11 is to introduce the thinking of Qoheleth, whereas 12:8–14 summarizes his thinking and then concludes the book.

Even though this overall structure is fairly obvious, its significance is not. For one thing, it raises the question of whether the book has two authors: one responsible for the first-person reflections and another responsible for the third-person evaluation. This has been an opinion of scholars, but most today simply consider Ecclesiastes to have one author, where the words of Qoheleth in 1:12–12:7 reflect the author’s rhetorical decision to adopt a Solomonic persona, as mentioned above.

Another question raised by the structure is precisely what the frame narrator’s evaluation of Qoheleth is. Here the differences of opinion among scholars are a bit clearer, and the matter more or less comes down to whether the frame narrator is negatively disposed toward Qoheleth or more supportive. In a sense, it is not at all a mystery how the frame narrator summarizes Qoheleth’s words. The opening words in 1:1–11 are very clear: everything is meaningless (v. 2); there is nothing to gain from our labors (v. 3); the point is illustrated in the natural world (vv. 4–10); in the end we all die, and no one is remembered (v. 11). The message is not a particularly encouraging one, but there is little doubt about how the frame narrator summarizes Qoheleth.

When we return to the frame narrator in 12:8, after repeating his summary of 1:2, he begins an evaluation of Qoheleth’s words. Much of the scholarly disagreement mentioned above concerns this portion of the text: does the frame narrator evaluate Qoheleth positively or negatively? On the one hand, so much of what Qoheleth says in the previous chapters has been considered theologically problematic, even since early rabbinic days (e.g., 1:18; 2:15–16; 3:18–21). One would expect a negative evaluation of Qoheleth’s theology. On the other hand, the frame narrator does not seem too quick to condemn Qoheleth. In fact, he is quite complimentary in 12:9–10.

The evaluation of the frame narrator is perhaps best understood as both expressing support for Qoheleth’s wisdom (12:9–10) and offering some advice to his readers to move forward, beyond Qoheleth (12:13–14). “Yes, Qoheleth is wise,” the frame narrator seems to be saying. “Take his observations to heart. But ultimately, your duty is to fear God and keep his commandments, knowing that he is the supreme judge.” The value of such an approach to reading Ecclesiastes is that readers are dissuaded from dismissing Qoheleth’s words as those of a lunatic or an unbeliever. There is a reason that 203 of the 221 verses of the book belong to Qoheleth, and it is unlikely that the frame narrator’s evaluation is a simple dismissal. In other words, we are forced to wrestle with Qoheleth’s words, take them seriously, perhaps even identify with this wise man’s bouts with faith.

With respect to the structure of the book, a much more difficult issue is to discern some logic, some structure, to Qoheleth’s thoughts in 1:12–12:7. There is a significant amount of interweaving and revisiting of themes. Sometimes they seem to come almost out of nowhere: Qoheleth apparently is on one topic, then seems to take a dramatic shift to another, but only to return a few verses later to the previous topic. This phenomenon proves challenging for any interpreter. The author of Ecclesiastes does not seem overly concerned to accommodate our expectation of a certain type of order in a text.

Furthermore, Qoheleth is not consistent in his thinking. This becomes evident when one compares, for example, 1:18 with 2:13; 5:10 with 10:19; or 7:3 with 8:15. These inconsistencies, however, are not there for readers to solve; much less are they evidence that Qoheleth is not worth listening to. Rather, such inconsistencies reflect Qoheleth’s struggles, and these struggles are what drive the book forward. To put it another way, readers are invited to enter into Qoheleth’s world, feel his pain, so to speak, and not remain outside, at a lofty distance.

Qoheleth’s Message

The message of the book as a whole depends on how one understands the function of the frame narrator’s evaluation in 12:8–14 (see above). But what is Qoheleth, in 1:12–12:7, trying to say about life? What is he saying that drives him to the conclusion, again and again, that everything is “meaningless”? First, we must pause for a word of explanation of “meaningless.” This is one well-known English translation (the KJV has “vanity”) for the Hebrew word hebel. But a careful reading of Qoheleth’s words will show that he is not really saying that everything is meaningless, in the sense that life is empty. Rather, he is expressing extreme frustration, even anger, that things are the way they are. Hence, a better translation may be that everything is “absurd.”

What makes everything absurd? Qoheleth says that everything is absurd because there is no “profit” in anything that we do, no payoff (6:11). This notion is summarized in 1:4–10. And why is there ultimately no profit in anything that we do? The answer is summarized in 1:11 and becomes a dominant theme for Qoheleth: in the end, we all die, and no one remembers us. This is the absurdity that brings Qoheleth to ask big questions and make some striking comments. Yet, it is this same Qoheleth whom the frame narrator calls “wise” and to whose words we are to pay close attention.

Esther is a provocative book, not least because it nowhere explicitly mentions God. Although this fact has led to questions concerning the book’s canonical authority, close readers recognize that God is very present in all the “coincidences” of the story (see “Theological Message” below).

Author and Date

Esther is written anonymously. The book is set within the reign of Ahasuerus, king of Persia, who is also known by his Greek name, “Xerxes” (r. 486–465 BC). This places the events of the book between the time of the first return after the exile under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel and the later postexilic period when Ezra and Nehemiah lived. Whereas the book of Ezra-Nehemiah gives the reader a picture of postexilic life in and around Jerusalem, the book of Esther reminds the reader that many Jews decided not to return, and thus the Diaspora (scattering) continues until today. The exact date and composition of the book after these events is unknown.

Genre and Outline

Esther is a wonderfully written story. Its characters are memorable, and its plot is exciting and uplifting. The debate concerns whether the book also intends to record history, what actually happened. Because the narrated events take place during the reign of a king who we know existed, and because the story, for the most part, rings true of the period in which the narration takes place, the reader is led to suspect that the book is a work of history.

The book describes a number of feasts, which provide the following structure:

I. The Feasts of Xerxes (1:1–2:8)

II. The Feasts of Esther (2:19–7:10)

III. The Feast of Purim (8–10)

Theological Message

The purpose of the book of Esther is to explain how the Feast of Purim originated. At this time, Purim becomes one of the annual festivals of the Jewish people. It is the celebration of a time when God delivered his people from an almost certain end.

The story begins with a great banquet (chap. 1). King Ahasuerus throws a feast for all the important people of his kingdom. At the climactic point of the celebration, he calls for his queen, Vashti, so that all his subjects can see her great beauty. She refuses, creating a crisis. After all, this banquet likely had as its purpose the assertion of the king’s authority over his leaders, and this disobedience could not be tolerated. Vashti is deposed, and the search begins for a new queen. The king takes full advantage of this opportunity and tries out many beautiful young women in his kingdom, but none is as outstanding as Esther. Her selection as queen provides background for the action that follows.

In the meantime, Esther’s relative Mordecai also has an experience that carries importance later in the story. Mordecai foils an assassination plot against the king. At this point in the narrative, his action is simply given as information (2:21–23).

The reader is also introduced to one more major character in the book, Haman the Agagite. He is a powerful, evil figure. He hates Mordecai for refusing to show him the respect that he feels is his due (3:1–6). So he determines to kill not just Mordecai but all the Jewish people in the empire. Accordingly, Haman convinces the king to allow him to set a date when all the Jews might be killed. Lots (Heb. purim, from an Akkadian loanword) are cast to choose the date, about a year later (3:7–15).

Mordecai catches wind of the plot and explains the dire situation to Esther. He pleads with her to approach the king to inform him of the plot. Esther hesitates, until Mordecai reminds her that she will not escape the consequences just because she is queen (chap. 4). In the context of this discussion, Mordecai speaks the most famous words of the book when he asks, “Who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (4:14).

This scene raises the question of who is the hero of the story. Although Mordecai and Esther perform admirable acts, there is a force behind the scenes that the narrative does not name but subtly and certainly makes clear is the hero. It is none other than God himself. The coincidences that follow are just too great to be attributed to chance.

First, Esther is given permission to approach the king, and she successfully invites him to a feast along with Haman (5:1–8). This invitation fuels Haman’s pride. Soon thereafter, the king has difficulty sleeping and asks that the royal annals be read to him. Coincidentally, or so it seems, the part of the annals chosen informs the king of Mordecai’s earlier service in foiling the assassination plot. The king is told that nothing has yet been done to honor Mordecai for his act (6:1–3).

The next morning, Haman comes to court having just constructed a huge gallows on which to execute his enemy Mordecai. When asked by the king what he should do to honor a person whom the king has desired to honor, Haman thinks that it is he who will receive the honor, so he piles up honor after honor. When informed that Mordecai is the one, and that he, Haman, would take a role in honoring him, Haman realizes that his own doom is assured (6:4–14).

Sure enough, at the banquet Esther informs the king of the underside of Haman’s plot. The result is that Haman is killed on the gallows built for Mordecai, yet another ironic reversal in the book (chap. 7).

A problem persists, however. The king has determined a date for the destruction of the Jews, and a decree of a Persian king is irreversible. Although the king cannot reverse his decision to allow the killing of the Jewish people, he can, and does, issue a second decree, permitting the Jewish people to defend themselves (chap. 8). On the fateful day, the Jews are victorious over their enemies, the final and climactic ironic reversal (9:1–19). Purim is established as an annual festival to celebrate this fact (9:20–32).

A deeper significance to this conflict is recovered once it is realized that this is a story of unfinished business. The attentive reader recognizes that Mordecai’s membership in the clan of Kish (2:5) connects him with Saul, since Kish was Saul’s father. On the other hand, Haman is an Agagite (3:1) and therefore related to the Amalekite king Agag, whom Saul, against God’s instructions, did not immediately kill (1 Sam. 15). The story actually begins during the wilderness wandering, when the Amalekites tried to kill off the Israelites before they entered the promised land. At that time, God determined that the Amalekites should be judged and eradicated (Exod. 17:16; Deut. 25:17–19). That a Saulide (Mordecai) defeats an Amalekite (Haman) has deep significance in the past.

Contemporary Significance

Although God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, readers clearly see his hand in the events of the story. There are no miracles, but the survival of God’s people is as much a matter of divine providence as the crossing of the Red Sea in the book of Exodus. God works in the “ordinary” events of life “for the good of those who love him” (Rom. 8:28). The people of God today are locked in a war, not with Agagites like Haman, but rather with the more imposing spiritual powers and principalities mentioned in passages such as Eph. 6:10–20. The book of Esther is a reminder that God is in control even when doom looks certain. Christians know that not even death can separate them from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:37–38).

The book of Exodus (the second book of the OT and of the Pentateuch) continues the story begun in Gen. 12 of the election of Abraham as God’s choice for the beginning of a new people. Abraham’s great-grandson Joseph was taken to Egypt as a slave but rose to power there. Eventually, his father, Jacob, along with his brothers and their families, made the trek to Egypt and settled there. Both Jacob and Joseph died in Egypt, and it is here that the book of Exodus picks up. In Egypt the Israelites at first found a safe haven, only to be enslaved later by a “new king” (Exod. 1:8). The book of Exodus tells the story of the Israelites’ struggles in Egypt, their deliverance through Moses (perhaps the central human figure in the OT), their trek to Mount Sinai, and their continued movement to Canaan, the promised land.

Authorship, Date, and Historical Issues

Authorship and date. The authorship of Exodus must be considered together with the larger issue of the authorship of the Pentateuch (see Pentateuch). This is one of the more central issues in the history of modern OT scholarship. Generally, Moses was considered the sole or essential author throughout much of the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation. This is not to say that careful readers of the Pentateuch did not raise thoughtful questions concerning passages that were problematic for Mosaic authorship. For example, the fifth-century translator Jerome raised the question of whether Moses could have recorded the story of his own death (Deut. 34). Serious questions concerning Mosaic authorship, however, did not become the dominant trend among scholars until the seventeenth century. The presence of numerous post-Mosaic elements as well as repetition in some key stories (e.g., the two creation stories in Gen. 1–2 and the repetition in the flood narrative in Gen. 6–9) suggested that the authorship question might be more complicated than traditionally understood. Some of these earlier discussions were not necessarily hostile to divine inspiration or to the notion of “basic” or “essential” Mosaic authorship. Nevertheless, the scholarly debates were synthesized in the latter half of the nineteenth century by Julius Wellhausen and his well-known Documentary Hypothesis. His theory presented considerable challenges to traditional views of pentateuchal authorship, and the Documentary Hypothesis soon became widely accepted throughout the scholarly world.

Wellhausen’s views have undergone continual revision and refinement, as well as essential rejection. In contemporary academic dialogue, it is fair to say that precisely who wrote the Pentateuch that we have and when it was finalized remain open questions. A commonly accepted position, also among evangelicals, is that the Pentateuch we have today (i.e., its final form) is not the work of someone living in the middle of the second millennium BC (the traditional date for the life of Moses). The question is not of Moses’ genius and special preparation for the task before him, or of his having received the law on Mount Sinai and having recorded certain events; rather, the question specifically concerns the historical period in which the Pentateuch as we know it came to be. And with respect to this specific question, contemporary biblical scholars commonly attribute the final form of the Pentateuch to later scribes (in the exilic and postexilic eras), using older material, both written and oral, at least some of it going back to Moses himself. Hence, terms such as “essential Mosaic authorship,” although not precisely defined, have become common designations. References to the Pentateuch as the “Law of Moses” or similar phrases do not function as authorial statements in the modern sense of the word (i.e., refer to the one sitting down and doing the writing), but rather reflect the close association between the text and the events that lie behind it. We are perhaps not unwise to allow the question of the human authorship of the Pentateuch to remain open while also confessing that God is free to bring his word into existence in any way he sees fit.

Historicity. One reason why Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has been such a focal point, however, concerns the question of the historicity of Exodus and of the Pentateuch in general. If Moses is not the author in the usual sense of the word, and if the Pentateuch as we know it was written by hands much removed from the events themselves, how can we be assured of its historical reliability? This is a fair question, although it assumes that eyewitnesses (or near eyewitnesses) would better guarantee historical accuracy than those more removed from the events. But one could just as easily argue that having some historical distance could make one more perceptive about the significance of past events. More important, however, such a view could appear to be limiting God’s ability to allow the Pentateuch to develop through a historical process over a certain length of time. Since God is the ultimate author, non-Mosaic authorship does not imply an inability to produce a historically reliable text.

With respect to Exodus specifically, more serious questions concerning historicity have come from archaeological evidence—or better, lack of evidence. First, there are two reigning possibilities for the date of the exodus. The traditional date is around 1446/1447 BC and is based essentially on a literal reading of 1 Kings 6:1, which puts the exodus 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, around 966/967 BC. The alternate date is around 1270/1260 BC and is based on a symbolic reading of 1 Kings 6:1 and indirect archaeological evidence concerning “Pithom and Rameses” (Exod. 1:11) and some conquest sites. Concerning the latter, there is evidence for the destruction of some Canaanite towns, beginning around 1230–1220 BC, which, according to the biblical record, were destroyed right after Israel’s entrance into Canaan. Hence, if the evidence for the destruction of these towns points to about 1230–1220 BC, a rough date of 1270/1260 BC for the exodus accounts for the intervening forty years of wilderness wandering.

However, biblical archaeologists have persistently maintained that there is no positive archaeological evidence for the existence of Israelite slaves in Egypt during the time when the exodus would have taken place. This absence of evidence has been understood in very different ways by people of different camps. For some, the absence of any sort of Israelite material remains in Egypt, not to mention the lack of any written Egyptian record of Israelite presence, is a fairly clear indication that such events never took place; modern scholarship is replete with theories to account for the biblical record, from complete fabrication to later legendizing of sparse, ancient records. Others consider the absence of written evidence to indicate Egyptian embarrassment at having been bested by a group of slaves (why would they want to keep a record of that?). The absence of evidence of specifically Israelite material culture in Egypt is attributed either to Israelite assimilation into Egyptian culture or to similarities with other Semitic peoples in Egypt during the second millennium BC.

Although the question of the historicity of the exodus is very much an open subject, recent work, particularly by evangelical scholars, has begun mounting arguments for the presence of Semitic peoples in second-millennium Egypt and therefore for the historical plausibility of Israelite presence, enslavement, and release from Egyptian captivity. From a scholarly point of view, this issue will not be settled in the near future, and much of the debate includes questions of a more philosophical nature, such as “What does it mean to ‘record’ history?” “What did it mean to record history in the ancient world as opposed to our modern world?” “What type of historical account should we expect from ancient Israelites?” These and other similar questions broaden the discussion considerably and ensure that it will be ongoing.

Outline

In its simplest outline, Exodus may be roughly divided into two parts, which highlight the Israelites’ departure from Egypt and their sojourn at the foot of Mount Sinai:

I. Departure from Egypt (1–15)

II. Journey to and Arrival at Mount Sinai (16–40)

A subdivision of section II can easily be justified, since two basic events at Mount Sinai are recounted in chapters 16–40, the giving of the law and the building of the tabernacle:

I. Departure from Egypt (1–15)

II. Mount Sinai: Law (16–24)

III. Mount Sinai: Tabernacle (25–40)

‘

This three-point outline gives the broad contours of Exodus, but a bit more detail will perhaps provide a more useful presentation of the book’s contents:

I. Departure from Egypt (1–15)

A. Prelude and call of Moses (1–6)

B. Plagues (7–12)

C. Departure (13–15)

II. Mount Sinai: Law (16–24)

A. Journey to Sinai (16–18)

B. Ten Commandments (19–20)

C. The Book of the Covenant (21–24)

III. Mount Sinai: Tabernacle (25–40)

A. Instructions for the tabernacle (25–31)

B. Rebellion and forgiveness (32–34)

C. Building the tabernacle (35–40)

What is immediately striking, even through such a sparse outline, is how much space is devoted to the events on Mount Sinai. Exodus is much more than a record of historical events, as one might find in a modern textbook of American history. It is, rather, a profound theological statement, both in its own right as well as part of the Pentateuch as a whole, whose focus is not simply on the Israelites’ release from Egypt but also on their arrival at Mount Sinai. The structure of the book, in other words, leads us to understand something of the book’s theology.

Theology

Creation. Already in the first chapter we see connections to Genesis, which tell us that we cannot read Exodus in isolation. For example, Exod. 1:1 closely parallels Gen. 46:8. The latter speaks of the Israelites going down into Egypt, and the former picks up on this theme, thus reminding us that Israel’s presence in Egypt was not an accident and that Exodus is a continuation of the story begun in Genesis. Likewise, the use of creation language in Exod. 1:7 (the Israelites were fruitful, multiplying, becoming numerous, filling the earth; compare to Gen. 1:21, 28; 8:17; 9:1) signals that Israel’s impending drama is somehow connected to creation. That point is made clearer in the chapters that follow. Perhaps most central is the crossing of the Red Sea. As in Gen. 1:9, where the dry land appears where once there was water, here the dry land (Exod. 14:21) appears to make a path through the sea.

There is, in fact, a fair amount of Exodus that plays on this theological theme of creation and the reversal of creation. In ancient Near Eastern conceptions of creation, water represented chaos. The gods’ role was to tame the chaos so that the earth could be inhabited. Separating the land from the primordial sea was an important part of that, and this is reflected in the biblical account in Gen. 1. The flood in Gen. 6–9 is a reversal of that creative act, where God allows the waters of chaos to come crashing down on his creation, thus making it uninhabitable again. Exodus continues this theme, but here creation is called upon to aid the Israelites in their escape, whereas it is used against the Egyptians. The ten plagues, for example, are declarations that Israel’s God controls the cosmos, whereas Egypt’s gods stand by helplessly. The plague of darkness in particular is a graphic reversal of what God had done in Genesis, the creation of light and the separation of light from darkness. Israel’s deliverance from Egypt is, in other words, another act of creation: the same God who brought order to cosmic chaos in Gen. 1 is now unleashing the forces of creation to save his people and punish their enemies. And whereas Pharaoh’s Egyptians are able to reproduce the first sign and the first two plagues, it is only Israel’s God who can end the plagues and restore order to chaos.

Israel has been delivered from Egypt for a purpose, and that purpose begins to become clear in the chapters that follow their departure. The newly created people of Israel are not delivered from Egypt so that they can be “free” from bondage. The key struggle in the opening chapters of Exodus, indeed, the whole reason for the ten plagues, is to determine to whom Israel belongs, whether to Pharaoh or to Yahweh, Israel’s God. The Hebrew word ’abad can mean both “serve” (in the sense of servitude) and “worship.” In a wonderful play on words, the question being asked in the opening chapters is “Whom will Israel ’abad, Pharaoh or Yahweh?” But Yahweh claims his people, not so that they can be liberated to go where they please, but rather so that they are free to move from serving/worshiping Pharaoh to serving/worshiping Yahweh on Mount Sinai.

This is why so much of Exodus concerns the journey to Mount Sinai and what happens there. Much of the “action” may end by chapter 19, but the reason for the action is to get the Israelites to Mount Sinai so that they can begin their proper life of service to Yahweh and Yahweh alone. And this service involves two things: proper behavior (law) and proper worship (tabernacle). These are the main topics of the remainder of the book of Exodus. And the fact that so much text is dedicated to these two topics, which may be of relatively little interest to Christian readers, is an indication of their central importance to the theology of the OT.

Law. It is important to understand that the law was given to the Israelites after they had been redeemed from Egypt, not before. The law is a gift to those who have been saved. It is not something to be followed in order to become saved. Israel is, as we read in Exod. 4:22–23, God’s son. This is why Israel was delivered from Egypt, and this is why Israel was given the gift of the law.

The purpose of the law, therefore, was not to prove to God that his people were somehow worthy of his covenant with them. The law was given so that Israel would be molded into a new people, one whose hearts were wholly devoted to God and so could be the instrument through which not only Israel but also the nations themselves would be blessed (see Gen. 12:1–3). As Exod. 19:6 puts it, Israel is to become a “kingdom of priests”—that is, the “holy nation” that would perform the mediatorial role of blessing the nations. The law, therefore, was not a burden but a delight, a gift from God to a redeemed people.

Also, the laws that God gives in Exodus are not necessarily new, as if no one had ever heard of these sorts of things before. Murder and adultery were considered to be wrong long before the Ten Commandments were given. Likewise, the laws of Exod. 21–23 (often referred to as the Book of the Covenant) are not new but rather reflect other ancient law codes much older than Israel’s (regardless of when one dates the exodus). What makes these laws different, however, is that these are the laws that Yahweh, the true God, gives to his people; these are the laws that reflect his character and, if the Israelites follow them, will ensure that they reflect God’s character to one another and the surrounding nations. In other words, the law performs not so much an exclusionary role as a missional role. Or perhaps better, the Israelites are being trained to be separate, and different, from surrounding peoples in order to properly fulfill their holy, mediating, priestly function.

Tabernacle. The section on the tabernacle begins in chapter 25 and extends to the end of the book, chapter 40. In between is an important episode, the rebellion involving the making of the golden calf. Just as the law represents much more than “rules to live by,” the tabernacle is more than just a building for sacrificing animals. The importance of the tabernacle can be seen by focusing on some key elements.

Chapters 25–31 provide the list of instructions for the tabernacle. For centuries, rabbis and biblical scholars have noticed a pattern in these chapters. Seven times the phrase is repeated “The Lord said to Moses,” and the seventh time is in 31:12 to introduce the topic of Sabbath observance. Just like the creation of the cosmos in Gen. 1, the tabernacle is a product of a six-stage creative act (“And the Lord said”) followed by rest. Some have suggested that the tabernacle is a microcosm of creation: for example, cherubim are worked into the curtains, so to look up is to look at the heavens; the lampstand is a sort of tree of life, as in the garden of Eden. To be in the tabernacle is to be in touch with creation as it was meant to be, in the garden apart from the chaos of life outside.

Chapters 35–40 relay how the instructions are carried out. This section begins with reference to the Sabbath (35:1–3), which is how the first section ends. In between, we find the episode of the golden calf (chaps. 32–34), which is about false worship. The Israelites nearly succeed in undoing all that God had planned in bringing his people out of Egypt. Still, through Moses’ intervention, God’s plan is not thwarted, and so chapter 35 does not miss a beat, picking up where chapter 31 leaves off, with the Sabbath. Some scholars see here a pattern of creation (chaps. 25–31), fall (chaps. 32–34), and redemption (chaps. 35–40).

The tabernacle is an important theological entity in Exodus: it is heaven on earth. It is a truly holy space where God communes with his holy (law-keeping) people. This is the ultimate purpose of the exodus: to create a people who embody God’s character and who worship him in purity. Then God would be with his people wherever they go (40:36–38).

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the most idiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibited anyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book (i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 might lead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorship and Date

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewed the unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1), along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition (i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9; Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountains of Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof that the book was the product of a single author. Even during the first one hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OT research, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm the traditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book of Ezekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began to shift early in the twentieth century.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, issues of authorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministry dominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’s peculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding the place of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records, Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic community in Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah (11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and around the temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is one to make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind in Jerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Many of those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of the book’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explain Ezekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some seven hundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies of his ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language, his extended period of “muteness,” various striking sign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of his visionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion of how to understand his visionary experience of being transported to remote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting the similarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of the mystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complex personality” and as one whose life was more attuned to the realities of the supernatural world.

Geographical solutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of events in Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekiel ministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core of chapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated these chapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also added chapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekiel ministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, at which time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continued his ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approach is that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekiel without resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city to the other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials that ecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of the prophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasies actually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets. Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted cultural tradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as it stands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between the Jerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices to explain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem. The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by the cultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under the influence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetorical goals of his preaching.

It is entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was an Israelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic events surrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Historical Background

The book of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’s world, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a working picture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in which Ezekiel lived and ministered.

In 701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, as had befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to the ministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financial expense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’s death in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’s religious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically. Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as a vassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline of Judah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled in the years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s strong invectives against empty religious formalism and social irresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest that Josiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominally successful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

While Josiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in the international scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal, the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. The Neo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealt Assyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC), followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This, coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2 Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumed leadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Later that same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemish and also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewish men to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a second deportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and about ten thousand Jews (2 Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed on the Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon (588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege of Jerusalem before its final demise in 586 BC.

The political crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. The promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7:7–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abode forever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14) seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry, the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, the rightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity to Babylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition, the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping the Israelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11). Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with the Israelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outside the land immediately raised grave concern about their status before God (1 Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would lead in a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship was even possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwitting pagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses on the recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Far from recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in the rebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted their claim to divine favor and denied the validity of prophetic indictments. They supported their claims with appeals to the miraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC), selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets of a quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek. 13).

From Ezekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liar out of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. In light of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriate response was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). By denying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party for the destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wicked kingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

From this historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced by Ezekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread belief that it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh. Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in good standing with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he would shortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminate serious consideration of the possibility that destruction of the kingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, once the kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’s power and/or character became suspect in the minds of many. Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence and blessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremely negative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raised the specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness was intensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction of the kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integrate the outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously held beliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

Literary Considerations

Structure and outline. There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the “inner logic” of the book.

Tripartite structure. In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment on the nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws is emphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32 serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24 by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed toward the foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in these chapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message of hope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis on divine judgment in the first half of the book is not a de facto statement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognition that only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors) is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize a further subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39 focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48 dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

This yields the following outline:

I. God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II. God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III. Hope for Israel (33–48)

A. Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B. Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions. Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), with two additional visions in between: temple idolatry and the incremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed (chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

The movement of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place where God’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book as Ezekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominous inaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure of God’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11), and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple (chaps. 40–48).

Genre. The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionary narrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48), allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), and popular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20, 24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27; Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13), but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couched in uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informs Ezekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings of the people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicate God by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleled frequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oracles against the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which his counterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and the hope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve as a foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of his contemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popular sayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both the necessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings of the people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition to God and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

Theological Message

The sovereignty of God. The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekiel challenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which held that Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem. The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs, then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken” occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’s intervention in human events, including the exile and restoration (e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish his kingdom.

The holiness of God. Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight of their neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishment of Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantal relationship with his people. God’s purging judgment and restoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations and would display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hope in the midst of judgment. God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration after judgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48) gives a picture of the restoration using typological images and cultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

New Testament Connections

There are approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book of Ezekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’s Gospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15]) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22 [Ezek. 40–48]).

The evidence is clear that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah originally formed a single book. It is not until the Middle Ages that manuscripts show a division between the two. Furthermore, the material in Neh. 8 (and perhaps also chaps. 9–10) is a continuation of the material that follows the story of Ezra begun in Ezra 7–10. Thus, some of the discussion that follows is also relevant for the book of Nehemiah.

The book of Ezra is named after Ezra, a self-described priest and teacher (7:11) of the Lord. This man was commissioned by the Persian king Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 BC) to reestablish the law of the Lord in the land of Judah.

Author and Date

The issue of the author and date of Ezra must include the evidence of Nehemiah, since they were originally a single composition. These books are unique among the theological histories of the OT in that they contain large portions that are written in the form of memoirs, first-person accounts of people who participated in the events that are narrated. Ezra, for instance, speaks in the first person in parts of Ezra 7–10. However, the memoir is set within the framework of a form more typical to the histories of the OT: third-person omniscient narration. So, although traditionally the authorship of Ezra is associated with Ezra, there is no claim that the book as a whole was written by him; thus, this book, like so many of the histories of Israel, is anonymous.

As for the date of composition, we need to differentiate the memoirs, which come from the time of Ezra (his ministry begins in 458 BC) and the time of Nehemiah (his work begins in 445 BC), and the time of the third-person narrative that incorporates these memoirs. The latter contains no date, but none of the events narrated took place after around 400 BC, and perhaps the final composition of the book took place around this time and no later than 300 BC.

Genre and Structure

The book of Ezra is a theological history, a book that intends to communicate what actually happened in space and time but is selective, with the purpose of showing how God was working among the people of God in the postexilic period. As a theological history in the OT, however, Ezra and Nehemiah are unique in that they contain the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah (as detailed by the first outline below). The structure of the book of Ezra makes sense only when paired with Nehemiah, since, again, they were an original unity. The structure may be explained on the basis of its sources as follows:

I. A Historical Review (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Neh. 1–7)

IV. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 8–10)

V. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 11–13)

Or on the basis of the contents as follows:

I. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar Lead the People in Rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra Leads the People by Reestablishing the Law (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah Leads the People in Rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1–7:3)

IV. Renewal, Celebration, Remaining Problems (Neh. 7:4–13:31)

Theological Message

The book of Ezra begins where Chronicles ends, with the decree by King Cyrus of Persia that the Jews be allowed to return to the land. The first six chapters narrate the events of the first phase of that return, from 539 until 515 BC. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the leaders of the people at this time, and their initial goal is to rebuild the temple. Once they start, however, opposition sets in, and the work stops. However, motivated in large part, as we know, by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the people finish the work, and the second temple becomes functional.

Nonetheless, over fifty years later, when the story of Ezra begins (Ezra 7–10), the condition of the people of God is not promising. King Artaxerxes of Persia allows Ezra, a priest and teacher, to lead a return back to Judah with the express purpose of reestablishing the law in the land. When he arrives, he finds that there are sinful practices such as illegitimate intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, and he works to reestablish the purity of the people. The story of Ezra continues in the book of Nehemiah, where he is seen leading the people in a great renewal of the covenant as they reaffirm their commitment to obey God’s law (Neh. 8–10).

Contemporary Significance

The book of Ezra narrates two periods of return to the promised land from exile with two different primary purposes. The first group, led by Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar, has as its main purpose the rebuilding of the temple. The primacy of the temple building is an indication of the importance of worship. The second group returns under the leadership of Ezra, whose purpose is to reestablish the observance of the law among God’s people. God’s word plays a central role in Ezra’s reform, and reading about his ancient ministry reminds God’s people today of the importance of Scripture.

Ezra’s style of leadership also provides a model for contemporary leadership. Ezra is sensitive and empathetic. He takes the shortcomings and failures of God’s people on himself. When the people sin, he tears out his own hair and sheds tears of disappointment. That this is not the only possible style of leadership is seen in the next book as we observe Nehemiah at work.

The work of Zerubbabel and Ezra (as well as Nehemiah) also illustrates that at times separation from pagan influences is necessary. Granted, Jesus breaks down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:28), but his followers should be distinguished by their new life in him (Gal. 4:8–11; 5:16–26).

The book of Genesis (“Origins”) is well named because it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible and speaks of the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, redemption, the people of God, covenant, marriage, Sabbath, work, and much more. Genesis is the first chapter of the Pentateuch, a five-part story of the origins of the nation of Israel. Genesis is the preamble to that account, leading up to the pivotal moment of the exodus and the move toward the promised land.

Authorship

As noted above, Genesis is the opening to the Pentateuch as a whole, so the question of the authorship of Genesis is connected to the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Genesis (and the entire Pentateuch) is anonymous, though Moses is said to have written down certain traditions that were included in the Pentateuch (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22).

Later tradition speaks of the “law of Moses” (Josh. 1:7–8) or the “Book of Moses” (2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1), though it is not certain whether these refer to the entire Pentateuch or merely to portions of it that were associated with Moses. The NT writers, as well as Jesus himself, speak of the Pentateuch in connection with Moses (e.g., Matt. 19:7; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 12:26; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:23).

The question of Moses’ role in writing the Pentateuch is more complicated, however. For instance, there are indications that Genesis was updated well after the death of Moses. Traditionally, these passages are called “post-Mosaica,” because they contain information that could be available only after the death of Moses. For example, Deut. 34 speaks of Moses’ death and burial. Apparently so much time has elapsed since his death that the writer can say, “to this day no one knows where his grave is” (v. 6). The writer then states, “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” (v. 10), which also presumes a considerable length of time has passed. Other examples include Gen. 11:31, which refers to Abraham’s hometown as “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Although Ur was a very ancient city, the Chaldeans were an Aramaic-speaking tribe that only occupied Ur long after the time of Moses. Similarly, in Gen. 14:14 a city by the name of “Dan” is mentioned, but we know from Judg. 18 that this city only received this name during the period of the judges.

Despite these considerations, some scholars are still comfortable ascribing some “essential” authorship role to Moses. (For the main alternative theory for the authorship and date of the writing of Genesis, see Documentary Hypothesis; Pentateuch.)

Structure and Outline

Genesis may be outlined in more than one way. One method is to follow the toledot formulas that serve as an organizing structure for the book. The phrase “these are the toledot of X” (where X is the personal name of the character whose sons are the subject of the narrative that follows) is repeated ten times: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 (cf. 36:9); 37:2 (see also 10:32; 25:13). For instance, Gen. 11:27 begins, “These are the toledot of Terah” (NIV: “This is the account of Terah’s family line”), while the account that follows is the story of Terah’s son Abraham. Toledot is best translated as “family history” or “account.” Hence, one can take Genesis as having a prologue (1:1–2:3) followed by ten episodes.

In terms of content and style, the book falls into three main units as follows:

I. The Primeval History (Gen. 1:1–11:26)

II. The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43)

III. The Joseph Story (Gen. 37–50)

I. The primeval history (Gen. 1:1–11:26). The book opens with an account of creation given in two parts. Genesis 1:1–2:4a provides a creation account that describes the six days in which God created the heavens and the earth, followed by a seventh day of rest. Genesis 2:4b–25 then provides a second account of creation, this time with a focus on the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis 3 then narrates the first sin of humanity, which introduces sin and death into the world. Genesis 4–11 provides four additional stories (the murder of Abel by Cain, the intermarrying of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” the flood, and the tower of Babel). These stories show a creation gone wrong, God’s move to start over again with Noah and his family, and the persistence of sin thereafter. All of this leads to the story of the patriarchs, where God’s plan to set things right takes a decisive turn. These stories are connected by genealogies that mark the march of time as well as provide significant theological commentary.

II. The patriarchal narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43). The middle section of the book of Genesis turns its attention to the patriarchs, so called because they are the fathers of the nation of Israel. The style of the book changes at this point, so that rather than following the story of all the world and moving at a fast pace, the narrative slows down and focuses on God creating a people to obey him and to bring those blessings to the whole world (12:1–3). God now determines to restore the blessing lost at Eden by reaching the world through the descendants of one individual, Abraham.

Abraham’s father, Terah, took Abram (as Abraham was then known), Abram’s wife Sarai (Sarah), and Terah’s grandson Lot and left Ur to settle in Harran in northern Mesopotamia. No explanation is given why. While they are settled in Harran, God commands Abraham to leave Ur in Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan. God promises that he will make him a great nation (implying land and many descendants), and that he will be blessed and will be a blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:1–3). That blessing requires Abraham and Sarah to have children, and this sets up much of the drama of his story. Often Abraham reacts in fear and not faith, but at the end of his story he has a solid confidence in God’s ability to take care of him and bring all the promises to fulfillment (Gen. 22).

Isaac, not Ishmael (Abraham’s son through Sarah’s maidservant Hagar; see Gen. 16), is the conduit of the promises to future generations. Even so, Isaac is not a highly developed character in the book of Genesis, although his near sacrifice in Gen. 22 is certainly a matter of great interest. The episode in his life that receives the lengthiest attention is the courtship with Rebekah (Gen. 24), and there the focus is primarily on her.

The account of Isaac’s life gives way to an account of his son Jacob. Jacob is a complex character. The first episodes of his story are about how he, the younger, inherits the blessing and becomes the conduit for the promise rather than his older brother, Esau. Jacob becomes an example of how God uses the foolish things of the world to accomplish his purposes. That the story of the patriarchs is a preamble to the story of the founding of Israel becomes obvious when Jacob’s name is changed to “Israel” after he fights with God (Gen. 32:22–32) and his wives give birth to twelve sons, who give their names to the twelve tribes of Israel.

III. The Joseph story (Gen. 37–50). The third section of Genesis focuses on the twelve sons of Jacob, in particular Joseph. A main theme seems to be God’s providential preservation of the family of the promise, in the context of a devastating famine. Joseph himself expresses the theme of this section at the end of the narrative, after his father dies and his brothers now wonder whether he will seek revenge against them. He reassures them by his statement that although they had meant their actions to harm him, he knows that God has used these very actions for good, for the salvation of the family of God (Gen. 50:19–20). Yes, they had just wanted to get rid of him, but God has used their jealousy to bring Joseph to Egypt. The wife of his owner had wanted to frame him for rape, but God has used this false accusation in order to have him thrown into jail, where he meets two of Pharaoh’s chief advisers. He had demonstrated to them his ability to interpret dreams, so when the chief cupbearer is restored to a position of influence, he can advise Pharaoh himself to turn to Joseph to interpret his disturbing dreams. These dreams have allowed Pharaoh, with Joseph’s help, to prepare for the famine. Joseph has risen to great prominence in Egypt, so when the famine comes, he is in a position to help his family, and the promise can continue to the next generations.

Among other secondary, yet important, themes of the Joseph narrative are the rising prominence of Judah and the lessening significance of Reuben. Judah at first is pictured as self-serving (Gen. 38), but by the end of the story he is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of his father and family (Gen. 44:18–34). This story thus demonstrates why the descendants of Judah have dominance over the descendants of the firstborn, Reuben, in later Israelite history. Also, the Joseph story recounts how Israel came to Egypt. This sets up the events of the book of Exodus.

Style and Genre

Style. Genesis is written in Hebrew prose of a high literary style. Words are carefully chosen not only to communicate the message of the book but also to attract the reader’s interest and attention.

Genre. Genesis is an account of the origins of the cosmos, humanity, and the people of God. Thus, it is proper to refer to the book as a work of history. Of course, there is more than one type of history. Some histories focus on wars, others on economics or politics. Moreover, Genesis is not history in the modern sense but follows ancient conventions, which do not call for scrupulous accuracy. The central concern of Genesis, as with the majority of biblical histories, is the relationship between God and his people. So, it is appropriate to identify Genesis as a theological history.

Some readers misunderstand the nature of the historical information that the book provides. For example, Gen. 1–2 communicates to the reader that it is the true God, not a god such as the Babylonian Marduk or the Canaanite Baal, who created the cosmos. The way some of the stories are told provides a challenge to rival stories from other ancient religions. One example is how the Bible describes the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground and the breath of God. This contrasts with the Mesopotamian creation account Enuma Elish, in which the god Marduk creates the first humans from the clay of the earth and the blood of a demon god. The biblical flood story also may be compared to other ancient flood stories, especially the account of the flood found in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis clearly interacts with such mythological stories to communicate important truths about the primeval period.

Message

The rich and complex book of Genesis pre-sents a profound message concerning God and his relationship with human beings. This short article cannot do justice to the book’s depth and importance, but it can point to what is perhaps its most important theme: God’s blessing.

Genesis 1–2 teaches that God created Adam and Eve and blessed them. They had everything they needed in the garden of Eden. They enjoyed a perfectly harmonious relationship with God and with each other. They wanted for nothing.

Genesis 3 explains how this blessed existence was disrupted. By choosing to rebel against God, Adam and Eve ruptured their relationship with God and, in consequence, with each other as well. They were expelled from the garden of Eden.

Even in the midst of his judgment, however, God began the work of restoring the blessing to his human creatures (Gen. 3:15). Thus begins the relentless work of God to bring restoration to his people.

New Testament Connections

Genesis is the foundation not just of the Pentateuch, and not just of the OT, but of the entire Bible. The story that begins with creation and fall is followed by the history of redemption, which continues into the NT and which understands Jesus Christ as the one whose death and resurrection serve to restore God’s blessing to his people. The full restoration of relationship awaits the consummation of history and the new Jerusalem, which is described in language telling us that heaven is a restoration (and more) of the conditions enjoyed by Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (Rev. 21–22, esp. Rev. 22:2).

Of the many allusions to and quotations of Genesis found in the NT, only a few representative examples may be described here.

Paul points to the Abrahamic promise of the seed in Gen. 12:1–3 and proclaims that Jesus is that seed (Gal. 3:15–16). This claim is surprising in light of the OT’s clear understanding that it was the multiple descendants of Abraham constituting Israel who fulfilled this promise (Gen. 15:15). Paul would have known this, but he recognizes that Jesus is the ultimate descendant of Abraham, and that anyone who belongs to Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is also a participant in the Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).

A second example comes from the way in which the author of Hebrews cites the Melchizedek tradition of Gen. 14:17–20. In Genesis, Melchizedek is a mysterious figure who is introduced as the priest-king of Salem (Jerusalem), whom Abraham acknowledges as a fellow worshiper of the true God. In order to make his argument that Jesus is the ultimate priest, the author of Hebrews connects Jesus with Melchizedek rather than with Aaron and asserts the superiority of Melchizedek because Abraham (and thus also Levi, Aaron’s ancestor) paid respects to this man (Heb. 7:1–10).

A final example comes from the Joseph narrative. Earlier, we observed that the narrative shows how God used the evil actions of people in order to save many people. In this, the Joseph narrative anticipates the death of Christ, who was nailed to the cross by the hands of wicked people, but God used this very action to accomplish a much greater salvation than he did through Joseph (see Acts 2:22–24).

Habakkuk prophesied, as did Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah, during the turbulent period that saw the rise of the Babylonians and the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem. Like them, he was a warning sign that judgment was coming. On the other hand, he is unlike these other prophets in that his initial burning concern is how God is executing judgment: by means of a people seemingly more wicked than those being punished.

Historical Background

The superscription (1:1) names Habakkuk (formed from a verb meaning “to embrace”) as the author of the book, and the superscription at the beginning of the prayer in 3:1 continues that attestation. However, the book gives us no more information about him, not even his father’s name or the name of his hometown. Some commentators have detected liturgical elements in his prophecy and have concluded that Habakkuk was a prophet connected to the temple, but the argument is neither compelling nor particularly important to the interpretation of the book.

The date of the prophecy is clearer: it was during the time when God was “raising up the Babylonians” (1:6), placing the delivery of the oracles, if not the writing itself, in the period between 626 and 587 BC. In 626 BC Babylon began its power surge when Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, rebelled against Assyria. Success was not immediate. It was not until 612 BC that the Babylonians, with the help of the Medes, took Nineveh the capital. Then in 609 BC Pharaoh Necho II traveled up the coast from Egypt to Syria to support the remnants of the Assyrians, who had settled under a new king, Ashur-uballit II. On his way through Palestine, he was attacked by Josiah king of Judah, but the latter was killed in his attempt to stop the Egyptians from bolstering Assyria. The Egyptians, though, were unsuccessful in their attempt to save the Assyrians and create a buffer between Babylon and their interests in the south, and Necho himself suffered defeat at the Battle of Carchemish in 605/604 BC. Soon, Babylon’s rise brought it to the doorstep of Judah (Dan. 1:1–2), leading eventually to a two-pronged deportation of leading citizens (598 and 587/586 BC), the second of which was devastating in its destruction of the city of Jerusalem. It was in this time period that the book of Habakkuk was written, though the specific events are not named.

Structure and Outline

Habakkuk is a prophet whose writings communicate God’s word about the future. In this, Habakkuk is a typical prophet. The structure of this short book may be seen in the following outline:

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. God Responds to the Prophet’s Lament about the Violence of the Wicked (1:2–11)

III. God Responds to the Prophet’s Lament about God using the Babylonians (1:12–2:5)

IV. Woe Oracles against the Oppressors (2:6–20)

V. Poem of the Divine Warrior (3:1–19)

Theological Message

The book begins with the prophet’s laments and God’s responses. The laments of the prophet express questions about the justice of God. How can God allow internal (1:2–4) and external (the Babylonians; 1:12–17) wickedness to succeed? God responds that the wicked eventually will receive what is due them, but he is going to use the Babylonians to bring judgment on his people. In the light of these truths, God tells Habakkuk (and through him all readers) that “the righteous will live by his faith” (2:4 NASB [cf. Gen. 15:6]), just as Abraham did. God eventually will judge those whom he uses to bring punishment on his people (2:6–20). The final section (chap. 3) is a magnificent, and perhaps ancient, poetic portrait of God the warrior that Habakkuk includes in his work. In this way, the prophet records his own acceptance of God’s ways in the world.

New Testament Connections

Like Habakkuk, God’s faithful people today often wonder why it seems as though the wicked and the oppressors come out on top. God, through Habakkuk, informs the reader that this is not the true and ultimate state of things. The wicked surely will be judged. For now, the people of God must “live by faith” (see Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11, citing Hab. 2:4).

The book of Haggai is the tenth book in the collection known as the Minor Prophets or the Book of the Twelve. Haggai was a contemporary of Zechariah, and the two prophets had an overlapping purpose: to encourage their generation to rebuild the temple. Though short and similar in theme to Zechariah, Haggai has its own interests, and it repays close reading.

Historical Background

The superscription (1:1) attributes the book to a man named “Haggai” (related to the Hebrew word hag, meaning “festival”). Though mentioned in Ezra 5:1–2; 6:14, these texts add nothing substantial to the little knowledge that we have about Haggai from the book itself, except that he was responsible for the prophetic speeches contained in the book. These speeches are placed in a narrative context, but it is speculative to argue that anyone other than Haggai was responsible for the book.

Haggai and Zechariah are unusually precise in the dates that they give their oracles. They are dated to a fairly brief period during the reign of the Persian king Darius I (see table 1).

Table 1. Dates Given in the Oracles of Haggai and Zechariah:

Haggai 1:1 – Year 2/Month 6/Day 1 of Darius’ reign – Aug. 29, 520 BC – Temple to be built

Haggai 1:15 – Year 2/Month 6/Day 24 of Darius’ reign – Sept. 21, 520 BC – Work on temple resumed

Haggai 2:1 – Year 2/Month 7/Day 21 of Darius’ reign – Oct. 17, 520 BC – Glory of the temple

Zechariah 1:1 – Year 2/Month 8 of Darius’ reign – Oct./Nov. 520 BC – Zechariah’s authority

Haggai 2:10, 20 – Year 2/Month 9/Day 24 of Darius’ reign – Dec. 18, 520 BC – Zerubbabel as God’s signet

Zechariah 1:7 – Year 2/Month 11/Day 24 of Darius’ reign – Feb. 15, 519 BC – First night vision

Zechariah 7:1 – Year 4/Month 9/Day 4 of Darius’ reign – Dec. 7, 518 BC – An issue about fasting

Ezra 6:15 – Year 6/Month 12/Day 3 of Darius’ reign – Mar. 12, 515 BC – Temple completed

The situation that Haggai addresses begins in 587/586 BC with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians and the beginning of the exile. Not all the people of Judah were taken to Babylon, but the vast majority of the leaders were.

In 539 BC the Persian Empire, led by Cyrus the Great, defeated Babylon and inherited its vast empire, including its vassals, among which was Judah. From the start, the Persians adopted a different foreign policy. They allowed all the Babylonian vassals to return to their homelands to rebuild their temples (this policy is recorded in a contemporary cuneiform text known as the Cyrus Cylinder). Cyrus announced his intentions to the Jewish people through what has come to be known as the Cyrus Decree, in which he describes how God has called him to have the temple rebuilt (2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:2–4).

While one might have expected droves of Jewish exiles to return home, that was not the case. Many had heeded Jeremiah’s call to settle down in the place of their exile (Jer. 29:5–6), but among the early leaders of those who did return was Zerubbabel, a Davidic descendant who became governor of the Persian province of Yehud (the Persian period name for Judah). Haggai addressed his letter to Zerubbabel and to Joshua, the high priest at the time.

Zerubbabel came back to Jerusalem in 539 BC (or soon after) and immediately rebuilt the altar and the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3:2–10), but then the work faltered. A number of factors contributed to the cessation of work, including conflicts between the returnees and those who took over their land while they were in exile (Jer. 52:15–16; Ezek. 11:3, 15). The need to establish their own holdings in the land distracted them from the work on the temple. Neighboring people and local Persian officials also put roadblocks in the way of reconstruction (Ezra 4:1–5; 5:3–5).

After several years of inactivity on the part of the returnees, God raised up Haggai and Zechariah to exhort the people to get their priorities straight. The people responded to their message and work resumed, with the result that the second temple was finished in 515 BC.

Outline and Content

The book of Haggai is a narrative presentation of four of Haggai’s prophetic oracles:

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Oracle Urging the People to Rebuild the Temple and the People’s Positive Response (1:2–15)

III. Oracle of Encouragement concerning the Glory of the Second Temple (2:1–9)

IV. Oracle Encouraging the People to Stay Pure and Receive a Blessing (2:10–19)

V. Oracle of Divine Blessing to Zerubbabel (2:20–23)

The first oracle (August 29, 520) is a disputation whereby God challenges his people for tending to their own houses and fields while neglecting the construction of the temple. The people respond positively and start building the temple just a few weeks later (1:15). The second oracle (October 17, 520), given just a few weeks after construction has commenced, is a divine encouragement that although the second temple is not as physically grand as the first one, God’s glory will make this temple greater than the first. The third and fourth oracles are delivered on the same day (December 18, 520 BC). The third oracle contains a dialogue between God and the people concerning holiness and uncleanness. The point seems to be that the people want to acquire holiness from the temple just by working there. It is not contagious, however. They will have to work at being holy. On the other hand, something can be made unholy by coming into contact with something unclean, so the temple can become defiled if a sinful and unrepentant people come into contact with it. The final oracle is a divine pronouncement that Zerubbabel is of special significance to God and his purposes. While this could lead some to think of Zerubbabel as the expected deliverer (the Messiah), that is not the role he plays.

Theological Message

The oracles of Haggai are clearly and specifically dated, so modern readers know that they reflect his prophetic ministry during a four-month period in 520 BC. The historical background to his message begins with the early return from exile under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, the latter being frequently mentioned in Haggai. Soon after the return, the altar was rebuilt, and sacrifices began to be offered in the temple area, but the temple itself was still in disarray. The focus of Haggai’s concern is that God wants his people to get busy reconstructing the temple. They have been hesitant, according to Haggai, because of their own economic struggles. God, through Haggai, tells his people that they must first take care of their religious obligations, and then God will bless them with personal well-being.

In addition, Zerubbabel plays an important role in the prophecy of Haggai. He is a descendant of David and a leader in postexilic Judah. His presence may have given rise to the expectation of the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy, or at least that seems to be the implication of the last verses of the book, based on 2 Sam. 7:1–11.

New Testament Connections

Haggai and Zechariah’s call to return to the task of rebuilding the temple had its intended influence. The people of God set to work on the temple and finished it in 515 BC. Haggai’s message continues to be relevant, however, especially as he calls readers to get their priorities straight. In essence, the principle behind Haggai’s call is to “seek first the kingdom of God” (cf. Matt. 6:33). He reminds God’s people that God comes first, and then other matters fall into their proper place.

On the other hand, whatever greater expectation there was regarding Zerubbabel never really materialized. Although used for God’s purposes, he fades from biblical history. The expectation of a Davidic ruler was not fulfilled at that time, and this led to intensified expectation. The NT authors understand that the Davidic covenant came to fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

“Go marry a prostitute” are the first words that the prophet Hosea hears from God in the book of Hosea (1:2 NET). His tragic marriage with Gomer provides an analogy for the relationship of God with his people Israel. God loves, confronts, pleads, becomes angry, and seeks reconciliation in this book containing words of judgment as well as hope.

The book of Hosea is one of the twelve Minor Prophets, but among these books Hosea is preeminent. It is the longest and appears first canonically, and it was one of the first of all the prophetic books to be written down. The emotive poetry depicting God’s heartbreak over the trauma of his broken relationship with his people is hardly matched anywhere else in Scripture.

Historical Background

The first verse sets the book into the reigns of Jeroboam II of Israel (784–748 BC) and Uzziah (769–733 BC), Jotham (758–743 BC), Ahaz (733–727 BC), and Hezekiah (727–698 BC) of Judah. It is difficult to pinpoint when it was during the reign of Jeroboam II that Hosea began his ministry or how far into the reign of Hezekiah he served. Scholars generally date Hosea’s ministry between 760 and 720 BC.

During Jeroboam’s reign, Israel expanded its borders (2 Kings 14:25, 28) due to the relative weakness of its two traditional northern enemies, Assyria and Aram. This expansion led to economic prosperity for the upper classes but oppression for the lower classes, which was condemned by the prophet Amos. Shortly after the death of Jeroboam, Tiglath-pileser III came to the throne of Assyria in 744 BC, and as Assyrian influence began to increase in Israel, political stability for the nation declined. The reigns of Israel’s final rulers were characterized by chaos, as six kings reigned over Israel in less than one generation (2 Kings 15:8–31; 17:1–6). Jeroboam’s son Zechariah was killed by Shallum, who was killed by Menahem, who was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, who was killed by Pekah, who was killed by Hoshea, who was exiled by Assyria.

Hosea’s oracles generally target the northern kingdom, with over forty references to “Israel” scattered throughout the book (e.g., 1:4–6), but the tribe of Ephraim is also mentioned over thirty times (e.g., 4:17; 5:3, 5). As the most influential northern tribe, Ephraim is often used synonymously for Israel, but some of the references to Ephraim may be due to the fact that after Assyria conquered and exiled most of Israel in 733 BC, Ephraim was all that remained until its destruction in 722 BC.

Outline

I. Historical Setting (1:1)

II. Hosea’s Family (1:2–2:1)

III. God’s Family (2:2–23)

IV. God Calls Hosea to Bring Gomer Back (3:1–5)

V. The First Set of Messages (4:1–11:11)

VI. The Second Set of Messages (11:12–14:9)

Message

The message of the book of Hosea is God’s; his voice dominates the book, whether he is speaking to the prophet or to the entire nation. While markers of God’s speech are concentrated in the first three chapters (1:2, 4, 6, 9; 2:1, 13, 16, 21; 3:1), clearly God is speaking in most of the remainder of the book (4:1; 11:11). Hosea’s first-person perspective appears explicitly only as he narrates how God has told him to go and bring back his wife, Gomer (3:1–5). Hosea may be speaking as the nation is called to return to God (6:1–3; 14:1–3), or these calls may be coming from the people. God also uses quotes from the people to illustrate his points (8:2; 9:7; 10:3).

God’s initial commission to Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer serves as the frame on which to hang the content of the book. God’s primary message is that the people of Israel have been unfaithful to the covenant that they had initially established at Sinai after he had delivered them from enslavement in Egypt. God had said that he would be their God, and Israel would be his people (Exod. 6:7), so they had made a covenant that the people promised to obey (24:1–8). Just as Hosea’s heart has been broken by the unfaithfulness of his wife, God has been devastated by Israel’s adulterous behavior. Gomer gives birth to three children: Jezreel (“God Sows”), Lo-Ruhamah (“Not Pitied”), and Lo-Ammi (“Not My People”). The name of each child has significance in the book: “Jezreel” because God is going to judge Jeroboam’s house for the blood shed by his great-grandfather Jehu in the valley of Jezreel (see 2 Kings 9:36–37; 10:6–7, 11); “Not Pitied” because God will no longer show mercy to the nation; “Not My People” because he is no longer their God and they are no longer his people. The themes of sowing (Hos. 2:23; 8:7; 10:12), God showing pity (2:1, 4, 23; 14:3), and Israel as the people of God (2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12; 6:11; 11:7) reappear throughout the book.

The book cycles through patterns of accusation, punishment, and hope. God accuses his people of being unfaithful to their covenant. This unfaithfulness takes two primary forms: worship of foreign idols and reliance on foreign nations. Despite their commitment to follow God’s laws, they have blatantly broken the first two commandments: have no other gods, and make no idols (Exod. 20:3–4). The first ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam I, had constructed two calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel (1 Kings 12:25–33), similar to the one made by Aaron in the wilderness (Exod. 32:4). Jeroboam I’s golden calves have survived beyond the reign of Jeroboam II and contributed to Israelite apostasy during the period of the entire northern monarchy. The book of Hosea specifically condemns calf worship (8:5–6; 10:5), which even took the form of kissing the calves (13:2). Israel’s idolatry also involved consulting blocks of wood instead of God (4:12), joining themselves to idols (4:17), constructing idols of silver and gold (8:4), and sacrificing to idols (10:5).

Because God wants Israel to be exclusively committed to him, he has forbidden them from making treaties with other nations (Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2; 23:6). The book of Hosea describes their disobedience to this command in their dealings with Assyria and Egypt. God accuses them of depending on Assyria (Hos. 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1) and declares that the calf they worship will be exiled to Assyria (10:6), and Assyria will become their king (11:5). God reminds Israel of the Egyptian deliverance in the past (2:15; 11:1; 12:13; 13:4), he condemns their reliance on Egypt in the present (7:11, 16; 12:1), and he proclaims that they will return to Egypt in the future (8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5). The “return to Egypt” should be interpreted not geographically but figuratively, as a return to bondage and exile, which will be performed by Assyria first in 733 BC and finally in 722 BC.

Israel’s sins provoke God’s anger (5:10; 8:5; 13:11) and prompt him to declare that he will punish his people (1:4; 2:13; 4:9; 5:2, 9; 8:13; 9:7, 9; 10:10). The punishment sent by God specifically targets Israel’s king, though it is difficult to be certain which one. Jehu’s house is the subject of the first royal condemnation (1:4–5), which may refer to the assassination of Zechariah, Jeroboam II’s son (2 Kings 15:8–10). The king is called to listen to the judgment because it pertains to him (Hos. 5:1). Some of Israel’s kings have already fallen (7:7), which may refer to the period of monarchical instability after Jeroboam II. Eventually, Israel’s king will be completely cut off (3:4; 10:3, 7, 15; 13:10), which happened in 722 BC, when Assyria destroyed the capital Samaria.

In the midst of accusation and punishment, the book also includes words of hope, specifically that Israel will return to its God, and their relationship will be restored. Three times the people are called to return to God: in the beginning (2:14–23), in the middle (6:1–3), and at the end of the book (14:1–3). God views his people not only as his wife but also as his children (11:1–4), and he promises that because of his compassion his anger will cease (11:8–9) and he will lead his children as they return to their homes (11:11). In a surprising twist, immediately after telling Hosea to give the three children names signifying judgment (1:4–9), God declares that Israel will be called the “children of the living God,” and the children’s names change to “Ammi” (“My People”) and “Ruhamah” (“Pity”) (1:10–2:1 NET). God also promises that the people of Israel will be as numerous as the sand of the seashore (1:10), recalling his promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17).

Both parental and marital imagery from the book of Hosea appear elsewhere in Scripture. While in Hosea the line “out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1) refers to God bringing his “children” out of Egyptian bondage, Matthew shows how it also describes early events in Jesus’ life as his family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15). Jeremiah graphically describes the sins of Judah as adultery and faithlessness (Jer. 3:1–25). Paul compares the relationship between a husband and a wife to that of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:23–24). The book of Revelation concludes by describing how the residents of the new Jerusalem will be adorned like a bride for her husband, and they will be his people and he will be their God (Rev. 21:2–9; 22:17).

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1) no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2) differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3) it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4) although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2 Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1 = threat; 2:1–4 = promise of hope; 2:5–4:1 = threat; 4:2–6 = promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

A written document, twice mentioned in the OT, recounting Joshua’s appeal for the sun and the moon to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13) and David’s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). The book is mentioned as though well known.

“Jashar” means “straight” or “upright.” It is often used to describe a person’s character before God. The two references to the book, though dissimilar in style, are poetic in form. Hence, some have suggested that the book is a collection of songs recounting stories of “the just.”

Some scholars find a possible third reference in 1 Kings 8:12–13, where the LXX refers to a “Book of the Song” (3 Kgdms. 8:53a LXX). However, this association depends on a transposition of two of the Hebrew letters and the phrase having been dropped from the MT while preserved only in the LXX.

A written document, twice mentioned in the OT, recounting Joshua’s appeal for the sun and the moon to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13) and David’s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). The book is mentioned as though well known.

“Jashar” means “straight” or “upright.” It is often used to describe a person’s character before God. The two references to the book, though dissimilar in style, are poetic in form. Hence, some have suggested that the book is a collection of songs recounting stories of “the just.”

Some scholars find a possible third reference in 1 Kings 8:12–13, where the LXX refers to a “Book of the Song” (3 Kgdms. 8:53a LXX). However, this association depends on a transposition of two of the Hebrew letters and the phrase having been dropped from the MT while preserved only in the LXX.

Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiah and before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of the beginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were basically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry after Jeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835 words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words). Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by its stirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent of all the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the Weeping Prophet.

Historical Background

Authorship and date. The superscription of the book announces that it contains “the words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin” (1:1). His prophetic ministry is then described as taking place between the thirteenth year of King Josiah and the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, equivalent to 626–586 BC, a period of great turbulence (see next section). Chapters 40–44 narrate events in the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.

On the one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence of the historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecy that bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that the book was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of a process. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermons in 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narrator relates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote them all down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The book describes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associate Baruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were written down and added by this close friend.

Ancient Near Eastern historical context. When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world was undergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominant superpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated the northern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judah had been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began its rebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, now king of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and over what was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited the empire.

In 626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and his grandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship. But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work, the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah (2 Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry then occurred in an environment that would find support from the royal court. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt from reinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in the process lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful in helping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control over Judah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Even so, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king, Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan. 1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By the time the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone, replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported to Babylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records that both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet. In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, and this time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leaders but also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporated Judah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor, Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgents assassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops. Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’s will as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.

These events provide the background to the prophetic oracles and the actions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’s words and actions are specifically dated to these events, while others are not dated.

Text

Jeremiah is one of the few books of the OT that present a significant text-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearly different from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorter than the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order of the book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations are chapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 in the Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the difference to translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solution is to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrew is the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text may reflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text then represents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightly used for modern translations.

Literary Types

The book as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and stories about Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found in the book.

Poetical prophetic oracles of judgment and salvation. Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles of judgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’s words to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 are also judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nations such as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found in the first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a striking collection of such oracles, the best known of which is the anticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).

Poetical confessions/laments. Jeremiah’s confessions are in the form of laments in which he complains about the burdens brought on by his prophetic task. These laments have many similarities with laments in the psalms, including elements such as an invocation, a declaration of innocence, an invocation against enemies, and divine response. While the laments have a certain ritual form, there is no good reason to deny that they authentically represent the emotions of the prophet. The confessions/laments are found in 11:18–23; 12:1–6; 15:15–21; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–17.

Prose oracles. Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry. Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is 7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some want to use this similarity to deny a connection with the historical Jeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah could reflect the theology of this foundational book.

Prose biographical material. A significant part of the prose material may be described as biographical, in that it relates events in Jeremiah’s life (chaps. 26–29; 34–45). These descriptions often carry a prophetic oracle. It is likely that these biographical descriptions were written by someone other than Jeremiah (Baruch?).

Prophetic sign-acts. Perhaps a special category of biographical material is the description of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carry prophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, which narrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury his dirty underwear.

Outline

I. Introduction and Jeremiah’s Call (1:1–19)

II The First Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry (2:1–25:14)

A Sermons, oracles, and sign-acts (2:1–24:10)

B Summary (25:1–14)

III. The Second Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry: Judgment and the Fall of Jerusalem (25:15–51:64)

A. Judgment against the nations (25:15–38)

B. Stories about Jeremiah and reports of oracles (26:1–29:32)

C. The Book of Consolation: Salvation oracles (30:1–33:26)

D. Stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment (34:1–38:28)

E. Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F. Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

G. Oracles against foreign nations (46:1–51:64)

IV. Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

The book of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. In this respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless, we may still make some general observations about the shape of the book and its large sections, even though we cannot always account for why one oracle follows another. When they are given chronological indicators, they are not arranged sequentially.

There are reasons to think that chapter 25 plays a pivotal role in the book, though it may be that this was more explicit in an earlier form of the book (when the oracles against the foreign nations followed immediately after it; cf. the Greek version). Even so, 25:1–14 summarizes the message of chapters 2–24, and then 25:15–38 announces judgment against the nations. Chapter 1, then, is an introduction to the book, with its account of the prophet’s commissioning, and chapter 52 is an epilogue describing the fall of Jerusalem.

Within these two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter 1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undated oracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.

Chapters 2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and prose oracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it is often difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. It is likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part of the prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described in chapter 36.

After chapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attention to the judgment against the nations, a block of prose material follows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports of oracles (chaps. 26–29).

Chapters 30–33 are a collection of salvation oracles, a break from the heavy barrage of judgment in the book up to this point. Traditionally, these chapters are known as the Book of Consolation. Chapters 30–31 are poetic oracles, while chapters 32–33 are prose.

Chapters 34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fall of Jerusalem.

The next section, chapters 39–44, gives the distressing account of the exile and the continuing failures on the part of those who stay in the land with Jeremiah. They end up in Egypt because of their lack of confidence in God’s ability to take care of them. Chapter 45 is an oracle directed toward Baruch, Jeremiah’s associate.

The book ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations (chaps. 46–51), culminating with a lengthy prophetic statement directed toward Babylon. The book concludes with a second account of the fall of Jerusalem.

Theological Message

Jeremiah is a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas, however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant to describe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a divinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises and calls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research has found that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept to ancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers and those of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful, sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompanied by curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives a reward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

There is a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people (Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod. 19–24]; David [2 Sam. 7]), but most relevant for our understanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26) and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).

Jeremiah and many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of the covenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey the law. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and live in conformity with God’s will or else the curses of the covenant will come into effect.

Jeremiah’s oracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers, particularly in the matter of worshipping false gods (Jer. 10–11). The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the most extreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that are related to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer. 31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the old covenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense, and more intimate.

New Testament Connections

Jeremiah anticipates the founding of a new and better covenant, and the NT witnesses to the fulfillment of this expectation. As he passed the cup to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20 [cf. 1 Cor. 11:24–25]). The cup, representing Christ’s death, functions as the sign of the new covenant. The point is that the new covenant is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ.

The new covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book of Hebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to make the point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2 Cor. 3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed not because of a defect in God or his instrument but because of the people (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant by disobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As a result, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelled from the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant), bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of the Davidic covenant.

The question of undeserved suffering has plagued humanity for as long as we have written records, as is demonstrated by several ancient Mesopotamian literary compositions going back to Sumerian times. Today too we wonder why bad things happen to good people. The book of Job raises this issue in the person of Job, a pious and blameless man who suffers unspeakable tragedies. However, the question of why Job suffers leads to an even more important question: Where can wisdom be found?

Structure, Genre, and Message

The structure of the book helps the reader understand its genre and message:

I. Prose Prologue: A Conversation in Heaven and Job’s Testing (1:1–2:13)

II. Poetic Debate: Who Is Wise? (3:1–42:6)

A. Job’s lament (3:1–26)

B. The debate between Job and his three friends (4:1–31:40)

C. Elihu’s claim to wisdom (32:1–37:24)

D. Yahweh’s speech and Job’s repentance (38:1–42:6)

III. Prose Epilogue: Resolutions in Blessing (42:7–17)

The genre of the book is a debate, the topic being the nature and source of wisdom. The various parts of the book contribute to this debate.

I. Prose prologue: a conversation in heaven and Job’s testing (1:1–2:13). The first two chapters introduce most of the main characters and the plot complication. First on the scene is Job himself. He is introduced as the perfect wise man: “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (1:1). This assessment is repeated by the next two major characters, none other than God himself (1:8) and even Job’s opponent, “Satan” (1:9–10). The latter, though, believes that Job is motivated by the fact that he receives rewards for his obedience. Take away Job’s family, prosperity, and eventually his health, Satan argues, and Job will crumble and grumble.

We know who God is, but who is this Satan? It is unlikely that Satan is the devil. After all, what would the devil be doing in heaven, and why would God listen to him? Also, the Hebrew prefixes the definite article to “Satan” (hassatan), so a literal translation is “the Satan.” The Hebrew verb satan means “to accuse,” and that is how we are to understand the term in question here; he is “the accuser.” Indeed, the book of Job has the form of a certain type of debate or disputation, a courtroom scene, and the Satan is an angel who takes the place of the prosecuting attorney.

The Satan persuades God to first take away family and wealth from Job. Even so, Job maintains his innocence and does not complain against God. Unsatisfied, the Satan goes further and persuades God to take away Job’s health. Still, however, Job persists in his proper attitude toward God.

At the end of the prologue, Job—though he is suffering—is in a good place. He is still innocent and has not complained. We also hear of Job’s three friends, who move in to offer sympathy and comfort. They sit there with him for seven days without a word.

II. Poetic debate: who is wise? (3:1–42:6). The body of the book is a debate among Job and his friends, composed as poetry.

A. Job’s lament (3:1–26). Job is the first to speak, and what he says unsettles his friends. His suffering has reached the point where he wants to die. While his speech is properly understood as a lament, it contrasts with the laments of the psalms (e.g., Ps. 69). The latter are directed toward God; Job speaks about God but not to him. The laments of the psalms typically end with a note of optimism (Ps. 88 is an exception); Job’s does not.

B. The debate between Job and his three friends (4:1–31:40). Job’s lament triggers the debate. After Job complains about God, the three friends feel obligated to speak in defense of God’s integrity. The debate has three cycles, with each of the three friends speaking in turn, each followed by a response from Job. The third cycle breaks down with a speech by Eliphaz (chap. 22) and a short one by Bildad (chap. 25), but no speech by Zophar. The friends have run out of steam.

After all, each of the three repeats the same basic argument: if you sin, then you suffer; therefore, if you suffer, then you must have sinned. Since Job was suffering, he must be a sinner. To escape his suffering, he needs to repent (4:7–11; 11:13–20). Job, however, knows that he has not sinned. But this creates a theological problem for him, since he too believes in the same theology of retribution held by the three friends. Thus, in his mind, God is unjust (9:21–24). Accordingly, his solution is to find God and present his case before him (notice the legal language again [23:2–7]).

Although the subject of their debate is Job’s suffering, the heart of it concerns wisdom. Who is wise? Who has the correct insight into Job’s suffering? Both Job and the friends set themselves up as sources of wisdom and ridicule the wisdom of the other (11:12; 12:1–3, 12; 13:12; 15:1–13). The question “Who is wise?” dominates the book.

The interactive debate between Job and his friends ends without resolution to this question. The friends have repeated their arguments many times but have not convinced Job, so they grow silent. In chapter 28 Job suddenly changes tone in a way that has puzzled interpreters for a long time. Rather than complaining or asserting his own wisdom, Job beautifully proclaims God as the sole source of wisdom, anticipating the conclusion. However, this attitude does not hold beyond the chapter, since in chapters 30–31 Job returns to bitter complaint and protests of his innocence. To the end of this section, he maintains his innocence and a sense of God’s injustice. He wants an audience with God to set him straight (31:35–37). Job will soon learn that he should be careful about what he wishes for.

C. Elihu’s claim to wisdom (32:1–37:24). Here a new character surprisingly emerges from the background. Elihu has observed the debate silently, but now he feels compelled to speak. He is young and thus has deferred to the wisdom of the elderly, but he has been sorely disappointed. Now he realizes that wisdom is not always a matter of age, but comes from “the spirit in a person” (32:8). The reader expects a new argument from this brash young man, but instead Job is treated to another blast of the retribution theology of the three friends: Job suffers because he is a sinner (34:11, 25–27, 37).

Elihu represents another type of person who claims wisdom. Rather than age, he believes the spirit in a person gives wisdom. However, he comes up with the same old descriptions and solutions. This viewpoint is critiqued by silence; he is ignored. No one responds to his unpersuasive opinion.

D. Yahweh’s speech and Job’s repentance (38:1–42:6). When we left Job at the end of chapter 31, he had expressed his wish for an audience with God. Now he gets his wish. God appears in a whirlwind, an indication of his displeasure, and challenges Job’s purported wisdom: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?” (38:2). God then bombards Job with a series of questions that he cannot possibly answer, since he is not God. God also describes how he is the one who distributes and withholds power and wisdom to his creatures.

He never addresses the reasons for Job’s suffering or the question of suffering in general. That is not the main purpose of the book. He asserts his wisdom, thus answering the question of the book: “Who is wise?” Only God is wise. What is the proper response to God’s wisdom and power? Repentance and submission, and thus Job responds two times (40:3–5; 42:1–6).

III. Prose epilogue: resolutions in blessing (42:7–17). The epilogue raises a number of interesting questions for the interpreter. After Job repents, God restores his health and prosperity beyond what he had enjoyed at the beginning of the book. Does this not concede to the argument of the three friends and Elihu? All along they have been urging him to repent and be restored. However, such an interpretation misses a key point. Job has not repented of any sin that had led to his suffering in the first place. No, he has passed that test. However, as time wore on, he had grown impatient with God. He never takes the counsel of his wife to “curse God and die” (2:9), but he does question God’s justice without ever breaking relationship.

A second issue concerns God’s statement that Job has “spoken the truth about me” (42:8). Did God not just spend two chapters criticizing him? The best way to understand this comment is to understand it as God’s affirmation not of every word that Job has spoken about him, but rather of how Job has responded to God in the end. After all, he had never abandoned God, even in his darkest hour.

Historical Background

The book of Job is anonymous, and there is no statement in the book concerning date of writing. The setting of the story of Job is early. Job’s hometown of Uz is outside the promised land, leading to the conclusion that Job himself was not an Israelite. This fact, along with the way his wealth is described, suggests a time before God narrowed the covenant in relationship to Abraham and his descendants. However, the date of the story does not tell us when it was written, and indications within the book are mixed, some pointing to an early date and some to a late date. The dating of the book makes no difference to its interpretation.

Ancient Near Eastern Background

The ancient Near East produced a number of compositions that explore the issue of undeserved suffering. These texts come from Sumer, Egypt, Ugarit, and Babylonia, but the two that are most similar to Job come from Babylonia.

The first, Ludlul bel nemeqi (“I will praise the Lord of wisdom”), is often referred to as the Babylonian Job. The main character of the story, Subshi-meshre-shakkan, is a sufferer who complains about his situation because he has been blameless in his devotion to god and king. He feels that he does not deserve the suffering that has come upon him. The form of the book is a monologue, and the focus is on his restoration by Marduk. He never really questions the gods about his problems. The best guess concerning the time of its composition is the middle of the second millennium BC.

The second text is the Babylonian Theodicy, likely written about 1000 BC. Formally, this composition is closer to Job in that it is a dialogue between a sufferer and a friend who represents the orthodox piety of Babylon. The sufferer questions the justice of the gods. The friend cautions him against blasphemy, but in the end he comes around to the view that the gods have made humanity perverse.

The existence of these and other texts related to Job does not necessarily mean that Job was directly influenced by them. Although the Babylonian Theodicy’s dialogue form may have suggested a literary vehicle to the author, the fact that all peoples in all times and places struggle with undeserved suffering is explanation enough for the similarities.

Contemporary Significance

Even today, unthinking people may attribute the suffering and poverty of others to their sin. Indeed, those who suffer may blame themselves and their actions for their bad circumstances. True, the Bible teaches that sin has consequences, some of which offenders suffer in this life. But the Bible is also consistent in its message that sometimes bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. The book of Job reminds us that not all suffering is the result of sin.

The book’s response to suffering is not to give a logical answer to the question of why people suffer, but rather to simply assert the power and wisdom of God over against it. We may not know why we suffer, but we do know that God is in charge and knows what he is doing. The NT gives God’s ultimate answer to pain in life: Jesus Christ, God himself, who suffered and died for the sins of his people. Jesus both compares and contrasts with Job, since Jesus’ suffering was voluntary and undertaken on behalf of other people. It is not surprising that the early church adopted the practice of reading the book of Job during Easter Week.

Joel is the second of the twelve Minor Prophets. The book is best known for its frightening depiction of God’s judgment in the form of a locust plague and the stirring description of that future day when God will pour his Spirit out on all people (2:28–32).

Historical Background

Joel is notoriously difficult to date. Most prophets have superscriptions that associate their prophecy with the reigns of specific kings, but Joel only provides the name of his father, Pethuel. While the name “Joel” occurs elsewhere in Scripture, none of these can be clearly identified with the prophet. Internal indications do not help much either. The locust plague described in the first chapter was almost certainly a contemporary event, but locust plagues happened on a number of occasions, and we have no other reference to this particular plague. From passages such as 1:9, 13–16; 2:15–17, which describe the temple and its rituals, we can rule out times in which the temple did not exist (before the mid-ninth century BC and 586–515 BC), but even this consideration does not enable us to be much more precise. The names of enemies provide no help (Phoenicia, Philistia, Egypt, etc.) because these may simply be a listing of traditional enemies (though it is interesting that neither Assyria nor Babylon is mentioned). Since the Minor Prophets have a roughly chronological arrangement, it may be that whoever organized this part of the canon thought that the book was from a relatively early date (like Amos and Hosea, from the eighth century BC). Fortunately, the message of the book is not diminished by our inability to date it specifically.

Literary Considerations and Outline

Joel is a collection of prophetic oracles. Like most prophetic books, the book has both judgment and salvation oracles, although there are more salvation oracles than usual. Another viewpoint argues that the book is not so much a collection of oracles as it is a temple liturgy. Since a liturgy is repeated time and again, this is yet another reason why it is so difficult to date the book.

The first chapter describes an actual locust plague that Joel understands to be a judgment on the people of God. The second chapter also speaks of a locust plague, but this time the locusts are a metaphor for future devastation by a human army. On this basis, Joel calls for the people’s repentance and also places before the people a picture of God’s future salvation, which includes judgment on the other nations.

The structure of Joel is as follows:

I. A Locust Plague on the Land (1:1–20)

II. A Future Locust Plague (2:1–11)

III. The People’s Repentance (2:12–17)

IV. Oracles of Salvation (2:18–3:21)

Theological Message

Joel uses a recent locust plague to paint a picture of the devastation of a coming day of judgment, referred to here and elsewhere in the prophets as the “day of the Lord” (2:1; see also Amos 5:18–20). This vivid and horrifying teaching on judgment is intended not simply to frighten readers but to encourage their repentance. As frightening as Joel’s language about judgment seems, his language of future salvation is encouraging to an even greater degree.

New Testament Connections

Contemporary readers need to hear Joel’s warnings about judgment and his call to repentance and also receive the encouragement of his picture of salvation. Most notable in terms of the latter, and best known, is God’s promise in Joel to pour out his Spirit on all people—not just the old, but also the young, and not just men, but also women (2:28–32). Much earlier, Moses himself said, “I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Num. 11:29). Joel anticipated such a day, and the day of Pentecost witnessed the initial fulfillment of this salvation oracle (Acts 2:14–21).

The book of Jonah is best known for its “large fish,” commonly and mistakenly called a “whale.” Jonah is the fifth book among the twelve Minor Prophets. The other eleven books are collections of prophetic oracles, but Jonah is a story about a prophet. In this, it is more like the accounts of Elijah and Elisha in the book of Kings than it is like a regular prophetic book. Jonah tells the story of a gracious God, a reluctant and resentful prophet (who represents God’s hard-hearted people Israel), and repentant sinners.

Historical Background

The book of Jonah does not name an author, and so we cannot be certain of the date when it was written. We can, however, date the main character of the book, Jonah, to the reign of Jeroboam II (r. 786–746 BC) because of 2 Kings 14:25, where this prophet anticipates the expansion of the northern kingdom.

During this period, Assyria was relatively weak, allowing the northern kingdom to expand. Although we are not sure precisely which Assyrian king is featured in the book, we can be certain that the setting of the book precedes the rapid rise of the energetic Tiglath-pileser III, who began his reign in 744 BC.

Literary Considerations

Jonah is not a typical prophetic book. It is an account of a prophet, not a collection of prophetic oracles. The debate over Jonah concerns whether it is a historical account or a parable.

In favor of the former, 2 Kings 14:25 names Jonah as a prophet during the reign of Jeroboam II. In addition, the style of the book of Jonah is not different from what we find in the so-called historical books of the OT. A third argument appeals to Jesus’ reference to Jonah and Nineveh in Matt. 12:39–40; Luke 11:29–30.

Some doubt the historical nature of Jonah because of the extraordinary (they would say unbelievable) account of the prophet’s three-day stay in the belly of the large fish. Others are also skeptical about the report of Nineveh’s repentance, which is not recorded in Assyrian historical documents (cf. Jon. 3:6–9).

In response to the first objection, it can be said that God can do anything, even sustain a person’s life in the belly of a fish. One need not appeal to fictional reports of modern-day whalers who survive such ordeals. God controls all his creatures, and if he so desired, Jonah could have been swallowed and come out healthy. In response to the second objection, we must admit that we know precious little about Assyria in the first half of the eighth century BC. What we do know is that central Assyrian authority was weak. Indeed, we should entertain the possibility that the “king of Nineveh” (Jon. 3:6) was a strong local leader and not the king of a vast empire, therefore making it unsurprising that we have no other record of the Ninevites’ repentance.

Even so, besides the reference to Jonah and Nineveh, the world of the book is presented in an intentionally vague way. For instance, the Assyrian king is not named. Further, the book is a literary tour de force. It is highly stylized. Indeed, the argument might be made that it is told in a way that would particularly appeal to children. Note, for example, how everything is “big”—the city of Nineveh, the wind and storm, the fish. The message of the story is a moral, theological lesson and is not tied to a specific redemptive history.

Outline

I. Act I: Jonah Flees from Nineveh (1:1–2:10)

A. Jonah aboard the ship (1:1–16)

B. Jonah aboard the fish (1:17–2:10)

II. Act II: Jonah Goes to Nineveh (3:1–4:11)

A. Jonah preaches to Nineveh (3:1–10)

B. Jonah preaches to God (4:1–11)

Structure

The book may be divided into two major acts with two scenes each. God commissions the prophet twice, once in 1:1–2 and a second time in 3:1–2. These passages introduce the two acts. In the first act, the first scene is aboard the ship, and the second is in the belly of the big fish. The second act is also divided into two episodes. In the first, Jonah preaches and Nineveh repents; in the second, the setting is now east of Nineveh, where Jonah is in a dispute with God over judgment and salvation.

Theological Message

One of the interesting features of Jonah is the way it contrasts Gentiles and Jonah, who apparently functions as a representation of Israel. While Jonah resists the will of God, the Gentiles appear spiritually sensitive. While Jonah sleeps during the divinely sent storm, the pagan sailors anxiously determine the divine purpose behind their trouble. While Jonah refuses and then reluctantly announces the destruction of Nineveh, the king of Nineveh leads his people (and even the animals!) in a ritual of repentance.

In this way, the book rebukes Jonah (and Israel) for its lack of spiritual sensitivity and concern. The book also illustrates God’s grace toward the nations. After all, Israel’s election was to be a conduit of blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:1–3; cf. Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Although Assyria was a horrible oppressor, God’s grace is shown to such people.

In a word, the book of Jonah teaches that God is not just the God of Israel. He is the God of Israel, the God of Nineveh, and the God of the whole universe.

New Testament Connections

In its concern for Gentiles, the book of Jonah anticipates the NT message that God is the God of all people and not just Israel (John 1:6–14). Jesus compared his ministry to that of Jonah (Matt. 12:38–45; Luke 11:24–32). When asked for a miraculous sign, he said that he would be three days and three nights in the earth, just as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the big fish. The three days and nights refer to his crucifixion and his resurrection. He is “greater than Jonah” (Matt. 12:41). Jonah was a reluctant prophet who involuntarily spent the time in the fish’s belly, while Jesus voluntarily gave up his life to save many people.

Deuteronomy ends with the death of Moses and the people of Israel still on the plains of Moab, to the east of the promised land. Although that book completes the Torah, it anticipates the future, and that future begins with the book of Joshua. Joshua tells the story of the conquest and settlement of the land.

Date and Author

Joshua is an anonymous book. The Talmud represents early tradition when it says that Joshua wrote this book, but this is improbable, at least regarding the final form of the book. The phrase “to this day,” repeated in the book (e.g., 4:9; 5:9; 6:25), indicates that time separates the events and the book’s final composition. Some scholars detect a final editing of the material during the period of Judah’s exile in Babylon (586–539 BC), where the people of God are evaluated according to the laws of Deuteronomy. However, since the book is silent about its authorship, much of this is guesswork.

Genre

The book is a theological history of the conquest and settlement. It intends to tell later generations how God brought Israel into possession of the land by his powerful hand in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gen. 12:1–3). Joshua celebrates this victory, so the selection of stories and the book’s emphasis involve the victories and achievements of the period. Although Joshua does not hide the fact that Israel did not conquer the entire land at this time, it will be left to the first chapters of Judges to underline the fact that many Canaanites remained in the land even after Joshua’s death.

Outline and Message

The book of Joshua can be divided into two parts:

I. God, the Divine Warrior, Conquers the Land (1:1–12:24)

A. Preparations for war (1:1–5:15)

B. The battle of Jericho (6:1–27)

C. The battle of Ai (7:1–8:29)

D. Covenant renewal at Shechem (8:30–35)

E. The Gibeonite deception (9:1–27)

F. The defeat of the southern coalition (10:1–43)

G. The defeat of the northern coalition (11:1–23)

H. Summary description of the conquest (12:1–24)

II. God Distributes the Land among the Tribes of Israel (13:1–24:33)

A. The distribution of land (13:1–21:45)

B. The Transjordan tribes return home (22:1–34)

C. Joshua’s final words and covenant renewal (23:1–24:33)

In the Torah, God revealed himself as a warrior who rescues his people from their enemies (Exod. 15:3). He even gave them laws governing future wars (Deut. 7; 20). Today, these wars are often referred to as “holy wars” or “Yahweh wars,” indicating that Israel understood that its victories were due not to its own strength and wisdom, but rather to God’s presence with it. Certainly Israel participated in these battles, but it followed God’s instructions. When Israel obeyed, it won (Jericho), but when it disobeyed, it lost (Ai).

The book of Joshua narrates that at God’s command, the Israelites, under Joshua’s leadership, entered the promised land at its midpoint from the east, just north of the Dead Sea. After undergoing a period of spiritual preparation (1:1–5:12), they defeated the powerful city of Jericho and, after a devastating setback, the small town of Ai. After falling for a ruse, they entered into a treaty relationship with the Gibeonites. This completed their conquest of the middle territory, thus cutting the Canaanite city-states in half.

Then the kings of the independent city-states of the southern portion of the land gathered together and attacked the Gibeonites, now in treaty relationship with Israel. Joshua responded by attacking the armies of the south now outside their walled cities. God the warrior gave them the victory, making his presence known through lethal hailstones and by stopping the sun and the moon in their tracks. Consequently, the kings of the north assembled together, and again God fought for Israel to complete the conquest of the land. Throughout the narrative of the conquest, the emphasis continues to be on God the warrior, the one true power behind Israel’s military victories.

Few modern readers venture into the second part of the book (chaps. 13–24), filled as it is with lists of cities and descriptions of tribal boundaries. Nonetheless, this material has great theological significance. As Israel took possession of the land, the ancient promises to Abraham were beginning to come to realization. God’s promises were being fulfilled. Through the casting of lots, the individual tribes received their specific inheritance. As their boundaries were rehearsed and the cities in the territories lovingly named, the Abrahamic promises were becoming concrete. We are to imagine great joy and celebration among those who saw the fulfillment of the promises.

The book of Joshua ends with yet another great covenant reaffirmation (chap. 24). With the impending death of their great leader Joshua in sight, the tribes renewed their commitment to follow Yahweh into the new era.

Continuing Significance

In many ways, the book of Joshua appears foreign, even embarrassing to the modern Christian. The description of God as a warrior and Israel as engaging in holy war against the Canaanites seems too close to divinely sanctioned genocide to be compared to the gospel of peace.

But the NT understands that God’s people are still at war, indeed a much more dangerous war. It is a war against the spiritual powers and authority, against evil itself. As such, God has given his people more-powerful weapons, spiritual weapons such as faith, love, and the word of God (Eph. 6:10–20). Christians can enter this battle because Jesus Christ has already assured the final outcome by his victory, described in military terms in Col. 2:13–15, on the cross. Indeed, Christians are told to look to the future for the fulfillment of this victory. Revelation and other NT apocalyptic passages describe the end of time as a great final battle, with Jesus Christ leading the army against all spiritual and human enemies (Rev. 19:11–21).

The book of Joshua is harsh, but it is a reminder that the God of the Bible will not let evil win the day. God will judge those who oppress and mistreat others.

The book of Joshua celebrates the Israelites’ conquest of the land of Canaan while they were under the leadership of Joshua and the assignment of territory to the various tribes of Israel. The emphasis is on the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and its promise of the land. Joshua ends with a ceremony of reaffirmation of Israel’s commitment to God (Josh. 24). Judges, on the other hand, begins with the acknowledgment that much land still remains to be taken from the Canaanites. As the book continues, the reader recognizes that the next generations did not persevere in their commitment to follow God. Consequently, the period of the judges is well known as a time of great moral, spiritual, and political confusion and failure. Even so, it was also a time when God showed his continuing love toward his people.

Author and Date

The book of Judges is anonymous. Perhaps the accounts of the judges were handed down in oral or written form from the original time period, but indications in the book point to an edition of the book during the early monarchy, perhaps even during David’s reign. The reference to “the captivity of the land” in Judg. 18:30–31 probably should be taken as evidence of a final editing of the book during the exilic period (586–539 BC).

Genre and Outline

The book of Judges is theological history. It recounts what actually took place in the past, with an eye to teaching its readers certain lessons about their God and their relationship with him.

The book has the following structure:

I. Prologue: The Incomplete Conquest (1:1–2:5)

II. Cycle of Judges (2:6–16:31)

III. Appendix: Two Additional Stories of Israel’s Failure (17:1–21:25)

Theological Message

Judges covers the period between the death of Joshua and the rise of the monarchy in Israel. It was a turbulent period, as the people did not seem to have any center in God. The bulk of the book narrates the stories of judges, mostly military leaders, whom God sent to Israel on those occasions when they turned to him for help (Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson). The book also includes brief mentions of judges who are not associated with violent actions against the enemy (Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon [10:1–5; 12:8–15]), as well as the story of an abortive attempt to establish kingship during this time (Abimelek [chap. 9]).

Indeed, the stories of the judges who were deliverers tend to follow a relatively set pattern. They begin with the sin of the people, which leads to their oppression by a foreign power. The suffering of the people shocks them into realizing that they need God, and they turn to him for help. In such instances, God responds by giving the people a judge, really a military leader, who then delivers them from the power of their oppressors. However, after a period of peace, the people sin again, and another oppressor takes control.

The period of the judges was a time of great political fragmentation. The careful reader will note that these judges were not operating throughout Israel, but were more or less local leaders. Furthermore, these leaders were not always paragons of virtue. This is especially true as the book moves from admirable leaders such as Deborah toward the end of the period, when the judge Samson does nothing for God’s glory or his people, but rather God uses the actions of his own evil heart to deliver Israel from their enemy the Philistines.

The two stories in the appendix of the book of Judges simply add emphasis to the dark picture painted in the body of the book. These are two accounts of family sins that expand into national tragedies. Individuals from the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe dedicated to special service to God, play a particularly negative role in the appendix.

This phrase “in those days Israel had no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) is repeated throughout the appendix of the book and alerts the reader to one of the major themes of the book. Who will be the human leader of the people of God? The imperfect judges and the fragmentary condition of the tribes as well as their sad spiritual state cause the reader to yearn for something better: the rise of divinely appointed kingship in Israel. The books of Samuel and Kings, which follow, narrate the promise and ultimate failure of kingship, which itself will lead to the expectation of something even more, the Messiah.

Continuing Significance

The book of Judges is written not just to record past events but also to serve as a story that warns later generations of God’s people. As the people sin, they find their lives becoming more and more difficult. When they repent, God is quick to send them aid. Such stories encourage a life of obedience and repentance, although, as other books point out (Job and Ecclesiastes), obedience does not guarantee a trouble-free life.

The particular sin of the Israelites at this time was their adherence to the beliefs and practices of those whom they were to displace, the Canaanites. The temptation to be like those who are outside the community of faith is still powerful, and Judges can remind even modern believers to resist the urge to conform to a culture hostile to faith.

In the order of the English canon, Lamentations is tucked away between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, probably because of the tradition that Jeremiah was its author. In the Hebrew canon, however, this book is found with the other five festal scrolls (Megilloth), since it was used on the ninth of Ab, the commemoration of the destruction of the temple in 586 BC. Though brief, Lamentations is memorable for its powerful poetic expression of deep mourning over tremendous loss.

Historical Background

Lamentations is anonymous and nowhere mentions either the author or the time period in which it was written, though the latter, as we will see, is clear from the contents of the book. Traditionally, Jeremiah is thought to be the author. This connection goes back at least to the time of the LXX (c. 280–100 BC), which adds a line to the beginning of the book: “And it came to pass after Israel had gone into captivity, and Jerusalem was laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping and composed this lament over Jerusalem and said. . . .” This connection also accounts for the Greek order (followed by the Latin Vulgate) that placed Lamentations right after Jeremiah (excluding Baruch, a book not included in the Protestant canon).

While it is not impossible that Jeremiah wrote the book, many think it unlikely because of a contrast in attitudes expressed concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. In the book that bears his name, Jeremiah emphasizes that, due to their sin, the people are responsible for the fate of the city. In Lamentations, the unnamed author is much more sympathetic toward the inhabitants of Jerusalem (though still acknowledging the role that sin played) and questions whether God has taken his punishment too far. Of course, it is possible that the prophet changed perspective over time. In the final analysis, it is best to remember that the book does not claim an author. The identification of an author does not affect interpretation.

On the other hand, the general time period of the book’s composition is relatively obvious from its content. The book laments the widespread and devastating destruction of Jerusalem. While it is true that the book never names the Babylonians as the culprits, it is highly likely that they were responsible for the destruction that inspired the writing of these laments. Babylon had come to dominate Judah by at least 605 BC (Dan. 1:1–2). However, first King Jehoiakim and then Zedekiah revolted against their overlords, both times leading to deportations into exile (597 BC and 586 BC, respectively). The second occasion was by far the most devastating for the people of God. The Babylonians not only defeated them and exiled the leading citizens, but also ransacked the city and destroyed the temple.

Thus, the book was written in the aftermath and in response to the horrific destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the temple. The emotions expressed are raw and are best understood as those of an eyewitness. Thus, the book most likely was written soon after 586 BC, when these events took place.

However, a minority position believes that the book was written not right after the events but rather in connection with the rebuilding of the temple that took place between 520 and 515 BC, after the exiles were brought back into the land. This view is motivated by a genre of similar texts written in Sumerian (see below) that mention being performed in a ritual of rebuilding.

Literary Considerations

The title of the book, “Lamentations,” also names its genre. Like the laments of the psalms, this book is a cry of anguish and an expression of loss. In the case of this book, the lament is clearly corporate, in spite of the fact that it is often expressed in the first-person singular (a common phenomenon in the Psalter as well). The unnamed and unidentified first-person speaker clearly speaks for the community as a whole. On two occasions the poet speaks through a poetic personification. In chapter 1 we encounter Jerusalem personified as a grieving widow, and in chapter 3 Jerusalem again is personified, this time as a man of affliction.

Lamentations is thus a corporate lament—more specifically, a city lament that conveys the community’s grief in a way similar to earlier texts written in Sumerian. There are five such texts, the most famous of which is the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. They are dated to around 2000 BC, after the fall of the great southern Mesopotamian city of Ur at the hands of marauders. These ancient Near Eastern texts are formally similar though theologically quite distinct, as they assume a world with many different gods and goddesses.

Lamentations is composed of five smaller poems, each structured in some way related to the Hebrew alphabet. The first two chapters are written in an acrostic style: each verse begins with a successive letter of the alphabet (thus each chapter has twenty-two verses, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet). The third chapter has three times as many verses because each letter of the alphabet begins three verses in a row. Chapter 4 then proceeds through the alphabet with each letter beginning each verse; the final chapter is technically not an acrostic because it is not ordered according to the alphabet, but it too has twenty-two verses. Strong emotions are expressed, but the poet works in a very orderly way to express the community’s grief.

Outline

I. Lament for and by Jerusalem (1:1–22)

II. The Lord Is Like an Enemy (2:1–22)

III. Man of Affliction (3:1–66)

IV. The Luster Has Faded for the People of God (4:1–22)

V. A Final Lament and Appeal (5:1–22)

Theological Message

As Lamentations passionately considers the destruction of Jerusalem, it sees God as an enemy (2:5). Israel has experienced God as a warrior, winning the victory for it against incredible odds. One only has to think of the crossing of the Red Sea or the conquest of Canaan to remember this. However, here God is seen as a warrior against his people.

Lamentations does acknowledge that God has turned his anger against his people in this way because of their sin (1:8, 14, 18; 3:40–42). Even so, this theme, though present, is not the major response to God’s punishment. The primary response is to describe the horrible suffering experienced by God’s people with the hope of garnering God’s pity. Interestingly, the book ends not on a strong note of resolution but with a rather pitiful plea: “Restore us to yourself, Lord, that we may return; renew our days as of old unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure” (5:21–22).

Even so, the theological message of Lamentations is not purely negative. There is also hope, but it is expressed only briefly. In the heart of the book (3:22–33), the poet expresses his assurance that God does not abandon those who turn to him for help. This section indicates that they do expect that God will forgive them and restore them.

New Testament Connections

Similar to the laments of the Psalter, the book of Lamentations invites honesty with God in the face of suffering. Christians have a tendency to downplay the negative aspects of life and not honestly share struggles prayerfully with God. If God is in control and loves his people, then even horrible tragedy is part of his good plan. While this may be ultimately true, Lamentations is a model of the bold prayer of the righteous, where the tears of grief are abundantly shared.

In addition, as noted above, Lamentations expresses that God has moved against his people as a warrior. In the past, he has fought for his people; here, because of their sin, he fights against them.

But Lamentations does not bring the development of this theme to a close. The prophets of the exilic and postexilic periods look to the future and see the Divine Warrior. Their vision is not of God as an enemy of his people; rather, it is a vision of a future intrusion of God the warrior to fight on behalf of his people (Dan. 7; Zech. 14; Mal. 4). The NT identifies Jesus as the Divine Warrior who defeats the forces of evil on the cross (Col. 2:13–15) and as the one who will come again in the future for the final battle against all human and spiritual enemies of God (Rev. 19:11–21). Jesus Christ is the Divine Warrior, who fights on behalf of his people against the most powerful enemy of all, Satan.

The title “Leviticus” means “matters pertaining to the Levites,” the priestly tribe of Israel. Thus, topics such as sacrifice and ritual laws that deal with food, skin disease, mildew, and incest are prominent. Although the story line is hard to keep in mind in the midst of all the