In its narrower sense, the word “epiphany” refers to special occasions in redemptive history when there was a sudden manifestation of an ordinarily invisible being. For instance, while fleeing from his brother, Esau, Jacob saw in a dream a ladder to heaven on which the angels were ascending and descending, and God stood above it. God reassured Jacob by reaffirming his covenant promise to him. Upon waking, Jacob observed, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it” (Gen. 28:16). The resurrection appearances of Christ are epiphanies (see Acts 9:3–4). Christ’s return will be an epiphany that all will see.

In its broader sense, an epiphany is any dramatic moment of revelatory insight. For instance, when the prodigal son came to his senses, he realized that even though he had become estranged, he was still a son, and so he still could turn to his father for help (Luke 15:17–19). At conversion, a person experiences a sort of epiphany, coming to understand for the first time not only oneself but also who God is, and suddenly becoming aware of the truth of his promises and of his love (1 Cor. 2:9–10).

(1) The first son of Judah by a Canaanite woman whom the Lord put to death for his wickedness, leaving his wife, Tamar, childless (Gen. 38:2–7; 46:12; Num. 26:19; 1 Chron. 2:3). (2) A grandson of Judah, a son of Shelah, and the father of Lecah (1 Chron. 4:21), perhaps named for his uncle Er (Gen. 38:2–7). (3) An otherwise unknown grandson of Eliezer, the son of Joshua, and the father of Elmadam in Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:28).

A son of Gad (Gen. 46:16) whose descendants were numbered among the second generation in the wilderness (Num. 26:16).

The firstborn son of Isaac and Rebekah, the twin brother of Jacob, and the father of the Edomites (Gen. 25:25–26; 36). Unlike Jacob, Esau was red and hairy in appearance (hence his name [25:25]), a skillful hunter by trade, and loved by his father, Isaac.

Before the birth of the twins, Rebekah received a prophecy that the two sons would represent nations, and that the older, Esau, would serve the younger, Jacob (Gen. 25:23). This reversal of events was brought about through the trickery of Jacob and Rebekah. Jacob bargained for Esau’s birthright, which the famished Esau traded for food. Rebekah cleverly disguised her beloved son, Jacob, to feel and smell like Esau in order to fool her blind husband, which allowed Jacob to steal Esau’s blessing. Esau plotted to kill Jacob, who possessed his birthright and blessing.

Rebekah intervened to save Jacob by urging Isaac to send Jacob away to Paddan Aram to take a wife from her father’s home (Gen. 27:42–28:5). As a result, Jacob’s wife-to-be would not be a grief to his parents like Esau’s foreign wives, Judith and Basemath (26:34). Upon hearing of his parents’ disapproval, Esau added another foreign wife, Mahalath, apparently out of spite (28:8–9). Esau never exacted revenge on his brother, even though Jacob greatly feared this fate (32:3–21). Instead, the two brothers met peacefully following Jacob’s departure from Paddan Aram (Gen. 33:4), and again in order to bury their father (35:29).

Genesis 36 describes Esau as the father of the Edomites, who inhabited the hill country of Seir in Edom (also Deut. 2:4–6). Even though Jacob and Esau resolved their differences, there was continued strife between the two nations that they represent, fulfilling the earlier prophecy. Edom also figures prominently within the prophetic corpus (see Obadiah; Mal. 1:2–4). Further, the relationship between Jacob and Esau and their father is used as a type in the NT (Rom. 9–11), and Esau is used to represent the godless (Heb. 12:16).

A well, whose name means “dispute,” that was a source of contention between Isaac’s shepherds who dug it and the shepherds of the kingdom of Gerar (Gen. 26:20).

A son of Dishon, a descendant of Esau (Gen. 36:26; 1 Chron. 1:41).

(1) An ally of Abraham who lived in the region of Hebron. Eshkol and his brothers joined with Abraham to fight against a coalition of four kings and take back Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family (Gen. 14:13–24). (2) A valley near Hebron visited by the twelve Israelite spies during their reconnaissance of Canaan. The spies brought back a single “cluster [’eshkol] of grapes” from the valley as proof of Canaan’s fruitfulness (Num. 13:23–24). The region still produces excellent grapes.

(1) An ally of Abraham who lived in the region of Hebron. Eshkol and his brothers joined with Abraham to fight against a coalition of four kings and take back Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family (Gen. 14:13–24). (2) A valley near Hebron visited by the twelve Israelite spies during their reconnaissance of Canaan. The spies brought back a single “cluster [’eshkol] of grapes” from the valley as proof of Canaan’s fruitfulness (Num. 13:23–24). The region still produces excellent grapes.

(1) A grandson of Jacob and son of Reuben (Gen. 46:9; Exod. 6:14; 1 Chron. 5:3). His descendants were the Hezronite clan of Reuben (Num. 26:6). (2) A great-grandson of Jacob, grandson of Judah, son of Perez, and the father of Ram (also known as Aram and Arni), listed in the ancestry of David and Jesus (Gen. 46:12; Ruth 4:18–19; 1 Chron. 2:5–9; 4:1; Matt. 1:3; Luke 3:33). The Chronicler makes a point to note that Hezron married again in old age (sixty) and fathered Segub and Ashhur, who was born after Hezron died (1 Chron. 2:21–24). His descendants were the Hezronite clan of Judah (Num. 26:21). (3) One of the cities marking the southern border of the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah in the conquest of Canaan, lying somewhere between Kadesh Barnea and Addar (Josh. 15:3).

Eternal life usually is mentioned in reference to human life, where it means unending life in the body, free from death. The expression, though most common in the NT, is drawn from the OT. The book of Daniel says that many who “sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2). This yearning for eternal life is also expressed in Genesis, where those who eat of the “tree of life” will “live forever” (3:22). In Deuteronomy, God likewise declares, “I live forever” (32:40). Among the DSS, 4Q418 (frag. 69) and 1QS (4:7), both of which predate the NT, also refer to everlasting life.

The NT expression “eternal life” may seem to have a different meaning than the OT expression “everlasting life.” Any such appearance arises only in translation to English, for the underlying Greek words in the NT have the same meaning as the underlying Hebrew words in the OT. The words are already treated synonymously by the LXX, an ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (predating the NT).

The English word “eternal” may refer to eternity past and future, but in biblical usage that word does not generally refer to eternity past. This is evident where the NT mentions “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8) and “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). It is also indicated where eternal life is seen as a future reward for the righteous (Dan. 12:2; Luke 18:30; Rom. 2:7; Gal. 6:8; Titus 1:2; 1 John 2:25).

That life in the body is included in the NT concept of eternal life is evident from several considerations. Jesus says of everyone who believes in him, “I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:40). The bodily nature of everlasting life is indicated by Jesus’ own resurrection, for his tomb was left empty. Jesus says after his own resurrection that a spirit “does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). The apostle Paul even writes that without the resurrection the Christian faith is invalidated (1 Cor. 15:12–19). When Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he does not mean that resurrection is of the human spirit, but rather that perishable flesh and blood must first be made immortal (1 Cor. 15:50–54; 2 Cor. 5:4).

The prospect of eternal life is often contrasted with death and punishment, just as the Bible more generally contrasts the prospect of life with death and lawless behavior. In Gen. 3, the sin of Adam and Eve shows that people turn from God out of self-interest, so everlasting life is not given to them. Much later, the people of Israel are warned that they will suffer death if they break faith with the true God to follow other gods (Lev. 26; Deut. 28; 30:15–20). Later still, the book of Daniel warns plainly that resurrection is to everlasting life or to everlasting contempt (12:1–3). The NT likewise, drawing at times from the Hebrew prophets (e.g., Isa. 66:22–24), contrasts the prospect of eternal life with the prospect of punishment for doing evil (Matt. 25:31–46; John 5:28–29; Rom. 6:23; Gal. 6:8; Rev. 20:10–15; 22:1–6).

Just as eternal life is contrasted with death, eternal life is sometimes referred to more fundamentally and simply as “life” (e.g., Matt. 19:17; Acts 11:18; 1 John 3:14). All life comes from God, through his divine word (Gen. 1; Deut. 30:20; John 1:1–4). The NT says that God gave his Son the power to give eternal life, since the Son does only what God the Father commands (John 5:19–30; 6:57–58).

The NT promises eternal life to all who believe (trust) in God’s Son (John 3:16; 3:36; 6:40; 11:25–26; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). To believe in God’s Son is to believe that God sent Jesus (John 17:8), to listen to Jesus’ message from God and so believe in God (5:24; 12:44), and to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (20:31).

The belief in God and Jesus that secures eternal life is not mere mental assent, but rather is expressed in a life that turns from evil. Those who will receive eternal life are characterized by love rather than by hatred and murder (John 5:29; 1 John 3:14–15). Only the righteous will enter into eternal life, and they are marked by their care for Jesus’ brothers and sisters: feeding the hungry and clothing the poor (Matt. 25:31–46). They do not live for themselves, nor do they give free rein to all human desires, but instead they are led by, and walk in accordance with, the Spirit of God (John 12:25; Gal. 5:16–21; 6:8).

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

The two rivers between which Mesopotamia (“between rivers”) is located. The Euphrates and the Tigris originate in the mountains of modern Turkey and run through Syria and Iraq, each for more than a thousand miles, before meeting and emptying into the Persian Gulf. Like today, the two rivers gave life to many people, running through major centers of ancient civilization.

The Euphrates and the Tigris are mentioned together only once in the Bible (Gen. 2:10–14), where they are two of the four rivers stemming from the garden of Eden. The Euphrates itself figures prominently in the biblical narrative. It is also known as “the great river” or simply “the river.” Besides its role in Gen. 2, it is frequently mentioned as a border of the land that God promised to Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 15:18; Josh. 1:4), a land that Israel acquired during the united monarchy (2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Kings 4:24). King Josiah met his death here at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC (2 Chron. 35:20–27; cf. Jer. 46:1–10). The Euphrates also functions as a symbol of Israel’s idolatrous past (Josh. 24:2–3) and as a symbol of freedom from the exile (Isa. 11:15; 27:12). In the NT, the Euphrates is the place where the four angels are bound (Rev. 9:14) and where the sixth angel pours out his bowl. Moreover, the Tigris appears in only one other place in the Bible (Dan. 10:4), where Daniel receives a vision on its banks. Some dispute the validity of this occurrence because certain manuscripts (i.e., the Peshitta) here replace “Tigris” with “Euphrates.”

The first woman, formed from the side of Adam, was named “Eve” (“living one” or “life giver”) “because she would become the mother of all the living” (Gen. 3:20). Eve was associated with Adam in disobeying God (Gen. 3:1–6; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13–14). She bore Cain, Abel, and Seth, among other children. See also Adam and Eve.

Modern science and the Bible present accounts of the creation of the world that often are claimed to be incompatible. In response, interpreters of the Bible have adopted a range of approaches in order to overcome the apparent tensions. At one end of the spectrum is the position that wholeheartedly adopts modern scientific thinking and restricts the Bible’s authority only to matters of faith—where “faith” must necessarily exclude anything that may touch on scientific matters. The other end of the spectrum lies with those who reject any claims of modern science that stand at odds with a “literal” reading of the Bible, affirming the truth of the Bible in all matters upon which it touches. Among contemporary Christians a number of positions on this spectrum are represented in modern debate; some of the more important of these are outlined in what follows here.

First is the view that a literal reading of the creation account in the Bible is necessitated by the nature of God and his self-revelation as trustworthy and true. Consequently, where conflict with modern science occurs, the literal reading of the Bible is right and modern science is wrong. In spite of this disagreement, the Bible’s revelation can be supported through the application of modern scientific methodologies, and consequently an alternate scientific account of the creation of the world can be produced that reflects rather than contradicts the biblical account. Proponents of this view typically affirm the notion that the earth was created in six days within the last few thousand years. Some variations to this interpretation do exist, such as the view that a vast expanse of time may have passed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:3.

Second, it is possible to employ modern science to illuminate the meaning of the creation accounts. This approach has been used to suggest, for example, that a scientific model of the ancient earth’s atmosphere may have provided conditions that could allow for the earthbound observer to believe that day and night existed before the appearance of the sun and other heavenly bodies. It has also facilitated the production of elaborate and detailed explanations of precisely how Gen. 1–2 can be interpreted to agree with the current scientific account of origins. One major problem is that it allows science ultimately to dictate the interpretation of the Bible, but other problems are apparent as well, such as the fact that because modern science becomes a prerequisite for a correct understanding of the biblical text, the true meaning of the text was unavailable in the past and, in particular, unavailable to its original audience.

Third, others claim that some aspects of the creation account in the Bible are figurative and should not be understood literally. The application of such an approach varies enormously, with disagreement over precisely which parts of the text are to be read figuratively and which literally. What this approach does allow for, however, is that where there are apparent conflicts between a literal reading of the text and modern science, both science and the text can be correct if the text is understood figuratively. One example of this approach suggests that the days of Gen. 1 are a literary device and, as such, should not be interpreted as literal twenty-four-hour days. This view thus allows its proponents to reconcile the creation account with the scientific view that the earth is billions of years old.

The fourth approach—in many ways a refinement of the third—emphasizes the notion that the Bible represents God’s communication with people who lived in a particular historical and cultural context. As such, God’s message is conveyed in their language, using expressions, idioms, concepts, and ideas with which they were familiar in order to effectively communicate with those people. Thus, some aspects of the text are “reflective” instead of didactic, accommodating to the needs of the people in order to effectively communicate the intended message. So, for example, when the OT refers to the heart as the locus of the human intellect, this reflects not an authoritative decree relating to human physiology but rather an aspect of the Hebrew language and culture employed by God to speak effectively to his people. Aspects of the creation account often cited as incoherent or problematical thus actually reflect accommodation to aspects of the worldview of the audience employed by God to communicate accurately with his people.

In spite of the often heated exchanges between proponents of these various positions, many in each group remain committed to the authority of the Bible. For those Christians who do accept that the prevailing modern scientific account of the origin of the universe is accurate (if not necessarily complete), it nonetheless remains impossible to reasonably claim that the Bible has nothing to say about creation or that it can have no impact on how scientists understand the universe. While God is “other”—that is, not part of creation—he is still intimately associated with it: he upholds it, controls it, and purposes it for his own ends (Isa. 46:9–11; Heb. 1:3).

Regardless of how one resolves the difficulties apparent in reconciling the biblical creation account with modern science, the existence of the problem itself highlights a fundamental aspect of Christianity: God intervenes in human history. If God interacts with his creation, then this invariably impacts how we should understand the universe in which we live. Science often adopts an unnecessarily atheistic set of presuppositions that are not only incompatible with biblical faith but also ultimately unnecessary for the pursuit of scientific understanding.

It is also important to acknowledge that science has long influenced readings of the Bible’s creation account, whether that science was that of Aristotle or that of Einstein. For example, many early scholars felt it necessary to note the figurative nature of the days in Gen. 1, because they held that the creation of the universe was instantaneous. History has shown that for those who seek to reconcile their interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis with the prevailing scientific paradigm of their day, each major shift in scientific understanding necessitates a revision of their understanding of the text. That this is so ought to serve as a warning that this approach is problematic. Understanding the Bible’s creation account is clearly not contingent upon understanding modern science, or else it would have been useless to the many generations who came before us. Rather, in light of the fact that the account was written in an ancient language to the people of ancient Israel, it is more appropriate to read the text through their understanding of the world in order to derive the meaning that they would have attained as they read. We seek to understand the meaning of the text through a study of its language and culture. Part of this process is necessarily to seek to understand the meaning of the ideas implicit in the text, such as the manner in which it expresses details of the world in which the Israelites lived.

Of all aspects of science that have caused difficulties for readers of the Bible, the theory of evolution has perhaps been most consistently at the forefront of debate. Here again the spectrum of approaches outlined above is evident in Christian responses to the theory, and here again the degree of discord has frequently been overstated. Furthermore, the debate has tended to polarize views, driving the more vocal defenders of evolution to express their position more vehemently and with more certitude than is actually warranted by the evidence, and for some opponents of evolution similarly to overstate their case.

Even for those who hold that modern science is incompatible with biblical revelation on the matter of the origins of the universe and life, there remain substantial areas of science that do not come into conflict with the Bible, so we need to avoid an irrational response to modern science that rejects the whole on the basis of a disagreement over a part. It is also important to retain a degree of humility in our approach to both science and the Bible, for we are infallible interpreters neither of the physical world in which we live nor of the word of God.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the Bible makes certain claims that necessarily impact one’s view of science. It is difficult to escape the fact that the Bible clearly depicts God as both responsible for creation and intervening in history. Consequently, a scientific worldview that seeks to comprehensively exclude God from involvement with his creation is clearly neither biblical nor compatible with the Bible except through application of the most elaborate exegetical and hermeneutical gymnastics.

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.

The term “exodus” comes from a Greek word meaning “departure.” Specifically, the exodus refers to Israel’s departure from Egyptian slavery and its move toward the promised land (Canaan). The story of the exodus begins with a description of the harsh conditions under which the children of Abraham lived in Egypt, the raising up of a deliverer, the plagues, the actual departure, and the crossing of the Red Sea. Some treatments of the exodus include the wanderings in the wilderness (this topic is treated separately as a transitional period between the exodus and the conquest and settlement of the promised land; see Wilderness Wandering).

Many questions of interpretation of the exodus are matters of discussion, some of which will be treated below. These include, among other issues, the size of Israel, the date of the events, and the nature of the plagues. Two questions dominate all the others: Did the exodus happen? Does it matter to the message of the Bible whether the exodus happened?

The Nature of the Exodus

The exodus event is described in the first fifteen chapters of the book of Exodus, which opens with a description of Israel’s enslavement in the land of Egypt. The descendants of Israel had been in Egypt since the time of Joseph (see Gen. 37–50). An unspecified but significant number of years had passed since Joseph, and when the action begins in the book of Exodus, the Israelites were no longer honored in the land but reviled. Unmentioned in the Bible, but known from extrabiblical literature, a group called the “Hyksos” (“rulers of foreign countries”), ethnically related to the Hebrews, had taken advantage of an Egypt in political chaos and had dominated it for about a century (c. 1664–1555 BC). The events of Exod. 1 occurred after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, and many associate the new distrust of Israel with a general fear of a large Semitic presence in the land once a native Egyptian monarchy had been restored.

The biblical text, however, gives no motive but simply states that an unnamed (see below) pharaoh issued a decree to enslave the Israelites and to kill Israelite baby boys. In this context of enslavement and murder, God raised up a deliverer, Moses. His birth was extraordinary. After giving him birth, Moses’ mother placed him in a papyrus basket and put him on the Nile River. He was discovered by none other than the daughter of Pharaoh, who even hired Moses’ mother as a wet nurse. Thus, Israel’s deliverer was raised in the very household of the pharaoh who was trying to exterminate him.

Parallels to the Moses birth story exist. Especially close is the Sargon legend. Sargon was born to a high priestess who, for unstated reasons, could not keep him. Instead of abandoning him, she placed him in a basket and floated him down the Euphrates, where he was discovered by Aqqi, an irrigation worker. Aqqi raised Sargon, and from there he became the first king of the dynasty of Akkad. Rather than attributing the stories’ similarities to imitation, we should rather understand the action of Moses’ and Sargon’s mothers as the typical way that mothers helped preserve their babies in difficult situations. The moral of the biblical story is that God allows Israel’s future hero to survive so that he can use him to deliver his people.

Nothing is narrated about Moses’ childhood. The next major episode of the exodus involves Moses’ intervention in an altercation between a Hebrew and an Egyptian. Moses, who certainly knew his true parentage, killed an Egyptian who was beating an Israelite. This killing became known, and he had to flee Egypt.

Moses’ flight from Egypt brought him to Midian, an area around the Gulf of Aqabah. He married into the family of a Midianite tribal leader, Jethro. It was here, specifically at Mount Sinai, that God, speaking to Moses at a bush that was in flames but not consumed, called him to return to Egypt to confront Pharaoh. In response to Moses’ hesitation, God made his brother Aaron his companion and spokesperson.

When Moses returned to Egypt, he demanded that Pharaoh allow his people to go into the wilderness for three days in order to celebrate a festival. Ethical issues arise with this demand because it is unlikely that the Israelites would have returned to Egypt after the three days. This deception is not the only instance when lying seems to be divinely approved in the OT. We should likely understand that the pharaoh had forfeited his right to the truth because he intended to use it for evil purposes.

Pharaoh refused to allow the Israelites to leave. In response, God sent a series of disasters (plagues) against Egypt. According to Exod. 12:12, the plagues were judgments directed at the gods of Egypt (see also Num. 33:4). Turning the Nile into blood, God attacked the god of the Nile, Hapi. Darkening the sun, God showed his power over the most important Egyptian deity, the sun god Aten-Re. Climactically, the death of the Egyptians’ firstborn sons and livestock brought tragedy to the god who ruled Egypt, the pharaoh.

The plagues were a series of divinely initiated disasters of nature, miracles, or extraordinary providence, not naturally occurring events, that brought Egypt to its knees. Ultimately, Pharaoh agreed to let Israel leave Egypt. On the evening of the last plague, the Israelites celebrated the Passover (Exod. 12), which ever since has been an annual commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt.

Even after they set off toward the promised land, however, they were not safe. Pharaoh, angry and embarrassed, had a final change of mind and set off after the Israelites. He cornered them with their backs against an impassable body of water known traditionally as the Red Sea. The Hebrew phrase (yam sup) is literally translated “sea of reeds” and probably refers to one of the deepwater lakes that once existed to the north of the Gulf of Suez. In any case, Moses and the Israelites had no chance of escape—that is, no human chance. God opened up the sea so that they could pass through, and when the Egyptians tried to follow, he closed the sea so that it engulfed them. God’s act of rescue and judgment is then celebrated in song (Exod. 15:1–18). After they passed safely through the waters, the Israelites then continued their journey through the wilderness and toward the promised land.

Did It Happen?

The only direct witness of the exodus is the Bible itself. The account given in the book of Exodus is intended to be taken as an actual past event, and those who have confidence in the Bible as a historical source typically do not doubt the historicity of the exodus, although some questions persist, such as the size of the group that left Egypt or whether the exodus was the culmination or the beginning of a process of Israelites moving from Egypt to Israel.

Unfortunately, there is only indirect evidence of Israelite presence in Egypt in the second half of the second millennium BC (see “When Did It Happen?” below). The exodus and Israel are never mentioned in Egyptian records. Of course, it is unlikely that Egypt would have preserved permanent records of such an embarrassing and painful moment in its history. The exodus is not the type of event that Egypt would have memorialized by a pyramid or on tomb walls. What we do have on tomb walls, however, does show in a general sense that Semitic peoples were engaged in slave labor in the second millennium in Egypt. For instance, as early as the reign of Thutmose III, around 1460 BC, we have scenes of foreigners making bricks for the temple of Amun in Thebes. This is one example of indirect evidence that can be marshaled to make the account of the exodus sound reasonable. In this context, we should also note that the first extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Israel as a people in Egypt comes from the very end of the thirteenth century BC, in a victory monument of Pharaoh Merneptah (also known as the Israel Stela) that mentions Israel as a vanquished enemy.

When Did It Happen?

The biblical evidence is ambiguous as to when the exodus took place. Note that the names of the pharaohs are not given. The most straightforward text is 1 Kings 6:1, stating that Solomon began building the temple in his fourth year, which was 480 years after the exodus. Taking this number literally places the exodus in the middle of the fifteenth century BC. Through correlations with Assyrian chronology, which mentions dateable astronomical events, Solomon’s fourth year is reckoned to be approximately 966 BC. If the exodus took place in the fifteenth century BC, then a ruler such as Thutmose III would be a candidate for the pharaoh of the exodus.

Problems arise, however, when this date is compared to the traditional interpretation of archaeological evidence. A full discussion of the issue is impossible here, but as an example, we will note briefly the two “store cities” that Egypt forced Israel to build, Pithom and Ram-eses (Exod. 1:11). In the first place, the name of the second city reflects that of a pharaoh who ruled in the thirteenth century, Ramesses II. It is possible that the book of Exodus has updated the name of a city that had existed as early as the fifteenth century. Indeed, some archaeological remains from the fifteenth century at the archaeological site are widely recognized as the remains of Rameses (Tell Qantir [Daba’]). But it was during the reign of Ramesses II that the city really expanded.

Archaeology better (but not perfectly) supports a date for the exodus in the thirteenth century BC, with Ramesses as the pharaoh of the exodus. This conclusion holds not only for Pithom and Rameses but also for the cities said to be involved in the conquest that took place forty years later (Jericho, Ai, Hazor).

A late date (thirteenth century) for the exodus can be biblically justified by taking the number 480 as symbolic. The number 40 could stand for a generation (like the wilderness generation), and thus 480 years would stand for twelve generations. However, a generation is actually closer to twenty-five years, meaning that twelve generations would “literally” be about three hundred years. Accordingly, the exodus would be dated to the first part of the thirteenth century.

In conclusion, both the archaeological evidence and the chronological statements of the Bible are ambiguous. Archaeological results are often open to more than one interpretation. While insisting on the historicity of the exodus, we still cannot be dogmatic about when the exodus took place, whether in the fifteenth century or in the thirteenth.

Does It Matter Whether It Happened?

Many today understand the story of the exodus to be just that, a story. Often stories are meaningful in and of themselves, apart from whether the events they relate actually happened. However, in the case of the exodus, if the events associated with it did not happen, then the moral of the story has no relevance. The main teaching of the exodus is that Yahweh is a God who can rescue his people when they are beyond human aid. Indeed, that is how the exodus was understood even in later OT settings (see Ps. 77). At the exodus God was establishing a track record, showing that he was capable of and, under certain conditions, willing to rescue his people.

Biblical Theology

The exodus is the salvation event that defined Israel as a nation. Occurring at the beginning of Israel’s national history, it served as an important reminder of God’s concern and care for his people. After the exodus, the Israelites journeyed through the wilderness toward the promised land. Due to their rebellion and lack of trust, God punished them by making them stay in the wilderness for forty years, enough time for the first generation of adults to die out. With the exception of the faithful spies, Joshua and Caleb, those who stood on the eastern bank of the Jordan River forty years later did not experience the crossing of the Red Sea. To demonstrate that the God of power was still with them, God caused the waters of the Jordan River to stop, evoking memories of the exodus (Josh. 3).

The psalms also often recall the exodus in such a way that this past event may bring confidence for the present and hope for the future. Psalm 77 illustrates this, as does Ps. 114, which personifies the sea as the forces of chaos, afraid of God, who will control it.

Interestingly, the later prophets often speak of the exodus as if it were a future event. Isaiah (4:5; 11:15–16; 40:1–11; 43:18–19; 48:21; 49:11–12; 50:2; 51:9–10; 52:10; 63:11–14), Jeremiah (16:14–15; 23:7–8), Hosea (2:14–16), and many others announce God’s coming judgment on his sinful people. Looking beyond judgment, though, they also envision a future rescue of the faithful remnant, and often they do this in the language of the exodus.

When did this second exodus take place? Ezra 1–6 recounts the early returns under leaders such as Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. Those who heard the prophetic message would have understood the exile as a reversion to bondage and a wandering in the wilderness. Thus, we should not be surprised that the faithful would think of the return to the land as a fulfillment of the promises of the second exodus. It is striking that just as the Egyptians gave gifts to the departing children of Israel (Exod. 3:21–22; 11:2; 12:35–36), so too did the people of Israel’s present foreign neighbors: “All their neighbors assisted them with articles of silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with valuable gifts, in addition to all the freewill offerings” (Ezra 1:6). As the exodus generation offered gifts for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 35:21–29), so too the returnees contributed gifts for the construction of the temple (Ezra 2:68–69).

However, the return from exile was just the beginning. The NT understands that Jesus Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the exodus; his work on earth follows the pattern of the exodus.

His ministry began with his baptism at the Jordan River, reflecting the Israelites’ crossing through the Red Sea (which was their baptism [1 Cor. 10:1–6]), after which he went into the wilderness for forty days and nights (Matt. 4:1–11). Here he experienced the same temptations as Israel did during its forty-year wandering. In contrast to the Israelites, Jesus showed that he was the obedient Son of God by not succumbing to the temptation, each time quoting the book of Deuteronomy, Moses’ last sermon to the Israelites in the wilderness.

After naming twelve disciples (reflecting the twelve tribes of Israel), Jesus preached a sermon from a mountain whose subject was the law (Matt. 5–7). Such a topic in such a setting would have reminded a Jewish Christian audience of God giving Moses the law on Mount Sinai.

These are just some examples of the connection between the exodus and Jesus’ life. The connection culminates, though, on the cross, since Jesus is executed on the eve of the Passover, the annual celebration of the deliverance from Egypt.

While the connections with Jesus’ life are arguably the most significant, the book of Hebrews also uses the exodus theme, though in a slightly different way. Hebrews likens contemporary Christians to the wilderness generation. They have been freed from their bondage (sin) and are on the way to the promised land (heaven), but for now they are in the wilderness. The author makes the connection to warn Christians not to rebel against God, as many in the wilderness generation did, and thus suffer punishment (Heb. 3:7–4:13).

“Expiation” refers to the atonement of sin and the removal of guilt, while “propitiation” refers to the appeasement or satisfaction of wrath. Both ideas are present in the one Greek word hilasmos (and its cognates) used in the LXX and the NT. It is difficult to translate hilasmos into English using one corresponding word, so two words, “expiation” and “propitiation,” are often used. This is problematic because neither term precisely captures the nuances of the Greek word. The problem persists because, as noted above, “expiation” and “propitiation” have different meanings in English. Because no single English word conveys the full sense of hilasmos, “expiation” and “propitiation” are conveniently combined in the NIV’s “sacrifice of atonement” or “atoning sacrifice” (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

Greek Background

In classical Greek, hilasmos referred to a sacrifice that would somehow avert a god’s wrath. When a worshiper sinned against a god and violated the god’s holiness, the worshiper paid the proper amount, through some kind of sacrifice, so that the god’s wrath was then averted. It was a means of turning the god from anger to a favorable attitude, and it functioned by giving the god something (via sacrifice) that compensated for the offense. This sacrifice was intended not as atonement for the worshiper’s sin but rather to appease the wrath of the god. The worshiper was the subject who offered the sacrifice to the god as the object in an effort to appease the god’s wrath.

Old Testament

The OT shares this Greek usage to a degree but also expands it to include the more familiar biblical notion of expiation or atonement. The LXX uses hilasmos to convey the ideas of expiation as well as propitiation. The word group associated with hilasmos is used in different contexts throughout the Bible, so context must determine the meaning in each case. A prominent use occurs in Lev. 25:9, where it refers to the Day of Atonement. Here hilasmos involves the removal of guilt effected by a sacrifice. A similar use is found in Num. 5:8, where hilasmos is used in connection with the ram with which people make atonement for their sins. Ezekiel 44:27 uses the same term when referring to the sin offering that a priest must make for his own sins upon entrance into the holy place. Each of these examples uses hilasmos to translate the biblical concept of expiation: the atonement of sin and the removal of guilt. The unholy worshiper who sins against God is made holy once again by offering a sacrifice to atone for his or her sin.

Hilasmos also conveys forgiveness. Forgiveness is closely connected with atonement. The LXX uses a related term hilastērion twenty-eight times to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the covenant over which God appeared on the Day of Atonement and on which sacrificial blood was poured. The mercy seat was where both atonement and forgiveness were found. The term is used in Heb. 9:5 to refer to the same mercy seat or “atonement cover” (NIV). Here again, mercy and forgiveness are linked to the idea of atonement. Psalm 130:4 (129:4 LXX) also uses hilasmos to convey the connection between atonement and forgiveness: “But with you there is forgiveness/atonement [hilasmos].”

In some cases, hilasmos bears the sense of propitiation—turning aside wrath. An interesting use occurs in the story of Jacob and Esau in Gen. 32. Jacob goes out to meet his brother Esau but is afraid because he had deceived their father, Isaac, into giving him the blessing that belonged to Esau (Gen. 27). Esau holds a grudge against Jacob and intends to kill him after mourning the death of their father (27:41). After years of separation, the brother reunite; Jacob, fearing the wrath of his brother, plans to avert his brother’s anger with gifts: “I will pacify him with these gifts I am sending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me” (32:20 [32:21 LXX]). Here exilaskomai, a verb related to hilasmos, is used when Jacob says that he hopes to “pacify” Esau. This context suggests not expiation or atonement but appeasement (cf. NRSV, NET). Jacob fears the wrath of his brother. To avert that wrath, he sends gifts.

The idea of propitiating God’s wrath occurs throughout the OT. Granted, it does not amount to bribery, as was potentially the case in pagan usage, where a god was “paid off” by a sacrifice, with no sense of atonement for sin, but the notion of averting God’s wrath is common. For example, Moses is directed by God to take a census of the people to count them, and each one is to pay God a ransom so that no plague will come upon them (Exod. 30:12). This sum of money is then said to “make atonement” for their lives (30:16). Through the offering of ransom money to God, his wrath is turned away from the people, so that no plague will come upon them. The idea of propitiating God’s wrath is found in other places in the OT: Exod. 32:30; Num. 8:19; 16:46; 35:31; Prov. 16:6; Isa. 47:11. All of this suggests that the notion of atonement in the OT is best understood comprehensively to include both the cleansing and the forgiveness of the sinner (expiation) and the turning away of God’s wrath (propitiation).

New Testament

Expiation and propitiation are combined in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is both the expiation for sin and the sacrifice that averts God’s wrath. The Bible combines both expiation and propitiation into the one word hilasmos, and Jesus himself is the hilasmos for sin (Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; cf. Rom. 3:25 [hilastērion]). The one action of Christ’s sacrifice has the double effect of expiating sin and thereby propitiating God. In the Bible, God’s wrath results when his holiness is offended by sin. So there is need for both expiation and propitiation. His wrath must be appeased so that forgiveness for the sinner may result. Whereas expiation deals with sin—satisfying the penalty incurred because of sin—propitiation deals with wrath. Jesus accomplished both by becoming the “atoning sacrifice” for our sins. He is the ultimate mercy seat, the ultimate place of atonement and expiation (Heb. 9:5). He is also the ultimate sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).

The NT is very nuanced regarding the sacrifice of Christ. Although it includes both expiation and propitiation, these differ significantly from Greek paganism and the OT. On one hand, God is too holy and righteous for fallen humanity to expiate sin and satisfy his demand for holiness by offering a sacrifice. On the other hand, God is not capricious in that he simply needs to be pacified through a gift in order to avert his wrath. The Bible teaches that no human being can offer a sacrifice worthy enough to expiate his or her own sin or to avert God’s holy wrath. The pagan idea of propitiation is impossible for fallen humanity. God’s holiness is so great that he is rightfully wrathful at our sin, and our sin demands expiation. But we are unable to offer a sacrifice pure enough for our own atonement. So God himself offers the sacrifice that both expiates our sin and averts his own wrath. Biblical propitiation is distinct from pagan propitiation. In the latter, human beings are the subjects of the action, the ones who are offering the propitiating sacrifice, while the gods receive the action and are thus propitiated. But God is the subject of the action in the Bible. God has the right to be wrathful because of sin, to be righteously indignant. But he sends his own Son to handle that wrath. God himself sends the sacrifice; he is the sacrifice; he is the place where that sacrifice is offered (Rom. 3:25).

There are three elements that help to summarize expiation/propitiation in the Bible: (1) God was rightfully wrathful because of our sin, (2) God offered the sacrifice that averted his own wrath, and (3) God was the sacrifice that atoned for our sin. “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

In contrast to ascetics who view the physical as inferior to the “spiritual” and self-serving hedonists who reduce sex to a physical commodity, Scripture has a high view of the sex act. Yet the sex act was created as an act of intimacy between a man and a woman within a marital relationship (Gen. 2:24). Marriage involves giving one’s whole person—body, soul, and spirit—to another person (of the opposite sex) through a formal covenant ratified by God. Nakedness symbolizes complete vulnerability and transparency. Covenant creates the conditions for trust and intimacy to grow. Sex is an act whereby the two celebrate this spiritual union through physical union.

While in certain cultural contexts God has at times condescended to allow variations on monogamy, including polygamy and the taking of concubines (secondary wives; e.g., Gen. 30:3–6, 18), these were never God’s created standard for sexual relations, which is a monogamous heterosexual relationship between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24).

Paul informs the unmarried that it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire (1 Cor. 7:8–9). By implication, marriage is the appropriate context for fulfilling one’s sexual desire. To have sex outside the context of marriage is sexual immorality, since one has not given total allegiance—emotionally, socially, economically, and personally—to one’s partner. God’s will is that each one honors him by avoiding sexual immorality and exercising self-control over one’s body. Unrepentant sexual immorality brings divine judgment (1 Thess. 4:3–7; Heb. 13:4). See also Sex, Sexuality.

The organ of visual perception. The eye is the lamp of the body, so that someone who has a sound or healthy eye can experience light, but someone with a deficient eye experiences only darkness (Matt. 6:22–23). Bright eyes signify alertness and good health (1 Sam. 14:27–29; Ps. 38:10), whereas dim eyes signify poor vision, often from old age (Gen. 27:1; 48:10; 1 Sam. 3:2). Blindness may be cured by opening the eyes (Isa. 35:5; John 9:14), although Paul was blind even with his eyes open (Acts 9:8). To lift or raise the eyes is to take a look around or look toward something (Gen. 13:10; 18:2; John 11:41). To turn the eyes from something is to no longer look at it (Ps. 119:37; Song 6:5; Isa. 22:4). Something hidden from the eyes is unknown (Num. 5:13; Job 28:21; Luke 19:42), but hiding the eyes from something is to ignore it (Isa. 1:15; Ezek. 22:26; cf. Lev. 20:4). The expression “before the eyes” signifies that an event has taken place in the presence of others, and they have witnessed it.

The eye is an important part of the body (1 Cor. 12:16–21). A defective eye disqualified a priest from certain duties (Lev. 21:17–20). A conquering army often gouged out the eyes of the defeated enemy (Judg. 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7), rendering them ineffective in battle (1 Sam. 11:2). Destroying Israel’s eyes is the first among many punishments listed for breaking God’s covenant (Lev. 26:16). Paul testifies that the Galatians cared enough for him even to pluck out their eyes in order to give them to him (Gal. 4:15). The importance of the eye highlights the importance of Jesus’ demand to pluck it out if it causes one to stumble (Matt. 5:29; 18:9).

Perception and enlightenment. Opening eyes is a theme that runs through both Testaments. At times, opening the eyes simply refers to making one aware of previously unknown information. It may be in this sense that the eyes of Adam and Eve are opened, since they become aware of their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). This same kind of opening occurs when God reveals a well to Hagar (Gen. 21:19), when Balaam sees the angel of the Lord standing in his way (Num. 22:31), and when the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus (Luke 24:31). This sense is extended into the spiritual realm, so that the eye is used figuratively as the principal organ of spiritual perception. To open or enlighten the eyes in this sense involves one of the following: (1) allowing one to understand spiritual truth in the law of God (Ps. 119:18), prophetic utterance (Num. 24:3), or by the Spirit of God (Eph. 1:18); or (2) leading someone to repentance and conversion (Acts 26:18). These spiritual eyes may also be blinded or closed, hindering the person from repenting (Isa. 6:10; Matt. 13:13; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

The eye not only allows one to perceive the world but also helps others perceive the person. David has beautiful eyes, highlighting his handsome appearance (1 Sam. 16:12). Leah has weak eyes, a characteristic that is contrasted to the beautiful appearance of her sister, Rachel (Gen. 29:17). A bountiful eye reveals a generous spirit (Prov. 22:9). Haughty eyes reveal arrogance (Ps. 18:27; Prov. 6:17), as do eyes that are exalted (Ps. 131:1; Prov. 30:13). Eyes may reveal one’s pity for another (Ezek. 16:5), but in the administration of justice, the eye is not allowed to pity or spare, meaning that the law will be executed to its fullest extent (Deut. 7:16; Ezek. 5:11). The eye that mocks a father or a mother reveals a person who holds them in contempt (Prov. 30:17).

Direction and evaluation. The eye also serves as a symbol for direction, care, and vast knowledge. Since the eye allows one to see, it helps set the proper course forward, physically (Num. 10:31) or spiritually (1 John 2:11). The fact that God’s eyes are always upon the land of Israel demonstrates his care for it (Deut. 11:12). Likewise, his eyes are always upon the righteous, ready to help them (Ps. 34:15). Especially in apocalyptic literature, the many eyes of the living creatures are symbols of God’s omniscience (Ezek. 1:18; Rev. 4:6), while the eyes of God in general are symbols of his awareness (1 Kings 9:3; Jer. 32:19; Amos 9:8; Heb. 4:13).

Finally, the eyes are associated with evaluation. The eyes of God often represent his favor or disfavor (Gen. 6:8; Deut. 21:9; 2 Kings 10:30). Those who evaluate themselves in their own eyes are often led astray because the eyes can lead to sinful lust (Num. 15:39; Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:6; Prov. 3:7; 1 John 2:16).

No biblical texts describe an ancient needle, but archaeologists have found needles made of bronze, bone, and ivory. The needle would have been sharp at one end, with an eye for thread at the other, similar at least in basic form to the modern needle. Simple sewing is the obvious use for needles, but they also played a larger role in embroidery, which was seen as a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; cf. 31:6; see also Needlework). The use of the needle is implied in certain contexts where sewing is present, such as Gen. 3:7.

The only mention of the word “needle” in the Bible is in the reference to the “eye of a needle” in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). The purpose here is to contrast one of the smallest openings common to the household with one of Palestine’s largest animals. This comparison is an example of hyperbole, expressing the great difficulty that the rich would encounter in abandoning all to follow Christ.

(1) A Horite chief among the sons of Seir (Gen. 36:21, 27, 30; 1 Chron. 1:38, 42), listed as sixth among seven sons in each of three lists. Also named as father of Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan in both texts. (2) A descendant of Judah (1 Chron. 4:4). This genealogy does not give a direct lineage from any of Judah’s sons, so the exact relationship is unknown. He is identified as the father of Hushah, which is also a Judahite village. (3) One of the sons of Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:21). He and his brother Elead were killed while attempting to steal livestock from the men of Gath. The Chronicler records that Ephraim mourned while being comforted by his relatives, and after his mourning he and his wife conceived another son whom they named “Beriah,” meaning “misfortune” (7:23). (4) Chief of the Gadite warriors who supported David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:9). These warriors were described as fierce and swift, and skilled with shield and spear. Ezer was said to be a match for a thousand men in battle (12:14). (5) One of the Levites who worked to repair the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s leadership. He is said to be the son of Jeshua and a ruler of Mizpah (Neh. 3:19). (6) One of the priests who blew trumpets at the dedication of the newly reconstructed wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:42).

(1) One of Gad’s sons, listed fourth of seven (Gen. 46:16). A parallel (Num. 26:15–18) lists the other six in the same order, but Ezbon is replaced by Ozni. (2) First in a list of five sons of Bela son of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:7). These five sons were referred to as “heads of families.” Ezbon is absent from the longer list of Bela’s sons (1 Chron. 8:3).

(1) A Horite chief among the sons of Seir (Gen. 36:21, 27, 30; 1 Chron. 1:38, 42), listed as sixth among seven sons in each of three lists. Also named as father of Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan in both texts. (2) A descendant of Judah (1 Chron. 4:4). This genealogy does not give a direct lineage from any of Judah’s sons, so the exact relationship is unknown. He is identified as the father of Hushah, which is also a Judahite village. (3) One of the sons of Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:21). He and his brother Elead were killed while attempting to steal livestock from the men of Gath. The Chronicler records that Ephraim mourned while being comforted by his relatives, and after his mourning he and his wife conceived another son whom they named “Beriah,” meaning “misfortune” (7:23). (4) Chief of the Gadite warriors who supported David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:9). These warriors were described as fierce and swift, and skilled with shield and spear. Ezer was said to be a match for a thousand men in battle (12:14). (5) One of the Levites who worked to repair the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s leadership. He is said to be the son of Jeshua and a ruler of Mizpah (Neh. 3:19). (6) One of the priests who blew trumpets at the dedication of the newly reconstructed wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:42).

Biblical references to the face are both literal and metaphorical. The Hebrew word for “face” (paneh) frequently occurs in the plural in the OT (over 2,100 times), and it can express the numerous features of the face, that of God, humans, animals, and inanimate objects. It also can describe a surface, such as “the face of the ground” (Gen. 2:6 KJV) or “the face of the deep” (Gen. 1:2 KJV).

The concept of face must be understood in terms of the diverse emotional expressions and stratified social relationships of the biblical social world. This was a world of honor and shame, loyalty and betrayal. Where the modern person speaks of personal empowerment, the biblical person thought of social restoration. Life was tantamount to social acceptance. In the biblical world of strong corporate solidarity, the face was the most important part of a person’s body. Persons did not merely “contact” each other; rather, faces engaged each other. Face was synonymous with person (e.g., Lev. 19:32, where “the aged/elderly” is literally “the faces of the aged/elderly”). The face essentially describes interpersonal relationships.

Presence and nonpresence are noted in the expressions “hiding the face from” (Ps. 27:9) and “seeing the face of” (Gen. 32:20 KJV). These denote qualities of relationship through acceptance or rejection, especially to superiors. To “see someone’s face” who is a dignitary is to be granted a royal audience (Gen. 44:23). Yet it was not customary to show a sad face in a king’s presence (Neh. 2:2). A person could also try to hide his or her identity, since “face” marks a public expression of one’s character and social standing.

To literally “fall on the face” (Ezek. 1:28; Luke 5:12) shows humility and homage toward a superior. Personal intention or determination is shown in the expressions “set the face against/toward” (Ezek. 35:2) and “turn the face” (2 Kings 20:2). Dishonor and disrespect are expressed with a “fallen face” (Gen. 4:6; NIV: “downcast” face; cf. Gen. 40:7). Striking the face can be an act that humiliates (John 18:22), as with mutilation or having a soiled face (Lev. 21:18; 2 Sam. 19:4–5). By contrast, to speak “face to face” (Exod. 33:11) not only shows respect but also treats another as a social equal. Reflecting rich emotions, a face can be “cheerful” (Prov. 15:13), “aflame” with agony (Isa. 13:8), “red with weeping” (Job 16:16), and covered with “shame” (Ps. 69:7).

“Face” can be used as a metonym (i.e., substitution) for a person’s presence. Significantly, God’s rejection of a person or group can be expressed as them being hidden from his face (Gen. 4:14 KJV) or as God hiding his face from them (Isa. 54:8; Mic. 3:4; cf. Ps. 22:24). Those in distraught prayer ask why God has hidden his face (Job 13:24) or for how long (Ps. 13:1). Similarly, God acts against persons when he sets his face against them (Lev. 17:10; 26:17).

Believers anticipate the day when they will see God “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12), having received the ultimate gift of God’s acceptance.

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).

“The fall” refers to the events of the first human couple’s sin in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2–3). Although the word “fall” does not occur in the account, Christians have used the term to describe it, taking their cues from Paul’s writings (esp. Rom. 5:12–21). The term is important because it reflects an interpretation that the events in the garden are the entrance of human sin and that the sin has universal effects on humankind.

The Genesis Account

The framework of the Genesis account runs as follows. The account begins with God’s creation of a man, Adam. God plants a garden filled with beautiful trees that bear good food. Among the trees, two in particular are pointed out: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God sets Adam in the garden and commands him that he can eat from any tree except one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says that it is not good for Adam to live alone and so, after other attempts, finally provides a suitable helper for him, a woman (Eve).

At this point, the narrative shifts its focus to the woman and a serpent. The serpent raises doubts about God’s commandment. The woman tells the serpent that disobeying God’s commandment leads to death. The serpent replies that she will not die, because God gave the commandment only to keep her from attaining what God possesses. The woman examines the tree; it is beautiful, has good fruit, and is able to make a person wise. She takes some fruit, eats it, and gives it to Adam, who is there with her.

After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they realize that they are naked, and they sew leaves together to cover their nakedness. God confronts them; Adam blames Eve; Eve blames the serpent. God pronounces a curse that affects the serpent, the man, and the woman. God then banishes Adam and Eve from the garden, setting a guard to keep them from returning and eating from the tree of life.

The Truth about the Serpent’s Claims

The first question of the narrative is concerned with the central tension of the narrative: Is the serpent telling the truth about the tree and God? When God commands Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he gives the penalty for disobedience: immediate death (Gen. 2:16–17). However, the serpent tells Eve that she will not die if she disobeys. In fact, what will happen is that her eyes will be opened so that she will know good and evil and be like God (3:4–5). At first glance, it appears that the serpent is precisely correct. Eve eats the fruit along with Adam, their eyes are opened, and now they are like God, knowing good and evil (3:6–7, 22). At the same time, there is no mention of death in the narrative.

However, a closer look reveals that, in fact, Adam and Eve do die. At the end of the narrative, three events take place: God pronounces curses, God banishes them from the garden that he has prepared for them, and God stations angelic sentries at the entrance of the garden to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life. The first obvious sign of their death is that they are prevented from eating from the tree of life. By being denied access to the tree of life, they are condemned to death. It is often assumed that eating the fruit of that tree provides instant immortality, because of God’s statement in Gen. 3:22: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” However, this interpretation is not necessary. What is more likely in view is that the fruit of the tree restores the life of the partaker. One would, therefore, need to return to it to continue living. This interpretation helps explain why God does not deny Adam and Eve access to the tree while they are still in the garden. They are given life, though not immortality, while in the garden, so there is no need to deny them the tree.

Their death is also revealed in God’s cursing and banishment. Toward the end of the Pentateuch, Moses draws out this connection as he relates it to the nation of Israel and the commandment(s) that God has given: “This day I call the heavens and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Deut. 30:19–20). Life equals blessings in the land that God has prepared; death equals curses outside the land that God has prepared. Therefore, when Adam and Eve disobey the commandment of God, they suffer death when God pronounces curses, banishes them from the garden, and prevents them from returning to the tree of life.

The Significance of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

The second question pertains to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: What is the significance of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? To begin, one must discover what the knowledge of good and evil is. There are primarily three possibilities: moral awareness, exhaustive knowledge, and wisdom. Although each of these possibilities has merit, it is likely that wisdom is in view.

Knowledge and wisdom as well as good and evil are central concerns for the book of Proverbs, occurring proportionately more frequently in Proverbs than in any other book. The stated goal of the book of Proverbs is to teach wisdom and understanding to those who will read the book and heed its instruction (1:1–7). By gaining this wisdom, one is able to discern what is good and what is bad (2:9).

Alongside this wisdom background is the fact that when Eve considers eating from the tree, she notices that it is distinct from the other trees because it is desirable for making one wise (Gen. 3:6). Therefore, the knowledge of good and evil is associated with wisdom; however, when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree, they attempt to gain wisdom outside God’s stated will. This type of wisdom leads them to determine what is good and evil for themselves rather than trusting God for what he has provided as good (notice the number of times God declares something to be good in Gen. 1–3).

There are two more results of understanding the knowledge of good and evil as wisdom. First, the narrative sets up an important distinction that is highlighted in other biblical books: the distinction between human wisdom and divine wisdom. This contrast is an important emphasis for books such as Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and James. Second, the narrative closely connects keeping the commandment of God with attaining wisdom. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit in disobedience, they determine for themselves what is good and bad. Obedience to the divine commandment requires trusting that what God has called good is good and what God has called bad is bad. Such is wisdom. The end of Ecclesiastes shares the same concern: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God [the beginning of wisdom] and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Eccles. 12:13–14).

The Effect of the Fall on Human History

The third question to ask concerns the effects of the fall: How does the fall affect the rest of human history? First, the account shows that a war has begun. One conflict lies between God and the serpent. Everything that God affirms, the serpent rejects. However, as a sign of God’s sure victory, the serpent is cursed so that it must go about on its belly and eat dust (Gen. 3:14). Another conflict lies between the serpent (and its seed) and the woman (and her seed). God also declares that the serpent will lose in this conflict when the seed of the woman crushes the head of the serpent. Although the account is clear that the serpent is only a wild animal (3:1), it is also associated with all those who are like it, its seed. It is for this reason that Satan is called the “ancient serpent” (Rev. 12:9; 20:2).

Second, humanity finds itself relating to God differently. The sin in the garden is often called the “original sin.” The Bible does not specifically explain what effects the original sin has on each individual person, but it does show that Adam’s disobedience affects the rest of humankind (Rom. 5:12). Because of this original sin, death (i.e., natural death, curse, and exile) has entered the world so that everyone who remains in a natural state must experience death. However, Christ, through his life and work, brings life (i.e., eternal life, blessing, and communion) for those who believe in him.

Definition of Terms

The term “pagan” has two separate but related definitions in the English language, both of which are somewhat misleading when applied to religions in the ancient Near East. The first definition defines a pagan as someone who follows a less-established religion or a person who is outside the mainstream of belief within a given society. Applying this definition to an ancient Near Eastern religion is somewhat misleading because often within biblical society the Jewish or Christian belief system was the religion that was outside the mainstream. Being outside the mainstream certainly was a fact of life for first-century Christians, who often were persecuted as if they were atheists and for their failure to acknowledge a pantheon of gods, which was a mainstream belief. In OT society the competing religions, especially the Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons, certainly were more widely accepted and followed. Even within Israelite society these non-Israelite religions offered a viable alternative to the religion of Yahweh. Thus, if one were to use this definition either in the OT or the NT, it likely would need to be applied to the religion of the Jews and Christians and not the prevailing religions of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Greeks, or the Romans.

The second English definition of the term “pagan” involves the worship of the gods or forces of nature that control the world. This definition is applied specifically to agrarian societies, where the changing of seasons, the bringing of favorable weather and growing conditions for the crops, the possibility for prosperity that good weather brings, and a general desire for fertility are part of the religious understanding and belief system. While this definition certainly applies to many of the non-Israelite religions followed by the Israelites’ neighbors and to some of the Greeks and Romans of the NT, it also would apply to many of the followers of Yahweh in the OT who saw Yahweh as the God of the mountains and storms in direct conflict with the Baal myth, which ascribed these traits to Baal (see below). Therefore, it is prudent to remember that the label “pagan gods” is anachronistic and should be used with care when discussing the religions described in the Bible.

On a related note, the terminology of “idolatry” is also often misunderstood. Most of the non-Israelite religions discussed in the Bible would have understood the images of their gods to be representations of the deity (or even a throne or meeting place for the god) rather than an object of worship in its own right. While they would have believed that the god dwelled in the object and was present when worship was being performed, they would not have believed that the object was the god. Most of the idols made in the ancient Near East are indistinguishable from one another unless one observes their specific weapons. This, coupled with the idol’s anthropomorphic representation, rather than a heavenly representation, suggests that the concern for early worshipers was not to worship an inanimate image, but rather to see a representation of the god who indwelled the image if worshiped correctly. It was the presence of the god that was desired. Thus, the prohibition against images in the OT is a prohibition against trying to depict Yahweh in any physical form.

When dealing with the non-Israelite gods of the Bible, it is helpful to divide them into historical periods. Within the OT, the major groupings of non-Israelite gods should include the gods of the Canaanites and the gods of the Babylonians (which are very similar to the gods of the Assyrians). To a lesser degree the gods of the Philistines, the Egyptians, and the Persians can also be considered. In the NT, the gods of the Greeks and the Romans (which often are assimilated Greek gods with new names) can be considered. Along with these somewhat artificial historical divisions are innumerable personal gods and local gods worshiped by small groups of people or even by a single town or village. For example, Gen. 31:30 references Laban’s gods, which Rachel steals when she leaves home to travel with Jacob. These personal gods likely played a huge role in the day-to-day life of the average person, but most often they are lost to history. Similarly in the NT, the mystery religions of the Greeks and the Romans likely played an important role in the lives of many people, but they are difficult to reconstruct because of the limited amount of documentation that has survived.

Canaanite Pantheon

There is considerable overlap between the Canaanite pantheon and those of the Mesopotamian cultures, and often this can create some confusion about the deities being discussed, especially their names and functions. Further complicating matters, the descriptions of gods within the Mesopotamian pantheons often have fluid identities, as different textual traditions conflict with each other at times. Both the Canaanite and the Babylonian pantheons borrow heavily from the Sumerian pantheon, which adds both to their similarities and to the possibility of confusion.

Without question, the most important god within the Canaanite pantheon was Baal. The story of Baal, often called the “Baal Cycle,” describes the life and deeds of Baal. The cult of Baal was a fertility religion, and all the events of Baal’s life were connected to the changing seasons and nature’s fertility. The Baal Cycle also explained how the worship of Baal affected the agricultural success of farmers. This detailed story of Baal was all but unknown, except for a few details that could be gleaned from the Bible, prior to the accidental discovery of the city of Ugarit and its extensive library in 1928 by a farmer plowing his field. The city of Ugarit appears to have been a major trading center between the years of about 1450 and 1200 BC. Besides Baal, other important deities within the pantheon were El, the elderly, long-bearded father god; Asherah, El’s wife, or occasionally portrayed as Baal’s wife or sister; and Mot, the god of death, usually represented as a snake.

Baal was the god of weather, especially thunder, lightning, and rain (Baal is almost always depicted with a lightning bolt in one hand and a rod of power in the other). Other representations or symbols of Baal include the bull (the strongest and most powerful animal of the ancient Near East), water, mist, dew, grain, oil, and any other symbol of fertility. Worship of Baal was intended to keep him happy in order to assure the coming of spring (preferably, early), the necessary rain for crops, and finally the lengthening of summer so that two crops could be planted and harvested. The second crop, which often was the crop that a farmer could sell for a profit (the first being reserved for the farmer’s own food), was especially tied to the favor of Baal. Baal was worshiped not only in hope of agricultural prosperity but also for family fertility in terms of children and for help in battle. The primary means for producing and keeping the favor of Baal was by offering the firstfruits of any harvest to him. When the first portion of a crop was harvested, it was expected that a portion of that harvest (most often a tithe) be offered to Baal in hopes of receiving his favor and extending the growing season. Not only were the first of the crops to be given to Baal but also the firstborn of all herded animals. It was also a common practice for the firstborn of a family to be given to Baal in human sacrifice. Baal is often referred to as Molek in the Bible (e.g., Jer. 19) when describing human sacrifice. Another practice of Baal worship was ritual sexual intercourse between a worshiper and a priest or a priestess. This ritual sexual activity was thought to increase the fertility of the worshiper, thereby increasing the chances of having more children.

Apparently for much of the history of Israel, especially during the monarchy, Baal worship offered an enticing alternative to the worship of Yahweh. In fact, the stories of Elijah and Elisha serve as a direct polemic against Baal worship. Most of the stories of Elijah and Elisha use the symbols of Baal to demonstrate that Yahweh is much stronger than Baal. By the time of the first century AD, Baal worship was a thing of the past, but some vestiges of the worship remained. For example, in the Gospels Jesus says that a person cannot worship both “God and money” (KJV: “mammon”) (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13). The Greek word translated “money,” mamōnas, is borrowed from Aramaic and actually refers to the worship of Baal, but by Jesus’ time it had evolved to take on the more generic definition “prosperity.”

Along with Baal, the worship of Asherah, a female member of the pantheon, was common. Although scholars are not completely sure of its form, it is believed that the reference in the OT to “Asherah poles” was likely a reference to a phallic symbol that represented fertility (Judg. 6:26; 1 Kings 14:23). Recently, several references to Asherah have been discovered in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in northeastern Sinai, dated to about the eighth century. These inscriptions say that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh rather than Baal, providing further evidence for the amount of syncretism present in Israel during the monarchy. Another female deity, Ashtoreth (known also by her Mesopotamian name, “Ishtar”), is called “Queen of Heaven” several times in the book of Jeremiah (7:18; 44:17–19, 25).

In relationship to the infiltration of Baal worship into the northern kingdom is the debate about the nature of the “sin of Jeroboam” that was instituted by Jeroboam I when he, along with the ten northern tribes, ceded from Israel (1 Kings 12:25–33). At issue is whether Jeroboam was instituting a new religion based on the calves, thus becoming syncretistic with these tribes’ northern Phoenician neighbors (which would have been tantamount to introducing Baal worship into Israel), or simply rejecting the centrality of Jerusalem for Yahweh worship (which only a few years before had been centralized in Jerusalem by Solomon’s temple, resulting in the disenfranchisement of the Levites outside Jerusalem). Clearly, the southern kingdom viewed the events as apostasy, but whether the northern tribes did is unclear. Amos, for example, seems to focus his criticism of the cult at Bethel not on the worship itself but rather on the hypocrisy of the worshipers, who were not following the law as prescribed in the Torah.

Babylonian Pantheon

Although debate continues over the exact relationship between the two, the Babylonian pantheon had many elements similar to the Canaanite pantheon. There are dozens of primary documents about the religion of Babylon; the most important of them include the Enuma Elish, a creation story and apologetic for Marduk the chief of gods; the Atrahasis Epic, which has a version of the flood story in it; and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which describes the quest for eternal life by King Gilgamesh. Within the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk is the chief of gods, who is also the patron god of Babylonia. The Enuma Elish, which describes the creation of the world, deals primarily with the ascension of Marduk to the role of chief god by destroying the forces of chaos represented by the monster Tiamat and bringing order to both the pantheon and the natural world. Marduk, like Baal, had retained the most powerful cosmic weapons, which include water, rain, and war. The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the journey of King Gilgamesh, who is part human and part divine, in search of immortality. During the course of his trip, he learns that eternal life is reserved for the gods, and humans must make their mark on the world by what they do during their lives. The Babylonian religion and pantheon exerted its strongest influence on Israel during the exile. The biblical text clearly has been influenced by these Babylonian beliefs. However, the Bible consistently presents these viewpoints as contrary to the true worship of Yahweh and insists that only Yahweh deserves worship as the true creator of the world, vanquisher of chaos, and provider of prosperity and life.

Other Ancient Near Eastern Pantheons

The Egyptian gods are mentioned only briefly in the Bible. The most overt references to the gods of Egypt are found in the story of the ten plagues, which most scholars believe was a direct attack on the deities of Egypt by Yahweh. It is unclear if the calf described in Exod. 32 should be understood as an Egyptian god, a completely new or different god, or as a forbidden representation of Yahweh.

Little is known about the Philistine pantheon of gods, but it appears to be quite similar to the Canaanite pantheon (if not the same with local variations). The Philistines’ chief god, referred to in the Bible as “Dagon” (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:2–7; 1 Chron. 10:10), likely also went by the name “Baal-Zebul” (“Lord Prince”), which in the OT is mocked by being changed to “Baal-Zebub” (“Lord of the Flies”) (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). In the NT, this god is recalled when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Satan (Matt. 12:24; Luke 11:15 [Gk. Beelzeboul]). Because the Philistines were known as the Sea Peoples, it is not surprising that this deity had several fishlike qualities (including a fish tail).

New Testament Religion

In the NT, the Greek pantheon that was subsumed by the Roman pantheon was the common religious expression of the day. Like other ancient pantheons, these pantheons tried to explain the natural world by the involvement of various deities in nature. Proof that Jews living in the province of Judah were under constant pressure to assimilate to the Greek religion is provided in the reports of the books of Maccabees that describe the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids in what was essentially a religious war against assimilation. In the Gospels, little is said about the Greek or Roman pantheons, but the book of Acts contains several reports of Paul’s interaction with the Greeks and their religious practices. Especially notable is Paul’s interaction with the Athenians when he debated philosophers who were followers of the “Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Three other deities are named in Acts, including Artemis in Ephesus (Acts 19:24, 27–28, 34–35), whom the Romans called “Diana,” and Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12–13), called “Jupiter” and “Mercury” by the Romans, whom Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for in Lystra when Paul preached and healed a crippled man.

Summary

The problem of God’s people Israel worshiping other gods permeates most of biblical history. These reports range over time from the early story of Rachel in Genesis, to the period of the judges when Micah’s images (Judg. 17:1–6) and Gideon’s ephod (Judg. 8:26–27) were worshiped, to when Solomon and his wives were worshiping foreign gods (1 Kings 11:5–8), to the time of Ahab when all Israel followed Baal, whom Elijah vanquished on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:16–46). Depending on when one dates the book of Deuteronomy, the strong prohibitions against idolatry either went unheeded (if Moses wrote the book) or were a culminating statement of the anti-idolatry Deuteronomistic writer just before the exile. There is considerable debate about when Israel became an exclusively monotheistic nation (if it ever did), but by the eighth century BC, Isaiah and Amos castigate worshipers of these false gods. Clearly, by the time of Jeremiah, some factions within Israel (the prophet included) have begun to question whether the gods of the other nations even exist (Jer. 2:28). Finally, with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, ironically, the worship of other gods is ended. It is certain that by the time of the first century AD, the evolution to a monotheistic view is complete, and Paul can claim that an “idol is nothing” (1 Cor. 8:4), and that any sin is tantamount to idolatry (Eph. 5:5).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Famine was the most devastating catastrophe to an agrarian society. Caused by drought, crop failure, or siege (Ruth 1:1–2; 2 Kings 25), it often was accompanied by disease or war, which in turn brought adversity to many levels of society (Jer. 14:12; Matt. 24:7), including that of the animals (Job 38:41; Joel 1:20).

Dependence on rainfall caused some people to stockpile in anticipation of possible famine. In Egypt, Joseph implemented a grain ration that saved the people, supplied seed, and filled Pharaoh’s royal storehouses (Gen. 41:33–36; 47:23–24). Israel’s own temple contained storerooms (1 Chron. 26:15; Neh. 10:38–39). God used famine to encourage obedience from the Israelites (Deut. 11:17; 28:33) and as divine judgment upon them (Lev. 26:14–20; Jer. 29:17–18).

Famines had far-reaching results: price inflation, robbery, social exploitation, agricultural collapse, migration, and even cannibalism (Gen. 12:10; 26:1; Ruth 1; 2 Kings 6:24–29; Neh. 5:1–3; Lam. 2:20–21; 4:8–10). Therefore, faithfulness to God was a particularly vivid reality (Pss. 33:18–19; 37:19), and God’s blessings on the nation included its being free from famine (Ezek. 34:29; 36:29–30).

Joseph understood that God sent him ahead to Egypt to save his family from an international famine (Gen. 45:5–7). For forty years God tested the Israelites with hunger to rid them of self-reliance (Exod. 16:2–8; Deut. 8:2, 16). Moreover, God sent afflictions on Israel such as famine, drought, mildew, blight, and insects in order to arouse national repentance (Amos 4:6–12). This meant that sin and human suffering were tied to the land in interdependence (Lam. 4:3–4). Elijah’s contest with the Canaanite prophets of Baal vividly shows the theological implications of faith and food: Yahweh would prove that he was in control of nature’s forces (1 Kings 18:23–39; cf. Gen. 8:22). Even Elijah, however, required special divine care through this famine (1 Kings 17:1–6). For Amos, literal hunger funded his description of desperate spiritual hunger, “a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11).

Jesus relived Israel’s experience in his own wilderness testing and rejected the bread that he could make for himself (Matt. 4:3–4; Deut. 8:3). His success showed that scarcity and hunger are intended to develop humility and trust in God, the divine provider (Matt. 4:2), something that Israel did not learn very well. Jesus fed a second manna to five thousand people to draw them to the bread of life (John 6:35), but the crowds followed Jesus more for the food than for him (6:26–27). Famines are mentioned in the NT (Luke 4:25; Acts 7:11 [historical]; 11:27–30 [contemporary]).

Jesus taught that famines would be a sign of his coming. Yet, without ignoring physical food, Jesus highlighted the spiritual hunger and thirst of people (Matt. 5:6; John 4:14, 34; 7:37–38). Because eating is a powerful part of fellowship, heaven will merely remove the desperation of hunger, not the use of food (Gen. 43:34; Luke 22:15–16; Rev. 19:9; cf. 1 Cor. 4:11; Rev. 7:16; 21:4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the NIV, “fashion” is a verb meaning “to craft, shape, form.” Often it is used pejoratively, as in the crafting of an idol out of wood, stone, or metal (Exod. 32:4; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; 40:19; 44:15; Hos. 13:2). Job speaks of the cunning and scheming of those who think they are wise but are godless: “their womb fashions deceit” (Job 15:35). In a positive sense, items are fashioned for God’s purpose: Aaron’s breastpiece is fashioned by “the work of skilled hands” (Exod. 28:15; cf. 39:8). God is the master craftsman who “fashioned and made the earth” (Isa. 45:18). But God’s fashioning is a synonym for creation rather than crafting; he fashions his work out of nothing.

In the KJV God’s fashioning extends to his creation of human beings (Job 10:8; 31:15; Ps. 119:73), his oversight of the human heart (Ps. 33:15), his ordaining of a person’s life span (Ps. 139:16), and his transformative work in the glorification of believers (Phil. 3:21).

The most common noun usage for the word “fashion” in the KJV OT is as a plan, blueprint, or specification (2 Kings 16:10)—for example, of the ark (Gen. 6:15), the tabernacle (Exod. 26:30), and the temple (1 Kings 6:38; Ezek. 43:11). “Fashion” is also used as a synonym for “likeness, appearance, manner, form” (Exod. 37:19; Mark 2:12; Luke 9:29; 1 Cor. 7:31; Phil. 2:8; James 1:11). Finally, Peter cautions believers against “fashioning [themselves] according to the former lusts” (1 Pet. 1:14 KJV), a warning not to model or conform to worldly desires.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Old Testament. In ancient Israel, and more broadly in the surrounding region, the “father’s house” (i.e., ancestral family) was the basic unit of kinship, more extensive than “brothers” (Gen. 46:31; Judg. 16:31) or the single “household” (Exod. 12:3) but smaller than the clan and tribe (note the contrasts in, e.g., Num. 1:2; Judg. 6:15). In genealogies the “father’s house” is often rendered “family” (e.g., Exod. 6:14; Num. 1:2 and throughout the chapter; 1 Chron. 4:38). In some instances, the twelve tribes of Israel are construed as father’s houses (Num. 17:2–6; 1 Sam. 2:28). In 2 Sam. 19:28 the extent of the “father’s house” is well illustrated: clearly, Mephibosheth refers not to the nuclear family of his biological father but rather to the family of his grandfather Saul. In 1 Chron. 23:11, two small families are artificially combined into a single “father’s house,” illustrating that the concept was not strictly biological but instead corresponded to a set of social functions, in this case priestly service.

In addition to censuses and the organization of military service, other functions of the father’s house included the reckoning of collective guilt (2 Sam. 14:9; 24:17; Neh. 1:6), delimiting retaliation in kin-based blood feuds (1 Sam. 22:16, 22; 2 Sam. 3:29; see also Judg. 2:12, 18), and defining a context for endogamous marriage (Gen. 24:38–40). The father’s house played an important role in the life of women, who were identified with their father’s house before marriage and could return to it in the event of widowhood, demonstrating a persistent connection to it (Lev. 22:13; Num. 30:4, 16; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 19:2–3; Esther 4:14; Ps. 45:10; see also the political significance for Abimelek of his mother’s father’s house in Judg. 9:1).

The expression “father’s house” can also refer to a location (Gen. 12:1; 20:13; Judg. 14:19; 1 Sam. 18:2), and indeed this local sense may have largely overlapped with the kinship sense, as extended families inhabited large architectural compounds or even entire small villages.

New Testament. On two occasions Jesus referred to the temple in Jerusalem as his “father’s house,” once when he was a young man (Luke 2:49), and once when he drove merchants from the temple (John 2:16). On another occasion, he referred to a “place where I am going” as “my father’s house” (John 14:2–4). In addition, we have two references to the “father’s house” as a kinship unit (Luke 16:27; and possibly Acts 7:20).-

The father of an individual’s spouse. Biblical examples include Laban, Rachel’s father, the father-in-law of Jacob (Gen. 29:28); Jethro, father-in-law to Moses (Exod. 3:1); the unnamed father-in-law of the Levite who tried to delay or prevent him from taking his daughter away (Judg. 19:4–8); Eli, the father-in-law of the unnamed wife of Phinehas, who gave birth to Ichabod upon news of the capture of the ark (1 Sam. 4:19–20); Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus (John 18:13).

Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.

Proper and Improper Fears

There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid . . . so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1 Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.

God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).

Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).

Fear of God

There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).

God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustains us.

Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).

Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.

A term that Jacob applied to God in Gen. 31:42. “Fear of Isaac” is found in parallel with “the God of my father” and “the God of Abraham” (cf. Gen. 32:9). The word “fear” in these cases carries the sense “dread” or “terror.” See also Exod. 15:16; Deut. 2:25; 1 Chron. 14:17. With reference to God, see 1 Sam. 11:7.

An unenclosed, cultivated parcel of land (Gen. 31:4; 34:7). A field may be distinguished from the uncultivated wilderness (Gen. 33:19; 36:35), vineyards (Num. 22:23–24), and cities (Deut. 28:3, 16), which are surrounded by walls. Stones demarcated fields (Deut. 27:17). In the case of adjoining fields, they often were separated by public paths (Matt. 13:4 pars.). For protection, many fields had watchtowers (Luke 14:28–30). Farmers often sowed a mixed crop, including fig trees for shade (1 Kings 4:25; Isa. 28:25). The most valuable crops, usually wheat, were planted toward the center. Pious Jews left the corners of their fields ungleaned for the poor. The rabbis later quantified the corners (Heb. pe’ah) as one-sixtieth of the field’s yield. Ruth took advantage of this provision, as did Jesus’ disciples (Ruth 2:1–7; Matt. 12:1–2 pars.).

Human Uses and Metaphors

Fire is a basic necessity for various human activities such as cooking (Exod. 12:8; Isa. 44:15–16, 19; John 21:9), warming (Isa. 44:16; Jer. 36:22; John 18:18), lighting (Isa. 50:11), manufacturing (Exod. 32:24), and refining metals (Num. 31:22–23). Fire is also an important means of maintaining the purity of God’s people, used to punish sinners (the sexually immoral [Lev. 20:14; 21:9; cf. Gen. 38:24] and the disobedient [Josh. 7:25; cf. 2 Kings 23:16]) and to destroy idols (Exod. 32:20; Deut. 7:5, 25; 2 Kings 10:26), chariots (Josh. 11:6, 9), and the cities of Canaan (Josh. 6:24; 8:19; 11:11; Judg. 18:27). As an essential means of worship, fire is used to burn sacrificial animals (Gen. 8:20; Exod. 29:18; Lev. 1:9; 3:3; 9:10, 13–14, 20) and grain offerings (Lev. 2:2, 9; 9:17).

The Mosaic law has several regulations concerning fire. Regarded as work, starting a fire is forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:3). It is the responsibility of the priests to keep the fire burning on the altar (Lev. 6:9, 12–13). The use of an “unauthorized fire” for sacrifice is forbidden (note Nadab and Abihu’s death [Lev. 10:1–2; cf. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1 Chron. 24:2]). Also, contrary to the Canaanite religious custom, burning children is forbidden (Deut. 18:10), though the Israelites failed to keep this command and elicited God’s judgment (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35; note Josiah’s ban in 2 Kings 23:10).

As a metaphor, fire also signifies human anger (Ps. 39:3), wickedness (Isa. 9:18), self-reliance (Isa. 50:11), evil planning (Hos. 7:6–7), lust (Prov. 6:27–28), evil speech or tongue (Prov. 16:27; James 3:5–6), and, paradoxically, kindness to an enemy (Prov. 25:22; Rom. 12:20).

Divine Uses and Metaphors

In the Bible, God is described as the ruler of fire (Ps. 104:4; cf. 1 Kings 18). Positively, God sends fire to signify his acceptance of worship (Lev. 9:24; Judg. 13:19–20; 1 Kings 18:38; 2 Chron. 7:1–3; cf. Luke 9:54). God also purifies his people by fire in order to provide them with abundance (Ps. 66:12), to cleanse them of their sins (Isa. 6:6–7), to refine them into the true remnant (Zech. 13:9), to restore true worship (Mal. 3:2–3), to bring forth genuine faith (1 Cor. 3:13, 15; 1 Pet. 1:7), and to give Christians a true joy of participating in Christ’s suffering (1 Pet. 4:12). God also promises to make his people like a firepot and a flaming torch that will burn the surrounding enemies (Zech. 12:6). Negatively, God uses fire to punish the wicked and disobedient (Gen. 19:24; Exod. 9:23; Num. 11:1; 16:35; 2 Kings 1:10, 12; Isa. 29:6; 34:9–10; 66:24; Ezek. 38:22; 39:6; Rev. 20:9). God is a farmer burning unfruitful trees (John 15:2, 6; cf. Matt. 3:10; 7:19; 13:40) and “thorns and briers” (Isa. 10:17). The eternal fire of hell is the place where God’s final judgment will be executed (Matt. 5:22; 25:41; Mark 9:45–49; Jude 1:7; note the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20:14–15; cf. 14:10; 21:8).

Fire is also a symbol used to image the indescribable God. It symbolizes God’s presence: a smoking firepot with a flaming torch (Gen. 15:17), the burning bush (Exod. 3:2; cf. Elijah’s expectation [1 Kings 19:12]), the pillars of fire and smoke (Exod. 13:21–22; Num. 14:14), the smoke on Mount Sinai and in the tabernacle and the temple (Exod. 19:19; Num. 9:15–16; Deut. 4:11–12; Isa. 6:4). Fire marks God’s protection: the “horses and chariots of fire” (2 Kings 6:17; cf. 2:11), the “wall of fire” (Zech. 2:5). Fire also represents God’s glory: God’s throne (Dan. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13; 10:2, 6–7), God’s form (Ezek. 1:27), the seven spirits of God before the throne (Rev. 4:5). God in his holy wrath is also likened to a burning fire (Pss. 79:5; 89:46; Isa. 5:24; 33:14; Jer. 15:14; Ezek. 21:31; 22:21; Hos. 8:5; note the expression “consuming fire” [Deut. 4:24; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29]) and even to a fiery monster (Ps. 18:8; Isa. 30:33; 65:5; cf. Job 41:19–21). Fire is an important element in the description of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:3; cf. 2 Pet. 3:12). God’s words in the prophet’s mouth are likened to a fire (Jer. 5:14; 20:9; 23:29).

Fire is also used to speak of Jesus. John the Baptist refers to Jesus’ baptism as one with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus identifies the purpose of his coming as casting fire on earth (Luke 12:49). The returning Jesus is portrayed as coming in “blazing fire” (2 Thess. 1:7), and the eyes of the glorified Christ are likened to “blazing fire” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; cf. “flaming torches” in Dan. 10:6). In Acts 2:3 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the “tongues of fire.”

In the understanding of the ancient Hebrew people, the firmament was a great vaulted ceiling that covered the earth. It was thought that the universe consisted of a great expanse of water beneath the earth, which sat like a disk on top of it. Above, there was another great expanse of heavenly waters, which was held back from the earth by a large dome, the substance of which was like stretched and beaten metal (Job 37:18). The prohibition of idols in Exod. 20:4 reflects this worldview. Holes in this dome allowed water to fall on the earth (Gen. 7:11; Ps. 78:23–24), and celestial bodies such as the sun and the stars were set within the dome and moved along it (Gen. 1:14–18). In Ezekiel’s vision of the four creatures, the firmament was “sparkling like ice” (Ezek. 1:22). Modern translations sometimes rework this concept into “sky,” which retains the meaning of the relevant passages but does not reflect the precise content intended by the biblical writers in their prescientific context. The presence of unscientific pictures of the universe such as the “firmament” should not trouble believers, as the intention of scriptural texts such as Ps. 19:1 is not to advance a particular view of the structure of the universe but rather to proclaim God’s glory in light of his craftsmanship in fashioning the complex and beautiful world.

In an agrarian society with an unpredictable climate, such as Israel, rainfall was of the utmost importance. Two rainy periods could be hoped for each year, in February/March and in October/November, and these seasons were critical in producing a good crop. Regular rainfall thus formed a significant part of God’s promise of a good and fruitful land for his people (Lev. 26:4). Solomon’s prayer acknowledges the conditional nature of this promise: rain would be withheld from a sinful nation but would be given to a forgiven and obedient people (1 Kings 8:35–36).

Rain could also be sent in judgment, most notably in the flood narratives, where God sent rain in order to destroy all living things on the face of the earth (Gen. 7:4), and in the exodus narrative, where rain accompanied hail and thunder in the seventh plague (Exod. 9:23).

Since rain is completely beyond human control, it naturally became a symbol of God’s sovereignty in both blessing and curse. A striking example of this is in 1 Kings 17–18, when for three years the rains were withheld, until finally Elijah’s trust in God was vindicated above the prophets of Baal, and the rain followed. The effectiveness of Elijah’s prayers, first for drought and later for rain, is held up in the NT as an example for all believers (James 5:17–18).

The first child born to a married couple. In the OT it most commonly refers to the first male child, upon whom special privileges were bestowed. The OT describes some of the privileges associated with being the firstborn son: he would receive a double portion of the inheritance (a privilege codified in the law in Deut. 21:17), the paternal blessing (Gen. 27; 48:17–19), and other examples of favoritism (e.g., Gen. 43:33). The importance ascribed to the firstborn is also attested in the legislative requirement that the firstborn—people, animals, and produce—belong to Yahweh (Lev. 27:26; Deut. 15:19; and of people, note Num. 3:12–13), so stressing his primacy over Israel.

In some ancient Near Eastern cultures, the dedication of the firstborn to the deity manifested itself sacrificially (cf. 2 Kings 3:27; Mic. 6:7). Some have suggested that this idea is reflected in the OT, although 1 Sam. 1:11 indicates that in Israel some alternate form of dedication may have been understood. Nonetheless, Yahweh provided a redemptive alternative through sacrifice (Gen. 22; cf. Num. 3:12–13).

“Firstborn” language is also used figuratively in the OT. It is used of Israel as Yahweh’s firstborn in Exod. 4:22–23, wherein Pharaoh’s failure to release Yahweh’s firstborn results in the destruction of Egypt’s firstborn. God also declares the Davidic king to be his firstborn son in Ps. 89:27, highlighting the special favor that he would enjoy. “Firstborn” language can also be used figuratively to describe anything that receives a greater share, such as “the firstborn of Death” in Job 18:13 (NRSV) and “the firstborn of the poor” in Isa. 14:30 (NRSV).

Somewhat surprisingly, God does not adhere to the significance of primogeniture, frequently bestowing his favor on those who were not firstborn: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph and Judah over Reuben, Ephraim over Manasseh, Moses over Aaron, David over his brothers, and Solomon over Adonijah.

The NT presupposes an understanding of the significance of the firstborn. Jesus is specifically identified as Mary’s firstborn (Luke 2:7, 23). However, the description extends beyond mere notions of human primogeniture when Jesus is described as “firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “firstborn from among the dead” (Col. 1:18; cf. Rev. 1:5). These expressions, in line with figurative use of “firstborn” language in the OT, express Jesus’ privileged place in both creation and the new creation.

Fish comprise a part of God’s created order (Gen. 1:26), given for humankind to rule (Gen. 1:28) and to eat, though some were considered unclean (those with no fins or scales [Lev. 11:9–12]). Fish comprised a meaningful part of the ancient Israelites’ diet for much of their history. They ate fish during their time in Egypt and longed for it in the wilderness (Num. 11:5). Once in Canaan, they could obtain fish from the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem even had a gate called the “Fish Gate” (Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), perhaps named for a fish market located near it inside the city. Nehemiah notes that men from the coastal city of Tyre imported fish to sell in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:16). Fish brought from such a distance probably had been preserved, perhaps by salting, smoking, or drying. The Gospels contain many references to fishing, since Jesus ministered near the Sea of Galilee and had fishermen among his followers.

Given the importance of fish and fishing, it is perhaps surprising that the Bible nowhere names specific types of fish. One simply reads that a “huge fish” swallowed Jonah (Jon. 1:17), or that Jesus multiplied “small fish” to feed a multitude (Mark 8:7–9). These small fish likely were sardines, caught in large quantities in the Sea of Galilee and preserved by salting. Other common native fish included a pan fish, the tilapia (today’s “St. Peter’s fish” from the story in Matt. 17:24–27); a type of carp, the barbel; and the largest native fish, the catfish, forbidden to observant Jews because of its lack of scales.

By contrast, in both Testaments one can find clear indications of how fish were caught. Large sea creatures might be speared or harpooned (Job 41:7), but usually fishermen used hook and line or one of several different types of nets (Isa. 19:8; Hab. 1:15). Jesus sent Peter out to fish with hook and line (Matt. 17:27). Peter and his brother Andrew also used a casting net (Matt. 4:18–20), a circular net up to twenty-five feet in diameter cast from shore or a boat. The net spread like a parachute and sank rapidly, trapping fish underneath. A system of cords drew the net together as it was pulled back in. Jesus’ disciples caught 153 fish with such a net (John 21:6–11). Professional fishermen also used a dragnet, the most common type of net used in antiquity (see Dragnet). Finally, they also used a trammel net, a standing net often spread between two boats. The trammel net was made of up to five sections, each about one hundred feet long. This net had three layers, two finer-meshed layers on either side of a larger-meshed, central layer. When fish swam into the net, they pushed one of the finer layers into the heavier layer and became entangled when they turned and tried to escape. The fishermen then pulled in the nets, disentangled the fish, and repeated the process, typically ten to fifteen times during a night’s work. The story in Luke 5:1–11 reflects the use of trammel nets, with fishermen in two boats working hard through the night. Ancient commercial fishermen usually had to work at night because the fish could see the threads of their nets during the day.

Fish comprise a part of God’s created order (Gen. 1:26), given for humankind to rule (Gen. 1:28) and to eat, though some were considered unclean (those with no fins or scales [Lev. 11:9–12]). Fish comprised a meaningful part of the ancient Israelites’ diet for much of their history. They ate fish during their time in Egypt and longed for it in the wilderness (Num. 11:5). Once in Canaan, they could obtain fish from the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem even had a gate called the “Fish Gate” (Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), perhaps named for a fish market located near it inside the city. Nehemiah notes that men from the coastal city of Tyre imported fish to sell in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:16). Fish brought from such a distance probably had been preserved, perhaps by salting, smoking, or drying. The Gospels contain many references to fishing, since Jesus ministered near the Sea of Galilee and had fishermen among his followers.

Given the importance of fish and fishing, it is perhaps surprising that the Bible nowhere names specific types of fish. One simply reads that a “huge fish” swallowed Jonah (Jon. 1:17), or that Jesus multiplied “small fish” to feed a multitude (Mark 8:7–9). These small fish likely were sardines, caught in large quantities in the Sea of Galilee and preserved by salting. Other common native fish included a pan fish, the tilapia (today’s “St. Peter’s fish” from the story in Matt. 17:24–27); a type of carp, the barbel; and the largest native fish, the catfish, forbidden to observant Jews because of its lack of scales.

By contrast, in both Testaments one can find clear indications of how fish were caught. Large sea creatures might be speared or harpooned (Job 41:7), but usually fishermen used hook and line or one of several different types of nets (Isa. 19:8; Hab. 1:15). Jesus sent Peter out to fish with hook and line (Matt. 17:27). Peter and his brother Andrew also used a casting net (Matt. 4:18–20), a circular net up to twenty-five feet in diameter cast from shore or a boat. The net spread like a parachute and sank rapidly, trapping fish underneath. A system of cords drew the net together as it was pulled back in. Jesus’ disciples caught 153 fish with such a net (John 21:6–11). Professional fishermen also used a dragnet, the most common type of net used in antiquity (see Dragnet). Finally, they also used a trammel net, a standing net often spread between two boats. The trammel net was made of up to five sections, each about one hundred feet long. This net had three layers, two finer-meshed layers on either side of a larger-meshed, central layer. When fish swam into the net, they pushed one of the finer layers into the heavier layer and became entangled when they turned and tried to escape. The fishermen then pulled in the nets, disentangled the fish, and repeated the process, typically ten to fifteen times during a night’s work. The story in Luke 5:1–11 reflects the use of trammel nets, with fishermen in two boats working hard through the night. Ancient commercial fishermen usually had to work at night because the fish could see the threads of their nets during the day.

Beyond its obvious literal sense, “flesh” denotes the physicality of one’s life in this world, often in contrast to the spiritual dimension. Both the OT (Heb. she’er, basar) and NT (Gk. sarx) use “flesh” to refer to the physical dimension of human existence, often assigning varying degrees of figurative and contextual nuances to the word. “Flesh” as the cover term for fallen humanity and sinfulness is a distinctive NT development. For example, the expression “all flesh” in the OT is often merely equivalent to the collective human race (e.g., Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:5 KJV). Even when the term is used in contrast to “spirit” (e.g., Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5), “flesh” is not so much “antispiritual” as “nonspiritual.” John even refers to the mystery of incarnation as the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14).

It is mostly in Paul’s letters that we find clear depiction of flesh as the seat of the carnal and sinful nature of humanity. The flesh stands for the totality of destructive effects of the original sin on the human nature. Thus, the flesh is in essence the sinful nature that Adam left for all subsequent generations to inherit (Gal. 5:17). Before it is redeemed and transformed, it is “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3 NRSV) waiting to be condemned by the holy God and his law, and inevitably leading to death (7:5). It is inseparable from lust (Gal. 5:16; 1 Pet. 4:2). In the reprobate, unregenerate state, human nature in its entirety is under the control of the flesh (Eph. 2:3). Since corrupt humans basically sow the flesh and reap the flesh, they can neither please God nor obey the law (Rom. 8:3, 8). It is significant that salvation is expressed in terms of overcoming the flesh. In wrapping up an exhortation regarding spiritual life, Paul concludes that those who nailed their flesh to the cross along with its passions and desires are “those who belong to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:24).

Recounted in Gen. 6:5–9:19, the flood is the event whereby God destroys all creatures except for Noah, his family, and a gathering of animals. The account is highly literary and God-centered. It opens and closes with Noah’s three sons (6:10; 9:18–19). Noah’s obedience is highlighted (7:5, 9, 16). God is the protagonist, and Noah remains silent.

Terminology. The Hebrew word for “flood” is mabbul, and the Greek word is kataklysmos. Outside of the Gen. 6–9 narrative and references to the flood in Gen. 10:1, 32; 11:10, mabbul occurs only in Ps. 29:10, probably a reference to the primordial water stored above the firmament in jars (cf. Gen. 1:7; 7:11). The LXX translates mabbul with kataklysmos in Sir. 40:10; 44:17–18; 4 Macc. 15:31. Hebrew Sirach and the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon also use mabbul for the flood (Sir. 44:17; 1QapGen ar 12:9–10). All four uses of kataklysmos in the NT refer to the flood (Matt. 24:38–39; Luke 17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5).

The flood narrative. In Gen. 6:5–22, God observes the grand scale of human wickedness, determines to destroy all life, and selects righteous Noah to build an ark. God’s “seeing” is judicial investigation (6:5, 13) that counters the sons of God who “saw” (6:2), just as his pained heart counters humankind’s wicked heart (6:5–6). God’s second statement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (6:7), is his judicial sentence (cf. 3:15–19), affecting all life in the domain of human care (1:28; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 36:6; Hos. 4:3; Joel 1:20).

The earth’s corruption and violence (Gen. 6:12–13) reflect a spectrum of evil that has despoiled a creation that was once “very good” (1:31; cf. 6:17; 7:21; 8:17; 9:11). God’s destruction responds to the moral corruption of the earth. The ark is a rectangular vessel designed for floating rather than sailing (6:14–15). Noah builds a microcosm of the earth to save its life. The boat’s windowlike openings and three decks reflect the cosmology of Gen. 1 (heavens, water, earth [cf. 6:16]). God makes a promise that Noah will survive and receive a covenant from God (6:18), fulfilled in the Noahic covenant following the flood (9:9, 11, 14–17).

Genesis 7:1–24 recounts the boarding of the ark and then the rising waters. Two numbering systems are used by the narrator in the flood narrative: one for dates of Noah’s age (day, month, year) and one for periods between flood stages. Both systems number between 365 and 370 days. The flood is portrayed as a reversal of the second and third days of creation. Watery boundaries that God once separated collapse (cf. 1:6–10). The rising flood is described in three phases: rising and lifting the ark (7:17), increasing greatly and floating the ark on the surface (7:18), and covering all the high mountains (7:19). Total destruction is amplified by reversing the order of creation—people, animals, birds (7:23)—with “all/every” occurring repeatedly in 7:21–23.

Genesis 8:1–22 recounts the disembarking and Noah’s sacrifice. Genesis 8:1 is the structural and theological center, with God fulfilling (= “remember”) his covenant promise for Noah’s safety. The ark rests on one mountain within the range in eastern Turkey (Kurdistan). The earth’s drying occurs as a process (8:3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14), and echoes of creation reappear (e.g., “wind” [8:1; cf. 1:2]). Although the old curse is not lifted (cf. 5:29), God promises not to add to it (8:21). The flood has not reformed the human heart; it has only stopped the violence. God’s oath of restoration reaffirms the seamless rhythm of seasons that comprise a full year (8:22).

Genesis 9:1–19 recounts the restoration of world order. Since murder was part of the antediluvian violence (6:11, 13), God’s law recalibrates earthly morality (9:5). God’s second postdiluvian speech encodes his plan for the broader preservation of creation (9:8–17). “My rainbow” is God’s confirming sign (9:13). The meteorological phenomenon of the storm is now harnessed as an image of peace. The cosmic warrior “hangs up” his bow in divine disarmament. Humankind now shares the responsibility of justice with God, illustrated in Noah’s first speech of cursing and blessing (9:20–27).

Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Without literary dependence on the biblical story, parallels to the biblical account exist in the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Gilgamesh Tablet XI, and the Sumerian King List. The exact relationship between the biblical account and these Near Eastern accounts is a debated subject. Perhaps they are variants of a similar story based on the same historical event.

Finely ground wheat or other grain, made from the inner kernels of the grain and sifted to remove larger pieces of meal. Fine flour sometimes was used for baking bread (Gen. 18:6), but the “finest kernels of wheat” were regarded as a luxury product (Deut. 32:14; Ps. 81:16). This fine flour was used for making offerings (Exod. 29:2; Lev. 2:1–7). Coarser flour, or meal, was ground from the whole grains, and this was one of the most basic foodstuffs in ancient Israel (1 Kings 4:22). God’s miraculous supply of oil and flour was sufficient to enable the widow at Zarephath to provide for her household in time of famine (1 Kings 17:8–16).

Types of Food

In the biblical era, food consisted primarily of meats, cereals, vegetables, and fruits, though cereals and vegetables made up the bulk of the diet of people in the ancient Near East. Grains generally were ground into either coarse or fine flour. With or without leaven, the flour was made into a loaf of sorts, baked, and consumed. Usually, one grain was used for any particular bread, though in difficult times multiple types of grains could be combined to create a loaf large enough for consumption (Ezek. 4:9).

Vegetables and fruits were not as varied in the ancient cultures as they are today. Generally, among vegetables, the consumer was limited to various types of lentils, cucumbers, onions, and leeks. These were eaten raw or cooked. Fruits were limited to dates, grapes, melons, olives, and figs. Fruits generally were dried, but they were also eaten raw and prepared in various ways. Nuts, including almonds and pistachios, also were consumed (Gen. 43:11), as were pulses such as lentils and legumes such as beans (2 Sam. 17:28).

Meat consumption usually was reserved for festivals and special occasions. The most important animals used for consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. Lamb was much more common as a dietary element than beef because it was less costly and more common. As prescribed by Scripture, the blood could not be consumed when eating meat (Lev. 17:10–11). Meat generally was boiled when prepared, though it could be roasted on a spit (1 Sam. 2:15). On a rare occasion, game meat was consumed, but this was considered a delicacy (Gen. 27:5–7). In order to be considered clean and capable of being consumed, the animal from which the meat was acquired had to have chewed a cud and have a divided hoof (Lev. 11:2–8).

Fish were consumed in good quantity but are mentioned much less often in the OT than in the NT, especially the Gospels. There is mention of the Fish Gate in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), which suggests that fish were sufficiently available to merit their own marketplace in the city. Fish were salted and dried before their consumption and seem to have been primarily an import item in Israel’s early history (Neh. 13:16), though by the time of the NT, Israel had obviously developed its own thriving fishing industry. To be ceremonially clean and fit for consumption, fish had to possess both fins and scales (thus shellfish were unclean; Lev. 11:9–12).

Animal by-products, such as honey, milk, and cheese, were a staple in Israelite diets (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 30:33; Isa. 7:15). These were stored in skins or in wooden vessels and sometimes were mixed to create a sweet milk or cheese. Milk was also used as a cooking element, though it was forbidden to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exod. 34:26).

Meals and Dietary Issues

A formal dinner or banquet typically consisted of an appetizer (usually something pickled), the meal proper, and a dessert. Wine was consumed, sometimes flavored with spices or honey. The people consuming the meal reclined at the table with their feet away from the food, thus allowing servants to continue to wash feet as necessary. Some sort of entertainment usually took place, including music, reading, or dialogue on some significant matter.

The early church struggled with various dietary issues. The first of these was the matter of the consumption of unclean animals. The events of Acts 10; 15 suggest that for the early church, these dietary laws were abandoned. In fact, of the OT regulations, only the one prohibiting the eating of meat with blood in it was enforced by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29). Paul seems to go further than this in stating that no food is unclean in and of itself (Rom. 14:14; cf. Mark 7:19). The second dietary issue centered not on the food itself, but rather on the prior use of that food, in this case meat, in pagan rituals and worship (see Food Sacrificed to Idols). Like most ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Greeks acquired some of their meat from the temples, which had a ready supply of it following religious rites and festivals. Most meat used for consumption had already been offered to an idol, and Christians debated whether it was appropriate to eat such meat. Paul responds to this question in 1 Corinthians, arguing that believers are free to eat such meat if their conscience is clear in doing so, but not if doing so offends or troubles the faith of fellow believers (1 Cor. 8; 10:23–11:1).