God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

A technical term in NT times for a non-Jew who feared and recognized Israel’s God, the true God, but stopped short of becoming a full-fledged Jewish proselyte. “God-fearer” could also be used in a general sense of individuals from any background who reverence and respect God in a proper way. The book of Ecclesiastes illustrates this general usage when the author says, “I know that it will go better with those who fear God [NIV 1984: “God-fearing men”], who are reverent before him” (Eccl. 8:12).

Four verses in the book of Acts illustrate the specialized usage of this expression. The first two involve Peter’s sharing of the gospel with the Roman centurion Cornelius. In Acts 10:2 Cornelius and his family are described as being “devout and God-fearing,” and in 10:22 Cornelius himself is described as being a “righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people.” In 13:16 Paul addresses two groups of people present in the synagogue service at Antioch of Pisidia, “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship [lit., ‘fear’] God, listen to me!” Paul repeats this same distinction later in this same sermon: “Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles” (13:26).

Throughout the OT there are occasional glimpses of God’s concern for all peoples. God promised Abraham that through his “offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). Many of the psalms reveal this same cosmic scope of God’s salvation, where “all the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name” (Ps. 86:9). Jonah is undoubtedly the classic story of outreach to the Gentiles. But it is in the book of Acts that this outreach reaches full stride, and it is these God-fearers who represent one key dimension in this fresh outpouring of God’s grace upon humanity.

In order to understand the God-fearers, it is important to know who they are and who they are not. They are Gentiles, like Cornelius (who is so important to the spread of the gospel that two entire chapters are devoted to him in Acts), who are attracted to what they hear about the wonder and marvel of God in the Jewish synagogues. At the same time, Cornelius and others like him are not Jewish proselytes. Although the OT is silent on the exact process by which a Gentile could become officially incorporated into the Jewish faith, Jewish practice had developed clear guidelines during the intertestamental period. A Gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism not only had to follow the Jewish beliefs and practices (including the food laws and Sabbath observance), but also had to make a trip to Jerusalem and offer a sacrifice in the temple. If a male, that person also had to be circumcised. For many Gentiles, it was the obstacle of circumcision that often was too much for them. Consequently, many remained in this in-between status: attracted to Judaism but not willing or able to go all the way toward becoming a full-fledged “naturalized citizen”—a Jewish proselyte. The good news of the NT was that God rewarded their spiritual hunger: the gospel was for them as well.

This infamous pair is known to most readers of the Bible from Rev. 20:8. They stand for all the nations of the world, which are enticed by Satan to attack the saints in the end times. This text universalizes Ezek. 38–39, where “Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshek and Tubal” (38:2–3), is the commander of a coalition (38:2–7) to be gathered in an unprovoked attack on a restored, defenseless Israel. He acts not on his own initiative but rather is impelled and ultimately destroyed by God (38:21–23; 39:2–6). Some have suggested that the mysterious Gog derives from the historical figure Gyges, a seventh-century BC king of Lydia located in western Asia Minor, or Gaga, a god mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts of ancient Ugarit. Others believe that the name “Gog” is derived from “Magog,” since Magog, the land “in the far north” from which Gog came (Ezek. 38:2, 15; 39:6), can be translated as “place of Gog.” Magog is associated in the Table of Nations (Gen. 10:2) with Meshek and Tubal, eponymous sons of Japheth whose territories are presumed to lie somewhere in the vicinity of modern Turkey.

This infamous pair is known to most readers of the Bible from Rev. 20:8. They stand for all the nations of the world, which are enticed by Satan to attack the saints in the end times. This text universalizes Ezek. 38–39, where “Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshek and Tubal” (38:2–3), is the commander of a coalition (38:2–7) to be gathered in an unprovoked attack on a restored, defenseless Israel. He acts not on his own initiative but rather is impelled and ultimately destroyed by God (38:21–23; 39:2–6). Some have suggested that the mysterious Gog derives from the historical figure Gyges, a seventh-century BC king of Lydia located in western Asia Minor, or Gaga, a god mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts of ancient Ugarit. Others believe that the name “Gog” is derived from “Magog,” since Magog, the land “in the far north” from which Gog came (Ezek. 38:2, 15; 39:6), can be translated as “place of Gog.” Magog is associated in the Table of Nations (Gen. 10:2) with Meshek and Tubal, eponymous sons of Japheth whose territories are presumed to lie somewhere in the vicinity of modern Turkey.

A transliterated plural form of the Hebrew word goy (“nation, Gentile”), and the name of several places. As a place name, it is also spelled Goiim. (1) As a plural noun, goyim occurs more than four hundred times in the OT, referring predominantly to non-Jewish peoples. Its Greek counterpart is ethnos, from which the English word “ethnic” comes. (2) The kingdom of King Tidal (Gen. 14:1, 9). In Gen. 14 King Tidal of Goyim joined King Kedorlaomer of Elam and two other kings in an effort to put down a rebellion in the Dead Sea region. When Abram’s nephew Lot and his household were captured, Abram rescued Lot and defeated the four-king coalition. Scholars have tried to identify King Tidal and his kingdom. Most believe that he was a Hittite king leading his own multination coalition, but there are other proposals. (3) A municipality in Gilgal appearing in the list of kings Joshua conquered (Josh. 12:23). “Goyim in Gilgal” is replaced by “Goiim in Galilee” in some translations (NRSV, ESV) that follow the LXX for this verse. If this is to be preferred, then this Goyim in Galilee is likely the same as in Isa. 9:1 (see next item). (4) A part of the Galilee region called “Galilee of the nations [goyim]” (Isa. 9:1; cf. Matt. 4:13–16). Here most translations render goyim as “Gentiles” or “nations.” Harosheth Haggoyim, the home of the Canaanite army commander Sisera (Judg. 4:2) and the site of his confrontation with the Israelite commander Barak, may also be linked to this location.

(1) The wife of Hosea the prophet. God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, though he also describes her as “an adulterous wife” (Hos. 1:2). The purpose behind God’s command was to provide an illustration of his own relationship with his people, which, like a marriage, was to be intimate and exclusive. Israel, however, was worshiping other gods, just as Gomer was sleeping with other men.

It is uncertain whether Gomer was a prostitute at the time Hosea married her or whether she had promiscuous tendencies that she acted on after marriage. Some commentators even argue that Hosea did not really marry such a woman but that this part of the book of Hosea is a parable. Whichever is the case, more than Israel’s sin is illustrated by Hosea and Gomer’s relationship. In Hos. 3 God commands the prophet to buy her back and marry her again even though she is a prostitute. He is to prohibit her adulterous activities. In the same way, God will not completely break off his relationship with adulterous Israel.

(2) In the Table of Nations (Gen. 10) Gomer is the son of Japheth, the son of Noah. He typically is identified as the ancestor of the Cimmerians, an Indo-European people who lived in what is now southern Russia, north of the Black Sea, in the second millennium BC, but who threatened Assyria around 700 BC. Gomer is also mentioned along with Gog and Magog in Ezek. 38:1–6, representing Israel’s northern enemies.

After Abram (Abraham) realizes that the land between Bethel and Ai cannot support both him and Lot, he suggests that they part company. Abraham gives Lot first choice, and he decides to settle in the fertile cities of the Jordan plain on the outskirts of Sodom (Gen. 13:1–12). The text then describes Sodom’s inhabitants as “wicked” and “sinning greatly against the Lord” (13:13). In Gen. 18 God reveals to Abram his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the “outcry against” these cities and their “grievous” sin. God says, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me” (18:20). Abram pleads on behalf of Sodom and bargains with God to spare the righteous in the city.

Two angels of the Lord then arrive at Sodom to carry out the task of God’s investigation, and Lot meets them and invites them to stay the night with him. The men of Sodom then surround the house and demand that the visitors be brought out to them to be raped. Lot refuses and offers his daughters instead, intending to protect the visitors. The angelic messengers strike the wicked men of Sodom with blindness, and Lot, his wife, and his daughters flee the city. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with a rain of “burning sulfur” (Gen. 19:24).

In both the OT and the NT, the cities’ names become a symbol of warning against violent wickedness and of God’s wrathful response of fiery destruction (Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9; Rom. 9:29; Jude 7). The ancient site of the cities is disputed, though they likely were located near the Dead Sea.

Whereas the Greeks identified the good as an abstract ideal toward which people should strive in all their actions, the Bible identifies goodness as an attribute of God, who is personal (Ps. 25:8–10). Therefore, God is the ultimate standard of goodness.

Creation itself expresses God’s goodness. Human beings are fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps. 139:14). We have been given the capacity to enjoy the many blessings of God’s creation (Ps. 145:9, 16), and to bring the potentialities of creation to their full expression by cultivating and subduing the earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8). We are created in God’s image to do good by living according to God’s purposes. Evil came into the world when Adam and Eve looked to something in creation instead of God as the source of ultimate good (Gen. 3).

In his goodness, God has chosen goodness. If we were to shine God’s goodness through a prism, its color spectrum would include love, mercy, grace, kindness, faithfulness, righteousness, beauty, and perfection to redeem his people, who have lost their capacity for good through sin. Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11). God showers his benevolence upon both the evil and the good (Matt. 5:45). For believers, God uses everything, even their suffering, to bring about their good, namely, Christlikeness (Rom. 8:28–29).

The wood that many Bible versions identify as being used to construct Noah’s ark. “Gopher” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word goper, found only in Gen. 6:14. The NIV renders it “cypress,” acknowledging that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Other suggested translations include “pine,” “cedar,” “fir,” “reed,” and “willow.”

(1) A region in northeast Egypt along the eastern Nile Delta. The extent of the region is uncertain, but it is identified with the area around Wadi Tumilat up to Lake Timsah. The LXX translates “Goshen” as “Gesem of Arabia” (Gen. 45:10) and may identify it with the Egyptian name for Arabia. Geshem of Arabia, a foe of Nehemiah, may be associated with this area (Neh. 2:19). Ramesses II built his capital on the ruins of the Hyksos capital Avaris and called it Pi-Ramesses, which is probably the same Rameses that the Israelite slaves built (Exod. 1:11). Goshen was either roughly equated with the “land of Rameses” or a part of it (Gen. 47:6). Joseph settled his family there because it was “the best of the land,” good for tending herds, and was near him (Gen. 45:10, 18; 46:34). Goshen later became the place of Israel’s enslavement. While Egypt faced the plagues, Goshen was spared (Exod. 8:22).

(2) A region in southern Judah conquered by Joshua (Josh. 10:40–42; 11:16). (3) A town in the southern hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:51).

The term “government” may refer to the philosophy that shapes a nation or people’s institutions, customs, and laws or, more specifically, to actual offices and structures to enact this philosophy. Generally speaking, government serves to bring order and direction to a people. This can be accomplished through the rule of one, or a few, or many. As a constituent portion of bringing order, some sort of entity for enforcement and protection must be created. This usually takes the form of a military or police force.

The biblical worldview emphasizes the rule of God over everything, inherent in his position as the Creator. Since, however, God did imbue humanity with authority over creation and with the capacity for relationship, his government can find expression in the actions and decisions of human beings (1 Sam. 8:7–9; Rom. 13:1–4). The successful ruler will be the individual who understands his or her place before God and who desires to lead God’s people with humility and justice (1 Kings 3:7–9).

Before the Monarchy

Clan. The earliest forms of governmental relations apparently were in the extended family or clan. The progenitor of the clan normally was the patriarch, who led several families, all of which were to some degree related to him. The patriarch was responsible for land allotments and maintenance of the family’s spiritual life and well-being (Gen. 13:8–9; 31:22–35; Job 1:4–5). He was responsible for forming contractual agreements under which the family functioned, in relation both to land acquisitions and to marriages (Gen. 21:22–34; 24:1–11; 26:26–33). He alone decided to whom the patriarchy passed when he died, and his power was almost absolute (Gen. 27), though there is some indication that God desired a husband’s first responsibility to be to his spouse rather than to his father (Gen. 2:24).

Tribe. Beyond the clan, the next larger societal unit was the tribe. Although tribes were for the most part still related genetically, the distance of the relationship permitted the inclusion of persons from outside the family. This may have been the case with Caleb, who is identified both as a member of the tribe of Judah (Num. 13:6) and as a descendant of the Kenizzites, who were Edomites (Gen. 36:9–11; Num. 32:12). If modern nomadic tribes are any indication, the governmental structure of the related tribes was a type of confederation coming together for defensive purposes. The decisions would have been made by a group of elders from the various clans. Like the clan chief of the smaller structures, the tribal elders could make covenants and were responsible for keeping order in the tribe (Deut. 21:19; Ruth 4:1–12; 2 Sam. 5:3).

During the period following the exodus and before the time of the judges, Israel’s tribal structure was maintained, though with a single leader. The leadership of Moses and Joshua was in many ways a precursor to the offices of both judge and king. The men had considerable power, and opposition to their leadership often was dealt with harshly (Num. 12; 16). Yet, their rule was established through presence of the Spirit of God rather than physical lineage. The weight of leading such a large body of people had its difficulties, and it is related that Moses delegated some of his authority to judges who rendered decisions for the people (Exod. 18).

Judges. The period of the judges witnessed a devolution of sorts in the governmental structures of Israel. The relationship between the various tribes was somewhat strained, and it seems clear from the narrative that no judge ever led more than a handful of tribes. Although these judges were like Moses and Joshua in that they were imbued with power by the Spirit of God, their focus was almost solely military in nature, and the everyday aspects of governance seem to have been left to the individual tribes. There was little sense of ordered society, and lawlessness and anarchy seem to have been the order of the day. In two cases, those of Gideon and Abimelek, attempts were made to found petty kingdoms (Judg. 8:22–23, 30–31; 9:1–21). Similarly, Jephthah seems to have established a minor kingdom east of the Jordan, in Gilead (Judg. 11:6–11). However, these attempts were transitory in nature and lacked the stability that grows out of a unified identity. Indeed, one of the roles of the judges seems to have been to solidify the people’s resolve for permanent leadership in the form of a monarch, which they hoped would raise them to greatness and standing in the world (1 Sam. 8:1–6).

The Monarchy

The period of the monarchy represented a strong centralized government invested in the mind and decisions of a single man. The term “king” was applied symbolically to any great leader, but above all it was applied to God, to whom Israel’s throne rightfully belonged (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; Ps. 2). With the office of the king came a bureaucracy designed to increase efficiency, but which sometimes involved corruption.

Establishing the monarchy. The first ruler called “king” was Saul, son of Kish, though he is often referred to as a prince or a chieftain rather than a king (1 Sam. 13:13–14). It is difficult to say whether this related specifically to the level of office that he possessed or if it was a sort of disparaging comparison to David, who was viewed by the biblical writer as a true king. As king, David took possession of the great fortress of Jerusalem. In many ways, he combined the ecclesiastical and the military headship of the nation through the movement of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and the purchase of the threshing floor for the temple. Solomon attempted to further break down the old tribal divisions by dividing the whole country into administrative districts (1 Kings 4:7), not according to tribal divisions, but instead after the pattern established during the Egyptian hegemony of Canaan that had existed several centuries earlier. The kingdom was divided into two separate kingdoms at the death of Solomon, but for the people of God the monarchy had become the standard of government through which God ruled. This monarchial expectation found expression in the messianic hope of Israel (Ezek. 47).

The role of the king. The chief duty of the king was to act as the commander in chief of the army. With the establishment of a monarchy, the people gained a standing army that could be kept in the field for protection of the nation (1 Sam. 13:2). The king was also intimately connected with the religious organization of the people. He was considered a central component of the cult, so that major moments in his life were cause for worship (Pss. 2; 45; 110). It is certain that the king, especially after David, performed priestly functions. David wore an ephod (1 Chron. 15:27), and Solomon addressed the people in the temple (1 Kings 8:14). Indeed, the coronation itself identified the king as both priest and king (Ps. 110:4). The fact that Solomon built the temple and played a significant role in its dedication shows the intimate relation that the king had with the national sanctuary, which was attached to his palace. The king also served as judge (1 Kings 3:16–28; 7:7) over his people, and he determined the economic structures of the society, including taxes, monetary weights, and covenants with other nations. The king did not hold absolute authority, however, and like the rest of Israel, he was subject to the law (Deut. 17:14–20).

Successors and officers. Once the kingship had been established, the hereditary principle arose naturally. Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth maintained a small kingship of northern tribes for some time after Saul’s death (2 Sam. 2:8–10). Still, the king appears to have had the right to select which of his descendants would be his successor (1 Kings 1). When the decision was made, the people often proclaimed their satisfaction at the result (1 Kings 1:25; 2 Kings 14:21), and a ceremony of anointing took place. Sometimes the anointing was a private affair (2 Kings 9:6), but the presence of certain psalms related to the ceremony itself suggests that, generally speaking, it was a national event and time of worship (Ps. 2:2).

The bureaucracy that came with the king meant the installation of several new offices. The chief officer of the king was the commander of his army (2 Sam. 2:8; 8:16). Another high-ranking military officer was the captain of the bodyguard, who was not placed under the orders of the commander of the army (2 Sam. 8:18; 23:22–23). The king also had more domestic officers, such as the officer over the household (2 Kings 18:18), the court historian, the court secretary, various deputies and advisers, and the king’s friend (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Kings 4:1–6).

Revenue. The means of sustaining the state varied by era and king. While it is true that the king had his own flocks and land (1 Sam. 8:15–17; 1 Chron. 27:25–28), he could also, depending on how strong he was, raise revenue through gifts from vassals (1 Kings 4:21; 10:25) and through the spoils of war (2 Chron. 27:5). Starting with the control and regulation of trade routes during the reign of Solomon, the king maintained a stream of revenue through taxation of merchants moving through the land and trade with other nations.

After the Exile

The period following the exile witnessed a transition in the government of Israel. Apart from a very short period from about 160 to 60 BC, Israel was under the control of foreign powers. These various empires ruled with a variety of methods, determined by their own philosophy of government.

Persian rule. The Persians established a rule based largely on a sort of benevolent dictatorship, though there are multiple accounts of vicious responses to any notion of rebellion from its vassals. In 539 BC Cyrus permitted the Jews to return from their captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem and showed them certain favors. One of his successors, Darius I (r. 522–486 BC), continued the liberal policy of Cyrus toward the Jews and played a major role in the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem (Ezra 5:13–17; 6:1–15). He also organized the Persian Empire to facilitate the easy collection of tribute from subject nations. He ultimately divided the kingdom into twenty provinces ruled by governors, a system maintained through the remainder of his dynastic line. Another important development during this period was the increase in power of the Jewish priesthood. With no Jewish monarchy in place, governmental power in Israel became concentrated in the office of the high priest.

Greek and Roman rule. Alexander the Great and his successors brought Hellenism into the Jewish experience. His acquisition of power was distinctly different because it was not simply a political one. Its cultural and spiritual influence was much more significant. The people were subjected to new language, art, thought, and philosophy. The struggle that ensued divided the Jewish population into competing groups, one dedicated to the preservation of the old ways and one more receptive to the Hellenistic life.

The coming of the Romans brought with it a more complex balance of power, with authority shifting between the high priest, vassal kings appointed by the Romans, and Roman governors called “prefects” and “procurators.” Among the kings of this period, Herod the Great was the most successful and important. Herod gained control of the region with the help of Augustus Caesar and Marc Antony, being invested with the office by the Roman senate and then winning an important military victory over Jerusalem in 37 BC. Herod was hated by the Jews because of his pagan commitments, his cruelty, and his desire to Hellenize Judea. His children did not enjoy his success or his power, however, and following his death Roman influence and intervention in Judea became more direct and significant.

The priestly class also held significant power in the office of the high priest and in the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin addressed issues such as legal procedure, verdicts, and decrees of a political nature and also dealt with questions relating to the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. The Sanhedrin was in many respects the highest political authority (although its control was always mitigated by Roman power and presence). It could deal with most criminal cases, though its authority was limited in capital cases.

The Roman presence in the region was represented by the governance of prefects and procurators. These governors were appointed by Rome over Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6, and over all of Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Prefects and procurators were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the legate and ultimately to Caesar. They lived primarily in Caesarea, but they traveled to Jerusalem for high festivals or in the case of civil unrest. They tended to have as little contact as possible with the Jews unless their own personal interest demanded it. Decisions concerning everyday life were left to the Jewish authorities. With Roman citizens living in their areas, the procurators had direct influence; however, such citizens could go over the procurator’s head and appeal to Caesar if they did not receive the sentence that they desired.

Old Testament

The English word “governor” is used to translate a number of Hebrew words. The term indicates one who has been designated with authority over a certain region, especially under the rule of a king or emperor. The position of governor is found throughout the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets. Notable in the OT are the governors appointed by the foreign kings both at home and in occupied territories.

There are several notable governors in the OT. After being sold into slavery in Egypt, Joseph was exalted to governor of Egypt, second only to the king. Thus, his brothers bowed before him (Gen. 42:6). Solomon, during his reign, established twelve governors, each one responsible for supplying provisions to the king one month out of the year (1 Kings 4:7), and Solomon received tribute from them (1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chron. 9:14).

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (Jer. 41:17–18).

Another notable individual who governed the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem after the captivity was Sheshbazzar, governor under Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). He had been entrusted with the vessels for the house of God in Jerusalem that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7–8). This same Sheshbazzar had begun building the foundation of the temple by the legal decree of Cyrus the king (5:14–6:6). Subsequently, Zerubbabel (under Darius I) became governor and completed the foundation and the rest of the temple (Ezra 3–6; see also Hag. 1:1–15). He and the other workers are said to have had their spirits stirred to do the work (Hag. 1:14).

Nehemiah, who led the people in restoring the wall of Jerusalem for the safety and restoration of the city, was governor over his people (under Artaxerxes I) and had a true heart of compassion toward the poor. His sympathy for them was so deep that he did not take the regular allotment of food and other goods that the other governors took by right (Neh. 5:14–15). The governors who had gone before ruled and taxed heavily. Nehemiah deemed this an illegitimate way to live among God’s people. At the reading of the law along with Ezra the priest and the other Levites, Nehemiah directed the attention of the people to the proper response to the word of God (Neh. 8:9–10).

New Testament

In the NT, the most common word for governor is hēgemōn. As in the OT, governors were appointed by higher authorities who delegated to them the authority to rule.

The office of governor was very important in Israel during the NT period. Herod the Great had ruled Israel during the years 37–4 BC. At his death in 4 BC, three of his sons took over the kingdom with the approval of Caesar Augustus. Archelaus ruled Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas (Herod the Tetrarch) was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus (see Luke 3:1; Josephus, J.W. 2.93–97). The Jewish people revolted against Archelaus in the ninth year, and he was stripped of his rulership and banished in AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.111). His kingdom was turned into a Roman province, with Coponius ruling as governor. From this time until the reign of Herod Agrippa I, Judea was ruled by a line of governors (called “prefects” or “procurators”). In AD 41 Herod Agrippa I began to rule and eventually governed roughly the same territory as did Herod the Great, his grandfather. His rule, however, lasted only three years. In the period AD 44–66 governors again ruled in Judea, among them Felix and Festus, with whom the apostle Paul had audience.

Of note among these governors was Pontius Pilate, appointed in AD 26 by Tiberius. Pilate’s fortunes seemed to wax and wane with those of General Sejanus, with whom he shared many political and social views. When he first arrived in Palestine, Pilate provoked protests by secretly bringing army standards bearing the images of Roman emperors—idols in Jewish eyes—into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). On another occasion demonstrations broke out when Pilate used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.60–62). Pilate sent soldiers to surround and attack the protestors, many of whom were killed. Luke 13:1 refers to a similar episode near the temple mount in which Pilate massacred some Galileans, “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Typical of the Romans, Pilate met protest with ruthless and overwhelming force. At Jesus’ trial, though Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38), he condemned Jesus to crucifixion to avoid antagonizing the religious leaders. This kind of action was characteristic of Pilate. He was an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them. Josephus notes that during the tumult of the Samaritans (to assemble at Mount Gerizim), Pilate put them to flight, killing some of them. The Samaritans complained about Pilate’s murderous ways to Vitellius, who was friendly to them, and he recalled Pilate to Rome to answer before Tiberius, but Pilate took so long getting there that Tiberius was dead when he finally arrived (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). Pilate was eventually removed from office, and we hear nothing else from him.

Two other Judean governors who appear in the NT are Felix and Festus, who played a role in the apostle Paul’s trial (Acts 24–26). Felix’s wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and she was with him at Paul’s second hearing. On this second occasion Paul reasoned powerfully with Felix, so much so that Felix became frightened about the future and sent Paul away. His fear notwithstanding, Felix sought to exploit the situation for monetary gain (no doubt, bribes were common), but Paul made no response. Two years later Felix was replaced by the next governor, Porcius Festus. Festus heard the defense of Paul (Acts 26) and sent him to Rome after his appeal, though both Festus and Herod agreed that Paul could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30–32).

On one occasion in the NT, the word “governor” is translated from the word ethnarchēs. Aretas of the Nabateans was the ethnarch in Damascus and laid siege to capture the apostle Paul, but Paul escaped through a window in the wall, probably at night (2 Cor. 11:32–33).

As opposed to a governor, a “proconsul” (anthypatos) was a ruler of a senatorial province and so was appointed by the Roman senate rather than the emperor. These provinces were usually more loyal and peaceful and thus had little need of a strong military presence. Such was the case with the proconsul on Cyprus who lived in Paphos, Sergius Paulus. This man is noted by Luke as intelligent and ready to hear the message of Paul and Barnabas. The sorcerer Elymas (Bar-Jesus) sought to turn the proconsul from the faith and so was struck blind at Paul’s command. This Roman proconsul, a man of political stature on Cyprus, then became a believer (Acts 13:4–12). Another proconsul, Gallio, ruled in Achaia during Paul’s sojourn there on his second missionary journey. From information gained from ancient written sources, chiefly the Gallio Inscription, the beginning of his tenure as proconsul in Achaia occurred between AD 50 and 52. When Paul was brought to trial before Gallio, Gallio tossed the case out as a religious squabble (Acts 18:12–16). In another reference to the proconsulate, Paul’s detractors in Ephesus were told by the town secretary to take their complaints against Paul to the proconsuls of that area, lest they be accused of provoking a riot and an illegal assembly (19:38–41).

Jesus himself had previously prophesied that the disciples would testify before kings and governors (Matt. 10:18), something that was fulfilled by Paul as he spoke before Herod, Felix, Festus, and Nero. Additionally, Luke noted Quirinius as the governor of Syria when the first census was taken, around the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:2).

The apostles note that the community of faith is to submit to rulers such as governors as they execute their God-ordained task, since the praise of good and punishment of evil is also the interest of the divine creator and ordainer of such persons (1 Pet. 2:14; cf. Rom. 13:1–5). The community of faith is also to pray for all in authority (including governors, though not mentioned specifically), so that the church will be able to lead a quiet existence in godliness (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

A transliterated plural form of the Hebrew word goy (“nation, Gentile”), and the name of several places. As a place name, it is also spelled Goiim. (1) As a plural noun, goyim occurs more than four hundred times in the OT, referring predominantly to non-Jewish peoples. Its Greek counterpart is ethnos, from which the English word “ethnic” comes. (2) The kingdom of King Tidal (Gen. 14:1, 9). In Gen. 14 King Tidal of Goyim joined King Kedorlaomer of Elam and two other kings in an effort to put down a rebellion in the Dead Sea region. When Abram’s nephew Lot and his household were captured, Abram rescued Lot and defeated the four-king coalition. Scholars have tried to identify King Tidal and his kingdom. Most believe that he was a Hittite king leading his own multination coalition, but there are other proposals. (3) A municipality in Gilgal appearing in the list of kings Joshua conquered (Josh. 12:23). “Goyim in Gilgal” is replaced by “Goiim in Galilee” in some translations (NRSV, ESV) that follow the LXX for this verse. If this is to be preferred, then this Goyim in Galilee is likely the same as in Isa. 9:1 (see next item). (4) A part of the Galilee region called “Galilee of the nations [goyim]” (Isa. 9:1; cf. Matt. 4:13–16). Here most translations render goyim as “Gentiles” or “nations.” Harosheth Haggoyim, the home of the Canaanite army commander Sisera (Judg. 4:2) and the site of his confrontation with the Israelite commander Barak, may also be linked to this location.

Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.

The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and goodwill between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.

Old Testament

Genesis. The grace of the creation narratives is summarized with the repeated use of the term “good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). God is good, and he made a good creation with abundant gifts for Adam and Eve to enjoy. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, he righteously judged and graciously provided for an ongoing relationship. God clothed the naked Adam and Eve (3:21) and announced that the seed of the woman would yield a redeemer (3:15).

Grace in the postcreation narratives (Gen. 4–6) is focused on individuals. God looked with favor on Abel and his offering (4:4), and Noah found grace in God’s eyes (6:8). God looked at and had regard for the offering of Abel (Gen. 4). Jacob confessed to Esau that God graced him with descendants and with possessions (33:5).

Grace and graciousness also characterize interaction between individuals. The Jacob and Esau exchange uses grace vocabulary for the gift and the disposition of grace. Jacob invited Esau to accept his gift if he had a favorable disposition toward him (Gen. 33:11). The covenant son Joseph received favorable treatment from the prison warden because of his disposition toward him (39:21).

Exodus. The exodus narrative recounts how the seed of Abraham multiplies, is redeemed, and then is given the law, which defines the relationship of God to Israel. All these events are tied to the gracious promises that God made to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12; 15; 17; see also Gen. 21; 27).

The grace associated with the redemption of Israel from Egypt is celebrated in the song of Exod. 15. God’s victory over the Egyptian army and his covenant fidelity to the patriarchs are the song’s themes. Moses and the Israelites sing because God heard Israel’s groaning; he remembered his covenant with Abraham and looked on Israel with concern (2:24). God made Egypt favorably disposed toward Israel (3:21) and parted the sea for Israel to escape (11:3; 12:36). The confession “He is my God . . . my father’s God” ties together major sections of redemptive history and affirms the constancy of God’s grace throughout the periods (15:2). God’s tenacious covenant loyalty (khesed) to the nation and his covenant grace (15:13) to Israel cannot be merited.

The giving of the law in Exod. 20 is prefaced by a gracious and powerful presentation of God to the nation in Exod. 19. In the organization and development of Exod. 19–20, grace themes emerge. The grace associated with redemption and covenant life is marked in Exod. 19. God took Israel from Egyptian bondage, redeemed it, and brought the nation to himself (19:4). Through this action, the nation will become a special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests (19:5–6). In sum, Israel exists because God created, loved, and redeemed it.

Second, the Decalogue of Exod. 20 follows upon the redemption effected by God, defining how Israel will relate to its God. In this sense, law is viewed as a gift that expresses the divine will. When compared and contrasted with ancient Near Eastern laws, Torah reflects the grace of God’s character and his genuine concern for the poor, slaves, aliens, and widows. In addition, there is a grace ethic that motivates obedience to the law. The motivational statements in the Decalogue in Exod. 20 relate to the grace of redemption (v. 2), the righteousness of God (vv. 4–7), the creation work of God (vv. 8–11), and long life (v. 12).

Exodus 32–34 is a key passage that links the covenant with grace terminology. This section begins with the story of the golden calf (chap. 32) and ends with the account of Moses’ radiant face (34:29–35). The grace terminology is observed in 33:19; 34:6–7. The context of 33:19 involves Moses meeting with God face-to-face. According to 33:12–17, Moses wanted to know who would be left after the purge of 33:5. He acknowledged God’s favor in his life and wondered who else might enjoy it. Moses reminded God that the nation was his people (33:13). The grace of this account is God’s assurance of his presence with Israel and the unmerited purposeful expression of his grace.

Exodus 34:6–7 employs a series of adjectives in a grace confessional statement. This statement arises out of God’s instructions to Moses to cut two new tablets of stone like the first ones (34:1; see also 24:12), which were broken after the incident of the golden calf (32:19). God descended in a cloud, stood with Moses, and proclaimed his name to him (34:5). The rhetoric of the passage emphasizes the speech of God, who defines himself in connection with covenant making. God is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and distinguished by steadfast love.

Grace and covenant loyalty. These key passages are foundational for understanding the grace and steadfast loyalty of God expressed in the subsequent events of covenant history. Grace and khesed are expressed in connection with covenant curse implementation (Num. 14:18; Hos. 4:1; 6:4, 6), in the overall structure of Deuteronomy (5:10; 7:9, 12), in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:15; 1 Chron. 17:13), in the future hope of Israel (Isa. 54:8), in restoration (Jer. 32:18), in the new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and in exile (Dan. 9:4).

To round out the OT discussion, we may note that covenant siblings were to be gracious and loyal in their ongoing relationships with one another. The book of Ruth illustrates covenant grace in action (2:2, 10, 13). In addition, grace is to be expressed toward the poor (Prov. 28:8), the young and the old (Deut. 28:50), and those who suffer (Job 19:21).

New Testament

The NT focus of grace is developed in keeping with the foundation laid in the OT. The triune God is the center and source of grace: it is the grace of God (Rom. 1:7), the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29), and the grace of Christ (John 1:17). The grace of God revealed in the OT is unveiled uniquely in the person and work of Christ.

The Gospel of John. The canonical development of the grace theme between the Testaments is explained in the opening chapter of John’s Gospel. Jesus Christ is the Word, who was with God, who is God, and who created the world (John 1:1–3). Christ then became flesh and dwelled among us (1:14). In doing so, he made known the glory of God to us. At this point in the development of chapter 1, John connects Christ (the Word) with the adjectives describing God in Exod. 34:6 to affirm that Christ has the very same virtues that God has. The assertion in John 1:17 that Jesus is full of grace and truth parallels the statement in Exod. 34:6 of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. In Christ we are able to see the glory that Moses hoped to see in God (John 1:18). Christ is both the message and the messenger of grace and truth.

The Epistles and Acts. The NT Epistles develop the “full of grace and truth” statement about Christ (John 1:14) in several ways. The grace and truth found in Christ are given to his servants (1 Cor. 1:4) and are a reason for praise (2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 1:6, 15; Eph. 4:7; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:1). This grace from Christ is effective in bringing about redemption and sustaining a life of godliness. Ephesians 2:8–9 is the classic statement affirming that God’s favor is the source of salvation. Paul makes this point by repeating “it is by grace” in 2:5, 8 and clarifying the grace of salvation with the “it is the gift of God” statement in 2:8. This design of salvation celebrates the incomparable riches of Christ’s grace and the expression of his kindness to us (cf. Eph. 1:7). Salvation is devoid of human merit, gifts, or favor (2:8). Keeping the law as a means of entrance into a relationship with God and as a means of gaining favor with God is antithetical to the nature of grace. God’s favor expressed to people in salvation is an expression of his sovereign will.

Romans 5 declares many of the same themes found in Eph. 2. In Rom. 5 Paul contrasts the action and result of Adam’s transgression with the obedience of Christ. Salvation is God’s grace and gift brought by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ (v. 15). The gift and grace of Christ brought about justification.

The effective operation of God’s grace in salvation is illustrated in the historical narratives of Acts. The men involved in the heated debate of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2) affirmed the salvation of the Gentiles by grace after hearing the report of Barnabas and Paul (15:12). Those in Achaia (18:27) are another illustration of an effective operation of grace.

The grace of God that saves is also the grace that sanctifies. Titus 2:11 declares that redemptive grace instructs the redeemed to say no to a life of ungodliness. The instructional nature of grace is highlighted in the development of the Titus 2 context. The teacher in 2:1–10, 15 is Titus, who is to nurture godly people. There is a change of instructors in 2:11, with grace now teaching. Redemptive grace works in harmony with sanctifying grace to provide for godly living.

According to Titus 3:8, those who trust in the generosity of God’s grace should devote themselves to doing what is good. By God’s grace, justified sinners will find their delight and satisfaction in the promises of God for a life of persevering godliness.

Grace also functions as an enablement for life and ministry. Paul often rehearses this feature of grace in his letters. In Rom. 1:5 Paul testifies about the grace associated with a commission to be an apostle. When reflecting on his role in the church, he affirms that by God’s grace he has been able to lay a foundation (1 Cor. 3:10). Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor. 15:10 demonstrates the essential role of grace in making him who he is and effectively enabling what he does. Giving is also viewed as an exercise of grace (2 Cor. 8:7) reflecting the grace received by individual believers. This gift of grace for life and ministry is somehow recognizable. Peter, James, and John recognized it in Paul (Gal. 2:9). It was upon the apostles (Acts 4:33), and it was seen in the church of Antioch (11:23).

Given the source and the effective nature of grace, one can understand the appropriateness of appealing to grace in greetings and salutations (Rom. 1:7; 16:20; Gal. 1:3; 6:18).

Common grace. Finally, grace does operate beyond the context of the elect and the work of salvation and sanctification. Theologians define this as “common grace.” God’s sending rain and giving creatures intellectual and artistic abilities are expressions of common grace.

Grain formed the staple of the Israelite diet and was imperative for sustaining life (Gen. 42:2). Families harvested and brought grain to the threshing floor, where it was winnowed. It was eaten parched or raw, in the form of bread or porridge (Lev. 23:14). The most common types were wheat and barley, but others such as emmer and millet are attested (Ezek. 4:9). Grain also formed an integral part of the sacrificial system (Lev. 2; Num. 7). See also Heads of Grain.

The normal foodstuff of livestock in biblical times, grass consisted of various kinds of fast-growing, ground-covering plants (Num. 22:4; 1 Kings 18:5). Several types of grass were native to Israel, including short-lived grasses that sprang up during the rainy season and died down shortly afterward, as well as longer-lasting dune grasses. Dried grass, or hay, does not appear to have been harvested but needed to be removed before the new growth appeared (Prov. 27:25). The various words for “grass” can also indicate other vegetation, some of which was suitable for pasture, and some of which was even used for human consumption (Gen. 3:18; Matt. 13:26).

Because of its shallow roots, grass is quick to grow and quick to wither. This transience provides a suitable metaphor for human mortality (Ps. 90:5–6; Isa. 40:6; 1 Pet. 1:24), in contrast with the permanence of God’s word. It also illustrates the fleeting success of the wicked (Ps. 92:7), in contrast to the security of the righteous. Grass is the quickest indicator of changes in growing conditions, and thus it was also a barometer of God’s blessing on his people (Ps. 72:16). Grass is considered the most mundane of plants, of little value, yet even this plant is valued by God, who is said to clothe the grass with the splendor of lilies (Matt. 6:28–30).

The grave refers to the physical place of burial or metaphorically to death (Job 3:22; 5:26; Jer. 20:17; Nah. 1:14) or to devouring destructiveness (Ps. 5:9; Jer. 5:16). The main types of graves used by the Israelites were holes dug in the ground, natural caves, or hewn chambers. The ossuary, or bone box, came into use in Roman times. Christians also made use of catacombs.

Israelite custom, and that of the Semitic peoples generally, was burial. They did not practice embalming, as the Egyptians did, nor cremation, like the Greeks and the Romans. Burial was an important part of respecting the dead, lest the body be desecrated by enemies or animals. And while the body might be washed or perfumed, it was not preserved. After the body decayed, the bones might be relocated. Touching the dead, their bones, or a grave brought seven days of uncleanness (Num. 19:16). It was a disgrace for a body to be eaten by animals (Ps. 79:2).

Due to the speed of decomposition, burial took place as soon as possible, typically within twenty-four hours. A nomadic way of life favored in-ground burial, with the gravesite possibly covered with stones or marked by a monument. Advanced preparation for a site could be made by securing a cave or hewing out an area of soft rock. Greco-Roman influence led to more-elaborate tomb architecture. The outer walls might be whitewashed, which perhaps protected from defilement due to accidental contact. But the contrast between their outer appearance and their contents made such tombs a point of comparison for rebukes from Jesus and Paul (Matt. 23:27; Acts 23:3).

Upon Sarah’s death, Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah for use as a family gravesite (Gen. 23). Jacob, however, buried Rachel in the ground for the sake of immediacy and marked her grave with a pillar that survived into the monarchy (Gen. 35:20; 1 Sam. 10:2).

The embalming of Jacob and Joseph was unique, because of Joseph’s prominence in Egypt. Embalming permitted Jacob’s body to be transported to the family gravesite (Gen. 50:13). Joseph also gave instructions for his bones to be moved when Israel left Egypt (Gen. 50:25; Exod. 13:19). In Egyptian theology, proper burial and close association with Pharaoh were important for the afterlife. Joseph’s instruction about his gravesite represents both his confidence that God would take Israel out of Egypt and his rejection of Egyptian religion.

Burning the bodies of Saul and his sons was unusual. The men of Jabesh Gilead retrieved the decomposing bodies, which the Philistines had placed on display; they burned them, buried the bones, and then fasted during the seven-day period of defilement for handling a dead body. David later had the bones reburied at their family gravesite (2 Sam. 21:14).

Most graves were outside the cities, though the kings of Judah were buried inside the city of David (2 Chron. 16:13).

The tourist site of the “tomb of Absalom” in Jerusalem is from the wrong century, as is true of other famous gravesites.

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

The color primarily associated with vegetation (Gen. 1:30; 9:3; Exod. 10:15), particularly the new growth after rain (2 Kings 19:26; Isa. 37:27; Mark 6:39). See also Colors.

Greeting Customs in Biblical Times

We know of greeting customs in biblical times from narrations of greetings and from instructions on greeting.

In biblical Hebrew, the phrase usually translated “to greet” is literally “to inquire of someone’s well-being [shalom]” (e.g., Exod. 18:7; 2 Sam. 20:9 [cf. the English greeting “How are you?”]). In some instances, we see people “blessing” one another as a form of greeting: “Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet [lit., ‘bless’] him” (1 Sam. 13:10). Ruth 2:4 provides an example of the words that passed between individuals in such a greeting: “Just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem and greeted the harvesters, ‘The Lord be with you!’ ‘The Lord bless you!’ they answered.” The formula had changed little by the first century AD, when Gabriel said to Mary, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). Luke reports that “Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be” (1:29), though the source of her consternation is unclear, since the angel’s greeting closely approximates that of Boaz. Perhaps this is the very point: the angel was speaking in a distinctively “biblical-sounding” vernacular, which raised the concerns of the young, first-century AD woman.

Paul often instructs the recipients of his letters to greet one another with a “holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; see also 1 Pet. 5:14). Tragically, a kiss of greeting was the signal by which Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus (Matt. 26:48–49). Other examples of greeting with a kiss include Gen. 29:11, 13; 33:4; 45:15; Exod. 4:27; 18:7; 2 Sam. 20:9; Prov. 7:13. In other cases, kisses were exchanged as a farewell greeting (Gen. 31:28, 55; 48:10; 50:1; Ruth 1:9, 14; 1 Sam. 20:41; 2 Sam. 19:39; 1 Kings 19:20; Acts 20:37). Jesus taught his disciples to be generous with their greetings; after all, even pagans will greet their brothers and sisters, but a Christian must extend greetings even beyond the narrow circle of kinship (Matt. 5:47). When entering a home, Jesus taught, his disciples were to greet the inhabitants (Matt. 10:12). At other times, however, Jesus told his disciples to forgo greetings along the road in the interest of arriving quickly at their destination (Luke 10:4).

Greeting and Social Rank

In the examples of Ruth 2:4 and Luke 1:28 above, the greeting is initiated by the person of higher status. Boaz was a wealthy landowner greeting fieldworkers, and Gabriel was an important angel greeting a young, unmarried woman. An analogy may be drawn to another social norm, the notion that it was appropriate for the greater person to bless the lesser: “Without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater” (Heb. 7:7). Elsewhere in the Bible, the opposite practice is referred to, when Jesus criticizes the teachers of the law and the Pharisees because, among other honors, “they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplace and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others” (Matt. 23:7). When Paul went to Rome, believers from that city traveled about forty miles to meet and greet him as he approached the city (Acts 28:15), thus according to him the honors due a traveling dignitary in antiquity (cf. Mark 9:15; 1 Thess. 4:17).

Epistolary Greetings

Like modern letters, ancient correspondence began with a salutation (Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1) (see Salutation). In particular, Paul used the greeting at the beginning of his epistles as an occasion for theological elaboration in addition to its use as the identification of the writer and the recipients of the letter. To the end of his letters, Paul often appended individually directed greetings, as well as greetings in the name of friends with whom he sent the letter (Rom. 16:3–16; 1 Cor. 16:19–21; 2 Cor. 13:12–13; Phil. 4:22–23; Col. 4:10–15; 2 Tim. 4:19–21; Titus 3:15; Philem. 1:23; see also Heb. 13:24; 1 Pet. 5:13; 2 John 13; 3 John 14).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

In Gen. 31:10, 12; Zech. 6:3, 6 the KJV translates the Hebrew term barod as “grisled,” referring to animals that are “spotted” or “dappled” (NIV).

God puts Adam in the garden of Eden to literally “guard” it (Heb. shamar, Gen. 2:15; NIV “take care of it”), but on account of sin he must be removed. God places cherubim to guard against intruders (cf. 1 Sam. 26:15; Song 5:7; Isa. 21:11), to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). God “preserves” the faithful (Ps. 31:23) and “guards” their lives (Prov. 24:12) from trouble (Ps. 32:7), from violent people (Ps. 140:1, 4), and from the enemy’s plan (Ps. 64:1). The noun mishmeret derives from shamar and is found in both military (2 Sam. 20:3; Neh. 7:3; Isa. 21:8) and cultic (Num. 8:26; 1 Chron. 9:27; Ezek. 40:46) contexts.

Several verbs are used in the NT to render the sense “to guard.” Most pertinent is phylassō, which is used of “guarding” prisoners (Luke 8:29; Acts 12:4; 28:16) and personal property (Luke 2:8; 11:21; Acts 22:20). Paul exhorts Timothy to guard the deposit of faith entrusted to him (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12), and people are encouraged to guard themselves against covetousness (Luke 12:15), idols (1 John 5:21), and lawlessness (2 Pet. 3:17). God also serves as a guard who safely delivers his people (John 17:12; 2 Pet. 2:5) and promises to protect them from the evil one (2 Thess. 3:3).

Deceitful cunning, usually employed in taking advantage of others through scheming and underhanded methods (e.g., Exod. 21:14; Pss. 32:2; 34:13; 55:21; 2 Cor. 12:16 KJV; 2 Macc. 12:24; 1 Pet. 2:1 NRSV). Although Nathaniel is not initially impressed with Jesus’ messianic credentials, Jesus nevertheless praises him for his straightforwardness: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (John 1:47 KJV [NIV, NRSV: “no deceit”]). The reference to an Israelite may be a pun on the meaning of Jacob’s name, which means “deceiver” (see Gen. 25:26; 27:35–36; cf. Gen. 28:12 with John 1:51). Judas Iscariot is an unfortunate contrast (John 12:6). God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and therefore his word is without guile or “pure” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:1–2; 3:10).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Gum is a sticky, elastic substance formed from the breakdown of certain elements in the cell wall of plants. To harvest it, the bark of certain trees was cut and removed, which allowed the gum to exude and be collected. As can be seen from the contents of the Ishmaelite caravan (Gen. 37:25 NASB, ESV; NIV: “spices”), gum was an important trade commodity in the ancient Near East. Gum is similar to resin, and together they create a type of gum resin, of which frankincense is the most prominent biblical example. Referred to in the KJV and several other versions as “stacte,” gum resin (Heb. natap) was used in the priestly perfume (Exod. 30:34). This perfume symbolized the presence of God in the sanctuary, and its abuse was punishable by ostracism (Exod. 30:38).

Gum is a sticky, elastic substance formed from the breakdown of certain elements in the cell wall of plants. To harvest it, the bark of certain trees was cut and removed, which allowed the gum to exude and be collected. As can be seen from the contents of the Ishmaelite caravan (Gen. 37:25 NASB, ESV; NIV: “spices”), gum was an important trade commodity in the ancient Near East. Gum is similar to resin, and together they create a type of gum resin, of which frankincense is the most prominent biblical example. Referred to in the KJV and several other versions as “stacte,” gum resin (Heb. natap) was used in the priestly perfume (Exod. 30:34). This perfume symbolized the presence of God in the sanctuary, and its abuse was punishable by ostracism (Exod. 30:38).

(1) The son of Naphtali (Gen. 46:24; 1 Chron. 7:13) and eponymous ancestor of the Gunites (Num. 26:48). (2) The grandfather of Ahi, a chief of Gad (1 Chron. 5:15).

(1) The eighth son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15). (2) Son of Bedad, the fifth ruler in the Edomite king list (Gen. 36:35). (3) The eighth ruler in the Edomite king list (1 Chron. 1:50), called “Hadar” in most MT manuscripts of Gen. 36:39. (4) A member of the royal family of Edom who as a child survived Joab’s massacre of its royal house and fled to Egypt. Later he returned to Edom as one of the adversaries that God raised up against Solomon as a punishment for his apostasy (1 Kings 11:14–22). (5) An ancient Semitic storm god. See also Baal.

(1) The eighth son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15). (2) Son of Bedad, the fifth ruler in the Edomite king list (Gen. 36:35). (3) The eighth ruler in the Edomite king list (1 Chron. 1:50), called “Hadar” in most MT manuscripts of Gen. 36:39. (4) A member of the royal family of Edom who as a child survived Joab’s massacre of its royal house and fled to Egypt. Later he returned to Edom as one of the adversaries that God raised up against Solomon as a punishment for his apostasy (1 Kings 11:14–22). (5) An ancient Semitic storm god. See also Baal.

A transliteration of the Greek word referring to the place of the dead. In addition to referring to the place of the dead, the term sometimes is used to signify death itself. During the OT period the Hebrew term she’ol was used to indicate the realm of the dead, and when the OT was translated into Greek, the translators employed the term hadēs when rendering she’ol. In the OT both righteous (Gen. 37:35) and unrighteous (Num. 16:30, 33) individuals go to Hades/Sheol at death. It is also usually specified as being located in a downward direction (Ps. 55:15; Isa. 14:15). Throughout apocryphal and other intertestamental Jewish literature, hadēs appears very frequently (e.g., Tob. 3:10; Sir. 21:10; Sibylline Oracles).

The Greek word hadēs is used ten times in the NT, and English translations vary in their rendering of the term. For example, the NIV translates it as “Hades” (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14) or “the realm of the dead” (Acts 2:27, 31). It is occasionally used in conjunction with the idea of a place of punishment or torment (Luke 16:23), though the NT more frequently uses the Greek word geenna (a transliteration of Aramaic) when indicating future punishment in the afterlife. It is much more common to find hadēs associated with death, such as the four occasions in Revelation where the two concepts are linked together (1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14). See also Gehenna; Hell.

(1) According to the Table of Nations (Gen. 10), the sons of Joktan, which included Hadoram, were a federation of Arab tribes located in South Arabia. It is possible to take the name as referring either to a tribe or a locality, the former being more likely (Gen. 10:27; 1 Chron. 1:21). (2) The son of Tou, king of Hamath, he was sent with gifts to David by his father when David defeated Hadadezer, king of Zobah (1 Chron. 18:9–10). Interestingly, the parallel account in 2 Sam. 8:9–10 records the name “Joram” for Hadoram. This was likely an alternate appellation of “Hadoram,” in which the theophoric element “Hadad” was removed from the name and replaced with the theophoric element of Yahweh’s name to fit the Israelite context. (3) The taskmaster appointed by Rehoboam to oversee the forced labor that he imposed upon the Israelites. The Israelites became incensed and stoned him to death, causing Rehoboam to flee (2 Chron. 10:18 [NIV: “Adoniram,” from the parallel account in 1 Kings 12:18; the LXX has “Adoniram” in both texts]).

The Egyptian maidservant whom Sarah offered to her husband, Abraham, as a solution to her own infertility (Gen. 16). When Hagar became pregnant, she treated Sarah disrespectfully, resulting in Hagar’s dismissal. On instruction from the angel of the Lord, Hagar returned and bore Ishmael when Abraham was eighty-six years old. While Hagar received God’s promise that her son would have many descendants, he was not the one through whom God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:4; 17:19). Following the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, the tension between the two women resulted in Sarah sending Hagar and Ishmael off into the desert, where God reaffirmed his commitment to Ishmael (Gen. 21:9–19).

Paul uses Hagar and Sarah to represent two covenants. Hagar represents the covenant given on Mount Sinai, the law that brings slavery and characterizes the earthly Jerusalem. The child born to Sarah as a result of God’s promise represents the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, who are free (Gal. 4:22–27).

A nomadic tribe listed among the enemies of Israel (Ps. 83:6). Presumably descended from Hagar, the maidservant of Sarah who bore Ishmael (Gen. 16). Because the tribe of Reuben trusted in God, they were enabled to defeat the Hagrites (1 Chron. 5:10, 19–21). Jaziz the Hagrite was in charge of all of David’s flocks of sheep (1 Chron. 27:31). Mibhar son of Hagri, one of David’s warriors, could have been a Hagrite (1 Chron. 11:38). However, the text of a parallel in 2 Sam. 23:36 may be evidence that “Hagri” should have originally read “the Gadite.” This could have arisen through the confusion of an original dalet (the Hebrew letter d) for a resh (the Hebrew letter r), which is a common copyist mistake. See also Hagri.

A nomadic tribe listed among the enemies of Israel (Ps. 83:6). Presumably descended from Hagar, the maidservant of Sarah who bore Ishmael (Gen. 16). Because the tribe of Reuben trusted in God, they were enabled to defeat the Hagrites (1 Chron. 5:10, 19–21). Jaziz the Hagrite was in charge of all of David’s flocks of sheep (1 Chron. 27:31). Mibhar son of Hagri, one of David’s warriors, could have been a Hagrite (1 Chron. 11:38). However, the text of a parallel in 2 Sam. 23:36 may be evidence that “Hagri” should have originally read “the Gadite.” This could have arisen through the confusion of an original dalet (the Hebrew letter d) for a resh (the Hebrew letter r), which is a common copyist mistake. See also Hagri.

One of the sons of Gad and grandsons of Jacob who traveled with Gad into Egypt to be saved by Joseph during a famine (Gen. 46:16). Later, Haggi was considered the clan leader of the Haggites (Num. 26:15).

A nomadic tribe listed among the enemies of Israel (Ps. 83:6). Presumably descended from Hagar, the maidservant of Sarah who bore Ishmael (Gen. 16). Because the tribe of Reuben trusted in God, they were enabled to defeat the Hagrites (1 Chron. 5:10, 19–21). Jaziz the Hagrite was in charge of all of David’s flocks of sheep (1 Chron. 27:31). Mibhar son of Hagri, one of David’s warriors, could have been a Hagrite (1 Chron. 11:38). However, the text of a parallel in 2 Sam. 23:36 may be evidence that “Hagri” should have originally read “the Gadite.” This could have arisen through the confusion of an original dalet (the Hebrew letter d) for a resh (the Hebrew letter r), which is a common copyist mistake. See also Hagri.

The Hebrew term behind Ai means “the ruin.” Biblical Ai was situated east of Bethel in the highlands of Ephraim overlooking the Jordan Valley. The commonly accepted location is et-Tell, “the heap,” a mound near present-day Deir Dibwan (ten miles north-northeast of Jerusalem). This determination is based partly on identification of Bethel with Beitin, which is challenged by some.

Excavations at et-Tell reveal two periods of habitation: first, during the Early Bronze Age (c. 3100–2400 BC), followed by an intervening span of more than a millennium during which et-Tell was uninhabited, then again during Iron Age I (c. 1200–1050 BC).

The earliest settlement was an unwalled village. Artifacts reveal a mixture of local and foreign influences, with some early pottery resembling that of nearby Jericho. Later pottery shows traits consistent with northern Syria and Anatolia, suggesting migration of peoples from these regions. Around 3000 BC the village was reconfigured to include an acropolis with a temple and palace complex, and a wall with four gates.

The Early Bronze Age city was destroyed several times, including once by an earthquake (evident from the collapse of the temple wall into a rift opened in its foundation). Each time it was rebuilt and its fortifications strengthened. Beginning c. 2700 BC, et-Tell fell under Egyptian influence, attested by Egyptian building techniques and the presence of imported alabaster and stone vessels. This lasted until c. 2550 BC, when the city’s wall was breached and the citadel fortifications burned. The city was sacked and abandoned c. 2400 BC.

Et-Tell was resettled c. 1200 BC, possibly by persons fleeing the influx of Sea Peoples into the Eastern Mediterranean. The Iron Age I settlement was considerably smaller than the Early Bronze Age city (three versus twenty-seven acres). Settlers built houses on the acropolis and terraced the mound for farming; however, no attempt was made to repair the walls or erect new fortifications. Discovery of multiple grain silos indicates a population increase c. 1125 BC. Lack of all but the earliest Iron Age ware suggests that et-Tell was abandoned c. 1050 BC. Because its houses remained intact, the village clearly was not destroyed.

In the Bible, Ai first appears as a landmark in Abram’s travels (Gen. 12:8; 13:3). In the book of Joshua, it figures prominently as a lesser city in the initial conquest of Canaan (7:3; 10:2; but see 8:25). Following Israel’s initial defeat (7:4–5), Joshua proscribes Ai according to Yahweh’s instruction (8:2), slaying its inhabitants and hanging its king, then reducing the settlement to a ruin (8:25–28). This strikes fear into the neighboring populations (9:3–4; 10:1–2). The disproportionate attention given to its capture sets the conquest within a theological framework: victory depends on obedience to Yahweh. Ai later appears in regard to those who are returning from exile in Babylon (Ezra 2:28; Neh.7:32).

Comparison of archaeological evidence from et-Tell with the traditional dating of the exodus (fifteenth century BC) reveals that the site was unoccupied when Ai would have been sacked by Israel. This has led some to conclude that the account in Josh. 7–8 is etiological (a story explaining the source of the ruins at et-Tell) and therefore legendary, or originally pertained to the sacking of another site—for example, Bethel (8:17). Suggesting that Ai was a temporary stronghold during the conquest, though possible, contradicts details of the biblical account (see 8:1, 23, 25).

Even if a late date for the exodus is proposed (thirteenth century BC), the Iron Age settlement at et-Tell was considerably smaller than the narrative describes, populated by several hundred persons, not thousands (Josh. 8:25). Further, habitation persisted at et-Tell into the period of the judges (contrast 8:28). Evidence of this sort leads some to discount the conquest tradition in favor of a settlement (migration) model of Israel’s entry into the land of Canaan (see Judg. 3:5–6).

It remains altogether possible that et-Tell has been incorrectly identified with biblical Ai, or that the evidence excavated at the site is incomplete. In either case, further archaeological investigation may vindicate the biblical account of the conquest of Ai. It is equally possible, though, that the events of the conquest and settlement are more complex than the biblical narrative indicates.

(1) The second of Noah’s three sons, his descendants included Cush, Mizraim (Egypt), Put, and Canaan. After Ham informed his brothers that he saw their naked father, Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan, who was possibly involved. The name can designate one branch of Ham’s descendants, the Egyptians, or their land (Pss. 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22). (2) A city inhabited by the Zuzites that was attacked by Kedorlaomer during the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:5).

Mentioned in the Table of Nations as descendants of Canaan (Gen. 10:18; 1 Chron. 1:16), they apparently had either founded or were associated with Hamath.

King of Babylon

Hammurabi was the sixth king of Babylon’s first dynasty. He reigned for forty-three years and was highly successful as both a military leader and a domestic administrator. His accession is usually dated between the mid-nineteenth and mid-eighteenth centuries BC; a more precise date does not seem attainable at present. As a personal name, “Hammurabi” (sometimes spelled “Hammurapi”) probably is of Babylonian origin. It seems to include an initial element, hammu (“paternal uncle”), and a secondary element, rapi (“healer” or “healthy”), and it is known to have been used for both royal and nonroyal persons. The name is attested as late as the thirteenth century BC and as far from Babylon as Ugarit, in modern-day Syria (Ras Shamra). It has been suggested that Hammurabi of Babylon may have been the historical personality behind Amraphel of Shinar, who is mentioned in Gen. 14. That suggestion now seems unlikely, however, since it has been shown that the Hebrew name “Amraphel” is more likely a Hebrew appropriation of an Amorite name.

Politically, Hammurabi was responsible for the consolidation of Mesopotamia under Babylonian rule. He appears to have accomplished this by building an extensive coalition of local kings to aid in the defense of his own borders and then, after turning against his former allies, prosecuting a successful eight-year campaign against territories to his north. In addition to his political and military successes, Hammurabi seems to have been a highly effective domestic administrator. Thus, numerous official documents and royal inscriptions testify to the respect paid to Hammurabi by his contemporaries. Moreover, the flowering of Babylonian linguistic and literary pursuits during his time suggests a high degree of material prosperity under his leadership.

The Code of Hammurabi

Any description of Hammurabi’s significance for the field of biblical studies must include a discussion of the legal code that bears his name. The Code of Hammurabi (CH) was first discovered in 1901. It was inscribed in the Old Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, on a diorite stela eight feet in height, and originally contained an extensive prologue and epilogue as well as no less than 280 individual laws. Since then, numerous additional fragments of the same code have been unearthed at sites throughout Mesopotamia, and there is some evidence to suggest that the original literary tradition was still being copied by scribes, at least as a device for training in scribal practice, as late as the first millennium BC.

Structure and content. The prologue stresses Hammurabi’s appointment by the gods as a wise lawgiver, although Hammurabi is unlikely to have been responsible for the composition and arrangement of CH as an independent work of legal creativity. In fact, the existence of similar, but fragmentary, law codes from other Mesopotamian sources suggests that the compilation of standard legal material was a common practice in the ancient Near East long before Hammurabi’s time. Other significant topics in the prologue include his role as a guardian of the powerless and his righteousness in cultic matters pertaining to the patron deities of the various cities under his control.

The body of laws comprising CH is loosely organized according to common legal categories, and solid lines are sometimes inscribed on the tablets in an apparent attempt to indicate the logical transition from one set of laws to another. Among the topics treated in CH are judicial procedure; theft and robbery; slave sales and matters pertaining to slaves; agricultural and irrigation work; pledges, debts, deposits, and loans; real estate sales and rentals; marriage, matrimonial property, and sexual offenses; inheritance, adoption, and foster care; assault and bodily injuries; rates of hire for equipment; laborers and artisans; failure to complete contracted tasks; renters’ and shepherds’ liabilities and goring oxen.

Individually, the various provisions of CH usually begin with the introductory construction “If X (happens) . . .” and often present a complex or problematic situation in light of which all simpler cases could, presumably, be adjudicated. Thus, the first provision of CH reads, “If a man accuses another man and charges him with homicide, but cannot bring proof against him, that man’s accuser will be killed.” This kind of presentation has been understood to suggest that the grave nature of the crime of homicide, as well as the appropriate punishment for such a transgression, would already have been obvious for the original audience. The concern of CH, then, was to confirm what was intuitively true by applying the same principles to a more complex set of circumstances.

The epilogue presents Hammurabi as a great military leader. It also calls for the public display of Hammurabi’s laws as a testimony to his righteousness, a consolation for those who seek righteousness, and an example to future rulers. CH closes with blessings for the memory of Hammurabi and injunctions against those who would deface his monuments.

Purpose. Interestingly, however, there is very little documentary evidence that such codes were actually used as a standard for the adjudication of individual cases. In fact, some documents suggest that Mesopotamian legal and economic practice may actually have been incompatible with the precepts laid out in CH in many cases. These facts have led some to question what the real purpose of codes such as CH may have been. Theories range from codifications of existing legal practice, intended to provide legal precedents for real cases; to the product of scribal schools, reflecting the intellectual processes of that social group; to royal propaganda, laying claim to the moral and legal legitimacy of the ruler.

Similarities to biblical laws. Some similarities between CH and the biblical laws are apparent even on a superficial reading of the texts themselves, and more-detailed observations about the various parallels have been well documented almost since the discovery of CH. Some of these similarities include common legal concerns and injunctions, as well as a certain uniformity of expression and a degree of organizational similarity, although it may be possible to generate many additional parallels as well. Thus, it has sometimes been suggested that the biblical material may have been borrowed from CH before its incorporation into the Pentateuch.

In spite of these claims, the similarities between CH and the biblical legal material are somewhat superficial, and direct literary dependence between them is very difficult to establish. Apart from the fact that CH is itself a part of a legal tradition that appears already to have been well established throughout the ancient Near East by Hammurabi’s time, distinctions between CH and the biblical legal material should also be mentioned. On the one hand, CH is presented as the work of a human author (Hammurabi) who was commissioned by the gods to act as a lawgiver for his own subjects. The biblical laws, by contrast, claim to have been the work of a divine author (Yahweh) and present Moses as a highly significant human intermediary, but not actually as a maker of laws in his own right. Moreover, there are very few direct correspondences between the two. Instead, the two bodies of legislation exhibit a few common areas of concern and a much larger collection of divergent content, some of which may be highly significant in one tradition and entirely lacking in the other. Thus, in any attempt to discern the relationship between the two traditions, the similarities between CH and the biblical legal material must be weighed against the incongruities. The most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from such an analysis seems to be that although Hammurabi predates biblical law by several hundred years at least, the two bodies of legislation are components of the same ancient Near Eastern legal matrix and therefore reflect many of the same concerns and modes of expression. Though probably not dependent on CH, biblical law may be a later manifestation of a larger ancient Near Eastern legal tradition.

The biblical Shechem traditions refer to an individual named “Hamor” who is a Hivite (Gen. 34:2; cf. “Emmor” in Acts 7:16 KJV). He is also called the “father of Shechem” (Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32; Judg. 9:28), which may refer both to the geographical name and to the personal name of his most prominent son. Just as “Shechem” may be a double entendre, so “Hamor” may have multiple nuances. For example, “Hamor” may simultaneously function as a personal name and as an allusion to treaty activity. The latter theory is related to the fact that the Hebrew term khamor actually means “donkey,” and that Amorites (in the Mari texts) ratified treaties by slaughtering donkeys.

The act of cutting the large tendon in the back of a horse’s hind leg (also oxen in Gen. 49:6) in order to make the animal unusable for combat. Joshua obeyed God’s command to hamstring captured horses (Josh. 11:6, 9 [so as not to rely on military ability?]), but David was less thorough (2 Sam. 8:4; 1 Chron. 18:4).

A son of Perez and a grandson of Judah (Gen. 46:12; 1 Chron. 2:5). He was the leader of the Hamulite clan in the tribe of Judah (Num. 26:21).

In addition to its most obvious anatomical meaning, “hand” may also refer to the finger (Gen. 41:42), the wrist (Gen. 24:22), or the entire arm (2 Kings 5:18).

Symbolic uses. The Bible attests to many symbolic references. To put a hand to the mouth is indicative of silence (Job 21:5). Putting it upon one’s head is a gesture of sadness and mourning (2 Sam. 13:19). Hand clapping expresses either joy (Ps. 47:1) or derision (Job 27:23). Lifting up one or both hands is a gesture accompanying an oath (Deut. 32:40), blessing (Lev. 9:22), prayer or worship (Pss. 28:2; 63:4). To shake one’s hand indicates defiance (Isa. 10:32) or derision (Zeph. 2:15). The Jews in Jesus’ time washed their hands before a meal for ritual cleansing (Matt. 15:2), while Pilate washed his hands to indicate his innocence (Matt. 27:24).

The laying on of hands is associated with many meanings in different contexts in the Bible. Its symbolic meaning in the context of sacrifice, however, is still debated. The idea of transfer of the offerer’s guilt, which is explicit in case of the scapegoat in Lev. 16:21–22, does not easily apply to the laying on of hands in the context of sacrifice. The laying on of hands, for example, is part of a fellowship offering, a sacrifice that has little concern with expiating sin. This has led some scholars to posit the idea that by laying hands on the animal the offerer either acquires the merits of the sacrifice or ensures that the sacrifice intended for specific offering will be used solely for that purpose. The laying on of hands is also associated with a nonsacrificial context: commission for a special task. Moses laid hands on Joshua when appointing him leader of the people of Israel (Num. 27:18–23). In the same way, the Israelites were instructed to lay hands on the Levites (Num. 8:10). It is also through the laying on of hands that Saul and Barnabas were appointed as missionaries for the Gentiles (Acts 13:2–3). It is also associated with miraculous healing (Matt. 9:18) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17–19). (See also Laying on of Hands.)

Idiomatic and figurative uses. The term “hand” forms numerous idiomatic expressions in the Bible, some of which passed into European languages through translations of the Bible. The following are only selective examples: “To put one’s hand to” means “to undertake” (Deut. 12:7; Luke 9:62); “to slack one’s hand” is synonymous with negligence and neglect (Josh. 10:6); “to hide or bury the hand in the dish” is descriptive of the slothful (Prov. 19:24); “to put one’s life into one’s hand” means to risk one’s life (1 Sam. 19:5); “to fill the hands” means to consecrate (Exod. 32:29; NIV: “set apart”). The phrase “hand of God” or “hand of Yahweh” may denote a pestilence (1 Sam. 5:6; 6:3, 5). A similar usage of “hand of [a god]” as illness is found in both Ugaritic and Akkadian sources.

Several figurative uses of the hand occur in the Bible. The hand often connotes power or strength. When the men of Ai realized their dilemma, they had no “hand” to flee (Josh. 8:20). Also, the Israelites were commanded to bring a gift according to their “hand” at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 16:17). The psalmist rebuked the Israelites for forgetting God’s “hand,” which redeemed them from their oppressor (Ps. 78:42). The hand is sometimes synonymous with “side.” The “hand” of the road refers to the side of the road, and the “hand” of a river to its bank. Used alone, “hand” can indicate a place, as in Deut. 23:12–13, where the Israelites are ordered to designate “a hand” outside the camp for a latrine. The hand may be used metonymically for the person. In this sense, the penalty is exacted “from the hand” or “at the hand” of the transgressor (Gen. 9:5; Ezek. 33:8). Finally, “the right hand” connotes a position of prestige or prominence. Jacob’s preference for Ephraim, the second son of Joseph, was expressed by the laying on of his right hand (Gen. 48:13). Yahweh ordered the messianic king to sit at his right hand (Ps. 110:1). Jesus said, referring to himself, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman or virgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used to refer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a young woman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod. 22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman was expected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, a virgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1 Kings 1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4). The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,” “maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,” “servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17; Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave who is of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth is na’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl” (Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant” (Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). The fifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod. 2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden” (Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

In the NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden” in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male or female (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “a young girl,” “maiden,” or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a “female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servant girl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a “girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25). Nymphē refers to a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53; Rev. 21:2).

(1) The status of an object that is suspended from a point situated above it (e.g., Ezek. 15:3). Objects that are described as hanging in the Bible include curtains (Exod. 40:21), harps (Ps. 137:2), pieces of armor (Ezek. 27:10–11; cf. Song 4:4), a millstone (Matt. 18:6), a snake (Acts 28:4), and Absalom (2 Sam. 18:9–10).

(2) A form of capital punishment that involves suspending the condemned subject from a tree or gallows. In the OT, death by hanging can be the fate of a captured enemy king, such as the king of Ai (Josh. 8:29). Hanging also may be the fate of those who conspire against or offend a king, such as possibly happened with Pharaoh’s chief baker (Gen. 40:19, 22). Traditionally, hanging was understood to be the fate of the two officials who conspired against King Xerxes (Esther 2:23) and of Haman, who conspired against the Jews of Xerxes’ kingdom (Esther 7:9–10; some recent interpreters understand their fate to be impalement). In the NT, the crucifixion of Jesus is described as a hanging (Acts 5:30; 10:39; cf. Luke 23:39).

The significance of hanging an offender transcends the act of killing. Hanging often involves humiliation and a public declaration. For instance, Joshua hangs five rival kings from trees after they have been executed (Josh. 10:22–27). When the Philistines find the dead bodies of Saul and his sons, they dismember them and hang the bodies on the wall of Beth Shan (1 Sam. 31:8–13; 2 Sam. 21:12) and Saul’s head in the temple of Dagon (1 Chron. 10:10). After David orders the death of Recab and Baanah, he has their bodies hung by the pool in Hebron without hands and feet (2 Sam. 4:12). After the ten sons of Haman are killed, Xerxes approves Esther’s request that their corpses be hung in public display (Esther 9:12–14). Lamentations speaks of the disgrace that has befallen Jerusalem, including how princes are hung by their hands (Lam. 5:12).

Hanging also holds theological significance. In a case of capital offense resulting in a hanging, Israel is instructed that the corpse must not be left hanging overnight, but rather must be buried that same day to avoid desecrating the land, “because anyone who is hung on a tree [NIV: “pole”] is under God’s curse” (Deut. 21:23; cf. Gal. 3:13).

(3) A form of suicide performed by two individuals in the Bible. Ahithophel hangs himself after he sees that his advice to Absalom regarding the revolt against David has not been followed (2 Sam. 17:23). Judas Iscariot hangs himself after he realizes that he has betrayed innocent blood by offering Jesus to the authorities (Matt. 27:5; cf. Acts 1:18–19).

(1) One of Midian’s sons and Abraham and Keturah’s grandsons (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33). (2) One of Reuben’s sons who went to Egypt with Reuben and was the clan father of the Hanokites (Gen. 46:9; Exod. 6:14; Num. 26:5; 1 Chron. 5:3).

(1) One of Midian’s sons and Abraham and Keturah’s grandsons (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33). (2) One of Reuben’s sons who went to Egypt with Reuben and was the clan father of the Hanokites (Gen. 46:9; Exod. 6:14; Num. 26:5; 1 Chron. 5:3).

(1) One of Midian’s sons and Abraham and Keturah’s grandsons (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33). (2) One of Reuben’s sons who went to Egypt with Reuben and was the clan father of the Hanokites (Gen. 46:9; Exod. 6:14; Num. 26:5; 1 Chron. 5:3).