A grandson of Asher (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:31) and the ancestor of the Mal-kie-lites (Num. 26:45).

(1) A patriarch listed in Gen. 5 among Adam’s descendants (cf. 1 Chron. 1:2). He was fathered by Kenan in the fourth generation after Adam; he was 65 when he fathered Jared, and he lived to be 895 years old (Gen. 5:12–17). In Luke 3:37 the Greek form of the name is “Mahalaleel” (KJV: “Maleleel”). (2) The father of Shephatiah and a descendant of Judah through Perez (Neh. 11:4).

A grandson of Asher (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:31) and the ancestor of the Mal-kie-lites (Num. 26:45).

A grandson of Asher (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:31) and the ancestor of the Mal-kie-lites (Num. 26:45).

A site near Hebron where Abraham settled (Gen. 13:18; 14:13; 18:1). Its location was identified in association with “great trees.” Abraham acquired a burial area in Machpelah, described as being in the vicinity of Mamre (23:17, 19; 25:9; 49:30; 50:13), where a number of the patriarchs and matriarchs were buried. Later, Isaac lived in the area (35:27). A man named “Mamre” helped Abraham defeat a coalition of eastern kings (14:24); perhaps the site was named after him. Today archaeologists identify Mamre with Haram Ramet el-Khalil, two miles north of Hebron.

Origins, Composition, and Constitution

Origins. The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins. Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn to E-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptian texts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide a helpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern to explain the origin and role of humanity in the world.

One distinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generally speak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer to this phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation better serves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as a labor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes an original human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. This phenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merely created to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is a special creation of God, intended to bear his image.

Composition. The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life (1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity is also quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from the dust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earth and that which is dead. The wordplay between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears to be a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the major connection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.

Constitution. Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit a trichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1–9; 1 Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though the Greek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body (sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf. Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2 Cor. 4:11). Either approach is foreign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in the anthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity in relation to Christ’s new creative work.

Form and Function

Form: male and female. Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah) (Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a “suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that the underlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively in reference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitable helper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, or status.

The Bible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man, probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22). Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares a connection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connection with a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often is taken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptive statement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).

Function: image of God. The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by God is that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of the image of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen. 1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancient Near East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. In the Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although this may imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function over the rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how images are meant to represent a god’s presence.

Humanity in Pauline Thought

Paul’s conception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as his vision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as “risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the final destiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of the effects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom. 8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1 Cor. 15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation” (Gal. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of the cosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being united with Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things” into “new things” (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19), this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality is already partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in this present “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in the tension of already beginning to experience the act of new creation and not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom. 8:18–30; 2 Cor. 12:5–10).

(1) A son of Shobal and a descendant of the Horite Seir (Gen. 36:23; 1 Chron. 1:40). (2) A city or town to which the inhabitants of Geba (Benjamites from the clan of Ehud) were carried into exile (1 Chron. 8:6).

(1) A son of Joseph and grandson of Jacob. He was Joseph’s firstborn, but Jacob blessed Ephraim his brother over Manasseh (Gen. 48:13–20). Joseph received a double portion over his brothers because the two tribes of Israel traced their ancestry back to him through his two sons. In keeping with Jacob’s blessing, the tribe of Ephraim overshadowed the tribe of Manasseh (see Manasseh, Tribe of).

(2) The fourteenth king of Judah (698–642 BC), his rule was so wicked that it secured the doom of his kingdom (2 Kings 20:21–21:18; 2 Chron. 32:33–33:20).

The account of his rule in 2 Kings focuses exclusively on the perversity of his leadership and the negative consequences that flowed from his reign. Many kings promoted or tolerated the worship of pagan deities, but only Manasseh is associated with the practice of child sacrifice, offering up his own son (2 Kings 21:6). He “also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end” (2 Kings 21:16). Such sin elicited a strong reaction from God, who announced that he would “wipe out Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down” (2 Kings 21:13).

Interestingly, 2 Chronicles, a postexilic historical work, expands our knowledge about this king to include the account of his end-of-life conversion. This story is absent from 2 Kings because that book tells the history of God’s people in order to explain why they were in exile. Manasseh’s change of life happened when his Assyrian overlords, angry over an unspecified offense, dragged him to their capital with a hook in his nose. Because of Manasseh’s change of heart, God blessed the remainder of his reign, although God did not reverse the judgment of destruction that his sins evoked against Judah (Jer. 15:4).

(3) An Israelite, a descendant of Pahath-Moab, guilty of marrying a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:30).

(4) An Israelite, a descendant of Hashum, guilty of marrying a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:33).

A plant of the nightshade family common throughout the Mediterranean area. In antiquity it was believed to be an aphrodisiac and an aid in achieving conception. This can be seen in the negotiation between Rachel and Leah for the mandrakes found by Reuben (Gen. 30:14–15). Rachel evidently desired the mandrakes as a cure for her infertility, but the narrative is clear that Rachel’s infertility is overcome later only through the intervention of God (30:22). The same associations also lie behind the reference to the fragrance of the mandrakes in Song 7:13, which is the only other biblical reference to mandrakes.

A large, four-legged mammal with a continuous hoof, domesticated by humans as early as the second millennium BC. Horses appear throughout the Bible as an asset among pastoral flocks used for transportation and as a beast of war used to pull chariots. Horses did not hold a central place in the life of the ancient Near East, as the ox dominated agricultural work, and the donkey was available to more people. One reason for this was that a crucial piece of technology, the stirrup, did not reach Israel’s area until the late seventh century AD and was entirely unknown to the ancient Near East and to Greco-Roman society. Along with other uses of horses, armed cavalry was not an option, as it was easy to unseat any rider without a secure saddle. Horses were suited for pulling light loads quickly, however, which meant that drawing the chariot was its first natural use. Many cultures and civilizations used them in this fashion, including the Roman Empire in the time of the early church. The evidence indicates that the people of Israel did not appropriate their use until around the time of the monarchy.

Horses first appear in the Bible in Gen. 47:17 as a part of the livestock traded for grain under Joseph’s supervision during a time of famine. Due to the military role of horses and the need to depend on God alone, the king of Israel was forbidden to hold great numbers of horses (Deut. 17:16), and the people were commanded not to obtain horses from the principal supplier of the time, Egypt, which happened despite the prohibition (2 Chron. 1:16). King David first introduced chariots to the armies of Israel when he kept one hundred chariot horses out of a large number he had captured from the kingdom of Zobah (2 Sam. 8:3–4). The use of chariots expanded under Solomon, and he is said to have owned as many as twelve thousand chariot horses (1 Kings 4:26). He also built specific chariot cities in order to solidify Israel’s defenses (1 Kings 10:26). This move was deeply unfaithful, however, and was denounced by the prophets as an indulgence in pagan luxury and sinful self-reliance. Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not . . . seek help from the Lord” (Isa. 31:1). The very real military advantages that came from chariot warfare gave God’s people a reason, however false, to trust their own power rather than the provision of God.

A gate in Jerusalem was called the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28; Jer. 31:40), and the royal palace near the city had a gate devoted to horses (2 Chron. 23:15).

Horses are often mentioned as a literary image meant to evoke speed, energy, and strength (Ps. 20:7). Jesus’ own entry into Jerusalem was on a donkey rather than a horse, emphasizing the nonmilitary nature of his messiahship (Matt. 21:5). In Rev. 6:1–8 horses of different colors represent four judgments of God upon the earth.

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noah’s Ark

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

The son of Aram, a descendant of Shem (Gen. 10:23). The LXX and the parallel account in 1 Chron. 1:17 read “Meshek” (which the NIV supplies to Gen. 10:23). See also Meshek.

The city of Samlah, a king of the Edomites who succeeded Hadad of Avith (Gen. 36:36; 1 Chron. 1:47). Masrekah’s location within Edom is unknown; the city appears only in the record of kings “who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned” (Gen. 36:31; 1 Chron. 1:43).

One of the twelve “princes,” sons of Ishmael, mentioned in Gen. 25:14; 1 Chron. 1:30, progenitors of tribes that evidently settled in northern Arabia. Although these are the only two places where the name occurs for certain in the OT, it is possible that in Prov. 31:1 the word translated “oracle” should rather be understood as the place name “Massa,” thus resulting in the reading “the sayings of Lemuel king of Massa, which his mother taught him.” The word order in the verse gives credence to this reading, as well as the fact that the tribe of Massa is attested in extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern sources (attested as early as the eighth century BC in Akkadian texts). If this reading is correct, then it is also possible that the same word in Prov. 30:1 should be translated as a tribal name as well: “The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh the Massaite.” This would also accord with the fact that Israelite wisdom was part of the larger international wisdom movement in the ancient world. Some scholars have suggested that the sayings contained in Prov. 30–31 are consonant with an origin in an Arabian tribal cultural context.

The English word “master” translates several Hebrew and Greek words. A few prominent examples follow. In the OT, ’adon, when it does not refer to God, is translated as “master” (e.g., Gen. 24:14). It often refers to one who is over servants. Ba’al is both the personal name of a Canaanite deity and a generic term for “master.” It is used in reference to the master of servants or the husband in a home (e.g., Exod. 21:3 NASB). The Hebrew words rab and sar are often combined with other words to mean “great” or “chief,” as in “chief [rab] of the magicians” (Dan. 4:9). In the NT, “rabbi” (“my rab”), borrowed from Aramaic, is used of Jesus and denotes his role as teacher and master (John 4:31). The Greek word kyrios is roughly equivalent to the OT word ba’al and refers to one who has complete authority (Matt. 6:24). Jesus’ disciples use epistatēs when they address him as their leader and teacher (Luke 5:5; 8:24). Didaskalos refers to a teacher, but it also carries the weightier connotation of “master” that was ascribed to teachers in the ancient world (Matt. 9:11; 10:25).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).

Dying at 969 years of age, he is the oldest human reported in the Bible. He lived before the flood and was the son of Enoch and the father of Lamech (Gen. 5:25–27). He is remembered later in Scripture in the opening genealogy of Chronicles (1 Chron. 1:3) and in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:37).

The daughter of Me-Zahab and the mother of Mehetabel, who was the wife of King Hadad (some manuscripts read “Hadar”) of Edom (Gen. 36:39; 1 Chron. 1:50). However, the LXX and many Latin translations identify this person as the father of Mehetabel.

A grandparent of Mehetabel, the wife of King Hadad (Hadar) of Edom (Gen. 36:39; 1 Chron. 1:50). Alternatively, some consider the name to indicate a location (meaning “waters of gold”) that was the home of Matred, a parent of Mehetabel. If “Me-Zahab” is a place name, it perhaps can be identified with Dizahab (Deut. 1:1).

A lush area of grassland or a piece of low ground near a river. The KJV uses the term at Gen. 41:2, 18, where the reference is to the tall, reedy grass near the banks of the Nile River, as well as in Judg. 20:33 in reference to the “meadows of Gibeah.” Modern translations use “meadow(s)” when referring to a pleasant, grassy place (Isa. 44:4; Jer. 25:37; cf. Hos. 9:13), often a metaphor for the blessing of God. Although this word may refer to a place where animals graze (Ps. 65:13; Isa. 30:23; Hos. 4:16), it is used in Scripture much less frequently than the word “pasture.”

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

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

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

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

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

Time refers to both the real and the perceived passage of events in sequence. It is important to note that “perceived” and “real” need not be the same. For example, Jacob worked for seven years in order to marry Rebekah, “but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her” (Gen. 29:20 [cf. 2 Pet. 3:8]). Jacob’s perception of time clearly was distinct from the real period of time that passed.

The Biblical Concept of Time

Time, as the sequential ordering of events that occur in space, pervades both human life and the biblical record of God’s dealings with the universe. The Bible recounts God’s plan for his creation, a plan with a beginning and an end, between which elements of the plan unfold in chronological sequence throughout history. The biblical concept of time is distinct from the cyclical concept found in some other religions, both in the ancient Near East and elsewhere. History thus moves toward a divinely predetermined goal through divinely appointed events that occur in sequence at appointed times according to God’s plan. Since God’s purposes for creation are expressed through time, the major points in his plan are apparent in a broad chronological sweep, beginning with creation, ending with judgment and the new creation, and centered upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Mark 1:15).

That God acts within history to bring about his purposes is highlighted by the use of temporal language to make reference to events that have taken place in the past (Exod. 12:1–3) and are yet to take place (in particular through the use of expressions such as “the last day[s]” in, e.g., Isa. 2:2; Jer. 23:20; John 6:39–54). The emphasis therefore is not on some spiritual or otherworldly domain in which specifically religious experiences and events take place, a domain distinct from the physical world in which we live. Rather, the emphasis is on the way in which God directs and shapes history in order to bring about his purposes.

Furthermore, the Bible acknowledges that all events in history fall within the purview of God’s sovereignty through the acknowledgment that there is an appropriate time appointed for them (Eccles. 3:1–11; Ps. 31:15). God’s sovereignty over time extends to the future, and thus the prophets announce the future actions of God at certain times (Isa. 60:22; Ezek. 22:3; 30:3; Dan. 8:17). More specifically, definite times for the end and final judgment are established (Matt. 8:29), although the timing of the end is known only to the Father (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:33).

Modern science treats time and space as related and essential components of the physical universe and thus of God’s creation. Since, therefore, time is created, it is not thereby immediately clear precisely what God’s relationship to time is, nor is this an issue directly addressed in the Bible. Although it is common to insist that since time is part of creation, God exists outside of time, it is not possible to deduce from this observation alone that God exists without some analogous notion of time within a divine frame of reference. Nor is the question readily resolved by appeal to biblical texts, for although a number of passages reflect upon God’s knowledge of the end from the beginning and speak of God predestining and foreknowing (terms that implicitly have temporal connotations), these can be read as either reflecting God’s interaction with the temporal aspect of the created universe or as divine accommodation to human language in order to communicate correctly with temporal human beings throughout history. Consequently, no definitive answer to these philosophical questions is available, and so proposals relating to the issue cannot be judged to provide certainty in these matters. All that can be said with certainty is that the Bible presents certain propositions that affirm time’s subservience to God.

Measuring Time

The Bible makes reference to a variety of different measurements of periods of time. These include Jubilees (Lev. 25:10), generations (Deut. 2:14), Sabbath years (Lev. 25:4), years, months, days, and hours. There are no shorter periods of time described by any defined measures in the Bible, reflecting a culture in which timekeeping was not dominated by devices that afforded such determinations (although terms for nonspecific short periods of time do exist, such as rega’, a “moment” [Exod. 33:5; Isa. 26:20]).

A number of passages appear to suggest that a day was considered to begin in the morning and end the following morning (e.g., Deut. 28:66–67; 1 Sam. 30:12; Isa. 28:19; Jer. 33:20). However, there are also texts that seem to suggest a different division of days, specifically the creation account of Gen. 1 (but see also Gen. 19:34; Lev. 7:15; Judg. 19:4–9; 1 Sam. 19:11). Nehemiah 13:19 has the day begin at sunset. By NT times, a full day generally was reckoned as beginning at sunset.

Days were also divided into parts. The Mesopotamian system for dividing the night into three watches appears paralleled in Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11, although by NT times the night was divided into four watches, paralleling the Roman and Egyptian practice (Matt. 14:25; Mark 13:35). More precise, shorter divisions of time tended to be later innovations; for example, the OT does not typically use an hour as a measure of time. Nonetheless, there were in the ancient world means by which shorter periods could be measured, such as sundials and water clocks, examples of which can be found dating to the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The only possible reference to such a device in the Bible appears in Isa. 38:8, where the “stairway of Ahaz” is thought by some to have been used to measure time in some way.

When the LXX uses the Greek word hōra, it refers not to a period of sixty minutes, but usually to a point in time (e.g., Exod. 9:18). In other early Greek literature the term can refer to a variety of periods of time, including a season and a year. By the NT period, however, the division of the day into twenty-four hours had become normative (cf. John 11:9), and the NT makes numerous reference to times based on the hour of the day.

The week was a well-established measure of time, reflected in the creation story as well as in the celebration of the Sabbath. Months were based on a lunar calendar (the Hebrew words for “month,” yerakh and khodesh, are also used to refer to the moon) (see Calendar). Beyond years, the Bible also uses generations as a measure of the passage of time. Finally, other measures less readily associated with specific periods of time are used in the Bible, in particular in some apocalyptic prophetic texts such as Daniel.

Eternity

“Eternity” is another time-related concept that occupies an important place in the Bible. The modern scientific realization that time is part of creation has strengthened the notion, long affirmed by various philosophies, that “eternity” represents that which is outside time and apart from it and so is particularly associated with God’s existence. In contrast to this, however, when the Bible makes reference to “eternity,” it invariably has a temporal aspect, referring either to the distant past, the distant future, or else the entire expanse of time from distant past to distant future (e.g., Exod. 15:18; Ps. 9:5; Mic. 4:5). What is clear, however, is that God’s relationship to the temporal aspect of the universe does reflect that of one who is outside the constraints of that time (e.g., Ps. 90:2; 2 Pet. 3:8).

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistent metrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economy to law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time, distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world, technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects of the universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers to light-years, milligrams to kilograms.

The metrological systems employed in biblical times span the same concepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, and volume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurements employed during the span of biblical times were not nearly as accurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexisting weight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundings of both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced the systems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers. There was great variance between the different standards used merchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region, time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honest scales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore, inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written records as well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significant differences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurements in the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity and liquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is to be expected, especially when we consider modern-day inconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint = 0.473 liters, while 1 US dry pint = 0.550 liters. Thus, all modern equivalents given below are approximations, and even the best estimates have a margin of error of + 5 percent or more.

Weights

Weights in biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13; Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into various animal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom was inscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement. Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significant amounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatly complicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka. Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahs or ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measure metals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah. 1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20 shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra. Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight. Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to the modern British pound.

Mina. Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50 shekels. Used to weigh gold (1 Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver (Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefined the proper weight: “The shekel is to consist of twenty gerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, there were arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of the servants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servants varying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying a monetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver or gold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’ wages for a laborer.

Pim. Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3 shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1 Sam. 13:21).

Shekel. Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent to approximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weight measurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight varied significantly at different historical points. Examples include the “royal shekel” (2 Sam. 14:26), the “common shekel” (2 Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,” which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, the shekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent. Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately 60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod. 25:39; 37:24; 1 Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1 Kings 20:39; 2 Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably is derived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table 12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka – 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah – 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra – 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina – 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim – 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel – 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent – 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linear measurements

Cubit – 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’s journey = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth – ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth – 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion – 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia – 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod – 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbath day’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2 kilometers

Span – 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion – 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab – 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix – ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor – 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah – 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer – 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros – 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer – 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton – 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah – 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Liquid Volume

Bath – 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos – 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin – 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log – 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes – 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

Linear Measurements

Linear measurements were based upon readily available natural measurements such as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between the thumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method of measurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit. Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6 handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, as the shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance from the elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height, width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen. 7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximate conversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half for meters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1 cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’s journey. An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25 miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a single or multiple days’ journey as a description of the distance traveled or the distance between two points: “a day’s journey” (Num. 11:31; 1 Kings 19:4), “a three-day journey” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “seven days” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2). After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyed for a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth. The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately ¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was the beginning building block of the biblical metrological system for linear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describe the bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth. Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit, or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the four fingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’s brief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table (Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1 Kings 7:26).

Milion. Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration of Roman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia. Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as “fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably the distance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measure the depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod. Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a general term for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance (Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbath day’s journey. Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About 2,000 cubits.

Span. Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to three handbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretched thumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’s breastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion. Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai. Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13; John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

Land Area

Seed. The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis of how much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1 Kings 18:32).

Yoke. Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. In biblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animals could plow in one day (1 Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab. Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer. Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:25).

Choinix. Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement, mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to the homer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of flour and grains (1 Kings 4:22; 1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chron. 2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquid volume, particularly oil (1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chron. 2:10; Ezra 45:14).

Ephah. Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters). Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flour and grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day of reduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce only an ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to the bath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to 1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of various grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos. 3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkey can carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed a direct link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16: “fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” A logical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalences might look something like this:

1 homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros. Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measure of grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer. Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10 ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in the measurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod. 16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s daily food ration.

Saton. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. The measurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah, or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various dry goods (e.g., 2 Kings 7:1; 1 Sam. 25:18).

Liquid Volume

Bath. Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, which typically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in the measurement of water (1 Kings 7:26), oil (1 Kings 5:11), and wine (2 Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos. Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word bath (see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin. Approximately 4 quarts (1 gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to 1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek. 4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log. Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72 bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture, specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes. Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement of water at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistent metrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economy to law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time, distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world, technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects of the universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers to light-years, milligrams to kilograms.

The metrological systems employed in biblical times span the same concepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, and volume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurements employed during the span of biblical times were not nearly as accurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexisting weight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundings of both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced the systems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers. There was great variance between the different standards used merchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region, time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honest scales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore, inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written records as well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significant differences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurements in the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity and liquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is to be expected, especially when we consider modern-day inconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint = 0.473 liters, while 1 US dry pint = 0.550 liters. Thus, all modern equivalents given below are approximations, and even the best estimates have a margin of error of + 5 percent or more.

Weights

Weights in biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13; Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into various animal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom was inscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement. Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significant amounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatly complicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka. Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahs or ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measure metals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah. 1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20 shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra. Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight. Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to the modern British pound.

Mina. Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50 shekels. Used to weigh gold (1 Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver (Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefined the proper weight: “The shekel is to consist of twenty gerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, there were arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of the servants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servants varying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying a monetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver or gold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’ wages for a laborer.

Pim. Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3 shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1 Sam. 13:21).

Shekel. Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent to approximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weight measurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight varied significantly at different historical points. Examples include the “royal shekel” (2 Sam. 14:26), the “common shekel” (2 Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,” which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, the shekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent. Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately 60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod. 25:39; 37:24; 1 Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1 Kings 20:39; 2 Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably is derived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table 12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka – 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah – 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra – 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina – 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim – 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel – 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent – 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linear measurements

Cubit – 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’s journey = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth – ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth – 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion – 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia – 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod – 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbath day’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2 kilometers

Span – 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion – 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab – 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix – ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor – 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah – 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer – 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros – 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer – 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton – 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah – 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Liquid Volume

Bath – 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos – 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin – 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log – 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes – 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

Linear Measurements

Linear measurements were based upon readily available natural measurements such as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between the thumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method of measurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit. Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6 handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, as the shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance from the elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height, width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen. 7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximate conversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half for meters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1 cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’s journey. An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25 miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a single or multiple days’ journey as a description of the distance traveled or the distance between two points: “a day’s journey” (Num. 11:31; 1 Kings 19:4), “a three-day journey” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “seven days” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2). After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyed for a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth. The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately ¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was the beginning building block of the biblical metrological system for linear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describe the bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth. Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit, or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the four fingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’s brief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table (Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1 Kings 7:26).

Milion. Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration of Roman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia. Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as “fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably the distance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measure the depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod. Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a general term for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance (Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbath day’s journey. Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About 2,000 cubits.

Span. Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to three handbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretched thumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’s breastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion. Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai. Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13; John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

Land Area

Seed. The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis of how much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1 Kings 18:32).

Yoke. Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. In biblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animals could plow in one day (1 Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab. Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer. Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:25).

Choinix. Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement, mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to the homer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of flour and grains (1 Kings 4:22; 1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chron. 2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquid volume, particularly oil (1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chron. 2:10; Ezra 45:14).

Ephah. Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters). Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flour and grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day of reduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce only an ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to the bath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to 1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of various grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos. 3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkey can carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed a direct link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16: “fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” A logical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalences might look something like this:

1 homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros. Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measure of grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer. Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10 ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in the measurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod. 16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s daily food ration.

Saton. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. The measurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah, or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various dry goods (e.g., 2 Kings 7:1; 1 Sam. 25:18).

Liquid Volume

Bath. Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, which typically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in the measurement of water (1 Kings 7:26), oil (1 Kings 5:11), and wine (2 Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos. Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word bath (see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin. Approximately 4 quarts (1 gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to 1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek. 4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log. Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72 bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture, specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes. Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement of water at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

Although for millennia meat has been a major element in many people’s diets, the earliest humans did not eat it. In the garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve a diet of plants, particularly fruit (Gen. 2:15–16). God first sanctioned human consumption of animals only after the flood, though with the stipulation that meat not be eaten with blood remaining in it (Gen. 9:3–4; see also Lev. 7:26; 19:26).

In the Mosaic law the Israelites received further restrictions from God concerning the meat they could consume. Among land animals, only those that have a split hoof and chew the cud were “clean” for the Israelites to eat (Lev. 11:1–8). When the Israelites twice complained that they had no meat in the wilderness, God responded both times by sending quail. In the second instance, God became angry and sent a plague among those who had eaten the meat (Exod. 16:2–13; Num. 11:1–35).

In the NT, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and God confirmed in a vision to Peter that he had rescinded all dietary restrictions (Acts 10:9–16). However, the Jerusalem council instructed Gentile Christians to abstain from certain dietary practices that would be offensive to their Jewish brothers and sisters, including eating blood and eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28–29). In 1 Corinthians, Paul continued the discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols (8:4–13; 10:18–33) and thereby provided guidance on various matters of Christian liberty.

The third of Abraham’s six sons with his concubine Keturah (Gen. 25:2; 1 Chron. 1:32), he is the ancestor of an Arab tribe of which little is known.

Media was a country located to the south of the Caspian Sea, to the east of the Tigris River and Zagros Mountains, to the west of Parthia, and to the north of Elam. The northern portion of the modern country of Iran occupies the same area, although at the height of Media’s power, the kingdom included parts of modern-day Iraq and Turkey. The best-known city was Ecbatana. The people of Media, the Medes, lived on the steppes and were known among the neighboring countries for their excellent horses.

History of Media. A people called the “Madai,” an Indo-Aryan group descended from Japheth, gave their name to the region (Gen. 10:2). Historically, Media appears on the scene in the records of the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser III, who claims to have invaded Media in the ninth century BC. Other Assyrian monarchs listed the Medes among the peoples who paid tribute to and traded with the Assyrian Empire. The relationship between the two countries was never entirely friendly, and the Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-pileser III (r. 744–727 BC) and Sargon II (r. 721–705 BC) invaded Media and forcibly added parts of the country to the Assyrian Empire and made them pay tribute. These subjugated provinces were no doubt the parts of Media to which Sargon II sent some of the exiles after he conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/721 BC (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11).

After Sargon II, Sennacherib continued to keep the Medes in submission. Yet the Medes were not beaten. They became more powerful, and in an alliance with the Scythians and the Babylonians they rebelled against their Assyrian overlords. In 614 BC Asshur, one of the capitals of Assyria, was captured by the Medes. Cyaxares, the leader of the Medes, joined with Nabopolassar, the leader of the Babylonians, and together they captured Nineveh (612 BC) and Harran (610 BC). This effectively brought an end to the Assyrian Empire and brought the northern portions of the former empire under Median control. Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar’s son, married Cyaxares’ daughter, thus cementing the alliance.

Media eventually was conquered by Cyrus II, who made Media a province of the Persian Empire and added “King of the Medes” to his titles. Media remained an important culture as part of the Persian Empire, and the dual identification of Persians and Medes remained attached to the empire (Esther 1:19; Dan. 5:28). The combined power of Media and Persia became the dominating empire until the rise of and conquest by the Greeks under Alexander the Great (332 BC).

Media in the Bible. The Medes and Media figure most prominently in the biblical books of Daniel and Esther. Daniel began his exile and rise to fame under the Babylonians but finished his prophetic career under the rule of the Medo-Persian Empire. Both Daniel and other prophets foresaw this change of governance and the Medes’ part in the conquest of Babylon (Isa. 13:17; 21:2; Jer. 51:11, 28; Dan. 5:28). The importance of the Median contribution to the culture and governance of the new empire is manifest in the fact that the Medo-Persian ruler Darius is called “the Mede” in Dan. 11:1 due to his mixed ancestry (cf. Dan. 9:1). Indeed, the idea that an established law could not be changed even by the king himself (cf. Esther 1:19) seems to be a Median contribution to the empire and was the political tool used by Daniel’s enemies to have him thrown into the lions’ den (Dan. 6:8, 12).

Many of the exiled Jews from Judah chose to settle in Media instead of return to Judah, and a portion of their story is recounted in the book of Esther. Esther 1:3 notes that “the military leaders of Persia and Media” were among those present at a great feast of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). Similarly, in Esther 1:14 the king’s closest advisers are labeled “nobles of Persia and Media,” indicating the unity of the two countries and the cultural mix among the high officials. The same was true of the high-ranking women in the land (Esther 1:18).

Jews from Media who recognized the Median language being spoken by the Spirit-filled disciples are mentioned in Acts 2:9. Thus, although the country had ceased to be a dominant power in the world, its language and culture were still present during the NT period.

Media was a country located to the south of the Caspian Sea, to the east of the Tigris River and Zagros Mountains, to the west of Parthia, and to the north of Elam. The northern portion of the modern country of Iran occupies the same area, although at the height of Media’s power, the kingdom included parts of modern-day Iraq and Turkey. The best-known city was Ecbatana. The people of Media, the Medes, lived on the steppes and were known among the neighboring countries for their excellent horses.

History of Media. A people called the “Madai,” an Indo-Aryan group descended from Japheth, gave their name to the region (Gen. 10:2). Historically, Media appears on the scene in the records of the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser III, who claims to have invaded Media in the ninth century BC. Other Assyrian monarchs listed the Medes among the peoples who paid tribute to and traded with the Assyrian Empire. The relationship between the two countries was never entirely friendly, and the Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-pileser III (r. 744–727 BC) and Sargon II (r. 721–705 BC) invaded Media and forcibly added parts of the country to the Assyrian Empire and made them pay tribute. These subjugated provinces were no doubt the parts of Media to which Sargon II sent some of the exiles after he conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/721 BC (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11).

After Sargon II, Sennacherib continued to keep the Medes in submission. Yet the Medes were not beaten. They became more powerful, and in an alliance with the Scythians and the Babylonians they rebelled against their Assyrian overlords. In 614 BC Asshur, one of the capitals of Assyria, was captured by the Medes. Cyaxares, the leader of the Medes, joined with Nabopolassar, the leader of the Babylonians, and together they captured Nineveh (612 BC) and Harran (610 BC). This effectively brought an end to the Assyrian Empire and brought the northern portions of the former empire under Median control. Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar’s son, married Cyaxares’ daughter, thus cementing the alliance.

Media eventually was conquered by Cyrus II, who made Media a province of the Persian Empire and added “King of the Medes” to his titles. Media remained an important culture as part of the Persian Empire, and the dual identification of Persians and Medes remained attached to the empire (Esther 1:19; Dan. 5:28). The combined power of Media and Persia became the dominating empire until the rise of and conquest by the Greeks under Alexander the Great (332 BC).

Media in the Bible. The Medes and Media figure most prominently in the biblical books of Daniel and Esther. Daniel began his exile and rise to fame under the Babylonians but finished his prophetic career under the rule of the Medo-Persian Empire. Both Daniel and other prophets foresaw this change of governance and the Medes’ part in the conquest of Babylon (Isa. 13:17; 21:2; Jer. 51:11, 28; Dan. 5:28). The importance of the Median contribution to the culture and governance of the new empire is manifest in the fact that the Medo-Persian ruler Darius is called “the Mede” in Dan. 11:1 due to his mixed ancestry (cf. Dan. 9:1). Indeed, the idea that an established law could not be changed even by the king himself (cf. Esther 1:19) seems to be a Median contribution to the empire and was the political tool used by Daniel’s enemies to have him thrown into the lions’ den (Dan. 6:8, 12).

Many of the exiled Jews from Judah chose to settle in Media instead of return to Judah, and a portion of their story is recounted in the book of Esther. Esther 1:3 notes that “the military leaders of Persia and Media” were among those present at a great feast of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). Similarly, in Esther 1:14 the king’s closest advisers are labeled “nobles of Persia and Media,” indicating the unity of the two countries and the cultural mix among the high officials. The same was true of the high-ranking women in the land (Esther 1:18).

Jews from Media who recognized the Median language being spoken by the Spirit-filled disciples are mentioned in Acts 2:9. Thus, although the country had ceased to be a dominant power in the world, its language and culture were still present during the NT period.

One who serves as a facilitator of reconciliation between two parties. The role of a mediator was taken by different individuals and offices in the OT, as seen in Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–32), Moses asking God to forgive Israel (Exod. 32:31–32), and the Israelites begging Moses to speak to God on their behalf (Exod. 20:19). In addition, judges, prophets, kings, and priests assumed intermediary functions at times. Mediation functions bidirectionally: from God to humans, and from humans to God. The prophets are quintessentially the first kind of mediators (God to humans), while the priests took, mostly, the second function (humans to God).

In the NT, the role of mediator is given to Christ, since he alone, as God incarnate, is qualified for it (the “one mediator between God and mankind” [1 Tim. 2:5]). This implies that insomuch as reconciliation between sinful humankind and a holy God is conceivable, Christ alone can facilitate that mediation.

Hebrews develops a theology of mediation by comparing Christ to angels, Moses, and the prophets, declaring that Christ is superior to each in every aspect. Hebrews says that Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Many NT passages present Christ engaging in prophetic ministry as he proclaims and interprets God’s will for the lost world. His priestly work consists not only of giving himself as the ultimate sacrifice but also of interceding for humans before God and giving the “priestly blessing” from his heavenly abode.

Christ’s mediation is to be appreciated in terms of both who he is and what he has done. The eternal mystery surrounding Christ is his incarnate person (God-man) and his atoning death (cleansing all guilt). Through the patristic period and the following scholastic movement, theological reflection on Christ was channeled to the meaning of incarnation, emphasizing Christ’s unique status as both true God and true human that makes redemptive work possible.

By comparison, the Protestant Reformers brought Christ’s salvific and mediatory work into the forefront of their theology. The Reformed tradition developed the mediatory role of Christ in a threefold manner: prophet, priest, and king.

(Disabilities; Disability; Deformity; Deformities; Sickness] The Bible often speaks of health, healing, disease, and illness. Good health was a sign of God’s favor, and healing was also the work of God and his divinely empowered agents. These agents included the prophets (1 Kings 17:8–23; 2 Kings 5:1–15), the apostles (Acts 3:1–10), and the messiah (Mal. 4:2). The divine prerogative of Jesus was to heal (Mark 1:32; 6:56; Matt. 4:23; 8:16; 15:30; 21:14; Luke 6:10, 17–19), and miraculous healings were a sign of his messianic office (Luke 7:20–23). Disease, on the other hand, was regarded as a sign of God’s disfavor. Within a covenantal context, God could send disease to punish the sinner (Exod. 4:11; 32:35).

The Bible assigns a wide variety of names to various diseases and their symptoms. These terms are nontechnical and generally descriptive. Some are uncertain in meaning. In most cases they describe the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. Diagnosis often was based on incomplete observation and nonclinical examination. The Bible also presupposes supernatural intervention in the life of a person. Healing occurred when God’s agents touched individuals, cast out demons, and resurrected the dead.

Ancient Near Eastern Influences

In the ancient Near East the knowledge of disease and medicine was precritical. Bacteria and viruses were virtually unknown. Mesopotamian literature contains many references to medicine, physicians, and medical practice. Minerals, salts, herbs, and other botanicals were used to make up treatments. Babylonian physicians also administered prescriptions accompanied by incantations. Disease was considered to be the result of a violation of a taboo or possession by a demon. The Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC) includes laws regulating the practice of medicine and surgery by physicians. In Egypt medicine and healing were connected to the gods. Tomb paintings and several papyrus documents describe the developing state of Egyptian medicine, pharmacy, and surgery.

Greek physicians admired and sought to learn the skills of the Egyptians. However, the early Greek doctor Hippocrates (460–370 BC), called the “Father of Medicine,” is credited with being the first physician to reject the belief that supernatural or divine forces cause illness. He argued that disease is the result of environmental factors, diet, and living habits, not a punishment imposed by the gods.

It is clear that the biblical world shared with the ancient Near East the same types of maladies common to tropical or subtropical climates. These include malaria, tropical fevers, dysentery, and sunstroke. The tendency of the hot climate to produce frequent droughts and famine certainly contributed to similar types of diseases throughout the Fertile Crescent. Additionally, it must be remembered that Palestine was a land bridge between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian worlds. Migrations carry not only goods and products, but also parasites, communicable disease, and epidemics.

Biblical Concept of Disease

The religious tradition of the Hebrews repudiated the magical or demonic origin of disease. Hence, moral, ethical, and spiritual factors regulated disease and illness. This was true for the individual as well as the community. The Hebrews, like the Egyptians, also recognized that much sickness arose from the individual’s relationship to the physical environment. Great stress was placed on hygiene and preventive medicine.

Pentateuchal legislation offered seven covenantal principles designed to prevent the possibility of disease and sickness: (1) Sabbath observance for humans, animals, and the land, which enforced regular periods of rest (Gen. 2:3); (2) dietary regulations, which divided food into efficient categories of clean and unclean (Lev. 11); (3) circumcision, which carried physical benefits as well as religious and moral implications (Gen. 17:9; circumcision is the only example of Hebrew surgery); (4) laws governing sexual relationships and health, including a list of forbidden degrees of marital relationships (Lev. 18–20); (5) provisions for individual sexual hygiene (Lev. 15); (6) stipulations for cleanliness and bodily purification (Lev. 14:2; 15:2); (7) sanitary and hygienic regulations for camp life (Num. 31:19; Deut. 23:12).

In NT times magical charms and incantations were used along with folk remedies in an effort to cure disease. Jesus repudiated these means. He also suggested that sickness and disease were not direct punishments for sin (John 9:2). In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus confirmed that the ethical and religious standards of the new covenant promoted the total health of the community and the individual.

Circulatory Diseases

Nabal most likely suffered a cerebrovascular accident or stroke (1 Sam. 25:36–38). After a heavy bout of drinking, his heart “died” (KJV; NIV: “failed”), and he became paralyzed, lapsed into a coma, and died ten days later. Psalm 137:5–6 may contain a clinical example of the symptoms of stroke. The psalmist wrote, “If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill. May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you.” This description points to a paralysis of the right side of the body (right hemiplegia) and the loss of speech (motor aphasia) that result from a stroke on the left side of the brain. Basically, the exiled psalmist is wishing upon himself the effects of a stroke if he held anything other than Jerusalem as his highest priority. Some have considered the collapse of Uzzah when he reached out to stabilize the ark of the covenant (2 Sam. 6:6–7) to be the consequence of an apoplectic seizure. But since no actual paralysis was described and death occurred immediately, this seems unlikely. It is more probable that God struck him down with an aortic aneurism or a coronary thrombosis.

Paralysis

A possible case of paralysis may be described in the shriveled (atrophic) hand of Jeroboam I (1 Kings 13:4–6). In an angry outburst Jeroboam ordered the arrest of a prophet who condemned the altar at Bethel. When Jeroboam stretched out his hand, it “shriveled up, so that he could not pull it back.” Several complicated diagnoses have been offered to explain the “withered” hand, but it is possibly an example of cataplexy, a sudden loss of muscle power following a strong emotional stimulus. After intercession by the man of God, and the subsiding of the emotional outburst, the arm was restored.

The threat against the faithless shepherd of God’s people (Zech. 11:17), which included a withered arm and blindness in the right eye, may refer to a form of paralysis known as tabes dorsalis, or locomotor ataxia. Knifelike pains in the extremities and blindness characterize this disease.

Paralysis is frequently mentioned in the NT (Matt. 8:6; 9:2, 6; 12:10; Mark 2:3–5, 9, 10; 3:1, 3, 5; Luke 5:18, 24; 6:6; John 5:3; Acts 9:33; Heb. 12:12). The exact diagnosis for each of these cases remains uncertain.

The physician Luke’s use of the Greek medical term paralelymenos (Luke 5:18, 24) suggests that some of these cases were caused by chronic organic disease. Others clearly were congenital (Acts 3:2; cf. 14:8). It is not necessary to rationalize the origin of these examples of paralysis as hysteria or pretense. The NT writers regarded the healing of these individuals by Jesus and the apostles as miraculous.

Mental Illness and Brain Disorders

Cases of mental disease are generally described in the Bible by noting the symptoms produced by the disorder. The particular cause of a mental illness in the NT is often blamed on an unknown evil spirit or spirits (Luke 8:2). Such spirits, however, were subject to God’s control and operated only within the boundaries allowed by him (1 Sam. 16:14–16, 23; 18:10; 19:9). Accordingly, in the OT “madness” and “confusion of mind” were regarded as consequences of covenantal disobedience (Deut. 28:28, 34).

It has been argued that King Saul displayed early indications of personality disorder. Symptoms included pride, self-aggrandizement (1 Sam. 11:6; 13:12; 15:9, 19), and ecstatic behavior (10:11–12). A rapid deterioration in Saul’s character transpired after David was anointed and became more popular (16:14; 18:10–11). Since Saul demonstrated fear, jealousy, a sense of persecution, and homicidal tendencies, some scholars argue that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.

Nebuchadnezzar suffered a rare form of monomania in which he lived like a wild beast in the field eating grass (Dan. 4:33). David, in order to save his own life, feigned insanity or perhaps epilepsy before the Philistine king Achish (1 Sam. 21:12–15).

In the NT, individuals with mental disorders went about naked, mutilated themselves, lived in tombs (Mark 5:2), and exhibited violent behavior (Matt. 8:28). Such mental disorientation was often linked to demon possession. Examples include the Syrophoenician’s child (Matt. 15:22; Mark 7:25), the demoniacs at Gerasa (Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27) and Capernaum (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33), a blind and mute demoniac (Matt. 12:22; Luke 11:14), and a fortune-telling slave girl (Acts 16:16). While such behavior is clinically suggestive of paranoid schizophrenia or other mental disorders, the mind-controlling influence of some extraneous negative force cannot be ruled out.

Epilepsy (grand mal) causes the afflicted person to fall to the ground, foam at the mouth, and clench or grind the teeth (Matt. 17:15; Mark 9:17–18; Luke 9:39). The description of Saul falling to the ground in an ecstatic state (1 Sam. 19:23–24) and Balaam falling with open eyes may be indicative of an epileptic seizure. In the NT, Jesus healed many who suffered from epilepsy (Matt. 4:24; 17:14–18; Mark 9:17–18; Luke 9:38–42). Some scholars have linked the light seen by Paul on the road to Damascus with the aura that some epileptics experience prior to a seizure. His subsequent blindness has also been attributed to the epileptic disturbance of the circulation of the blood in the brain.

Childhood Diseases

The cause of the death of the widow’s son at Zarephath is unknown (1 Kings 17:17–22). The death of the Shunammite woman’s son has been attributed to sunstroke (2 Kings 4:18–37), although a headache is the only symptom recorded (v. 19). In both cases there is too little evidence to present an accurate diagnosis.

In the first case, the boy at Zarephath stopped breathing (1 Kings 17:17). This may leave the door open to argue that Elijah resuscitated the child. However, in the second case, the text clearly states that the Shunammite boy died (2 Kings 4:20), implying a resurrection.

Infectious and Communicable Diseases

Fever and other calamities are listed among the punishments for covenantal infidelity (Deut. 28:22). Three different types of fever may be intentionally described here: “fever,” “inflammation,” and “scorching heat” (ESV: “fiery heat”). Fever is also mentioned frequently in the NT (Matt. 8:15; Mark 1:30–31; Luke 4:38–39; John 4:52; Acts 28:8). Both Jesus and Paul healed individuals who had a fever. A number of these fevers were likely caused by malaria, since the disease was known to be endemic to the Jordan Valley and other marshy areas in Palestine.

Several epidemics in which numerous people died of pestilence or plague are mentioned in the OT (Exod. 11:1; 12:13; Num. 14:37; Zech. 14:12). The fifth plague of Egypt (Exod. 9:3–6) has been attributed to Jordan Rift Valley fever, which is spread by flies. Bubonic plague has been blamed for the malady that struck the Philistines (1 Sam. 5–6). However, it may have been the result of a severe form of tropical dysentery. Acute bacillary dysentery contracted in the military camp may also have been responsible for the epidemic that killed a large number of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19:35).

Parasitic Diseases

Some scholars have repeatedly argued that the “fiery serpents” (NIV: “venomous snakes”) encountered by Moses and the children of Israel (Num. 21:6–9) were in reality an infestation of the parasitic guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis). Microscopic fleas ingested in drinking water carry the larvae of this slender nematode into the body. The larvae move from the digestive tract to the skin. The adult worm, which may grow to a length of several feet, discharges its eggs into an ulcer on the skin. Death of the host occurs because of the resulting infection of the skin ulcers.

After the conquest of Jericho, Joshua cursed the individual who would endeavor to rebuild the city (Josh. 6:26). Later, Hiel of Bethel attempted to rebuild the city and lost two of his sons as a result of the curse (1 Kings 16:34). Elisha was then asked to purify the bad water at Jericho in order to allow a new settlement (2 Kings 2:19). Elisha obliged by throwing salt into the spring and thereby making the water potable (2:20–22). Recent archaeological study has discovered the remains of certain snails in the mud-bricks used to construct Jericho in the Bronze Age. These types of snails are now known to serve as intermediate hosts for the flatworm parasite that can cause schistosomiasis. The Schistosoma haematobium trematode infects the urinary tract and the bladder. It is possible that this type of parasite was responsible for the death of Hiel’s two sons.

In NT times, Herod Agrippa apparently died of the complications of a parasitic disease, perhaps being infested by the larvae of flies (myiasis) in the bowels. Luke mentions that he was “eaten by worms” (skōlēkobrōtos [Acts 12:23]). The father of Publius also suffered from dysentery (Acts 28:8).

Physical Deformities and Abnormalities

Individuals with deformities were disqualified from priestly service (Lev. 21:18–20). The list included lameness, limb damage, and dwarfism. The deformities mentioned here might have been congenital or acquired. Mephibosheth was dropped by his nurse (2 Sam. 4:4) and perhaps suffered damage to the spinal cord. Jacob possibly sustained injury to an intervertebral disk (Gen. 32:32) causing a deformity and a limp. The woman who was “bent over” (Luke 13:10–17) might have suffered from an abnormality of the spine similar to scoliosis. It is difficult to ascertain the origin of the “shriveled hand” of the unnamed individual healed by Jesus (Matt. 12:10–13; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–10). It could be congenital in character or a paralysis caused by any number of factors.

Diseases and Disabilities of the Eyes and Ears

Physical blindness is mentioned several times in the Bible. Blindness excluded one from serving as a priest (Lev. 21:18, 20). Blindness and deafness, however, were disabilities requiring special care from the community (Lev. 19:14; Deut. 27:18). The “weak eyes” of Leah may refer to an eye condition (Gen. 29:17).

Blindness in the biblical world was caused by various factors. Leviticus 26:16 speaks of a fever that destroys the eyes. Flies probably were responsible for much of the conjunctivitis found in children. John 9:1 mentions congenital blindness, which Jesus cured using mud made from spittle and dirt (John 9:6). In Mark 8:22–26 Jesus healed a blind man by spitting in his eye and laying hands on him (cf. Matt. 20:34 with Mark 10:52).

Congenital deafness would also be associated with mutism and speech defects because a child learning to speak depends on imitation and mimicry. Jesus healed a man who was deaf and could barely talk (Mark 7:32–37). The man’s inability to say much possibly pointed to a loss of hearing early in life.

Skin Conditions

Various skin and hair abnormalities are described in the Bible. Some made the individual unclean (Lev. 13:30; 14:54). The OT speaks of “the boils of Egypt” (Deut. 28:27; cf. Exod. 9:9). Skin ailments included tumors, festering sores, boils, infections, and the itch (Deut. 28:27, 35; Isa. 3:7). Job complained of a litany of ailments: broken and festering skin (7:5), multiple wounds (9:17), black peeling skin and fever (30:30), gnawing bone pain (2:5; 19:20; 30:17), insomnia (7:3–4), and wasting away (33:21). These symptoms have been diagnosed as indications of yaws or eczema. A poultice made of figs cured Hezekiah’s boil (2 Kings 20:7).

Leprosy was once thought to be a common problem in the biblical world. Leprosy (Hansen’s disease) is a slow, progressive chronic infectious disease caused by a bacterium. Symptoms include loss of sensation and loss of parts of the body. Evidence for this type of disease in Palestine is rare. Uzziah may have had a true case of Hansen’s disease. He was quarantined until the day he died (2 Chron. 26:21).

Scholars now suggest that the symptoms of the disease described in the Bible do not fit this pattern and thus do not signify leprosy (Hansen’s disease) as it is known today. Instead, the word that English versions translate as “leprosy” (Heb. root tsr’) probably refers to different types of infectious skin disease, often characterized by a long-standing, patchy skin condition associated with peeling or flakiness and redness of skin. Evidence points more toward psoriasis, fungal infections, or dermatitis.

This disease could appear in humans (Lev. 14:2), on buildings (14:34), and on clothing (14:55). It was not limited to the extremities but could occur on the head (14:42–44). It could run its course quickly (13:5–8). It made the individual ceremonially unclean, but it was also curable (Lev. 14:3; 2 Kings 5:1–27). Individuals with the disease were not necessarily shunned (2 Kings 7; Matt. 26:6 // Mark 14:3). Moses (Exod. 4:6), Miriam (Num. 12:10), and Naaman experienced this type of skin disease (2 Kings 5:1–27). Jesus healed many suffering from skin ailments (Matt. 8:2–3; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–13), including the ten “men who had leprosy” (Luke 17:12–14).

Ailments of an Unknown Nature

Some cases in the Bible present insufficient evidence for scholars to render a clear diagnosis. King Asa suffered a disease in his feet (2 Chron. 16:12). However, in the OT the Hebrew expression for “feet” is sometimes used euphemistically for the sexual organs (Judg. 3:24 KJV). Because of this, the exact nature of the disease is ambiguous. Jehoram was afflicted with “an incurable disease of the bowels” (2 Chron. 21:18–19). Other unknown ailments factor in the deaths of the firstborn son of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:15), of Jeroboam’s son in infancy (1 Kings 14:17), of Elisha (2 Kings 13:14), and of Ezekiel’s wife (Ezek. 24:16).

(1) The wife of King Hadad (Hadar) of Edom (Gen. 36:39; 1 Chron. 1:50). She was the daughter of Matred and a descendant of Me-Zahab. (2) An ancestor of the false prophet Shemaiah, who was a contemporary of Nehemiah (Neh. 6:10).

(1) The wife of King Hadad (Hadar) of Edom (Gen. 36:39; 1 Chron. 1:50). She was the daughter of Matred and a descendant of Me-Zahab. (2) An ancestor of the false prophet Shemaiah, who was a contemporary of Nehemiah (Neh. 6:10).

A descendant of Enoch and an ancestor of Lamech. He was the son of Irad and the father of Methushael (Gen. 4:18). Some scholars identify the name as a variant of “Mahalalel” (Gen. 5:12–17 [KJV: “Mahalaleel”]).

A mysterious individual who is referenced twice in the OT and once in the NT. His name and description also appear within the DSS. In Gen. 14:18–20 Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon (God Most High), possibly a reference to the Canaanite god El but here used as a title for Yahweh. He is said to be from “Salem,” which could be a shortened form of “Jerusalem.” Melchizedek brings out bread and wine to Abram, blesses him, and receives one-tenth of Abram’s spoils that Abram had acquired from his successful military campaign against the eastern kings. The royal oracle of Ps. 110 holds a declaration of the Davidic king as an eternal priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4). This phrase is later applied to Jesus by the writer of the book of Hebrews to emphasize the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In Heb. 7:1–17 Melchizedek is described as the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace” (v. 2); he is said to have been birthed “without father or mother” and is described as one who has existed eternally, thus resembling the Son of God (v. 3). This description draws not only on Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 but also on the description of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure that appears also in the DSS (11Q13). While Melchizedek’s identity and function remain a mystery, all three biblical passages refer to him in order to proclaim the work of God.

A mysterious individual who is referenced twice in the OT and once in the NT. His name and description also appear within the DSS. In Gen. 14:18–20 Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon (God Most High), possibly a reference to the Canaanite god El but here used as a title for Yahweh. He is said to be from “Salem,” which could be a shortened form of “Jerusalem.” Melchizedek brings out bread and wine to Abram, blesses him, and receives one-tenth of Abram’s spoils that Abram had acquired from his successful military campaign against the eastern kings. The royal oracle of Ps. 110 holds a declaration of the Davidic king as an eternal priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4). This phrase is later applied to Jesus by the writer of the book of Hebrews to emphasize the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In Heb. 7:1–17 Melchizedek is described as the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace” (v. 2); he is said to have been birthed “without father or mother” and is described as one who has existed eternally, thus resembling the Son of God (v. 3). This description draws not only on Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 but also on the description of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure that appears also in the DSS (11Q13). While Melchizedek’s identity and function remain a mystery, all three biblical passages refer to him in order to proclaim the work of God.

The youngest of Levi’s three sons (Gen. 46:11). His descendants, along with the Gershonites and the Kohathites, became one of the three clans of Levites that held responsibility for transporting the tabernacle in the wilderness and caring for the temple.

Behind the English translation “mercy” lie diverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and in Greek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are also translated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,” “favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,” and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to the meaning of “mercy” is best.

God’s Mercy

Mercy as part of God’s character. Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1 Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help. Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites was depicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to his covenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).

God has absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills to show mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explain God’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’s mercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired by human effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelites to show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption and idolatry (Deut. 7:2).

Diverse images are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to a loving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal. 3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’s compassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds her baby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father and the loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercy toward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy, the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps. 123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a father to the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps. 68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they request forgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act of salvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg. 2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).

God’s mercy in redemptive history. Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercy toward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that he took the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Death was the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preached the good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would someday crush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent in the garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,” whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound by the coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be “thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10). In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, God showed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him (Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself as the merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).

Noah and his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because of God’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately after God confused the languages of human beings because of their challenge to him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “a wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be the father of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’s election originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointed out by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’s demonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25). They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’s mercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage of Pharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when he sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is because of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of our righteousness (Titus 3:5).

Christ’s Mercy

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

Jesus’ ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercy and compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke 4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed to his mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22; 17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men who entreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneeling before him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his own uncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3). When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, he was willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’ mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead, and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widow crying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted and had compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).

According to Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithful high priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. He is also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth was highlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. Like God’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions of salvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 1:14–16; Titus 3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness (Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him to confess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’ character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when he prayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursing crowds (Luke 23:33–37).

Human Response to God’s Mercy

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on the unmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king, but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. The parable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy will be shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others. Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who have received immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins at the time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes the believer’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked to the request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms this idea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).

Mercy is one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’ response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful life should precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is the one who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go and do likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to their suffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous are characterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned (Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law of mercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according to the prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people (Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).

It is by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the time of suffering (2 Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel through which they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrews exhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).

(1) The sixth of Japheth’s seven sons (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). Listed in the Table of Nations, the descendants of Japheth inhabited Asia Minor, and Meshek’s name is given to a region there. In Ps. 120:5 Meshek is placed in parallel with Kedar, perhaps bringing to mind a distant, warring people. Meshek and Tubal are linked together as trading partners (of slaves and copper vessels) with Tyre (Ezek. 27:13), and both are mentioned as part of the kingdom of Magog, ruled by Gog (38:2; 39:1). (2) A grandson of Shem, the eponymous ancestor of an Aramean tribe (1 Chron. 1:17). In Gen. 10:23, most Bible versions follow the Hebrew text in rendering his name as “Mash” (see NIV mg.). He is listed in the Table of Nations as the eponymous ancestor of a Syrian tribal group, possibly associated with Mount Masius (Tur Abdin), near the source of the Euphrates River in northern Mesopotamia, or with Akkadian Mashu, the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

(1) The king of Moab who, along with his father, Chemosh-yatti, was a vassal of the northern kingdom of Israel during the reigns of the northern Israelite kings Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram (c. 885–840 BC). When Ahab died, Mesha rebelled against Ahab’s son Ahaziah, withholding the annual tribute of one hundred thousand lambs and the wool of one hundred thousand rams (2 Kings 3:4–5). Ahaziah died after a brief reign and was replaced by his brother Joram, who enlisted King Jehoshaphat of Judah to help him attack Moab and restore it to servitude (2 Kings 3:7).

In the 2 Kings 3 account, Joram and Jehoshaphat attacked and utterly defeated Moab, but Mesha they besieged in the city of Kir Hareseth. Mesha could not escape, so he sacrificed his own son in plain view on the wall of the city to appease his god, Chemosh. This sacrifice disgusted the armies of Israel and Judah, and they left for home. Mesha considered this as Chemosh’s divine deliverance due to his sacrifice, and he erected a stela, known as the Moabite Stone, with a Moabite inscription describing the occasion:

I (am) Mesha, son of Chemosh—[. . .], king of Moab, the Dibonite—my father (had) reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father,—(who) made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh [. . .] because he saved me from all the kings and caused me to triumph over all my adversaries. As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit., days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke (thus), but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished for ever! (Now) Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and (Israel) had dwelt there in his time and half the time of his son (Ahab), forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time. (lines 1–9, translation by W. F. Albright in ANET )

(2) A leader in the tribe of Benjamin, he was the third of seven sons born in Moab to Shaharaim and his wife Hodesh, after Shaharaim had divorced Hushim and Baara (1 Chron. 8:9). (3) The firstborn son of Caleb and a great-grandson of Perez of the line of Judah (1 Chron. 2:42). (4) A place or region in northern Arabia. The sons of Joktan (great-great-grandson of Noah’s son Shem) lived between Mesha and Sephar on the northern Arabian coast (Gen. 10:30).

(1) The sixth of Japheth’s seven sons (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). Listed in the Table of Nations, the descendants of Japheth inhabited Asia Minor, and Meshek’s name is given to a region there. In Ps. 120:5 Meshek is placed in parallel with Kedar, perhaps bringing to mind a distant, warring people. Meshek and Tubal are linked together as trading partners (of slaves and copper vessels) with Tyre (Ezek. 27:13), and both are mentioned as part of the kingdom of Magog, ruled by Gog (38:2; 39:1). (2) A grandson of Shem, the eponymous ancestor of an Aramean tribe (1 Chron. 1:17). In Gen. 10:23, most Bible versions follow the Hebrew text in rendering his name as “Mash” (see NIV mg.). He is listed in the Table of Nations as the eponymous ancestor of a Syrian tribal group, possibly associated with Mount Masius (Tur Abdin), near the source of the Euphrates River in northern Mesopotamia, or with Akkadian Mashu, the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

(1) The sixth of Japheth’s seven sons (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). Listed in the Table of Nations, the descendants of Japheth inhabited Asia Minor, and Meshek’s name is given to a region there. In Ps. 120:5 Meshek is placed in parallel with Kedar, perhaps bringing to mind a distant, warring people. Meshek and Tubal are linked together as trading partners (of slaves and copper vessels) with Tyre (Ezek. 27:13), and both are mentioned as part of the kingdom of Magog, ruled by Gog (38:2; 39:1). (2) A grandson of Shem, the eponymous ancestor of an Aramean tribe (1 Chron. 1:17). In Gen. 10:23, most Bible versions follow the Hebrew text in rendering his name as “Mash” (see NIV mg.). He is listed in the Table of Nations as the eponymous ancestor of a Syrian tribal group, possibly associated with Mount Masius (Tur Abdin), near the source of the Euphrates River in northern Mesopotamia, or with Akkadian Mashu, the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The fertile region of the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, bordered on the north by the Taurus Mountains and on the east by the Zagros Mountains (modern Iraq). The region extends from Turkey to the Persian Gulf. The northern part of this region is Aram Naharaim (“Aram of the two rivers”), often called “Mesopotamia” in some Bible translations (see Gen. 24:10; Deut. 23:4; Judg. 3:8; 1 Chron. 19:6 KJV, NASB, ESV). Abraham, Sarah, and their family were originally Arameans from Ur in southern Mesopotamia (Gen. 25:20; Deut. 26:5; cf. Acts 7:2). Later, Abraham and his family moved to the northern Mesopotamian city of Harran (Gen. 11:31). One boundary of the land that God promised to Abraham was the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18). King David’s army fought against an Aramean army from Mesopotamia (1 Chron. 19:6; cf. Ps. 60:1 NKJV). Later, Judah was carried away into exile in Babylon, situated in Mesopotamia on the Euphrates River (2 Kings 24:14). Luke notes that residents of Mesopotamia were present on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9).

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

The Nature of the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Role of the Interpreter

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Methods of Bible Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dying at 969 years of age, he is the oldest human reported in the Bible. He lived before the flood and was the son of Enoch and the father of Lamech (Gen. 5:25–27). He is remembered later in Scripture in the opening genealogy of Chronicles (1 Chron. 1:3) and in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:37).

A descendant of Cain, he was the great-grandson of Enoch and the father of Lamech (Gen. 4:18 [KJV: “Methusael”). Some scholars consider “Methushael” to be a variant of “Methuselah,” the son of Enoch and the father of Lamech in the lineage of Seth (Gen. 5:21, 25).

(1) The fourth of the twelve sons of Ishmael, ancestors of Arab tribes (Gen. 25:13; 1 Chron. 1:29). (2) A member of the tribe of Simeon, he was the son of Shallum and the father of Mishma (1 Chron. 4:25).

(1) An Edomite chief and his clan (Gen. 36:42; 1 Chron. 1:53). (2) Mibzar may also be a place name, identified as the location Mabsara in northern Edom or Bozrah in Moab (Gen. 36:33; Amos 1:12). The name means “fortified city” (cf. Ps. 108:10).

Midian was one of the sons of Abraham by his wife Keturah (Gen. 25:1–2). Just before dying, Abraham leaves everything to Isaac and sends Midian and his brothers away “to the land of the east” (25:5–6). The biblical narrative regards him as the progenitor of the Midianites, who inhabited what is now southern Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia. The relations between the Israelites and the Midianites over the next centuries are generally adversarial. Moses’ experience is the exception: After fleeing Egypt, Moses arrives in Midian, marries a Midianite woman, and has an amicable relationship with Jethro, her father (also named Reuel), who was also a priest (Exod. 2–3). Jethro even accompanies the Israelites during part of their wilderness wanderings and gives Moses advice on leading the people (Exod. 18).

The remaining references to the Midianites in the OT are largely antagonistic. In Genesis, the merchants who buy Joseph from his brothers and take him down to Egypt are Midianite (37:25–36). (The merchants are also referred to as Ishmaelites in the same narrative, and it may well be that the term “Ishmaelite” could both refer to Ishmaelites proper and serve to denote Arabic nomadic peoples in general; see also Judg. 8:22–24.) In Numbers, the Midianites join the Moabites in attempting to stop the Israelite advance through their territory, hiring Balaam to curse them (Num. 22–24). Although this attempt fails, because God will not allow Balaam to curse the Israelites, idolatrous sexual relations between the Israelites and the Midianites prompt God to put a plague on his own people (Num. 25). One of God’s last instructions to Moses before his death is to make war against the Midianites to exact revenge for their causing the Israelites to sin (Num. 31). On the other hand, when the Israelites continue their cycle of sin in the promised land, God delivers them to other nations, including the Midianites (Judg. 6–9). Israelite victories over Midian, given to them by God, are celebrated in various later passages in the OT (Ps. 83:9; Isa. 9:4; 10:26; Hab. 3:7).

Midian was one of the sons of Abraham by his wife Keturah (Gen. 25:1–2). Just before dying, Abraham leaves everything to Isaac and sends Midian and his brothers away “to the land of the east” (25:5–6). The biblical narrative regards him as the progenitor of the Midianites, who inhabited what is now southern Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia. The relations between the Israelites and the Midianites over the next centuries are generally adversarial. Moses’ experience is the exception: After fleeing Egypt, Moses arrives in Midian, marries a Midianite woman, and has an amicable relationship with Jethro, her father (also named Reuel), who was also a priest (Exod. 2–3). Jethro even accompanies the Israelites during part of their wilderness wanderings and gives Moses advice on leading the people (Exod. 18).

The remaining references to the Midianites in the OT are largely antagonistic. In Genesis, the merchants who buy Joseph from his brothers and take him down to Egypt are Midianite (37:25–36). (The merchants are also referred to as Ishmaelites in the same narrative, and it may well be that the term “Ishmaelite” could both refer to Ishmaelites proper and serve to denote Arabic nomadic peoples in general; see also Judg. 8:22–24.) In Numbers, the Midianites join the Moabites in attempting to stop the Israelite advance through their territory, hiring Balaam to curse them (Num. 22–24). Although this attempt fails, because God will not allow Balaam to curse the Israelites, idolatrous sexual relations between the Israelites and the Midianites prompt God to put a plague on his own people (Num. 25). One of God’s last instructions to Moses before his death is to make war against the Midianites to exact revenge for their causing the Israelites to sin (Num. 31). On the other hand, when the Israelites continue their cycle of sin in the promised land, God delivers them to other nations, including the Midianites (Judg. 6–9). Israelite victories over Midian, given to them by God, are celebrated in various later passages in the OT (Ps. 83:9; Isa. 9:4; 10:26; Hab. 3:7).