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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Son of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21; 1 Chron. 7:6 [NRSV: “Becher”]), and the father of nine sons (1 Chron. 7:8). The name is absent from two other genealogies of Benjamin (Num. 26:38; 1 Chron. 8:1). (2) A descendant of Ephraim (Num. 26:35). The name is spelled “Bered” in 1 Chron. 7:20.

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Bible Formation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canonization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The History of Translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Choices in Translation

Within this spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender-Neutral Translations

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

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish Background

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

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

Greco-Roman Background

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

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

Old Testament Usage

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament Usage

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

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

Theological Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The human body has its origin in the act of creation by God depicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “very good” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation (1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, in contrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as a prison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage. This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of human sexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriage relationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of the man and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where we find a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16) and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

Old Testament. In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body to the dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3). The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of proper burial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a health regulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberate desecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving an enemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring of proper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, as exemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

The Hebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be used of a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), though this word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”). This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/body distinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body” (whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body, not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within an overall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “the fruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf. Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to a male body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

New Testament. Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), and the Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements of drink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart of the gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3). For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himself body and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt. 26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, which would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possible the inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark 16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers (e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine and gospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they too will be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52), a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bible embraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physical creation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will be raised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In what is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor. 5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death he will not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothed with [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “away from the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication of bodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home with the Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leaving this earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in 1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies (e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable” and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (though gloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication is provided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, which could pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7), appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingest food and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paul made use the “body” analogy for the character of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26), viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependent members or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correct the self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christian community as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showed that their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at their suppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says that the believer’s “body” is united to Christ, making sexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believers are to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used a little differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18, 24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of the body (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction and rule. Believers are to pre­sent their “bodies” as a living sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom. 12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to the equation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind together make up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. See also Gestures.