ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Eagle

The word “eagle” may represent more than one species of eagle and vulture, particularly the griffon vulture. A bird of prey, the eagle is classed among the unclean birds in the OT (Lev. 11:13). The eagle was considered one of the marvels of the world (Prov. 30:19), proverbial for its speed and power (Deut. 28:49; 2 Sam. 1:23; Ezek. 17:3), its inaccessibility among the high rocks (Job 39:27; Jer. 49:16), and its tutelage and protection of its young (Deut. 32:11). The eagle serves to illustrate the renewed strength of those whose hope is in God (Ps. 103:5; Isa. 40:31).

In the ancient world, the eagle was a symbol of transcendence over the earthly realm. In Egyptian and Mesopotamian iconography it is closely associated with royalty, serving to demonstrate that the king is invited to participate in a dominion normally beyond the reach of human capacity. There is a close association with warfare and with divine protection and guarantee of success.

In Exod. 19:4 God brings his royal-priestly people to himself at Mount Sinai “on eagles’ wings,” while in Deut. 32:10–11 the eagle illustrates the divine protection of Israel. Because of its proverbial attributes and associations, the eagle is included in a number of visionary images (Ezek. 1:10; Dan. 7:4; Rev. 4:7; 8:13).

Ear

An organ for hearing, and a symbol of understanding and obedience. Common life in ancient society relied on the spoken word as much as, if not more than, the written word. For this reason, the ear represents more than just a body part. The ear symbolizes understanding (Isa. 64:4). Twice the book of Job compares the ear’s discernment of words to the tongue’s tasting of food (Job 12:11; 34:3). The ear also symbolizes the will to obey (Deut. 29:4) or disobey (Prov. 28:9). Because of the ear’s association with obedience, the application of blood or oil to the right ear was an act of consecration in Israel’s worship (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 14:14, 17). Ears are also ascribed to God in a figurative way (Pss. 18:6; 94:9). To the obedient, God listens compassionately (2 Chron. 7:15); and to the disobedient, God acts as if deaf (Deut. 1:45). At times, the news of calamity is meant to make the ears of Israel tingle (1 Sam. 3:11; 2 Kings 21:12; Jer. 19:3). Elsewhere, the irony of idol worship is illustrated by idols that have ears but cannot hear (Pss. 115:6; 135:17). Jesus repeatedly calls out to those who have ears to hear (Matt. 11:15; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8). This appeal is also repeated at the end of each message to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:18–3:22). The apostle Paul warns Timothy about those who have “itching” ears, those who find teachers to support their own false notions (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Early Rain

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

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

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

Earnest

(1) The dregs or residue, used metaphorically to speak of people’s remaining impurities (Ezek. 24:6, 11–12). (2) An amount of money or other valuable entrusted to another (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23; 2 Tim. 1:14) or used as a down payment. In three instances in the NT the Greek word arrabōn is used to refer to the Holy Spirit as the deposit that guarantees what is still to come (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14). The last of these passages notes that the deposit of the Spirit in view is the redemption of God’s people, their future inheritance.

Earrings

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

Ears of Grain

The grain-bearing head of a cereal plant. Harvested with a sickle and threshed, the extracted kernels were eaten fresh (Deut. 23:25), roasted as grits (Lev. 2:14, 16), or ground into flour for bread. Jesus’ disciples are criticized for, on the Sabbath, plucking heads of grain, rubbing off the husks with their hands, and eating the kernels (Luke 6:1–5 pars.).

Earth

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

East

Geography

Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.

The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.

East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.

As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.

The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).

East Country

The Israelites associated the east with the rising sun (the same Hebrew word, mizrakh, describes both), the desert (Deut. 1:1; Hos. 13:15), scorching winds (Isa. 27:8; Ezek. 17:10; Hos. 13:15; Jon. 4:8), wisdom (1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; cf. Matt. 2:1), and, along with the west country, the whole world (Zech. 8:7). The east country is a broad expanse stretching from the middle Euphrates to North Arabia (Gen. 29:1; Num. 23:7; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:15). Abraham sent the sons of his concubines there (Gen. 25:6).

East Gate

(1) One of the outer-court temple gates at the main entrance to the temple (1 Chron. 26:14; Ezek. 40:5–16; 42:15). Gatekeepers to the East Gate were responsible for the freewill offering (2 Chron. 31:14). In a prophetic vision Ezekiel sees the glory of the Lord depart from the East Gate (Ezek. 10:19). In later visions Ezekiel sees the glory of the Lord returning (43:1–2) and a river flowing out of the East Gate (47:1). According to Ezek. 44:1–3, since God entered the temple through the East Gate, only the prince was to do likewise. (2) One of the gates opening to the inner court of the temple. It may be opened on the Sabbath and New Moon (Ezek. 46:1–8). (3) One of the entrances through the wall into Jerusalem (Neh. 3:29).

East Wind

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

Easter

The Christian celebration commemorating the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. “Easter” only appears once in the Bible, in the KJV translation of the Greek word pascha in Acts 12:4. This Greek word appears twenty-nine times in the NT and always refers to the Jewish Passover, although in English and other modern languages the term “Pasch” or “Pascha” has carried over to refer to the Christian festival.

Easter finds its roots in the Jewish Passover because Christ’s passion occurred at this time and because Jesus is closely associated with the Passover lamb (John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7). Not much is known about Easter in the first century other than what the NT says of the Passover/Pascha festival.

In the second century a problem arose over the date of the Pascha festival. The Quartodeciman Controversy involved those who wanted to celebrate Pascha on the fourteenth of Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar (the word quartodeciman means “fourteenth”), against those who began celebrating Pascha the Sunday following Passover. The controversy continued with varying intensity, and even today the Eastern Orthodox observe Pascha in agreement with the Julian calendar, while Roman Catholics and Protestants calculate the date for Easter based on the Gregorian calendar.

The name “Easter” is not found until AD 725, in a work by the English monk the Venerable Bede. In De temporum ratione (“On the Reckoning of Time”), he recounts that the word “Easter” comes from the Old English name for April, “Eosturmonath,” which in turn is named after the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre.

Eastern Sea

Some modern translations refer to the Dead Sea as the “eastern sea,” in contexts where it marks the eastern border of Israelite territory (Ezek. 47:18; Joel 2:20; Zech. 14:8 ESV, NRSV, NASB, MSG).

Eating

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

Ebal

(1) A grandson of Seir the Horite, an early inhabitant of the land of Seir, which Esau conquered (Gen. 36:20–23; 1 Chron. 1:38–40). (2) A mountain in north-central Israel overshadowing the city of Shechem on the north. Mount Ebal and its counterpart Mount Gerizim on the south form a natural amphitheater, eminently suitable for the covenantal ceremony commanded by Moses (Deut. 11:29; 27:1–13) and carried out by Joshua and the Israelites (Josh. 8:30–35). Half the tribes stood before Gerizim and half before Ebal, reciting the covenantal blessings and curses, respectively. The Israelites also set up large plaster-coated stones inscribed with the law of Moses. They built a sacrificial altar on Ebal, perhaps the same as the structure discovered there in 1980 dating from the thirteenth to twelfth centuries BC. Its floor was covered with ash and charred animal bones, but its identification and purpose are disputed. See also Gerizim.

Ebed

(1) The father of Gaal, who was a leader of the people of Shechem (Judg. 9:26, 28, 30, 31, 35). (2) A descendant of Adin and son of Jonathan (Ezra 8:6). He is listed as one of the family heads who returned from exile under Ezra’s leadership.

Ebed-Melech

A Cushite official, probably a military officer, in Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege (587–586 BC). The prophet Jeremiah is arrested and placed into a dungeon/pit with King Zedekiah’s permission (Jer. 38:1–13). Ebed-Melek confronts the king and obtains permission to remove Jeremiah from this pit, probably saving his life. God commends Ebed-Melek, declaring that Ebed-Melek will be delivered because he trusted in God (Jer. 39:15–18).

Ebed-Melek

A Cushite official, probably a military officer, in Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege (587–586 BC). The prophet Jeremiah is arrested and placed into a dungeon/pit with King Zedekiah’s permission (Jer. 38:1–13). Ebed-Melek confronts the king and obtains permission to remove Jeremiah from this pit, probably saving his life. God commends Ebed-Melek, declaring that Ebed-Melek will be delivered because he trusted in God (Jer. 39:15–18).

Ebenezer

Ebenezer usually is associated with a symbol of God’s help in the past and an encouragement for continued trust. This is based on 1 Sam. 7:12: “Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen. He named it Ebenezer [lit., “stone of help”], saying, ‘Thus far the Lord has helped us.’” Ebenezer is also an unknown location in western Palestine where Israel had been defeated and subsequently lost the ark of the covenant to the Philistines (1 Sam. 4–5).

Eber

(1) A descendant of Shem, son of Shelah, father of Peleg, and ancestor to Jesus (Gen. 10:21–31; 11:14–17; 1 Chron. 1:18–25; Luke 3:35). As hinted in Gen. 10:21, Eber seems to be the source for the name “Hebrew” for that particular line of Semitic people (a name similarly derived from “Shem”). (2) A descendant of Jacob in the tribe of Gad (1 Chron. 5:13). (3) A son of Elpaal in the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:12). (4) A son of Shashak in the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:22–25). (5) The head of the postexilic priestly family of Amok (Neh. 12:20).

Ebez

One of sixteen towns allotted to Issachar in Josh. 19:20.

Ebiasaph

A descendant of Korah, in the line of Kohath, one of Levi’s three sons (see Exod. 6:16–21). The name is mentioned in 1 Chron. 6:23, 37; 9:19, but it is not clear whether all three refer to the same person (in 1 Chron. 6:23, Ebiasaph is a descendant of Korah but the son of Elkanah). According to 1 Chron. 6:37, he is among the temple musicians. In 1 Chron. 9:19 he is mentioned in the Korahite lineage of the temple gatekeepers.

Ebron

(1) A town located in Asher (Josh. 19:28 [according to some Heb. manuscripts; others have Ebron (so NRSV)]; 1 Chron. 6:74), given to the Levites (Josh. 21:30). (2) An Ephraimite who functioned as a judge in Israel for eight years and was noted for his forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys (Judg. 12:13–15). (3) Son of Shashak, from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:23). (4) Firstborn son of Jeiel and Maakah, Benjamites from Gibeon (1 Chron. 8:30; 9:36). (5) Son of Micah (2 Chron. 34:20 [although in the parallel text, 2 Kings 22:12, the same individual is called Akbor son of Micaiah; see NIV mg.]). Along with others, he was commissioned to inquire of God’s will after the rediscovery of the law of God at the time of Josiah.

Ebronah

A campsite of the Israelites on their journey from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. It was situated between Jotbathah and Ezion Geber (Num. 33:34–35), but the exact historical location of Abronah is uncertain.

Ecbatana

Also known as Achmetha (modern Hamadan), located about 160 miles southwest of modern Tehran, Iran. Ecbatana was known to Greek and Persian sources in antiquity and was the summer residence of the Persian kings. According to ancient Greek authors, the city was founded by the Medes. The single reference to Ecbatana in the OT comes in Ezra 6:2, where a document thought to be in Babylon is later found to have been deposited in Ecbatana. Several stories in the Apocrypha are set in Ecbatana (Tob. 3:7; Jdt. 1:14; 2 Macc. 9:3).

Economic Life
The economic life of the biblical world rested on the precepts of improvement of one’s standing, stable interaction between individuals and nations, and the fact that all of life belonged first to God. The ability to create a stable economy was driven by international standing, military strength, and environmental conditions. As a state, Israel was far more successful in creating and sustaining wealth during periods with little upheaval in the monarchy and when there was little threat from outside forces. The reign of Solomon in the united monarchy and the coterminous reigns of Uzziah in Judah and Jeroboam II in Israel, therefore, represent the periods with the most favorable economic conditions, and indeed these two periods are generally considered to be golden ages of economic and cultural strength.

The Economy of Israel

Before the monarchy. The economic life of the Bible begins with the creation account and the reflections communicated there about humankind’s stewardship of that which belongs to God. Humankind is placed in the world as the caregiver and protector of the rest of creation. This purpose will have ramifications for the remainder of the biblical story. Throughout the Bible, God expresses a deep concern for economic justice and economic well-being among his people. The law given by God sets out an economic and political framework that builds on this idea of justice and human stewardship of God’s creation, including some rather striking passages meant to assure a just distribution and maintenance of resources and equality (Lev. 25:1–55; Deut. 10:17–18; 15:1–11). The emphasis on economic and social justice is closely related to spiritual faithfulness throughout the prophetic texts. Isaiah speaks of economic prosperity and peace as an integral part of God’s desire for Israel. Amos, Jeremiah, and Micah denounce the economic injustices within Israel. This attitude and emphasis continue into the NT, where Jesus talks as much about economics in his teachings as he does about the rest of the Christian life. Jesus’ primary emphases in discussing economic matters suggest a need to recognize both the priority of the heavenly economy over the earthly and the fact that one’s economic activities must communicate a sense of justice and mercy as well.

The lack of a centralized government and industry in the early years of Israel’s existence meant that much of the economy revolved around private ownership and agrarian realities. In conquering the land of Canaan, the Israelites were transformed from seminomads into agriculturists, but they were still largely on their own in economic matters. They dwelled in villages and towns and lived off of what they raised in their fields and the milk and meat of their livestock. There was limited trade during this period, primarily existing only through opportunities provided by traveling merchants from Phoenicia and elsewhere. The modifications that took place in the Canaanite material culture when they were assumed by Israel were slight in nature in this early period. The period of the judges reveals a brutal culture, and the people would have remained somewhat constrained economically in the days prior to the monarchy. As stated above, the laws certainly are important in understanding how Israel viewed itself before God; however, it must be admitted that there were relatively few requisites concerning business contained in its precepts (Lev. 19:35–36; 25:36–37, 44–45; Deut. 15:2; 23:20). This may in fact reflect the more individualized nature of the early economic systems of Israel.

The monarchy. With the beginning of the monarchy, and especially the reign of Solomon, signs of extensive external trade begin to manifest themselves within Israel. The primary exports seem still to have been agricultural in nature, as Solomon is said to have sent grains and oil to Tyre in exchange for their timber and workers (1 Kings 5). Horses were a significant sign of wealth in the ancient world, and during his reign, Solomon apparently was able to import quite a few from Egypt (1 Kings 10:28–29). Solomon is even said to have sent ships to the far reaches of the known world to acquire gold, silver, iron, apes, and peacocks (1 Kings 10:22). Solomon also saw the development of an extensive system of internal economic prosperity through division of the land into districts and through establishing firm control of the major arteries of travel within Israel (1 Kings 4). Unfortunately, Solomon’s successors lacked his economic acumen. Due to inner turmoil and outside forces, Israel was unable to regain the standing that it held under Solomon, except for a brief period during the reign of Uzziah. Interestingly, the prophets often equated merchants with the Canaanites (Hos. 12:7; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21). The kings of the northern kingdom of Israel seem to have fared slightly better in economic matters than did the kings of Judah. Ahab obtained a special standing in the markets of Damascus (1 Kings 20:34), and Jeroboam II raised Israel to powerful status in the world’s economic perspectives.

After the exile. Following the return from the exile, the Jewish community was severely impoverished and had very little business activity except in its larger cities (Neh. 3:31–32). Hellenism brought with it a renewal of trade capabilities, and Josephus reports that by the mid-second century BC, Athenian merchants came regularly to Judea. The Maccabees captured Joppa, and Herod built Caesarea, which ultimately improved the economic standing of the Jews because they then controlled port locations.

Life in the NT seems not to have varied much from that in the OT, the most important exception being the stability and ease of transport resulting from Roman control of the region. This stability was often offset, however, by the imposition of high taxes. The NT relates the vast disparity of economic lifestyle between the enormously wealthy and the severely impoverished. There were also political and religious ramifications to be found in the struggle to find a proper response to taxation. This dilemma is reflected in the two opposing viewpoints among the twelve apostles, including the views of a tax collector and of a Zealot. The early church seems to have dealt with economic matters with various degrees of success (Rev. 2:9; 3:17).

Coinage

The monetary system of Israel seems to have always been based primarily on gold and silver. In fact, the Hebrew word most often translated “money,” kesep, is the word for “silver.” It is unclear exactly when coinage started in Israel. Opinions vary from the period just before the exile to several years after the exile. Up until that point, worth was assessed not by the value of the coin but rather by the weight of the metal. People carried their own weights in a bag that were used to determine the value of an exchange (Deut. 25:13; 2 Sam. 18:12); thus, the focus for ensuring fair trade was almost always on guarding against the use of false weights and scales (Lev. 19:36). The precursors to coinage seem to have been pieces of silver and gold that were considered to be a certain weight, though the emphasis was still on the weight of the product (Josh. 7:21; 1 Sam. 9:8). The basic standard of weight was the shekel.

The Persians developed a more fixed system of coinage. Darius first introduced a reformed currency system around 520–480 BC. The basic standard was the daric, which was comparable to a Babylonian shekel in weight. Because of the inherent value of coins, the purity of the metals used became more important. This resulted in a slight shift in monetary imagery related to purity versus fair weight. In the Roman era, the denarius was the basic unit of money.

Villages and Cities

The OT distinguished in size between villages and cities. The smallest measure of communal living seems to have been farming settlements or homesteads (Exod. 8:9; Neh. 11:25; Ps. 10:8). Larger settlements were referred to as villages (Gen. 25:16; 1 Sam. 6:18) or cities (Gen. 4:17; 19:25, 29). Cities were usually built along a lake or river (Tiberius and Beth Shan) or where natural springs were sufficient to sustain a large population (Jerusalem and Jericho). Streets in the cities seemed to have been named after the place to which they led or by the industry represented on them (Neh. 11:35; Isa. 7:3; Jer. 37:21). Open squares were found mainly at the gates of the city, where most of the commerce took place and which tended to be the centers of city life. The gate and the adjoining open area constituted the marketplace, hence, names such as “Sheep Gate” (Neh. 3:1, 3, 32; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The wells sometimes were situated here (2 Sam. 23:15–16). News from the outside was announced first at the gate (1 Sam. 4:18). Finally, court and council sessions were held at the gate (Deut. 13:17; Ruth 4:11; 2 Kings 7:1; Job 29:7; cf. Gen. 19:7).

Economic Issues Addressed in the Bible

Slavery. Slavery was considered legitimate in various circumstances, but since individual possession of a slave was somewhat rare, it never became a centerpiece of the Israelite economic structures. It was a capital offense to kidnap people for the purpose of enslaving them (Exod. 20:10–16; Deut. 24:7). When held by individual families, slaves were to be treated as part of an extended family, and they were permitted to partake in important festivals and to observe the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 16:14). Ideally, slaves in debt bondage and Israelite slaves owned by foreign residents were automatically freed at the Jubilee. If they had not already purchased their freedom, male Israelite slaves were automatically freed once they had worked for six years (Exod. 21:2; Lev. 25:39–55); however, the prophet Jeremiah’s denunciation of the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters (Jer. 34:8–22) suggests that these practices were not faithfully executed within Israel’s history.

Death, marriage, and redemption. The economic impact of death is addressed to some degree in the biblical texts. Daughters who received an inheritance of land because of the lack of a male heir were required to marry within the tribe in order to preserve the tribal allotments outlined by God in his gift of land to the people (Num. 27:7–8; 36:6–9). If the deceased had no children of his own, his closest male relative would receive the land (Num. 27:9–11). The levirate and go’el (“redeemer”) systems seem to have been enacted in order to protect both widows and the property rights of the family. Marriage with a brother’s widow was forbidden as a general rule (Lev. 20:21), but when no male heir was present, the act was considered obligatory (Deut. 25:5–10). Although there is some disagreement, most would consider the case of Ruth to be not one of levirate marriage, but instead an expression of the go’el (Lev. 25:25; Jer. 32:6–9). The two systems apparently are related, with the latter being an extension of the former. But the important distinction is that the go’el’s duties included redemption in much broader terms, including redemption from slavery (Lev. 25:47–55) and vengeance in the case of wrongful death (Deut. 19:6). One clear case of levirate marriage is found in the attempts of Tamar to bear a child with the brother of Er, her deceased husband, and then eventually with Er’s father (Gen. 38).

Tithing. Tithing one’s possessions was a very ancient custom that actually predates the law codes and is found in the time of the patriarchs. Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of everything” (Gen. 14:20), and Jacob made a vow that if he returned to his father’s house in safety, he would acknowledge Yahweh as his Lord and would give him a tenth of all that he possessed (Gen. 28:20–22). The tithe that was applied to the seed of the land or to the fruit of the tree was redeemable. The tithe of cattle, on the other hand, was not redeemable. Determining which animal was the tithe involved counting each animal singly, and every tenth one that passed under the rod became the tithe animal (Lev. 27:30–33). There is apparently some disparity in the biblical texts relating to a tithe. Nehemiah 10:37–38 seems to clearly indicate that there was only one prescribed tithe taken in the OT era. However, there are three texts regulating the tithe in the OT (Lev. 27:30–33; Num. 18:21–32; Deut. 14:22–29). It would seem, then, that each law gives only a partial picture of the regulations involving the tithe, as each assumes both the presence and the regulations of the others. The practice of the tithe in Israel involved a yearly gift to the temple, with the gifts of every third year kept in the community for the care of the poor and oppressed. These laws, then, were a reminder of Israel’s holy status before God and that its enjoyment of the rewards of that status was a consequence of their election. Consequently, the tithe demanded recognition of God’s ownership of all the land. Furthermore, by being allowed to consume part of the tithe (Deut. 14:23), participants were reminded of the priority of God in their economy and lives.

Ed

A transliteration of the Hebrew word ’ed, meaning “witness” or “testimony,” in the KJV of Josh. 22:34. When the land of Canaan was divided, the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 22:9) constructed a great altar, which, they affirmed, was not for sacrifice but rather for a witness to future generations (22:21–27). The NIV translates the Hebrew term as “witness.”

Edar

(1) A town that was part of the tribe of Judah’s traditional territorial allotment. It was located in the southern part of Judah, in the Negev (Josh. 15:21). (2) A son of Beriah (KJV: “Ader”; 1 Chron. 8:15). (3) One of the three sons of Mushi, a Levite from the Merarites (1 Chron. 23:23; 24:30). See also Migdal Eder.

Eden

The region within which was situated the primeval garden, the setting of the story of the creation in Gen. 2 and of the fall in Gen. 3. Although numerous attempts have been made to identify its intended location (Turkey, North Africa, the Persian Gulf), the information we can glean from the references to Eden, the rivers that flow from it, and the regions they encompass is insufficient for locating Eden in relation to known geography. It is simply “in the east” (Gen. 2:8).

Eden is portrayed as a mountainous region (Ezek. 28:13–14). Four rivers flow from it: the Pishon and the Gihon, which are unknown, and the Tigris and the Euphrates in Mesopotamia (Gen. 2:10–14). This may be compared with other ancient Near Eastern portrayals of rivers flowing from the mountain dwelling of the gods.

The name “Eden” may be connected with a Hebrew word for “luxury, delight,” though another suggestion is that it derives from a Sumerian word meaning “steppe, plain.” The garden in Eden is also referred to as the “garden of the Lord” (Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3) or the “garden of God” (Ezek. 28:13; 31:8–9), or (in a visionary reappearance) as “paradise,” from a Persian word for “garden” (Rev. 2:7).

The garden is depicted as a sanctuary or holy space (Ezek. 28:14) into which humanity is invited on God’s terms to act as God’s agents. It contains the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (Gen. 2:9).

As a picture of fertility, Eden holds out the prospect of a reversal from a desolate state (Isa. 51:3).

Eder

(1) A town that was part of the tribe of Judah’s traditional territorial allotment. It was located in the southern part of Judah, in the Negev (Josh. 15:21). (2) A son of Beriah (KJV: “Ader”; 1 Chron. 8:15). (3) One of the three sons of Mushi, a Levite from the Merarites (1 Chron. 23:23; 24:30). See also Migdal Eder.

Edict

A royal or divine command with the force of law. In the religious sense, the term “decree” is one of several synonyms that refer to divine lawgiving, as in Gen. 26:5: “Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.” Here, as in numerous other places, “decree” represents the Hebrew word khuqqah (and its related term khoq) and it stands alongside “command” (mitswah) and “law” (torah). Another word that is often juxtaposed with khuqqah or khoq is mishpat, “judgment” (see Deut. 4:1). Because “decree” is frequently conjoined to synonyms, it is difficult to distinguish within biblical legal texts between decrees and other laws. Most often, “decree” is joined with one or more of the synonyms to denote divine law in general, without specific reference to its content.

In 1 Chron. 16:16–18 “decree” is used in parallel with “covenant,” and the content is specified as the promise to Abraham and the patriarchs that they would inherit the land of Canaan.

Biblical authors particularly associate the issuing of royal decrees with the Persians, including Cyrus (Ezra 6:3), Darius (Ezra 6:12; Dan. 6:8), and Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:13; cf. 6:14). Persian royal decrees are presented as immutable, irrevocable, and enforced by harsh punishments (Esther 1:19; 8:8; Ezra 6:11; Dan. 6:8). In the book of Daniel, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar rules through despotic decrees (e.g., 3:10).

The NT twice refers to Roman imperial decrees (dogma), including the ordering of a census that resulted in Jesus being born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7).

Edification

Edification is the building up, strengthening, and encouraging of others in the body of Christ. This is primarily a Pauline concept and takes place in the context of mutual relationships among members in the local church: “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing” (1 Thess. 5:11). The frequency of this concept in Paul’s letters shows how important this was and how much he sought to develop this practice among his readers: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). This building up of one another in the body should lead to a properly functioning local church where Christ is at the center and “the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Eph. 4:16). Put simply, “Knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1).

Edom

“Edom” denotes Esau (Gen. 25:30; 36:1, 8, 19), or the Edomites collectively (Num. 20:18, 20–21; Amos 1:6, 11; 9:12; Mal. 1:4), or the land occupied by Esau’s descendants, formerly the land of Seir (Gen. 32:3; 36:20–21, 30; Num. 24:18). Edom was renowned in Israel for its wisdom (Jer. 49:7; Obad. 8), and the book of Job seems to reflect an Edomite setting.

The Land of Edom

The region stretched from the Zered Valley to the Gulf of Aqabah (about one hundred miles) and extended to both sides of the Arabah, the great depression connecting the Dead Sea to the Red Sea (Gen. 14:6; Deut. 2:1, 12; Josh. 15:1; Judg. 11:17–18; 1 Kings 9:26). It is a dry, mountainous area with peaks rising to 3,500 feet. Though not a fertile land, it has cultivable areas (Num. 20:14–18). The name is derived from the Semitic root meaning “red, ruddy,” perhaps because of the reddish color of the sandstone in that region.

The earliest reference to Edom comes from Egypt, where Papyrus Anastasi VI preserves the report of an official from the reign of Mer-nep-tah (c. 1220 BC). He noted that the Bedouin tribes of Edom were trying to pass an Egyptian fortress to “the pools of Per-Atum” to keep themselves and their cattle alive.

It is possible that the Semitic place name was in use as early as the fifteenth century BC, if Edom is identified with one of the place names (’i-d-má) from the list of Thutmose III (1490–1436 BC).

The land(s) of Seir (a term often used in the OT to refer to Edom; cf. “the hill country of Seir” in Gen. 36:8–9) appears already in a letter from Amarna written by a king of Jerusalem to Amenhotep III in the first half of the fourteenth century. About a century later, Ramesses II (1290–1224 BC) claimed to have devastated the land of Shosu and plundered Mount Seir. In the next century Ramesses III (1193–1162 BC) made a similar claim.

Thus, there is considerable evidence outside the OT from the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries BC that mentions both Edom and Seir (the latter is more frequent and seems to be better known). The sources do not identify the two places, but they refer to their inhabitants as (Bedouin) shosu.

The Edomites

Following the OT, it seems that Esau’s descendants migrated to the land of Seir and in time became the dominant group, incorporating the original Horites (Gen. 14:6) and others into their number. Esau had already occupied Edom when Jacob returned from Harran (Gen. 32:3; 36:6–8; Deut. 2:4–5; Josh. 24:4). Tribal chiefs emerged here quite early (Gen. 36:15–19, 40, 43; 1 Chron. 1:51, 54), and the Edomites had kings “before any Israelite king reigned” (Gen. 36:31; 1 Chron. 1:43–51).

We know from the OT that after the exodus Israel was denied permission to travel by the King’s Highway (Num. 20:14–21; 21:4; Judg. 11:17–18). Still, Israelites were forbidden to abhor their Edomite brothers (Deut. 23:7–8). Joshua allotted the territory of Judah up to the borders of Edom (Josh. 15:1, 21), but the Israelites were not allowed to encroach on their lands.

Despite the brotherly relationship between Edom and Israel, the biblical evidence shows that the relationship between Edom and Israel was one of continuous hostility from the time of the Israelite kings. King Saul fought the Edomites (1 Sam. 14:47), and David conquered Edom and put garrisons throughout the land (2 Sam. 8:13–14). Edom was subjugated by Israel during the time of David but seems to have regained independence in the eighth century BC.

The prophets of Judah were very bitter against later Edom because of its stance in the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (587/586 BC), and they predicted Edom’s destruction (e.g., Obadiah). The oracle of Mal. 1:2–4 indicates that by the time of its writing, Edom was in ruin. The archaeological evidence supports the fall of Edom by the end of the sixth century BC, and there is evidence that the Nabateans (an Arabian tribe) forced their way into Edom and replaced the Edomites, many of whom went westward to southern Judea (later Idumea [cf. 1 Macc. 5:3, 65]), while others may have been absorbed by the newcomers. By 312 BC the area around Petra was inhabited by Nabateans.

Archaeological Evidence

Modern archaeology has shown that the land was occupied before Esau’s time, and recent excavations have shed new light on the history of Edom, unearthing evidence of a settled state society as early as the eleventh century BC. Surveys and excavations support the conclusion that Edom was a sophisticated, urbanized society as early as the tenth century BC, with industrial-scale production of copper at this time in that region.

This new data pushes back the archaeological chronology of this area some three centuries earlier than the prevalent scholarly consensus. At the moment, there are at least thirty-five high-precision dates from Edom dating to the tenth century BC (and some may be even earlier). Egyptian artifacts were found at the site in a layer associated with a serious disruption in production at the end of the tenth century BC, possibly tying Khirbat en-Nahas to the campaign of Pharaoh Sheshonq I (Shishak in the OT), who, following Solomon’s death, sought to crush economic activity in the area. Thus, recent archaeological and scientific data provide a real correlation to the time of Solomon and beyond, as described in the OT (1 Kings 7:46; see also 1 Kings 14:25–26).

There is also strong, and generally undisputed, archaeological evidence for many seventh- and sixth-century sites attributed to the Edomites. Modern Buseirah is generally identified with biblical Bozrah (e.g., Isa. 34:6; Jer. 49:13, 22), probably the Edomite capital. Another site of special interest is Tell el-Khe-leifeh (probably Ezion Geber = Elath [see, e.g., 1 Kings 9:26]). Period IV at this site testifies to a vigorous Edomite civilization in the seventh to sixth centuries BC. Most of the Edomite sites, however, are small villages, farms, or seminomadic sites. The Edomites usually are associated with Edomite pottery, a ware found in both southern Jordan and the Negev.

Economy and Religion

The economy of Edom was based on agriculture (possible especially in the northeast) and commerce. Its prosperity depended mostly on controlling the caravan routes from India and southern Arabia to the Mediterranean coast and Egypt. It seems that whenever Edom lost control of these routes, its civilization declined.

The religion of the Edomites, like that of the Canaanites, was devoted to the gods and goddesses of fertility. The deity peculiar to Edom was Qaus, and this name is incorporated into numerous Edomite personal names.

Edomites

The inhabitants of Edom and descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:1–17). See also Edom.

Edrei

A principal stronghold of Og of Bashan, one of two Transjordanian rulers the Israelites defeated under Moses (Josh. 13:12). Edrei was the site of this battle (Num. 21:33–35; see also Deut. 3:1). Joshua 13:31 describes Edrei and Ashtaroth as “royal cities” of Og and places both in the tribal territory of Manasseh (specifically, of the subtribe of Makir [see Judg. 5:14]). Joshua 19:37 mentions a distinct “fortified city” of Edrei in the territory of Naphtali.

Education

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

Eglah

The wife of David, married while he was king in Hebron. Her son was named “Ithream” (2 Sam. 3:5; 1 Chron. 3:3).

Eglaim

(1) A location in Moab (Isa. 15:8). (2) “En Eglaim” (meaning “spring of the two calves”) is the name of a spring on the western shore of the Dead Sea, opposite Moab (Ezek. 47:10).

Eglath Shelishiyah

A location mentioned in two oracles against Moab (Isa. 15:5; Jer. 48:34). The phrase translates as “the third Eglath.” While most translations follow the LXX in understanding it as the name of a location, the KJV translates these Hebrew terms as “a heifer of three years old.” A young heifer is sometimes understood figuratively as a land that has yet to be conquered (Hos. 10:11), which may fit within the context of these two oracles against Moab as referring to unconquered land in Zoar and Horonaim. Its geographical location is uncertain.

Eglon

(1) The obese Moabite king who, after enlisting the aid of the Ammonites and the Amalekites, defeated Israel and ruled over them for eighteen years. He was assassinated by the Israelite judge Ehud, who deceived Eglon and plunged a small sword into his stomach. Following Eglon’s death, Israel defeated the Moabites and ended their oppressive rule (Judg. 3:12–30). (2) A southern Canaanite city whose king (Debir) joined an alliance with four other Canaanite kings and battled against the Gibeonites following their treaty with Joshua. In order to honor the treaty, the Israelites fought and defeated the five kings, their men, and their cities (Josh. 10:1–43; 12:12). Eglon was allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:39). Its precise location is uncertain.

Egypt

Culture and Geography

Egypt is one of the earliest ancient civilizations. The first development of writing took place simultaneously in both Egypt and ancient Sumer around 3000 BC. Using different languages, both developed pictographic writing systems (where pictures of objects stood for words, parts of words, etc.). Egypt kept the pictographic signs and highly stylized them (hieroglyphs), while Sumer changed them into wedge shapes (cuneiform). The Egyptian inscriptions found on pyramids, temples, stelae, tombs, and so forth are mostly in the hieroglyphic form.

Geography. Ancient Sumer and Egypt were river valley cultures. Sumer was located in Mesopotamia (southeast Iraq), Egypt in the Nile Valley (northeast Africa). The Nile Valley was well suited for long-term growth and cultural success for three reasons. First, the annual flooding of the Nile (July to October) brought sediment and nutrients from up river to the fields of the Nile Valley. The water also washed the salts out of the soil. These brought great fertility to the valley and allowed the same fields to be farmed year after year for millennia without exhausting the land. Second, the Nile provided a central highway for transporting people and goods across Egypt, thus facilitating internal trade and communication. Third, Egypt was surrounded by a buffer zone of desert regions to the east, west, and south, which hindered foreign invasion. Ancient Egyptians called the fertile land of the Nile Valley the “black land” and the desert regions the “red land.” They also divided the land into “upper” and “lower” Egypt. Upper Egypt (from the first cataract northward to Memphis) was in the higher southern elevations of the Nile River (the Nile flows from south to north). Lower Egypt was made up of the Nile Delta region. Only a pharaoh who controlled and unified both could take the epithet “king of upper and lower Egypt.” The ancient Egyptians called the entirety of their land “Kemet.”

Politics and religion. The Nile Valley was divided into regional administrative districts, nomes. There were forty-two nomes in all. Each nome had a town or city as its capital. Each of these cities had a ruler, a nomarch (“great overlord”), who governed the region. Kingship likely began when one city ruler began to subjugate other regions and cities. At times, there was more than one dynasty in power (one in Upper Egypt and one in Lower Egypt). Each ruling dynasty had a triad of idol-gods from its home city that it viewed as supreme in the Egyptian pantheon. The triad was made up of a father, a wife, and a firstborn son. In the Eighteenth Dynasty from Thebes, these were the sun god Amun-Re, his wife/consort Mut, and their son the moon god Khonsu.

Early Egyptian religion focused on veneration of animals, sacred burials, and cultic objects. The dead were buried with care in the predynastic period (before writing), which may indicate an understanding of the divine and the afterlife. We know little of this time without written texts. However, once writing was developed, the Egyptians began to create and record elaborate stories that explained their understanding of divine beings, creation, the daily cycle of sunrise/sunset, as well as the afterlife.

The Egyptian view of deities eventually became connected to physical forms. Each deity embodied divine attributes, affinities, powers, and one or more forms (human, animal, or a combination) that allowed the Egyptians to relate to them and that also shaped Egyptian culture and language through time. The god Thoth appeared in drawings, paintings, reliefs, or statues as one of three forms: as a human with an ibis-bird head, as an ibis, or as a baboon. The god Bes was patron of mothers in childbirth, Re (later Amun-Re) was the sun god, and so on. They even had a goddess of divine order, Ma’at, a female with a feather on her head. Ma’at was the embodiment of divine and human social order. At midnight on the day of death, a soul was placed in the balance of Ma’at’s scale and weighed against her feather. A soul heavier or lighter was devoured by the awaiting crocodile-headed destroyer deity; only those in balance could move on into the afterlife. For Egypt, the pharaoh was the great shepherd of the people, who both kept the divine order (Ma’at) and forced out chaos and disorder. With changing dynasties and preferences, deities changed rank, assimilated powers, merged with other deities, and rose or declined in popularity. Many deities were tied to a geographic place, but some were universal (such as Isis, Apis, Geb, Osiris, Bes, Anubis, and Imhotep). The deities were either found in or had power over all areas of the created order (Nile, insects, animals, humans, crops, fertility [of humans, animals, crops], sky, sun, moon, death, etc.). With the proliferation of idols, temples and sacrifices multiplied, and literally thousands of sacred mummified birds, cats, crocodiles, and other animals have been found in Egypt.

From the very beginning the king was viewed as divine. Later he was viewed as the personification of the sun god, with his wife/queen being the personification of the wife goddess in his dynasty triad and his firstborn son tied to the son in the triad. When the pharaoh died, he moved into the afterlife to become the sun god, and his heir took his earthly place. The whole aspect of a proper burial was very important to having a place and a successful experience in the afterlife. The shape of the pyramid tomb reflected the image of the rays of the sun streaming down to earth at angles from the sun. A proper burial on the west bank of the Nile (toward the setting sun) allowed the deceased to begin a proper journey into the afterlife. In order for the deceased to pass through all the gateways and to balance properly in Ma’at’s scales, a copy of the Book of the Dead would be placed in the person’s sarcophagus. This text contained all the correct things that the deceased needed to say to attain an easy passage and gloss over his or her sins. The great pyramid of Khufu has the pyramids of Khufu’s wives nearby, his nobles’ tombs farther out, then the tombs of minor officials, and finally those of foremen who worked on the pyramid with their work crew just beyond them. Each in the pecking order sought to attach himself or herself to the coattails of Pharaoh in his death so that they too might gain entry into the afterlife.

History

Prehistoric period. In the fifth millennium BC the hunter-gatherer culture in Egypt slowly shifted to a farming and shepherding lifestyle. As crop yields increased beyond the need for food, time was available to develop skills in crafts as well as trade. The pottery and material culture (tools, burials, house style, etc.) of Lower Egypt evidenced the Buto-Ma’adi culture, and that of Upper Egypt the Naqada culture. The Naqada expanded northward and unified Egypt in predynastic times. Several proto-kingships developed as nomes or their capital cities allied together or were subjugated by a stronger neighbor.

Early Dynastic period (3000–2575 BC). As indicated by the Narmer Palette, the earliest known king of a unified Egypt was Narmer (c. 3000 BC). The palette shows Narmer defeating the king of Lower Egypt and wearing the crown of Upper Egypt on one side and the crown of Lower Egypt on the other. Laws in Egypt were not codified as they are today. The king made the rules and kept them as he saw fit. The Egyptian story “The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” from a later Egyptian period explains the way things worked. In this story, the peasant is on the way to market with his goods on his donkey. The rich man sees him coming and covers the pathway with a garment. The peasant has a dilemma: trample the garment or destroy some of the rich man’s field to get by. He is unsuccessful in traveling by without trespass, and the rich man seizes his goods and donkey and throws him in jail. The peasant awaits a chance to speak before Pharaoh, who is the judge. When he has a chance to make his appeal, the peasant is so well spoken that Pharaoh keeps him in prison just so he can keep hearing him argue his case day after day! Eventually the poor man’s goods are restored, and he is freed.

Old Kingdom (2575–2134 BC). The Old Kingdom capital was Memphis. This period was an age of pyramids and a time of political and economic stability. The agricultural economy grew and prospered. The two largest pyramids were constructed in this period: Khufu’s Great Pyramid at Giza and one next to it (along with the Sphinx), belonging to his successor, Chephren. The pyramid workers were not slaves but rather peasants who owed a corvée tax of labor. Workers were paid daily in bread and beer. Egypt was a feudal society. Private citizens could own property, but the pharaoh owned most of the land and parceled it out to his retainers or gave it permanently to temples. The pharaohs sent quarrying expeditions into the deserts for building stone and occasionally made military expeditions southward into Nubia and Punt.

First Intermediate Kingdom (2134–2040 BC) and Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC). After the death of Pepy II came economic collapse due to drought and falling tax revenues. These led to political collapse, and power was split among many competing factions. This time of instability is known as the First Intermediate period; it ended when the Eleventh Dynasty pharaoh Mentuhotep II reunified Egypt and reestablished a strong central government. This likely is the period when Abraham visited Egypt and later Joseph, Jacob, and his family entered Egypt. The famous Beni Hasan tomb painting of this period shows a caravan of Semitic peoples moving into Egypt, wearing multicolored clothing. In this period the position of vizier (prime minister) grew to prominence. One vizier, Amenemhet, succeeded to the throne of Egypt. Joseph filled the role of vizier in the biblical account (Gen. 41:39–40). Also dating from this period are turquoise mines in the Sinai region that have the earliest known Semitic inscription. Written on the mine walls in Proto-Sinaitic, this inscription may be the earliest alphabetic script in existence.

Second Intermediate period (1640–1550 BC). At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt again fell into a fractured political situation with the decline of the pharaoh’s power. A Semitic people, the Hyksos (Egyptian for “foreign rulers” or “shepherd kings”), invaded the Nile Delta region and established their capital at Avaris. The Seventeenth Dynasty continued to rule Upper Egypt in the south while the Hyksos were in power. Although the Israelites were servants of Pharaoh from the beginning (keeping his flocks), they were not enslaved until later. It may have been a Hyksos pharaoh or a New Kingdom pharaoh who enslaved them to hard labor.

New Kingdom (1550–1069 BC). The last king of the Seventeenth (Theban) Dynasty, Kamose, attacked the Hyksos, but it was his successor, Ahmose, who drove them out and reunified Egypt. Ahmose is considered the first pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It may have been Ahmose or one of his successors who enslaved the Hebrews (for more on the Eighteenth Dynasty, see Thutmose). During the first half of the New Kingdom, Egypt was at the height of its power and wealth. During this period Egyptians began to call their king “Pharaoh,” meaning “great house.” The Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Thutmose III and his son Amenhotep II are good candidates for an early-date exodus (c. 1446 BC). A later king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten, moved the capital to Amarna and shifted his allegiance from Amun-Re, the sun god, to sole worship of the god Aton (sun-disk). For this reason, many identify him as the first monotheist. Akhenaten may have made this move in order to defund the temples and priestly orders that had grown very wealthy and powerful over time. His reforms did not last, and the worship of Amun-Re was restored by his successor, Tutankhamen. The Nineteenth Dynasty warrior Ramesses II is the likely pharaoh of a late-date Exodus (c. 1250 BC).

Third Intermediate period (1069–664 BC). This period was a time of weak and divided government, with capitals in the north and the south. Pharaoh Siamun has been conjectured to be King Solomon’s father-in-law, who conquered Gezer and gave it to Solomon as a dowry (c. 960 BC; 1 Kings 9:16). Later, Sheshonq (biblical Shishak), a Libyan pharaoh of the Twenty-second Dynasty, came to the throne and campaigned against Solomon’s son Rehoboam, plundering Jerusalem in the process (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Chron. 12:2; cf. 1 Kings 11:40). The African Cushite pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (760–664 BC) ruled the north for a little more than a century but failed to defend against the waves of Assyrian conquest in the seventh century BC.

Late Kingdom period (664–525 BC). The Twenty-sixth (Saite) Dynasty (ruling from the Delta city of Sais) reunified Egypt under native Egyptian control. Pharaoh Necho II tried to support a declining Assyria as a buffer against the Babylonian onslaught but was unsuccessful (c. 609 BC). However, in the process Necho killed King Josiah of Judah in battle at Megiddo and placed one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoiakim, as a vassal upon the throne of Judah (2 Kings 23:29–35; cf. 2 Chron. 35:20–36:8; Jer. 46:2). After the Babylonian destruction of Judah/Jerusalem (587/586 BC) and the murder of their Jewish governor, Gedaliah, a group of Jewish exiles fled to Egypt. This group forced the prophet Jeremiah to go with them to Egypt (Jer. 40:1–43:7). A small group of Jewish exiles eventually found their way to a tiny island in the upper Nile, Elephantine, where they established a temple and community; there they worked as mercenaries.

Persian period (525–332 BC). Cambyses II, king of Persia and son of Cyrus the Great, conquered Egypt in 525 BC. His successor, Darius I, ruled Egypt benevolently and resumed the construction of temples and canals. However, Egypt revolted against Persian rule several times, ultimately winning independence in 404 BC with the help of Greek allies. The last native Egyptian pharaoh was Nectanebo II, who ruled in 359–343 BC. However, this period of Egyptian independence was short-lived, with Persia reestablishing control in 343 BC.

Hellenistic-Roman period (332–30 BC; 30 BC and beyond). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 332 BC. After Alexander’s death, his general Ptolemy took control of Egypt and ruled as pharaoh. From Alexander’s conquest to the death of Cleopatra, Egyptian rulers were of Greek descent. After Cleopatra’s death (30 BC), Rome annexed Egypt into its empire and governed the country until the fall of the Roman Empire. A large contingent of Jews lived and prospered in the Delta city of Alexandria in this period.

Ehi

One of Benjamin’s ten sons (Gen. 46:21). “Ehi” is probably a shortened name. He is likely the same person as Ahiram (Num. 26:38) and Aharah (1 Chron. 8:1).

Ehud

(1) The second judge, or deliverer, of Israel appointed by God to relieve his people from foreign oppression—in this case, the Moabites. In Judg. 3:15 Ehud, a Benjamite, is said to be left-handed, which, following the LXX (amphoterodexios), may actually be a reference to his ambidexterity. Ehud is sent by the Israelites to present a tribute to Eglon, the obese king of Moab. Following the presentation, however, Ehud deceives Eglon by claiming that he has a secret message for him, and when alone, Ehud assassinates the king with a small sword. Ehud escapes unnoticed and rallies Israel to defeat the Moabites (Judg. 3:5–4:1). (2) The great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) The Benjamite father of Naaman, Ahijah, and Gera, who were former inhabitants of Geba exiled to Manahath (1 Chron. 8:6–7).

Eker

A descendant of Judah through Ram, the firstborn son of Jerahmeel (1 Chron. 2:27). His brothers were Maaz and Jamin.

Ekron

One of the five chief cities of the Philistines, listed as part of the territory of Judah but not taken by Israel at the time of the distribution of the land to tribes (Josh. 13:3; 15:11, 45–46; Judg. 1:18), though it bordered Dan (Josh. 19:43).

Upon the defeat of Hophni and Phinehas, the ark of the covenant was taken to the temple of Dagon in Ashdod. After God demonstrated his displeasure, the Philistines sent the ark to Ekron, where God greatly afflicted the people until they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam. 5).

Ekron served as the entry point from Israel to Philistia, as witnesses the account of the pursuit of the Philistine army to the “gates of Ekron” (1 Sam. 17:52) after David defeated Goliath.

In 2 Kings 1, King Ahaziah is accused of worshiping Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron. The prophets pronounced oracles announcing the destruction of this city (Jer. 25:20; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5, 7).

Ekron has been identified with a large mound (some fifty acres), Tel Miqne, about fourteen miles from the Mediterranean coast and thirty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem.

El

In the OT, the Hebrew word ’el is used to denote divinity in a generic way or to refer specifically to Yahweh as God. ’El is often translated “god” in passages such as Deut. 32:21; Isa. 44:10, 15; 46:6. ’El is understood specifically as God in passages such as 2 Sam. 22:32. Some verses utilize both meanings, as in Exod. 34:14, “Do not worship any other god [’el], for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God [’el].” In Genesis several titles for God begin with the word ’el and are used to present God’s power and transcendence as well as his concern for humanity. In Gen. 21:33 Abraham calls God ’el ’olam (“Eternal God”). In Gen. 14:18–22 he is ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”). In Gen. 16:13 the Egyptian slave Hagar names God ’el ro’i (“God who sees”). God calls himself ’el shadday (“God Almighty”) when talking to Abraham (Gen. 17:1) and refers to this name when he reveals to Moses his name as “Yahweh” (Exod. 6:3). In Num. 23:8 ’el is used of God in parallel with “Yahweh.” The word ’el appears in the names of locations (e.g., Bethel, “house of God” [Gen. 35:7]) and in many personal names (e.g., “Eliphaz,” “Daniel,” “Israel”).

In ancient Near Eastern texts, especially cuneiform texts found at Ugarit, “El” is a proper name for the head god of the ancient Mesopotamian pantheon. Described as a tent dweller who presides over his divine council on the mount of assembly in the north, El holds many titles, including “creator,” “ancient one,” and “compassionate one.” Texts such as Exod. 34:6 (“The Lord, the Lord [yhwh], the compassionate and gracious God [’el]”) seem to show an awareness of the biblical writers for this understanding of the word, although they use this material to proclaim the supremacy of Yahweh.

El Bethel

Ancient Luz, named by Jacob “Bethel” (“house of El/God” [Gen. 28:19]). A second theophany thirty years later caused Jacob to rename the place “El Bethel” (“El of the house of El” [Gen. 35:7]). The site was located between Hebron and Shechem, ten miles north of Jerusalem. In thematic progression, Jacob’s own name was then changed to “Israel,” now reaffirmed in the land (Gen. 35:10). Fulfilling Jacob’s earlier vow, a divine person had now eclipsed a mere site—“El of the house of El” (cf. Gen. 28:18–22).

El Elohe Israel

The name that Jacob associates with his altar in Gen. 33:20. It can be translated as “El [a name of God] is the God of Israel.” The name indicates Jacob’s new designation (“Israel”) and his loyalty to the God who gave it to him.

El Paran

The southernmost site conquered by the coalition of four kings during their raid through Canaan (Gen. 14:6). El Paran may well be identified with Elath on the northern shore of the Red Sea (1 Kings 9:26).

El Shaddai

In the OT, the Hebrew word ’el is used to denote divinity in a generic way or to refer specifically to Yahweh as God. ’El is often translated “god” in passages such as Deut. 32:21; Isa. 44:10, 15; 46:6. ’El is understood specifically as God in passages such as 2 Sam. 22:32. Some verses utilize both meanings, as in Exod. 34:14, “Do not worship any other god [’el], for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God [’el].” In Genesis several titles for God begin with the word ’el and are used to present God’s power and transcendence as well as his concern for humanity. In Gen. 21:33 Abraham calls God ’el ’olam (“Eternal God”). In Gen. 14:18–22 he is ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”). In Gen. 16:13 the Egyptian slave Hagar names God ’el ro’i (“God who sees”). God calls himself ’el shadday (“God Almighty”) when talking to Abraham (Gen. 17:1) and refers to this name when he reveals to Moses his name as “Yahweh” (Exod. 6:3). In Num. 23:8 ’el is used of God in parallel with “Yahweh.” The word ’el appears in the names of locations (e.g., Bethel, “house of God” [Gen. 35:7]) and in many personal names (e.g., “Eliphaz,” “Daniel,” “Israel”).

In ancient Near Eastern texts, especially cuneiform texts found at Ugarit, “El” is a proper name for the head god of the ancient Mesopotamian pantheon. Described as a tent dweller who presides over his divine council on the mount of assembly in the north, El holds many titles, including “creator,” “ancient one,” and “compassionate one.” Texts such as Exod. 34:6 (“The Lord, the Lord [yhwh], the compassionate and gracious God [’el]”) seem to show an awareness of the biblical writers for this understanding of the word, although they use this material to proclaim the supremacy of Yahweh.

El-Berith

The name of a deity associated with a temple near Shechem in Judg. 9:46. The name is synonymous with “Baal-Berith,” mentioned earlier in Judg. 9:4. Both El and Baal were Canaanite deities, and berit means “covenant.” The name “El” later came to be a generic term for God. The context of the reference leaves it unclear whether the name indicates a Canaanite deity or religious syncretism with Yahwism.

Ela

The father of Shimei, a governor of Benjamin during the reign of Solomon (970–930 BC) (1 Kings 4:18).

Eladah

A descendant, apparently, of Ephraim through Tahath (1 Chron. 7:20). Some have suggested, however, that Elead of 1 Chron. 7:21–22 is the same person, which would make Eleadah a son of Ephraim.

Elah

The Hebrew word ’elah, meaning “oak” or “terebinth” (2 Sam. 18:9), is also used as a proper name. (1) A tribal ruler descended from Esau (Gen. 36:40–41; 1 Chron. 1:52). (2) The wicked son and successor of Baasha. Elah ruled Israel for two years (1 Kings 16:6–14). (3) The father of Hoshea, who usurped the Israelite crown (2 Kings 15:30; 17:1). (4) A son of Caleb the faithful spy (1 Chron. 4:15). (5) A Benjamite living in Jerusalem before the exile (1 Chron. 9:8). (6) A valley in the Judean foothills where David killed Goliath (1 Sam. 17), some twelve miles west-southwest of Bethlehem. As one of several fertile valleys in this region between the Philistines on the coastal plain and the Israelites in the hill country, the Elah Valley was a natural battleground between the two peoples.

Elam

Elam is one of the oldest of the ancient civilizations, lasting from 2700 BC to 539 BC. Ancient Elam originally consisted of kingdoms on the Iranian Plateau, centered in Anshan. Later, Susa in the Khuzistan lowlands became prominent in documentation of the Elamite civilization. The kings of Elam in the second and first millennia BC customarily called themselves “King of Anshan and Susa.” Despite progress made by researchers in the last few decades, the history of Elam is still one of the least known of the ancient Near Eastern civilizations. Most of the evidence comes from Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, where Elam is portrayed as being in constant contact, either friendly or hostile, with Babylon and Assyria. Elam’s natural resources (e.g., metals, wood, stone) and its location en route to the sources of certain highly desirable materials (e.g., lapis lazuli, tin) made Elam an object of periodic military campaigns of Mesopotamian kings.

Elam appears in various books of the Bible (e.g., Ezra 4:9; Isa. 11:11; 21:2; 22:6; Jer. 25:25; 49:34–39; Ezek. 32:24; Dan. 8:2; Acts 2:9), including Gen. 14, where Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, is mentioned as one of the kings of the east who defeated the five kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the second millennium Elam was a powerful state, so much so that even King Hammurabi addressed an Elamite king as “Father.” It is therefore possible that an Elamite king led a coalition of kings on a raid against Canaan. Elam, later subjugated by Assyria during the Assyrian ascendancy (732–604 BC), assisted in its war against Israel. The reference to Elam in Isaiah and Ezekiel (cited above) may be related to this historical fact. During the Achae-menid period, in which the traits of Elamite civilization were still strong, “Elam” was used as a general reference to the Persian province on the Iranian plateau (e.g., Dan. 8:2: “I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam”). In the NT era, Elam, albeit long gone from history, occupied an established place in the view of world history seen as a sequence of world empires (cf. Acts 2:9).

Elasah

The name “Elasah” or “Eleasah” (both are spelled the same in Hebrew) refers to one of four individuals. (1) One of the priestly descendants found to have taken a foreign wife after the exile (Ezra 10:22). (2) A Judahite official from the prominent scribal family of Shaphan (Jer. 29:3). (3) A descendant of Judah, he was the son of Helez and the father of Sismai (1 Chron. 2:39–40; NIV: “Eleasah”). (4) A descendant of Benjamin, Saul, and Jonathan through Raphah, he was the father of Azel (1 Chron. 8:37; 9:43; NIV: “Eleasah”).

Elath

This fortified harbor town, near Ezion Geber at the northern extremity of the Gulf of Aqabah (modern Aqabah), was a way station on the important trade routes to southern Arabia, Africa, and India. It is often identified with El Paran in Gen. 14:6.

Due to its importance for the profitable trade with southern Arabia and beyond, control over Elath was a prized object for Israel, Edom, and other rival powers. King Solomon, for instance, built Ezion Geber close to Elath and dispatched the lucrative “ships of Tarshish” from there with the help of Phoenician sailors (1 Kings 9:26–28; cf. Ps. 48:7). It is possible that the intention of Shishak’s campaign in the Negev was to cut off these trade activities, since the Egyptians were the only competitors to Israel’s shipping on the Gulf of Aqabah. Later Judean kings, such as Jehoshaphat and Uzziah, rebuilt the Red Sea port to resume trade with southern Arabia, although with much less success (2 Chron. 20:36; 26:2). Elath was handed over to the Edomites during the Syro-Ephramite war.

Eldaah

One of the sons of Midian and thus a descendant of Abraham through his wife Keturah (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33).

Eldad

One of the seventy elders of Israel appointed to share the burden of leadership with Moses (Num. 11:26–27). He and Medad began to prophesy within the Israelite camp when the Spirit rested upon them, hence validating their appointment as elders of Israel. The apocryphal book Eldad and Modad is purported to have recorded their prophecies, but the only extant portion of it is from a quotation in the Shepherd of Hermas 7:3.

Elder

The term “elder” is used variously in Scripture to describe an older man, a person of authority, or an appointed leader in a church office.

Old Testament. The first instance of “elder” in the OT is in Exod. 3:16, where Moses calls the elders of Israel to gather together. These men, seventy in number, most likely were the heads of different families in Israel (Num. 11:16, 24; Deut. 19:12; 21:19). The term “elder” likely indicates both their function as leaders and their age. They were gifted leaders, but they were also wiser because of their experiences in life.

Elders exercised civic and judicial authority in Israel’s cities and towns. They made judgments of various kinds, such as disciplining a rebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21), clearing the reputation of a young virgin girl who may have been slandered (22:13–19), and urging obedience to the law and commands of God (27:1).

New Testament. In the Gospels “the elders” are named together with the chief priests as ruling authorities in Israel. They appear to have been the nonpriestly members of the Sanhedrin and, like the Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests, are in frequent conflict with Jesus (e.g., Matt. 16:21; 26:3; 28:12; Mark 7:3; 8:31; Luke 7:3; 9:22). In the book of Acts they come into conflict with the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 4:23) and are involved in the sentencing and execution of the first martyr, Stephen (6:12; 7:54–60).

Following the model of Judaism, leaders in the first-century church are often referred to as “elders” (presbyteroi [e.g., Acts 11:30; 14:23]). In the Pastoral Epistles elders and “overseers” (or “bishops” [episkopoi]) appear to denote the same leadership office. Paul explicitly focuses on the elders’ character when he lists qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9. Elders must be above reproach in character and behavior. This includes being the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. Each elder must manage his own family well and require obedience and respect from his children. He must not be a recent convert, and he must have a good reputation with outsiders. If the elder does not manage his own family well, how can he take care of God’s church (1 Tim. 3:5)? God’s calling to lead the church requires people of godly character.

Elders not only teach and lead (1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17), but they are also called to shepherd the flock. The apostle Peter provides insight into how an elder should lead, exhorting them to shepherd not under compulsion but willingly and by example (1 Pet. 5:1–5). They should follow the example of the chief shepherd, Jesus (5:4). This leadership must be done in humility, since God is opposed to the proud (5:5).

The last mention of elders in the NT is in the glimpse of heaven given in the book of Revelation. In Rev. 19:4 twenty-four elders are said to serve in a priestly role as part of the worship before God. The identity of these elders is uncertain. They may be angelic beings or representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles.

Elead

A descendant of Ephraim who was killed along with his brother Ezer when the brothers went to steal the cattle of the natives of Gath (1 Chron. 7:21).

Eleadah

A descendant, apparently, of Ephraim through Tahath (1 Chron. 7:20). Some have suggested, however, that Elead of 1 Chron. 7:21–22 is the same person, which would make Eleadah a son of Ephraim.

Elealeh

A city with good pastureland that was allotted to the tribe of Reuben at the Reubenites’ request (Num. 32:3, 37). It had formerly been controlled by Sihon king of the Amorites. Elealeh lay near the city of Heshbon (see Isa. 15:4; 16:9; Jer. 48:34), about ten miles from the site of modern Amman, Jordan.

Eleasah

The name “Elasah” or “Eleasah” (both are spelled the same in Hebrew) refers to one of four individuals. (1) One of the priestly descendants found to have taken a foreign wife after the exile (Ezra 10:22). (2) A Judahite official from the prominent scribal family of Shaphan (Jer. 29:3). (3) A descendant of Judah, he was the son of Helez and the father of Sismai (1 Chron. 2:39–40; NIV: “Eleasah”). (4) A descendant of Benjamin, Saul, and Jonathan through Raphah, he was the father of Azel (1 Chron. 8:37; 9:43; NIV: “Eleasah”).

Eleazar

(1) The third son of Aaron, who succeeded his father as the second high priest after his older brothers Nadab and Abihu disqualified themselves by offering incense different from that which God commanded (Lev. 10:1–7). Eleazar had assisted his father and Moses against a rebellion of other Levites who wanted equal status with the priestly family of Aaron (Num. 16:36–40). Aaron failed to enter the promised land because he and Moses rebelled against God at the rock of Meribah (Num. 20:1–13). On Mount Hor, and in the presence of Moses, Aaron took off his high priestly garments and put them on his son Eleazar. Eleazar was the high priest during the conquest and, along with Joshua, cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe should settle (Josh. 14:1–5). Upon Eleazar’s death, his son Phinehas succeeded him as high priest.

(2) During the early judgeship of Samuel, the son of Abinadab who was consecrated to guard the ark of the covenant at his father’s house in Kiriath Jearim, where it lodged after being returned by the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:1). (3) One of David’s mighty men, renowned for his personal combat against the Philistines (2 Sam. 23:9–10; 1 Chron. 11:12). (4) A Le-vite of the clan of Merari (1 Chron. 23:21–22; 24:28). (5) The son of Phinehas who helped to weigh the silver, gold, and sacred articles at the time of Ezra (Ezra 8:33). (6) An Israelite guilty of intermarriage at the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:25). (7) A temple musician who sang on the day that Nehemiah dedicated the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:42). (8) An ancestor of Joseph, the father of Jesus (Matt. 1:15).

Elect

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

Elect Lady

The KJV and RSV term for the recipient of the letter of 2 John (v. 1). Not much is known about the identity of this “lady chosen by God” (NIV), though there are several possibilities. The phrase may refer to a personal friend or a prominent church member of John’s acquaintance, along with her biological children. More probably, however, John uses the phrase as a metaphor for a particular church community and its members, a usage consistent with other NT images of the church (see Eph. 5:25–27; cf. Rev. 21:2).

Election

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

Elementary Spirits

The Greek term stoicheia, which occurs seven times in the NT, is used in ancient religions and philosophy to refer to the basic rudiments or first principles—what today might be called the ABC’s of some area of knowledge. The author of Hebrews chides his readers, “Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). Instead, the challenge is for believers to leave behind “the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity” (6:1). Other times, this language is used to refer to the basic principles of this present world system and how at one time we “were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world” (Gal. 4:3 ESV). Paul also warns us that these “elements” of the present world system around us can be a source of ongoing temptation to believers of “turning back to those weak and miserable forces” and being “enslaved by them all over again” (4:9). This language is used in still another way to refer to the basic building blocks of the universe, especially in relationship to the future day of the Lord, when “the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare” (2 Pet. 3:10). This picture is so vivid in Peter’s mind that he repeats this thought two verses later when he reminds us that the day of God “will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat” (3:12).

Elements

The Greek term stoicheia, which occurs seven times in the NT, is used in ancient religions and philosophy to refer to the basic rudiments or first principles—what today might be called the ABC’s of some area of knowledge. The author of Hebrews chides his readers, “Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). Instead, the challenge is for believers to leave behind “the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity” (6:1). Other times, this language is used to refer to the basic principles of this present world system and how at one time we “were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world” (Gal. 4:3 ESV). Paul also warns us that these “elements” of the present world system around us can be a source of ongoing temptation to believers of “turning back to those weak and miserable forces” and being “enslaved by them all over again” (4:9). This language is used in still another way to refer to the basic building blocks of the universe, especially in relationship to the future day of the Lord, when “the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare” (2 Pet. 3:10). This picture is so vivid in Peter’s mind that he repeats this thought two verses later when he reminds us that the day of God “will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat” (3:12).

Elephants

Native to Africa and southern Asia, elephants prefer jungle and forest habitats but can adapt to any environment with sufficient vegetation. No elephants lived in Palestine, but wealthy Israelites sometimes imported ivory from elephant tusks. Solomon “made a great throne covered with ivory” (1 Kings 10:18). King Ahab built an ivory house (1 Kings 22:39). Extensive use of ivory attests to the prominence and power of Tyre (Ezek. 27:6).

Elhanan

(1) “Elhanan son of Dodo from Bethlehem” is listed among David’s thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:24 // 1 Chron. 11:26). (2) Elhanan is one of David’s four warriors who engaged in single combat with Philistine champions (2 Sam. 21:19 // 1 Chron. 20:5). The parallel accounts, however, are not the same. According to 2 Samuel, Elhanan killed Goliath (contra 1 Sam. 17). According to 1 Chronicles, Elhanan killed “Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” If 2 Samuel is preferred, one might argue that “Elhanan” was actually David’s birth name. If 1 Chronicles is preferred, one might explain the 2 Samuel account as a scribal error.

Eli

The chief priest of Israel at the tabernacle at Shiloh toward the end of the period of judges (1 Sam. 1:1–4:22). He is described as both physically and spiritually flabby. He is not evil, just spiritually undiscerning. Also, he fails to discipline his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who are wicked. Young Samuel is placed in Eli’s care, and right from the start the narrative draws a contrast between the former’s spiritual sensitivity and the latter’s dullness (see esp. 1 Sam. 3). God eventually commissions a prophet to announce the end of Eli’s priestly line (1 Sam. 2:27–36). He ends badly when his sons, who are leading the army against the Philistines, are defeated and killed. When he gets the news, Eli falls off a log and breaks his neck. Even so, his descendants continue as priests until the time of David. At that time, though, the prophetic announcement comes to fulfillment, and the priesthood passes from his descendant Abiathar and goes to Zadok (1 Kings 2:27, 35).

Eliab

(1) A leader of the tribe of Zebulun, the son of Helon (Num. 1:9; 2:7–8; 7:24–29). (2) A son of Pallu, of the tribe of Reuben, and the father of Dathan and Abiram (Num. 26:8–9), who rebelled against Moses (Num. 16:1–3, 12–14; Deut. 11:6). (3) A Levite descended from Kohath who was the great-grandfather of the prophet Samuel (1 Chron. 6:22–27). He is called “Elihu” in 1 Sam. 1:1. (4) The eldest son of Jesse and brother of David (1 Sam. 17:13) and father of Abihail (2 Chron. 11:18). Eliab is best known for rebuking David when he inquired about the reward that would be given to the slayer of the Philistine champion Goliath (1 Sam. 17:26–28). Eliab appears to have been jealous of or embarrassed by David. (5) A warrior from the tribe of Gad and friend of David (1 Chron. 12:9). (6) A Levitical musician during David’s reign (1 Chron. 15:18).

Eliada

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

Eliahba

One of David’s thirty warriors, Eliahba was a Shaalbonite (2 Sam. 23:32; 1 Chron. 11:33).

Eliakim

(1) Son of Hilkiah, he was a palace administrator during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18, 26, 37; 19:2; Isa. 22:20–25; 36:3; 37:2). (2) A son of Josiah who was crowned king by Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt instead of his brother Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:34; 2 Chron. 36:4). Pharaoh Necho changed Eliakim’s name to “Jehoiakim” (2 Chron. 36:4). During his reign, Judah faced multiple invasions of Babylonians, Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites (2 Kings 24:2; 2 Chron. 36:5–7). (3) One of the priestly musicians who performed during the ceremony dedicating the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:41). (4) An ancestor of Jesus in Matthew’s genealogy (Matt. 1:13). (5) An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:30).

Eliam

The name “Eliam” occurs twice in the OT, perhaps for two different men, but more probably referring to the same man in two separate roles. (1) The father of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3). He is called “Ammiel” in 1 Chron. 3:5. (2) One of David’s thirty warriors, a son of Ahithophel, from the clan of the Gilonites (2 Sam. 23:34).

Elias

The Greek form of the name “Elijah” as used in the NT and some apocryphal books (e.g., Matt. 11:14; 17:3, 11; 1 Esd. 9:27; 1 Macc. 2:58; Sir. 48:1, 12).

Eliasaph

(1) The son of Deuel, he was the tribal leader of Gad during the wilderness wanderings. He helped Moses during the taking of the military registration (Num. 1:14) and is mentioned in the description of the camp’s layout (Num. 2:14). He presented Gad’s offering for the sanctuary (Num. 7:42, 47) and is noted as the leader of Gad when the tribe departed from Sinai along with the rest of Israel (Num. 10:20). (2) The son of Lael, also during the wilderness period. He was the head of the Gershonite clan of the Levites (Num. 3:24), which was the clan responsible for the care and transporting of the curtains associated with the sanctuary.

Eliashib

(1) A son of Elioenai, a descendant of David in the postexilic period (1 Chron. 3:24). (2) The Levite leader of the eleventh priestly division, set apart by David (1 Chron. 24:12). (3) The father of the high priest Jehohanan, who provided a room for Ezra to spend the night during his mourning over Israel’s unfaithfulness (Ezra 10:6). (4) A singer who agreed to divorce his foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:24). (5) A descendant of Zattu who agreed to divorce his foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:27). (6) A descendant of Bani who agreed to divorce his foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:36). (7) The high priest who, along with his fellow priests, rebuilt the Sheep Gate during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1). Eliashib returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel after the exile, and he is described as the son of Joiakim and the father of Joiada (Neh. 12:10). Eliashib’s grandson (Joiada’s son) married into the house of Sanballat the Horonite, Nehemiah’s adversary (Neh. 13:28). (8) The priest placed in charge of the storerooms who provided Tobiah with a large room (Neh. 13:4–9).

Eliathah

A son of Heman, who was one of the chief musicians along with Asaph and Jeduthun, set apart by David as prophets and musicians (1 Chron. 25:4). Eliathah along with his thirteen brothers and the sons of Asaph and Jeduthun were temple musicians (1 Chron. 25:5–6). He was the head of the twentieth division of the temple musicians (1 Chron. 25:27).

Elidad

A son of Kislon appointed as a representative of the tribe of Benjamin when Israel prepared for the division of the promised land as commanded by Moses prior to the conquest (Num. 34:21).

Eliehoenai

(1) A temple gatekeeper in Meshelemiah’s division of gatekeepers. He was the seventh son of Meshelemiah (1 Chron. 26:1–3). (2) A son of Zerahiah and a head of the descendants of Pahath-Moab who returned from exile under the leadership of Ezra (Ezra 8:4).

Eliel

(1) One of the heads of the families of the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron. 5:23–24). (2) A temple musician from the family line of Heman the Kohathite (1 Chron. 6:34). (3) A son of Shemei from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:19–21). (4) A son of Shashak from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:22–25). (5) One of David’s mighty warriors, a Mahavite (1 Chron. 11:46). (6) One of David’s mighty warriors, a Mezobaite (1 Chron. 11:47). (7) The seventh army commander from the Gadites (1 Chron. 12:11). (8) A leader of the descendants of Hebron from the Levites (1 Chron. 15:9, 11). (9) A supervisor of the temple contributions, tithes, and dedications during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:13).

Elienai

A son of Shimei from the tribe of Benjamin as listed from the genealogy of those who lived in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 8:20).

Eliezer

(1) A servant of Abram from Damascus (Gen. 15:2). He probably was Abram’s adopted son and potential heir of his household (15:4–5). (2) A second son of Moses, born in Midian (Exod. 4:19–20); his brother was Gershom and his mother was Zipporah (Exod. 18:1–6; 1 Chron. 23:15). He had only one son, Rehabiah (1 Chron. 23:17). (3) A son of Beker, one of Benjamin’s sons (1 Chron. 7:8). (4) One of the priests who played the trumpets when the ark of the covenant was brought to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:24). (5) A son of Zikri, and a chief of the tribe of Reuben during the reign of David (1 Chron. 27:16). (6) A son of Dodavahu of Mareshah. He prophesied against King Jehoshaphat’s alliance with King Ahaziah (2 Chron. 20:37). (7) A learned man among those sent by Ezra to Iddo with a request for temple servants (Ezra 8:16–17). (8, 9, 10) Three individuals from the priestly line listed among those who married foreign women during the time of Ezra’s revival (Ezra 10:18, 23, 31). (11) An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:29).

Elihoreph

A high official who, along with his brother, Ahijah, served as a scribe in Solomon’s administration (1 Kings 4:3). Elihoreph and Ahijah were sons of Shisha.

Elihu

(1) The great-grandfather of Samuel the prophet (1 Sam. 1:1, 20). (2) A captain of a thousand who defected to David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:20). (3) The son of Shemaiah, and a gatekeeper of the temple (1 Chron. 26:7). (4) One of the leaders of Judah and brother of King David (1 Chron. 27:18), possibly identical to Eliab (1 Sam. 16:6). (5) The son of Barakel who mysteriously appeared and restarted the discussion after Job and his three friends had finished. After listening to his elders, he became angry with Job for justifying himself and with the friends because they had no answer (Job 32:2–5). His lengthy speeches (Job 32:6–37:24), emphasizing God’s sovereignty, set up God’s final response from the whirlwind.

Elihud

Mentioned only in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:14–15), as the son of Akim. He was the great-great-grandfather of Joseph, the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Elijah

(1) A true prophet raised up by God during the reign of Ahab of Israel (ninth century BC) in order to counter fast-rising idolatry fueled by the king and his foreign-born wife, Jezebel.

False worship at this time focused on Baal, a major Canaanite deity who was the god of fertility, having power over dew, rain, lightning, and thunder. Thus, as people turned to Baal for these life-giving forces, God shut up the heavens so there would be no rain in Israel (1 Kings 17:1). God also at this time sent Elijah the Tishbite to confront the king.

Elijah lived in the wilderness, perhaps to escape the vengeance of the royal couple and to avoid being tainted by the perversities of the state of Israel. He had a distinctive appearance: very hairy and dressed in a loincloth (2 Kings 1:8).

Through the performance of miraculous acts, Elijah demonstrated that God was with him. The first such act was multiplying the food supplies of a widow who provided him with food. Even more dramatically, he prayed for the woman’s son when the child died, and the dead boy began to breathe again (1 Kings 17:17–24).

Elijah’s most dramatic moment came when he confronted Ahab and his many Baal prophets on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18). Yahweh fought Baal on the latter’s terms. The object was whether Yahweh or Baal could throw fire from heaven to light the altar fire. Baal was purportedly a specialist at throwing fire (lightning), and his prophets went first. However, because Baal did not really exist, they failed. When Yahweh’s turn came, Elijah increased the stakes by pouring water on the wood. Yahweh, the one true God, threw fire from heaven, which burned the sacrifice, wood, stones, and dirt, and even dried up the water. Soon thereafter, God opened up the skies so that it rained again. Even so, Ahab and then his son Ahaziah (2 Kings 1) continued to worship Baal.

Elijah continued to confront the wicked idolatry of these kings. God used him to pronounce judgment against Ahab and Jezebel, as well as the dynasty, after the royal pair unjustly had Naboth the Jezreelite executed simply so they could possess his field (1 Kings 21).

Elijah was a devoted servant of Yahweh. Before Elijah passed from this life, God introduced him to his successor, Elisha. When the end came, he did not die but rather was caught up to heaven (2 Kings 2:1–18)—only the second person reported to leave this life without dying (cf. Enoch in Gen. 5:21–24).

Toward the end of the OT period, the prophet Malachi announced the coming day of the Lord (Mal. 4:5–6). As a precursor to that day, God would send the prophet Elijah as a forerunner. Some people thought that Jesus was Elijah (Matt. 16:14; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 9:8, 19), but Jesus is the one who ushers in the kingdom of God. John the Baptist was his forerunner, and so it was he who is rightly associated with Elijah (Matt. 11:13–14). Indeed, his wilderness lifestyle and ministry echoed those of Elijah. At the Mount of Transfiguration, Elijah appeared to Jesus along with Moses; these two wilderness figures represented the prophets and the law (Matt. 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36).

(2) A descendant of Benjamin and ancestor of Saul (1 Chron. 8:27). (3) A descendant of Harim, who married a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:21). (4) A descendant of Elam, who married a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:26).

Elika

One of David’s thirty mighty men, described along with Shammah as a “Harodite” (2 Sam. 23:25). The name is a short form of “Elikam,” meaning “God has risen (for battle).”

Elim

The second named stopping place of the people of Israel after they crossed the Red Sea (Exod. 15:22–16:1; Num. 33:8–10). It was said to house “twelve springs and seventy palm trees” (Exod. 15:27), and it provided a resting place before they entered the Desert of Sin.

Elimelek

A man from Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah and the husband of Naomi. The story of Ruth begins as if it is about Elimelek, who takes his family to Moab during a famine. When he dies, the focus of the story shifts to Naomi (Ruth 1:1–5).

Elioenai

(1) A member of the royal line of David. His father was Neariah, and he had seven sons (1 Chron. 3:23–24). (2) A clan leader within the tribe of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:36). (3) A descendant of Benjamin through Beker (1 Chron. 7:8). (4) A man from the priestly line who was descended from Pashhur and among those guilty of marrying foreign women during Ezra’s time (Ezra 10:22). (5) A descendant of Zattu who was also among those guilty of marrying foreign women (Ezra 10:27). (6) One of the priests in Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 12:41), possibly the same Elioenai as in Ezra 10:22. See also the KJV of 1 Chron. 26:3, where other versions read “Elihoenai.”

Eliphal

Son of Ur and one of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:35). The parallel list in 2 Sam. 23 (v. 34) refers to him as Eliphelet son of Ahasbai the Maakathite.

Eliphaz

(1) Son of Esau by his Hittite wife Adah (Gen. 36:4; 1 Chron. 1:35). (2) One of Job’s three friends and interlocutors, identified as a Temanite (Job 2:11). Teman is one of the sons of Esau’s son Eliphaz (Gen. 36:11). The participation of Eliphaz in the wisdom discussion of Job is appropriate, as the line of Teman was known elsewhere in the Bible for its sages (Jer. 49:7). Eliphaz is prominent among Job’s three friends, and he speaks three times (Job 4–5; 15; 22). God spoke to Eliphaz as a representative of the three friends (42:7).

Eliphelehu

One of the Levite gatekeepers appointed to play the harp (or lyre) when the ark of the covenant was transported from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:18, 21). In the KJV the name is “Elipheleh.”

Eliphelet

(1) A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:16; 1 Chron. 3:8; 14:7; KJV: “Eliphalet”). The name occurs a second time in the list in 1 Chron. 3 (vv. 6, 8), though this may be a textual mistake rather than a second individual. In the parallel list in 1 Chron. 14:4–7, the first of these two names appears as Elpelet (KJV: “Elpalet”). (2) One of the thirty mighty men in David’s army, the son of Ahasbai the Maakathite (2 Sam. 23:34). The parallel list in 1 Chron. 11 (v. 35) refers to him as Eliphal son of Ur. (3) A Benjamite, a descendant of Eshek (1 Chron. 8:39). (4) A descendant of Adonikam who returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:13). (5) A descendant of Hashum who was among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:33).

Eliseus

The KJV rendering of the Greek spelling of the name “Elisha” (Elisaios) in Luke 4:27.

Elisha

Prophet, coworker of and then successor to Elijah. Both men resisted the Baal worship that infected the northern kingdom during the reign of Ahab and his successors (Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash) in the latter half of the ninth and first half of the eighth centuries BC.

Elisha began as a disciple of Elijah, whom God had used to confront Ahab and Jezebel’s prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18). When Elijah was taken to heaven, Elisha succeeded him (2 Kings 2:19–23). God accredited Elisha as prophet and demonstrated his authority through miracles. Many of the miracles involve water, such as making the bitter water of Jericho drinkable (2 Kings 2:19–23) and raising an ax head from the bottom of the Jordan River (6:1–7). These miracles were implicitly directed at Baal and his supporters, since Baal was thought to be a god who specialized in providing and controlling the waters.

Elisha also demonstrated God’s power and compassion with acts such as providing a poor woman with olive oil (2 Kings 4:1–7), curing a Syrian general of leprosy (2 Kings 5), and even raising a child from the dead (4:8–37).

God also told the prophet to anoint Hazael, king of Syria, and Jehu, a military man who usurped the throne of Israel (2 Kings 8:7–15; 9:1–13). God used these men to bring a violent conclusion to those leaders who promoted the worship of Baal.

Elisha’s miracles continued even after his death. Some Israelites threw a dead man’s body in Elisha’s grave, and when it touched Elisha’s bones, the man sprang back to life (2 Kings 13:20–21).

Elishah

(1) A descendant of Japheth, a son of Javan (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). (2) A place whose name is presumably derived from the Elishah of Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7. Its location is in the Aegean, based on the following: Elishah is associated with Javan (Greece) and the Kittites (associated with Cyprus), and it is a producer of blue and purple fabric (Ezek. 27:7). Texts from the second millennium BC suggest that the name referred to Cyprus, either its eastern coast or the whole.

Elishama

(1) A son of Ammihud; a head of the tribe of Ephraim and a grandfather of Joshua, son of Nun (Num. 1:10; 2:18; 7:48, 53; 10:22; 1 Chron. 7:26). (2) A son of Jekamiah from the tribe of Judah through the line of Jerahmeel (1 Chron. 2:41). (3) One of the sons of David born to him during his thirty-three-year reign in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:16; 1 Chron. 3:8; 14:7). (4) One of the priests among those sent out to teach the law during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:8). (5) The secretary of King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:12, 20–21). (6) An official from the royal bloodline for King Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:25). He was grandfather of Ishmael the slayer of Gedaliah, a ruler whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed over those who remained in Judah (Jer. 41:1).

Elishaphat

Son of Zikri, he was one of the commanders of the units of a hundred, who aligned themselves with Jehoiada the priest to overthrow Athaliah and establish Joash as king over Judah (2 Chron. 23:1).

Elisheba

Wife of Aaron, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon, and mother of Nadab, Abihu, Eleazer, and Ithamar (Exod. 6:23).

Elishua

A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:15; 1 Chron. 3:6 [though here, most Hebrew manuscripts have “Elishama”]; 14:5).

Elizabeth

The mother of John the Baptist. She was a descendant of Aaron and the wife of Zechariah (Luke 1:5). She and her husband are described in Luke 1 as righteous but barren in their old age. When Zechariah had the opportunity to serve in the temple and burn incense, an angel prophesied that he and Elizabeth would have a son, and they would name him “John.” Elizabeth was the relative of Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:36), but the Bible does not specify how they were related. Mary visited Elizabeth when both were pregnant, and Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit when she heard Mary’s voice. She called Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43).

Elizaphan

(1) A son of Uzziel, and a leader of the Kohathite family (Num. 3:30). His descendants served in David’s transfer of the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 15:8) and assisted in Hezekiah’s reform (2 Chron. 29:13). “Elzaphan” is a shortened form of this name (Exod. 6:22; Lev. 10:4). (2) A son of Parnach, and a leader from the tribe of Zebulun. He was one of those appointed to assist in land distribution (Num. 34:25).

Elizur

The son of Sheduer, he was the tribal leader of Reuben during the wilderness wanderings. He helped Moses during the taking of the military registration (Num. 1:5) and is mentioned in the description of the camp’s layout (Num. 2:10). He presented Reuben’s offering for the sanctuary (Num. 7:30, 35) and is noted as the leader of Reuben when the tribe departed from Sinai along with the rest of Israel (Num. 10:18).

Elkanah

(1) One of several descendants of Levi through Korah (Exod. 6:24; 1 Chron. 6:23). Others are named in 1 Chron. 6:26–27. (2) An Ephraimite, the husband of Hannah and the father of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1). (3) Three related temple musicians from among the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:34–36). (4) A Levite who went into exile (1 Chron. 9:16). (5) One of David’s Benjamite warriors (1 Chron. 12:6). (6) A Le-vite gatekeeper (1 Chron. 15:23). (7) A palace official in the time of Ahaz, killed in a northern Israelite raid (2 Chron. 28:7).

Elkosh

The hometown of the prophet Nahum (Nah. 1:1). The town is separately identified by at least four ancient traditions as (1) Al-Qush near Nineveh (a medieval tradition); (2) Elcesi (modern el-Kauzeh) in Galilee (Jerome); (3) Capernaum (meaning “village of Nahum”) in Galilee; (4) a town near Begabar (modern Bayt Jibrin), thirteen miles northwest of Hebron (Pseudo-Epiphanius).

Ellasar

The kingdom ruled by Arioch, one of the four foreign kings who raided Canaan during the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:1, 9). After they plundered the region and kidnapped Lot, Abraham successfully defeated them and regained what they had taken. Its identification is uncertain, but suggestions include the city of Larsa in southern Mesopotamia, Alsi in northern Mesopotamia, and Ilansura near Carchemish.

Elmadam

An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy, which starts with the most recent names and works backward, concluding with Adam, “the son of God” (Luke 3:28).

Elnaam

The father of Jeribia and Joshaviah, two of David’s warriors (1 Chron. 11:46). In the LXX Elnaam is listed as one of David’s warriors, whereas Jeribia and Joshaviah are father and son.

Elnathan

(1) The father of Nehushta, the mother of King Jehoiachin of Judah (2 Kings 24:8). (2) Son of Akbor, and an official of King Jehoiakim among those whom he sent to Egypt to capture Uriah for prophesying against the city of Jerusalem (Jer. 26:20–23; 36:12). He urged Jehoiakim not to burn the Jeremiah-Baruch scroll (Jer. 36:25). (3) A member of the group of leaders sent by Ezra to ask for temple servants from Iddo, the leader in Kasiphia (Ezra 8:16). (4) Along with Joiarib, one of two learned men sent by Ezra, along with a group of leaders, to ask for temple servants from Iddo, the leader in Kasiphia (Ezra 8:16).

Elohim

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.

In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.

Yahweh: The Lord

Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.

Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.

Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.

Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).

Adonai

As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.

Elon

(1) One of Esau’s two Hittite fathers-in-law (Gen. 26:34; 36:2). (2) One of the three sons of Zebulun (Gen. 46:14; Num. 26:26). (3) A judge from the tribe of Zebulun who succeeded Ibzan and led Israel for ten years (Judg. 12:11–12). He was buried in Aijalon (LXX: “Ailim”), which may be a wordplay on the name “Elon,” as the words are spelled with the same consonants in Hebrew. (4) A place name in the allotment for the tribe of Dan. It was located between Aijalon and Timnah (Josh. 19:43) and may be identified as Khirbet Wadi ‘Alin. This may be the same site as Elon Bethhanan, which was part of king Solomon’s second administrative district (1 Kings 4:9).

Elon-Meonenim

A notable tree used in pagan divination practices, visible from the entrance to the city Shechem (Judg. 9:37). This may be the tree near which Abram built an altar after receiving God’s promise regarding the surrounding land (Gen. 12:6–7). This may also be the tree under which Jacob buried his household’s foreign gods and earrings (Gen. 35:4). These possible references cannot be verified. Renderings of the Hebrew ’elon me’onenim also include “plain of Meonenim” (KJV), “diviners’ oak” (NASB, RSV, ESV), and “oracle oak” (MSG).

Elonite

(1) One of Esau’s two Hittite fathers-in-law (Gen. 26:34; 36:2). (2) One of the three sons of Zebulun (Gen. 46:14; Num. 26:26). (3) A judge from the tribe of Zebulun who succeeded Ibzan and led Israel for ten years (Judg. 12:11–12). He was buried in Aijalon (LXX: “Ailim”), which may be a wordplay on the name “Elon,” as the words are spelled with the same consonants in Hebrew. (4) A place name in the allotment for the tribe of Dan. It was located between Aijalon and Timnah (Josh. 19:43) and may be identified as Khirbet Wadi ‘Alin. This may be the same site as Elon Bethhanan, which was part of king Solomon’s second administrative district (1 Kings 4:9).

Eloth

This fortified harbor town, near Ezion Geber at the northern extremity of the Gulf of Aqabah (modern Aqabah), was a way station on the important trade routes to southern Arabia, Africa, and India. It is often identified with El Paran in Gen. 14:6.

Due to its importance for the profitable trade with southern Arabia and beyond, control over Elath was a prized object for Israel, Edom, and other rival powers. King Solomon, for instance, built Ezion Geber close to Elath and dispatched the lucrative “ships of Tarshish” from there with the help of Phoenician sailors (1 Kings 9:26–28; cf. Ps. 48:7). It is possible that the intention of Shishak’s campaign in the Negev was to cut off these trade activities, since the Egyptians were the only competitors to Israel’s shipping on the Gulf of Aqabah. Later Judean kings, such as Jehoshaphat and Uzziah, rebuilt the Red Sea port to resume trade with southern Arabia, although with much less success (2 Chron. 20:36; 26:2). Elath was handed over to the Edomites during the Syro-Ephramite war.

Elpaal

One of the sons of Shaharaim, a Benjamite who moved to Moab after divorcing two of his wives. Elpaal’s son Shemed is credited with building the towns of Ono and Lod, and his sons Beriah and Shema are described as living in Aijalon, a Danite town. The genealogical record (1 Chron. 8:11–18) is unclear as to whether some of the names listed are Elpaal’s sons or grandsons.

Elpalet

(1) A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:16; 1 Chron. 3:8; 14:7; KJV: “Eliphalet”). The name occurs a second time in the list in 1 Chron. 3 (vv. 6, 8), though this may be a textual mistake rather than a second individual. In the parallel list in 1 Chron. 14:4–7, the first of these two names appears as Elpelet (KJV: “Elpalet”). (2) One of the thirty mighty men in David’s army, the son of Ahasbai the Maakathite (2 Sam. 23:34). The parallel list in 1 Chron. 11 (v. 35) refers to him as Eliphal son of Ur. (3) A Benjamite, a descendant of Eshek (1 Chron. 8:39). (4) A descendant of Adonikam who returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:13). (5) A descendant of Hashum who was among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:33).

Elpelet

(1) A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:16; 1 Chron. 3:8; 14:7; KJV: “Eliphalet”). The name occurs a second time in the list in 1 Chron. 3 (vv. 6, 8), though this may be a textual mistake rather than a second individual. In the parallel list in 1 Chron. 14:4–7, the first of these two names appears as Elpelet (KJV: “Elpalet”). (2) One of the thirty mighty men in David’s army, the son of Ahasbai the Maakathite (2 Sam. 23:34). The parallel list in 1 Chron. 11 (v. 35) refers to him as Eliphal son of Ur. (3) A Benjamite, a descendant of Eshek (1 Chron. 8:39). (4) A descendant of Adonikam who returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:13). (5) A descendant of Hashum who was among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:33).

Eltekeh

A town that was part of the tribe of Dan’s traditional territorial allotment (Josh. 19:44). Later, when some towns were designated for the Levites, the tribe gave this town to the Levites. The town is named in the Taylor Prism, which describes the military campaign of Sennacherib in 701 BC. The biblical account of Sennacherib’s invasion is found in 2 Kings 18:13–37; 19:8–13 (Eltekeh is not named). Currently, the precise location of the town remains uncertain.

Eltekon

A town that was part of the tribe of Judah’s traditional territorial allotment. The town was located in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:59) and is likely modern-day Khirbet ed-Deir near Bethlehem.

Eltolad

A town that was part of the tribe of Judah’s or Simeon’s territorial allotment, located in the Negev (Josh. 15:30; 19:4). It is possible that because Simeon was completely surrounded by Judah, the tribe shared this town.

Elul

The sixth month of the Hebrew year. The rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem was completed in this month (Neh. 6:15).

Eluzai

One of the warriors (armed with bows and able to shoot arrows or to sling stones right-handed or left-handed) who were kinsmen of Saul from the tribe of Benjamin. At Ziklag they aligned themselves with David while he was banished from Saul’s presence (1 Chron. 12:2, 5).

Elymas

A Jewish sorcerer and false prophet serving Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:4–12). Attempting to prevent the proconsul from believing the message of Paul and Barnabas, he was stricken with temporary blindness. He was also known as Bar-Jesus (“son of salvation” [Acts 13:6]). The name “Elymas” may be a transliteration of a Semitic word equivalent to the Greek magos, “magician” or “sorcerer” (Acts 13:8).

Elyon

In the OT, the Hebrew word ’el is used to denote divinity in a generic way or to refer specifically to Yahweh as God. ’El is often translated “god” in passages such as Deut. 32:21; Isa. 44:10, 15; 46:6. ’El is understood specifically as God in passages such as 2 Sam. 22:32. Some verses utilize both meanings, as in Exod. 34:14, “Do not worship any other god [’el], for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God [’el].” In Genesis several titles for God begin with the word ’el and are used to present God’s power and transcendence as well as his concern for humanity. In Gen. 21:33 Abraham calls God ’el ’olam (“Eternal God”). In Gen. 14:18–22 he is ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”). In Gen. 16:13 the Egyptian slave Hagar names God ’el ro’i (“God who sees”). God calls himself ’el shadday (“God Almighty”) when talking to Abraham (Gen. 17:1) and refers to this name when he reveals to Moses his name as “Yahweh” (Exod. 6:3). In Num. 23:8 ’el is used of God in parallel with “Yahweh.” The word ’el appears in the names of locations (e.g., Bethel, “house of God” [Gen. 35:7]) and in many personal names (e.g., “Eliphaz,” “Daniel,” “Israel”).

In ancient Near Eastern texts, especially cuneiform texts found at Ugarit, “El” is a proper name for the head god of the ancient Mesopotamian pantheon. Described as a tent dweller who presides over his divine council on the mount of assembly in the north, El holds many titles, including “creator,” “ancient one,” and “compassionate one.” Texts such as Exod. 34:6 (“The Lord, the Lord [yhwh], the compassionate and gracious God [’el]”) seem to show an awareness of the biblical writers for this understanding of the word, although they use this material to proclaim the supremacy of Yahweh.

Elzabad

(1) An army commander, one of the swift warriors from the tribe of Gad who aligned themselves with David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:12). (2) One of the sons of Shemaiah, who were known for their capable leadership among the gatekeepers (1 Chron. 26:7).

Elzaphan

An abbreviated form of “Elizaphan” (Num. 3:30; 1 Chron. 15:8; 2 Chron. 29:13). A son of Uzziel, he and Mishael were summoned to carry Aaron’s dead sons Nadab and Abihu outside the camp away from the sanctuary (Exod. 6:22; Lev. 10:4). See also Elizaphan.

Embalming

Various methods of preserving dead corpses, human and animal, from organic decay. Mummification was a technical art and a religious rite that was distinctively Egyptian. Most other ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed the decay of corpses as a natural part of the death and burial process. Many of these cultures collected and reburied the bones following decomposition, a practice of secondary burial.

The embalming of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 50:2–3, 24–26) are OT exceptions. Since Joseph is a state official, his father is embalmed in Egypt before being transported back to Canaan. Joseph is placed in an official sarcophagus (Heb. ’aron [“ark, box”]). En route to his Canaan burial, his bones accompany Israel’s exodus procession (Josh. 24:32).

Practiced as early as 3100 BC in Egypt (predynastic period), mummification reached its peak around 1000 BC (Twenty-first Dynasty). Performed by priests over a seventy-day period, the embalming process involved the removal of internal organs, corpse dehydration, corpse “packing,” and extensive use of linen wrappings. Coptic Christians in Egypt (third century) largely rejected these practices.

Emek Keziz

Called “valley of Keziz” in the KJV, this city was included in the territory allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. 18:21). The location is unknown.

Emerods

The KJV uses the archaic word “emerod” to refer to tumors or boils (Heb. techorim). The word is used several times in 1 Sam. 5–6. This narrative describes when the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant and took it to their city of Ashdod. As a result, the inhabitants of the city were afflicted with emerods. In an effort to stave off the outbreak, the Philistines sent the ark back to Israel along with five golden images of both emerods and rats as a guilt offering. Many scholars believe that the outbreak of tumors, because of its association with rats, was a bubonic plague outbreak. In Deut. 28:27 emerods are mentioned as a potential punishment for disobeying the law.

Emites

“Emites” (NRSV: “Emim”) appears only three times, in two OT passages (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10–11), used to designate a people group dispossessed by the Moabites. They are said to be a tall people like the Anakites and the Zamzummites (Deut. 2:10, 20–21). The name “Emites” may have the pejorative sense of “dreadful people.”

Emmanuel

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase ’immanu ’el, which means “God is with us.” This name is a reminder of God’s presence, and although the name “Immanuel” appears in the Bible only a few times (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 8:10), the theme of God’s presence is one of the most prevalent in Scripture.

In Isa. 7 the prophet Isaiah tells King Ahaz not to fear the two kings who threaten him, but to trust in God. In fact, Isaiah proclaims, God will give a sign to Ahaz. An unnamed “virgin” (Heb. ’almah, which normally means “young, unmarried woman”) will conceive and give birth to a child, whose name will be “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Interestingly, there is no mention of a father. Before this child grows old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah continues, God will destroy both of the kings who threaten Ahaz (7:15–16). At this point, the sign of Immanuel appears to refer to a child born during the time of Ahaz as a sign to him of God’s power and ability to deliver.

Yet, this promised child seems to be rather unusual. In Isa. 8:8 God declares that Immanuel owns all the land of Judah, indicating that he is no mere unknown or obscure child. Furthermore, in 8:10 victory is declared for Judah because “God is with us [’immanu ’el].” The use of this phrase is a wordplay on the name “Immanuel,” suggesting that the sign of a child named “Immanuel” may point to something beyond just a child in Ahaz’s time.

In the LXX, the word used for the young, unmarried woman in Isa. 7:14, parthenos, explicitly meant “virgin.” Using this Greek word, Matthew declares that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). Thus, it appears that Isa. 7:14 was fulfilled twice, or at least that the prophecy contained a dual aspect. It was fulfilled first in a minimal way during the reign of Ahaz and then ultimately by the virgin birth of Jesus.

Matthew, of course, is saying much more than that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isa. 7:14: Jesus embodies the presence of God. The presence of God is a major theological theme running throughout the Bible. Matthew opens his Gospel with the proclamation that Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel, “God is with us” (1:23), and he closes with Jesus’ statement “I am with you always” (28:20), a promise of Jesus Christ’s empowering presence. The Gospel of John opens with the same theme, stating, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:14). Frequently in the NT, Jesus is connected to the powerful presence of God. At the climactic end of the biblical story the focus is once again on presence, as the “Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” once again dwell with God’s people in the garden (Rev. 21–22), the ultimate example of “God is with us.”

Emmaus

A village approximately seven miles (sixty stadia in the Greek text) from Jerusalem. The village is of particular note because of Luke’s account of two disciples walking to Emmaus from Jerusalem and their encounter with the risen Christ (Luke 24:13–32). It is located at the eastern end of the Ayalon Valley.

Emmor

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

Emperor Worship

The origins of emperor worship lie in the merging of several aspects of religious life in ancient Greco-Roman culture. Traditional family religion in Greek territories centered on divine honors offered to the genius (“spirit”) of the father, thus laying the groundwork for transference of such honors to Roman emperors, who were like fathers for the entire nation.

The idea that a human could become divine existed from antiquity. In Greek religious thought, this transformation was accomplished through the exercise of virtue. Heroes of the mythological past, such as Heracles, were thought to have become gods by living an exceptional life.

Greek peoples came into increasing contact with cultures to their east and south during the conquests of Alexander the Great (356–323 BC). Some, such as the Egyptians, saw their kings as divine long before Alexander’s conquests. By taking this notion of divine kingship upon himself, Alexander set a precedent for future Greek and Roman rulers. This understanding of kingship was further enhanced when kings venerated their deceased relatives, especially previous kings.

Evidence in Greek dominions from as early as the fifth century BC indicates that divine honors were paid to people who delivered a city from military or economic distress. Such saviors (benefactors) were honored with altars, songs of praise, and veneration previously reserved for divine beings. These tributes were isolated phenomena but nonetheless reflected broader cultural and religious tendencies that paved the way for emperor worship. The emperor was essentially an honored benefactor, but on a much grander scale.

Originally, Roman emperors did not allow themselves to be worshiped directly. Instead of accepting direct worship, most emperors only accepted veneration of their genius, on the pattern of household religion. Divinization was initiated by the succeeding emperor and approved by the Roman senate. Divine honors were not automatically conferred, as the example of the unpopular Domitian (AD 51–96) illustrates.

Caligula (AD 12–41) was the first Roman emperor to demand personal veneration as a god. However, he and Domitian were the only emperors who required full-fledged worship while still alive.

The cult of the emperor was as much political as religious. The empire-wide cult united diverse cultures and people, provided a test of loyalty to the emperor, and enabled those who desired influence to display their commitment to imperial power. Many Jews and Christians were viewed suspiciously as unpatriotic because they refused to venerate the emperor.

The language of emperor worship has many striking parallels with NT language applied to Jesus Christ. Emperors received such titles as “savior,” “lord” (see Acts 25:26 KJV), “god,” and “son of god” in return for their acts of deliverance for peoples throughout the empire. The word parousia (“coming”) was used in ancient writings and inscriptions to describe the triumphant arrival of an emperor to a welcoming city in language very similar to that used to describe the second coming of Christ. Even more remarkable is the ascription of the word euangelion (“gospel, good news”) to major events in the life of the emperor, especially important military victories that led to relative peace throughout the empire.

In Luke 22:25 the word “benefactor” (Gk. euergetēs) is used in a way that displays awareness of the imperial system of patronage that forms a partial background to emperor worship. In Acts 12:20–23 Herod Antipas allows himself to be flattered with divine titles and is immediately struck down by an angel of the Lord. Acts 17:7 indicates that the early Christian proclamation that Jesus Christ alone is Lord could be misunderstood as treason against the emperor.

The book of Revelation narrates a time when emperor worship was a pressing temptation for the Christian churches spread throughout the Roman Empire. If, as is likely, Rev. 17:7–14 is a cryptic reference to Rome, then the prohibitions against worshiping the beast in 13:4, 8; 14:9–10 are calls for Christians to remain steadfast in their refusal to worship the Roman emperor, a refusal that could easily result in a death sentence.

En Eglaim

A town mentioned only in Ezekiel’s vision of water flowing from the temple and down the Jordan Valley, bringing life to the Dead Sea (Ezek. 47:10). Although its location is unknown, its association with En Gedi as a place where fishermen would spread their nets places it along the Dead Sea shore.

En Gannim

A Hebrew name meaning “spring of the gardens,” referring to two OT locations. (1) A town given to Judah as part of its inheritance. It was situated near Beth Shemesh, in the Shephelah, or lowland region, between the hill country of Judea and the Plain of Philistia (Josh. 15:34). The town possibly was located on the site of modern Khirbet Umm Jina or Beit Jemal. (2) A town allotted to Issachar and then assigned to the descendants of Gershon as a Levitical city (Josh. 19:21; 21:29). Called “Anem” in 1 Chron. 6:73, it may be the Beth Haggan through which Ahaziah fled from Jehu (2 Kings 9:27). Located to the southwest of Mount Gilboa at the end of the Plain of Jezreel, it is probably Josephus’s Ginnea (Ant. 20.118; J.W. 3.48), which corresponds to modern Jenin.

En Gedi

A luxuriant oasis located west of the Dead Sea midway between Qumran and Masada (“En Gedi” often is written as “Ein Gedi,” lit., “spring of the kid [young goat]”). Four springs (David, Arugot, Shulamit, and Ein Gedi) cause the ravine to flow with water year-round, offering a stark contrast to the barren land surrounding it. The springs produce about three million cubic feet of water a year, most of which is used for watering crops or bottled for human consumption. There is a significant drop in elevation from about six hundred feet above sea level at the Judean Desert to about fourteen hundred feet below sea level at the shores of the Dead Sea. The sheer walls of the ravine contain several caves that shelter wild animals. It is abundant in wildlife (e.g., Nubian ibex and Syrian hyrax) and various plants (e.g., Sodom apple, acacia, poplar). In fact, the author of Song of Songs likens his beloved to a “cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14). Although the area does not appear to have been settled continuously, it was sporadically inhabited from as early as the Chalcolithic period (about 4000 BC) to the end of the Byzantine Empire (about AD 550).

En Gedi is mentioned six times in the OT (Josh. 15:62; 1 Sam. 23:29; 24:1; 2 Chron. 20:2; Song 1:14; Ezek. 47:10), but is most famous as the site where David hid from Saul. King Saul entered one of En Gedi’s caves to relieve himself, and David and his men were hiding farther back in the same cave.

En Haddah

A town listed as part of the inheritance of Issachar (Josh. 19:21). Its location is unknown, though modern el-Hadeth is possible.

En Hakkore

A site whose name means “spring of the one who calls,” the place in Lehi (“jawbone”) where Samson cried out to God to quench his thirst after using the jawbone of a donkey to kill a thousand Philistines (Judg. 15:19). After God split the hollow place, water flowed, allowing Samson to drink and regain his strength. The exact location is unknown.

En Hazor

A fortified city given to Naphtali as part of its inheritance (Josh. 19:37). It is distinct from any of the towns known in the Bible as Hazor. Although the site is sometimes linked with Khirbet Hizireh, many scholars consider its location unknown.

En Mishpat

A city whose name means “spring of judgment,” evidently an early name for Kadesh (Gen. 14:7). This was one of the places captured by the coalition of four kings under Kedorlaomer en route to conquering the territory of the Amalekites and Amorites, before they attacked the five kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela. After this battle, many from Sodom, including Lot, were captured. Abraham retaliated and set the captives free.

En Rimmon

A town whose name means “spring of the pomegranate,” though often rendered as two separate towns, Ain and Rimmon. Located in the wilderness to the southwest of Hebron and north of Beersheba, it was part of Judah’s inheritance that was transferred to Simeon (Josh. 15:32; 19:7). Nehemiah listed it among the towns resettled after the exile (Neh. 11:29). Zechariah prophesied that when God reigned as king over the earth, Jerusalem would rise above a low plain stretching from Geba to Rimmon (Zech. 14:10). It is usually identified with Umm er-Ramamin.

En Rogel

A place just south of Jerusalem on the border between the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, it is the source of Siloam’s pool (Josh. 15:7; 18:16). Today it is known as Job’s Well, near the confluence of two deep valleys, Kidron and Hinnom. Local tradition connects the well with the curing of Job’s disease. Jonathan and Ahimaaz, two of David’s spies, hid here to receive information for David during Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 17:17). Adonijah, David’s son, attempted to gain the throne there (1 Kings 1:9).

En Shemesh

A town on the border of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:7; 18:17). Located to the east of Bethany, it lies just off the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. It corresponds to modern ‘Ain el-Hod, the “spring of the apostles,” so named because of a fifteenth-century tradition that the apostles drank there.

En Tappuah

A town on the border of Manasseh and Ephraim. The land of Tappuah was allotted to Manasseh, but the town itself belonged to Ephraim (Josh. 17:7–8). Also referred to simply as Tappuah, its Canaanite king was defeated by Joshua (Josh. 12:17). It probably was located near modern Yasuf.

Enaim

An unknown location between Timnah and Adullam where Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar disguised herself for a sexual encounter (Gen. 38:14, 21). The name means “two eyes” (or possibly “springs”). In Gen. 38:14 Tamar positions herself at petakh ’enayim, indicating either a fork in the road (Targum, Syriac, Vulg., NEB) or, more likely, an entrance to the town of Enaim (LXX, NIV, NRSV). Enaim perhaps is the same location as Enam in Josh. 15:34 (cf. b. Soah 10a).

Enan

The father of Ahira, who was the tribal leader of Naphtali during the wilderness wanderings (Num. 1:15; 2:29; 7:78, 83; 10:17).

Encampment

Temporary homes for seminomadic peoples as well as military personnel. A number of Hebrew words are translated in the English Bible as “camp” or “encampment.”

For example, a tirah was a camp protected by a stone barrier or wall (Gen. 25:16; Num. 31:10; Ezek. 25:4), a ma’gal was a ring of wagons or a circular camp (1 Sam. 17:20; 26:5, 7), and a nawah was perhaps a nomadic pasturage camp (Ps. 68:12 NIV).

The most frequent word for “camp,” mak­haneh, occurs over two hundred times in the OT and is derived from the verbal root khanah, meaning “to set up a camp or encampment.” Isaac and Jacob camped during their journeys (Gen. 26:17; 31:25). After leaving Laban and meeting the angel of God, Jacob declared the place of the theophany to be “the camp of God” and named it “Mahanaim,” meaning “double camp” (32:1–2). In Gen. 32:21 Jacob’s camp is probably a traveling entourage composed of a number of tents.

In many cases makhaneh refers to a military camp. After the exodus and during the wilderness journeys, the Israelites resided in this type of settlement (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33; Deut. 2:14–15). Moses led the Israelites out of the camp to meet with God at Sinai (Exod. 19:16–17).

Each tribe had its own camp (Num. 2). Because of the presence of God in its midst, Israel’s camp was to be holy. Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain laws regulating camp life (Lev. 14:3, 8; Deut. 23:10–11). Any unclean person or thing was to be put outside the encampment (Num. 5:1–4; Deut. 23:14). The angel of the Lord encamped around them (Ps. 34:7). The Israelite army encamped at numerous places during the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 4:19) and the monarchical period (1 Sam. 29:1).

The NT uses the Greek term parembolē to refer to the Israelite camp where animals sacrificed as sin offerings were “burned outside the camp” (Heb. 13:11–13). Since Jesus suffered outside the gate as a sacrifice for us, believers are called to join him outside the camp, “bearing the disgrace he bore.” Revelation 20:9 speaks of “the camp of God’s people.”

End of the World

A time will come when the physical world will end and all things will come to their final states. According to 2 Pet. 3:10, 12–13, “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. . . . That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (cf. Isa. 65:17).

Not only will the physical world be converted, but also even divine realities will take their final form. Christ will reign until all things are subject to him, and then he will hand the kingdom to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:24–25). Even death itself will be destroyed as the kingdom becomes completely subject to Christ (15:26). When this is complete, the Son himself will become subject to God, that “God may be all in all” (15:27–28). See also Eschatology.

End Times

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Endor

A town located in the territory assigned to western Manasseh (Josh. 17:11) and associated with modern Endor or Khirbet Salsafe. Mentioned three times in the OT (Josh. 17:11; 1 Sam. 28:7; Ps. 83:10), Endor was the residence of the woman—a spiritist, medium, or witch—whom Saul consulted to contact the spirit of Samuel on the night before his last battle against the Philistines at Gilboa (1 Sam. 28:7–25).

Endurance

The word “forbearance” is used in some English versions to translate various Hebrew and Greek words meaning “patience,” “endurance,” or “long-suffering.”

In the NT, the noun anochē is used with “kindness” and “patience” to note God’s patience with humankind in his offer of repentance (Rom. 2:4). He shows patience in the cross (3:25–26). Thus, forbearance is an attribute of God.

Jesus uses the verb anechō when he asks how long he will have to “put up with” the generation of his first coming (Matt. 17:17). Paul asks the Corinthians to bear with him as he defends his apostleship (2 Cor. 11:1), since they have well put up with false teachers (2 Cor. 11:19–20). He commands the disciples in the churches to be tolerant with one another (Eph. 4:2). Paul notes that he forbears or endures persecution (1 Cor. 4:12), and he commends the Thessalonians’ patience in the face of persecution suffered for the sake of the gospel (2 Thess. 1:4).

Eneas

A paralytic living in the city of Lydda, near Joppa, in Palestine. Peter ended Aeneas’s eight-year confinement to bed by healing him, and as a result, many in Lydda and its environs were converted. See Acts 9:32–35.

Enemy

The word “enemy” primarily translates the Hebrew word ’oyev and the Greek word echthros. The word ’oyev occurs almost three hundred times in the OT, with several uses. Other terms commonly occur in parallel with ’oyev (in the NIV, these are generally translated as “enemy”): “adversary” (tsar [Ps. 27:2; Mic. 5:9]), “foe” (tsorer [Exod. 23:22; Ps. 23:5]), “hating one” (sone’ [Deut. 30:7]), and “one rising up” (qam [Ps. 18:48; NIV: “foes”]). Saul was a personal enemy of David (1 Sam. 18:29; 24:4, 19). Other pairs of enemies include David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 4:8), and Ahab and Elijah (1 Kings 21:20).

In most occurrences, Israel’s politico-military enemies are in view: Midianites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and often the Philistines. Periods of national peace and rest were the exception rather than commonplace (Lev. 26:6; Josh. 14:15; 2 Sam. 10:19). Neighboring nations routinely harassed and oppressed Israel (Deut. 1:42; Josh. 7:8; 1 Kings 8:33; Mic. 4:10). International fighting against Israel was viewed as divine judgment (Deut. 28:25–26, 31, 48, 68; Judg. 2:14). As the supreme warrior, Yahweh could crush his enemy (Exod. 15:6; cf. Isa. 1:24; Nah. 1:2). More startling are human claims that God was acting as their enemy: the captive Israel made such a claim (Jer. 30:14; Lam. 2:4–5), as did Job (Job 13:24).

The OT commonly refers to a national enemy, as does the NT (e.g., Luke 1:71: “salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us”). The NT also speaks of enemies in a more personal sense. Jesus acknowledged that believers have personal enemies (Matt. 5:44). Sinners were God’s enemies (Rom. 5:8–10), but Satan remained God’s adversary (Matt. 13:24–30; Luke 10:19).

Engrave

Lettering and ornamental designs were engraved onto a range of surfaces, such as metal, jewels, stone, wood, and clay, using appropriate tools for each, including diamond-pointed pens (Jer. 17:1 KJV; NIV: “flint point”). The permanence of the engraving and the difficulty of producing exact copies made it especially suitable for use on signet rings, seals, and unchangeable edicts (Exod. 32:16; Job 19:24). The names of the twelve tribes of Israel were engraved on precious stones that adorned the ephod and breastpiece of the high priest (Exod. 28:9–12, 21), and a gold plate engraved with the words “Holy to the Lord” was fastened onto the high priest’s turban (28:36). Engravings made of wood and overlaid with gold decorated the temple (1 Kings 6:28–29; 7:36). In Zechariah’s vision, God promises to engrave an inscription on the stone set before Joshua and to remove the iniquity of the land (Zech. 3:9).

Enoch

(1) The son of Cain after whom Cain named a city (Gen. 4:17). (2) The son of Jared and the father of Methuselah in Seth’s line. According to Gen. 5:23, he lived 365 years, conspicuously shorter than others in the genealogy. Most interpret Gen. 5:24 as saying that God took Enoch to the heavenly realm, without death, due to Enoch’s piety. In the NT, Jude 14 assumes that he wrote or prophesied part of 1 Enoch, a collection of Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic writings.

Enon City

Part of the ideal northeastern border of Israel (Num. 34:9–10), also in Ezekiel’s vision of a restored Israel (Ezek. 47:17; 48:1). The location is unknown, but many have suggested Qaryatein, approximately seventy miles northeast of Damascus.

Enosh

A grandson of Adam, a son of Seth, and the father of Kenan (Gen. 5:6–11; 1 Chron. 1:1–2), also listed in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:38). The ungodliness of Lamech in Cain’s lineage (Gen. 4:23–24) is contrasted by a comment on a return to godliness at the time when Enosh was born (Gen. 4:25–26).

Environmental Protection

The ancient world knew nothing of terms like “global warming” or “going green.” However, the Bible does contain many ideas that can support environmental awareness today. God created a world that is good (Gen. 1:31), and he enlists those whom he made in his image to rule over it (1:27–28).

Although some have understood the words “dominion” and “subdue” in Gen. 1:28 (KJV, ESV, NRSV) to support excessive exploitation of the earth’s resources, the context rules out such a notion. On the contrary, God creates an orderly world from emptiness and disorder (1:2) and intends the bearers of his image to “work and take care of” the garden that he has given them (2:15). It seems necessary, then, that “dominion” and “subdue” endorse not tyranny, but rather a benevolent rule that mimics what the Creator began and continues to do (Gen. 8:21, 22; Ps. 65).

Another instructive biblical theme is Israel’s duty to care for the land that God gives them (Deut. 11:11–15). This means that the Israelites are to observe certain limitations regarding the land and its crops (Exod. 23:10; Lev. 19:23–25; 25:1–22). Moreover, there is the theme of neighborly love (Matt. 22:37–39; Phil. 2:3).

Some believe that environmentalism is not supported by Scripture because Scripture does not indicate that an ecological crisis will end the world. Nevertheless, it remains true that present and future generations may suffer greatly due to excesses perpetrated in the present. Creation care is neighborly love.

Envy

The vice that resents the acceptance, success, and well-being of other people, especially when benefits come to those who are regarded as unworthy. The envious person competes with others—if only in his or her own mind—and therefore cannot love them, serve them, and enjoy their company. Thus, the Bible condemns envy or covetousness, the most familiar text being the last commandment of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is wrong to smolder with desire for the advantages of one’s neighbors and also wish them to stumble. Envy incited Cain to kill Abel (Gen. 4:1–16), and Scripture acknowledges its destructive tendencies (Prov. 14:30). Jesus warned his disciples that envy’s “evil eye” could defile them (Mark 7:21) and darken their souls (Matt. 6:23).

This vice can do enormous damage in churches and among those who profess to be the people of God. Pilate recognized jealousy behind the case against Jesus (Matt. 27:18), and the apostle Paul faced many difficulties traceable to immature one-upmanship. Factions arose in the churches over coveted associations (1 Cor. 1:11–13) and spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12–13). Some professing believers even preached Christ simply to advance themselves ahead of others, out of “envy and rivalry,” perhaps to post impressive numbers of converts and gain a following (Phil. 1:15). In response, each person must say with John the Baptist, “He must become greater; I must become less” (John 3:30).

Epaenetus

A beloved believer whom Paul greets in Rom. 16:5. He was the first convert in the province of Asia to Christ and possibly a member of Prisca and Aquila’s house church (Rom. 16:3–5).

Epaphras

Epaphras evangelized his hometown of Colossae and ministered in nearby Laodicea and Hierapolis (Col. 4:13). Paul highlighted Epaphras’s devotion to prayer, and he called him a “servant of Christ Jesus” (4:12), “fellow servant” and “faithful minister” (Col. 1:7), and “fellow prisoner” (Philem. 23). Epaphras shared information about the Colossian church with Paul prior to Paul’s letter to them. Although “Epaphras” is a shortened form of “Epaphroditus,” he is not the man of that name referenced in Phil. 2:24; 4:18.

Epenetus

A beloved believer whom Paul greets in Rom. 16:5. He was the first convert in the province of Asia to Christ and possibly a member of Prisca and Aquila’s house church (Rom. 16:3–5).

Ephah

(1) The grandson of Abraham and Keturah and son of Midian (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33). Ephah is commonly considered a patriarch of the Midianites along with Midian (Isa. 60:6). (2) Caleb’s concubine and the mother of three of his sons (1 Chron. 2:46). (3) One of the sons of Jahdai (1 Chron. 2:47). (4) A measurement of dry weight most often used for grains, especially flour, and in particular temple offerings of flour. According to Ezek. 45:11, an ephah was equal in measurement to a bath and also a tenth of a homer. The size of an ephah is uncertain, but it was likely about twenty-two liters. Two-tenths or three-tenths of an ephah was enough to make a loaf of bread (Num. 29:3, 9, 14). Several times the Bible warns that the scales used to measure an ephah must be honest if they are to honor God (Lev. 19:36).

Ephai

The sons of Ephai the Netophathite were army officers who rallied around Gedaliah when the Babylonians appointed him governor of Jerusalem (Jer. 40:7–10). It is likely that Ishmael son of Nethaniah killed them when he killed Gedaliah and everyone who was living at Mizpah (Jer. 41:1–3).

Epher

(1) One of Midian’s sons and Abraham and Keturah’s grandsons (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33). (2) A man who was part of the tribe of Judah, and a son of Ezrah (1 Chron. 4:17). (3) One of the seven clan leaders, all brave warriors and famous men, of the Transjordanian half-tribe Manasseh (1 Chron. 5:24).

Ephes Dammim

The site of a Philistine encampment (1 Sam. 17:1).

Ephlal

The son of Zabad and a descendant of Jerahmeel of the line of Judah (1 Chron. 2:37).

Ephod

The ephod (only in the OT) was a garment, perhaps a vest or tunic, worn over the shoulders and extending at least to the waist, covering front and back. It is most closely associated with the Israelite priesthood. The eighty-five priests at Nob wore linen ephods (1 Sam. 22:18), and the expression “to wear an ephod” is used as a virtual synonym for “to serve as a priest” (2:28; 14:3). The boy Samuel, who assisted the aging priest Eli at the sanctuary at Shiloh, also wore a linen ephod (1 Sam. 2:18). When King David danced before God upon bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14), he wore a linen ephod. His wife Michal considered such activity beneath someone of royal office.

Most references to the ephod are found in the pentateuchal instructions and descriptions of the garments worn by the Israelite high priests, Aaron and his descendants. This elaborate attire consisted of “a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a woven tunic, a turban and a sash” (Exod. 28:4), and it had regal associations: the priest was to symbolize humanity restored to Edenic “dignity and honor” (Exod. 28:2 [cf. the mocking description of the King of Tyre in Ezek. 28]). The “robe of the ephod,” which underlay the ephod itself, was to be of blue cloth (Exod. 28:31).

The high priestly ephod itself was made of “gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen” (Exod. 39:2). Closely associated with the ephod is the jewel-studded breastpiece that overlay it (Exod. 25:7; 28:28) and was fastened by blue cords to rings on the ephod. On the shoulder pieces of the ephod were set two onyx stones engraved with the names of the Israelites, symbolically to bring them to God’s attention as the priest stood in his presence (Exod. 28:9–12). The breastpiece contained the Urim and Thummim, used for determining the will of God (Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8). This oracular function is sometimes attributed to the ephod (1 Sam. 23:9–12; 30:7–8).

The idolatrous golden ephod that Gideon made and placed in Ophrah (Judg. 8:27) may have been a more solid object, with similar oracular function. A similar deviant ephod is mentioned along with household idols in a shrine established by the Ephraimite Micah (Judg. 17:5). This ephod, along with Micah’s priest, was carried off by the Danite tribe (Judg. 18:14–21).

Ephphatha

A Hellenized form of the Aramaic for “Be opened!” Jesus said this in healing a man who was unable to hear or speak (Mark 7:34). It is one of several Aramaic words or phrases recorded in the Gospels.

Ephraim

Joseph’s second son, who received a greater blessing than did his older brother, Manasseh, when they were adopted by Jacob (Gen. 41:52; 46:20; 48:5, 20). Ephraim’s descendants formed one of the tribes of Israel. See also Ephraim, Tribe of.

Ephraim Gate

A gate of Jerusalem located on the western end of the city immediately west of the temple precincts, guarding the east-west transverse valley. The gate was so named because it led to the central ridge route that led to the hill country of Ephraim. Joash king of Israel defeated Amaziah and destroyed the city wall between the Ephraim Gate and the Corner Gate (2 Kings 14:13; 2 Chron. 25:23). It was part of Nehemiah’s dedication of the wall (Neh. 12:39).

Ephrain

A town that King Abijah took from King Jeroboam, according to the Qere (corrected) reading of 2 Chron. 13:19, followed by the KJV. Most modern versions follow the Kethib (written) reading, identifying this town as Ephron (so also LXX, Vulg.). See also Ephron.

Ephrath

“Ephrathah” (NIV), “Ephratah” (KJV), and “Ephrath” (both versions) represent variant spellings of the same Hebrew word. The word can designate a person, a location, or a clan and familial designation related to both the person and the location.

(1) Ephrath was the wife of Caleb (the great-grandson of Judah) and the mother of Hur (1 Chron. 2:19, 50). Hur, the son of Ephrathah, is called the “father of Bethlehem” (1 Chron. 4:4), perhaps denoting civic leadership.

(2) Ephrath is the location where Rachel, Jacob’s beloved wife, died giving birth to Benjamin while they were in the process of moving from Bethel to Bethlehem (Gen. 35:16, 19). Genesis 35:19 adds the editorial comment that Ephrath is the same location as Bethlehem, although it is possible that the two were separate towns at first and that only later Ephrath was absorbed into Bethlehem. This story and its identification of Ephrath with Bethlehem is repeated in Gen. 48:7 when Jacob blesses his children before his death. By the time of the prophet Micah, the two place names had become synonymous. Micah’s famous messianic promise that the ruler would come from a small town, and not Jerusalem, praised “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (Mic. 5:2).

(3) David, when preparing to fight Goliath, is recorded as “the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse” (1 Sam. 17:12). Later in the same chapter David says that he is a son of “Jesse of Bethlehem” (1 Sam. 17:58). Thus, the designation between location and being a descendant of Ephrath is blurred (of course, most members of a clan would have lived closely together). This is also the case in Ruth 1:2 when Naomi’s husband and sons are recorded as being Ephrathites from Bethlehem, thus tying the name “Ephrathah” to the geographic location of Bethlehem (see also Ruth 4:11). Similarly, Caleb’s name is associated with Ephrathah in 1 Chron. 2:24, where it is recorded that Hezron, Caleb’s father, dies at Caleb Ephrathah. Because “Caleb Ephrathah” is an unusual place name (cf. KJV: “Calebephratah”; NRSV: “Caleb-ephrathah”) and the Hebrew syntax of this verse is awkward, some prefer to emend the text, giving, for example, “After the death of Hezron, Caleb had relations with Ephrathah, the widow of his father Hezron, and she bore him Ashhur, the father of Tekoa” (NAB).

Ephrathah

“Ephrathah” (NIV), “Ephratah” (KJV), and “Ephrath” (both versions) represent variant spellings of the same Hebrew word. The word can designate a person, a location, or a clan and familial designation related to both the person and the location.

(1) Ephrath was the wife of Caleb (the great-grandson of Judah) and the mother of Hur (1 Chron. 2:19, 50). Hur, the son of Ephrathah, is called the “father of Bethlehem” (1 Chron. 4:4), perhaps denoting civic leadership.

(2) Ephrath is the location where Rachel, Jacob’s beloved wife, died giving birth to Benjamin while they were in the process of moving from Bethel to Bethlehem (Gen. 35:16, 19). Genesis 35:19 adds the editorial comment that Ephrath is the same location as Bethlehem, although it is possible that the two were separate towns at first and that only later Ephrath was absorbed into Bethlehem. This story and its identification of Ephrath with Bethlehem is repeated in Gen. 48:7 when Jacob blesses his children before his death. By the time of the prophet Micah, the two place names had become synonymous. Micah’s famous messianic promise that the ruler would come from a small town, and not Jerusalem, praised “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (Mic. 5:2).

(3) David, when preparing to fight Goliath, is recorded as “the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse” (1 Sam. 17:12). Later in the same chapter David says that he is a son of “Jesse of Bethlehem” (1 Sam. 17:58). Thus, the designation between location and being a descendant of Ephrath is blurred (of course, most members of a clan would have lived closely together). This is also the case in Ruth 1:2 when Naomi’s husband and sons are recorded as being Ephrathites from Bethlehem, thus tying the name “Ephrathah” to the geographic location of Bethlehem (see also Ruth 4:11). Similarly, Caleb’s name is associated with Ephrathah in 1 Chron. 2:24, where it is recorded that Hezron, Caleb’s father, dies at Caleb Ephrathah. Because “Caleb Ephrathah” is an unusual place name (cf. KJV: “Calebephratah”; NRSV: “Caleb-ephrathah”) and the Hebrew syntax of this verse is awkward, some prefer to emend the text, giving, for example, “After the death of Hezron, Caleb had relations with Ephrathah, the widow of his father Hezron, and she bore him Ashhur, the father of Tekoa” (NAB).

Ephrathite

The designation of a person from Bethlehem who was part of the tribe of Judah (Ruth 1:2; 1 Sam. 17:12). See also Ephrath, Ephrathah.

Ephron

(1) A Hittite, the son of Zohar, who owned the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, which later was named “Hebron.” Abraham negotiated with Ephron to buy Machpelah in order to have a place to bury his wife, Sarah. Following custom, Ephron offered to give the cave to Abraham, who, also following custom, offered full price (four hundred shekels) for the cave (Gen. 23:7–20). It is recorded that Abraham also was buried in the cave (25:9–10). According to Jacob, in his farewell message before dying, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah were also buried there, and he desired to be buried there as well (49:29–32). Today Machpelah, or the Cave of the Patriarchs, is a heavily visited shrine, located in the modern city of Hebron.

(2) A mountain that formed part of the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:9). The exact location of this mountain is uncertain.

(3) A town, perhaps corresponding to the mountain in Josh. 15:9, that was near Bethel (which would have been near the northern boundary of Judah). It was captured from King Jeroboam of Israel by King Abijah of Judah during skirmishes between Judah and Israel (2 Chron. 13:19).

Epicureanism

A school of thought named for the late fourth-century BC philosopher Epicurus. Core values of Epicureanism include atomism, pleasure, friendship, and retirement from public life.

Atomism affirms that all matter is composed of indivisible “atoms,” which are in constant motion. The random collisions of atoms produce all natural events, and the ability of atoms to “swerve” accounts for human free will. Although sometimes accused of atheism, Epicurean thought expressed belief in gods who existed materially but lived apart from and did not intervene in human affairs.

Epicurus identified the sensation of pleasure, defined as the absence of disturbance and fear, as the greatest good. He renounced the sorts of excesses now associated with the contemporary word “Epicurean” in favor of moderation coupled with wisdom and justice. The simple, quiet life among friends such as those who dwelled at the Garden in Athens was deemed most likely to produce a life of pleasure. The stress of civil involvement was to be avoided.

Acts 17:18 mentions the presence of Epicurean philosophers among Paul’s audience in the Athens Areopagus; although not explicitly identified, they are likely the ones who sneered at Paul’s preaching of resurrection (17:32). Paul’s education may have acquainted him with Epicurean philosophy, and his exhortations to quiet, responsible living among believers (1 Thess. 4:9–12) may exhibit values similar to those in Epicurean thought. Likewise, the skepticism expressed in 2 Pet. 3:4 may reflect an Epicurean argument.

Epilepsy

A physical disorder characterized by repeated seizures, also called the “falling sickness” and “sacred disease.” The seizures often were attributed to the divine or supernatural as a form of possession. Some trace the behavior of Saul (1 Sam. 16:14–16) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 3:26), as well as Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:1–7), to this condition. Matthew’s presentation of Jesus’ exorcism of the demon-possessed youth employs the Greek term selēniazomai (lit., “moonstruck”; NIV: “seizures”), which was associated with epilepsy in the Greco-Roman world (Matt. 17:15; cf. Ps. 121:6).

Epiphany

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

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

Epistle

A missive or epistle (2 Chron. 35:4; Ezra 4:7). Usually, ancient Near Eastern letters were written on perishable materials, as opposed to, for example, inscriptions in stone. Since there are few places where such material could survive (deserts or anaerobic bogs), one would expect few surviving letters; yet they number in the tens of thousands. The ancients were letter writers. Significantly, reading old letters has remained a significant aspect of the Christian faith. Today, many Christians regularly read someone else’s mail—the letters of the NT—and face the expected interpretation challenges.

Form

Old Testament letters. Although more than a dozen letters are embedded in the OT (e.g., 2 Sam. 11:15; 1 Kings 21:9–10; 2 Chron. 21:12–15), no OT book is in letter form. Embedded OT letters are truncated or summaries and tell us little of the typical ancient format. From the Lachish letters we infer that Hebrew letters generally opened with “To Addressee, greetings (or blessing),” a technical word of transition (“and now”), and no formal closing. By the Second Temple period, Aramaic letters were evolving into the structure seen in Greco-Roman style.

New Testament letters. Unlike the OT, the NT has twenty-one books in letter form: the thirteen traditional letters of Paul, the anonymous letter of Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Two letters are embedded in Acts (15:23–29; 23:26–30). It is unlikely that the “letters” in Rev. 2–3 were ever dispatched letters. The NT also mentions other letters (Acts 18:27; 1 Cor. 5:9; 7:1; 16:3; 2 Cor. 2:3–4; Col. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17).

Extant NT letters share the basic format of Greco-Roman letters, beginning with “Sender to Recipient, greetings [chairein].” A prayer (much less commonly a thanksgiving) transitioned into the letter body. The body of the letter opened with various phrases in a set format (stereotyped formula), such as disclosure: “I want you to know, brother(s), that . . .” (P.Oxy. 1493; Gal. 1:11); astonishment: “I am astonished how . . .” (P.Mich. 8.479; Gal. 1:6); petition, joy, and so forth.

The letter closed with final admonitions, greetings, good wishes, and sometimes a date. In addition to a set structure, the content was often far more stereotypical than letters today. Even letters to a family member had generic greetings, set phraseology, and standardized wishes for good health.

Yet, looking beyond the basic letter outline and the use of everyday language and formulas, it becomes clear that NT letters were not part and parcel with typical papyrus letters. Rather than the typical honor markers of rank or city, NT letter writers identified themselves by association with Jesus, sometimes describing themselves as slaves in his household (Rom. 1:1; James 1:1). The typical letter greeting (chairein) was Christianized into “grace” (charis), with the addition of “peace” (eirēnē)—the equivalent of Jewish shalom. A closing benediction was used instead of the typical final health wish/farewell. More significantly, most NT letters were far longer and more complex. The typical private letter of the poor averaged 87 words in length. Literary letters were much longer. Cicero averaged 295 words. Seneca led, with an average 995 per letter. Paul’s letter to Rome has 7,114 words. Paul averaged (including all 13 letters) 2,495 words. Not surprisingly, Paul’s opponents ridiculed his letters as “weighty” (2 Cor. 10:10).

Letters of the NT also assume that the audience is familiar with Jewish Christian tradition (e.g., Jude), inserting hymnic fragments, traditions, OT quotations/allusions, and so on, often without explanation or indication. The letters were to be read in front of the congregation (1 Thess. 5:27). Paul included longer and more complex thanksgivings than any known ancient writer, often using the opening thanksgiving to preview the letter’s main topics (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:4–7). Paul’s letters also contain large amounts of paraenesis (moral exhortation).

Although the typical papyrus letter was brief, thus keeping its cost reasonable, it was still not a trivial expense. For example, a soldier wrote a typical letter home to indicate that he had reached his assignment safely (P.Mich. 8.490), with a likely cost of about a half denarius, or in modern United States currency, about fifty dollars. Yet the length of many NT letters made them far more expensive. Writing to the Romans today would have cost Paul over two thousand U.S. dollars. A letter for public reading (Col. 4:16) needed quality papyrus in good handwriting, not some draft in hurried scrawl (Cicero, Att. 13.14–25). Appearances mattered. (For speakers, appearance was an important part of the rhetoric.)

The official Roman postal service was not for private use. The common person entrusted letters to someone already going to or near the desired destination. This method was popular, free, and surprisingly reliable, though haphazard (P.Mich. 8.499). Otherwise, sending a letter required dispatching a private carrier, often a slave, or a hired carrier (tabellarius). These carriers had advantages. They could guarantee the letter’s authenticity, since forgeries existed (2 Thess. 2:2). If able, they carried other items, often mentioned in the letter (P.Mich. 8.465–467) or the reply (Phil. 4:18). Carriers often provided additional (or confidential) details (so Col. 4:7; Cicero, Fam. 11.20.4; 11.26.5). The writer often commended the carrier as “trustworthy” to guarantee the carrier’s veracity. In Eph. 6:20–22, Paul wants it clear that he intended Tychicus to talk about Paul’s imprisonment (as proof that Paul was not ashamed of his chains), and not that Tychicus was merely revealing secrets, as sometimes was done (1 Cor. 1:11). Finally, Paul may have selected a specific carrier to facilitate that letter’s reception (Romans, Colossians). (See also Paul.)

Function

On the simplest level, letters had two primary functions. Expressions such as “I pray for your health and success” (P.Mich. 8.477) and “Write me how you are and what you want” (P.Mich. 8.498) were to start or keep a relationship with the recipient. Letters were also to inform (Cic-ero, Fam. 2.4.1), as when a son wrote his father, “While I was lying ill on the ship, they were stolen from me” (P.Mich. 8.468). Yet around the NT period, aristocratic writers (beginning with Cicero, then Seneca to Pliny) were modifying the simple private letter, lengthening it and elevating its style. They were using private letters to propagate religious, political, and philosophical ideas.

Scholarly study affected the study of NT letters for nearly one hundred years by arguing for a sharp distinction between “letters” (the letters of the lower classes, seen largely in the recently discovered papyri) and “epistles” (the literary letters of the aristocratic elite). Thus, Adolf Deissmann argued that the forms of NT letters (koine vocabulary, the diatribe, etc.) were indicators of the letter’s intended function: as private letters, they were artless, unschooled, and dashed off in the midst of a flurry of other activities. On the other hand, Cicero intended his “epistles” to Atticus to be read by the broader aristocratic community and thus wrote with that in mind, creating artfully composed treatises in letter form. Although they had the appearance of private letters, Cicero carefully crafted his “epistles,” knowing that others were reading over Atticus’s shoulder. NT letters were not “epistles”; they were spontaneous and should not be read as careful compositions. Yet biblical letters were not merely private documents. Even those addressed to individuals (1–2 Timothy, Titus) seem to speak to the church behind the recipient (3 John attempts to work around Diotrephes and address the church behind Gaius). Our categories of “public” versus “private” fit the ancient world poorly. Since the general function of letters was changing, NT letters should be seen as part of this shifting landscape.

Moreover, as Greco-Roman letters continued to be studied, NT letters seemed more than mere artless notes, scribbled in a spare moment. Indeed, seeing signs of careful rhetorical composition, scholars have noted similarities with categories outlined in Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks for speeches: forensic (    judicial), epideictic (demonstrative), and deliberative. Arguing that letters were, in a sense, written speeches, various scholars have attempted to identify elements in NT letters that match the required outline for a specific rhetorical argument, meaning that a letter’s rhetorical form could indicate its function. Thus, identifying the rhetorical form would reveal the author’s motive for writing, whether the writer was intending to make a legal defense of personal status or to shape the behavior of the readers. While these studies generate lively debate and some interesting results, the usefulness of applying them to letters is still unclear. Rhetorical analyses of passages in the letters have proved to be more helpful than those categorizing an entire letter. Obviously, biblical letter writers were not writing in a vacuum, but biblical letters seem to mix purposes and not fit neatly into rhetorical categories.

Biblical letters were not dashed off with anything remotely resembling the rapid-fire pace at which email and text messages are sent today. Even phrases that seem to imply casual correspondence (1 Cor. 1:16) are more likely signs of careful rhetorical arguments. It is unlikely that biblical letters represent the work of just a long day or a few evenings. These letters show signs of careful composition (noticed more as scholars better understand ancient rhetoric and epistolary practices). The use of coworkers, secretaries, rough drafts, and revisions suggests that a NT letter was likely worked and reworked before being dispatched.

Er

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

Eran

One of the grandsons of Ephraim (Num. 26:36).

Eranite

A clan descended from Eran, numbered among the second generation in the wilderness (Num. 26:36).

Erastus

(1) An assistant to Paul who, after Paul decided to leave Ephesus and go to Macedonia and Achaia, was sent ahead to Macedonia by Paul along with Timothy (Acts 19:22). (2) A person described in 2 Tim. 4:20 as having “stayed in Corinth.” He is most likely the same person mentioned in Acts 19:22. (3) One of those mentioned in Rom. 16:23 as sending greetings to the church members in Rome. He is identified as “the city’s director of public works” (NIV) or “the city treasurer” (NRSV). Paul probably wrote Romans while in Corinth, and it may be that this Erastus is the same man mentioned in an inscription found in Corinth in 1929 and dated to the middle of the first century AD: “Erastus, commissioner of public works, bore the expense of this pavement.”

Eri

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

Erite

A clan descended from Eri that was numbered among the second generation in the wilderness (Num. 26:16).

Esarhaddon

Esarhaddon replaced Sennacherib as king of Assyria after some brief internal strife (2 Kings 19:37 // Isa. 37:38). During his reign (680–669 BC), western areas such as Phoenicia and Palestine were fairly stable. He resettled foreigners in Palestine (Ezra 4:2). He attacked Egypt repeatedly and was crowned as pharaoh there. He also rebuilt Babylon and its temples, considering Sennacherib’s destruction there to be excessive or even sacrilegious. He placed one son on the throne of Assyria and another in Babylon.

Esau

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

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

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

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

Eschatology

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschaton

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Esdraelon

“Esdraelon,” which does not appear in either of the two Testaments (although it does appear in the apocryphal book of Judith), is the Greek form of the Hebrew “Jezreel,” which occurs often in the OT.

The Valley of Esdraelon (or Plain of Esdraelon) begins at the Kishon River below Carmel, lies east of Carmel and Megiddo, south of Nazareth and the surrounding hill country of Galilee to the foot of Mount Tabor, and north of Jezreel. Rich and fertile, it is a large portion of the valley that extends from the coastal plain of the Mediterranean all the way to the Jordan Valley, severing the western hills into their northern (Galilee) and central (Samaria) sectors. The Valley of Esdraelon is sometimes called the “Plain of Megiddo,” the city of Megiddo being on the southern edge of the valley at the foot of the hill country.

The Valley of Esdraelon was a key territory because it split the western hills, and its road supplied the only access from the Mediterranean to the Jordan Valley and beyond. For this reason, and also because the territory was so fertile, the area was of special interest to all, from the conquerors of other lands to those simply traversing the trade routes from Tyre and Akko to Megiddo, to the Jordan Valley and the Transjordan. Megiddo, at the south edge of the plain, held a dominant place in trade because it was centrally and crucially located.

In the OT conquest, the Valley of Esdraelon was the territory largely belonging to Issachar and Zebulun (Josh. 19:10–23). Additionally, after the confrontation of Elijah with the prophets of Baal on Carmel, the biblical text notes that the hand of Yahweh was with Elijah as he outran Ahab to Jezreel (1 Kings 18:45–46). Ahab rode in his chariot through this valley on his way back to the palace and probably was hindered by the quagmire of the Kishon River (which drains the Esdraelon Valley) in the heavy storm predicted by Elijah. Perhaps the defeat of Sisera in the Valley of Esdraelon came about in this same way if the Kishon overflowed its banks and the iron-wheeled chariots could not negotiate the mud (Judg. 4:1–16).

The apocryphal book of Judith notes Esdraelon as the area near which the story’s villain, Holofernes, was encamped when the heroine, Judith, assassinated him (7:3). See also Jezreel.

Esek

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

Esh-Baal

One of King Saul’s sons (1 Chron. 8:33), also called “Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2–4). Apparently, later scribes changed “Esh-Baal” (“man of Baal”) to “Ish-Bosheth” (“man of shame”) due to its pagan connotations. After Saul’s death, Abner, the captain of Saul’s army, proclaimed Esh-Baal king over Israel. Thus, he was David’s rival for two years before Abner turned his support to David after being accused of sleeping with Saul’s concubine Rizpah (2 Sam. 3:7–21). After Abner was murdered by Joab, Esh-Baal lost his courage and evidently all hope of regaining the crown. Shortly thereafter he was murdered by two of his officers, Baanah and Rechab. Although the assassins expected to be rewarded for their deed, David put them to death and had Esh-Baal buried in Hebron. Esh-Baal’s death permitted David to gain control of all of Israel.

Eshan

A town included in the inheritance of the tribe of Judah. Listed in the same district as Hebron, in the central hill country of Judah, Eshan’s exact location is unknown (Josh. 15:52). Codex Vaticanus of the LXX has “Soma” instead of “Eshan.”

Eshban

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

Eshcol

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

Eshek

A descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:39).

Eshkalonite

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). It was situated approximately midway between Ashdod (north) and Gaza (south) on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Historical Overview

Evidence of settlement dates to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 BC), although the earliest references to the city stem from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200–1200 BC). Ashkelon is mentioned among the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC) as an enemy of Egypt and in the Amarna tablets (1400 BC), where the city’s ruler affirms fealty to the pharaoh. Excavation confirms an Egyptian presence at Ashkelon during the Late Bronze Age; the city remained under Egyptian control until the incursion of the Sea Peoples (early twelfth century BC), after which Ashkelon was occupied by the Philistines.

Ashkelon remained under Philistine control until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria and Israel (734–732 BC), when it became an Assyrian vassal. During Sennacherib’s reign Ashkelon’s king joined Hezekiah in revolt against Assyria and was deported (701 BC). In 604 BC, following Assyria’s demise, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon and deported the survivors, several of whom received rations at the Babylonian court (cf. Dan. 1:5).

During the Persian period Ashkelon was reestablished as a Tyrian market city, thus becoming prosperous once more. The city was never conquered by the Hasmoneans (mid-second to mid-first centuries BC; 1 Macc. 10:86; 11:60), and eventually it asserted its independence, signified by the minting of its own coins (beginning 111 BC). Herod the Great was purportedly a native of Ashkelon, and he lavished the city with public works projects. During the First Jewish Revolt, Ashkelon successfully defended itself against Jewish attack.

Excavations have located the council house and an elaborately painted tomb (Roman period), as well as the remains of a church and a synagogue (Byzantine period). Ashkelon came under Muslim control (seventh century AD), then briefly under Crusader control (AD 1153). The city was destroyed by Saladin (AD 1191) as he retreated before Richard the Lionheart.

Ashkelon in the Bible

Ashkelon was listed among the territory still to be conquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3). Judah took the city but ultimately was unable to keep it (Judg. 1:18–19). The OT subsequently reckoned Ashkelon as part of Philistine territory, beginning with Judg. 14:19, which recounts one of Samson’s exploits.

Ashkelon shared in the affliction visited on the Philistines for taking the Ark of the Covenant, which they attempted to forestall by reparations or “sympathetic magic” (1 Sam. 6:17 [the “gold tumors” were likely meant to bear away the source of the Philistines’ suffering]). Ashkelon and Gath represent the Philistines overall as David anticipates their response to news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2 Sam. 1:20).

The remaining references occur in the prophets, who portended the destruction of Ashkelon and the other Philistine cities at various times (Jer. 25:20; 47:5, 7; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4, 7; Zech. 9:5). Notably, Zeph. 2:7 expected that Judah would finally take possession of Ashkelon.

Eshkol

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

Eshtaol

A town allotted to Dan from the possession of Judah. It is located to the west of Jerusalem in the Shephelah, or lowlands. It is always mentioned in association with the town of Zorah. Mahaneh Dan (“camp of Dan”), located between these towns, marks the place where the Spirit of the Lord first moved upon Samson and where he was buried in his father’s tomb (Judg. 13:25; 16:31). The five valiant Danites who searched for new territory for their tribe began their journey from these two towns, as did the six hundred Danite soldiers who set out to capture and settle in Laish (Judg. 18:2, 11).

Eshtaolites

Descendants of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:53), their ancestral territory lay in the lowlands of Judah (Josh. 15:33).

Eshtemoa

(1) The son of Ishbah, from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:17). (2) A descendant of Hodiah’s wife, the sister of Naham from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:19). He was a Maakathite from the small Aramean kingdom of Maakah. (3) A town in the hill country of the tribal area of Judah that was given to the descendants of Aaron the priest. It was designated as a Levitical town (Josh. 21:14; 1 Chron. 6:57). This was one of the towns to which David sent a share of the plunder of his conquest after defeating the Amalekites when they had attacked his home of Ziklag (1 Sam. 30:28).

Eshtemoh

A town in the hill country that was part of the tribe of Judah’s territorial allotment (Josh. 15:50). The town’s name is also spelled “Eshtemoa.”

Eshton

The son of Mehir and the father (or founder) of Beth Rapha, Paseah, and Tehinnah. He was from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:11–12).

Esli

An otherwise unknown postexilic ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke 3:25 as the son of Naggai and father of Nahum.

Espousal

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

Esrom

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

Esther

Esther gives her name to the book that tells her story. She was a woman of the Diaspora of the Jewish people that followed the Babylonian captivity and continued beyond the time of the decree by Cyrus that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem if they so chose. Her cousin Mordecai had a position within the Persian government, which may explain why the family did not return; they were successful in their adopted land. Indeed, the name “Mordecai” means “man of Marduk,” and the name “Esther” is related to the goddess name “Ishtar.” From the story, we know that they were not active worshipers of these gods, but their names do suggest that they were well integrated in their adopted culture. Esther’s Hebrew name was “Hadassah” (Esther 2:7), but the book, though noting this name, consistently refers to her as Esther.

Esther’s story is set during the reign of Ahasuerus, also known as Xerxes, a famous Persian king (r. 486–465 BC). Esther enters the scene when his queen, Vashti, disobeyed a direct order in front of all the leaders of his empire during a banquet. He therefore deposed her and set out to find a replacement queen. To find the right woman, he gathered beautiful virgins into his harem and slept with each one. He approved of Esther above all others and made her his queen.

In the meantime, a bitter relationship was developing between Esther’s cousin Mordecai and Haman, a leading official under Xerxes. Mordecai had already been introduced as a descendant of Shimei and Kish from the land of Benjamin, a subtle way of indicating that he was a descendant of Saul. Haman was an Agagite, which made him a descendant of King Agag of the Amalekites, a people whom Saul, against the command of God, had failed to eradicate after he defeated them (1 Sam. 15; see Deut. 25:17–19, based on Exod. 17:8–16).

Haman used money and his position to convince Xerxes to destroy the Jewish people in the empire. After some urging from Mordecai, Esther saved the day by intervening with the king and exposing Haman’s plot. Instead of the Jewish people being destroyed, their enemies were killed. Indeed, as Mordecai had thought, Esther was put in her position in the court “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14).

Etam

(1) The rock of Etam is a location mentioned twice, with both references occurring in the same story (Judg. 15:8, 11). It was in a cave here that Samson camped after taking his revenge on the Philistines for murdering his wife and father-in-law. Soon afterward, men from Judah confronted Samson at the cave to turn him over to the Philistines. The exact location is unknown, though some have suggested a cave near Zorah (modern Tsora) as the most likely possibility. (2) A descendant of Judah, and the father of Jezreel, Ishma, Idbash, and Hazzelelponi (1 Chron. 4:3). This reference may possibly be either to a patriarch of the village that bears his name or to the town itself (see 4 below). The latter possibility is warranted by some manuscript evidence as well as 1 Chron. 4:4–5, where the patriarchs of Bethlehem and Tekoa (towns associated with Etam) are mentioned. (3) A village belonging to the tribe of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32). The exact location is unknown. (4) One of the Judean towns fortified by King Rehoboam (928–911 BC; 2 Chron. 11:6). The most probable site is modern Khirbet el-Khokh, located about two miles southwest of Bethlehem. Near the traditional location for Solomon’s Pools, Etam is mentioned by Josephus as the site for the great king’s gardens and springs (Ant. 8.186).

Eternal Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eth Kazin

A town that was on the border of Zebulun’s traditional territorial allotment (Josh. 19:13). The KJV spells the name of this town as “Ittahkazin.” The current location of where Eth Kazin stood is unknown.

Etham

The second location where the Israelites camped during the exodus (Exod. 13:20; Num. 33:6–8). The stop at Etham, “on the edge of the desert,” followed the encampment at Succoth and occurred before the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and passed through the Desert of Etham.

Ethan

(1) Ethan the Ezrahite, son of Kishi (or Kushaiah) through the Levitical line Merari. He was a singer appointed by the Levites to the bronze cymbals (1 Chron. 15:19) and subsequently appointed to leadership by David after the ark of the covenant was returned to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 6:44). According to its inscription, Ps. 89 was composed by Ethan. Ethan had a reputation for being wise, though not as wise as Solomon (1 Kings 4:31). (2) A son of Zerah, son of Judah. He was the father of Azariah (1 Chron. 2:6, 8). (3) An ancestor of Asaph through the Levitical line of Gershom (1 Chron. 6:42).

Ethanim

The seventh month of the Israelite sacred year and the first month of the civil year, corresponding to September–October. The month, later known as Tishri, is mentioned by name only once in the Bible, in connection with Solomon’s dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:2).

Ethbaal

Ethbaal, a priest of Astoreth, reigned for thirty-two years as king of Tyre and Sidon, where he expanded Phoenician commercial activities. His daughter Jezebel married Ahab, king of Israel (1 Kings 16:31), an alliance that served to introduce Ahab and Israel to Baal worship. The name “Ethbaal” means “Baal is with him.”

Ether

(1) A town listed in the inheritance of the tribe of Judah in the western foothills, along with Libnah and Ashan (Josh. 15:42). It is possibly the modern location of Khirbet el-Ater. (2) A town listed in the inheritance of the tribe of Simeon along with Ain, Rimmon, and Ashan (Josh. 19:7). It is possibly the modern location of Khirbet Attir.

Ethics

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

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

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

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

The Logic of Biblical Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethiopian Eunuch

The Ethiopian eunuch, who appears in Acts 8:26–40, is from an African kingdom centered at the city of Meroe, located on the Nile just to the south of Egypt. Acts 8:27 states that he is in charge of the treasury of the Kandake, queen of the Ethiopians. “Candace” was the name used by all the queens of the Cushite kingdom at Meroe. Roman records from 23 BC document negotiations between the Roman general Gaius Petronius and a queen named “Candace” ruling over a kingdom at Meroe, on the Nile River.

The conversion of a black African early in the book of Acts is significant, for as the story unfolds in Acts, “Ethiopia” probably represents the “ends of the earth,” a phrase from the opening promise of Christ to the disciples in Acts 1:8. Thus, the conversion of this Ethiopian eunuch symbolizes the inclusion of the Gentiles, which will become a central part of the book of Acts in later chapters.

Ethnan

One of the sons of Ashhur and his wife Helah. He was from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:5–7).

Ethni

An ancestor of Asaph who is listed among the Levites who served in the temple (1 Chron. 6:41).

Eunice

The Jewish mother of Timothy, Eunice was a Christian believer from Lystra in Asia Minor whose unnamed husband was Greek (Acts 16:1). Paul credits both Eunice and Timothy’s grandmother Lois for instilling faith in his young disciple (2 Tim. 1:5).

Eunuch

Generally, a castrated official in a royal court serving a queen (2 Kings 9:30–32) or a king’s harem (Esther 2:14–15). Ebed-Melek, an Ethiopian eunuch, along with Baruch, is the only person recorded as responding positively to Jeremiah (Jer. 38:7–13; 39:15–18). The Mosaic law did not permit eunuchs to enter sacred spaces (Deut. 23:1). Among the DSS, the Damascus Document perpetuates this isolation: No one maimed “shall enter into the community” (CD-A 15:16–17). Many eunuchs began their lives as slaves, often kidnapped from Africa. They were routinely mocked and marginalized in the Greco-Roman world. Juvenal writes, “Slave-dealers’ boys are different: pathetically weak, ashamed of their empty bag, their lost chickpeas” (Sat. 6.373). Terence, a Roman playwright, has a character say of a eunuch: “What, that ugly old thing of no sex that he bought yesterday?’ ” (The Eunuch, act 2, scene 3). But the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 56:3–5) promises salvation to eunuchs, the fulfillment of which began when Philip the evangelist shared the gospel with a eunuch from Ethiopia, who was immediately baptized into the church (Acts 8:26–40). Jesus uses the term metaphorically to describe those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom, probably a reference to celibacy (Matt. 19:12).

Euphrates and Tigris Rivers

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

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

Euroclydon

In Acts 27:14 the KJV rendering of the Greek word Euroklydōn (the earliest manuscripts have Eurakylōn, and there are other variations), referring to the “northeaster” storm that resulted in the wreck of the ship transporting Paul to imprisonment in Rome. “Euroklydon” means “storm from the east,” while the preferred transliteration of the hybrid Greek-Latin word, “Euraquilo,” means “northeast wind.” According to Strabo (Geogr. 1.2.21), this was a violent wind from the north.

Eutychus

While Paul was preaching in Troas, this young man fell asleep and fell from his upstairs window seat (Acts 20:7–12). He was “picked up dead,” but Paul revived him. Thus Luke portrays Paul as able to raise a boy from the dead in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:21–22; 2 Kings 4:34–35).

Evangelism

Evangelism is the proclamation of the “evangel” (Gk. euangelion), the good news, of Jesus Christ. The content of the evangel includes Jesus’ birth, which was announced as good news to Zechariah by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and by the angels to the shepherds (Luke 2:10). The good news speaks of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:18), is described as a message of grace (Acts 20:24) and reconciliation to God through the sacrificed body of Christ (Col. 1:22–23), and includes the expectation of a day of divine judgment (Rom. 2:16). Paul preached the gospel (from Old English gōdspel, “good news”) message, which he claimed had its origin with God, not humans (Gal. 1:11–12). He summarizes this message in 1 Cor. 15:3b–5: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” The introduction to the Gospel of Mark (1:1) may indicate that this written gospel could serve evangelistic purposes.

Evangelistic efforts in the New Testament. Numerous figures throughout the NT participated in evangelistic endeavors. John the Baptist’s preaching about the coming Messiah is described as evangelism (Luke 3:18). Evangelism was a characteristic activity of Jesus’ own ministry (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 20:1), which focused on proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 8:1) and at times was targeted toward the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22). Jesus commanded those who follow him to engage in evangelism. He sent out the twelve apostles for evangelistic purposes (Luke 9:2), and he issued the Great Commission to this end (Matt. 28:18–20).

The missionary enterprise recorded in Acts demonstrates the efforts of the earliest Christians to spread the gospel. The apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 5:42) proclaimed the gospel in spite of great opposition and persecution, and believers who were scattered outside Jerusalem because of persecution spread the gospel in new locales (8:4). Philip evangelized Samaritans and an Ethiopian (8:12, 35). The ministry of Paul and Barnabas is characterized as preaching the good news (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18). Philip, one of the seven chosen to distribute food (6:5), was given the name “the Evangelist” (21:8). Timothy, additionally, is said to be Paul’s fellow worker in evangelism (1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Tim. 4:5).

Evangelism was a central part of Paul’s ministry (Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:17; 15:1–2; Eph. 6:19; 1 Thess. 2:2, 9). He indicated an explicit interest in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Rom. 15:16; Gal. 1:16; 2:7; Eph. 3:8) and with those who had never heard it (Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16), and he expressed a desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Rom. 1:15). Paul wrote of the necessity of evangelism in order for people to be saved (Rom. 10:15), and he preached the gospel message free of charge (1 Cor. 9:16, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7). He listed the role of the evangelist in the church along with apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).

Goal and methods of evangelism. Evangelism’s goal is to spread the gospel across ethnic and religious boundaries until it reaches all nations (Mark 13:10; Col. 1:23). To this end, Acts details an intentional effort by the earliest Christians to share the gospel with those who came from both Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds. Acts 8:25 records Peter and John’s evangelistic efforts in Samaritan villages, and Acts 15:7 identifies Peter as an evangelist to Gentiles. An outreach specifically to Gentiles is chronicled in Acts 11:20, and Paul’s intentional program of traveling from city to city further contributes to this goal (Rom. 15:19).

The evangelists recorded in the NT demonstrate a range of methods and approaches to sharing the good news. They often began with a point of contact from the religious worldview of their audience. For instance, Philip used Scripture as a starting point in speaking with an individual who was familiar with some portion of it (Acts 8:35). Similarly, when addressing Jews, Paul preached Jesus as the fulfillment of various OT Scriptures (Acts 13:32–41), but when preaching the gospel to the Greeks in Athens, he acknowledged their religiosity and their previous worship of one called “an unknown God” (17:22–23). Evangelists sought opportunities to gain an audience, and Paul even took advantage of an illness to stay with the Galatians and share the gospel with them (Gal. 4:13). Finally, much of the evangelistic work in the early church was coupled with miraculous signs and wonders, which served to authenticate the message being proclaimed (Rom. 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:5).

Eve

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

Everlasting Punishment

Jesus refers to hell more often than any other NT figure. Hell is where people go if their righteousness does not surpass the false piety of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Matt. 5:22, 29–30; 7:19; cf. Mark 9:43–47). People go to hell when they persist in choosing sin, self, and safety over the call to discipleship, whatever the latter’s immediate consequences (Matt. 10:28; 18:9; Luke 12:5; 16:23). Peter says that false prophets will go to hell (2 Pet. 2). Hell is also the place prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41; cf. Rev. 12:9; 19:20; 20:10). Jesus uses the images of fire and outer darkness to capture the agonies of hell. John sees hell as a “lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:10) and a “lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14–15). The biblical writers always assume, and sometimes openly proclaim, that God will pour out his wrath upon all sin—that is, upon either a vicarious substitute (Jesus Christ) or unbelieving sinners themselves; and hell is where God does this fully and finally.

Some theologians worry that this doctrine might undercut God’s perfection, believing that he cannot be maximally loving if he also sends people to hell. But since the Bible says, in stark and unambiguous terms, that he will do so, several interpretation strategies have been suggested, each of which intends to soften this doctrine. God will punish people in hell, it is conceded, but their punishment either annihilates them, or lasts for a limited time, or is strictly and eternally voluntary. None of these alternatives, however, agrees with the biblical witness. The first option collides with the fact that sinners weep and gnash their teeth in hell (Matt. 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28), longing for some relief from its miseries (Luke 16:22–24). At the very least, we can say that hell does not annihilate anyone straightaway: unrepentant sinners suffer in hell for at least some duration, leaving aside the question of how long they do so. But even the second option, that of a limited time in hell, carries a heavy burden of proof, since the Bible draws a parallel between the durations of joy and punishment in the afterlife (Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:47–48). In Rev. 20:10 the devil and his angels are “tormented day and night for ever and ever,” and the place of their punishment is also where sinners go (cf. Rev. 14:9–11).

The third option, that people stay in hell forever because they will never repent, fares somewhat better compared to the first two. The book of Revelation makes it clear that some sinners never repent. Neither great suffering (Rev. 9:20–21; 16:9, 11) nor seasons of providentially secured bliss (Rev. 20:7–10) turn them away from sin, so great is the depth of human depravity. Nevertheless, this interpretation tells only half the story. On one level, perhaps the bars of hell are locked from the inside; but the Scriptures also represent hell as a prison into which sinners are cast or locked, and it is a place where God actively pours out his righteous wrath against sin. Nothing happens in the universe apart from God’s sovereign will (versus his moral will, which often is violated), and he takes personal responsibility for the punishment of the wicked (Rev. 6:10; 19:1–3; cf. Rom. 12:19). He is indeed the God of “second chances,” but the latter will run out someday, and then “all the peoples of the earth will mourn” when they “see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30). By then, it is too late to repent.

The doctrine of everlasting punishment reminds us that God’s moral perfection is not maximal niceness, as if any form of happiness preferred by sinners would satisfy him too. On the contrary, he is extreme in both his justice and his love; and neither of these attributes is reducible to the other. In fact, we can celebrate God’s love and mercy properly only when we have seen the awful punishment that his justice requires of our sin. This doctrine also constitutes a strong motive to preach the good news to lost sinners, who, outside of Christ, will suffer eternally. See also Gehenna; Hell.

Evi

One of the five kings of Midian defeated by the Israelites in Moses’ day (Num. 31:8; Josh. 13:21).

Evil

Evil is unquestionably real from the biblical perspective, but the origin and nature of evil remain mysterious. The Bible is replete with references to evil, starting with the temptation and fall (Gen. 3) and the toll that it exacted on human existence. Humans not only suffer inwardly and reciprocally but also are now hopelessly and irredeemably inclined to evil. The Bible is the unfolding story of redemption through the sacrificial death of Christ, the ongoing battle in the lives of believers against the power of evil, and the eventual conquering of evil by the divine power vested in the risen Christ, who is to come as the cosmic ruler.

This sits uncomfortably with a fundamental affirmation in the Bible: the inherent goodness of creation. This is magisterially illustrated in the creation account of Genesis, where the Creator repeatedly pronounces at the end of each day that what had been created was “good” (Heb. tob means “good” in the aesthetic as well as the moral sense). The world, however, fell under the curse of human sin and, once compromised, is now under the rule of the evil one (1 John 5:19) and eagerly awaits its redemption (Rom. 8:19–23).

Though not narrated in the Bible, it is a likely inference that the origin of evil dates back further than human existence. Prior to the temptation of the first human couple, the tempter (Heb. satan, “accuser,” is a poignant reminder of the treacherous nature of the temptation, as the tempter himself would function as the accuser of those who fell by his lies) and his followers had their own momentous experience: they jeopardized their privilege to serve God by separating themselves to establish their own kingdom. That God allows this realm of dark forces to persist until the end of history is itself a mystery.

Despite its grip over humanity, evil has been severely battered as it has confronted the divine power manifested at the cross. In fact, evil had no chance to challenge the real power. The essence of evil lies in its parasitic nature. Evil does not create; it only destroys. Evil draws its power from the absolute good, as it exercises its dominion over failed human beings by condemning them against the perfect standard established by God. It accuses humans of being wrong but never tells them how to be right. It diagnoses terminal illness without offering a cure. Satan achieved his grip over humanity by a conniving distortion of God’s truth.

The crucifixion of Christ and his subsequent resurrection marked the decisive blow against the power of evil and death. The gospel is the declaration that evil finally met the higher power at the atoning death of the sinless Christ. The lie has been exposed. The risen Christ freed human beings from their bondage to sin and death. Despite this, evil will persist due to the arrogance of the evil one, who vows to never submit to God’s authority. In fact, the activity of the evil one will only increase toward the end of history, even to the point that it will present a rival before the coming Christ. Against the second coming of Christ (Gk. parousia) there will be the coming (parousia) of the lawless one. Not only will he stand up against Christ, but also he will present himself as the alternative for Christ, befitting the title “antichrist” (anti, “instead of, in place of” as well as “against”). But eventually this rally against God will be in vain. Satan will be permanently and irrevocably crushed and thrown into “the lake of fire,” destined for oblivion.

Evil-Merodach

The son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In Hebrew tradition, he is known by the name “Evil-Merodach” (derived from “Awel-Marduk,” a variant of the Babylonian name “Amel-Marduk”). Reigning in the years 562/561–560 BC, he pardoned King Jehoiachin of Judah, who had been imprisoned by Nebuchadnezzar. Thereafter, Jehoiachin dined at the king’s table (2 Kings 25:27–30; Jer. 52:31–34; confirmed by Babylonian records). Allegedly because of his ineffective policies, his brother-in-law Neriglissar murdered him and usurped the throne.

Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactor

One who presses or drives someone else for something. The word occurs in the KJV only at Isa. 60:17, although the KJV uses the verb “exact” and the noun “exaction” several times (see, e.g., Deut. 15:2–3; 2 Kings 23:35; Neh. 10:31), often in reference to requiring payment of some kind. The Hebrew word here can refer to someone who drives others harshly (see, e.g., Exod. 3:7 KJV: “taskmasters”), but the context of its occurrence in Isa. 60:17 indicates that the “exactors” (namely, righteousness) will exert their power in a more benevolent way (thus the NIV’s choice of the softer word “ruler”).

Excommunication

A form of communal discipline characterized by expulsion from the community of the faithful. Jewish communities practiced excommunication, defined as being cut off from the people of Israel, and it is mentioned in connection with a number of transgressions: eating yeast during Passover (Exod. 12:15), failing to heed the call to return following the exile (Ezra 10:8), performing an improper sacrifice (Lev. 17:8–9), and others. David calls for his enemies to be cut off from the people of Israel (Ps. 109:13). In Jesus’ day, excommunication could take the form of anything from a light censure to death. The Sanhedrin held the power of excommunication in serious cases, but to kill an offender required the authority of the Gentile rulers. Thus, the punishment of death for blasphemy put upon Jesus could not be exercised by the Sanhedrin alone.

Early Christians took their authority to excommunicate wayward members of the church from Jesus’ words that sins against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable and that the apostles have authority to bind and loose (Mark 3:29; Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Both the concept and the practice of cutting off church members from spiritual fellowship for willful moral failures or refusal to abandon incorrect teachings appear throughout the NT (e.g., Matt. 18:15–17; Gal. 1:18; Titus 3:10–11; Heb. 10:28; 2 John 10–11). In Acts 5:1–10, the dramatic story of Ananias and Sapphira, telling lies to the church is specifically designated a sin against the Holy Spirit, and the offenders fall down dead following a pronouncement by Peter. In a different circumstance, Paul calls for the Corinthian church, regarding a sexually immoral person, to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). He even forbids members of the Corinthian church from personally associating with a Christian who has been cut off because of sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:11).

As a rule, excommunication seeks the repentance and ultimate salvation of the one excluded (see James 5:19), while at the same time serving to protect the faithful from unhealthy influences. However, exclusion because of apostasy is stated to be an eternal punishment (Heb. 6:4–6). Excommunication also has a rich history in the Christian church beyond the NT. Heretics who opposed the decisions of the ecumenical councils were formally cursed (proclaimed anathema) and considered to be outside the fellowship of the church. Unfortunately, the process of excommunication sometimes was abused, with corrupt leaders using the threat of exclusion or denial of the sacraments for political purposes. The early Protestant reformers and some of their forerunners were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, but they felt that their devotion to orthodoxy, if not the particular form championed by the Roman Catholic Church, rendered the excommunication invalid.

Execration

A synonym for “curse” that occurs in Jer. 42:18; 44:12 (KJV, NRSV). In both instances God proclaims through Jeremiah his wrath on the Judeans who are determined to flee to Egypt; there they will be “an execration [NIV: “a curse”], and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach” (KJV). Similar language appears in other biblical passages, particularly in Jeremiah (e.g., Deut. 28:37; Jer. 25:18; 29:18; 49:13). Many “execration texts” from Egypt have been found. These are texts cursing certain persons, written on objects that were then broken in a ritual.

Executioner

One assigned to administer the sentence of capital punishment. The only executioner noted as such in the Bible is the agent of King Herod who beheaded John the Baptist in prison (Mark 6:27). In ancient Israel, the law stated that certain crimes, such as idolatry or murder, were punishable by death. The executioner might be the kinsman of the murdered (Num. 35:19), assigned men (Ezek. 9:1), or witnesses to the crime along with the townspeople (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 17:7; 21:21). A despotic king would have a designated executioner (Dan. 2:14, 24; Mark 6:27).

Exegesis

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.

Exercise

To discipline the mind or to exert the body with rigorous physical activity. In the Greco-Roman world, the typical person worked from sunrise to noon, after which many would go to the local bathhouse to exercise in the palaestra. (Greek students spent half of their education engaged in sports.) Activities included wrestling, boxing, and running (see 1 Cor. 9:24–26; Gal. 5:7). The NT uses the concept metaphorically for training in the Christian way (1 Tim. 4:7–8; Heb. 5:14; 12:11; cf. 2 Pet. 2:14) but also finds value in disciplining the body to curb the insatiability of passion (1 Cor. 7:9; 9:27).

Exhortation

The empowering of another in belief or course of action (1 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 12:5). The concept overlaps semantically with encouragement, the lifting of another’s spirit (Acts 9:31; Phil. 2:1; 2 Cor. 1:4–7) and appeal (2 Cor. 8:4). Jews congregated regularly in synagogues to hear a reading from the Law and the Prophets, which then was applied to their immediate lives by a competent teacher as “a word of exhortation” or sermon (Acts 13:15; see Luke 4:16–21). Preaching weekly from an authoritative text for community formation appears to be a uniquely Jewish phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world. This practice continues in the church. The author of Hebrews describes his text as a “word of exhortation” (13:22). The Holy Spirit illumined the fuller sense of Scripture as a witness to Jesus Christ and also communicated directly to believers through prophetic utterances (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 14:3).

Exile

The dislocation of a people group from its homeland. In the Bible, exile usually refers to two events in Israel’s history: the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom in 722 BC and the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom around 586 BC.

The Assyrian Exile

Although earlier Assyrian kings had deported the elite members of conquered populations, it was Tiglath-pileser III who formalized the procedure as a generalized policy in the late eighth century BC. Any people groups who were conquered or subdued after they had rebelled were subjected to exile by Tiglath-pileser, who resettled other conquered peoples in their place. This process of population exchange was designed to prevent the reorganization of and rebellion by groups that had been subjugated by Assyria.

The eventual Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom was set in motion when King Pekah of Israel joined with King Rezin of Damascus to revolt against their Assyrian overlords. Tiglath-pileser responded quickly and brutally, overrunning the northern kingdom in his campaign against Syria and Palestine (734–732 BC). Only a portion of Ephraim and western Manasseh remained, and with the assassination of Pekah, Hoshea was left to rule as the Assyrian vassal. However, before long Hoshea also rebelled. Shalmaneser V and his successor, Sargon II, conquered Samaria in 722 BC and exiled much of the Israelite population in Upper Mesopotamia. According to the biblical account of the fall of the north (2 Kings 15–17), peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim were resettled in Samaria. The ten northern tribes eventually were assimilated into the local populations and were never reconstituted, though their eventual restoration would play an important role in prophetic eschatology (see Ezek. 37:15–28).

The Babylonian Exile

More frequently, the exile refers to the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom in the sixth century BC. With the fall of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh in 612 BC, the Babylonians became the preeminent power in the Near East and quickly moved to consolidate previous Assyrian territories. In 601 BC Nebuchadnezzar’s forces clashed with Egyptian forces, and both sides suffered heavy losses. This setback prompted King Jehoiakim to rebel in order to establish Judah’s independence (2 Kings 24). The Babylonians marched on Judah, and in 597 BC Jerusalem surrendered. King Jehoiachin (who had become king after the assassination of his father, Jehoiakim), government officials, and leading citizens were taken to Babylon, and Zedekiah was installed as the vassal king of Judah. Further rebellions by Zedekiah eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, and the exile of even more of the population in 586 BC.

The Babylonians’ policy of exile differed from that of the Assyrians in two important respects. First, the Babylonians did not resettle other peoples in Judah. Second, they did not scatter the exiled peoples among other populations; rather, the Judahites were resettled in Babylon in their own community, called a golah. This resulted in the preservation of community identity along with theological traditions and texts. Important works of prophecy such as Ezekiel were written from the Babylonian golah, and there was much reflection on Israel’s history. One of the principal points of 1–2 Kings is that exile was God’s punishment for the sin of the nation, and repentance and a return to God were needed before they could be restored from exile.

After the Exile

The first sign that Jewish fortunes might be improving came in 561 BC, when the Babylonian king Awel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) exalted King Jehoiachin and gave him a place of honor in his court (2 Kings 25:27–30). But hopes rose even more after the ascendancy of the Persian king Cyrus. When Cyrus conquered the Median Empire in 550 BC, he treated the new subjects quite well compared to Babylonian policies. Cyrus made a habit of restoring exiled peoples to their homelands and permitted the reconstruction of local shrines. In cases of major temples or those that served a strategic importance for the Persian government, funds were even supplied for the rebuilding projects. The shrewd statesman Cyrus understood well that grateful subjects were more likely to be obedient subjects. By the autumn of 539 BC, Cyrus had sufficient military strength to attack Babylon, and when he did, the city fell surprisingly quickly.

In the wake of this victory and in conformity with Cyrus’s policy, he authorized the return of the Jews living in the Babylonian golah and authorized the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:2–4; 5:13–17). Although some preliminary work was done, the rebuilding of the temple did not make significant progress until 520 BC, under the prophetic influence of Haggai and Zechariah and the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest. With the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the temple, the period of the exile technically came to an end.

However, even though the exilic period had come to an end in one respect, in another respect the Jews living in the late sixth century and later concluded that the exile had not fully ended. The hopes surrounding the Davidic heir Zerubbabel had waned by 515 BC, and the Jews still found themselves under the foreign rule of the Persians, albeit a more benevolent rule than that of the Babylonians. There was widespread social inequity, and the sins that had originally led Israel into exile still plagued the community. Thus, because the pictures of restoration in Isaiah and Ezekiel had not yet been realized, in a certain sense Israel was still in “exile” or slavery (cf. Ezra 9:7–8). Thus, throughout the Second Temple period many Jews considered the exile to have continued in a theological way, even though the Babylonian exile had come to an end.

This “theological exile” is the background to many statements of restoration in the Gospels. When Jesus calls twelve disciples who will institute the kingdom by driving out demons, curing illnesses, and ruling over the twelve tribes, he is implying that he has come to restore Israel from exile, for both the ten northern tribes and the two southern tribes (see Matt. 10:1; Luke 6:13; 22:28–30).

Exodus

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

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

The Nature of the Exodus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did It Happen?

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

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

When Did It Happen?

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

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

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

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

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

Does It Matter Whether It Happened?

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

Biblical Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exorcism

The act of expelling demons from afflicted persons, places, and objects.

New Testament. There is no record of exorcism in the OT. In the NT, Jesus considered delivering people from demons to be central to his proclamation of the kingdom of God: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28). He used no formula or ritual; on his own authority he simply commanded the demons to leave, and he attributed his success to God. He also extended to his disciples the authority to expel demons in his name (Luke 10:17), dependent upon their faith (Matt. 17:17–20). Even a nondisciple was found performing exorcisms in Jesus’ name (Mark 9:38), and when Jesus was told about it, he refused to forbid it.

Jesus is not shown struggling against the demons; he simply spoke, and they obeyed, even at a distance (Mark 7:30). Often the demons recognized Jesus (e.g., Mark 5:7); sometimes they left the person with Jesus’ permission. Although Jesus’ exorcisms are listed along with healing miracles, the NT differentiates between exorcism and healing (e.g., Matt. 10:8); not every disease is considered to have been caused by demons, nor is every possessed person described in terms of illness.

Philip’s ministry in Samaria was enhanced by his casting out demons and healing the sick (Acts 8:6–7). In Acts 16:18 Paul performs an exorcism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” But while the ministry of Paul was so profound that articles associated with him were effective in exorcisms (Acts 19:11–12), the Jewish sons of Sceva were themselves overcome when they invoked the names of Jesus and Paul in an attempted deliverance (19:13–16). In the longer (and inauthentic) ending of Mark, the ability to cast out demons is promised to all believers (Mark 16:17).

Early church. Exorcism is attested in the writings of the early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr (2 Apol. 6 [early second century] and Tertullian (Apol. 23 [early third century]), as an ongoing ministry of the church. Both men emphasize the power of the name of Christ in commanding demons. Justin Martyr reports that the name of Jesus delivered people not cured by other exorcists, who used “incantations and drugs.” Tertullian explains that the name of Christ recalled to the demons their coming judgment at the hands of God, and that fear made them subject to the servants of God and Christ. Not only verbal commands were used; often there was laying on of hands, breathing, and making the sign of the cross.

As with much of the spiritual excesses of the Middle Ages, superstition about demons and witches led to widespread persecution of many people accused of being “possessed” or “in league with the devil.” The Protestant Reformation represented a rejection of this, with exorcisms being abolished by the Lutherans and Calvinists. The Roman Catholic Church restricted its practice in 1614 (see below for Catholic use today).

Modern practices. Modern liberal thought tends to dismiss demonic possession as a manifestation of psychological maladies not understood by the early church. Jesus’ dealing with these cases is explained as condescension to first-century limitations of medical knowledge. However, more-traditional theology continues to recognize demonic possession as an actual supernatural phenomenon.

The Roman Catholic Church’s Roman Ritual contains the rite of exorcism as approved in 1998. Catholics also perform a baptismal exorcism as a prophylactic measure and in demonstration of the fact that the baptized will be free from the power of the devil.

Pentecostal groups may distinguish between “demon possession” and “demon influence,” the latter being grounds for a “deliverance,” a term intentionally different from “exorcism,” which they perceive to be a Catholic ritual. Deliverances can be frequent in Pentecostal churches. Mainline Protestant denominations retain the idea of exorcism, but these are usually quite rare. The Episcopal Church sanctions exorcisms by permission of the bishop.

Expiation

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

Greek Background

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Extramarital Sex

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

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

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

Eye

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eye of a Needle

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

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

Eyelids of the Morning

In Job 41:18 this phrase is the KJV rendering of the Hebrew ’ap’appe shakhar, describing Leviathan’s eyes (NIV: “rays of dawn”; NRSV: “eyelids of the dawn”).

Ezar

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

Ezbai

Father of Naarai, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:37). The parallel (2 Sam. 23:35) reads “Paarai the Arbite” for “Naarai son of Ezbai.” “Ezbai” could refer to a nationality. If so, Naarai may have been from the city of Arab (Josh. 15:52). Spelling differences could have arisen during scribal transmission.

Ezbon

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

Ezekias

The KJV rendering of the Greek name Hezekias, referring to a king of Judah listed in the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:9–10). More-recent versions translate it as “Hezekiah.”

Ezekiel

A major prophet of the early sixth century BC. Isaiah is known for the power of his language. Jeremiah is memorable for his emotions. Ezekiel is the most surprising or even bizarre in his actions and in his speech.

Ezekiel was thirty years old and living in Babylon by the Kebar River, a large irrigation canal, when he began receiving visions from God (Ezek. 1:1). This year was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin (1:2), who was taken to Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem in response to the rebellion of Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim. The date of the vision is given with precision and can be converted to July 31, 593 BC.

If he was thirty years old in 593 BC, then he was born around 623 BC, three years after Jeremiah began his ministry and two years before King Josiah found the lost Book of the Law as he was purifying the worship of the temple in the midst of his general religious reform (2 Kings 22–23).

Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, was born into a priestly family, which may have rejoiced to see King Josiah rescue Judah from idolatry. Josiah was pleased to see Assyria, which exerted political pressure on Judah, begin to weaken. He supported Babylon in its rebellion against Assyria. This policy led him to intercept Pharaoh Necho as the Egyptian army headed north to bolster Assyria against Babylon at the battle of Carchemish in 609 BC. Not only did Josiah fail to stop Necho, but also he lost his life in the process, bringing his son Jehoahaz briefly to the throne. After Babylon defeated the Assyro-Egyptian coalition, Necho retreated through Judah and meddled with the succession, replacing Jehoahaz with his brother Jehoiakim. It was Jehoiakim’s rebellion that brought Nebuchadnezzar to the walls of Jerusalem in 597 BC. By the time he got there, though, Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin was on the throne. Nebuchadnezzar subdued Jerusalem and deported the king and many other leaders to Babylon, including the young priest Ezekiel. This background explains why he is in Babylon at the time of his prophetic call.

The ministry of Ezekiel began after Jeremiah’s was well under way, but from 593 to 586 BC they were both active, the former in Babylon and the latter in Judah. They both lambasted Judah for its sin.

Ezekiel issued striking prophetic oracles (see Ezekiel, Book of). He often backed up his prophetic oracles with symbolic actions that are striking and surely generated a great deal of attention and talk. In 4:12 God tells Ezekiel to eat food cooked over human dung in order to illustrate that the people of Judah will eat defiled food in exile. When he objects, God allows him to cook it over cow dung. In 4:1–8 God commands Ezekiel to draw the city of Jerusalem on a clay tablet and then lay siege to it. He was also to lie on his side one day for each year that Israel and Judah had committed sin, for a total of 430 days. Later, Ezekiel’s beloved wife died, but at God’s command he did not lament or mourn (24:15–27), again drawing attention to himself so that he could warn about God’s coming judgment. Indeed, Ezekiel was mute except when God gave him a message to communicate to the people (3:24–27; 24:25–27).

Ezekiel’s message was primarily one of judgment, but like most of the prophets, he also saw beyond the judgment to restoration (most notably chaps. 40–48). Ezekiel’s prophetic vision extended well beyond the time that he lived. In the NT there are over sixty direct quotations or allusions to Ezekiel’s prophecy, many of these found in the book of Revelation.

Ezel

The place where David hid from King Saul until Jonathan could communicate Saul’s intentions (1 Sam. 20:19–41). The precise meaning of the Hebrew word ’ezel and the location it is intended to reference are uncertain. The Greek translation in the LXX would indicate that the phrase is not meant to be a proper noun, but merely “that stone heap.” ’Ezel also could be related to an Aramaic verb meaning “to leave.” If so, it should carry the meaning “stone of parting,” which in the narrative would signify a commemoration of the parting of David and Jonathan.

Ezem

A town that was part of the traditional allotment given to the tribe of Judah, Simeon, or two towns with the same name. Ezem was located in the Negev area of Judah (Josh. 15:29) and also was part of the allotment given to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 19:3; 1 Chron. 4:29). Simeon’s tribal allotment was entirely surrounded by the allotment of Judah, so confusion about the town is not impossible. The exact location of the town is unknown.

Ezer

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

Ezion Geber

A town located at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqabah. The Bible locates it “near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1 Kings 9:26). However, the precise location is debated. Many scholars associate it with Tell el-Kheleifeh, which lies between modern Elath and Aqabah, about five hundred yards from the shore, but others identify it with the island of Jezirat al-Faraun, about fifteen miles south along the western coast of the Gulf of Aqabah. Still others speculate that it lies undiscovered under modern Aqabah.

The ruins of Tell el-Kheleifeh contain a citadel and storehouses surrounded by double casemate walls. The ruins do not predate the ninth century BC, so references to Ezion Geber in the itinerary of the wilderness wandering (Num. 33:35–36) and Solomon’s naval activities there are problematic. Jezirat al-Faraun offers a small natural harbor and contains evidence of Midianite pottery as early as the thirteenth century BC. Whatever the precise location, Ezion Geber represents the southernmost extent of Judean political and economic control, for it served as the gateway to Red Sea trade and stood near land routes to Arabia.

From David to the end of the monarchy, control over Ezion Geber oscillated between Judah and Edom. David may have first captured it when he subdued Edom (2 Sam. 8:13–14). With the help of the Phoenicians, Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber that brought immense wealth into Israel (1 Kings 9:26–28). After Solomon’s death, it may have been destroyed during Pharaoh Shishak’s invasion (1 Kings 14:25–26). Edom reasserted control over it until Jehoshaphat, in alliance with Ahaziah, built at Ezion Geber a fleet of merchant vessels, which God destroyed because of Ahaziah’s wickedness (2 Chron. 20:36–37). This is the last time Ezion Geber is mentioned by name.

From this point onward, nearby Elath is the focus of events in the area. Uzziah’s father defeated the Edomites, allowing Uzziah to build up Elath (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chron. 26:1–2). The Syrians briefly controlled the area, but the Edomites reclaimed control until the Babylonian period (2 Kings 16:6). Elath was abandoned in the fourth century BC, and a Nabatean site developed farther east near Aqabah.

Eznite

A word occurring in the Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 23:8 that may give the ancestry or the hometown of a warrior named “Adino” (KJV, NASB). Since ’adino and the following word, ha’etsno (“the Eznite”), are awkward in the sentence and absent elsewhere in the Bible, the NIV follows some LXX manuscripts and 1 Chron. 11:11, substituting “raised his spear” for “Adino the Eznite” (cf. ESV, RSV). See the NIV footnotes on 2 Sam. 23:8.

Ezra

A priest and scribe of pivotal importance in the late postexilic period (Ezra 7:1–10:44; Neh. 8:1–18; 12:36).

The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BC, and due to a decree by Cyrus, many exiles returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. The temple was rebuilt at that time (515 BC), though now, many decades later, Jerusalem was still largely ruined, and the people were in a state of spiritual depression.

The Persian king of the time, Artaxerxes I, gave Ezra permission to return to Jerusalem in order to restore the law of Moses as the law of the land. Ezra left in that king’s seventh year (458 BC). Artaxerxes was guided by a Persian state policy dictating that the empire’s vassals would be best ordered if allowed to restore their own native laws. God used this self-serving impulse for his own purposes.

Ezra brought a number of Levites along with him for the task of instructing the people in the law of God. As part of Ezra’s work, he also confronted sin in the community, the most notable of which was marriage between Jewish men and pagan wives. Such sins led to Israel and Judah’s problems in the first place, as foreign women led their husbands to adopt pagan religious practices. One need only think of Jezebel and Ahab and the Egyptian princess and Solomon. When he confronted these sinners, Ezra wept and tore his clothes, demonstrating his zeal that the people obey God.

The account of Ezra’s ministry is told in conjunction with that of Nehemiah, who arrived in 445 BC, commissioned to rebuild the wall, yet rarely is their work described together. They were together on the day that the people reaffirmed their intention to obey God’s law (Neh. 8:1, 9–10).

Ezra plays a significant role in the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period. He is remembered as the one who closes the OT canon, bringing all the books to completion and in a collection.

Ezrah

In modern translations (NIV, NRSV, NET, NASB), a descendant of Judah (1 Chron. 4:17 [KJV: “Ezra”]), not to be confused with the Ezra of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The final h likely reflects the Hebrew spelling of this name compared to the more common Aramaic spelling “Ezra.”

Ezrahite

This name occurs in 1 Kings 4:31 and in the superscriptions to Pss. 88–89. “Ezrahite” possibly signifies a clan name. Ethan and Heman, wise men worthy of mention as a standard for measuring the wisdom of King Solomon, were Ezrahites. Some have suggested that the name means “native.” If so, then “Ezrahite” would have signified someone of Canaanite origin, and Ethan and Heman would have been pre-Israelite sages.

Ezri

A servant of David who was in charge of the farmers who cultivated the land (1 Chron. 27:26).